ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

March

7,

1974

OLIN CORPORATION

PETITIONER

v.

)

PCB 74—4

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY

RESPONDENT

GEORGE

E.

BULLWINKEL

and

EDWARD

L.

OVERTREE,

ATTORNEYS,

in

behalf

of

OLIN

CORPORATION

KATHRYN

S.

NESBURG,

ATTORNEY,

in

behalf

of

the

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECT-

ION

AGENCY

OPINION

AND

ORDER

OF

THE

BOARD

(by

Mr.

Marder)

This

case

comes

to

the

Board

on

petition

of

Olin

Corporation

filed

January 2,

1974,

for

variance

from

Rule

204

(f)

(1)

(A)

and

Rule

204

(f)

(2) of the Board’s Air Pollution Regulations, until April 1,

1974.

In its recommendation filed February 21, 1974, the Agency recommend-

ed the variance be granted.

No hearing was held.

Petitioner requests variance from the abovementioned regulations

for one of its two plants at its Blockson Works

in Joliet.

One plant,

the larger of the two, produces various forms of phosphates.

The sec-

ond plant produces hydrogen fluoride and fluosilicic gas.

This plant

is the subject of this

case.

Hydrogen fluoride is produced by reacting fluorspar

(CaF2) with sul-

phuric acid

(H2S04)

at temperatures between 350°F.

and

500°F. Hydrogen

fluoride is then

released by distillation and absorption.

Discharges in violation of the Rules come from two sources.

The hy-

drogen fluoride “furnaces” generate sulphuric acid mist at the point

where the byproduct sulphur trioxide encounters

ambient water vapor.

The fluosilicic system emits

160

cubic

feet per minute of

.44

sulphur

dioxide through

a stack on the roof.

The emission rates for these sources are as follows:

11

—

507

---

Actual

Allowable

Sulphuric Acid Mist

(lbs/ton

1.8

0.15

(Pet.

P.

3)

acid used)

Sulphur Dioxide

(ppm)

4400

2000

(Pet.

P.

4)

Olin proposes to control the sulphuric mist by use of a system that

will cool the gypsum slurry sufficiently to reduce the amount of sul-

phur trioxide to a point where no sulphuric acid mist will form.

The

system consists

o,f “quench boxes,” one for each

“furnace,” where the

gypsum slurry is cooled by water.

Test results using

a prototype have

shown the control to be effective.

Olin submitteda construction per-

mit application and operating permit application for this process on

October 19,

1973.

The construction permit has been granted.

The oper-

ating permit~hasbeen denied

(Agency Rec.

P.

3).

To remove the sulphur dioxide Olin has developed a system to absorb

the sulphur dioxide with a “Venturi” scrubber, and pump it to a waste-

water retention pond for reuse.

Petitioner alleges this will lower the

sulphur dioxide emitted to

a rate of

5 ppm.

Olin has been granted both

construction and operating permits for this process.

Petitioner alleges, and the Agency concurs,

that the reason for O1in~s

failure to comply is delay in receiving materials for construction of

the abatement equipment.

The Agency notes that upon investigation that

part of the equipment has arrived at Petitioner~splant.

The reason for

the delay in compliance until April is the fact that the scrubber is not

to be delivered until late January, and a period of

60

days is needed to

install and debug the system.

The cost of the control system is $l55~0O0,

There have been

no

complaints by residents living in the area of the

plant

(Agency Rec,

P.

3).

Olin alleges that sulphuric acid mists are

heavier than air and do not cross the boundaries

of its plant

(Pet.

P.

7),

Petitioner further alleges that the sulphur dioxide output from the

plant

is equivalent to

that created by the combustion of 3000

lbs.

of

Illinois coal per day,

and that this will not affect the ambient air

quality of the area significantly because “Olin~snext-door neighbor,”

Commonwealth Edison, burns several million pounds of Illinois coal per

day and Edison~semissions

are not to be controlled until May

31,

1975.

Petitioner alleges that failure to grant the requested variance will

cause an unreasonable and arbitrary hardship because to comply with the

Regulations, Petitioner will be forced to stop production,

causing 25

employees to be

laid

off for three months,

and a loss of product to its

customers when demand is at its peak.

The Board does not accept that a

denial of a variance is a shut down order, but only the denial of a

shield from enforcement

(48_Insulations,

iflC.,

v. Environmental Protect~-

E.

I. duPontdedemours

& Co.

V.

Eñ~~ronmentaT

~2~~ionAency,PCB73-533;

Mobil Oil Corp.

nviF~6~nta1Protect-

ion Agency,_PCB 73—562),

Here,~~~oardfinds

that Olin has been con-~

scientious

in

its

endeavor

to cure

its

problem, anu

the

Boara

finds

the

sole

reason for failune

‘~

coTr~y ~

i~t~reo~.nendors n~g~ neeced

---

—3—

materials to Olin.

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions

of law

of the Board.

ORDER

IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that Olin Corporation

is granted a variance from Rule 204

(f)

(1)

(A)

and 204

(f)

(2)

from

January

2,

1974,

through April

1,

1974,

subject to the

following con-

ditions:

1)

Olin will submit monthly progress reports to the En-

vironmental Protection Agency as to

its compliance

plan, beginning

30

days from the entry of this Order.

2)

Olin shall perform and submit tests evaluating the

equipment installed as to its performance in reducing

emissions covered in this variance.

3)

Respondent shall, within

35 days from the date of this

Order, post a performance bond in

a form satisfactory

to the Agency in the amount of $50,000, to guarantee

installation of equipment that will bring about com-

pliance with Rule 204

(f)

(1)

(A)

and Rule 204

(f)

(2)

IT IS

SO

ORDERED.

I,

Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, certify that the above Opinion and Order was adopted by the

Board

on the

7th day of March,

1974, by a vote of

S to 0.

~1