ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
October
10, 1974
E.
I.
DU PONT DE
NEMOURS
&
COMPANY
)
PETITIONER
v.
)
PCB
74—142
ENVI
RON~4ENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
RESPONDENT
JAMES
C. HILDREW, ATTORNEY,
in behalf of
E.
I.
DuPont
de
Nemours
&
Company
RONALD LINICK, ATTORNEY,
in behalf of the Environmental Protection
Agency
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr. Marder)
This
case comes to the Board on Petition of E.
I.
Du Pont de Nemours
& Company,
filed April
22,
1974, requesting variance from Rule 207
(d)
(2)
of Chapter
2 of the Board’s
Rules and Regulations for its weak nit-
ric acid plants, No.
1 and No.
2,
at Seneca, Illinois, until March
31,
1975.
On April
25 the Board issued an Order requiring Petitioner to submit
more information on the data base used to conclude that there was no
violation of the ambient air quality standards in 1973 and also to sub-
mit current monitoring data on ambient air quality in the period of
time before the information was due.
On June
26,
1974, Petitioner filed its Amended Petition for Variance,
containing
the
information requested.
The Agency filed its recommendation September 19,
1974.
Its recom-
mendation is to grant the variance until March
31,
1975.
Petitioner operates three weak nitric aci~plants, which use the am-
monia oxidation process.
Plants
1 and 2 were operating under
a variance
granted in PCB 73—325
(Order dated October 18,
1973)
,
until July 15,
1974.
Plant
#3
is in compliance with the Board regulations.
The plants make nitric acid which
is used in the manufacture of ammon—
ium nitrate prills for explosives.
Each plant has a design capacity of
55 tons per day with a charge rate of 13,250 lbs. per hour,
composed of
5
steam condensate,
5
anhydrous ammonia, and 90
compressed air.
Unit
#1 was built in 1930 and Unit
#2 was built in 1952.
Petitioner at the present time does not have control equipment to re-
duce emissions, but has been using operating procedures
to reduce emiss-
ions.
At capacity these units emit
34 lbs. NO~expressed as NO2 per ton
of 100
HNO3 produced.
Petitioner’s compliance plan for Plants
1 and
2
is the same as
it was
14
—
117
—2—
for the previous variance matter.
Petitioner intends to install
a Un-
ion Carbide Pura—Siv “N” molecular sieve control system.
In the prev-
ious matter it was determined that this equipment would bring about com-
pliance with Rule 207
(d) (2). The equipment is estimated to cost
$500,000 installed.
In the original variance matter, Petitioner requested variance
through October
1,
1974.
The Board granted the variance until July 15,
1974.
At the present time, Petitioner doe9 not expect Union Carbide to
ship the equipment until December 31,
1974, and to have the system in
operation until March
31,
1975.
The Agency in its Recommendation does
not dispute these allegations.
The delay in shipment by Union Carbide
is through no
fault of Petitioner.
Hardship:
Petitioner alleges that failure to grant variance from Rule 207
(d) (2)
will be an unreasonable and arbitrary hardship on Petitioner in that it
has not been able to comply with the previous Board order through no
fault of its own, and has been diligent in its attempt to bring the
plants into compliance.
Petitioner further alleges that if the variance
is denied,
the plants will be shut down,
causing a loss to Petitioner
of $5,300,000 per year sales volume of nitric acid and associated prod-
ucts.
Shut down would also pose hardship to Petitioner’s customers who
would have to find other sources of supply and pay for extra freight.
Four to twelve jobs would be lost if the plants were to shut down.
Environmental Impact:
Petitioner alleges that in the area in which these plants are emit-
ting,
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for nitrogen dioxide
are not exceeded.
In support of that statement,
Du Pont contracted
with ARRO Labs, Joliet, Illinois,
to conduct a four-week monitoring program
The monitoring was done from
May
27,
1974,
through June 20, 1974.
The
national standard is 0.053 ppm (annual mean).
The monitoring data re-
vealed that beyond the perimeter of the plant site the average mean was
0.010 ppm.
It should be noted that the Agency has raised an issue as to the relia-
bility of monitoring data for 28 days with no base line meteorological
data.
It is true that this data
is subject to question, but the Board
finds that Petitioner made a good faith effort to supply the information
requested in our More Information Order.
The Board will grant the requested variance until March
31, 1975. Pet-
itioner has carried forth its compliance program in good faith and the
delay occurred through no fault of Petitioner.
This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions
of law
of the Board.
14
—
118
—3—
ORDER
IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that variance from
Rule 207
(d) (2) of Chapter 2 of the Board’s Rules
and Regulations for
Petitioner’s No.
1 and No.
2 weak nitric acid plants is granted until
March
31,
1975,
or the date when the Union Carbide Pura-Siv “N” controls
are installed and operating, whichever is
sooner, subject to the follow-
ing conditions:
1)
Petitioner shall continue to submit to the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Division of Air Pollution Control,
2200 Church-
ill Road,
Springfield,
Illinois, 62706,
bi-monthly progress
reports detailing:
a)
Progress made on the installation of the molecular sieve
on
Plants
#1
and
#2;
b)
Amount of acid produced by Plants #1,
#2,
and
#3;
c)
Amount of acid needed to meet Petitioner’s external and
internal needs.
2)
Plants
#1 and #2 shall only be operated when Plant
#3 cannot
meet demands.
3)
The bond posted in compliance with the Order in PCB 73-325
shall remain in effect to guarantee construction and install-
ation of equipment herein required.
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 10th
day of
October
,
1974,
by a vote of
5
to
0
.
14
—
119