ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
October 18,
1973
E
•
I
•
DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.
)
PETITIONER
)
)
v.
J
PCB
73—325
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY 3
RESPONDENT
lilt.
JAMES
C. HILDREW, ATTORNEY,
on behalf
of PETITIONER:
MR. JOHN E.
SLATTERY,
ASSISTANT
ATTORNEY
GENERAL, on behalf of
the
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
OPINION
AND
ORDER OF
THE BOARD
(by Mr. Marder)
This action involves a petition for variance filed by E. I.
duPont de Nemours
& Company.
The petition filed on August 6, 1973,
requests relief from
Rule 207 (d) (2) of
the
Air Rules and
Regula-
tions. The compliance date for 207 Cd) (2) is
December
31, 1973;
Petitioner seeks relief until October 1, 1974.
On September 7, 1973, the Environmental Protection
Agency
filed its recommendations.
This called for a grant of variance
under
condition. A motion to waive hearing
was
filed by Petitioner
on September 13, 1973. The Board granted this motion
and
the hear-
ing in this action was cancelled.
Petitioner owns
and operates at Seneca, Illinois,
two
55
tonI
day nitric acid plants,
one 480 ton/day nitric
acid plant,
and one
600 ton/day aimnonium nitrate plant. The plants in question are the
two older (1930, 1952) nitric acid plants.
Rule 207 Cd) (2)
pertains
to “Existing Weak Nitric Acid
Plants,” and limits NO2 emissions into the atmosphere to 5
•
5 pounds
of NO2 per ton of acid produced.
The Agency calculated the emissions
from the two “old” acid plants to be 57 pounds of NO2 per ton of
acid produced. However, because of certain assumptions used in the
Agency calculation, the figure of 34 pounds of NO2 per ton of acid
as presented by Petitioner was accepted as reasonable by the Agency.
The breakdown between plants is as follows:
9—
—2—
Nitric Acid Plant #1: 150 lb/hr.
Nitric Acid Plant #2: 25 lb/hr.
By simple arithmetic based on 55 tons/day the two plants op-
erate as follows (assume 24 hr. day operation)
Nitric Acid Plant #1: 65 lbs. N02/ton acid
Nitric Acid Plant #2: 11 lbs. N02/ton acid
This shows Acid Plant #2 to exceed the regulation by 100 per-
cent, while Acid Plant #1 exceeds the regulation by some 1200 per-
cent. Nothing in the record explains the difference between the
emissions of the two plants. One can only assume the difference
in ages of the two plants is the determining factor. It would then
seem advantageous to limit Acid Plant #1 until #3 and #2 cannot fui~
fill requirements (#3 is the abovementioned 480 ton/day plant). The
#3 plant will be in compliance with Rule 207 (d) (2) by December
31, 1973.
The method of compliance proposed is a Union Carbide Pura—
Siv
UNI1
molecular sieve. The Agency has stated it feels this meth-
od will bring Petitioner’s plant into compliance and is a superior
choice to the other standard method, e.g., catalytic abater.
The two conditions which must be met as a prelude to a var-
iance grant will be explored separately.
Unreasonable and Arbitrary Hardship: Petitioner alleges that
an unreasonable and arbitrary hardship will be imposed if Acid
Plants #1 and #2 are required to be in compliance by December 31,
1973. The following reasons are given to document their statements.
1. A loss of $2,900,000 in sales to Petitioner.
2. Customer hardship in that alternate supplies must
be contracted for.
3. Loss of some four to twelve jobs.
Effect of Granting Variance on the Environmental Quality:
Petitioner has done its homework well in this regard. Inde-
pendent air monitoring conducted by duPont has shown the NO ambient
air quality level to be below the 1975 standard. Measurements taken
over a two—week period resulted in an average concentration of 0.038
PPM against a federal standard of 0.050 PPM. It should be noted that
there have been no public objections to the grant of this variance;
in addition the nearest resident to Petitioner~splant is 0.4 miles.
The abovementioned Air Quality Standard (.050 PPM) is the Nat-
ional Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standard. The text
“Air Quality Criteria for Nitrogen Oxide” has been referred to in
order to ascertain the potential health hazard. The reason for this
step is that although a two—week air monitoring program was undertak-
9—
586
—3—
en by duPont, no evidence has been entered
as
to meteorological
conditions or plant emission rates at the time of the survey. As
a result of this investigation, the following was found:
1) “The two oxides of nitrogen present in am-
bient air in greatest quantities, nitric ox-
ide and nitrogen dioxide, are potential health
hazards” (P. 9—19).
2) “A twelve minute exposure to 2500 PPM of NO was
lethal to mice. Doses in excess of 20 PPM of
NO produced reversible inhibition of bacterial
hydrogenase activity.”
3) A study in Chattanooga, Tennessee, resulted in
the conclusion that an increase in respiratory
illness was found to occur in an environment
having a mean 24-hour NO concentration, meas-
ured over a six-month pe~iod,between 0.062 and
0.109 PPM.
The above reference shows that although a significant health
hazard does not exist, the variance granted should be of as short
a duration as possible so as to avoid a “potential” danger.
Petitioner has filed a compliance plan to effect control of
Acid Plants #1 and #2 by May 1, 1974, at the soonest and October
1, 1974, at the latest. The Agency regards the latter date as
more reasonable. The Board feels all efforts should be undertaken
to expedite this program, and a middle date will be chosen for the
variance grant.
One other point must be made at this time. Petitioner states
that the need for a variance (rather than having been in compliance)
is due to their uncertainty over whether they would continue to op-
erate Acid Plants #1 and #2. The decision to operate has been
made, and thus the need for a variance.
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 a variance
for Petitioner’s Acid Plants #1 and #2 be granted from Rule 207 (d)
(2) until July 15, 1974, subject to the following conditions:
1. Said variance shall terminate fifteen (15) days after in-
stallation of molecular sieves on Acid Plants #1 and #2 or July 15,
1974, whichever condition occurs first.
9
—
587
—4—
2.
Petitioner shall submit to
the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency a bi-monthly progress report detailing:
a) Progress made on the installation of the
molecular sieve on Acid Plants #1 and #2.
b) Amount of acid produced at Acid Plants #1
and #2.
c) Amount of acid needed to meet Petitioner1s
internal and external needs.
3. Nitric Acid Plant
#2
shall only be operated
when
Nitric Acid Plant #3 cannot meet demands.
4.
Nitric Acid Plant #1 shall only be operated when
Nitric Acid Plants #3 and #2 cannot meet demands.
5. 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 $100,000, guaranteeing construction and
installation of the equipment herein required.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I,
Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, certify that,the above OpiniQn and Order was adopt-
ed
by the Board on the ~
day of
~
1973, by
avoteof
...~‘
to
~
Q~Lk~n~&v~