ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

January 24, 1974

E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS

AND COMPANY

PETITIONER

)

PCB 73—533

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

RESPONDENT

JAMES 

C. HILDREW, ATTORNEY, in behalf of E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND

COMPANY

MICHAEL GINSBERG, ATTORNEY, in behalf of the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

OPINION

AND

ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Harder)

This action involves a petition

for variance filed December 17,

1973.

Petitioner

seeks relief

from Rule 207 (d)

(2)

of Chapter 2,

Part II of the Regulations of the Pollution Control Board, as it

per-

tains to its nitric

acid producing facility. Relief 

is requested until

March 1, 

1974. The Agency in its

recommendation filed January 16,

1974, recommends a grant of variance.

Petitioner owns and operates at Seneca, Illinois, a facility for

the production of weak nitric acid (58—65) 

The unit in ciuestion is

termed Nitric Acid Plant #3 and has a full load caracity of 520 tons/

day. The plant uses 256,000 lbs/hr. of anhydrous ammonia, air, steam

condensate, and natural 

gas in 

the proportions of 4.9/39.3/5.5/0.3.

The raw materials are passed over a catalytic converter

~hicii converts

the anhydrous ammonia to nitric

acid

and. 

water.

The rcsul~ant gases

are cooled, separated, and sent to an absorption

column. Final gases

are passed through an entrainment

separator.

Tail gases arc then

heated and passed through a catalyti.c abater, which shIfts

bhe egual-

ibrium of the gas toward tho Formation of nitrous

oxide (ho) 

This

gas is presently released to

the a~mosphora.

Emissions Generated and Control Proposed:

The abovementioned 

gas leaves

tilO

catalytIc

a~ntar wiTh anout 

pounds of nitrogen oxides ocr ton of acid

produced.

This is in excess

of Rule 207 (d) (2) which was effective

January 1, 1974, and which

allows

5.5

pounds of nitrogen oxides per con of acid croduced.

11 —49

—2—

Petitioner is in the process of installing a secondary gas-fired

catalytic abater which will reduce emissions to the 5.5 lbs/ton level.

The cost of this project is $785,000. A compliance plan for this unit

was submitted on February 13, 1973, and called for compliance by Jan-

uary 1, 1974. Petitioner alleges that installation will not be com-

pleted before March 1, 1974, and will require a plant shutdown of 15

days in order to tie in the equipment. Petitioner alleges and the Agen-

cy agrees that the secondary abater will bring about total compliance.

Reason for Delay:

Petitioner alleges that the reasons for not achieving compliance

by January 1, 1974, were caused by various vendors’ inability to de-

liver equipment when promised, and was beyond the control of Petition-

er. In a signed affidavit (Pet. Ex. #1 by B. Drowdy) Petitioner attests

to the premiums paid in order to expedite delivery of equipment. The

Agency has investigated the plant site and noted that most of the con-

trol equipment is now on site and work is progressing.

The Board fully agrees with the Agency in their statement (Reco.

Pg. 3) that Petitioner has acted in good faith in its attempts to in-

stall the required equipment.

Hardship:

Petitioner builds its hardship case on the premise that denial of

the variance would necessitate a shutdown of the subject plant. The

Board maintains that a variance denial is not equivalent to a shutdown

order, but is merely a shield from a possible enforcement action. How-

ever, the Board realizes that a shutdown is an option open to Petition-

er. If a shutdown were to occur, Petitioner alleges that its hardship

would include the following:

1. Loss of production of 34,000 tons of nitric acid with

the eventual loss of $2,890,000.

2. Weakened market position because of failure to supply

product to customers.

Environmental Impact:

Petitioner alleges that ambient air sampling over a two—week period

in May 1973 shows that while Petitioner operates all three of its ni-

tric acid plants at Seneca, nitrogen oxides are below the primary stan-

dard. The Agency reports that they have received no adverse comments

from the public concerning the grant of this variance.

Although Petitioner does not verify the above statement, the Board

takes note of E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Company v Environmental Pro-

tection Agency, PCB 73-325, in which said tests were incorporated.

The following is a quotation of the paragraphs dealing with environmen-

tal impact data as presented in the Board’s Order in PCB 73-325:

“Petitioner has done its homework well in this regard. Independent

air monitoring conducted by Du Pont has shown the NO~ambient air qual-

11 —50

—3—

thy 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’s plant is 0.4 miles.

The abovemenbioned Air Quality Standard (.050 PPL1) is the National

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 undertaken by Du

Pont, no evidence has been entered as to meteorological

conditions

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 ambient air in

greatest quantities, nitric oxide 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 re-

versible inhibition of bacterial hydrogenase activity.”

3)  A study in Chattanooga, Tennessee, resulted in the

conclusion that an increase in respiratory illness was

concentration,found

to occur inmeasuredan environmentover

a six-monthhaving

a

period,mean

24—hourbetweenNO2

0.062 and 0.109 PPM.

The above reference shøws 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.”

The Board feels the above quotation is directly applicable to the

instant case, as the considerations in PCB 73—325 dealt with the three

acid plants at Seneca including the plant in question.

The Board feels that Petitioner has generated sufficient grounds to

fulfill its requirements for a variance grant. Because of the short

duration of the variance and the fact that most equipment is on site,

the Board will not require a performance bond.

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:

Petitioner is hereby

granted a variance from Rule 207 Cd) (2) 

Chapter 

2, Part II of the Regulations of the Pollution Control Board

for its nitric acid plant #3 until March 1, 1974, or until the install-

11—51

—4—

ation of the secondary abater is complete, whichever is sooner, subject

to the following condition:

Petitioner shall notify:

Illinois Environmental Protection Aaer:cy

Division of Air Pollution Control

Region I Office

4302 N. Main Street

Rockford, Illinois,

61103

upon completion of the secondary abater on nitric acid plant #3.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, cert~fy that the above Opinion and Order was adopted by the Board

on the

Q’/ ‘~

day of~_,

1974, by a vote of ~

0