ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
March 14, 1974
VELSICOL CHEMICAL CORPORATION
PETITIONER
)
v.
)
PCB 73—543
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
RESPONDENT
WALTER P. GIBLIN, ATTORNEY, in behalf of VELSICOL CORPORATION
RONALD A. LINICK, ATTORNEY, in behalf of the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Marder)
This action involves a request for variance filed on December 19,
1973, by Velsicol Chemical Corp. Petitioner seeks relief from Rule
205 (f) of the Air Pollution Regulations of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, until August 31, 1974. The Agency filed a recommenda-
tion on March 9, 1974, in which a grant subject to minor conditions
was suggested.
Velsicol Chemical Corp. is located near Marshall in Clark County,
Illinois. Faci]~ities are owned and operated for the manufacture of
agricultural chemicals and hydrocarbon resins. Raw materials used in-
clude various petroleum fractions at about 9400 lbs/hr, boron trifluor—
ide at 180 lbs/hr, and lime at 85 lbs/hr. The main unit process is
ca~?alyticpolymerization producing resins to be used in adhesives,
paints, varnishes, core oils, hardboard saturants, and ink.
Petitioner had on June 13, 1973, received an operating permit for
the units in question, based on the receipt of a construction permit
application for an afterburner for said unit. At this time (June 1973)
it was Petitioner~s intent to bring about compliance with 205 (f) by
incineration. Petitioner contends that sometime thereafter, and as a
result of the pending energy problem, Petitioner considered alternate
technology in the area of organic emission abatement. The technology
considered was pressure filtration. Sometime thereafter Petitioner
found that the potential program would have been uneconomical and
abandoned it. Petitioner’s plans are to return to the original method-
ology of incineration.
Incineration equipment has been ordered from the John Zink Company
(cost $17,000, Exhibit VI, Pg. 3), with delivery anticipated by May
1974, Petitioner alleges, and the Agency agrees, that said equipment
should be operational by August 31, 1974, This equipment can operate
11 —601
—2—
on either natural gas or fuel oil; a supply of fuel is not listed as a
problem. The Board finds that the delay in this instance was not self—
inflicted, but rather a result of a conscientious effort to achieve com-
pliance in the most practical manner.
Emissions and Environmental Impact: Emissions emanate from what Pet-
itioner terms its Eimco vent. Vapors are composed of primarily benzene,
toluene, and xylene. The rate of emission is approximately 125 lbs/hr.
Rule 205 (f) allows for 8 lbs/hr; the uncoiatrolled excess is then 117
lbs/hr. Both parties would seem to agree (e.g., Agency issuance of con-
struction permit) that the proposed equipment will satisfactorily con-
trol the excess emissions.
Petitioner is located in a sparsely populated area, with the nearest
residence 900 feet from the emission source. The Agency investigated
the area and found that at the time of its visit no odor problems were
evident outside the plant area. There are only very infrequent citizen
complaints. The Agency reports that ground level concentrations in the
area of the plant site are low.
Hardship: Petitioner alleges that its hardship would occur if it were
forced to cease operations. The Board restates its contention that fail-
ure to grant a variance is not a shutdown order (48 Insulations, Inc. v.
Environmental Protection Agency, PCB 73-478; E. I. du Pont de Nemours &
Company v. Environmental Protection Agency, PCB 73—533). The Board real-
izes that such an option is open to Petitioner, and the following con-
straints would be imposed on Petitioner if it opted to shut down:
1. Potential dismissal of 121 employees.
2. Loss from market place of 5,000,000 lbs/mo. of hydro-
carbon resins, some of which a,re solely produced by Vel-
si col.
3. Loss of sales of $500,000 mo.
4. Loss of customers by Petitioner which could have long-
term effect.
In light of the above, the Board finds that a variance is justified,
and will so order. The Agency has recommended that any variance extens-
ion be conditioned by a showing by Petitioner of diligence or a compliance
plan to direct the gas stream to a process combustion source. It would
seem wiser to allow facts such as this to come forward at any future
proceedings rather than condition the instant case. Certainly diligencc
on the part of Petitioner would be a prime consideration were an exterisior~
to become necessary.
This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions
of a~c~
of the Board.
11 —602
—3—
ORDER
IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that Velsicol Chem-
ical Corporation be granted a variance from Rule 205 (f) until August
31, 1974, subject to the following conditions:
A) Within 30 days from the date of this Order, Petitioner
shall file an updated compliance plan with the Agency.
Said compliance program shall schedule compliance no
later than August 31, 1974.
B) Within 50 days from the date of this Order, Petitioner
shall post a performance bond in a form satisfactory
to the Agency in the amount of $10,000, guaranteeing
installation of equipment. The bond shall be posted with:
Fiscal Services Division
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield,
Illinois 62706
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 14th day of March, 1974, by a vote of
_______
to ~