ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

September 12, 1974

AMERICAN CYANANID COMPANY,

)

Petitioner,

vs.

)

PCB 74—227

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Henss):

American Cyanamid Company requests variance from Rule

204(f) (2) of the Air Pollution Control Regulations until

May 1, 1975. Variance is sought in order to allow sufficient

time to install and operate an acid mist eliminator on

Petitioner’s contact sulfuric acid plant in ~3oliet. The

Agency requested consolidation of this case with EPA vs.

American Cyanamid, PCB 74—209, an enforcement case. However,

consolidation was not possible because of the short time

available for deciding this variance case.

Petitioner’s sulfuric acid plant, which is located

adjacent to a residential area, produces 150 tons of sulfuric

acid per day (12,500 lbs./hr.)

.

Rule 204(f) (2) limits 1\merican

Cyanamid to emissions of 0.15 lbs. acid mist/ton of acid produced.

The Company conducted stack tests in 1973 which showed a sulfuric

acid mist emission rate of 1.5 lbs./ton of acid produced. American

Cyanamid is going to install a Brink Fibre Bed High Efficiency

Mist Eliminator in its process at a point before the discharge

stack. The $133,500 mist eliminator was ordered on May 17, 1974

and delivery was promised by September 20, 1974.

Cyanamid originally estimated that the control device would

not be operative until May 1, 1975. In its Recommendation, the

Agency objected to the long installation and shake down period.

Petitioner answered that the long period was selected to allow

for possible delays in delivery, installation problems or initial

operating problems. Petitioner now states that it. hopes to have

the control device installed by December 1, 1974 but requests that

it be given at least until December 31, 1974 to allow for any

unforeseen problems.

13—599

---

The Agency believes the device will allow Petitioner to

achieve compliance with the Regulation but, because of past delays

created by Petitioner, recommends denial of this variance. The

Agency claims to have received complaints of sulfur odors from

persons in the adjacent residential area and at least three area

•~residents have voiced strong objections to the granting of this

variance. Cyanamid answers that the odors experienced by its

neighbors were a result of abnormal or accidental operating

conditions

in the alternative, the Agency recommends granting the

variance only until December 1, 1974 subject to the posting of

a bond, stack tests, monthly progress reports and the securing

of all required permits.

We are empowered to grant a variance if compliance with the

Rule would cause an unreasonable or arbitrary hardship. Rule

204(f) went into effect on December 31, 1973. Petitioner has

not offered any explanation whatsoever for its failure to meet

that deadline. The burden is on Petitioner to show that com-

pliance would cause an unreasonable and arbitrary hardship and

we cannot grant a variance unless there is some evidence on

that issue. Since the record is totally silent as to the reason

for Petitioner~s failure to meet the deadline we must find that

Petitioner has failed to sustain its burden.The variance will be

denied.

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and the

conclusions of law of the Illinois Pollution Control Board.

ORDER

It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that Petitioner~s

request for variance from Rule 204(f) (2) be denied.

I,

Christan L. Môffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control

Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order was adopted

this j~~day of\~t~1974 by a vote of _____to ~

O4~LA2~J~

f~&jkth1

13—600