ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

February

7,

1991

OLIN CORPORATION

)

(JOLIET PLANT),

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB 89—72

(Variance)

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

)

PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

)

Respondent.

MS. BARBARA B. GUIBORD and MR.

MARK

R.

SARGIS of WINSTON

& STRAWN

APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER.

MR.

JAMES J. O’DONNELL, ASSISTANT COUNSEL, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF

THE RESPONDENT.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by B.

Forcade):

This matter

comes before the Board on a third amended

petition filed by Olin Corporation, Joliet Plant,

(hereinafter

“Olin”) on November

7,

1990.

Olin seeks a variance until March

31,

1993 from the Board’s regulations governing the emission of

particulate matter, found at

35 Ill. Adm. Code 212.321, as this

applies to the emissions from the A and B building scrubbers at

its Joliet facility.

Procedural History

Olin initially filed its petition in this matter on April

21, 1989.

Continuing discussions with the Agency and revisions

in the compliance plan have resulted in Olin’s filing a first

amended petition on June

21,

1989;

a second amended petition on

October

4, 1989, and the present third amended petition on

November

7,

1990.

Three letters of objection were filed with the Board on May

11, May 24,

and June

14 of 1989.

The letter of May 11,

1989

raised concerns about a pond and gypsum mound,

neither of which

is properly considered

in this petition for variance from air

regulations.

The other letters raised concerns about air

quality, which the Board finds relevant to this proceeding.

118—22 1

---

—2—

A number of hearings were scheduled and cancelled

in this

proceeding, requiring repeated expenditures from this Board’s

limited budget.

Hearing was set for September

6,

1989 and then

cancelled;

rescheduled to October

6,

1989 and cancelled;

rescheduled to January

24, 1990 and cancelled;

rescheduled to

March 14,

1990 and cancelled;

rescheduled to June

25, 1990 and

cancelled;

rescheduled to September

6,

1990 and cancelled;

rescheduled to November

12,

1990 and finally held on that date.

The Board views this conduct

as detrimental to the Board’s

efficient operation and to the fair opportunity of other

petitioners to have their cases heard by the Board.

The Board

cautions all petitioners before the Board that this conduct

cannot be tolerated in the future

in fairness

to all.

Olin filed an application for non—disclosure of certain

information on November

7,

1990,

along with a motion for

expedited decision.

On November

8,

1990 the Board granted the

Motion for expedited decision.

By Order of November

29,

1990,

the Board agreed to proceed in accordance with 35

Ill. Adm. Code

Part 120 Subpart C and Board Resolution 86—2,

in connection with

the revised application

filed by Olin on November

21,

1990.

Olin

may petition the Board for the return of confidential materials

after the time for reconsideration or appeal has passed without

any such filing.

On November

28,

1990,

the Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency

(“Agency”)

filed

its Recommendation

(“Ag. Rec.”)

in favor

of granting a variance with a shorter term than requested by Olin

and with various conditions.

Also on November

28, 1990,

Olin

filed a Waiver of Response to Agency Recommendation.

Background

Olin’s plant

is located at the junction of Patterson and

Laraway Roads in Joliet Township, Will County,

Illinois.

The

plant is a significant employment source, with a work force

in

the range of 300 employees

in 1989 and 230 employees as

of

October

1,

1990.

The 1989 payroll was approximately $10.5

million.

Olin also asserts that “secondary” employment as a

result of the plant’s presence would at least equal the plant’s

payroll.

Capital expenditures have averaged $2

—

3 million

in

recent years.

In addition to producing sodium fluoride for use

in fluoridation of municipal water supplies, the plant

is a major

producer

of industrial sodium phosphates.

These may be further

categorized as follows:

1)

Orthophosphates:

Monosodium,

trisodium,

and

trisodium chlorinated phosphates.

Uses:

cattle and poultry feed supplements, water

treatment,

cleaning agents, and other

uses.

118—2 22

---

—3—

2)

Condensed phosphates:

sodium tripolyphosphate

(“STPP”), tetrasodium pyro and sodium acid

phosphates and sodium hexametaphosphates.

Uses:

paper manufacturing, laundry and dishwater

detergents, water softening,

and other uses.

Olin’s STPP production,

which accounts for approximately 15

of the total US. production of STPP, causes the particulate

emissions for which Olin seeks

a variance.

The emissions

in

question are created by the high temperature

kilns at Buildings A

and B at the Joliet plant.

Pet.

at pp.

2—3.

Olin summarized the process of producing sodium phosphates

as involving the reaction of phosphoric acid with sodium

hydroxide or soda ash.

The combined chemicals are filtered,

evaporated, and processed.

Traditionally, only standard grade

(green) phosphoric acid was used.

In

1990, however,

technical

grade

(purified) acid was introduced,

the use of which reportedly

will reduce plant—wide particulate emissions.

STPP is produced by the thermal condensation of

a sodium

orthophosphate mixture.

It

is created by two different processes

at the Joliet facility.

At each of Buildings A and B,

two high

temperature kilns produce STPP in one step,

from liquors

to final

product.

At Building

C,

STPP

is produced by a two step process,

first spray drying and then, condensation.

Pet.

at p.3.

The mixing,

storage, heating, and evaporation processes

described by Olin proceed to the point where furnace exit gases

and fine solids pass through separation equipment and then to

a

separate scrubber for each of the

4 kiln systems.

Each system

may be operated independently of one another.

Pet. at p.4.

The

C kiln, which began operations

in 1970, does not create

excessive emissions.

The A and B kilns, which date back

to 1948

to 1955, and which had pollution control equipment installed on

them in 1979, do result in excessive particulate emissions.

Pet.

at p.5.

Operating permits for

the A and B Buildings were issued in

July and August of

1987, and will expire on July 20,

1992.

Pet.,

Exhibit A; Ag. Rec. at p.2.

118—2 23

---

—4—

The Agency provided the following table for 1985

—

1988,

showing consistent non—compliance with Section 212.321:

Tripoly A Building

Tripoly B Building

Actual

Allowable

Actual

Allowable

Emissions

Emissions

Emissions

Emissions

Year

(T/Y)

(T/Y)

(T/Y)

(T/Y)

1985

30.11

24.23

39.71

23.50

1986

58.45

19.53

47.48

24.15

1987

32.46

22.75

57.60

27.25

1988

30.69

23.21

58.52

29.40

Ag.

Rec.

at p.2

See also Pet., Exhibit C.

The Agency noted that the A—North kiln has achieved marginal

compliance as

a result of engineering modifications.

The Agency

also stated that for the entire plant particulate emissions were

reduced from 961 tons

in 1985

to 512 tons

in 1988, with the most

notable decrease occurring in 1986, as a result of the

elimination of certain production lines.

Ag. Rec.

at p.2.

See

also Pet.,

Exhibit B.

Overall emissions reductions were also

brought to the Board’s attention by Olin.

Pet. at

p.

6 and

Pet.,

Exhibit B.

Each source,

of course, must achieve compliance

individually to satisfy the regulatory requirements.

At the Board’s hearing held on November

12,

1990, the Agency

and Olin appeared

to be

in substantial agreement as to the facts

in this case.

The Agency conditionally recommended that the

Board grant a variance to Olin.

Three objectors also testified at hearing.

The first,

representing the Will County Environmental Network, expressed

concern about residue allegedly being dumped near a pond on the

site.

The second objected to the lengthy delay between the

initial filing and the hearing date and the proposed final date

for compliance,

and requested that compliance

be achieved

expeditiously.

The third objected to the grant of

the variance,

in general, arguing that individuals are made to suffer from air

pollution on an ongoing basis from Olin’s emissions from other

equipment for which Olin may already have obtained variance.

Statutory and Case Law Framework

The Board’s statutory authority for granting temporary

relief

in the form of

a variance is found in Section 35

of the

Act. Section 35(a)

provides,

in pertinent part:

The Board may grant individual variances beyond the

limitations prescribed

in this act, whenever

it

is

found,

upon presentation of adequate proof,

that

compliance with any rule or regulation,

requirement

118—224

---

—5—

or order

of the Board would impose an arbitrary or

unreasonable hardship.

However,

the Board is not

required to find that an arbitrary or unreasonable

hardship exists exclusively because the regulatory

standard

is under review and the costs of

compliance are substantial and certain.

Section 35(a)

of

the Act (emphasis added).

Section 37(a)

places the burden of proof on the

petitioner.

The petitioner must show that the alleged hardship

outweighs the public interest

in attaining compliance with

regulations designed to preserve the environment and protect the

public.

Willowbrook

Motel Partnership

v. Pollution Control

Board,

135 Ill. App.

3d 343,

481 N.E.2d 1032, 1037

(1st Dist.

1985)

Since a variance

is

a temporary reprieve from compliance

with the Act and the Board’s regulations, compliance

is to be

sought regardless of the hardship imposed on a individual

polluter.

Monsanto Co.

v.

IPCB,

67

Ill.

2d 276,

376 N.E.2d 684

(1977).

This generally means

that the petitioner must commit to

a plan reasonably calculated to achieve compliance within the

term of the variance.

The Board’s regulations specify that a

detailed compliance plan must be submitted pursuant to

35

Ill.

Adm.

Code. 104.121(f).

Olin’s compliance plan

is found at Exhibit

I of the petition.

The time required to construct facilities and achieve

compliance does not in itself create arbitrary or unreasonable

hardship associated with immediate compliance.

The mere

existence of violations,

which cannot be cured immediately, does

not prove the hardship of immediate compliance for which a

variance should be granted.

This principle was stated early

in

the Board’s history,

as follows:

The District alleges that the proposed time

schedule

is “reasonable”.

If the regulation had

been adopted in 1971, we would agree;

two years is

an acceptable timetable for design and construction

of tertiary facilities of this size.

But the

regulation was adopted in 1967, and no reasons are

given for the District’s inaction for nearly four

years.

One cannot qualify for

a variance simply by

ignoring the timetable and starting late.

While

compliance within the remaining time may be

impossible,

and hardship suffered as a

result

is,

so far as

is alleged, due to the District’s own

inaction.

To allow a variance on the basis of the

present allegation would establish the preposterous

proposition that the very existence of

a violation

is a ground

for excusing

it.

118—225

---

—6—

Decatur Sanitary District

v.

IEPA,

1 PCB 359,

360

(1971).

(emphasis added.)

Similarly,

in other decisions it has been articulated that

the petitioner’s hardship must not be self-imposed by the

petitioner’s inactivity or own decisionmaking.

EPA v. Lindgren

Foundry Co.,

1 PCB 11

(1970);

Ekco Glaco Corporation

v.

IEPA and

IPCB,

542 N.E.

2d 147

(1st Dist.

1989); Willowbrook Motel,

481

N.E.2d at

1036.

In PCB 87—41,

Ekco Glaco

v.

IEPA,

the Board

found that

“Ekco Glaco’s problems arise from the delay caused by

decisions it has made in attempting to secure compliance and its

failure to commit to a particular compliance option.

The Board

cannot find that those problems constitute an arbitrary or

unreasonable hardship.”

Ekco Glaco, PCB 87—41

at

4, aff’d in

Ekco Glaco Corp.

v.

IEPA and IPCB,

542 N.E.

2d 147

(1st Dist.

1989).

Thus, the issue before the Board is whether

or not Olin has

demonstrated that immediate compliance imposes an arbitrary or

unreasonable hardship, which

is not self-imposed, and which

outweighs the related adverse environmental

impact.

Here,

the

relevant environmental impact and “immediacy”

of compliance must

be measured from the date at which compliance was required until

the date of expected compliance.

The effective date

of

35

Ill.

Adm. Code 212.321 was September

28, 1979; Olin’s equipment became

operational in

1980;

and Olin proposes to achieve compliance by

March 31, 1993.

Compliance Efforts and Plan

Olin notes that it has met with three different consultants

and met regularly with the Agency to address its emissions

problem.

Pet, at p.5, see also engineering report at Pet.,

Exhibit G.

Through engineering work, A Building emissions have

been reduced and the A—North kiln is

in marginal compliance.

Pet, at pp.

6,

7 and Ag. Rec.

at p.

2.

Plant—wide emissions have

been reduced since 1980 due to equipment,

process, and raw

material modifications and the elimination of certain production

lines

in 1986.

Pet.

at p.6, Ag. Rec. at p.2.

The A and B Building wet scrubbers and other control

technology and a water treatment facility were installed at a

cost of

$22

million.

Pet.

at p7.

Olin has also maintained the

scrubbers since 1987 pursuant to an optimization and maintenance

schedule approved by the Agency.

Other efforts include

investigating a pilot Venturi scrubber testing program;

converting approximately two—thirds of its acid process to

purified acid,

conducting an engineering study

on the A Building

scrubbers involving numerous stack and inlet gas tests and other

individual tests.

Pet. at pp.

7—10.

See also Pet., Exhibits

E

and F.

118—226

---

—7—

Olin also commits to install new scrubber equipment on B—

South at a cost of approximately $500,000.

Pet. at p.12.

Olin

expects that modifications to B—North and installation of an

additional scrubber and a mist eliminator on B—South will be

completed and tested by the first half of 1991.

Olin proposes to

then return to work at A—Building.

Olin’s Compliance Plan,

at Exhibit

I of the Petition,

specified the following continuing efforts:

1.

Olin will continue the scrubber modifications,

optimizations and maintenance schedule during the

requested variance period as outlined in Exhibit

D.

This extensive schedule will be implemented

for the

Tripoly process scrubbers at both “A” and

“B” buildings

to prevent further

loss of efficiency of the scrubbers.

2.

.,.on the A—North scrubber...

a.

September

1

—

November 15,

1990

Conduct

engineering matrix tests while manufacturing STPP.

b. November

15,

1990

—

February 1991

Evaluate

engineering modifications,

if necessary.

3.

...at B—North scrubber...

a. November

1

—

December

31, 1990

Implement

engineering modifications to scrubber based on

results of matrix

testing at A—North unit.

b.

January

1

—

April

1, 1991

Perform

engineering matrix tests

for all products.

c. April

1

-

July 1991

Evaluate engineering

modifications,

if necessary.

4.

Additional scrubber (BECO Smoke Ring Contactor and Mist

Master)

...

at B—South by December

31,

1990...

a. November

1

—

December

31,

1990

Install BECO

scrubber system.

b. January

1

—

June

30,

1991

Conduct matrix

tests and optimize unit performance.

c.

July

1

—

September 1991

Evaluate any further

engineering modifications, if necessary.

5.

A—South modifications...

118—22 7

---

—8—

a.

September

1,

1991

—

December

1,

1991

Evaluate the impact of engineering modifications at

A-North and B North as well as performance of

additional scrubber at B-South.

b. January

1, 1992

—

July

1,

.1992

Implement the

option that yields best performance.

c. July

1,

1992

—

September

1, 1992

Conduct

matrix tests and optimize unit performance.

d. September

1,

1992

—

December

31, 1992

Evaluate any further engineering modifications

if

necessary.

6.

Assuming significant modifications are required...

a.

January

1,

1992

—

April

1,

1992

Engineering design

and purchasing quotations will be performed.

b. April

1

-

July

31, 1992

Necessary equipment and

controls will be procured and delivered.

c. August

1

—

November

30,

1992

Construction and

installation will be performed.

d.

December, 1992

—

January 31,

1993

System start—up

and testing will be accomplished.

e.

February

1,

1993

—

March 31,

1993

Operational

testing and minor modifications,

if required will be

conducted.

7.

Procurement and delivery of equipment

is anticipated to

take at last

4 months.

8.

Installation required to take at least

4 months.

9.

Time:

Based on Chemicals group Engineering experience.

Pet., Exhibit

I

Agency Recommendation

Based on the results of air modeling performed by Olin at

the Agency’s request,

the Agency concluded that the variance

should not cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS.

The

Agency states that the variance will require a revision to the

Illinois State Implementation Plan

(“SIP”), pursuant to Section

110(a) of the Clean Air Act and

40 CFR Part 51, and that relief

may be granted consistent with federal

law.

The Agency

recommends that the Board grant the requested relief with some

118—228

---

—9—

modifications and with a significantly shorter term.

Specifically, the Agency suggested that paragraphs

5 and

6 of

the

compliance plan proposed by Olin should be modified to substitute

the following:

Paragraph

5

a.April

1,

1991

—

July 1,

1991...

b.July 1,

1991

—

January

1, 1992...

c.January 1,

1992

—

March

1,

1992...

d.Deleted

Paragraph 6a—3

——

deleted

*

The Agency’s Recommendation presents this position with respect

to appropriate performance deadlines in the following paragraphs:

29.

Based upon the modifications to be performed

on B-North and the installation of an

additional scrubber

for B—South, Olin should

be in compliance by December

31,

1990 for B-

North and B-South.

30.

Waiting until January

1,

1992 to start work on

A—South

is unnecessary.

Olin should be able

to evaluate the modifications to the A—North

and B—South scrubbers and the additional

scrubber for the B—South kiln by July

1,

1991.

31.

Implementation of all modifications and/or an

additional scrubber

for the B—South kiln

should then be completed by December

31,

1991.

32.

Olin should then be able to conduct matrix

tests and optimize unit performance by March

1,

1992.

Ag. Rec. at p.6, para.

29—32.

*The Board reads

“6a—3”

as

“6a—e”,

assuming that this is

a

typographical error,

since there

is no item

3 in paragraph 6, and

the dates

in 6b

—

6e are after March

1,

1992.

118—229

---

—10—

Hardship

The hardship which Olin seeks

to avoid

is principally the

major expenditures associated with new replacement scrubber

equipment for all sources

—

$8

—

$10 million.

An alternative of

converting coal—fired boilers to natural gas feed would cost

approximately $5 million and Olin asserts that this is

unreasonable given Olin’s financial condition.

Olin also

believes that the added costs of raising stack heights

is an

environmentally less desirable alternative than pursuing the

emissions reductions which could be achieved under Olin’s

proposed compliance plan.

However, Olin considers raising stack

heights as a possible plan of last resort.

Pet.

at pp.

16—18.

Olin argues that the “Joliet plant currently is

unprofitable.”

Pet.

at p.19.

Olin also submitted an economic

report

(which,

in part,

was characterized by Olin as confidential

and maintained accordingly by the Board)

in support of its

economic arguments.

As the

information deemed confidential by

Olin is not critical to the Board’s decision today that limited

material may be returned to Olin,

at Olin’s request, after

the

time for reconsideration or appeal has passed without any such

filing.

Olin points out that the market for STPP has declined

and is projected to decline further.

The combined effect

is that

Olin has a limited financial ability to achieve immediate

compliance.

Olin does not state that the facility will close.

However, Olin does state that “(i)n light of the importance of

the plant to its employees,

the surrounding area,

and to Olin and

its customers, denial of the variance would impose a severe

hardship on Olin as well as to the community”.

Pet. at p.20.

The financial burden, which Olin does agree

to undertake

promptly, involves improvements to the B—South kiln of

approximately $500,000.

The Agency also acknowledged that

“(b)etween 1986 and the present, Olin has spent approximately

$2,900,000 in total costs to address emissions problems at the

tripoly stacks,

including optimization and maintenance, internal

costs, stack testing, and outside consultant and legal

fees.

Ag.

Rec. at p.4.

When considered in this light,

the Board finds that

additional major expenses

in the $8

—

10 million range

to achieve

immediate compliance appear to represent an unreasonable hardship

in this limited factual setting.

Environmental Impact

The Joliet plant

is located in Will County, Illinois, which

has been designated as a Group

II PM1fl

area,

on the basis of one

possible but unconfirmed exceedance of the ambient air quality

standard.

Air quality standards appear to be met at the nearest

monitoring locations.

Pet.

at pp.

14—16.

Based on air modeling,

performed by Olin at the Agency’s request, granting the variance

should not cause or contribute

to

a violation of the NAAQS.

Pet.

at pp. 14—16.

118~230

---

—11—

The modeling showed that the current operations

do not have

a significant

impact on air quality at Olin’s property line,

and

the single area of significant impact was

to the northwest,

over

the Des Plaines River, not near homes

or other populated areas.

Pet.

at p.16,

Ag.

Rec. at p.3.

Olin asserts that “the granting of this variance will not

have an adverse impact on the environment.

Pet. at p.14.

The

Agency addresses the issue by stating that Olin’s emissions may

produce in one area a “significant”

impact.

Ag. Rec.

at p.3.

Both Olin and the Agency,

however, provide support for the

position that the environmental impact should be considered

minimal.

Consistency with Federal Law

Both the Agency and Olin have stated that relief can be

granted consistent with federal

law.

The variance will require a

revision

in the Illinois

SIP, pursuant

to Section 110(a) of the

Clean Air Act and 40 CFR Part 51,

but the relief will not cause

violations of the Clean Air Act or federal regulations.

Conclusion

The Board finds that Olin has presented adequate proof that

some level of relief

in the form of

a variance should be

granted.

The hardship of immediate compliance appears arbitrary

or unreasonable when compared to the level of environmental

impact from the particulate emissions.

However,

the Board also

finds that,

to a degree, Olin’s hardship in achieving compliance

is self-imposed.

The history of non—compliance and the lengthy

study and decisionmaking process engaged in by Olin on equipment

operating since 1980 does not support the grant of relief until

1993.

The Board

finds that the Agency has put forth a timetable

and conditions which find more support

in the record.

The Board

also agrees with the Agency’s calling for a progress

report

indicating

if compliance

is expected by March

1, 1992.

The Board

finds that an earlier report,

due October

1,

1991,

will be

preferable to waiting until December

1,

1991

to inform the Agency

of the progress and to reformulate a plan,

if necessary,

to

achieve compliance by March

1,

1992.

The delays

in obtaining and

installing equipment suggest that Olin must draw a conclusion as

to the effectiveness

of its efforts earlier

than December

1,

1991.

Olin should diligently pursue installation of all

equipment necessary to achieve compliance.

Olin’s petition and

the Agency’s recommendation clearly show that significant

steps

were already to have been taken by Olin by December

31,

1990.

The variance will expire on March

1, 1992,

after which time Olin

will not be protected from an enforcement action.

This date

should also further

the efficiency of the permitting process

since Olin’s permits expire on July 20,

1992.

This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and

conclusions of law

in this matter.

118—23 1

---

—12—

ORDER

The Board hereby grants to Olin Corporation,

Joliet Plant,

a

variance from 35

Ill. Adm. Code 212.321 as applied to the

scrubbers in A and B Buildings, Joliet Plant, Joliet,

Illinois,

subject to the following terms and conditions:

1.

The variance period shall extend from January

24,

1991 until March

1,

1992.

2.

Olin shall complete all testing and minor

modifications on the A—North scrubber as

follows:

A) Not later than February 28,

1991,

Olin

shall complete all engineering matrix tests

and the evaluation of any modifications,

if

necessary.

3.

Olin shall complete modifications similar to

the A—North scrubber modifications at the B—

North scrubber, as follows:

A) Not later than April

1, 1991, Olin shall

complete modifications

to the B—North

scrubber, based on the results of matrix

testing at A—North unit, and Perform

engineering matrix tests

for all products.

B) Not later

than July 31,

1991, Olin shall

complete the evaluation of any engineering

modifications,

if necessary.

4.

Olin shall install an additional scrubber

(BECO Smoke Ring Contactor and Mist Master)

at

B—South and implement the optimization

schedule as follows:

A) Not later than January 31,

1991, Olin shall

install the BECO scrubber system.

B)

Not later than June

30, 1991, Olin shall

complete matrix tests and optimize unit

performance.

C) Not later than September 1991, Olin shall

evaluate any further engineering

modifications,

if necessary.

5.

Olin shall complete modifications

to the A—

South scrubber, as follows:

A) Not later than July

1,

1991, Olin shall

complete its evaluation of the impact of

engineering modifications at A—North and B—

North, as well as the performance of the

118—232

---

—13—

additional scrubber at B—South.

B) Not later than January

1,

1992, Olin shall

complete engineering modifications to the

A—South scrubber, based on the evaluations

made pursuant

to paragraph E(l)

herein.

C) Not later than March

1,

1992 Olin shall

complete matrix tests and optimize unit

performance and complete any further

engineering modifications,

if necessary.

6.

Monthly progress reports are

to be made to the

Agency.

The reports should be submitted to:

Regional Manager

Division of Air Pollution Control

Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency

1701 First Avenue

Maywood,

Illinois

60153

7.

Olin shall evaluate its progress and submit a

report by October

1, 1991 indicating whether

compliance is anticipated by the end of the

variance period.

If compliance is not

anticipated, the report shall include a

proposal

for an alternative method to achieve

compliance with a time schedule for its

implementation so that compliance

is achieved

by March

1,

1992.

8.

Olin shall maintain the scrubbers consistent

with its optimization and maintenance schedule

which was attached as Exhibit

D to the Third

Amended Petition.

9.

Olin shall test to insure compliance,

prior

to

expiration of the variance period.

Notification is to be given

to the Agency no

later than fifteen days prior to compliance

testing.

10.

Olin shall comply with all provisions of any

construction permits issued by the Agency for

additional scrubbers for the tripoly A and B

buildings.

11.

That within forty—five days of the grant of

the variance, Petitioner execute and forward

to Renee

A.

Stadel, Division

of Legal Counsel,

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, P.O.

Box 19276, Springfield,

Illinois,

62794—9276,

a Certificate of Acceptance and Agreement

to

be bound by all terms and conditions of the

granted variance.

This grant of variance

118—233

---

—14—

shall be null and void if Petitioner

fails to

execute and deliver its certification in

accordance with this paragraph.

Section

41 of the Environmental Protection Act,

Ill. Rev.

Stat.

1989,

ch. 111 1/2, par.

1041, provides for appeal of final

Orders of the Board within 35 days.

The Rules of the Supreme

Court of Illinois establish filing requirements.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify that ~he above Opinion and Order was,

adopted on the

7~ day

of-t~~1

,

1991, by a vote of

‘.~

~

I

~:

~

Dorothy M./ Gunn,’ Clerk

Illinois~PollutionControl Board

118—234