ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

October 18,

1973

•

DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.

)

PETITIONER

)

)

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

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

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.

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~