ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
October 10, 1974
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY,
Complainant,
vs.
)
PCE 74-209
AMERICAN CYANAMID COMPANY,
Respondent.
AMERICAN CYANAMID COMPANY,
Petitioner,
vs.
)
PCB 74—227
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
Jeffrey
S. Herden and Richard Cosby, Assistant Attorneys General
for the EPA
Ronald Cracas, Attorney for American Cyanamid Company
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr.
Henss):
This Opinion and Order involve an enforcement action
(PCE
74-209)
and a petition for variance (PCB 74-227) which have been conso1ic~atcd
for disposition.
The enforcement action commenced on June
5,
1974
when the Agency filed its Complaint alleging that American Cyanamid
Company had operated a sulfuric acid plant since December
1,
1972
without an operating permit in violation of Section
9(b)
of the
Environmental Protection Act and Rule
103 of the Air Pollution
Control Regulations.
American responded
9 days later by seeking
variance from Rule 204 (f) (2)
of the Regtilations in order to allow
sufficient time
to install and operate an acid mist eliminator on
the sulfuric acid plant.
Thereafter the Agency filed a Motion to Consolidate these two
cases.
On August
8,
1974
the Board granted consolidation on the
condition that American waive its right to a decision on PCB 74-227
within
90 days as the Act provides.
American informed the Hearing
14
—
125
—2—
Officer at
a public hearing of its intention to not waive this
right and the Hearing Officer so advised
the
Board by
letter dated
August 30,
1974.
On September 12, 1974 the Board denied. the variance request be-
cause of American’s
failure to provide evidence on the issue of
h~rdehipand American’s failure to explain the long delay in meeting
the regulatory deadline.
American Cyanamid informed the Boar-~on September
18, 1974
that
it had scheduled “a prompt,
orderly and complete shutdown”
of the plant “in conformity with the Pollution Control Board’s
ruling in this matter”.
In this filing, American stated that an
explanation of its failure to meet the compliance deadline had
been submitted to
the
Board in the Stipulation and Proposal for
Settlement
“in the companion case of PCB 74-209”.
The explanation
was
not filed
in PCB 74—227.
The hoard Order of September 12,
1974 did not order American
Cyanamid to siut down its sulfuric acid plant.
A variance denial
does not mandate
a shut down of any operation.
The Stipulation
and Proposal for Settlement had not been submitted to the Board by
September
12,
1974 and the copy provided by American was neither
dated nor signed.
American’s refusal
to t~aive the 90
day
provision
prevented
a consolidation of the two cases.
Had American consented
to this waiver, the Board could. have considered any explanation
offered h~American that was
in the record of the consolidated
proceedings.
The Board finds
that American shut down this plant
of its o’~~nvolition and any loss resulting from the shut down was
of American’s own making.
American operates a 150 ton/day
(12,500
lb/hr.)
contact
sulfuric acid plant
in Joliet.
The plant, which is located adjacent
to
a residential area,
is
limited under Rule 204(f) (2)
to emissions
of
0.15 lh~.acid mist/ton of acid produced.
Stack tests conducted
bx American
in 1973 showed
a sulfuric acid mist emission rate of 1.5
lbs.
acid mist/ton of acid produced.
American is going to install
a Prink Fibre Fed High Efficiency Mist Eliminator on the 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.
The Board on September 27,
1974 adopted two additional Orders in
these proceedings.
The first Order allows reconsideration of our
Order of Seetember 12, 1974
in P(~B74—227 and the second Order con-
solidated these
two
cases.
These Orders were
a direct result of the
filing b~the parties on September
27, 1974 of a Stipulation and
Pronosal for Settlement.
This Opinion and Order shall deal with the
consolidated cases as outlined in the Stipulation.
14
—
126
—3—
In September 1972 American personnel decided they needed more
testing in order to obtain data required for permit application.
A written request was submitted to the Agency on October
6,
1972
seeking a delay until January
31,
1973 for the filing of permit
application.
When the testing equipment arrived in damaged
condition, American requested an additional delay until March 31,
1973.
The Agency replied that it had no authority to grant the
new request and suggested that American seek a variance.
However, American continued to seek operating permit rather
than variance.
American has no explanation for proceeding
in this
fashion other than a misunderstanding by American personnel of the
distinction between an application for permit and an application
for variance.
The Board finds this
to be a feeble excuse for not
seeking the variance.
Installation of the mist eliminator has in all probability
been completed.
American indicated that
a fan impeller required
to operate this plant with the new control equipment would be avail-
able for installation on or about October
4,
1974.
The Proposed Settlement requires American to:
a) pay a civil penalty of $2,000 in settlement
of the
enforcement action,
b)
post a performance bond of $30,000,
C)
submit bi—weekly progress reports,
d)
expeditiously complete installation of the mist
eliminator,
e)
perform a stack test within 30 days of completion
of the installation and,
f) apply for and make all reasonable efforts
to obtain
permits.
American is
to be granted a variance from Rule
204(f) (2)
and immunity from further prosecution under PCB 74-209.
Settlement
is conditioned upon complete approval by the Board of all stipulations
conditions and provisions without change or modification.
We accept this settlement.
We would have permitted monthly
progress reports in lieu of bi—weekly reports, but nevertheless,
find the settlement to be just and equitable in light of the facts
in these proceedings.
14
—
127
—4—
ORDER
It is the Order of
the Pollution Control Board that:
1.
American Cyanamid Company is granted
a variance
from Rule
204(f) (2)
of the Air Pollution Control Regulations
for its Joliet Sulfuric Acid plant until December
1,
1974
for the purpose of installing an acid mist eliminator
designed to permit American Cyanamid to achieve compliance
with Rule 204 (f) (2)
2.
American shall seek to expedite completion
of
installation of the acid mist eliminator
in order to achieve
compliance with Rule 204(f) (2).
3.
Within
30 days of completion of the mist eliminator
installation, American shall have stack tests performed by an
independent testing company.
American shall notify the Agency
five days prior to the stack test indicating the time and
place of said test and shall
allow Agency personnel to observe
said test if they so desire.
4.
American shall, by November 11, post
a bond in the
amount of $30,000 in
a form acceptable
to the Environmental
Protection Agency,
such bond to be forfeited in the event
American fails
to install and operate the mist eliminator.
Bond shall be mailed to:
Fiscal Services Division, Illinois
EPA,
2200 Churchill Road, Springfield, illinois 62706.
5.
American shall submit bi-weekly progress reports to
the Environmental Protection Agency.
Said progress reports
shall commence on October 24,
1974 and shall provide details
of American’s progress towards completion of the mist eliminator
installation program.
Said reports shall be mailed to:
Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Air Pollution
Control, Control Program Coordinator,
2200 Churchill Road,
Springfield,
Illinois 62706.
6.
American Cyanamid shall pay to the State of Illinois
by November
1,
1974 the
sum
of $2,000 as
a penalty for the
violation admitted in this proceeding.
Penalty payment by
certified check or money order payable to the State of Illinois
shall be made to:
Fiscal Services Division,
Illinois EPA,
2200 Churchill Road,
Springfield, Illinois 62706.
7.
American shall expeditiously apply for and make all
reasonable efforts
to obtain all necessary permits from the
Environmental Protection Agency.
14
—
128
—5—
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, he~ebycertify th
bove Opinion and Order was adopted
this
I
o
“
day of
__________,
1974 by a vote of
4
to
O
ç~4J) ~
14
—
129