ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
May
29,
1974
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY,
)
)
Complainant,
)
vs.
)
P~B
72—209
)
MONSANTO
CHEMICAL
COMPANY,
)
)
Respondent.
Frederick
C.
Hopper,
Assistant
Attorney
General
for
the
EPA
Randall
Robertson
and
Phocian
Park,
Attorneys
for
Respondent.
OPINION
AND
ORDER
OF
THE
BOARD
(by
Mr.
Henss):
The
Environmental
Protection
Agency
charged
Monsanto
Chemical
Company
with
emitting
dense
smoke,
particulate
matter
and
odors
into
the
atnosphere
so
as
to
cause
air
pollution in violation of Section 9(a) of the Environmental
Protection Act and
Rule
3-3.122 of the Rules and Regulations
Governing the Control of Air Pollution.
The Complaint alleges
that Monsanto has allowed these emissions at its chemical
plant located near Sauget, Illinois “since July 1, 1970” and
in particular
on
12
dates
which
are
specified
in
the
Complaint.
Our Opinion and Order of November 28,
1972 disposed of
all odor complaints except those occurring on:
August 4, 1970,
November 14, 1970, April 29, 1971,
January
9, 1972,
May
15,
1972, September 5, 1972 and September 21, 1972.
The case was
remanded to the Hearing Officer so that Respondent could have
an opportunity to rebut testimony regarding odors allegedly
occurring on the latter six dates.
Our November 28, 1972 Opinion also left open the possi-
bility of finding a violation of Rule 3-3.122 if supported by ex-
hibits
which had been introduced into evidence but had been
omitted from the record which was forwarded to us.
Rule 3-3.122
prohibits smoke emissions which are of No.
2 Ringelmann density
or darker.
From the record available to us in November 1972 we
were not able to conclude that Respondent had emitted smoke of
the prohibited density for a time greater than six minutes.
We
understood, however, that this information might be available in
the missing exhibit.
—2—
The Hearing Officer attempted to schedule this matter for
introduction of Respondent’s rebuttal evidence, but finally
reported that “after a good deal of telephone conversations
between the parties,
the Respondent determined that it did not
wish to present further evidence and will stand on the record”.
This was later confirmed by Respondent in
a letter dated
January
29,
1974.
Therefore,
the Board shall make its findings
of fact from the original material presented plus the exhibits
which were subsequently located and submitted to the Board.
It was alleged that Respondent had emitted smoke the
density of No.
2 Ringelmann or darker on July 20,
1970,
January
5,
1971 and September
5,
1971.
The only evidence
relative to a Ringelmann violation on the first date was
a
memorandum from Agency Inspector Telford which stated:
“On
July 20, 1970 from 2:28 p.m.
to 3:38 p.m. the
#9
(east chain
grate) boiler average emission was the shade of the
*3 Ringelmann”.
As noted in our prior Opinion a mere declaration that the “average
emission” exceeded
#2 Ringelmann is not sufficient to prove a
violation.
There is simply no way to determine from the exhibit
(Agency Exhibit #1) whether part of the boiler emissions were
less than *2 Ringelmann on July 20,
1970.
Agency Exhibit #2,
a form for recording Ringelmann obser-
vations,
shows that smoke emissions
from *9 boiler ranged from
#2 Ringelmann to #3 Ringelmann for
a ten minute period on
January
5,
1971, except for a single reading at the
7 minute
30 second interval when the observer~sview was blocked by steam.
Respondent’s Utility Superintendent testified from company records
that there was no breakdown or mechanical upset on boiler #9 on
January
5,
1971
(R.
119).
This evidence proves a violation of
Rule 3-3.122 for the date in question.
Agency Exhibit #3
is another set of Ringelmann readings
made by Telford on September 15,
1971.
On that date the readings
varied
from 2.5 to 2.75 Ringelmann for the time period 10:52
a.m.
to 10:58 a.m.
Six minutes of consecutive readings above #2
Ringelmann are shown.
However, Rule 3—3.310 provides for
a six
minute exception while blowing accumulated soot from the boiler.
Therefore,
no violation is
shown for September 15,
1971.
Testimony by Telford relating to odors and fumes--usually
chlorine gas--was discussed in our earlier Opinion.
The EPA
had alleged
9 specific dates on which Monsanto had caused odorous
emissions in violation of Section 9(a)
of the Act.
During the
hearing,
the Agency dropped the charges for two dates
in
l97O~
Of the remaining seven dates,
the Board concluded that evidence
of possible violation was shown for only one date,
August
4,
197O~
A decision regarding that possible violation was withheld
since
the case was being remanded to the Hearing Officer.
12
—
418
—3—
The record shows that on August
4, 1970 Telford and another
Agency employee were on Route
3,
west of the Monsanto plant, when
they detected a “very strong chlorine odor”.
Telford could not
recall if they left the car and walked around or just stayed in
the car.
He did recall that they both experienced an eye irri-
tation and raw throat.
The witness did not testify as to wind
direction on August
4,
1970 but we conclude from the entire record--
the proof that Monsanto was emitting the same odor on other
dates,
and the absence of any evidence o~chlorine emissions
from another source——that the odor originated at the Monsanto
plant.
The odor was of an intensity to come within the definition
of air pollution.
We find a 9(a) violation on August
4,
1970.
During the public hearing Monsanto objected to the testi-
mony of employees of
Sterling Steel Company,
a neighboring factory,
regarding odors on
6 dates which had not been specified by the
EPA.
The Hearing Officer correctly allowed the testimony to
enter the record, but we decided to allow Monsanto an additional
hearing so that it could rebut this citizen testimony.
Monsanto
chose not to introduce rebuttal evidence but again objected
to
the testimony from employees of Sterling Steel Company. Respondent
said it “does not now recognize, nor does
it acquiesce in, the
validity of any of said testimony of the complaints contained
therein
as the proper subject matter of the proceeding in this
docket.”
This objection is denied.
Section
32 of the Environmental
Protection Act provides that enforcement hearings shall be open
to the pulilic and that any written statements or oral testimony
may be~presented.
Dates and occurrences testified to by
Sterling employees are generally within the time period alleged
in the Agency Complaint.
Further, Monsanto was provided ample
opportunity to rebut the testimony and ~annot claim surprise.
Testimony by William J.
Shive, President and Treasurer of
Sterling Steel Casting Company, indicates that operations at the
Sterling plant have been occasionally affected by odorous emissions
from Monsanto since November 14,
1970.
On that date Shive smelled
an “obnoxious” gas that caused him no ill effects but which
caused him to send a letter to the Monsanto Plant Manager
(R.
74).
On April
29, 1971 Shive detected a
“gassy emission that was
obnoxious” at the plant.
The following day he sent another
letter to Monsanto.
On January
9,
1972 at 2:00 p.m. Shive detected a chlorine
odor that caused him to stop working.
Shive recalled that at
least one other employee also stopped working on that date.
12
—
419
—4—
Sterling’s personnel manager,
Harvey L.
Farthing, testified
that he had called the Monsanto plant at 8:05 a.m. on September 21,
1972.
He informed
“a girl in Mr. Buckley’s office” that the
“fumes were driving our men out of the plant”
(R.
91).
Buckley
allegedly returned the call at 8:20 a.m. informing Farthing that
he had found the source of the trouble and that there would be
no more trouble
(H.
90).
Farthing testified that the fumes on
that date forced the shutdown of a furnace at Sterling since the
four men operating the furnace stopped working
(H.
91,
92).
The
fume, which he described as “like ammonia” did not have any
effect on him personally.
Farthing also called Monsanto on September 5,
1972 to
complain about the “strong fumes”.
Within 10 minutes of his
call
the
fumes had cleared up
CR.
94)
Farthing testified that on one other occasion a strong
chlorine odor from the Monsanto plant caused Sterling employees
to
run out of
the
plant
(R.
98).
About 145 employees left the
plant at
1:25
p.m. and did not return until
2:00 p.m., about 10
minutes
after Mr.
Buckley had called to report that the gas had
been found and had been taken care of
(H.
100).
There is
nothing
in
the
record to show
the
date when this occurred.
Farthing
also
recalled
a chlorine odor on May 17,
1972 which
did not stop
production and
which did
not cause him ill effects
(H.
103).
He added
that
on one
of
the occasions to which he had
testified,
the
chlorine caused “a burning sensation in my nose and
throat”
(H.
104),
In defense, Monsanto offered the testimony of dry chlorine
manufacturing supervisor,
Mr. Regula.
Regula described a
$300,000 nroaram
which
Monsanto has initiated
for
upgrading
pollution control
in the dry bleach operation.
This program
inciudes detailed instructions for operators
to
follow when an
emission
is detected from the dust
collection equipment, an
improved
air compressor for cleaning of the dust collection equip-
ment,
modification
in
the dust collection duct work,
a limitation
Ofl
the
amount
of
air passing through the dry bleach dryers and
dust collectors, and an automated packaging system which includes
improved dust collection equipment.
Regula
testified
that
an upset condition in the dry bleach
manufacturing equipment has caused the release of chlorine but
did not
reveal
any dates when such upsets had occurred.
We
believe
the record
in this case
is sufficient to show
-~c
~“ori~,anto
‘-ia~ cai.ce~.
~‘ir
nolic~ior by
~ts periodic releases
of chlorine aas,
The
record
shows that these chlorine emissions
have tisruoted manufactor:Lnc cuarations at
the Sterlinq Steel
—5—
Casting pla~it.
These disruptions have apparently been few in
number and Monsanto officials have reacted promptly to control
the emissions when notified.
While this does not in any way
change the fact that Monsanto has caused air pollution,
it will
be considered in mitigation of penalty.
The Board further notes
that Monsanto has taken measures to insure that violations
caused by emissions from #9 boiler and the dry bleach manu-
facturing plant do not occur in the future.
The facts of this
case justify a $2,000 penalty.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law.
ORDER
It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that:
1.
Monsanto Chemical Company shall pay to the State
of Illinois by July 15,1974 the sum of $2,000
as
a penalty for its violations of Section 9(a)
of the Environmental Protection Act and Rule
3-3.122 of the Rules and Regulations Governing
the Control of Air Pollution.
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.
2.
Respondent shall cease and desist from causing air
pollution in violation of the Environmental
Protection Act and the Regulations of the Pollution
Control Board.
Respondent shall file monthly
reports with the Environmental Protection Agency
stating the control measures taken by Respondent
to bring its operation into compliance with the
Act and the Regulations.
The compliance reports
shall
begin on July 15
and
shall
continue for
one
year.
I,Christan L. Moffett,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Orde~was adopted
this
~q~”
day of
_______,
1974 by a vote of
..~
to~
12—421