~i~S
    POLLIUTION CONTROL BOARD
    July
    7,
    1977
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY and
    )
    PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
    )
    Complainants,
    V.
    )
    PCB 74—226
    COLLIER CARBON AND CHEMICAL
    CORPORATION,
    a California
    corporation,
    Respondents.
    HONORABLE WILLIAM
    3.
    SCOTT, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
    BY MR. JEFFREY HERDEN, ASSISTANTATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON BEHALF
    OF COMPLAINANTS;
    MR. ARTHUR T. LENNON APPEARED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT.
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by Mr. Dumelle):
    This matter comes before the Board on a Supplemented Stipulation
    and Proposal for Settlement filed jointly by all of the parties on
    April
    13,
    1977,
    The history of this case can be summarized
    as follows:
    On
    June 14,
    1974
    a Complaint was filed alleging violations of Section
    9(a)
    of the Environmental Protection Act.
    The Complaint was amended
    to provide for alleged violations of Rules
    103(b) (2)
    and 203(b)
    of
    Chapter
    2:
    Air Pollution of the Board’s Rules and Regulations.
    The
    Complaint addressed particulate emissions
    from the Respondents coke—
    production
    facility
    in Lemont,
    Illinois and operation of
    a rotary
    kiln and pyroscrubber
    at this facility without a permit.
    A hearing was held on October
    10,
    1975 at Lemont,
    Illinois
    The
    parties introduced a Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement at that
    time.
    The Stipulation included the results of stack tests, recited
    the fact that the Respondents had obtained a construction permit for
    a system to dedust the calcined coke at this facility and would use
    a spray system to further control dust emission, described an air
    monitoring program to assess the results of these ef~forts, and pro-
    vided for an investigation into the possibility of
    containing all of
    the Respondents coke operations
    in a separate structure.
    A $5,000.00
    penalty was proposed.
    Seven witnesses~who lived in the immediate
    vicinity of Respondent’s facility testified that their homes had been
    discolored and their lives had been made extremely unpleasant by large
    quantities of soot which they believed were coming from Respondent’s
    facility.
    On November
    26, 1975 the Board rejected the settlement offer
    and remanded the case to the Hearing Officer. for further proceedings
    to determine whether the citizens’
    complaints were attributable to
    the Respondent’s emissions and whether the Respondent’s abatement
    attempts would4 remedy the problem.
    The hearing was reconvened on March 23,
    1977, and the parties
    introduced a supplement
    to the prior stipulation and proposal for
    settlement at that time.
    This supplement described the Respondent’s
    attempts to control dust emission by means of a water spray sweeper
    at the coke facility and on all the paved roads used by the trucks
    which haul coke to the Union Oil Refinery, and by adequate mainte-
    nance of the Respondent’s baghouses.
    The installation of a waste
    heat boiler on the discharge from the kiln incinerator was described,
    along with a dedusting system which largely eliminated fugitive dust
    from Respondent’s calcined coke.
    The supplement went on to describe
    the program of land purchase which the Respondent had undertaken to
    compensate all the homeowners
    in the vicinity of the coke production
    facility.
    At that time only two parcels of land remained for the
    Respondent to purchase before all the 17 residences within one-half
    mile of the facility would be vacated.
    One citizen testified that he thought the residents had been
    fairly compensated for their homes, but that Respondent was getting
    by “dirt cheap” for”its past damages.
    The supplemented stipulation
    and proplosal for settlement indicated that the land purchase, the
    pollution abatement efforts, and insLalidLion ol
    the
    waste heat boiler
    would be approximately $3,300,000.00 when
    it was all completed.
    The Board feels that the Supplemented Proposal for Settlement
    represents
    a fair solution of this case as long as the Respondent
    complies with all the terms of the Order.
    —3—
    ORDER
    it
    is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that:
    1.
    Respondent shall continue to conduct all routinely
    necessary housekeeping functions including spraying the
    coke and all the areas in which the coke is calcined,
    stored,
    handled and transported; adequately maintaining
    its baghouses, and enclosing all coke transfer points all
    in accordance with the stipulation.
    2.
    Respondent shall
    pay a penalty of $6,000.00 within 35
    days of
    the date of this Order.
    Payment shall be made by
    certified check or money order payable to:
    State of Illinois
    Fiscal Services Division
    Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
    2200 Churchill Road
    Springfield,
    Illinois
    62706
    3.
    This cause
    is hereby dismissed with prejudice.
    I,
    Christan
    L. Moffett, Clerk of
    the Illinois I~ollutionControl
    Board,
    hereby
    certify
    the
    above
    Opinion and Order were adopted on the
    ~~day
    of
    ~
    1977
    by
    a
    vote
    of
    ~5-~)
    Christan L. Moffet7l~~7~
    Illinois Pollution Control Board

    Back to top