ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

November 23, 1971

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

)

PCB 71—230

PFIZER, INC., a corporation

Mr. Jim H. Keehner, Assistant Attorney General of Illinois, appeared

for the Environmental Protection Agency

Mr.

Robert

L. Broderick, of Pope and Driemeyer and Mr. John 

P. Lynch

of Kirkland, Ellis, liodson, Chaffetz & Masters, appeared for Pfizer,

Inc.

OPINION OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Dumelle)

The Attorney General filed this enforcement action on behalf

of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on August 10, 1971

alleging that Pfizer, Inc. (Pfizer) operated its several facilities

at its East St. Louis plant in such a manner so as to cause 

fly

ash, red dust and other contaminants to be emitted from its opera-

tions thereby causing or tending to cause air pollution. The EPA

further alleged 

three specific smoke opacity violations and the

operation of a facility designed to prevent air pollution, i.e.

a dust collector, without having obtained a permit from the EPA.

An order directing the company to

cease and desist each of the

violations as well as an order imposing money penalties for the

violations found was asked for.

Pfizer owns and operates a chemical plant at 20th and Lynch

Streets in East St. Louis which produces iron oxides used in paint

pigments and in magnetic tape and other pigments made from natural

iron ores (R. 31). The facility also processes iron sulfate and

manufactures sulfuric acid (R. 37-38).

Pfizer also operates a power

house and

other facilities at 

the plant.

A hearing was held in this matter on October 18, 1971 in Belle-

ville at which time, in addition to other testimony, the parties

presented a stipulation of

agreed facts as follows:

The ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY and PFIZER, INC.,

complainant and respondent in the above entitled cause,

now pending and undetermined before said Board, by their

:3

— 149

respective attorneys of record, do hereby make

this an agreed case and hereby stipulate that the

facts relevant to the complaint filed herein are~as

follows:

In April, 1969, the Air Pollution Control Board notified

Pfizer that its powerhouse stack emissions at its

East St. Louis, Illinois plant located at 2001 Lynch

Avenue, werä in excess of allowable statutory limits.

The Board reported that excess fly ash was being

emitted into the atmosphere, The Board requested

Pfizer to submit an Emission Reduction Program for its

East St. Louis plant by May 11, 1969. On April 28,

1969, Pfizer informed the Board that it intended to

add additional dust collection equipment to its boiler

stacks in order to reduce fly ash emissions. On May 12,

1969, the Board requested specific details regarding the

type of control measures which Pfizer intended to install.

Shortly thereafter, Pfizer submitted these details.

On June 6, 1969, Pfizer was advised that its submitted

program for abatement of excessive fly ash emissions

had been approved by the Board. The Board did however

request periodic reports from Pfizer regarding that pro-

gress of the program. After considering several alternatives,

Pfizer contracted for the installation of a specific dust

collector manufactured by Zurn Industries. Pfizer had been

assured by Zurn that this equipment would bring Pfizer into

compliance with the applicable state regulations. The Board

was advised of this purchase on February 10, 1970. On

June 19, 1970, Pfizer notified the Board that the manufacturer

was experiencing delivery problems and requested that the

Board grant a continuance for completion of the program. The

Board granted Pfizer’s request for an extension on June 26,

1970. On August 19, 1970, Pfizer again informed the Board

that the equipment would be delivered and installed no

later than October 1, 1970. On October 15, 1970, Pfizer

informed the Board that the new dust collector was in operation.

In January, 1971, the Environmental Protection Agency

informed Pfizer that an installation permit should have been

procured befOre the boiler stack dust collector had been

placed into operation. Pfizer was advised to file a

preliminary “Installation Permit Application”, which

Pfizer did on February 11, 1971. On March 29, 1971,

the Board requested drawings of Pfizer boiler facilities

and the recently installed Zurn dust collector. Pfizer

submitted the requested information on April 2, 1971.

On May 12, 1971, the Board granted Pfizer permission to

install the dust collection equipment (which, of course,

had previously been installed in October, 1970). In

addition, the Board advised Pfizer that a stack test would

have to be performed before an operating permit could be

granted.

3— 

150

On June 8, 1971, Pfizer advised the Board that

the requested stack test would be conducted by McMullen

&

Associates on June 15, 1971. The results of the stack

test, which demonstrated that Pfizer’s boiler stack

emissions were within allowable statutory limits, were

forwarded to the Agency on June 29, 1971.

During 1970, the EPA representatives also reported

accumulations of red dust in the vicinity of the Pfizer

plant, Pfizer explained that the dust resulted either

from accidental spillage of raw materials or from the

breakdown of bags within the plant’s dust collectors.

The red dust was often carried out of the plant on the

wheels of visiting trucks. In order to eliminate this

problem, Pfizer purchased a road sweeper in June, 1971

at an approximate cost of $12,000. Pfizer utilizes the

sweeper to clean up any accumulations of dust within

the plant. The sweeper’s specifications have been

submitted to the EPA. To further reduce the possibility

of dust emissions, Pfizer also began wetting down its

ore piles in order to prevent dust being blown from the

storage piles.

On March 9, 1970, Ringelmann readings in excess of

#2 at Pfizer’s stacks were reported at the Pfizer plant.

Pfizer officials immediately contacted the Technical

Secretary of the Air Pollution Control Board and advised

the Secretary that the dense smoke resulted from a

mechanical breakdown of an ash convey~or. Pfizer advised

the Board that the boiler would be shut down on March 29,

1970 for approximately two weeks for a complete overhaul.

On April 14, 1970 the boiler first began to heat up

after the layoff and dense smoke emission on that occasion

was again reported. Fine adjustments were made to the

equipment and no further smoking was observed. On January

25, 1971, however, a representative of the EPA again made

a notation of smoke in excess of #2 Ringelmann from

Pfizer’s stack. Pfizer was unaware of this alleged emission

and was not informed of it until the EPA filed its com-

plaint in this case. Pfizer’s records do indicate that the

steam loads at Pfizer’s plant on January 25, 1971 were high

due to a heavy production load. In order to alleviate a

reoccurrence of this type of problem, Pfizer installed a

time sequencing device on its dryers which tends to stabilize

boiler loads and eliminate dense smoke emissions. The

installation of this device was completed on October 15, 1971.

On September 21, 1971, representatives of Pfizer met with

representatives of the EPA to discuss the complaint in this

case. Pfizer explained recent changes made within the plant

to reduce emissions of fly ash, dense smoke and red dust.

3— 151

At Pfizer’s suggestion, two engineers of the EPA made

arrangements to tour the East St. Louis plant to observe

such changes. On September 24, 1971, the two EPA

engineers noted the 

modifications 

and additions Pfizer

had made to its emissions reduction facilities, particularly

including the capability of a power sweeper which Pfizer

had purchased to clean up any accumulations

of red dust

and other oxides. The two EPA engineers believed that

the time sequencing device on the Company’s dryers would

help to eliminate future smoke emissions from the plant’s

boiler stacks.

Subsequent to this visit, the EPA recommended several minor

modifications which it felt would further reduce the risk

of emissions at the Pfizer plant. ~Copies of two letters

from the Manager of EPA’s Surveillance Section Division of

Air Pollution Control, dated October 1 (Ex. A) and October

1971 (Ex. B), respectively, are attached to this

stipulation. Pfizer agreed to implement the recommendations

made in such letters and confirm such agreement in a letter

to the EPA dated October 14, 1971, (Ex. C) a copy of which

is also attached to the stipulation.

If is further stipulated and agreed by and between the

parties that this Stipulation may be considered as though

such facts were proven by testimony and evidence introduced

on the trial of the complaint filed herein.

The stipulation and further testimony at the hearing show that

air pollution has occurred by the emission of red dust from the plant.

Additionally there has been an unexcused violation of the opacity

rules by the emission of smoke in excess of Ringelmann No. 2

from apower plant stack~onJanuary 25, 1971. There has also been

a violation of the Environmental Protection Act by the installation

and operation of a dust collector ~t Pfizer’s powerhou~~ewithout

having first obtained a permit.

Mr. Anton M. Telford, an air pollution regional manager for

the EPA testified that the rules which required that a permit be ob-

tained were first passed in 1967 (R,36-37). The requirement for a per-

mit~wasreiterated very exPlicity in the Environmental Protection Act.3-~

II  Environmental Protection Act

Section 

No person shall:

(b) Construct, install, or operate any equipment, facility,

vehicle, vessel, or aircraft capable of causing or contributing

to air pollution or designed to prevent air pollution, of any

type designed by Board regulations, without a permit granted

by the Agency, or in violation of any conditions imposed by such

permit;

3—152

There was testimony relating to visible emissions of fugitive,

iron oxide, red dust (R. 31). Houses situated several hundred

yards from the plant were said to be discolored (R, 40-41, 43)

Mr. Barry Phegan, an employee of the East St. Louis Public Housing

Authority in charge of maintenance, testified to seeing a red haze

in the area of the plant (R.40—4l) and to recent instances of

discoloration of outside construction. Mr. Phegan stated that he

had seen some buildings under construction within the period four

or five months previous to the hearing which were discolored (R.43)

Undoubtedly use of the newly acquired sweeper will enhance the

working conditions within the plant. However, the sweeper does not

figure to do very much for the ambient air pollution problem. The

sweeper will be gathering settled dust while the principal concern, as

regards air pollution, is that range of particle size susceptible

to becoming airborne. Some, perhaps most, of the smaller particles,

will likely be an aerosol and an air contaminant by the time the

dust covering the ground has been collected.

Three instances of violation of the rules 2 regarding smoke

density are alleged in the complaint. Two of the episodes, while

not fully explained, appear to have been unavoidable andto have been

expeditiously dealt with by the company and we will impose no penalty

for them. We find a violation connected with the occurence on

January 25, 1971 for which we will impose a penalty.

We are not requiring periodic reports in this matter as

suggested both by the EPA and Pfizer. It appears unnecessary to

do so. This is not a variance proceeding following which it

might be anticipated that petitioner would be embarked upon a

program of compliance. Presumably the company is presently in

compliance with the Environmental Protection Act and applicable

2T~ State of Illinois Air Pollution Control Board

Rules and Regulations Governing the Control of Air Pollution

Rule 3—3.122

The production or emission of dense smoke is prohibited. No

person shall cause, suffer or allow to be emitted into the open

air from any fuel—burning equipment, internal combustion engine,

premise, open fire, or stack smoke the appearance, density,

or shade of which is No. 2 or darker, of the Ringelmann Chart

except as provided in Rule 3-3.300.

Rule 3-3.310 Maintenance of Power or Heating Plant

When building a new fire, when manually cleaning a fire or when

blowing tubes and flues in a power plant, heating plant or domestic

heating plant, smoke may be emitted of an appearance, density or

shade equal to or darker than No. 2 of the Ringelmann Chart for a

period or periods aggregating not more than six (6) minutes in

any observed sixty (60) minute period.

3— 

153

regulat±ohs thereunder. If they are not either at this time,

at a later time at which a report is suggested to be submitted,

would undertake another enforcement action and should not

hesitate to do so simply because the instant action has been

instituted and completed.

The record discloses that the company apparently is no

longer causing the air pollution alleged in the complaint. We

will, however, enter a cease and desist order to be assured

in that regard, now and in the future.

I would impose a money penalty of $3,000.00 in this case

embracing the three categories in which violations were found.

The majority of the Board, however, believes that the penalty

should be set at $1,000.00. The amount of the penalty in

this case is greatly mitigated by the fact that the company

has apparently been cooperative and diligent in dealing with

air pollution problem areas after they had become aware of

them either through the filing of this action or otherwise.

The company feels that the problems in all three of the major

areas cited by the EPA in the instant complaint have been solved

and we join them in hopi.ng that that is, and will continue to be,

the state of the facts.

This opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and

conclusions of law.

3— 154

ORDER

The Board, having considered the complaint, stipulation of

facts, transcript and exhibits in this proceeding HEREBY ORDERS:

1.  That Pfizer, Inc. pay to the State of Illinois, on or before

December 7, 1971, the sum of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00)

as a penalty for the violations of the Environmental Protection

Act and rules thereunder found herein.

2.  That Pfizer, Inc. cease and desist such emissions from its

East St. Louis plant as are violative of the prohibitions in the

Environmental Protection Act and rules thereunder.

I, Christan Moffett, Acting Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, hereby certify that the Board adopted the above

Opinion and Order on ~~day of November, 1971.

hristan Moffett

Acting Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board