May 11, 1978

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

)

Complainant-Respondent,

)

)

)

v.

)

PCB 77—178

)

PCB 77-~281

)

CONSOLIDATED

)

KOPPERS COMPANY,

INC., a Delaware

)

corporation,

)

)

Respondent-Petitioner.

)

JEFFREY

S. HERDEN, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL,

APPEARED

FOR

COMPLAINANT-RESPONDENT;

JOSEPH P. DELIA MARIA,

JR., ROTHSCHILD, DARRY &

MYERS, APPEARED

FOR THE RESPONDENT-PETITIONER.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Goodman):

This matter is a consolidation of an enforcement action filed

by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) against

Koppers Company, Incorporated (Koppers), designated PCB 77-178,

and a Variance Petition filed by Koppers,

designated

PCB 77-281.

Two hearings were held in this matter; no members of the public

were present at the hearings, and no public comment has been re-

ceived by the Board. On February 6, 1978, the parties hereto

filed a Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement before the Boarch

Koppers

()Wfl~

~iruIoperates

a

manufactur

JD(J

f~c

ii i ty

locat:e(1

in

an industrial area in Stickney, Illinois. where it produces

phthalic anhydride and tar products. The facility employs approxi-

mately 190 persons with an annual payroll of over $2,000,000.

Koppers utilizes six reactors which produce phthalic anhydride, a

basic industrial chemical used in the manufacture of paints and

coatings, pharmaceuticals, resins and plastics, Production from

the facility is the sole or principal source

of supply for eleven

companies located

in Illinois who t~ti1ize 13,000,000 of the total

216,000,000 pounds of phthalic anhydride produced annually. Other

companies in neighboring states also utilize the product of this

installation.

30-177

---

Existing eii~ironmentai

r. I

;:

~

at

the

facility

consists

of four wet scruhb~r~

Cr

‘~

:

~L9

Jn

~ .~ra11ei.. Stack analy-

sis has shown that each of

the

~

:~ed~

the

design

efficiency

of 97;

for the r’~~ ~

C.

~.yqa:~,

However, on several

occasions since i~nstaLI~tiC.

~-~:

~h

~

ui~A~rs, ~o~ers

has ex-

perienced incideii,ts :f “;eritia:i

ll~Cii

iU~

C

-

t~p~ets in the basic

process or the scrubbei~ duri~f~, ~

~nea material has been

deposited on trudks, trd,ctors~

~s ~e

automobiles

parked

near th~p~h~iç.anhydg~ide

faC.~IL:;.

~

La

the vehicle finish

ensues ~

dep~ic

1

~.

~..ea

within a short

per iod

On June

30,

1977, t~heAyeir.:..~ ~:

.

~~aint

against Koppers

alleging violaticns

of ~ctiI~xi

~

‘

f h~ ~x~vironm~ntal

Protection

Act (Act) and Rule 102

~f

Lhe

ri:. I

~

~

Rt~quiations.

Koppers

alleges it had

to

know ~hethe~

i

r

~

~ .r:equired to control

carbon monoxide before ~nginee;~.iu

.~

t.f~

c~q?ipr.erit

necessary to stop

the

~

~roble~

,~pd

~

~

waiting until the reso-

luti~ af~ ~~boi~i M~i~i~idE~

~

L~

~.:,

~S..er1tly before th~ Board.

Subs~uent ~

entz~nm~r4t ~

-.

1~ne, 1977, Koppers agreed

to ~~t~ii

~h

~

~knd~ffi~

~Sy~tem

at a cost of

approximately

$1.3

million,

C~fi

~

~77, Koppers filed a

Petition for

Va:rj.ance

requei~-.~.F

~h:::’~t Section 9(a) of the Act

and Rules 1.02 ~an~ 205~f) of çhap~~

1

i:~r~i~~r~veinber

30, 1978, to

allow time to in~ta1I~iH:~~

c.p1~ers

is

corrnnitted to the

following

construction seheciu 1~

~

~

‘~4

rC:~

~ ~~~S*~2Uc

~id?+~ii

~

~

site,

~ ~

~-.

j.•, ~

~~.r~rrqLu~)

Fii~LO~i.

~

l~ ~

40f3r

ion of

~~

~

~

~~

~~

~

.~.

I

~

I i

~

~

;fi ~

~em~ ete

~ ~

~

,

~

f~~

~

~

~~~

Jr~ odd iLii~

~

. ~

C

~

..~-

I (‘Ct for

CioIu;

suIsecjU~fl U) t

tir

i

i

t

y

Lciii

dud to fi

l(

an op~ra~1n~

P~r~1~t

~

~

~ t~t1

dItCt

completion

of te~

~

“

iLflI SOI~ aiditi~nd1 E?qulprflent

and w~

~

tidui

and maintenance

procedi~ir~

~

L

of

an episode of

entraiflrn~

rLf~

~

~

i ~r the affected

train à~’udn~

~ ~rs

W1~I offer to

wash, ~

r~Iit~hare sprayed by

the én”~rain~éd

~ ~

r~

I~o:Cish truck drivers at

the affe~te~

sk~L’~ers~foi

uheir~trucks, tractors,

---

—3—

and automobiles. In addition, Koppers agrees to post a performance

bond in a form satisfactory

to the Agency in the amount of $200,000

and to provide quarterly progress reports to the Agency.

The Agency believes that Koppers is acting properly to solve

what is a very difficult problem. The solution to this

problem

will cost in excess of $1.3 million. Therefore, the Agency

recommends that no penalty be imposed by the Board in this case.

The

only point of disagreement between the parties herein is

whether Koppers should be granted variance from Section 9(a) of

the Act and Rule 102 of the Air Pollution Regulations.

The Board finds that the Proposed Settlement Stipulation is

a reasonable resolution of the issues presented in the enforcement

case and protects the State’s environment. TheBoard agrees that

Koppers has reacted to the problem in good faith and will therefore

not assess a penalty in this matter. With regard to the granting

of a variance from Rule 102 of the Air Regulations and Section 9(a)

of the Act, the Board finds that Koppers’ request is generally in

the nature of a petition for an emergency variance, and as the

Board has said many times in the past, we will not grant variances

for speculative emergency situations. There is no way the Board

can weigh the potential environmental harm against the hardship to

the Company since there is no way of determining with any certainty

the environmental harm caused by a potential emergency situation.

The Board will therefore deny variance

from

Section 9(a) of the Act

and Rule 102 of the Regulations.

This Opinion constitutes the finding of facts and conclusions

of law of the Board in this matter.

ORDER

It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that:

1. Koppers Company, Incorporated, is found to have

violated Rule 102 of the Air Pollution Control

Regulations and Section 9(a) of the Environmental

Protection Act.

2. Koppers Company, Incorporated, shall execute the

compliance schedule as indicated in the Stipu-

lation and Proposal for Settlement filed before

the Board on February 6, 1978, which instrument

is hereby incorporated by reference as if fully

set forth herein.

30-179

---

3.

Kopper~ Coripary, T~

variance from Ru~L

:1

Regulations until

4.

Petition f or ‘aui~

Environmental PLO c

the Air Pollutioc 4e

i~

5. Within 45 days ~f

-

Koppers Company

and forward to botr t’

Protection Agency,

field, Illinois 62 6

Board

d

Certifi:ai~.

ment to be bound to

3

this Order The 45

abeyance during a:j

appealed. The torn ~r

be as follows:

I (We)

full1 ‘u~derst~ndina

Pollution Controj b~

281 (Consolidated

i

agree to be burd ~

tions thereof

I, Christen L.

MoL

Cl

Control

Board, hereby coil

were adopted or the

of

_____

nt granted

Pollution

9(a) of the

r: u o l~2of

.~‘

~by denied.

l~s Order,

~xecute

‘

ionr~enta1

3

Spring—

1

~on Control

end Agree—

~nditions of

nI be held in

er is being

~ation shall

7~nqread and

illinois

I~’8 and PCB

77—

d Order and

~us and condi—

:is Pollution

r~ and Order

1918

by a vote

N

f~ct~

erk

I

iticn trol Board