ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
May 5, 1988
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
)
Complainant,
V.
)
PCB 88—28
AMOCO CHEMICALS COMPANY,
A Delaware Company
Respondent.
MS. CARLA DAVIS, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON BEHALF
OF COMPLAINANT.
MR. DALE M. IWATAKI APPEARED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by R. C. Flemal):
This matter comes before the Board upon a four—count
complaint filed February 1, 1988, by the Illinois Attorney
General’s Office on behalf of the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency, arid a contemporaneously filed Stipulation and
Proposal for Settlement (Joint Exhibit 1). The Stipulation
addresses the facts and terms of settlement in this matter.
Hearing was held April 15, 1988.
The Board has considered all the facts, circumstances, and
the proposed settlement in light of the criteria set forth at
Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. lll~/2par. 1033(c) and finds the Stipulation
and Proposal for Settlement acceptable under 35 Ill. Adm. Code
103.180. Accordingly, the Board will accept the Stipulation and
order that its terms be carried out.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
The Board hereby accepts the Stipulation of Facts and
Proposal for Settlement, a copy of which is attached and
incorporated by reference as if set forth in full and directs
that its terms be carried out.
89—109
—2--
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Board Member J. Theodore Meyer dissented.
I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the ab ye Opinion and Order was
adopted~on the
~
day of
______________,
1988, by a vote
of
_________.
Dorothy M. nn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
89—110
~©1~U~II1
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
~ft~4RrEB
I
~88
U U~ SIATt OF IWNO1S
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
POtIUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
)
Complainant,
)
V.
)
PCB
~-
)
AMOCO CHEMICALS COMPANY,
)
a Delaware corporation
)
)
Respondent.
STIPULATION AND PROPOSAL FOR SETTLEMENT
Complainant, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, by its
attorney, Neil F. Hartigan, Attorney General of the State of
Illinois,
and Respondent, Amoco Chemicals Company, by its attorney,
Ronald J. Ganim, submit this Stipulation and Proposal for
Settlement. The parties agree that the statement of facts contained
herein represents a fair summary of the evidence and testimony that
would be introduced by the parties if a full hearing were held.
The
parties further stipulate that this statement of facts is made and
agreed upon for purposes of settlement only and that neither the
fact that a party has entered into this Stipulation,
nor any of the
facts stipulated herein, shall be introduced into evidence in this
or any other proceeding except to enforce the terms
hereof by the
parties to this agreement. This agreement shall be null and void
unless the Illinois Pollution Control
Board (“Board”) approves and
disposes of
this matter on the terms
of the settlement set forth
herein.
89—111
—2—
I.
JURISDICTION
The Board has jurisdiction of the subject matter herein and of
the parties consenting hereto pursuant to the Illinois Environmental
Protection Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 111 1/2, pars. 1001 ~
1985).
II.
AUTHOR I ZAT ION
The undersigned representatives Ear each party certify that they
are fully authorized by the party whom they represent to enter into
the terms and conditions of this Stipulation and Proposal for
Settlement and to legally bind them to it.
III.
APPLICABILITY
This Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement (“Settlement”)
shall apply to and be binding upon the Complainant and Respondent,
as well as the successors and assignees of each and any officer,
director, agent, employee or servant of Respondent. The Respondent
shall not raise as a defense to any enforcement action taken
pursuant to this Settlement the failure of any of its agents,
servants or employees to take such action as shall be required to
comply with the provisions of this Settlement.
89—112
—3—
IV
UNCONTESTED FACTS
A. Complainant, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(hereinafter “Agency” or “IEPA”), is an administrative agency
established in the executive branch of the State government by
Section 4 of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act (hereinafter
“the Act”) (Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 111 1/2, par. 1001 ~ ~g. 1985),
and charged, inter alia, with the duty of enforcing the Act,
pursuant to Title VIII thereof and recovering civil penalties
pursuant to Title XII thereof.
B. Respondent, Amoco Chemicals Company (“Amoco”) is a Delaware
corporation duly authorized to conduct business in the State of
Illinois.
C. At all times pertinent hereto Amoco has owned and operated an
incinerator on its trimellitic anhydride (TMA) unit at its chemical
plant located approximately one mile southeast of Interstate 55 and
U.S.6 near Channahon in Will County, Illinois. The purpose of this
incinerator is to dispose of organic wastes produced during the
manufacture of TMA from pseudocumene.
D. The TMA unit incinerator was originally permitted by the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency in 1972 (I.D. 197800AAC,
Permit No. 02100288). Under this permit, particulate emissions
generated by the TMA incinerator were controlled by an electrostatic
precipitator (ESP). In January of 1980, Amoco received a permit to
construct a new ESP on the TMA incinerator to replace the existing
ESP which had been damaged beyond repair in December of 1979.
89—113
—4—
Following a demonstration of compliance with applicable Illinois air
pollution regulations, a renewal operating permit was issued for the
TMA unit incinerator and ESP. Several subsequent renewal operating
permits were issued for this equipment, the most recent being on June
30, 1987.
E. On April 30, 1985, the Agency conducted an inspection of the
Amoco TMA unit incinerator. Based upon this April 30, 1985 inspec-
tion, the Agency sent Amoco a Compliance Inquiry Letter (CIL) on May
6, 1985, alleging the following apparent violations as observed by
the Agency:
1. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 212.123
—
Visual emissions from TMA in-
cinerator in excess of the allowable opacity limitation.
2. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 212.181
—
Particulate emissions from the
TMA incinerator in excess of the allowable particulate
emission rate.
3. 35 Iii. Adm. Code 201.161
—
Operation of the TMA unit in-
cinerator with ESP below the design efficiency as required
by Special Condition 3 of Amoco’s May 7, 1984 operating
permit.
F. On May 21, 1985, Mr. A. E. Ruscilli, Plant Manager, responded to
the May 6 CIL, describing the situation at the Joliet plant and
Amoco’s action to resolve it. In summary, the excess emissions
89—114
—5—
alleged by IEPA occurred when the performance of the ESP on the
trimellitic anhydride incinerator deteriorated unexpectedly and for
unknown reasons. When the deteriorated performance occurred, Amoco
took immediate action to evaluate the situation and devise a
correction. Amoco retained several outside consultants. On June
18, 1985, Amoco submitted a plan of action to resolve the
situation. Under the plan submitted by Amoco, the deteriorated
performance of the ESP would be remedied by September 27, 1985,
provided that the existing ESP did not have to be replaced.
However, if replacement of the ESP with some other type of
particulate emission control equipment was determined to be
necessary, a final project completion date could not be predicted.
G. The Agency inspected the Amoco TMA unit incinerator on June 11,
1985 and July 23, 1985. The Agency concluded that the apparent
violations observed in April of that year were continuing despite
Amoco’s efforts. Consequently, on July 26, 1985, the IEPA wrote to
Amoco and requested that a Pre-Enforcement Conference be convened.
The purpose of the requested conference, as stated in the letter,
was to discuss the validity of the apparent violations and to arrive
at a program to eliminate existing and/or future violations. In
addition, Amoco was notified that the letter constituted the notice
required by Section 31(d) of the Illinois Environmental Protection
Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 111 1/2, par. lo3ltd).
89—115
—6—
H. On August 21, 1985, the Pre—Enforcement Conference was held at
EPA’s Maywood, Illinois, office. Pursuant to that meeting, Amoco
presented by letter dated September 4, 1985, a plan of action to
deal with the particulate emissions associated with the operation of
the TMA unit incinerator. In summary, the plan provided for a brief
period for Amoco to evaluate the equipment and promptly determine if
the existing ESP could be upgraded or whether a new control device
needed to be installed. If all attempts to achieve compliance with
the existing ESP failed by November 14, 1985, it was Amoco’s
intention to initiate plans to install new particulate control
equipment in the form of new ESP or baghouse.
I. On November 8, 1985, Amoco furnished an update to IEPA on the
status of Amoco’s actions regarding the TMA unit incinerator. A
project schedule for replacement of the ESP, if necessary, was also
provided, terminating on June J., 1987. However, Amoco stated that
it was continuing its efforts to improve the performance of the
existing ESP, and would forego the purchase of new equipment if the
existing ESP “can be modified to meet the Illinois Rules prior to
entering into a binding contract for replacement equipment.” In its
November 8, 1985 letter, Amoco estimated that it had spent $700,000
to date in its efforts to upgrade the ESP. Further compliance
expenditures were estimated to be between $100,000 (if existing
equipment was rehabilitated) and $1,000,000 (for the purchase of new
particulate control equipment).
89—116
—7—
J. Between January and May of 1986, pursuant to the above project
schedule, Amoco conducted intensive engineering studies to determine
a process design for replacement control equipment, to estimate
costs and construction schedules and to prepare a bid package for
submittal to vendors.
K. On May 28, 1986, Amoco wrote to IEPA and committed to replacing
the ESP with a new baghouse. Amoco anticipated that construction
would be completed on December 31, 1986.
L. On June 4, 1986, Amoco submitted a permit application for the
replacement baghouse (Permit No. 86060021). In its submittal Amoco
stated that the total cost of the baghouse project would be $2.3
million.
M. A construction permit for the TMA unit incinerator baghouse
system was issued by the Agency on September 5, 1986. As a special
condition of this permit Amoco was to conduct stack tests to
determine particulate emission rates and destruction removal
efficiency of the Principal Organic Hazardous Component (POHC) in
the TMA incinerator feed.
N. On November 19, 1986, Amoco completed the installation of the
baghouse. Stack tests were performed on December 16 and 17, 1986.
89—117
—8—
V.
CONTESTED FACTS
A. The Agency contends that Amoco’s operation of the TMA unit
incinerator with ESP has resulted in the following violations of
Section 9 of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act (Ill. Rev.
Stat. 1985, ch. 111 1/2, par. 1009) and the Board’s Air Pollution
Control Regulations (35 Ill. Adm. Code, Subtitle B, Chapter I), as
alleged in Counts I
-
IV of the Agency’s Complaint:
1. Section 9(a) of the Act, 35 Ill. Adm. Code 212.123 and
201.141
—
Emission of smoke or other particulate matter
into the atmosphere of an opacity greater than that allowed
by this Section on April 30, 1985, June 12, 1986 and July
17, 1986.
2. Section 9(a) of the Act, 35 Ill. Adm. Code 212.181(b) and
201.141
—
Emission of particulate matter into the
atmosphere in excess of the particulate emission rate
allowed by this Section since at least April 30, 1985 to
November 19, 1986. Complainant alleges that operation of
the TMA unit incinerator with a malfunctioning ESP has
resulted in the annual emission of 83 tons of particulate
over the allowable particulate rate of 24T/yr.
3. Section 9(b) of the Act
—
Operation of the TMA unit
incinerator ESP below design efficiency, as required by
Special Condition 3(b) in the plant operating permit issued
May 7, 1984 since at least April 30, 1985 to December 31,
1985.
89—118
—9—
4. Section 9(b) of the act, 35 Ill. Mm. Code 201.144 and
201.141
-
Operation of the TNA unit incinerator without an
operating permit from January 1, 1986 to June 30, 1987.
B. Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations of Counts I
—
Iv as summarized above, and adduces no evidence to contest same.
VI
SECTION 33(C) FACTORS
(Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 111—1/2, par. 1033c1985j)
Section 33(c) of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act
provides:
In making its orders and determinations, the Board shall take
into consideration all the facts and circumstances bearing upon
the reasonableness of the emissions, discharges, or deposits
involved including, but not limited to:
1. the character and degree of injury to, or interference with
the protection of the health, general welfare and physical
property of the people;
2. the social and economic value of the pollution source;
3. the suitability or unsuitability of the pollution source to
the area in which it is located, including the question of
priority of location in the area involved; and
89—119
—
10
—
4. the technical practicability and economic reasonableness of
red~.icing or eliminating the emissions, discharges or
deposits resulting from such pollution source.
In response to each of these factors the Agency states as
follows:
A. The Amoco TMA unit incinerator generates particulate emissions.
The most recent Illinois Annual Air Quality Report, prepared by the
Agency, contains the following statements on the potentially adverse
health and welfare effects of particulate emissions. For the
purposes of this section, it should be noted that particulate
particles emitted from the TMA incinerator have varied considerably
in size. A June 20, 1985 particle size run on the inlet to the ESP
revealed that 70 of the particulate was smaller than one (1) micron
in size. Testing conducted on July 9, 1985, demonstrated that 75
of the particulate was larger than ten (10) microns.
Particles which cause the most health and visibility
difficulties are those less than 1.0 microns in size. These
particles are also the most difficult to reduce in numbers by
the various industrial removal techniques. Rainfall accounts
for the major removal of these smaller particles from the air.
One of the major problems associated with high concentrations of
particulates is that the interaction between the particles,
sunlight, and atmospheric moisture can potentially result in the
climatic effects and diminished visibility (haze). Particles
play a key role in the formation of clouds, and emissions of
large numbers of particles can, in some instances, result in
local increases in cloud formation and, possibly precipitation.
Particles in the size range of 0.1 to 1.0 microns are the most
efficient in scattering visible light (wave length 0.4 to 0.7
microns) thereby reducing visibility. Particles combined with
high humidity can result in the formation of haze which can
cause hazardous conditions for the operation of motor vehicles
and aircraft.
89—120
—
11
—
Particulate pollutants enter the human body by way of the
respiratory system and their most immediate effects are upon
this system. The size of the particle determines its depth of
penetration into the respiratory system. Particles over 5
microns are generally deposited in the nose and throat. Those
that do penetrate deeper in the respiratory system to the air
ducts (bronchi) are often removed by ciliary action. Particles
ranging in size from 0.5
—
5.0 microns in diameter can be
deposited in the bronchi, with few reaching the air sacs
(alveoli). Most particles deposited in the bronchi are removed
by the cilia within hours. Particles less than 0.5 micron in
diameter reach and may settle in the alveoli. The removal of
particles from the alveoli is much less rapid and complete than
from the larger passages. Some of the particles retained in the
alveoli are absorbed into the blood.
Besides particulate size, the oxidation state, chemical
composition, concentration, and length of time in the
respiratory system contribute to the health effects of
particulates. Particulates have been associated with increased
respiratory diseases (asthma, bronchitis, emphysema),
cardiopulmonary disease (heart attack), and cancer.
Plant surfaces and growth rates may be adversely affected by
particulate matter. Particulate air pollution also causes a
wide range of damage to materials including corrosion of metals
and electrical equipment, and the soiling of textiles and
buildings.
B. The Amoco TMA unit is located at Amoco’s Joliet plant, one mile
southeast of the junction of Highways 1-55 and U.S.6 in Channahon
Township, Will County. Channahon Township is designated by the
United States Environmental Agency as secondary non-attainment for
particulates. The 24 hour secondary ambient air quality standard
for particulates is 150 ug/m3. Based upon the information
contained in the most recent Illinois Annual Air Quality Report, in
1985 one exceedence of the secondary standard was detected at the
TSP monitor closest to the Amoco plant (in Rockdale, Illinois, at
Midland & Otis). In 1986 no exceedences were detected at this
monitor.
89—121
—
12
—
C. The parties agree that Amoco’s manufacture of TMA at its Joliet
plant is of significant social and economic benefit. TMA is used as
a plasticizer for polymers in paint, coatings and other materials
used in high temperature applications.
D. The Amoco Joliet TMA unit is located in an industrial area.
There are no residences located in the immediate vicinity of the
plant.
E. Discharges of particulates during the operation of the TMA unit
incinerator can be effectively controlled by the baghouse which
Amoco has constructed pursuant to the construction permit issued by
the Agency.
VII
PROPOSAL FOR SETTLEMENT
As a result of settlement negotiations between the parties and
the actions taken by Respondent, the parties believe that the public
interest and the environment will be best served by resolution of
this enforcement action under the terms and conditions provided
herein. This proposal for settlement will be effective upon the
approval of the Board. All statements contained herein are agreed
to for purposes of settling this action only and shall be null and
void and of no effect if the Board does not approve this proposal
for settlement in its entirety.
89—122
—
13
—
VIII
TERMS OF SETTLEMENT
Amoco and IEPA have agreed to the following Terms of
Settlement. These terms shall be in full settlement of the action
filed herein by the Agency and Amoco’s liability for all violations
alleged by IEPA in its Complaint.
A. Amoco neither admits nor denies the violations of Section 9 of
the Act, 35 Ill. Adrn. Code 212.123, 212.181(b), 201.144 and 201.141
as alleged by the Agency in the Complaint filed in this action.
B. The Respondent agrees to comply with the Illinois Environmental
Protection Act and Rules and Regulations of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board applicable to the operation of the TMA unit
incinerator at the Amoco facility located one mile southeast of the
Junction of 1-55 and U.S.6, near Channahon, Illinois.
C. Following the receipt and review of an operating permit
application containing stack test results demonstrating that the
operation of the TMA incinerator with baghouse will not cause or
allow a violation of the Act or the Board’s Air Pollution
Regulations in accordance with Section 39(a) of the Act (Ill. Rev.
Stat. ch. 111—1/2, par. l039a), the Agency will issue an operating
permit to Amoco for the TMA incinerator and baghouse. Amoco agrees
to abide by all terms and conditions of the operating permit to be
issued.
D. The parties enter into this Stipulation and Proposal for
Settlement and Amoco agrees to pay the penalty specified in this
paragraph in order to avoid the substantial costs and inconvenience
and uncertainties of litigation. In order to resolve this dispute
89—123
—
14
—
and as a condition of settlement, the Respondent agrees to pay a
penalty of $30,000 into the Environmental Protection Trust Fund
within 30 days from the date the Board adopts a final order
approving, accepting and incorporating this Stipulation and Proposal
for Settlement. Payment shall be made by certified check or money
order and shall be sent by first class mail to:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Fiscal Services Division
2200 Churchill Road
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794—9276
The parties agree that said civil penalty aids in enforcement of the
Act.
IX
COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS
A. This Settlement Agreement in no way affects Respondent’s
responsibility to comply with any federal, state or local
regulations, including but not limited to, the Illinois
Environmental Protection Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 111—1/2, par. 1001
et
~
1985) and the Illinois Pollution Control Board Air
Pollution Control Regulations at the Amoco facility located one mile
southeast of the junction of 1—55 and U.S.6, near Channahon, Illinois
B. This Settlement Agreement resolves and disposes of all past and
existing violations, which could have been alleged based on facts
known to Complainant at the time of filing the Complaint. However,
nothing in this Settlement Agreement shall be construed as a waiver
by Complainant of the right to redress future violations or obtain
penalties with respect thereto.
89—124
—
15
—
WHEREFORE, Complainant and Respondent jointly request that the
Board adopt and accept the foregoing Stipulation and Proposal for
Settlement as written.
FOR COMPLAINANT:
FOR RESPONDENT:
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
AMOCO CHEMICALS COMPANY
PROTECTION AGENCY
~o~eph
.
S~oboda, Esq.
Ronald J. anim, Esq.
~nager, Enforcement Programs
Dated:
///~
Dated:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Neil F. Hartigan
Dated:
___________________
0730B
89—125
