ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
January
9,
1986
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
)
Complainant,
)
)
v.
)
PCB 81-27
)
CABOT CORPORATION,
)
)
Respondent.
)
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by J. Theodore Meyer):
This matter comes before the Board
on
a February 19, 1981
complaint filed by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency) against Cabot Corporation (Cabot). Count I alleges that
Cabot emitted contaminants arising from the manufacture of
silicon tetrachioride on several dates from December 11, 1970
through January 24, 1980. Counts II through IX allege violations
of air and water pollution regulations arising out of the
collapse on December 19, 1979 of
a
tank containing silicon
tetrachioride.
There is no relationship
alleged between the
emissions enumerated in Count I and the December 19, 1979 event.
On March 19, 1981 Cabot filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint on statute of limitations
grounds which was denied by
Board order of April 16, 1981. Hearings
were scheduled and
cancelled repeatedly over a four year period.
On November 7,
1985 a Stipulation and Proposal for
Settlement was filed.
Hearing on the settlement,
as well as related permitting matters,
was held on November 6, 1985. The stipulation provides that
Cabot does not admit “the sufficiency of the facts to form a
foundational basis for a finding of violation of the
Environmental Protection Act” but does not contest the facts as
stipulated to. (Stip. at 7—8). Should the Board determine that
a violation occurred, Cabot agrees to make a payment of $17,500
to the Illinois Environmental Protection Trust Fund.
Stipulated Facts
The stipulated facts provide that Cabot owns and operates a
chemical manufacturing plant in an industrial park situated
approximately 5 miles from Tuscola in a rural area of Douglas
County, Illinois. The plant employs approximately 175 people.
The plant manufactures a silica product (Sb2) known as Cab-0-
Sil®. This product is made by reacting silicon tetrachlor±de
(siltet) or a blend of siltet and methyl trichlorosilarte (MTCS)
with hydrogen and air in a flame process. Cab-0—Sil® is
collected, treated and shipped to customers either in bags or in
67-365
-2--
bulk cars. The end uses of this product include: as a
reinforcement agent for silicone rubber; as a thickening agent
for
sealants,
polyester resin and other chemicals; for rheology
control, and as a free flowing agent. The by—product, hydrogen
chloride gas, is absorbed through scrubbers and recovered as
muriatic acid.
The stipulation Eurther provides that Cabot owned and
operated several storage tanks on the grounds of the plant (the
Tank Farm) used to store various raw materials, including the
siltet and MTCS used in manufacturing Cab—O-Sil®. Sometime in
1974-5 all storage tanks were taken out of service and replaced
with pressure vessels (spheres or bullets). In 1979, only two
tanks remained; these were kept only for use in an emergency
requiring transfer of stored raw material from one of the
pressure vessels. An unknown quantity of NTCS and siltet residue
(heel) remained below the outlet valve level in the tank
bottoms. On December 19, 1979, at approximately 4:42 a.m.,
without warning, one of the two remaining storage tanks collapsed
causing the escape of the siltet and MTCS blend contained
therein. The collapse was caused by excess pressure but the
cause of the pressure build-up is unknown. It is estimated that
the tank contained a heel of between 3,000 to 8,000 gallons.
Some quantity thereof escaped from the tank, only a small amount
of which escaped from the diking containment and liquid
impoundment system
surrounding the tank. A small amount of
siltet/MTCS blend was splashed or thrown over the top of the dike
onto adjacent railroad tracks by the force of the tank collapse.
Attendant fumes of hydrogen chloride and hydrogen chloride mist
were created and began to leave the site at once.
Immediately after the spill, Cabot proceeded in accordance
with its emergency response plan. The appropriate authorities
were immediately notified. Residents within a 2 mile radius and
plant employees were evacuated. Clean-up and containment was
undertaken and included securing the dike and shutting
appropriate valves in the Tank Farm to make sure all acid liquid
would be contained. Cabot personnel were required to wear
emergency escape respirators, hard hats, safety glasses and
goggles. Rain type and total enclosure type acid suits were worn
by those working close to the spiii.
Water was used to dilute the acid spilled on the tracks and
knock down the acid fumes in the atmosphere. Dow Corning
Silicone 200 oil was poured into the diked area so as to spread
over the spill surface area and subdue the fumes. At this point
the spill material was pumped into empty 55 gallon drums. Once
the spilled liquid was removed, however, the exposed rocky areas
of the dikes began fuming again.
Cabot
personnel attempted
to
utilize an AFFF-water foam to prevent this fuming but improper
mixing of the AFFF material with water caused a reaction with the
siltet/MTCS blend so as to cause more fumes. At this point the
67-366
—3-
Illinois State Police ordered Route 36* closed for an unknown
period of time. Oil was then sprayed onto the ground and the
remaining liquid surface to prevent more fuming. The remaining
spilled contents were neutralized by the introduction of caustic
lime and then diluted. The diluted neutralized liquid was then
pumped to a holding dike and properly disposed of.
The volumetric amount of siltet/MTCS blend collected was 57
drums of 55 gallon capacity. The total volume of spilled
chemical, silicon oil, water and dirt collected was 2500 to 2700
gallons, such drums not having all been filled to capacity. No
reports of personal injuries were received other than a minor
foot injury to a Cabot employee. Approximately fifty property
damage claims were eventually paid by Cabot or its insurer.
Findings
Count I is unrelated to the spill incident which occurred on
December 19, 1979 but rather charges that from December 11, 1970
to January 24, 1980 inclusive Respondent caused or allowed the
discharge of hydrogen chloride gas, hydrochloric acid mist and/or
chlorine gas so as to cause air pollution. As no facts are
stipulated to which would support a Board finding that such
discharges did occur over the ten-year period alleged, the Board
is unable to find that such violations occurred.
Count II specifically concerns the events of December 19,
1979 and alleges that Respondent caused or allowed the creation
of air pollution through the releases of hydrogen chloride gas
and hydrochloric acid mist in violation of Section 9(a) and
former Rule 102 of the Board’s Air Pollution Regulations (now 35
Ill. Adm. Code 201.141).
Section 9(a) of the Act provides:
No person shall:
a. Cause or threaten or allow the discharge or
emission of any contaminant into the environment
in any State so as to cause or tend to cause air
pollution in Illinois, either alone or in
combination with contaminants from other sources,
or so as to violate regulations or standards
adopted by the Board under this Act.
Under Section 3(b) oF the Act, air pollution is defined as:
the presence in the atmosphere of one or more
~
the Agency’s complaint alleges that Route 45 was
closed, the Stipulation provides that Route 36 was in fact
closed.
67-367
—4—
contaminants in sufficient quantities and of such
characteristics and duration as to be injurious
to human, plant, or animal life, to health, or to
property, or to unreasonably interFere with the
enjoyment of life or property.
Former Rule 102 of the Air Regulations mimics these
statutory provisions.
The Agency alleges that hydrogen chloride in gaseous form
and hydrochloric acid mist are corrosive and, in sufficient
concentration, harmful or toxic to human, animal and plant
life. The Agency further alleges that the release of these
substances:
1.
Caused breathing difficulties
for persons living,
working
or temporarily located nearby said plant, necessitating the
issuance of respirators to persons working on the plant
grounds and the evacuation of thirty families;
2. Caused the temporary closing of U.S. Highway 45* in and
around Tuscola, Illinois, and
3. Caused the exacerbation of corrosion of metals in
buildings, structures, equipment and motor vehicles located
nearby the plant, crop damage and reduced crop yields from
farmground located nearby said plant and elevated pH levels
in such farmground.
It is stipulated that Agency personnel took at least 22 air
samples at various times during December 19, 1979, and at various
places near the plant, including the following results:
Time
Place
Results
9:15 a.m.
0.5 miles east
60 ppm BC?
9:15 a.m.
3500 ft. southeast 15 ppm HC?
9:30 p.m.
1 mile west
80 ppm HC1
9:45 p.m.
1 mile west
50 ppm BC?
10:00 p.m.
1 mile west
16 ppm IIC1
It is also stipulated that many other samples taken by the Agency
showed concentrations at significantly lower levels.
As previously mentioned, Cabot challenges the sufficiency of
the facts to form the Foundational basis for a finding of
violation. However, no basis for this assertion is provided.
The Board disagrees with Cabot’s position. The stipulated facts
adequately support the conclusion that the contaminants, hydrogen
*See footnote at 3.
67-368
chloride gas and acid mist, were present in such quantities and
of such characteristics
and duration as to be injurious
to human
health and property. The gas and acid mist were present at
concentrations
of up to 80 ppm at distances
a mile away from the
plant and these excess concentrations persisted over a period of
hours.
These conditions required the evacuation of plant
personnel and residents within a two mile area, necessitated the
wearing of breathing apparatus by plant personnel, required the
closing of a public road and resulted in approximately fifty
property damage claims. Thus, the Board finds Cabot to have
violated Section 9(a) and 35 Ill. Adm. Code 201.141 (former Rule
102).
The remaining Counts III through IX all concern violations
of Section 12 of the Act regarding water pollution and varying
Board regulations. In substance, these counts allege that the
tank was surrounded by an earthen
dike with an opening in the
northwest corner and that a substantial,
but unknown, quantity of
the released siltet flowed through this opening shortly after the
tank collapse. Due to Respondent’s use of water to wash down the
siltet which had
flowed outside the diked area, siltet and water
thus flowed into a railroad drainage ditch which is tributary to
a field tile, thence to a headwall tile.
The headwall tile, in
turn, is the beginning of a stream tributary to the Scattering
Fork, a tributary to the Embarras River. The
Agency alleges that
siltet,
when mixed with water reacts to form hydrochloric
acid
and silicitic acid. Hydrochloric acid is corrosive and, in
sufficient
concentration
in water, harmful or toxic to human,
animal, plant and aquatic life.
As a result,
it is alleged that
the Respondent caused or tended to cause water pollution in
violation of Section 12(a) of the Act (Count III); deposited a
contaminant upon the land so as to create a water pollution
hazard in violation of Section 12(d) (Count IV); and caused the
discharge of an effluent
so as to violate water quality standards
in violation
of Rule 402 (now Section 304.105).
Specific water
quality standards alleged to have been violated are that for
unnatural color and sludge, Rule 203(a) (now Section 302.203)
(Count V); pH, Rule 203(b) (now Section 302.204) (Count VI);
iron, Rule
203(f) (now Section 302.208) (Count VII); and total
dissolved solids (TDS), Rule 203(f) (now Section 302.208) (Count
VIII). The last count (Count IX) alleges
that Respondent failed
to take reasonable measures
to prevent the spillage of
contaminants
in violation
of Rule 601(b) (now Section 306.102).
The stipulated
facts provide that Agency personnel conducted
water sampling activities on December 19-21, 1979. The Agency
results include:
“(a)
waters into which the siltet mixture flowed were
observed to have unnatural sludge or bottom deposits and
unnatural color;
(b) the same waters measured at field tiles, include the
following results:
67-369
—6-
(i)
a pH as low as 1.0
(ii)
concentrations
of iron as high as 9.1
mg/liter and
(iii)
concentrations of total
dissolved solids as
high as 2,000 mg/liter
Again, Cabot contests the sufficiency of these facts to form the
basis for a finding of violation. No rationale for this
interpretation is supplied.
Section 12(a) of the Act, in pertinent part provides:
No person shall:
a. Cause or threaten or allow the discharge of any
contaminants into the environment in any state so as to
cause or tend to cause water pollution in Illinois,
either alone or in combination with matter from other
sources
. . .
Under Section 3(hh) “water pollution” is defined as:
the alteration of the physical, thermal, chemical,
biological or radioactive properties of any waters of
the State, or such discharge of any contaminant into any
waters of the State, as will or is likely to create a
nuisance or render such waters harmful or detrimental or
injurious to public health, safety or welfare, or to
domestic, commercial, industrial, agricultural,
recreational,
or other legitimate
uses, or to livestock,
wild animals,
birds, fish, or other aquatic life.
“Waters” are defined by Section 3(u) to be:
all accumulations of water, surface and underground,
natural and artificial, public and private, or parts
thereof, which are wholly or partially within, flow
through, or border upon this State.
It is
clear from the stipulation that Cabot personnel used water
to wash down the splashed siltet and that the siltet mixture
proceeded to flow into “waters” as defined by Section
3(u).
The
siltet mixture was
a contaminant which altered the chemical and
physical properties of those waters by altering
pH, TDS, iron and
appearance.
The physical and chemical alteration
of those waters
did or was likely to render them harmful to public health and to
aquatic life. Thus, the Board finds that
Cabot violated Section
12(a) of the Act by causing water pollution as alleged
in-Count
III.
Count IV alleges that Cabot violated Section 12(d) of the
67-370
—7—
Act. Section 12(d) prohibits the “deposit of any
contaminants upon the land in such place and manner so as to
create a water pollution hazard.” Id. The Agency alleges that
the discharge of siltet constituted a deposit of a contaminant
upon land which was surrounded by an incomplete or otherwise
ineffective dike. Siltet thus escaped the dike, necessitating
the clean-up efforts which led to the discharge of contaminants
into the waters of the State. The stipulation provides that
siltet did escape the diking system by being splashed or thrown
over the top of the dike onto adjacent railroad tracks. The
Board finds that the splashing of siltet constituted a deposit of
a contaminant upon land so as to create a water pollution hazard
in violation of Section 12(d) of the Act.
In part, Counts V through VIII allege violations of Section
12(a) and former Rule 402 by discharging effluent so as to cause
a violation of certain water quality standards. Whether former
rule 402 was violated by the “flow” of siltet turns on whether
the “flow” constituted the discharge of an “effluent.” “Effluent
is defined as “any wastewater discharged, directly or indirectly,
to the waters of the State or to any storm sewer, and the runoff
from land used for the disposition of wastewater or sludges, but
does not include nonpoint source discharges such as runoff from
land or any livestock management facility
. . . .“
35 Ill. Adm.
Code 301.275. “Wastewater is defined to be “sewage, industrial
waste, or other waste, or any combination of these whether
treated or untreated.” 35 Ill. Adm. Code 301.425.
The Board does not agree that the flow of siltet involved
here can be characterized as an effluent. The Board rests this
conclusion on two bases. First, an effluent is a conveyance of
“wastewater”. Although the siltet mixture is used in an
industrial process, this does not mean it is a waste. Waste is
“any garbage
. . .
or other discarded material.” Section 3(11).
No facts are stipulated to which would allow the Board to
conclude that the siltet/MTCS was “discarded” material. More
importantly, the effluent definition specifically excludes “non
point source discharges such as runoff from land.” 35 Ill. Adm.
Code 301.275. The Board believes that this event is more
accurately characterized as runoff from land than an indirect
discharge of wastewater. Thus, the Board declines to find Cabot
in violation of former Rule 402 as alleged in Counts V through
VIII.
However, Counts V through VIII also allege separate
violations of the water quality standards themselves and Section
12(a) of the Act. Specifically, Cabot is alleged to have
violated the water quality standards for unnatural color and
sludge, pH, iron and TDS. It is stipulated that unnatural
sludge, color and bottom deposits were observed by Agency,
personnel and that pH was as low as 1.0, iron was as high ~as 9.1
mg/liter and TDS was as high as 2,000 mg/liter. Accordingly, the
Board finds Cabot in violation of Section 12(a) of the Act and
the water quality standards as alleged in Counts V through VIII.
67-371
-8-
The last count concerns the Respondent’s alleged failure to
take reasonable measures to prevent the spillage of contaminants
in violation
of former Rule 601(b) (now Section 306.102).
As to
this count, the stipulation merely provides that a “diking
containment and liquid impoundment system” surrounded each
tank. (Sti~. at 3). It is also provided that a small amount of
the siltet/MTCS blend escaped from this system.
Former rule
601(b) provides that all reasonable measures to prevent spillage
must be taken. No facts are provided which would allow the Board
to form a judgement as to whether the diking system employed by
Cabot was a reasonable measure or not. The only relevant
information supplied is that some spillage did occur. The Board
declines to find a violation merely because the diking system
failed to contain the entire spill. Spillages can certainly
occur where all reasonable measures to prevent them have been
undertaken.
Penalty
After evaluating the factors listed in Section 33(c) of the
Act, the Board finds that Cabot’s violations had an adverse
impact on the general welfare and health of the people of the
State of Illinois
by contributing contaminants to the
environment. The Board further finds that the Cabot’s facilities
are socially and economically valuable and suitably located.
Finally, the Board finds that it is technically feasible and
economically reasonable to eliminate possible future violations.
The parties have stipulated to a penalty of $17,500. After
evaluating all the facts and circumstances, the Board finds that
a fine of $17,500 is appropriate to aid in the enforcement of the
Act.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of facts and
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
1. The Board finds that Cabot Corporation has violated
Sections 9(a), 12(a) and 12(d) of the Act and 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 201.141, 302.203, 302.204 and 302.208.
2. Within 30 days of the date of this Order, Cabot
Corporation shall, by certified check or money order,
pay a civil penalty of $17,500 payable to the State of
Illinois and designated for deposit into the
Environmental Protection Trust Fund, which is to be sent
to:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Fiscal Services Division
2.2.00
Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois 62706
67-372
—9—
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Dorothy M. Cunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order was
adopted on the
~
day of
__________________,
1986, by a
vote of 7-o
.
Dorothy M.~unn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
67-373