ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

October 10, 1985

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY,

Complainant,

v.

)

PCB 83—61

MISSOURI PORTLAND

CEMENT COMPANY,

)

Respondent.

ORDER OF THE BOARD (by 3. Theodore Meyer):

This matter comes before the Board on a November 3, 1983

complaint filed by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

(Agency) against the Missouri Portland Cement Company (Missouri

Portland). The complaint alleges that Missouri Portland caused

the emission of particulate matter into the atmosphere in

violation of Sections 9(a) and 9.1(f) of the Illinois

Environmental Protection Act (Act) and former Air Pollution Rules

203(b), 203(d)(2)(B), 904, 105(a) and 105(d), now recodified at

35 Ill. Adin. Code 212.322, Illustration C; 212.422; 230.160;

201.149; and 201.263 respectively.

A hearing was held on January 11, 1985 at which time the

parties stated their intention to enter

into a settlement

agreement. The Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement was

submitted on June 19, 1985 but was rejected by the Board (4—3)

since the one violation admitted to was statutorily

insufficient

to support the stipulated $20,000 penalty.

In response, the parties filed a revised Stipulation and

Proposal for Settlement on August 15, 1985. As set forth by the

cevised stipulation, Missouri Portland owns and operates a

portland cement manufacturing plant near Joppa, Massac County,

Illinois. The plant uses two dry processing rotary kilns (Kiln

No. 1 and Kiln No. 2). The kiln in question, Kiln No. 1, is

controlled by water sprays, a dust curtain, two simple cyclones

in parallel, a dust chamber, and two electrostatic precipitators,

Clinker generated by Kiln No. 1 is sent to Clinker Cooler No. 2

for cooling. This clinker cooler is controlled by a baghouse or

a gravel bed filter. (Stip, at 2—3),

The violations alleged concern various dates upon which

Agency inspectors observed that Kiln No.

1 was in operation while

one or both of its electrostatic precipitators were

malfunctioning. This is alleged to have caused the emission of

particulate matter into the atmosphere in excess of the allowable

66~O5

---

—2—

~our1y emission rate as set forth in 35 111. Adm. Code 212.322

(51.20 lbs/hr per 100 tons/hr process weight rate).

Agency

calculations, based on stack tests conducted in 19/5 and 191.1,

~timate that during periods of malfunction emission rat~scouH

range from 102,6 lbs/hr (using the 1975 data) to 267.2 1h~/hr

using the 1981 data).

The Agency also asserts that Clinker Cooler No. 2

wus ~lsu

operated in violation of 35 Ill. Mm. Code 212,422(b)() which

provides for an allowable emission rate of .10 lb/ton of te~dto

the kiln. On various occasions, the Agency has observed bypasses

o~the baghouse control on the clinker cooler caused by operation

at excessive temperatures. During bypass periods particulate

matter is d:Lscharged in excess of the applicable standard. The

\~neydid not receive immediate reports of any of these

ad functions.

Neither Kiln No, 1 nor Clinker Cooler No. 2 was issued

~ermi.tsauthorizing operation during malfunctions or breakdown

until January and October of 1982 respectively. The Agency

asserts that the malfunctions resulted in an unreasonable

interference with the enjoyment of life and property in the

vicinity of the plant by causing 1) the accumulation of cement

dust on homes, cars, and fruit trees; 2) the closure of windows

and doors, even in warm weather, to prevent cement dust from

entering homes; 3) the settling of cement dust on persons~hair

and clothes when outside; 4) additional gutter cleaning due to

cement dust accumulations; and 5) the obstruction of views from

homes by cement dust in the air,

The settlement provides that Missouri Portland admits that

it failed to immediately report a “malfunction” of the air

pollution equipment on its No. 2 Clinkler Cooler and continued to

operate during the malfunctions on two separate occasions. Such

conduct is a violation of Section 9(a) of the Act and 35 111.

Adm, Code 201,263 (failure to repott a malfunction) and 35 111.

Adm. Code 201.149 (operation during malfunction). With the

exception oL these admissions, Missouri Portland denies the

remaining allegations of the Agency’s complaint. Missouri

Portland agrees to pay a stipulated penalty as to the violattonu

admitted

of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000) and also agrees n~u:

to

engage

in any future violations of the Act and Board

regulations. Accordingly, the stipulation addresses the concerns

as expressed in the Board’s order of July 11. However, the

stipulation raises an additional concern.

As part of the settlement, the Board is asked to referee any

disputes connected with programs to be instituted by Missouri

Portland under the settlement agreement. These programs consist

ot a maintenance program to prevent excessive accumulations of

cement dust outside the plant and a program of “periodic visual

observation and recording of stack opacity and precipitator power

levels for both kilns,” (Stip. at 10), These programs are to be

submitted

to the Agency within 30 days after approval of the

66-06

---

—3—

Settlement Agreement by the Board. The Agency may reject or

modify the programs; in that event Missouri Portland has ten

working days to object. If the objections cannot be resolved

informally within 30 days thereafter then Missouri Portland is

required to petition the Board within 21 days to resolve the

conflict.

Since this process provides that the program be subsequently

incorporated into the settlement agreement, it would require that

the Board retain continuing jurisdiction over this Ratter until

such time as it is notified that the programs have been agreed

to. while the Board certainly has the authority to retain

jurisdiction over matters before it, such action is normally

taken only in special circumstances. In this instance, no

special circumstances exist. The parties have agreed that these

two programs should be instituted

and

have

set

up a timetable for

doing so. It is only the specifics of the programs which remain

to be worked out. No explanation is given as to why the Board

should approve a settlement agreement which has not yet been

‘settled’ in all respects. As there is no apparent impediment to

doing so, the programs should be submitted and approved by the

Board as

‘part

and parcel’ of the settlement approvement

process. To do so will eliminate the need for continuing

jurisdiction

and

promote efficiency for all concerned.

Consequently, the Board hereby rejects the revised

Stipulation Agreement and Proposal for Settlement. The Board

orders that hearing in this matter be scheduled within 90 and

held within 120 days of the date of this order. Should the

parties determine that they wish to file an amended settlement

agreement, they should, according to their agreed—to timetable,

submit the programs as part of a revised stipulation. Should the

parties be unable to agree on the specifics of the programs, they

should submit a statement of reasons for their position on the

disputed term(sJ from which the Board will be able to resolve the

IT IS SO ORDERED.

R. C. Flemal dissented.

I, Dorothy N. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois

Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify that the above

Order was adopted on

the

Joe

day of

_4t~1ttL

,

1985, by a vote

of

6—i

1M~~cL

~.

7

~

-

Dorothy N. Gunn, Clerk