ILLINOIS

POLLUTION CONTROL

BOARD

June

8,

1978

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY,

Complainant,

v.

)

 PCB 77—208

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

CHEMICAL CO.,

 INC.,

a California corporation,

)

Respondent.

CAROL M.

 PEARCE, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON BEHALF

OF THE COMPLAINANT.

ZUKOWSKI,

 ZUKOWSKI, POPER

 & ROGERS

 (MR.

H.

 DAVID ROGERS,

OF

COUNSEL), ATTORNEYS AT LAW, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF

THE

RESPONDENT.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

 (by Mr. Werner):

This matter comes before the Board

 the August

3,

1977

Complaint brought by the Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency charging Southern California Chemical Co.,

 Inc.

(“Southern”) with violation of Section

 9(a)

 of the Act,

A

hearing was held on March 14,

 1978.

 The parties filed a

Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement on March 20,

 1978.

Southern owns and operates a plant

whach

 is located near

17415 East Jefferson Street in Union, iflinols

 in McHenry County.

There

are

 about ten homes in the vicinity of this faci1i~y. A

food

 processi nq compnny

is

ben

ted

ncrosn

t ho

street.

Southern

‘

s

planL

locaLed

 nearly 600

feeL

 southeast

01

Lhe

Everyrceii

Park

School

 (which has

 10 teachers

and

 an enrollment

approximately

250

 students),

Southern’s

facility,

 which

reclaims

 copper etchant

solutions

and

 manufactures cupric oxide,

 uses

 2 basic processes

recycle

and

 refine

spent

etching

solutions

to

produce

cupric

oxide.

 The cupric oxide is

ultimately

 sold for use

animal feed additive and as a wood preservative, while

the

purified

etchant

solution

sold

back

the

 users.

—

381

—2—

In the first process,

 spent copper etching solution bought

 from circuit board producers is pumped to a reactor where a

caustic is added and the material

 is heated until the ammonia

vapor is all removed.

 The ammonia vapor is fed through a

hydrochloric acid scrubber to produce ammonium chloride which

is reused to produce new etching solutions.

 The remaining solid

in the reactor is the black copper oxide.

In the second process, waste copper circuit boards,

 ammonia,

water and carbon dioxide are mixed

 in bins to make

 a copper

solution.

 This solution is pumped from the bins and sent to a

storage tank.

 After the circuit boards are removed,

 the copper

solution

 is sent from the storage tank to a distillation unit

where it is heated to

 a temperature of 218°F,

 (to vaporize off

the ammonia and carbon dioxide which are reused)

 When the

distillation

 is complete, copper oxide remains.

 A packed water

scrubber controls this process.

Additionally, there is a third process, which

 is related

to

the two copper oxide processes,

 in which two mixing tanks blend

water with ammonia and ammonium chloride to produce the new

etching solution.

 The ammoniurn chloride used in this process

is

a by—product of the caustic copper oxide process.

Moreover, Southern also has a ferric chloride process

 (not

presently in use)

 in which copper containing spent solution

is

combined with scrap steel.

 The iron replaces the copper in

solution and is then sent to a pair of reactors where chlorine

is added to form ferric chloride.

The Company has experienced problems with ammonia vapor

emissions for several years, primarily due to human error.

Emissions arose from spillage of waste material,

 improperly

operated equipment within the plant, and improper connections to

tank cars containing anhydrous ammonia.

 Specific incidents

occurred on June 19, 1975

 (tank car leak); July

9,

1975

 (spilled

etching solution within plant); April 19,

1977

 (mix tank cover

plaLo

 fal lure)

;

May

1977

 (spilled etchinq

 solut:iori within

plant)

;

July

30,

1977

(caustic

soda

tank

eXplosion)

;

and

Auqust

and

29,

1977

 (failure of control systems)

result

citizen

complaints

pertaining

ammonia

odors,

the

Agency

filed

Complaint

which

alleged

that

 from August

4,

1975

until

the

filing of the Complaint,

 Southern’s emission of ammonia gases

caused air pollution in violation of Section

 9(a)

 of the Act.

After the Complaint was filed,

 the State of Illinois filed

suit in the Circuit Court of McHenry County,

 People

 v. Southern

California Chemical Company,

 Inc.

 77 CH 1255, relating to the

30

—

382

incidents whict occuriad

aL

tli?.

 (onpdny ~

lc~lllty

 on August 26

and August

29,

1977,

By

c~r~’

)

of

U1c

 adatles,

 an injunction

was entered which r~qairca Lhat ore btsiran~- ~ut

 down

its

operation until

 a secondary se ubber

 s ‘st?n

 to control emissions

from the facility was installed

 L~hs pi~rit “esumed operation

after the scrubber system was ias’

 lied

Subsequentl1,

 the COlltp~ii~

 with

 Agency

develop

detailed program to reance

 nina.

om~s~

~nnn.

 This three phase

program, which

has

been

Luily

deitneatey

 the settlement agree-

ment,

 included

the

redesign

and

Listalial

new

secondary

scrubber system; the

purchase

and

instsilation

 of roof fans with

scrubbers;

and

the

design,

fat~j~ntirn

~id

 installation of various

other types

 of pollution control c~uipmert.

 Additionally,

Southern has expanded its control program to include an ammonia

detection device with warning alarm wh~

 i~attached to the

public address system;

 extra ~.limetcr~,

 initomatic digital

readout meter and annular noz~1e for

 Lhc W2um loading station;

an

efficient

secondary

scrubber

~r,st

~ed

iii

~er1es

 with the primary

scrubber;

daily

operating

are

rnc~aLsndn~e xe~ords

for

the

second

and third shifts;

 ~~x1dbet~er i~ca~a~

aep~ig

practices

 on tank

identification,

pump

 maintenance ~ad

s’utrc

pump

availability.

Basicaill

 ch~~n-m~

n

 ~i’~i

~

rnent

 provides that

the Company w’ii

~J,

pe.

tLy

 $5,000.00 for

its

admitted

 vi~la~i

o

 ~co:

(

~e

Act;

(2)

 provide

the Agency

(not

‘n~

Board

 Order approv-

ing the settJeme~t)w~n a

~e’

pro

‘

 containing

safety

standards, emplcyc~

cdJ:1t~q

and

uduc~tJn

~eLhods,

 preventive

maintenance

rulLa

and

m~~nou~

t~aiiJJir9

o~et/spi1l

 malfunction

incidents;

i)

e

u~ae

~i~loa

~‘

~1’~

supervisor

duty

each

shift

tnat

toe

~ac~ity

 e~’a~ng;

and

(4)

install

 hood vent~

tan

s

;ten

err

n c

i~t

s drum

facility,

if

-

drum

station

 is not adecanin

~edu

e~c

a~t

odorous

emissions.

evaiua

s

en fo~co’e~

p~uposed

seLt1e~

rnent,

the

Board

has

t

~d

icc

 ‘o’jS

doca

~ ~

~he

facts

and

circumstances

orahL

snuca tic

~-m ,~,m delineated

in

Section

33(c)

ttn

i-met.

ncinerator,

The~

‘r,

 Illinois

Pollution

Control

 Board,

~a.

29~.

2d.

794

(1974),

—

—4-.

There is nothing in the record to indicate that the Agency

did not fully comply with Procedural Rule 307(d)

 by public

advertisement in a newspaper of general circulation and by giving

adequate notice to all necessary parties.

 Although Mr. Franks

did not comply with the provisions of the Board’s Procedural

Rule 310 on intervention,

 by filing a timely petition for inter-

vention with the Board and serving copies on each party prior to

the hearing date,

 the Hearing Officer characterized the Village

as an intervenor and permitted “Mr.

 Franks,

 as attorney for the

village of Union,

 to intervene” and allowed him “to call witnesses

on behalf of the Village of Union.”

(R.

33)

These witnesses complained about the operations of the

Company’s plant.

 Their testimony confirmed the stipulated fact

that ammonia vapor emissions, primarily during the summer months,

had adversely affected the comfort of some people residing near

the plant.

Mr. Ronald Miller,

 a 28 year old carpet installer and

Village Trustee who lives about 2-1/2 blocks from the plant,

testified that he was greatly bothered by the ammonia about 10

times during the past summer

(R.

 33).

 He felt that

 it would help

considerably

 if there were a competent supervisor on duty during

the evening and weekend shifts

CR.

32,

R.

 34).

 Mr. Miller testi-

fied that he couldn’t recall being affected by emissions after

August 29,

1977

CR.

34)

Mrs. Donna Gahl,

 the Village Treasurer, who lives about

 1-1/2 blocks from the facility,

 testified that

“...

 in the winter

when the windows are closed, you don’t notice anything, but in the

summer..,

 in the evenings when you have plans to be out in the

yard,

 it gets strong

 you just don’t go out; you go in the house.”

CR.

 39-40)

 Mrs.

 Gahl testified that she was affected by ammonia

fumes

 “until the cold weather set in” but recalled no major

incident since August 29,

1977

(R.

 45—46)

Mrs. Clarence Miller, who lives about 1-1/2 blocks from the

plant,

 testified that

“.

.during the summer,

 you ran smell

 some

ammon in

 1 mosU every

even

wj.

and

a ((‘(1

her

husband

called

the

plant

“maybe

two

I lice

Limes

when

was

rca I

I y

unbearable.”

(R.

50)

Mr. Charles Trieb, who lives about

 6 blocks from the plant,

stated that he experienced some discomfort during a past incident,

and worried that it might affect him “years from now.”

(R.

66)

Mr. Robert Evans, the plant manager,

 testified that about

3 or

 4 of the plant’s 25 employees live in the town of Union,

including the mayor

 (who is the Company’s salesman and former

office manager) and the production foreman

(R.

 56).

 Mr. Evans

—

384

—5—

indicated that steps had been taken to make the management during

the weekends and evenings more accountable

(R.

 58).

 He also noted

that the Company had spent over $200,000 for plant improvements

to

make sure that no further incidents occurred

CR.

 62).

All written complaints concerning this plant occurred prior

to the corrective measures instituted by the Respondent.

The

Agency and Southern California Chemical Company,

 Inc. have

reached

 a stipulated agreement relative to this matter in nego-

tiations between both parties which took into account all conditions

and details referenced in all documentation up to that point.

It

is the opinion of this Board that the Stipulation speaks for

itself,

 and,

 accordingly, the Board accepts the Stipulation and

Proposal for Settlement and imposes the stipulated penalty of

$5,000.00

This Opinion and Order constitute the Board’s findings of

fact and conclusions of law in this matter.

ORDER

It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that:

1.

 Southern California Chemical Co.,

 Inc.

 has violated

Section 9(a)

 of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act from

August

4,

 1975 until August

3,

 1977.

2.

 Within 35 days of the date of this Order, Southern

California Chemical Co.,

 Inc.

 shall pay the stipulated penalty

of $5,000.00

 payment to be made by certified check or money

order to:

State of Illinois

Fiscal Services Division

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

2200 Churchill Road

Sprinrjfie

d,

Ill

ino~ir;

62706

3

Southern

 California

Chemical

Co.

Inc.

 shal 1 comply

with

 all terms and conditions of the Stipulation and Proposal

for Settlement filed March 20,

 1978,

 which

 is incorporated by

reference as if fully set forth herein.

—

385

I,

 Christen

Moffett,

C~erk of

the

 Illinois Pollution

Control

Board,

hereby

 certify the above Opinion and Order were

adopted

the

~

 day of

~

_____,

1978

vote

Christan

Moff

Clerk

Illinois Pollution

 ontrol Board

30

—

386