ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

June

22,

1978

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY,

Complainant,

v.

?

FOB 75—400

ABBOTT LABORATORIES, an

Illinois corporation,

Respondent.

MS. SUSAN SHUMWAY, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY

GENERAL,

APPEARED ON

BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT.

MARTIN, CRAIG,

CHESTER,

& SONNENSCHEIN

(MR. RICHARD 3. KISSEL, OF

COUNSEL) AND ABBOTT LABORATORIES,~OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL

(MR.

RONALD

L. SCHERUBEL,

OF COUNSEL), APPEARED ON BEHALF OF

THE RESPONDENT.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by

Mr.

Werner):

This matter comes before the Board on the October

14,

1975

Complaint brought by the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency

charging Abbott Laboratories with violation of Rule 103(b) (2),

Rule 105(a),

and Rule 202(b)

of Chapter

2:

Air Pollution Control

Regulations and Section 9(b)

of the Act.

The

Agency filed an

Amended Complaint on July 27,

1977 and a hearing was held on

March 30, 1978.

The parties filed a Stipulation and Proposal for

Settlement on April 26,

1978.

Abbott Laboratories owns and operates a plant

in North

Chicago,

Illinois which manufactures pharmaceuticals and health

care products.

The facility

is bounded on

the

east by the

Chicago

& Northwestern Railroad

right

of way, and adjoins

residential and commercial property to the south and west.

Industrial property is located to the north of the plant.

Abbott

Laboratories is the largest employer in Lake County

arid employs

approximately 5,200 persons in the operation of its facility.

Abbott normally operates three shifts per day, seven days per

week,

fifty—two weeks per year.

The Company has four coal—fired,

spreader—stoker boilers

(referred to as Boilers

5,

6,

7, and

8) which are used to produce

steam for Abbottts processes;

and two coal—fired,

spreader—stoker

30

—

459

---

—2—

boilers

(referred to as Boilers

3 and

4) which

purpose of incinerating waste sludge until Septr

and are now used for standby purposes.

Boilers

3 and

4, which are substantially

~‘

are controlled by a second—hand electrostatic

j~

are ducted to and served by

a common stack,

B

which are basically identical boilers,

ar-~’ cci

cellular straight through cyclones, and ar~~

stacks.

Boilers

7 and

8, which are essent al1~

controlled with standard multiclones,

and aii~

stacks.

It is stipulated by the pirties

t

7,

and

8 and the control equipment attend~

installed at the plant prior to April 14,

19 ~

date of the Board’s Air Pollution Control Req

~lct

the boilers and control equipment constitute

a

sources8 within the definition of Rule 2CL o~

Pollution Regulations

The Agency’s original Complaint alleqec

were improperly operated in violation of the B

i

tion Control Regulations.

After numerous pr-~~

and pre—hearing discovery motions were filed

~c

Amended Complaint on July

27, 1977,

Count

I a

Complaint alleged that beginning on dune

1,

~Ic

through the filing of the Amended Complaint,

i

Boilers

5,

6,

7,

and

8 without first obtaining

permit from the Agency,

and that since Septer~L

i

Company operated Boilers

3 and 4 without ac 7~c

permit.

Count II of the Amended Complaint

January

3,

1975, January

7,

1975, and Februa’~

stack which serves Boilers

3 and

4 emitted

Number

2 or darker on the Ringlemann chart- L~.

more than six minutes

in a sixty minute periLcL

that on January

3,

1975, January

7,

1975,

an~tt”

Abbott caused or allowed the operation of Boilea

a malfunction or breakdown of the boilers

or

i

control equipment,

in violation of

a special

c

Of)eratinq

permiL

issued

on November

1, 19/3~

It is stipulated by the parties that the

referred to in Count II of the Amended Compi air

primarily by one or more specified factors (i~e

of Boilers

3 and 4 during breakdown or malfunc

quality coal purchased on the open market, and/~.

of sludge).

Abbott maintains that the poor qurl

purchased on the open market was the only coal

e

the time,

at a reasonable cost.

30

—

460

---

—j—

The

parties

also stipulate that

since September 27,

1975,

Abbott has not used Boilers

3 and

4 to incinerate

sludge.

The

Company has disposed of the sludge by sending it to a

farm

which has an Agency permit to dispose of sludge.

Boilers

3 and

4 are now kept on a stand-by basis although the new permits

allow limited incineration of sludge.

The Stipulation includes a detailed discussion of the permit

history of boilers

3,

4,

5,

6,

7, and 8.

Each boiler originally

had an operating permit issued during 1973, but the Agency denied

Abbott~s renewal applications in 1975 for various reasons.

Currently,

all the Agency~sobjections to renewal of operating

permits for the boilers have been met, and the Agency has issued

permits for all of the Company’s boilers.

Abbott Laboratories now has opacity monitors installed at

its facility to monitor the combustion conditions of its boilers.

The opacity meters have continuous recording devices.

The Company

and the Agency agreed,

after inspection by qualified smoke readers,

that the readings of the opacity meters can be correlated to the

opacity of the stack emissions utilizing a specified method of

calculation which is acceptable to the Agency.

Accordingly, the proposed settlement agreement provides that

the Company will:

(1) maintain and

operate the opacity monitors

currently in place

(with all records relating to these monitors

available for Agency inspection);

(2) report to the Agency when-

ever any of its opacity meters indicate, using the specified

method for calculation set forth in Attachment

“A” of the

Stipulation,

that the opacity of any emissions from any boilers

exceeds

30;

(3)

submit a report to the Agency within seven days

detailing the duration and causes of such opacity readings

(indicating all actions taken to reduce the opacity of the

emissions); and

(4) pay a stipulated penalty of $5,000.00

In evaluating this enforcement action and proposed settlement,

the Board has taken into consideration all the facts and circum-

stances

in light of the specific criteria delineated

in Section

33(c)

of the Act.

Incinerator,

Inc.

v.

Illinois Pollution Control

Board,

59 Ill.

2d 290,

319 N.E.

2d794

(1974).

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.

30

—

461

---

ORDER

It

is the Order

of the Pollution Control Board that;

1.

Abbott Laboratories has violated Rule 103(b) (2),

Rule 105(a), and Rule 202(b)

of Chapter

2:

Air Pollution Control

Regulations and Section

9(b)

of

the Illinois Environmental

Protection

Act.

2,

Within

35

days

of the data of thlr trder,

Abbott

Laboratories

shall

pay

the

stipulated pena~n of $5,000~00

payment

to

be

made

by

certified

check or money order

to;

State

of

Illinois

Fiscal Services DIvision

Illinois

Environmental

Protection .Aqency

2200

Churchill

Road

Springfield,

Illinois

62706

3.

Abbott

Laboratories

shall comply with all terms and

conditions

of

the

Stipulation

and Proposal for Settlement filed

April

26,

1978,

which

is

incorporated by reference as

if fully

set

forth

herein.

I,

Christan

L.

Moffett,

Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order were

adopted on the

~

day of

~

1978

by ~

vote of

~

c:,)

Christan L~Moffd~’ Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

30

—

462