~i~S
POLLIUTION CONTROL BOARD
July
7,
1977
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY and
)
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
Complainants,
V.
)
PCB 74—226
COLLIER CARBON AND CHEMICAL
CORPORATION,
a California
corporation,
Respondents.
HONORABLE WILLIAM
3.
SCOTT, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
BY MR. JEFFREY HERDEN, ASSISTANTATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON BEHALF
OF COMPLAINANTS;
MR. ARTHUR T. LENNON APPEARED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr. Dumelle):
This matter comes before the Board on a Supplemented Stipulation
and Proposal for Settlement filed jointly by all of the parties on
April
13,
1977,
The history of this case can be summarized
as follows:
On
June 14,
1974
a Complaint was filed alleging violations of Section
9(a)
of the Environmental Protection Act.
The Complaint was amended
to provide for alleged violations of Rules
103(b) (2)
and 203(b)
of
Chapter
2:
Air Pollution of the Board’s Rules and Regulations.
The
Complaint addressed particulate emissions
from the Respondents coke—
production
facility
in Lemont,
Illinois and operation of
a rotary
kiln and pyroscrubber
at this facility without a permit.
A hearing was held on October
10,
1975 at Lemont,
Illinois
The
parties introduced a Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement at that
time.
The Stipulation included the results of stack tests, recited
the fact that the Respondents had obtained a construction permit for
a system to dedust the calcined coke at this facility and would use
a spray system to further control dust emission, described an air
monitoring program to assess the results of these ef~forts, and pro-
vided for an investigation into the possibility of
containing all of
the Respondents coke operations
in a separate structure.
A $5,000.00
penalty was proposed.
Seven witnesses~who lived in the immediate
vicinity of Respondent’s facility testified that their homes had been
discolored and their lives had been made extremely unpleasant by large
quantities of soot which they believed were coming from Respondent’s
facility.
On November
26, 1975 the Board rejected the settlement offer
and remanded the case to the Hearing Officer. for further proceedings
to determine whether the citizens’
complaints were attributable to
the Respondent’s emissions and whether the Respondent’s abatement
attempts would4 remedy the problem.
The hearing was reconvened on March 23,
1977, and the parties
introduced a supplement
to the prior stipulation and proposal for
settlement at that time.
This supplement described the Respondent’s
attempts to control dust emission by means of a water spray sweeper
at the coke facility and on all the paved roads used by the trucks
which haul coke to the Union Oil Refinery, and by adequate mainte-
nance of the Respondent’s baghouses.
The installation of a waste
heat boiler on the discharge from the kiln incinerator was described,
along with a dedusting system which largely eliminated fugitive dust
from Respondent’s calcined coke.
The supplement went on to describe
the program of land purchase which the Respondent had undertaken to
compensate all the homeowners
in the vicinity of the coke production
facility.
At that time only two parcels of land remained for the
Respondent to purchase before all the 17 residences within one-half
mile of the facility would be vacated.
One citizen testified that he thought the residents had been
fairly compensated for their homes, but that Respondent was getting
by “dirt cheap” for”its past damages.
The supplemented stipulation
and proplosal for settlement indicated that the land purchase, the
pollution abatement efforts, and insLalidLion ol
the
waste heat boiler
would be approximately $3,300,000.00 when
it was all completed.
The Board feels that the Supplemented Proposal for Settlement
represents
a fair solution of this case as long as the Respondent
complies with all the terms of the Order.
—3—
ORDER
it
is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that:
1.
Respondent shall continue to conduct all routinely
necessary housekeeping functions including spraying the
coke and all the areas in which the coke is calcined,
stored,
handled and transported; adequately maintaining
its baghouses, and enclosing all coke transfer points all
in accordance with the stipulation.
2.
Respondent shall
pay a penalty of $6,000.00 within 35
days of
the date of this Order.
Payment shall be made by
certified check or money order payable to:
State of Illinois
Fiscal Services Division
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield,
Illinois
62706
3.
This cause
is hereby dismissed with prejudice.
I,
Christan
L. Moffett, Clerk of
the Illinois I~ollutionControl
Board,
hereby
certify
the
above
Opinion and Order were adopted on the
~~day
of
~
1977
by
a
vote
of
~5-~)
Christan L. Moffet7l~~7~
Illinois Pollution Control Board