LLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

December 20, 1977

MONSANTO COMPANY,

)

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB 75—330

)

75—331

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

Respondent.

-

and

-

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Complainant,

v.

)

PCB 75—421

)

CONSOLIDATED

MONSANTO COMPANY,

Respondent.

PATRICK

J. CHESLEY, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON BEHALF

OF RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

PHOCION

S.

PARK, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER/RESPONDENT.

OPINION AND ORDER OF

THE

BOARD

(by Mr. Goodman):

This matter is a consolidation of three cases brought

before

the Board by the parties herein.

The three cases consist of

PCB 75-330, a Petition by Monsanto Company

(Monsanto)

for ~variance,

PCB 75-331, a Permit Appeal brought by Monsanto, and PCB 75-421,

a

Complaint brought against Monsanto by the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency

(Agency).

A hearing was held in thisinatter..on

September

26,

1977 at which a Stipulation of Facts and Proposal

for Settlement were presented to the Board by the parties.

No

citizens were present at the hearing, and no testimony was pre-

sented.

28—419

---

—2--

The facility

i~’~:’

~ed

1-crein is

a chemical

Monsanto located

in rt~’

iIaq~

of ~~get

in St.

Illinois,

which falls

‘~:hcfl ~ouis

(111±:

Metropolitan

Area~

The ~ ~r’’.en~loys

approximat~

and has an annual

payroll

o’~

~

~26,000,00O.

~

~

process steam

and power

with.~.:~fiul3rs,

four

0

fired and are

the specific :n,,th~c

oi.

these

proc

fired

boilers

(beilers)

have

be?:

‘

-ating

unde’

which

generally

expired

in

1975

~iich

called

t

1

sulfur

coal

by

May

30,

1975

i~i

thoir

Droject

com~eti~

When

Monsanto

filed no

:~rmit

~oplications

foL

t.

the

Agency

refused

to

isst~e

~ho

:‘ie~ipermits

based

on

t~

that

Monsanto

had

fafied to

i~~1em?rt

the

compli’

-‘cc

pr’

~rr’:

project

completion

schedules

which

had

called

fo-

~e

‘:

sulfur

coal

by

May

30~ 1975.

At

that

time

Monsanto

IL.

variance

petition,

POE

75—330,

for

the

boilers

for

varience

~i;~:

the

sulfur

dioxide

s’candard

of Rule

204(c)

(1)

(A)

of

th: i11~~L.~

Pollution

Control

Board’s

Air

Pollution

Control

Pcgu1a’~i~cE

(Regulations)

and

from

the

visual

~r~ission

and

particu~:~

dards

of

Rules

202(b)

and

203(g)

c

~he

Regulations

time

Monsanto

filed

a

Permit

Appea~

PCB

75-331,

challe

~C:i~C,

Agency’s

refusal

to

renew

the

opera

.L~igpermits

for

tha.

hoi’aa~~

Subsequently

the

Agency

brougi’t

cn3orcement

action

in:

Monsanto

in PCB 75—421

alleging rfllation of Section 9(~ of fl.

Illinois Environmental Protection

Act

(Act)

and Pub

~ ~h)

~f

the

Regulations.

In

addition

the

agency

alleged

Mon~~

failed

to

implement

compliance

plans

and

project

comp

‘tion

schedules

calling

for

the

use

of

low

sulfur

coal

by

May

30

~‘75

in

violation

of

Rule

104(e)

of

the

Regulations.

It

is

stipulated

that

Monsanto

has

burned

low

su~

‘

n’

the

boilers

since

January

of

1976.

In

addition,

the

A~a;c;

ha~i

issued

operating

permits

for

the

three

smaller

boilers,

~~r~nr1’

in

response

to

the

use

of

the

low

sulfur

coal.

In

lato

:~~97~

~1onsanto

applied

for

permits

to

construct

electrostatic

~ro’nar’fl

tators

for

the

boilers

and

the

Agency

subsequently

revic~ed

ana

approved

the

construction

plans

end,

issued

constructicn

permits

fca’

the precipitators~(Exhibits A,

B,

C, and D).

At the

prosent t±mc

the electrostatic precipitators have been purchased

and

many

of t3~o

parts

are

on

site,

(Exhibit E).

Further

evidence

of

Monseoto

s

intent

to

come

into

compliance

is

contained

in

Exhibits

~h

~nd

~‘

construction

bids

and

a

resolution

of

the

Board

of

Diie”t~,,,r:

authorizing

the

installation.

2S

-~

---

—3—

The

parties herein

ropose to settle this matter in a manner

which will improve the

~apany’s

emission control facilities and

the

quality

of

the

ambient

air

in

the

vicinity

of

the company’s

facilities, without the expenditure of time and

expense

in liti-

gating the various issues

raised

in

these consoidated

cases.

Monsanto proposes to implement an air pollution control program

at a cost of $7,000,000 consisting

of

the use of low sulfur coal

sufficient to attain the emission bevel of Rule

204(c)

(1) (A)

of

the Regulations and construction of the electrostatic precipitators

as noted above.

In addition Monsanto agrees

to prepare quarterly

progress reports concerning the installation of the precipitators

and

to voluntarily contribute

$5,000

to

the

State

of

Illinois within

30

days

of

the

receipt

of

a

Board

Order

adoptinc

the

proposed

stipulation.

The

only

problem with the Stipulation insofar as the Board is

concerned is a promise by the Agency to promptly process such

applications and “not to deny the permits on the basis of particu-

late emissions provided that the terms and the conditions of this

Stipulation and of the construction permits..

.are

complied with”.

This would at first appear to

be e

guarantee that the Agency will

issue

the

permits

notwithstanding

the

final

particulate

emissions

that

are

achieved.

However,

upee

review

of

the

terms

of

the

con-

struction permits,

the Board

finds

that one of the conditions

contained in the construction permits

is that the permitee

(Monsanto)

demonstrate compliance with Pollution Control Board Regulations and

the Act before the Agency is bound to issue an operating permit for

the equipment.

With the explicit understanding that Monsanto must

comply with Board Regulations and the Act before the Agency is bound

to issue the operating permit,

the Board finds the Stipulation of

Facts and Proposed Settlement to be a suitable resolution of the

three cases herein.

In consideration of the settlement of the three cases, Monsanto

agrees to dismiss the pending variance case, PCB 75-330, and the

pending Permit Denial Appeal, PCB 75-331, with prejudice and the

Agency agrees

to dismiss the pending enforcement case, PCB 75—421,

as amended, with prejudice.

The Board hereby accepts the Proposed

Stipulation and will order

its execution as well as the dismissal

of the three cases herein.

This Opinion and Order constitutes the finding of facts and

conclusions of law of the Board in this matter.

28

—

421

---

ORDER

It

is the Order of the Pollution

Control

Board

that:

1.

The parties herein execute the Proposal for

Settlement filed before

the

Board September

29,

1977

which Proposal for

Settlement

is

inco~poratedby

reference as

if fully set

forth

herein,including

but not limited to:

A.

Completion of construction and subsequent

testing of the electrostatic precipitators,

B.

Application for operating permits for each

of the boilers,

C.

Preparation of quarterly progress reports

concerning the installation of the electro-

static precipitators

in conformance with

special condition

2(a)

of the construction

permits,

D.

Contribution by Monsanto of $5,000 to the

State of

Illinois

‘~ithin30 days of the

receipt of this

Order,

said contribution

to be delivered

to

the Division of Fiscal

Services of the Agency.

2.

PCB 75-421

is hereby dismissed with prejudice.

3.

PCB 75-330

is hereby dismissed with prejudice.

4.

PCB 75-331

is hereby dismissed with prejudice.

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certif

the above Opinion and Order were a4ap,ted on

the

~

day of

,

1977 by a vote

of

~

Christan

L. Moff

Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

28

—