ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
December 20, 1973
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
COMPLAINANT
v.
)
PCB 73~-37
NALCO CHEM1
CAL COMPANY
RESPONDENT
LEE CAMPBELL, ASSISTANT ATTOREEY
GENEMAL,
in
beheif
of
the
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
GEORGE R. HOOPER, ATTORNEY,
in Eehalf
of
NALCO
CHEMICAL
COMPANY
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (cy Er. harder)
This action comes to us on the amended complaint of
the Environ-~
mental Protection Agency alleging
violations of Section
9 (A) of
the
Environmental Protection
Act by discharging
contaminants,
as defined
in Section 3 (d) of the Act in excess and in violation of
that allowed
by Rule 3-3.111 of the Rules and Regulations Governing
the
Control of
Air Pollution
(Air Rules).
Hearings were
held
on March 30, 1973, and
August 29, 1973, which were preludes to a hearing on October
15,
1973,
where Complainant and Respondent presented for the
record a Stipu1a~-
tion and Proposal of Settlement.
Complainant alleged in its complaint that:
Respondent is a Delaware corporation having a place of business at
4001 West 71st Street, Chicago, Illinois, which is a chemical manufact~-
uring facility.
Respondent operated a cracking catalyst process (Process #1) until
January 19, 1973, which manufactured silica alumina catalysts which
discharged aluminum oxides and silica oxides to the atmosphere. These
oxides are particulate matter as defined by the Air Rules. This pro-
cess was operated on or about July 1, 1970, and continued every day of
operation until January 19, 1973, so as to allow discharges into the
atmospheze of Illinois from the “Swenson Wet Scrubber” which served
Spray Dryer #3 in excess and in violation of that which is allowed by
Rule 3—3.111 of the Air Rules.
10—405
R~snondent operates a Specialty
Catalyst Process (Process #2) which
manufactures alumina base ~netal moly catalysts. Process #2 discharges
contaminants consisting of hydrated aluminum oxides to the atmosphere,
uhich are defined us
particulate matter
in
the Air Rules.
Process *2
was operated from
on
or about July 1,
1970, and continued every day
of
onerat~on until November 17, 1972,
50
as to allow discharges or emiss-
ions of particulate matter into the atmosphere of Illinois from a “Swen-
son Wet Collector,” which served spray dryer #2, in amounts in excess
of and in violation of that which is allowed by Rule 3-3.111 of the
Air Rules.
Respondent operates a Ratalco process which manufactures copper
zinc catalysts (Process #3) Process
#3 discharges contaminants con—
sisbing of copper oxides, nickel oxides, and aluminum
oxides to the
atmosphere. These oxides are particulate matter as
defined in the Air
Rules. Process #3 was operated on or about July 1,
1970, and continued
every day of operations until March 15, 1972, so as to
cause or allow
discharges or emission of particulate matter into the atmosphere of
Illinois from a “Duell electrostatic precipitator” in violation of
and
excess of that alloced by Rule 3—3.111 of the Air Rules,
Respondent~sdischarges and emissions
are
such as to cause
Cii
un—
reasonable interference with the enjoyment of life and property of per-
sons residing in
and driving through the area surrounding the facility
and
is thus
a violation of Section
9
(a) of the Act.
The facts presented are based on an agreed stipulation pursuant to
a settlement agreement between the. parties. The Board finds as follows:
Respondent is a corporation
engaged in the manufacturing
of chemical
catalysts which
are sold primarily to other in-
dustries
for use in manufacturing other products.
Respondent operates their facility
at 4001 W, 71st Street,
Chicago, Illinois, and has done so since 1941,
Process #1 This process was operated from some time pri-
or to July 1, 1970, until the middle of January 1971. It
manufactured silica alumina catalyst which was used as a
cracking catalyst in the oil refining
industry.
While this
process was
in use, Spray Dryer #3 was served by the
“Swenson wet collector” and this discharged “contaminants” into the
atmosphere consisting of alumina and silica.
During August of 1971, tests were conducted by the Department of En-
vironmental Control of the City of Chicago to determine particulate em-
issions from Spray Dryer #3 of Process #1. These tests indicated emiss~
ions of particulates as follows:
0.06 g/scf
—3—
Test #2
Interrupted in process 0.03 g/scf
Test #3
26.1 lbs/hr
.07 g/scf
Test #4
24.3 lbs/hr
.07 g/scf
These emissions were not alleged by the city to be in violation of
their limitations. The city’s limits were .10 g/scf.
These test results were submitted
to
the Environmental Protection
Agency to support an operating permit for Process #1 on Sept.
29,
1972.
On November 16, 1972, Respondent’s calculations were submitted to the
Agency indicating Spray Dryer #3 had a process weight rate of 22,000
lbs/hr with measured emissions of 23.6
lbs/hr.
Rule 3-3.111 of
thz
Air
Rules allows emissions of a unit with a process weight rate of 22,000
lbs/hr not to exceed 20.4 lbs/hr.
On December 29, 1972, the Agency denied Respondent a mermit because
the process was discharging contaminants above those allowed by the Air
Rules. Respondent received a letter to this effect
on
Jan. 2, 1973.
Also on Dec. 29, 1972, Respondent publicly announced it would discontinue
the use of Process #1. The process was shut down on Jan. 19, 1973, and
later the equipment was dismantled.
Process #2: This process has been in operation since July 1, 1970.
It manufactures alumina base moly catalysts. Spray Dryer #2 of this
process discharges hydrated alumina oxides into the atmosphere. From
July 1, 1970, to Nov. 15, 1972, Spray Dryer #2 was equipped
with
a Swen-
son Wet Collector. The City of Chicago’s Deoartment of Environmental
Control made stack tests on
the abovementioned dryer during August,
1971.
The results are as follows:
Test 1
0.18 g/scf
Test 2
0.22 g/scf
Test 3
0.29 g/scf
Test 4
0.29 g/scf
This amount of discharge was alleged by the city to
be
above
the
amount allowed for this type of emissions. The city’s test results when
converted to lbs/hr are as follows:
Test 1
42.30 lbs/hr
Test 2
55.55 lbs/hr
Test 3
66.85 lbs/hr
Test 4
71.58 lbs.hr
The permissible state limit is 13.7 lbs.hr. In 1970 Respondent’s
test showed this process in compliance with both state and city limits.
Respondent requested and the city granted a grace period from enforce-
ment so that Respondent could complete an engineering study and
develop
a control program. This control program consisted of dismantling
the
Swenson collector and installing an electrostatic precipitator.
10
—407
—4—
Respondent submitted a permit application for the construction and
operation of this system, but the permit was denied by the Agency becausE
of Respondent’s error of putting data for the Swenson collector in the
application instead of projected emission data for the electrostatic
precipitator. Based on this new application, the Agency granted Respond-
ent
the
permit requested on July 27, 1972.
The electrostatic precipitator was put into service on November 15,
1972, at a cost to Respondent of $350,000.
Respondent ran tests on Process #2 on November 29, 1972, the results
of which showed for a process weight of 12,290 lbs/hr particulate em-
issions were 3.76 lbs/hr. The maximum emissions allowed by the Air
Rules are 13.7 lbs/hr.
The stipulation shows that Respondent had the stack tested by Aqua
Systems Corporation, a subsidiary of Commercial Testing
& Engineering
Company, on February 12, 1972. Respondent’s answer in this matter,
along with Aqua’s report attached to the answer, shows the test date is
February 12, 1973, and the Board so finds. This test showed particulate
emissions from the stack at 1.855
lbs/hr.
Process #3: At Respondent’s plant #2, since prior to July 1, 1970,
and continuing to date, Katalco has operated a process known as the Ka—
talco Process (Process #3)
.
The process manufactures a low temperature
shift catalyst and a CRG catalyst. They both cannot be manufactured on
the process at a single time. They will alternate production over sev-
eral months.
Flash Dryer K-FD-l of Process #3 discharges contaminants as follows:
copper oxide, nickel oxide, and aluminum oxide into the atmosphere of
Illinois. During the period from July 1, 1970, to March 14, 1972, Flash
Dryer K-FD-l was equipped with collection equipment consisting of two
cyclones and a Buell electrostatic precipitator.
In August of 1971 the Department of Environmental Control of the
City of Chicago made stack tests on the stack to which the Flash dryer
was attached, the results of which were:
Test 1
.13 g/scf
Test 2
.12 g/scf
Test 3
.17 g/scf
These results were above the City’s limit of .10 g/scf.
Respondent had run its own tests on the stack
on
three prior
oc-
casions with results as follows:
Test A
Test B
7/27/70 0.083 gr/scf
0.060 gr/scf
1/15/71 0.049 gr/scf
0.084 gr/scf
2/26/71 0.101 gr/scf
0.091 gr/scf
10—408
—5—
These tests indicated that process #3 was in compliance with the
city’s limit.
Respondent proposed to install an additional power pack to the
control equipment on Process #3 which was expected to reduce emissions
50 percent.
Respondent’s application for a permit to construct the new power
pack indicated that Respondent was emitting 7.5 lbs/hr with the limit
set by Rule 3-3.111 of the Air Rules at 5.1666 lbs/hr for a process
weight of 2830 lbs/hr.
The power pack was installed and connected by March 14, 1972, and
Respondent ran stack tests which showed emissions at .88 lbs/hr. The
product involved at the time of testing was the low temperature shift
catalyst. The Agency rejected the permit application then but with
new data submitted granted the permit on August 15, 1972.
On February 14 and 15, 1973, this process was tested by Aqua Sys-
tems. The results of this test showed emissions of 3.209 lbs/hr com-
pared to the limit set by Rule 3-3.111 of 5.166 lbs/hr. The product
run during this test was the CRG catalyst.
The parties have reached a settlement agreement wherein Respond-
ent agrees to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $5,000 if the stip-
ulation is approved by the Board, and that shall be the entire dispos-
ition of the case.
The Board’s role as an affirmative instrument for effectuating
the policy of the Act makes it mandatory that only the Board can ap-
prove a settlement of a pending case on the merits (Environmental Pro-
tection Agency v. G.A.F. Corp., PCB 72-50).
The Board favors disposition of cases by stipulation and settle-
ment if it determines that to do so will serve the purposes of envir-
onmental protection. Costly litigation where it can be avoided should
be avoided. Money spent on hearings could well be spent on compliance.
The Board will look favorably upon settlement agreements that provide
an adequate record for our determination of the case. Here we have
such a situation. The Board accepts the stipulation as its finding
of fact and finds that Respondent violated Section 9 (A) of the Act
for the abovementioned period. The Board also finds that Respondent
has brought its operation into complete compliance with Rule 3.3111
which can only be considered a benefit to the environment. Our prime
goal is the protection of the environment, and not to punish corpora-
tions. The Respondent has shown a good faith and successful effort
in bringing his plant into compliance. The Board finds the agreed
penalty of $5,000 is equitable.
10—409
—6—
This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of
law of the Board.
ORDER
IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that:
Respondent shall pay to the State of Illinois the sum of $5,000
within
35 days from the date of this Order. Penalty payment by cert-
ified check or money order payable to the State of Illinois
shall be
made to: Fiscal Services Division, Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency,
2200 Churchill Road, Springfield, Illinois 62706.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the
Illinois Pollution Control
Board, certify that the above Opinion and Order was adopted by the
Board on the2cjt~ day of December
‘
1973, by a vote of ~ to
0
OJ~fr~#&~
10—410