ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    September 26, 1973
    U. S. INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS CO.
    )
    )
    )
    )
    PCB 72—292
    )
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    )
    OPINION AND ORDER OF
    THE
    BOARD (by Mr. Dumelie)
    On
    October 14, 1971, the Board, in PCB71— 44, entered a Condition
    No. 6 in its order requiring SO2 continuous monitoring from April 1, 1972
    to September 1, 1972 in the area where crop damage had occurred in the
    past. The reason for this order was to make certain that crop damage
    experienced in the past was not due then to SO2 emissions since acid mist
    and fluorides were also being discharged.
    On September 29, 1972, the petitioner, U.S. Industrial Chemicals
    Company (“USI”) submitted its required monitoring report performed by
    Monsanto Enviro—Chem Systems, Inc. On October 17, 1972, we extended the
    variance (PCB72—292) and
    retained jurisdiction over the SO2
    monitoring
    requirement pending a response from the Agency (see Condition No. 6 of
    order in 72—292, October 17, 1972). The Agency filed its response on
    October 24, 1972 stating among other things that:
    “Evaluation of the report has uncovered several
    apparent inconsistencies and raised numerous
    questions which the Agency feels should be
    clarified
    and
    answered in order to more thoroughly
    evaluate this report.”
    The Board then entered a Supplemental Order on October 24, 1972,
    ordering a hearing and retained jurisdiction for further orders as
    appropriate. After a Motion for Clarification from the Agency on
    December 11, 1972
    and a response by the Board, hearing was held in
    Tuscola
    on April
    5, 1973. For some unexplained reason, USI did not
    supply the transcript of the hearing until July 23, 1973.
    A review of the hearing record shows substantial agreement now
    exists between the USI witness, Dr. Earl Spurner, an agronomist, and
    the Agency witness, Mn. Robert Goldberg, a chemical engineer who heads
    their Air Variance Section. Dr. Spurner testified that no visible
    symptoms of damage from SO2 was found in corn and soybean fields (12—14
    9
    —
    323
    —2—
    by number) visited within one to one—and—one—half miles from the
    tSI
    plant
    site center (R.18—19)
    .
    he also stated that
    no
    yield loss
    in
    these
    crops would occur without visible damage being present.
    Mr.
    Goldberg
    accepted
    Dr. Spurner’s report as “essentially correct” (R.37—38)
    The
    Agency witness
    also
    stated that the sulfuric acid
    and
    phosphoric acid
    operat tons
    conducted in the past by UST may have been the cause for
    previous
    crop damage reports
    (R.35—36)
    .
    The Agency
    indicated through
    Dr. Goldberg
    that they
    would not ask that
    the
    1972 SO2 monitoring program
    be
    repeated.
    Thus both
    parties
    arc
    now satisfied with
    the
    1972 SO7 monitoring
    program
    and there fore
    the Board will find that Condi
    t
    ion No.
    6 has
    been
    complied with fully.
    ORDER
    Condtt~on So.
    3
    of the
    Opinion and
    Order
    of October 17, 1972 :ts
    declared to
    have been satisfied by the
    petitioner.
    IT IS SO
    ORDERED.
    I,
    Christan
    L. hloffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board
    hereby certify
    the
    above Opinion
    and
    Order were adopted on the
    ~
    of
    September, 1973 by a vote of
    Chnistan L. Moffett, Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
    9
    —
    324

    Back to top