ILLINOIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL BOARD

May

17, 1972

U.

S.

INDUSTRIAL

CHEMICALS

COMPANY

DIVISION,

NATIONAL

DISTILLERS

AND

CHEMICAL CORPORATION

)

#71-44

V.

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY

OPINION AND ORDER OF ThE

BOARD

(BY

NR.~

SAMUEL

T.

LAWTON,

JR.)

On March

21,

1972,

the Board received

a Motion filed by

U.

S.

Industrial

Chemicals Company Division, National Distillers and Chemi-

cal Corporation,

seeking amendment to the Board~sOrder

of Variance

granted on October 14,

1971,

in three particulars:

First, that

petitioner be permitted to operate its sulphuric acid plant until

May

31,

1972 in lieu of March

30,

1972 as originally provided;

Second,

that paragraph

3 of the October

14, 1971 Order, which present-

ly provides

as follows:

“3.

U.

S.

Industrial Chemicals Co.,

through

an independent recognized consultant,

shall

establish,

operate and maintain continuous monitoring stations for

SO~ for the period from April

1,

1972

to September

1,

1972 in the area where crop damage has occurred in the

past.

Within

30 days after September

1,

1972,

the

company

shall

file with

the Board and Agency

a program for the

alleviation of excess SO2 levels sufficient to cause

plant damage.

The Board shall issue

a further order as

required.”,

he amended by substituting for

the last two sentences thereof,

the

following:

“Within thirty

(30)

days after September

1,

1972,

the Company shall

file with the Board ai~Agencya report

containing the results of such monitoring.”,

and that paragraph

4 of the October 14,

1971 Order with respect to

the posting of the bond, which now provides

as follows:

4

—

508

---

“4.

The company shall, within thirty-five

days after receipt of

this order, post with the

Agency a bond or other security in the amount of

$500,000.00,

in a form satisfactory to the Agency,

which sum shall be forfeited to the State of Illinois

in the event that the conditions of

this order are

not complied with or the facilities in question are

operated after expiration of these variances in vio-

lation of regulation limits.”

be amended to read as follows:

“The Company shall post with the Board a Perfor-

mance Bond in the penal sum of Five Hundred Thousand

Dollars

($500,000.00) with Surety thereon to assure the

performance of the conditions

set forth in the Board’s

orders and that the facilities in question shall not be

operated after

the expiration of regulation limits.”

On April

11, we ordered petitioner

to file an affidavit setting

forth all

facts which it ~feels would justify

the modifications requested,

including

a detailed report on the status of the sulphuric acid plant,

together with documentation and data with the reasons why petitioner

is incapable of complying

with

paragraph

3 of the Order with respect

to monitoring and control of SO2 emissions.

We directed the Agency

to file an affidavit covering

the foregoing matters and indicating

why

it

disapproved

of

the

form

of

the

bond

as

proposed

by

petitioner.

Both

petitioner

and

the

Agency

have

complied

with

this

Order.

The

petitioner states that the new direct hydration alcohol

plant

is

now

in

operation

and

the

sulphuric

acid

plant

was

closed

down

on

April

28,

1972.

This

moots

the

request

that

the

sulphuric

acid

plant

be permitted to operate until May

31,

1972.

With regazd to paragraph

3 concerning monitoring for SO~emissions

and the submission of

a program by October

1,

1972

for aleviation of

excess SO2 levels sufficient to cause plant damage,

petitioner,

at

this

late

date,

asserts

that

it does not understand what is required

by

the

Board’s

order

and

suggests

that

it

is

incapable

of

presenting

a plan until

it knows what the nature of the problem

is that it is re-

quired to aleviate.

It

is clear from our original order that

the Board

intended that the petitioner monitor SO2 emissions where crop damage

has occurred in the past.

If excessive concentrations are noted,

then

this

fact

should

be

reported

to

the

Board

and

a

program

of

emission

control

and

abatement

prepared

and

submitted

to

aleviate

the

excess

SO2 emissions that were sufficient to cause plant damage.

We fail to understand why the petitioner is incapable of comply-

ing with this simple directive,

and we are not disposed to modify this

portion of

the Order.

4

—

509

---

Likewise, we are not disposed to change paragraph

4 with

respect to the amount

and

form of bond to be required.

This matter

has previously been the subject of consideration by the Board and we

adhere to our previous order requiring a forfeiture bond as originally

directed,

See Order of Board dated February 3,

1972, incorporating

form of bond approved by the Board

This opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions

of law of the Board.

IT IS

THE

ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that petitioner’s

motion

to amend our order of October 14,

1971,

be

and the same is hereby

denied,

I, Christan Moffett,

Clerk of

the Pollution Control Board,

certify

that

the

above

Opinio~

and

Order

was

adopted

on

the

/~7~day of

May,

1972, by

a vote of

~

to

~

4—

510