ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

Auril

12, 1973

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

v.

#72—188

ASHLAND CHEMICAL CO., A DIVISION

OF ASHLAND OIL, INC. AND LONZA,

INC.

LARRY A. EATON, ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL, ON BEHALF OF ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

JAMES W. GLADDEN, JR., MAYER, BROWN, & PLATT, ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT,

ASHLAND CHEMICAL COMPANY

MICHAEL

0. CARD, OF 

SWAIN, JOHNSON

& GARD, ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT,

LONZA, INC.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (BY SAMUEL T. LAWTON, JR.):

Complaint was filed by the Agency against Respondents, Ash-

land Chemical Comoany, a Division of the Ashland Oil Company, Inc.

(~Ashland”) and Baird Chemical, a division of Lonza, Inc. (subsequent—

ly amended to Lonza, Inc., hereafter ‘tLonza”) 

alleging that be-

tween July 1, 1970 and. July 12, 1971, and in particular on 31 speci-

fied dates and continuing to the date of the filing of complaint,

being May 1, 1972, Respondents have, by their operations, “either

alone or in combination with other sources, caused or threatened

to allow the discharge or emission of contaminants into the atmos-

phere so as to cause or tend to cause air pollution in Illinois in

violation of Section 9(a) of the Environmental Protection Act.”

(Ill. Rev. Stat., Ch. 111—1/2, Sec. 1009(a), 1970). Respondents’

plants are contiguous and located in the vicinity of Napleton,

Peoria County.

The many facilities within the Mapleton area are delineated

on Respondent Ashland’s Exhibit #51. The Ashland and Lonza facili-

ties lie closest to Mapleton, approximately 1/2 mile south—south-

east. Slightly further away is the Caterpillar plant, lying south-

southwest. Mapleton Industries is located over 1 mile northeast

of Mapleton. Other plants within the area are located further away.

The Cilco power plant at Hollis is over three miles northeast of

Mapleton. The Powerton power plant is located over three miles

—

507

southeast of Mapleton. The plants of Archer-Daniels-Midland and

Corn Products Corporation are over three miles east—southeast of

Mapleton.

Respondents’ facilities are located in Peoria County with-

in or adjacent to the corporate limits of the municipality of

Mapleton, between Route 24 and the Illinois River. The plants are

located on a private body of water, known as Pond Lilly Lake, which

separates Respondents’ plants, on the south, from the Illinois River.

The municipality lies across the highway, several hundred yards

north and northwest of the plants (R. 1254 and Ashland Ex. 1 & 8).

The Ashland facilities were constructed in 1961, and were originally

owned by Archer-Daniels-Midland Company (R. 1083). Ashland. acquired

the facilities approximately 6 years ago CR. 1084) 

The Lonza

facility was constructed shortly after the Ashland plant by Baird

Chemical Company which was merged into Lonza, Inc., before the initial

date of the alleged violations (R. 1254).

The Ashland plant produces a wide variety of chemical products.

The evidence indicates that Ashland uses materials including beef

tallow, coconut oil and certain animal and vegetable oils to make

its products including fatty acids, alcohols and nitriles, polyester

plasticizers, amides and primary, secondary and tertiary amines and

quaternary amines for a wide variety of uses, including cosmetics,

drugs and fabric softeners CR. 1082-1083, EPA Ex. 10 and Ashland Ex.

63). The plant’s facilities include reactors, vacuum stills, frac-

tionation columns, pressure vessels, storage tanks and hydrogen man-

ufacturing facilities (EPA Ex. 12, 27, and 28). Additional facili-

ties include an animonium handling system, wastewater treatment system

and steam production system (EPA Ex. 10). Steam production facili-

ties consist of two coal-fired boilers and one gas-fired boiler. (EPA

Ex. 10) 

The wastewater treatment facilities begin with “hot-wells”

(reservoir) 

from which wastewater proceeds through channels to air

flotation separators, or “grease flotation clarifiers” and then to

an extended a~ationpond, settling pond, an 18-1/2 acre lagoon

and finally, to a 105 acre closed lagoon. Most of the water is re-

cycled from the settling basin back to the plant to be used as cool-

ing water (EPA Ex. 10, Ashland Ex. 19)

It is important to associate the descriptive identification of

odors with the chemical compounds responsible. The following list

identifies by-products and compounds manufactured by Ashland with

the common description of their odor.

Compounds         

Description

Amines           

Fishy

Hydrogen sulfide      

Rotten eggs

Liquid fatty acids     

Sour, rancid

Ammonia          

Pungent

—2—

—

508

The amines and fatty acids are produced at Ashland while

ammonia is used as a raw material and hydrogen sulfide results

from the septic conditions in the wastewater treatment lagoons.

The sources of odorous emissions at Ashland can be divided

into the following three areas; process facilities, waste water

collection and treatment system, and the steam generation system.

In terms of severity of odor emissions, the waste water collection

and treatment system are the worst offenders.

Emissions from the process facilities during normal operation

reach the atmosphere directly through excess hydrogen vents associa-

ted with the hydrogenation processes (EPA Ex. 1), and through vents

en storage tanks during loading operations (EPA Ex. 12). Emissions from

the processes reach the atmosphere indirectly through the waste water

collection and recovery system in that steam ejector discharges and

scrubber wastes in most cases empty into the various hot wells

(Ashland Ex. 63). A less significant source of emissions would be

the glycerine and ammonia recovery systems (EPA Ex. 28).

Emissions from the processes can only result from abnormal

conditions due to the many safety valves and burst diaphrams required

(EPA Exhibit 12).

The wastewater collection and treatment system handles

most of the byproducts and wastes from the process facilities and

thus all 

the

various odorous substances produced including fats and

oils, fatty acids and alcohols, and the various amines and esters

(Ashland (Ex. 63). The hot wells, the first step in the collection

process, have been observed to have floating fats and oils, to emit

visible vapors, and to emit various odors including those character-

ized as fishy and rancid (EPA Ex. 10). The open channels (actually covered

by boards) had fishy odors (EPA Ex. 10). The floatation cells from

which grease and bouyant materials are skimmed, have been observed

to emit greasy, rancid, hydrogen sulphide, and in general, putrefying

odors (EPA Ex. 10). The aerated lagoons apparently are a major

contributor to the odor and have been described as emitting a repre-

hensible combination of various odors such as rancid, putrefying,

fishy and hydrogen sulfide (EPA Ex. 10). The conclusion drawn was

that the floatatiori system was overloaded so that excess organic

matter was discharged to the aerated lagoon which, because of inade-

quate mixing and oxygen supply, was septic with stagnant regions of

decomposing organic materials (EPA Ex. 10).

A third source of odor is the steam generating plant. In addition

to coal and gas, skimmed grease from the floatation cells (EPA Ex. 10)

and process residues including fatty acid varieties, are burned in the

furnaces (EPA Ex. 28). Combustion gases exhausting out the stack

could then include odorous combustion products.

—3—

—

509

The~Lonzaplant is used primarily for the production of a

sugar solution known as Sorbitol, constituting 65 of its plant

production. The remaining production is essentially alkyl chloride,

tertiary and quaternary amines used in deodorant and germicidal

applications (Lonza Ex. 1, EPA Ex. 26, 10). Lonza uses chlorination,

reaction, evaporation and quaternarization processes in creating

these products, which require the use of pressure tanks, water

scrubbers, vacuum stills and surface condensors (Lonza Ex. 1).

Lonza also has a wastewater system consisting of “hot—wells”,

effluent ditch, covered clarifier, covered settling tank recycle

system, including a cooling tower, and two one—acre closed receiving

lagoons (Lonza Ex. 1, EPA Ex. 26).

Odor emissions result from both the process and wastewater

treatment and reuse facilities. Of the three main products,

sorbital, nitrogenous compounds and alkyl chloride, the Sorbitol

process probably does not result in significant emissions although

it is possible to detect a caramel candy type odor near the process

facility (Lonza Ex. 1).

In the production of amines and alkyl chlorides, substances

including chlorine compounds, DMA and fatty compounds are emitted

directly or indirectly to the atmosphere. The direct emissions

result from atmospheric vents on the storage and holding tanks for the

amines which are splash loaded (EPA Ex. 26). The byproducts and

waste products such as hydrochloric acid gas (HC1), fatty alcohols,

and DMA are removed from the processes by scrubbers which dischar’ge

either to the hot well or the effluent ditch (Lonza Ex. 1) from

which emissions to the atmosphere can occur. The chlorine compounds

frequently have a blue or greyish tint when emitted and acids such as

HC1 have an acrid odor and a burning sensation (EPA Ex. 10). Of the

two water reuse systems, the “dirty” water system takes water from

the amine production facilities, passes it through a floatation

tank where organics are skimmed, and then through a cooling tower

before reuse (EPA Ex. 26). The floatation tank and cooling tower

probably emit odors.

The wastewater treatment lagoons appear to be in good shape.

Recent evidence shows that the lagoons are aerobic with no emission

of hydrogen sulfide (Lonza Ex. 1).

—4—

—

510

Before discussing the merits of the case, it is necessary

to dispose of the procedural issues raised by Respondent Ashland.

Ashland argues:

“Unless there is identification of the nature of

the odor on a. specific day, it is impossible for

Ashland to prepare a defense. This was recognized

in Environmental Protection Agency v. Mystik Tape,

#72-180, and Environmental Protection Agency 

v.

George Rosenbalm, #71-299...” (Ashland Brief)

Respondent misconstrues the clear intention of the Board’s

statement. The statement quoted from Mystik Tape was directed to

preclude open ended assertions of future violations “to the close

of the record” without ultimate specification of violations be-

fore hearing and proof. No such situation maintains here where

the complaint alleges that “since July, 1970 (in particular on

31 specified dates) and continuing to the present date” certain

violations were committed by Respondent. In the Mystik opinion,

we stated:

“This does not foreclose some latitude in the showing

of continuing violations for purpose of imposition

of penalties or promulgation of abatement program.

Likewise, while we do not look with favor upon gen-

eralized allegations of violations covering a

specified period of time, as distinguished from

detailed specifications of alleged offenses, such

method of pleading is not fatally defective if

it related to a period of the past.”

Where the violation is a continuing one, Complainant need

not allege and prove every date of the violation. Here, Complain-

ant has alleged violations on over thirty specified dates and has

offered proof of those dates, as well as on other dates to show

the continuing nature of the violations. There was no attempt to

allege or prove violations outside the scope of the complaint.

Proof has been offered on other dates which is properly admissible

since it was offered to show the failure of either Respondent to

effectively abate its odor emissions and the nuisance resulting

therefrom, after the period of alleged violation. The Mystik cav-

eat was directed specifically to cases where proof was offered

of violations occurring subsequent to the date the complaint was

filed or hearing commenced. Respondents do not assert that they

were not apprised of the basic nature of the offenses charged in

the complaint for the period involved. The situation calling for

—5—

7— 511

the application of the Mystik rule is not present in the instant

case where proof of violation is based essentially on the period

pleaded in the complaint.

Respondents are jointly charged with causing or tending to

cause air pollution either alone or in combination with other

sources. The complaint alleges that Ashland air pollution results

from two principal sources: first, its processing emissions, in-

cluding production of amines, fatty organic oils, fatty quaternary

ammoniüm chloride, and hydrogen sulfide; and secondly, its abate-

ment processes consisting of skimming, burning, entrainment and

aeration ponds. The complaint against Lonza centers on its process

emissions in the production of tertiary and quaternary amines.

The case presents an issue of alleged severe odor nuisance

from noxious odors, particularly to residents of Mapleton and vis-

itors. The nature and extent of the purported violations will be

examined in terms of the following characteristics:

1. Characteristics of the odors (as to smell and visual

appearance);

2. Manner of transmission;

3. Duration of the episode;

4. Direction of the wind;

5. Establishment of the source of the odor;

6. Effect of the odor.

Understandably, citizens who testified during the hearings

did not exhibit a uniform capability of distinguishing and iden-

tifying the odors involved. The majority, however, were able to

distinguish a wide range of odors and associate them with various

manufacturing and commercial operations in the vicinity. Two pre-

dominant odorsvere associated with Respondents’ plants: one was a

“fishy” odor, and the other was a “rotten egg odor”. (R. 12, 61-

62, 70—71, 72, 79—80, 99—100, 118, 141, 376—77, 378, 385, 391, 392,

445, 517, 532, 534, 538, 604) 

The witnesses identified other

odors, some of which were associated with the Respondents’ oper-

ations and otherswhich clearly were not. These odors were charac-

terized as sulfur, dead rats, lacquer and paint smells, tallow,

anti—freeze, septic tank, “dirty pond smell”, stale malt and am—

monia~ Fog or smoke emissions often accompanied the odors from one or

~both plants.(R. 12, 26, 34, 57, 58, 60, 73, 99—100, 114, 118

141, 142, 156, 157, 160—1, 178—9, 197, 200, 207, 221—2, 228, 243,

246—7, 256, 280, 282, 284—5, 296, 299, 302—3, 305, 308, 327, 335—6

342—43, 345, 346, 348, 376—7, 378, 385, 391, 392, 395, 397, 398,

—

6—

—

512

425, 445, 517, 624, 527, 532, 537, 538, 549, 592, 593, 606, 611,

741, 742, 762, 829, 831, 833, 835, 838—9).

One resident was Dr. Richard Hoffman, a Professor of Chem-

istry at IllinoIs Central College. He holds degrees in chemistry

and chemical education, and has had a number of years’ experience

in the analysis of fats, fatty substances and derivatives (R. 137-

38). Many of the products produced by the Respondents fall within

these categories. Dr. Hoffman resides about five miles from Re-

spondents’ sites and even at that distance, is affected by the odors

CR. 140-141). He described the odors as “fishy” and “sulfur—like”

(R. 141) and frequently travels by Respondents’ plants to which he

attributes their source CR. 140-141, 158, 168). At his house the

odors are just “offensive” but in the vicinity of the plants he

describes them as “malodorous” 

-—

tending to. make one ill (R. 168—

70). He characterizes the odors as “typical of those in rancid

fats, both animal and vegetable, and to nitrogenous derivatives

thereof... they smell like fatty amines, tallow, oxidized tallow,

soybean oil, fatty alcohols, glycerides, nitriles, quaternary

amines...” (R. 156). On cross—examination, Dr. Hoffman stated

that the “rotten egg smell...could easily come from the oxidation

that’s occurring in these clarifying ponds or whatever they are

called out in back of the two plants in question...” (R. 192).

Witnesses were in general agreement that odors were more

frequent during the summer than during the winter. In the winter

months, the wind is predominantly from the north which would ex-

plain the decline in odor episodes, remarked upon by almost all of

the witnessess CR. 76-7, 294, 344, 444). Testimony indicated that

during spring, summer and fall, noxious odors were present on approx-

imately half of the days (R. 38~7, 444). The predominant odors were

present only when the wind was from a southerly direction CR. 211,

302-3). The days when odors were present were not necessarily days

when the odor lasted for the duration of the day (R. 77-80). An

odor episode could last anywhere from minutes to hours (R. 257—8).

An hour or two appeared not unusual. The intensity was often

greater at night. The odors can be detected at least five miles away

on some days (R. 168-9). There has been no improvement jn abate-

ment of the frequency Or pungency of the odors during the years in

question CR. 291—2, 293, 

352)

Whether taken in whole or in part, the record is consistent-

ly clear that the residents identify their odor problems as emanating

from the Ashland and Lonza plants. There is overwhelming evidence

that the residents identify Respondents’ plants with producing nox-

ious odors (R. 20, 120, 158, 204, 205, 247, 308, 408, 415, 422). The

fishy odors are more commonly identified with Lonza’s facilities

and those of rotten eggs are more often attributed to Ashland Chem-

ical, as will be described below. It is also clear that, though the

residents have some specific ideas as to what is the source of

—

7—

7—513

particular odors, the plants have presented problems in identification.

These problems include the close proximity of the structures, and

some similarity in their processes. We find that the citizens could

easily differentiate other odors in the vicinity including those

of foundries and anti-freeze manufacturing plants (R. 23, 242, 300-1,

311, 374, 389, 400, 537)

The effects of the odors, particularly the primary odors

previously identified, have been sufficient to establish a viola-

tion of S ction 9(a) in terms of nuisance and interference with en-

joyment of life and property. Some of the odors caused burning eyes

(R. 13) and headaches (R. 102). The odors are also responsible

for loss of appetite, inability to sleep and respiratory difficul-

ties (R. 25). At least one individual became nauseous CR. 294) 

an-

other stated that the odors made him irritable (R. 431). Outdoor

activities of residents have been restricted (R. 295, 465). The

chemicals causing odors were allegedly responsible for killing

vegetation and destroying gardens (R. 251, 351, 431). One person

found he had to leave town periodically (R. 458, 465, 466), and

another remarked on the pronounced odors when he returned from out-

side the vicinity. One witness testified that his health improved

on long periods away from the area (R. 350). Residents have com-

plained to the Respondents. At times the complaints have resulted

in immediate improvement, but in general 

is of short duration

(R. 76—7, 274).

Evelyn Monks has lived in Mapleton for 35 years. She identi-

fies odors of fish and rotten eggs as being emissions of Respondents’

plants. The odors are present only when the wind blows from the

plants toward her. It is these odors that have burned her throat

and made it difficult for her to breathe, caused her eyes to burn

and awakened her during the night. She has observed foam on Pond

Lilly Lake and tam and fog (which has a strong nauseating sulfur

odor) rolling from Respondents’ plants toward her residence. She

associates the egg and fish smell mostly with Ashland Chemical Com-

pany but thinks both Respondents are responsible. She has made nu-

merous calls to the Respondents to complain about the odors. She

believes that the companies respond to the complaints and are able

to eliminate the odors, if they want to. She bases this upon the

fact that within 20 minutes of the time she calls, (often to suggest

that the aerators in their lagoon be turned on) the odor disappears

(R. 9—89)

Anna Mary Maddalozzo recalls certain air emission episodes

involving the Ashland plant which have occurred ever since it began

functioning. Emissions from the plant were apparently responsible

for the discoloration of the paint on her home in 1964. She also

states that the odors are present only when the wind is blowing

from the plant toward her. She characterizes the odors as primarily

burning odors such as burning tallow, and dead fish and sewage.

She stays indoors because the odors give her headaches. She regrets

—8 

—

7 —514

that her yard cannot be used for normal activities such as picnics

and gatherings. She says, “I am thankful to the Good Lord that I

have central air conditioning. Otherwise, 

I wou)dn’~be 

able to

live in my home anymore.” She is na-t bothered by 

emi*slons from the

Caterpillar Plant but does differentiate 

the odors from Respondents’

plants and those of Mapleton Industries which is an “anti-freeze”

odor.

She lives a quarter of a mile from the Ashland and Lonza

plants and much closer to the Mapleton

Industries facility.

(R. 90—134)

Fred Monks is the husband of Evelyn Monks and has lived in

Mapleton for 35 years. He has

difficulty describing the different

kinds of odors he has observed, but terms one of them “pond stink”

and

the other “odor from the cookers”.

He calls the first one pond

stink 

because he 

associates 

it with the rotting 

condition 

of Pond

Lilly Lake, which, he states, was beautiful and useable before the

chemical companies came. Some of the manufacturing facilities in

Ashland and Lonza he calls “cookers” and he also finds the odor from

these highly objectionable.

He believes both odors emanate from

Respondents’ plants and bases this on the fact that he experiences

them only when the wind is from the southwest, south or east which

would blow those odors toward his house. He also has made visual

observations of the plants’ operations and emissions from the bluff and

believes this corroborates his other observations.

He has kept

daily records

since May 17, 1971, noting types of odors and wind

directions at his residence.

He states, however, that this is not a

totally accurate portrayal of the odor 

situation, since 

his observa-

tions are made during

the

day -a-nd-many of

the

worst odors are exper-

ienced

after nightfall. He has observed “the fog” roll along the

ground from Respondents’ plants to his residence. The fumes have an

acid odor and reaction which burns his eyes.

He says that when the

wind is from the north, the air in Mapleton is as good as it was 20

years ago. The odors that he attributes

to Respondents’ facilities

are different, in his mind, from those of Caterpillar

which he char-

acterizes as “iron smell” and odors from Mapleton Industries. He

believes that the odors have affected his ability to walk and in the

past several years his legs have become progressively weaker. However,

when he left the area for a vacation, within less than a- week his

strength returned to the point where he could again engage in activi-

ties which he had given up, such as carrying suitcases upstairs and

hunting in the hilly area CR. 203-381).

Virginia Sonnemaker has lived in the Mapleton area for over

50

years. She states that the odors from

Respondents’ plants some-

times “almost knock you down”. She believes that the fishy odor

may come from both plants. She finds the odor from Caterpillar to

be distinctly different from any odors she associates with Respondents~

plants. She associates the odors with Respondents’ plants because

—9—

—

515

“every time you see this big steam coming up real fast (from the

plants) 

. .

.you are going to get the odor if the wind is just right...

If the wind comes that way, we get it.” She has seen the fog com-

ing from the plants and believes that Lonza bears the primary re-

sponsibility for it. She had difficulty describing the odor of it,

saying that “itts obnoxious” and feels that the odors are worse

when the weather is muggy. She finds that the odors “run her into

the house”, and she is awakened at night by them. Even with the

air conditioning on she notices them (R. 236-276).

Linda Bierwirth has lived in Mapleton for about 25 years.

Her parents reside in town, although she herself has moved further

away. She notices the odors when she passes by the plants and says,

“It’s just terrible. Especially when you have your

heater running in the car in the wintertime. It

seems to draw it in and it doesn’t leave very swiftly.

You can let your car sit for several days and it

will still smell that way. Well, I would say 

—-

of

course, it’s a joke with everyone in Mapleton that

you can tell when you are getting home, that a blind

man could finn his way to Mapleton because right

at the rise of the viaduct is where it really seems

to hit you.”

She says she has some respiratory difficulties that the odors

aggravate:

“I have a little problem, I have trouble with my si-

nuses and it seems that when the smell is real in-

tense, it just, I feel like I want to explode, you

know, but that hasn’t really been too often because

I try to stay in most, you know, most all summer

because I have tried going out in the yard with the

kids aridlcan’t breathe.”

(R. 277-312).

Cleland Dailey says the smells sometimes wake him up in the

night and are present about 50 of the time in the summer.

says the rotten egg smell is predominant and strongest at night.

He identifies them with Respondents’ plants because

they come on a

southeast wind and he lives northwest of the plants.

He sees vapors

coming from vents from both plants so he cannot specify which plant

is responsible for which odor. When the odors get very bad “we take

off and get out for awhile.” He says in the

past year they had gotten

that bad about once a week CR. 439-467).

Edward Campbell is employed by the- Environmental Protection

Agency. In his investigations

of Respondents’ plants and in the

vicinity of Mapleton he testified

that he had inspected the Ashland

wastewater treatment system. His observations were

that there were

putrifying odors in the area of the grease traps and flotation cells.

—10--

—

516

He also detected hydrogen sulfide odors at the pond, and the same

odors at the viaduct on Route 24 which he attributed to the Ashland

property. He stated that the odors were carried to that area from

the Ashland property by a southerly wind. In his opinion, the real

repugnent odor in the area seems to be because of the anaerobic con-

dition in Ashland’s “lagoon”. He also testified that the Caterpillar

facility used no chemicals in their process which would give a fishy

or rotten egg odor. (R. 517—626).

Respondents have structured their arguments by denying that

each singly has caused the odors. Both admit that there are odors

in the Mapleton area which the citizens and residents consider ob-

noxious and for which the Respondents are in part responsible. As

indicated above, the witnesses consistently identify Respondents

Ashland and Lonza as being the source of obnoxious odor emissions

in the Mapleton area. Evelyn Monks stated that she observed charac-

teristically different odors from each of Respondents’ plants 

odors that were identifiable and distinguishable from any other odors

in the area. Anna Maria Maddalozzo similarly identified certain

odors with the Ashland and Lonza facilities which were only present

when the wind came off the plants in her direction. Dr. Richard Hoff-

man encountered the odors whenever he passed by the facilities and

had traced them from his home to the Respondents’ doorstep. Fred

Monks identified two odors, “dirty pond” smell and “cooker” odor

as being emitted from Respondents’ plants. He had confirmed his ob-

servations by observing the visual emissions of the plants when the

wind blew them in his direction. Virginia Sonnemaker pointed to

Respondents as being responsible for odor problems in Mapleton.

She had no difficulty in distinguishing their odors from other fa-

cilities, such as Caterpillar. 

John Monks also observed different

odors emanating from Respondents’ facilities.

The test for air pollution is found in Section 9(a) of the

Act. It is whether any person has “caused or threatened or allowed

the discharge or emission of any contaminant into the environment

in any state so as to cause or tend to cause air pollution in Illinois,

either alone or in combination with contaminants from other sources.. 

•“

Section 3(d) of the Act includes in the definition of “contaminants”,

“any odor.” Section 3(b) of the Act defines “air pollution” as “the

presence in the atmosphere of one or more contaminants in sufficient

quantities and of such characteristics

and duration as to be injur-

ious to human,

plant or animal life, to health, or to property or

to unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment of life or property.”

EPA

v. Kaluzny Brothers 

#72-160, EPA v. Midwest Rubber Company #72-

318 and ~PA v.Lloyd A. Fry Roofing #71-33.

—11-

7

—

517

Odor emissions can cause air pollution. However, they are dis-

tinctly different from smoke violations or particulate emissions.

Odor emiSsions are often not visible, and, like some other forms of

pollution, such as noise, the reaction of citizens are highly indivi-

dualistic and subjective. Also exposure to odors induces situation

fatigue on the part of the observer so that his perception of odors,

as well as his odor threshold, may change. In this case, the record

is quite clear that residents were able to identify a number of differ—

ent odors and to characterize them.We do not expect that all witnesses

will describe the odors in exactly the same way. Nor do we expect

that the witnesses should associate only one odor with the Respondents~

operations. Indeed, there is substantial evidence that several dis-

tinct odors were the result of Respondents’ operation. Of necessity,

an odor emission is a subjective judgement, which is rarely constant

or subject to measurement, seldom capable of precise definition or

identification

and differs

fron~ person to person in its impact.

Respondents have attempted 

to attribute the odors to other opera-

tions within the vicinity and particularly to each other. However,

it is clear from the record that citizens can differentiate between

odors caused by Respondents and

those emanating from other sources.

Other companies suggested by Respondents

are Mapleton Industries and

the Caterpillar plant. Witnesses testified that they indeed exper-

ienced odors which they associated with those plants and that those

odors were distinct from those they associated with Respondents’ opera-

tion. In the case of Caterpillar, the odor was “hot iron and metal”

and in the case of Mapleton Industries, it was “anti-freeze odor”

(R. 121—3, 400).

As previously mentioned, Respondents’ plants are in close prox-

imity.

In some ways, it is difficult to imagine, given that

fact

and wind conditions that adequate differentiation

of odors emanating

from that vicinity would be possible.

However, the recordnaintains

very, consistent associations of odors with various operations.

“Rotten

egg odors”, and “swampy, lagoon—type odors” are

attributed to Ashland’s

treatment-plant

(R. 61,205,385, 517).

Chemical odors such as “ammonia”

are associated to the Lonza processes (R. 246, 1142)

“Fishy” odors

are associated with both plants (R. 200, 1144). Further

testimony

included statements such as, “there

was never a smell 

in those lakes

until the chemical companies came to Mapleton...”

(R. 208-9).

And

though we do not encourage testimony that is imprecise, we do not

expect that citizens will be as articulate as chemical

engineers.

Respondents have claimed that no evidence

has been offered on

the specific dates alleged

by the Agency in the complaint. The record

contains ample evidence on those dates, as indicated below.

The

Agency alleged violations beginning in

July, 

1970.

Thirty-one specific

dates were alleged, of which

30 were between May 17, 1971 

and July 12,

1971. Proof was offered on thirty of those dates.

Citizen observa-

tions of offensive odors which they associate with Respondents’ plants

cover a period between May 8, 1970 and November 

2, 1972. 

(Complainants’

—12—

7 —518

Exhibits 7, 8; Hearing Officer’s Composite Exhibit #1 and Hearing

Officer’s Exhibits 1(a) through 1(ee)). Many exhibits are complaint

forms

filled out by employees of Ashland and Lonza after telephone

complaints from residents. These complaint 

forms

are revealing be-

cause they include the 

Respondents! observations of

wind direction and

plant inspection after the reception of the complaints.

For example: On July 8, 1970, a complaint was phoned in by

Walter Robinson at 6:10 A.M. concerning an odor he characterized as

“urine”. Ashland noted that the wind was light from a westerly

direction and that they could not detect any odors except for those

in their #04 building where an employee noted the smell but could not

find the source. Lonza observed 

the

wind coming light from the

southeast, but could not detect the odor at all.

On July 18, 1970, two complaints were made, one by John South-

anner at 8:03 A.M. complaining of an 

onion

odor and one by Mrs. Bruce

Odenwalt at 8:37 A. M. complaining of a fish odor. Ashland noted that

its

inspection at 9:00 A.M. disclosed hydrogen sulfide coming off

the pond. Lonza noted no odor at all.

On July 24, 1970, Mrs. Monks made two complaints 

two separate

times were noted by the Respondents.

She apparently complained of

a dead fish

odor and Ashland observed that no fish odor was present,

although they could detect a smell like coconut (which is apparently

the odor of their #1295 or #1299 acids). Lonza 

found nothing unusual

at their plant operations but a slight fishy smell coming from the

“upper pond”. Lonza also reported that “Cindy and Patti were in Maple—

ton and reported ‘rotten eggs’, but no amines odor. W. B. J. toured

Mapleton and reported SO2 odor, burning garbage odor and strong odor

near Mapleton Industries. Noamines odors.”

On August 8, 19-70,

complaint by Mrs. Fred Monks at 8:00 A.M.

was made concerning a blue fog. Ashland notes no wind, “Harold

Lockwood obser~da venting at Baird (Lonza) about this time. Haze

was noted across the highway. Called Barry Monroe at 8:30. He veri-

fied it came from his plant. 

. .“

Lonza noted south-southeast wind,

light to moderate. “Amines pit operator was evacuating T-25l too

rapidly. Operator was instructed to stop venting so rapidly. Fog

then cleared (HC1 vapors).

November 19, 1970, John Stouthanner complained at 9:45 A. M.

about flock being discharged from the Plants.

Ashland notes a

brisk south wind and then states, “Not coming from Ashland. From

warehouse roof I observed foam from Baird cooling tower blowing toward

Mapleton, some as large as 2 to 3 feet in diameter...Air is heavy,

holding vapors low.”

On June 2, 1971, Patricia Lane complained of rotten egg odor

at 4:05 P. M. Wind was moderate from the west. Ashland noted,

“Cooling water from recovered to tank 2113. Semi—works were flushed

out giving off H2S gas.” Lonza states, “At that particular time only

—13—

7

—

519

the evaporator was in operation...Personal reconnaissance of our

areas shows no visible signs of air pollution, nor odors...”

On July 27, 1971, Phil Vansen complained at 3:30 A. M. about

fumes from Baird. Ashland noted, “Baird was venting heavily. Phil

Vansen called to complain that his roll operator was getting sick

from the fumes and that guards could not make a check on diesel at

reservoir. I called Baird and requested that they cut down venting

a little. They did not like it but did cut down on fumes.” Ashland

noted a complaint at 8:20 P. M. from Roland Bassett and commented,

“03 foreman reported that safety on tank (ammonia storage) had

blown.” Lonza noted the complaint at 8:50 P. M. and commented,

“Phosphine batch in R-206 venting slowly through V-20l. Garlic odor.”

On October 21, 1971, John Willie was noted to have complained

at 8:50 P. M. of a rancid grease or dead animal odor. Ashland

commented, “Pumping B. F. tab sic from T/F (tank car) to tank 2004

at Northwest corner of 02 building. At approximately 20:45, the

line was steaming out from T/F to tank 2004. I could discover no

other unusual odor...Tank farm blowing line to 02 and tank farm after

pumping tallow T/C started to blow approximately at time of complaint.”

Lonza notes, “Nothing unusual ~found on plant tour. Everything normal

and under control.”

On April 2, 1972, Mrs. Calhoun complained at 4:25 P. M. of foam

from north cooling tower and a rotten egg odor. Ashland noted the

wind was light from south, southwest direction and stated, “Problem.

Dumped drum of Nalco into cooling tower basin to clean out algae.

Noticed odor of gas like sulphuric gas. Large amount of foam blow-

ing high into the air from the cooling tower. Especially when blower

is running. Odor was coming from cooling tower.”

In the approximately 2 years involved in this proceeding, there

are hundreds of days where citizens have observed the presence of

noxious odors. The record includes many additional complaints such

as those noted above that are directly attributable to Respondents’

operations. There is no doubt that Respondents have repeatedly vio-

lated the Act and have caused air pollution as therein defined.

Respondents have presented additional evidence consistent with

the experiences of the Mapleton residents. Ashland Exhibits 64 through

69 support the testimony of Lee Jerome, Ashland’s Plant Engineer, who

testified that he experienced a choking odor associated with the visi-

ble discharges from Lonza’s production facilities. Those exhibits

show such discharges on September 14, 1971, October 12, 1971, May 4,

1972, August 30, 1972 and September 15, 1972. Mr. Jerome also

stated there were days other than those that he recorded where the

same kind of episode took place (R. 11-72). Ashland states in its

brief,

—14—

7

—

520

“This choking sensation is similar to the burning of

the eyes and throats claimed by the Monks and i~consistent

with the type of substance being discharged 

HC1. The

action of the foam confirms that it has an acid content 

being heavier than air it

would be carried along the

ground. And, Lonza admitted at the hearing (Lonza Ex. 3B)

to at least three episodes a year when it discharged 1,000

pounds of HC1 gas in approximately 30 minutes.

“The record established the reason for the odorous emis-

sions from Lonza. After experiencing the choking odors on

one occasion, Lee Jerome called Husni Ramahi, Plant Engineer

for Lonza, and complained. Ramahi responded that possibly

they didn’t have the water turned on in the scrubber or the

scrubber was overloaded (R. 1169 to 1170). Barry Monroe,

Plant Manager of Lonza, testified to other instances when

part of the phosphorus trichioride system at Lonza suffered

an upset resulting in a discharge of HC1 gas (Lonza Ex. 1,

page 4) and, as discussed above, that Lonza had at least

three breakdowns a year where 1,000 pounds of HC1 was

emitted and at least one breakdown a year where bOO pounds

of HCI was emitted and at least one breakdown a year where

100 pounds of dimethyl amine (DMA) is discharged (R. 1239

to 42). The complaint forms also establish other breakdowns

at Lonza where a blue haze was emitted (Hearing 

Officer’s

Exhibit 1i, lj~o, 1pJ, ls, lx and 20) because of venting

process tanks to the atmosphere. (Ashland Brief, Pages 40 to

42)

Lonza also cites the testimony of Mr. Jerome but for a different

purpose.

In his description of Ashland’s scrubbing

process, Mr.

Jerome stated that they could trace amounts of fish oils, tallow,

coconut oil and the like in the waste water from Ashland’s scrubbers

(R. 1207). In addition, Ashland incinerates its residue from its

fatty acids distillation in its boilers (R. 1208):

“Agency witness Girish Maihotra, in his written statement

(EPA Ex. 12) testified as to the presence of ‘sweet but nausea-

ting’ odors emanating from the Ashland lagoon area the day

of an inspection trip he made on July 24, 1972. The witness

stated that he smelled the odors off the premises of the

plant after inspecting the same and the odor observed was the

same odor that he noted coming from the Ashland lagoons, or

present in the lagoon area, when they were there on inspection.

He stated that they also smelled ammonia odors when they were

south of the lagoon and he attributed those odors to the ammonia

scrubber that had failed to operate (EPA Ex. 12, page 4). (Lonza

Brief, pages 10 and 13).

—15—

7—521

Lonza says on page 2 of its brief “The overwhelming weight of

the evidence in this case indicates that the basic underlying cause

for the odor

situation in Mapleton is.. 

.the waste water treatment

facilities

the

Respondent, Ashland Chemical Co.” and supports

its

thesis

with record citation. Ashland, in its reply brief, includes

a section captioned “Lonza as a Potential Source of Odor” in which it

makes a detailed and scholarly analysis of the record demonstrating

that the fishy odors complained of could only be as a consequence of

DMA

and HC1 “blue haze” emissions from Lonza. We agree, in part, with

both Respondents Bcith have participated in 

the creation of an

odor nuisance.     

The record supports the Agency’s contention

that both Respondents have emitted contaminants,

in the form of odors

which alone or in combination with other sources, have caused air

pollution.

Many witnesses identified the odors as being associated with the

wind from 

a southerly direction CR. 64, 109, 160—70, 317, 386)

One

the witnesses had maintained a calendar which noted odors and

wind direction and which corroborated 

the relationship.

Respondents

have attempted to impeach that testimony by offering evidence of wind

direction as taken at

the

Peoria Airport.

No evidence was presented

to show a correlation between wind direction at the Peoria Airport

and that in the Mapleton area. The record is clear that the plants

lie in the Illinois River basin.The residents of Mapleton live in a

location slightly higher

than the plants in question, ascending the

bluff.

Evidence presented as to wind direction at Peoria Airport,

since it has not been shown to be in the same river valley or in

close proximity to the Mapleton area, is not acceptable as rebuttal

to the evidence offered.

Respondent

Ashland has admitted biocide emissions from the

cooling tower which may have contributed to the odor problem (R. 1121-

1122, Ashland Brief 44).

The Agency witness identified the odors of

rotting fat in Ashland’s hot wells as well as observation of ammonia

odors attributed to the breakdown of the ammonia scrubber CR. 831,832).

Respondent Ashland argues that its “hot wells” and air flotation units

had been corrected to eliminate odors prior to the filing of the com-

plaint.

The record indicates, however, that the covering of the

hot

wells did not begin until 1972 and the third air flotation unit was

not on line at the time of the hearing (R. 1116).

The rotten egg odor has been attributed to the Ashland waste

treatment lagoons CR.335-6, 593). Though some dispute exists as to the

amount of correction needed, there is no dispute that certain problems

have been present in the maintenance of the lagoon which have engendered

the odor problem. Testimony by experts indicated that inadequate oxy-

gen or inadequate mixing could result in an anaerbic condition which

would produce

the odors in question.

(EPA Exhibits 9, 10,18, 19 and

R. 923-977).

The dispute appears to be only as to degree of treatment

necessary and not whether such treatment is, in fact, required to

effectively

eliminate- the odor nuisance.

—16—

7

—

522

In respect to Respondent Lonza, there is admission that hydro-

chloric acid (HC1) and dimethyl amine (DMA) emissions occurred on

occasion. (Lonza Brief). These emissions would result in the

“pungent” and “fishy” odors observed.

Respondents only rebuttal

is that they did not occur with sufficient frequency to be considered

violative of Section 9 (a).

The residents of Mapleton and those residing in neighboring

areas have been subjected for an inordinate period of

time to an

extreme odor condition.

Respondents are responsible for the signi-

ficant portion of that problem and have violated Section 9(a) of the

Act. During the

past three years, the residents have noticed no

improvement in that situation.

Remedial steps taken within the last

year are only indicative of the fact that the problem is a serious

one; Respondents should have made improvements at an earlier

time.

There is no reason why a situation such as

this one should be allowed

to continue for any substantial period.

Our Order, therefore,

is structured to result in

the abatement of the odor nuisance in as

short a time as practicable.

Respondents should individually

submit programs to the Board

within sixty (60)

days, which will abate the odor-producing operations

noted above.

With respect to Lonza, the program should include the

necessary changes in equipment or operation to eliminate the odor

nuisance- caused in

part by their admitted HC1 and DMA 

discharges to

the atmosphere.

Lonza should act to eliminate any odor nuisance

from their waste water treatment system, perhaps by maintaining aerobic

conditions in their lagoons.

Ashland’s program should

achieve a similar goal, that is the

elimination of the odor nuisance, both from the manufacturing,

storage and handling operations and the waste water treatment system.

Specific areas for control could include the hot well, cooling towers,

amine production units, and aerobic lagoons system.

In summary, with respect to Respondent Lonza, we will require

that they make an examination into their storage and handling systems

to prevent discharge of odor substances such as HC1 and DMA. Lonza’s

waste water treatment should also be examined for any anaerobic condi-

tions. In regard to Respondent Ashland, the waste water treatment

system should be the subject of a study to determine whether anaerobic

conditions exist. This will be part of the program to be submitted

within sixty (60) days, which will also include the study of potential

odor sources from manufacturing, storage and handling facilities.

A full report of the &ove investigation

should be made to the Board

and the Agency. Each program should be directed toward correction

of problems

which are the subject 

of this complaint. Each party shall

be required to submit a bond in the amount of $20,000 to assure the

submission of such program.

—17—

7

—

523

Pursuant to the program as submitted, Respondents, Ashland

and Lonza, shall, within 150 days from, the date hereof, abate the

odor nuisance as set forth in this opinion.

The basic issue in the present case has been whether the Res-

pondents have contributed to an odor nuisance as defined in the

Statute.

The totality of the record demonstrates without question

that each Respondent has contributed significantly

to the odor

and resulting air

pollution that has characterized the Mapleton

area.

Since the bulk of the offenses created can be ameliorated

by utilization

of known equipment and improved housekeeping practices,

the record further demonstrates that it is both technologically

practicable and economically reasonable to insist on employment of

proper abatement methods and resulting compliance with the Statute.

Penalty in the amount

of $10,000 is assessed against each

Respondent, respectively,

for causing air pollution,

either alone or

in combination with other sources, in violation of Section 9(a) of

the Environmental Protection Act as found in this opinion.

The odors

emitted by each Respondent have been intense, consistent and obnoxious.

They have contributed to the blight of an entire

community.

This opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions

of law of the Board.

IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that:

1. Respondents, Lonza and

Ashland, shall each submit to the

Environmental Protection Agency, within 60 days from the

date hereof, a program for

abatement of their 

odor nuisances

as found in this opinion and shall achieve abatement of

such odor nuisanc~within 150 days from the date hereof.

2. Each Respondent, respectively,shallsubmit

a bond in the

amount of $20,000 in form satisfactory to the

Environmental

Protection Agency, guaranteeing the

submission of 

the abate-

ment programs as hereinabove provided, which bonds shall

provide for forfeiture in the amount of $10,000, respective-

ly,

if said abatement is not achieved within the time

provided. Bond shall be mailed to: Fiscal Services

Division, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,

2200 Churchill Drive, Springfield, Illinois 62706.

3. Penalty in the amount of $10,000 is assessed against each

Respondent, Ashland and

Lonza, respectively, for the

causing of air pollution,

either alone or in combination

with other sources as found by this opinion, in violation

of Section 9(a) of the Environmental Protection Act; within

thirty-five days from the date of this

Order, penalty

payment by certified check or money order payable to the

State of Illinois shall be made to: Fiscal Services Division,

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, 2200 Churchill

Drive, Springfield, Illinois 62706.

—18—

7

—

524

4. The Board retains jurisdiction for such other

and further order as may be appropriate.

Such

retention of jurisdiction

shall not delay the right

of any party to appeal this Order.

I, Christan Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board,

daycertifyof April,that

the1973,aboveby

aOpinionvote ofand 

~‘/

Order

towas ~adopted

on the 

/~i~”

—19—

7

—

525