ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

January

23,

1975

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY,

Complainant,

vs.

)

PCB

72~-8l

TEE-PAN,

INC.

Respondent.

Larry

R.

Eaton, Assistant Attorney General

for

the EPA

John

B.

Jenkins, Attorney

for Respondent

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Mr. Henss)

The Environmental Protection Agency filed its Complaint

against Respondent Tee-Pak,

Inc. alleging that the Company had

allowed

the discharge of hydrogen sulfide and foul and obnoxious

odors

into

the

environment in violation of Section 9(a)

of the

Environmental Protection Act.

An interim settlement was approved

by the Board on November

8,

1972.

On October

31,

1974 the Board

rejected a Proposal for Final Settlement which had been submitted

by the Agency and Tee-Pak.

The history of this litigation and details of the Respondent’s

process and pollution problem are discussed at

length

in the prior

Opinions and will he summarized here.

Tee-Pak is

a manufacturer

of cellulose casings which are used in the meat packing business.

During the manufacturing process hydrogen sulfide gas

(H2S)

is

released and the odor from this gas has resulted in

a number of

citizen complaints.

In

its control program Tee-Pak has installed

five

scrubbers

for

the

reduction

of H~,Semissions.

A long and

expensive testing program was undertaken

to determine the need for

a sixth scrubber.

Tee—Pak had agreed to install

a sixth scrubber

but nevertheless we rejected final settlement on October

31, 1974

because the settlement appeared to give Tee—Pak

a permanent defense

to Section 9(a)

prosecutions.

The parties have now presented a Stipulation and Joint Motion

in which they request that the Complaint be dismissed without

prejudice and that this proceeding be terminated with leave to

reinstitute upon failure

of Tee-Pak

to comply with any condition

of

the

Stipulation.

The Stipulation and Considerations for it are

set out in full below.

15 —277

---

—2—

STIPULATION

“The parties hereby stipulate,

agree and represent

as follows:

1.

That the

‘JOINT REPORT AND PROPOSAL FOR FINAL

SETTLEMENT’ filed herein by the parties on January

29,

1974,

and

all, joint responses,

statements of clarification,

and all evidence and supporting materials subsequently sub-

mitted to this Board

as relevant or related thereto, shall

be deemed to have no further effect in this cause, and

shall be treated hereafter as if withdrawn.

2.

That Tee-Pak shall order, construct,

install and

place into operation

a sixth scrubber, namely

a Ceilcote

Model HRP 300 Crossflow Packed Scrubber, having

a capacity

of 30,000 CFM,

or equivalent,

to be applied primarily as

a

device to control the emissions of hydrogen sulfide

emanating from the “surging emission source” previously

referred to in these proceedings.

3.

That on January

2,

1975, Tee-Pak submitted its

application for a construction permit to he issued by the

EPA for the construction and installation of the above-

described scrubber; that said permit application, now

having been designated as Application No.

C

5 01 001, has

been received by the EPA on January

3,

1975;

and that said

permit application has been,

and will be, supplemented and

modified in such manner as may reasonably be required to

allow issuance of the requested permit.

4.

That Tee-Pak shall submit to the EPA all additional

necessary applications

for permits required to construct

and operate the additional control device referred to above.

5.

That,

based upon predictions by Tee—Pak’s engineering

staff and reliable information obtained from the suppliers

of such equipment,

the control device referred to above shall

be constructed and be ready to operate prior to December 31,

1975.

6.

That if

the

motion which follows,

in substantially

the form exhibited and attached hereto,

shall not be granted

by the Pollution Control Board, then this Stipulation, and

the agreements and commitments of the parties set forth

herein, shall be deemed of no effect and neither of the parties

shall be prejudiced thereby.

—

278

---

CONS IDEPATIONS

~a~iO

parties

further

represent

that

the

following

considerations,

matters

and

crohiems

now

pending

before

the

Board

underlie

and

motivate

their

agreements

herein,

and

the

motion

which

follows:

7.

The

Pollution

Control

Board,

by

its

Order

entered

on

October

31,

1974,

rejected

the

Joint

Report

and

Proposal

for

Final

Settlement.

submitted

by

the

parties

herein;

and

failure

of

the

parties

to

submit

a

modified,

or

different,

proposal

for

settlement

to

the

Board

will

result

in

this

matter

being

assigned to

a hearing

officer

for

further

time—consuming proceedings.

8,

That

in

the

event

that

this

matter

were

assigned

for further proceedings before a hearing officer, very

substantial

and

probably

unwarranted,

expense

would

be

incurred by the

parties

and

this

Board,

and

substantial

time

would

be

consumed

before

a

final

order

could

be

entered

by

the

Board.

9.

That

Tee-Pak

desires

to

install

and

operate

the

above—described

control

device

as

insurance

and

protection

against

possible

adverse

public

reaction

to

its

admissions

and

resulting

potential

interruption

of

its

production

process.

10.

That

Tee—Pak

cannot

incur

the

risk

of

installing

or

applying

additional

control

to

its

emissions

until

a

final

order

is

entered

by

this

Board

in

these

proceedings;

and

therefore,

installation of the control device referred to

above, and operation of the company’s production process

in

the

most

acceptable

manner

and

in

the

interest

of

the

public,

can

be

accomplished,

and

at

the

very

earliest

date,

by

termination

of

these

proceedings

and

immediate

installation

of

such

control

equipment.

11.

Installation

of

the

control

device

described

above

and

dismissal

of

these

proceedinos

do

not

require

the

es-

tablishment of “mini standards”, ai~owanceof variances during

construction,

granting of defenses or prima facie defenses

to future prosecutions under 9A of the Act, or other matters

which troubled this Board as appears in the

preamble

to its

Order dated October

31,

1974.

12.

By

this

Motion,

as

in

the

Stipulation

previously

submitted

to

the

Board,

referred

to

in

Paragraph

I

hereof,

the

EPA

neither

seeks

nor

supports

a

finding

of

any

violation

in

these

proceedings,

nor

the

assessment

of

any

penalty;

and

15— 279

---

since it appears

from the preamble to the Board’s Order

entered on October

31,

1974 that the Board agreed with

the recommendation that no monetary penalty be imposed

upon Tee—Pak, these proceedings should be terminated in

order to permit construction of the control device re-

ferred to above at the earliest possible date,

and without

the necessity of the further delay and expense which will

be attendant to continuation of these proceedings before

a hearing officer.

13.

In light of the materials previously submitted

and considered, the only substantive relief that anyone

is seeking is the addition of a sixth scrubber,

and

therefore,

granting of the Motion which follows brings

about that result as much as a year earlier than if these

proceedings were to continue.”

The Board

finds the Stipulation and its terms acceptable and

will enter the suggested Order of Dismissal.

The agreement clearly

calls

for progress to be made by Tee—Pak in reducing its odorous

emissions,

and that progress will be accelerated by an early dis-

position of this case.

By the dismissal of this case the citizens

of the community are not deprived of their right to present claims

under Section 9(a)

of the Environmental Protection Act.

From the

standpoint

of the public the agreement appears beneficial, providing

as it does for a reduction of odor without any waiver of

the

legal

rights of the public.

We have previously observed that Tee-Pak has exhibited good

faith and cooperative effort in performing its commitments.

We

believe that the current agreement will be for the benefit of the

entire community.

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions

of law of the Illinois Pollution Control Board.

ORDER

This matter having come on for hearing and consideration

this

23rd day of January,

1975 upon the Stipulation, Considerations

and Joint Motion of the parties filed herein on the 16th day of

January, 1975 for dismissal of the Complaint pending herein and

termination of the proceedings,

and the Board having considered

the same and now being sufficiently advised.

ic —280

---

Now,

therefore,

it is ordered that the Complaint herein

be, and the same hereby is,

dismissed without prejudice in

accordance with

the

terms of said Stipulation, Considerations

and Joint Motion, and that this proceeding be hereby terminated

with leave to reinstitute upon failure to comply with any term

or condition of said Stipulation.

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

Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order was adopted

this

~

day ~

,

1975 by a vote of

4~

too