ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
July
24, 1980
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
Complainant,
v.
)
PCB 77—206
RALSTON PURINA COMPANY,
a
)
Respondent.
MR. WILLIAM BLAKNEY, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON BEHALF
OF THE COMPLAINANT.
MR. ROBERT
F.
RUSSELL, JOHNSON, MARTIN
& RUSSEL, APPEARED ON BEHALF
OF THE RESPONDENT.
OPINION
AND
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by D.
Satchell):
This matter comes before the Board upon a complaint filed
August
1,
1977 by the State of Illinois, naming as Respondent
Ralston Purina Company (Ralston Purina), a Missouri corporation.
The complaint alleges violation of Section 9(a)
of the Environment-
al Protection Act
(Act)
through odors emitted from a mushroom farm
operated by Ralston Purina in Bureau County.
A stipulation and
proposal for settlement was filed April 21,
1978 and a public hear-
ing was held on April 19,
1978.
The Board rejected the stipulation
(30 PCB 275,
377; May 25,
1978, June
8,
1978).
The parties filed
a
second stipulation and proposal for settlement on February 22, 1980.
A public hearing was held February 18,
1980 in Princeton at which
time the stipulation was outlined
(R.
6)*.
Members of the public
attended the hearing and commented.
Since the hearing the Board
has received further written comments.
The mushroom manufacturing facility is described as being
two and one-half miles east of Princeton, Bureau County
(Stip.
2).
The facility is situated adjacent to
a creek
(R.
27).
In a comment
filed March 12,
1980,
Raymond
and Edith Umphress stated that the
facility discharges to a ravine tributary to Biush Creek.
Maps
indicate that this creek is about six miles east of Princeton and
is tributary to East Bureau Creek and the Illinois River.
The facility operates twenty—four hours
a day, seven days
a week and employs 350 people producing about 250,000 pounds of
mushrooms a week.
Wheat straw containing about five percent equine
waste is trucked to the facility from Chicago area racetracks.
This
is stored out of doors prior to use.
The straw is precondi-
tioned by wetting.
Each week about 600,000 pounds of straw are
mixed with soybean meal and gypsum.
The mixture is allowed to
decompose aerobically to provide
a food source favorable for the
*tIRtt refers to the hearing held on February 18,
1980.
—2—
production of mushrooms.
After six days the partially decomposed
material is placed into wood trays and pasteurized.
This requires
an additional six days.
Cultured spawn is mechanically planted in
the resulting material.
After thirteen days
a mixture of peat
moss,
limestone and water is placed over the trays.
Reproduction
or “pinning” takes place over the next twelve days
(Stip.
2).
The
trays are then put into a growing room.
After the mushrooms reach
desirable size employees pick and sort the mushrooms by hand.
The
growing medium is discarded and replaced with new material
(Stip.
3).
A growing cycle takes two to three months
(R.
13).
The facility commenced operation in October 1976
(Stip.
2).
During the spring of 1977 and at various times subsequently,
citizens living in the general area of the facility have complained
about offensive odors and say that they believe the plant was the
source of these odors
(Stip.
3).
Ralston Purina maintains that
the
plant does not and should not normally emit objectionable odors.
However, under certain conditions of wind speed and direction,
coupled with an upset of normal operations,
odors may be emitted
beyond its property line
(Stip.
5).
Ralston Purina maintains that
it is now in compliance with all of the rules and regulations pro-
mulgated by the Board
(Stip.
10).
Ralston Purina has admitted to
no violations and the parties have not stipulated to facts sufficient
for the Board to find a violation.
The parties have, however, pro-
vided for payment of a
$1500 penalty
(Stip.
11).
Thirteen citizen witnesses presented i~arrativestatements at
the hearing
(R. 62).
Witnesses described the odor as that of a
dead cow or other animal
(R.
64,
68,
70).
The odor was apparent
at distances of one-half to three and one-half miles
from the plant
in various directions
(R.
64,
68,
70,
71,
78,
84, 90).
The odor
was present both in summer and in winter
(R. 65).
A witness who
was familiar with the area prior to construction of the plant
testified that there was no such odor prior to that time
(R.
78).
A witness who lived very close to the plant testified that she had
smelled it almost every day on one or more of the four sides of the
plant
(R.
84).
Based on the facts stipulated,
and the testimony of the citi-
zen witnesses and other witnesses at the hearing, the Board finds
that Ralston Purina has caused the emission of a contaminant into
the environment so as to cause or tend to cause air pollution in
violation of Section 9(a)
of the Act, substantially as alleged
in
the complaint.
Ralston Purina~swastewater treatment facilities are another
potential source of odor.
During the fall of 1976 and the spring
of 1977 Ralston Purina experienced startup difficulities with the
—3—
plant,
including the wastewater settling lagoons.
For
a period of
time during the spring of 1977 the lagoon turned anaerobic.
Ralston
Purina maintains that this was a source
of the objectionable odors
and that they were not detectable beyond Ralston Purina’s property
line
(Stip.
3).
Prior to filing of the complaint in July 1977 it
eliminated the use of one of the two lagoons and constructed a new
lagoon capable of handling the normal flow of wastewater without
turning anaerobic.
It believes that these
steps have successfully
abated any odors associated with the operation of the lagoon
(Stip.
4).
Ralston Purina stated at the hearing that if there is
a problem
with its lagoon,
the problem will be corrected
(R.
25).
In their comment filed March 12,
1980,
Raymond and Edith
Umphress made several allegations involving water pollution from the
facility.
Since this
is not alleged in the complaint,
the Board
will make no findings concerning water pollution.
Witnesses and
commenterS also complained about disease,
flies and open dumping of
used compost.
The Board likewise makes no findings on these
issues.
Since the first hearing in 1978 Ralston Purina hired a con-
sultant to study the odor.
These studies concluded that there
exists a correlation between wind direction, the mushroom farm site
and odor complaint locations
(Stip.
5).
There
is no indication
that Ralston Purina has taken any action to reduce odors in connec-
tion with its processes.
Under the terms of the stipulation Ralston Purina is to carry
out a schedule to reduce the odor potential from its process
(Stip.
6;
R.
10).
This program includes the following:
(1)
A berm is to be constructed around the wharf area to
direct wharf water to the waste treatment plant, mini-
mizing the potential for stagnant pools of water.
(2)
Composting materials are to be stored on the concrete
wharf at least two feet away from the edge.
(3)
A study is to be done and the effective stack height
of roof vents adjusted to provide better dispersion.
(4)
A laboratory scale
study is to be done to determine
if addition of activated charcoal or oxidizing agents
will reduce the odor potential of the compost.
(5)
Laboratory studies are to be done to determine better
methods for control of oxygen and water at the bottom
of the compost.
—4—
(6)
A pilot plant study is to be done involving a spray
curtain utilizing an oxidizing agent to intercept
odors from the wharf areas.
(7)
If the result
of the paragraph
6 study is favorable,
Ralston Purina is to add an oxidizing agent to air
emitted from the roof covering the compost area.
(8)
Investigation of alternative growing media, including
crushed corn cobs,
is to be performed.
Ralston Purina is
to submit various information to the
Attorney General’s office, including a final odor abatement pro-
gram.
Upon approval,
the final program is to be implemented with-
in nine months
(Stip.
10).
The Attorney General retains the right
to inspect the facility.
Ralston Purina
is to maintain a record
of odor complaints for three years and make these available to the
Attorney General’s office.
The agreement provides for a stipulated
penalty of $1500.
The agreement provides expressly that a subse-
quent odor complaint may be
filed in the event of additional odor
complaints or if facts and circumstances so warrant
(Stip.
11).
It appears that the citizens who attended the hearing opposed
the terms of the stipulation
(R.
20).
The objections centered more
on whether Ralston Purina will carry out the terms or whether the
odor will be reduced rather than specific objections concerning the
efficacy of the program.
Since Ralston Purina has agreed to under-
take a compliance program with some chance of success and since
there
is a specific provision that the settlement does not bar a
future enforcement action,
the Board finds the stipulation accept-
able pursuant to Procedural Rule 331.
The Board finds the penalty
of $1500 will aid in enforcement of the Act.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions
of law in this matter
ORDER
(1)
Respondent
Ralston Purina Company is
in violation of Section
9(a)
of the Environmental Protection Act.
(2)
Ralston Purina Company is ordered to cease and desist viola-
tions of Section 9(a) of the Act.
(3)
The stipulation and proposal for settlement is incorporated
into this order by reference.
Ralston Purina Company
is
ordered to comply with terms of that stipulation as if fully
set forth.
—5—
(4)
Ralston Purina Company shall,
by certified check or money
order payable to the State of Illinois, pay a civil penalty
of $1500 which is to be sent to:
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Fiscal Services Division
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois 62706
Mr. Goodman abstained.
Mr.
Dumelle concurred.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order
were ~dopted
on the
~2’/~
day of
__________,
1980 by a vote
of~/-O
Christan L. Moff~J Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
