ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
June
8,
1978
PEOPLE
OF
THE
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS,
)
Complainant,
v.
)
PCB 77—206
RALSTON PURINA COMPANY,
a
Missouri
corporation,
Respondent.
OPINION OF THE BOARD
(by Mr. Dumelle):
This Opinion is in support of an Order entered May 25,
1978.
On April
21,
1978, Complainant filed a Stipulation and
Proposal for Settlement in this case.
The proposed settlement
is based on the parties’ agreed statement of facts as follows:
1.
Citizens
residing
in
the
general
area
of
Respondent’s
plant complained of offensive odors during the spring and
summer
of
1977.
2.
A waste—water settling lagoon on
the
premises
turned
anaerobic
during
this
time
period
which
complainant
believes
was
the
source
of
the
objectionable
odors
complained
of.
3.
Respondent
on
its
own
initiative
acted to abate the
odors associated with
the
improper
functioning
of
the
lagoon.
4.
Since
the
spr.1~
of
1977,
no
further
written
complaints
concernlnq
odors
at
the
plant
had
been
recei~ved
by
either
party.
On April
19,
1978,
a public
hearing
was
held
in
this
matter.
Notice
of
the hearing was given by publication
in
a
local
weekly
newspaper
of
qeneral
circulation,
pursuant
to
Rule
307(b)
(2)
of
the
Board1s
Procedural
Rules.
None
of
the
citizens
who
had
complained
of
the
odors
to the Agency
or
the
Attorney
Generai~s
Office
was
notified
by
mail
of
the
proceedings.
The
Board~s
rules
do
not
require
such
notice
to
individual
interested
citizens
unless
the
Agency
is
Complainant
in
a
formal
action
See
Rule
307(d)1.
However,
those same
30
—
377
—2—
policies which underlie the notice provisions of Section 307(d)
of
the
Procedural
Rules
(to
encourage
public
participation
in
the
task
of
protecting
the
environment
and
to
ensure
interested
parties
an
opportunity
to
be
heard)
would
seem
to
apply
equally to cases originated by citizen’s complaints but
brought in the name of the People of Illinois by the Attorney
General directly as when the action is filed in the name
of the Agency.
Those persons who were present at the hearing
in this case objected to the lack of individual notice and stated
their belief that many interested persons were thereby prevented
from attending the proceedings.
Those citizens testifying at the hearing objected to
the Proposed Settlement on the grounds that,
contrary to
the
position taken by the parties herein, the offensive odors
complained of were not abated by any action of Respondent
in
the
spring or summer of 1977,
but have been emitted on an
intermittent,
continuous
basis
from
the
date
plant
operations
began
to
the
present
time.
One
person
recorded perception of strong odors on
December
29,
1977;
January
9,
February
5
and
22,
March
25,
and
April
6
and
10,
1978.
(R.l4.)
Dates recorded by a
neighbor of this witness were read into the record
CR.
15):
January
9,
20;
February
5,
22; March
8,
25;
and
April
6,
19,
1978.
Another
witness
who
resides
one—quarter mile from
the facility testified
CR.
20)
that odors similar to that
from a decaying animal started in the
fall
of
1976 and
were experienced several days each month up through April,
1978.
Testimony of a fourth witness concurred with the above
as to the description of the odor and its recurrence up
to the present date
(April, 1978).
CR 24-~5.)
Several of
the dates mentioned by witnesses coincided.
After consideration of the
testimony
i~ntroduced
by
these
witnesses,
the
Board
concludes
that
Lhe
Stipulation
of
facts
submitted
by
the parties pursuant
to Rule
331
(a)
(1)
may be incomplete as it pertains to the “nature, extent
and causes of the alleged violations.”
For this reason the
Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement submitted by Complainant
is hereby rejected and the case is remanded to the Hearing
Officer
for further hearings.
30
—
378
—3—
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify the above Opinion was adopted on
th~
~4~”day
of
____________________,
1978
by a vote of
~.S-O
Christan L. Moff~
,
Clerk
Illinois Pollution
ontrol Board
30
—
379