ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

March 11, 1976

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Complainant,

v.

)

PCB 74—208

PETER COOPER CORPORATION,

DIAMOND GLUE DIVISION,

a Delaware corporation,

Respondent.

Ms.

Kathryn

Sheehan Nesburg,

Attorney,

appeared for the Complainant;

Mr.

Henry

W.

Sledz, Jr.,

Attorney, appeared for the Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Mr.

Zeitlin):

This matter

is before the Board on

a Complaint filed by the

Environmental Protection Agency

(Agency) on June

5,

1974,

alleging

that Respondent Peter Cooper Corporation

(Cooper) had operated an

inedible rendering process

so as to create odor emissions in violation

of Section 9(a)

of the Environmental Protection Act

(Act)

and Rule

802(b)

of Chapter

2:

Air Pollution, of the Pollution Control Board

(Board)

Rules and Regulations.

The facility alleged to be in violation

is

Cooper’s Diamond Glue Division plant, located at 2930 South Robinson

Avenue

in Chicago,

in a heavy industrial area of the city.

The first two hearings in this matter were held in Chicago on

October 15,

1974, and May 16,

1975.

On June 19,

1975,

the parties

entered a Joint Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement

(Stipulation

No.

1), which was the subject of an Interim Order of the Board on

July 24,

1975.

The Board’s July

24, 1975 Interim Order rejected Stipulation

No.

1 for the following reasons:

We reject the Stipulation entered into between

the parties.

In exchange for the payment of only

$1,000 Respondent

is

in effect given a shield for

possible violations extending over

a five—year

period.

The record does not indicate the magnitude

of the interference experienced by residents and

others who found it necessary to be near Respondent’s

plant.

The compliance program is not specified

in

sufficient detail to insure that the public is

adequately protected.

We don’t know the extent of

Respondent’s knowledge of its possible pollution

source.

No economic data are supplied on Peter

Cooper’s financial situation.

The cost of the newly

constructed brick building is not known nor have

possible costs of compliance been included in the

record.

In light of the record, we find the Stipulation

unacceptable.

20—195

---

—2—

The

Board’s

July 24,

1975 Interim Order also details the

procedural history of this case through that date, the specific

operations carried on at the Diamond Glue plant, and various efforts

made by Peter

Cooper

to abate the odor problems which were the subject

of the Agency’s Complaint.

Those matters need not be repeated here.

A third hearing was held in Chicago on

Jan.

19, 1976.

The

parties then entered a new Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement

(Stipulation No. 2), which was submitted to the Board in signed form

on February 17, 1976.

At the January 19,

1976 hearing the parties

detailed those changes in Stipulation No. 2 which were made in an

attempt to correct the deficiencies which the Board found in Stipulation

No.

1.

Inasmuch as the Board’s July 24, 1975 Interim Order rejecting

Stipulation No.

1 adequately sn~n~narizes

that

first stipulation, we

shall follow the parties’ lead

and

discuss here only those differences,

as they relate to the acceptability of stipulation No.

2.

1.

The Board’s first objection was that, for a penalty of

$1,000, Respondent would have been given a shield from enforcement

for a possible violation extending over a five-year period.

In

Stipulation No.

2, the penalty provision is increased to $1,500, and

the Agency has dropped all allegation of violation during the period

July

1,

1970 until January 8, 1973, the latter date being the

time

of

the Agency’s first inspection of Respondent’s plant.

2.

To answer the Board’s second objection, the record’s failure

to indicate the magnitude of interference experienced by residents and

others as a result of odors from Respondent’s plant, Stipulation No. 2

now

includes several complaint forms filled out by citizens regarding

the effects of the odors upon them.

Those complaint forms

(Ex. A-L),

indicate that the degree of interference was indeed significant.

3.

The Board’s third objection to Stipulation No. 1 was a

lack of specificity in the compliance progrcm, needed to insure that

the public would be adequate?y protected in the stipulated settlement.

The

parties have added new material (paragraphs 14 through 19 of

Stipulation No.

2) describing in detail the compliance program.

In essence,

the compliance program in this enforcement case is

entirely contingent.

Cooper has already constructed

(as noted in

our

earlier Interim Opinion) a brick building to enclose the ~tankage,N

which had previously been stored outdoors, and which

both

parties

agree was the source of the odors in question.

Although Cooper

apparently believes that use of this building will be sufficient to

abate the odor problem, the iqency will nonetheless conduct a 3-month

investigation, after which the

Agency may

require that Cooper install

either an afterburner or a

wet

scrubber to control any odors which

still escape.

During the 3-month investigation period, Cooper will

20—las

---

—3—

prepare construction permits

for submission to the Agency should a

construction program for the afterburner or wet scrubber be necessary,

and will,

if additional time for the construction program is indeed

necessary,

apply

to the Board for a Variance during such construction.

Cooper will submit

a

$5,000 performance bond to cover the eventuality

that such construction will be required.

4.

To answer the Board’s fourth question, concerning the actual

source of the odors from Cooper’s facility, both parties have agreed

that the handling of tankage

is

(or was)

the source.

5.

The Board’s objection concerning

a lack of knowledge of

cooper’s financial siutation

is answered by stipulation to the fact

that Cooper could and can afford any control technology likely to be

necessary.

6.

The Board’s statement that the cost of the brick building

constructed by Cooper was not shown in Stipulation No.

1

is now

corrected in Stipulation No.

2,

to show a cost of $19,500.

The cost

of any future controls is given at $10,000,

(R.6,

January 19,

1976

hearing).

In light of the additional information submitted by the parties,

the Board finds that the settlement now before it is adequate.

While

the penalty remains low, Stipulation No.

2 indicates that the settle-

ment approved here will serve to abate the problems which have existed,

if they

have not

in fact aireddy been abated.

In addition,

the parties

have shown in mitigation that Cooper has expended considerable sums

over the last several years

in an attempt to abate the problem.

Only two

issues remain:

The parties did not,

in Stipulation No.

2,

agree whether,

(1) Cooper’s Diamond Glue facility

is

in

fact an inedible

rendering plant, or

(2) whether there was

in fact sufficient odor from

Cooper’s plant to constitute violations of the Act and our Regulations.

First,

there can be no c2oubt that the process described in both

Stipulation Nos.

1 and

2,

at Cooper’s Chicago facility,

is in fact an

inedible rendering process.

Cooper’s process fits squarely within the

definition given in Rule 801.

Second,

the parties did not agree

in Stipulation No.

2 as to

the presence or absence of violation,

(e.g., paragraphs

9,

13).

In

light of the matters submitted in Stipulation No.

2 on the issues of

interference with individuals, economic and technical reasonableness

of eliminating odors, and the duration of the problem

(see,

e.g.,

Ex.

A-L),

we have no difficuJty finding a violation of Section

9(a)

of the Act.

Based on our finding that Cooper’s facility

is an inedible

rendering process, we also find a violation of Rule 802(b).

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of

law of the Board

in this matter.

20—197

---

—4—

ORDER

IT

IS

THE

ORDER

OF

THE

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

Lhat:

1.

Respondent

Peter

Cooper

Corporation,

I)iamond

Glue

Division,

a

Delaware

corporation,

is

found

to

have

operated

an

inedible

rendering

process

in

Chicago,

Illinois,

in

violation

of

Section

9(a)

of

the

Environ-

mental

Protection

Act

and

Rule

802(b)

of

Chapter

2:

Air

Pollution

of

the

Pollution

Control

Board’s

Rules

and

Regulations.

2.

Respondent

shall

pay

as

a

penalty

for

the

aforesaid

violations

the

sum

of

Fifteen

Hundred Dollars

($1,500.00), payment to be made within thirty

(30)

days

of

the

date

of

this

Order

by

certified

check

or

money

order

to:

Environmental

Protection

Agency

Fiscal

Services

Division

2200

Churchill

Road

Springfield,

Illinois

62706

3.

Complainant

Environmental Protection Agency

and Respondent Peter Cooper Corporation shall comply

with all provisions of the

“terms of

settlements’ of

the Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement

in this

matter filed on February 17,

1976.

4.

To assure any further construction which

may be required under such terms

of settlement,

Respondent shall post

a performance bond

in the

amount of Five Thousand Dollars

($5,000.00),

in a

form acceptable to the Environmental Protection

Agency,

such bond to be submitted to:

Environmental Protection Agency

Control Program Coordinator

Division of Air Pollution Control

2200 Churchill Road

Springfield,

Illinois

62706

Mr.

Dumnelle concurred.

I,

Christan L.

Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, hereby certify the

bove Opinion and Order were

adopted on the

~

day of

-

,

1976,

by

a vote of

4/p

Illinois Pollution

~trol Board