ILLINOIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

JuJ.v

10,

1975

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Complainant,

v.

)

PCB

75—8

SWIFT AND COMPANY,

Respondent,

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Mr. Dumellé):

This case involves

a complaint,

filed January

7,

1975,

alleging that Respondent,

Swift and Company, constructed and

operated air pollution control equipment without permits

from the Environmental Protection Agency

(Agency),

in violation

of Rules

103(a) (1) and 103(b) (1)

of Chapter

2

(Air Pollution

Regulations)

and Section

9(b) of the Environmental Protection

Act.

Swift, through its Edible Oil Division, owns and operates

a margarine,

shortening and related products manufacturing

facility located on U.S.

Route

50, Bradley, Kankakee County,

Illinois.

This facility includes twenty-four

edible

oil

storage tanks,

three

of which utilize activated carbon

canisters which are the subject of this complaint.

A public hearing was held on March 17,

1975,

at which

a Stipulation And Proposal For Settlement was entered~

The

Stipulation indicated that Swift constructed and operated

the canisters on or after November

7,

1973 without Agency

permits,

in violation of the Act and regulations as alleged

in the complaint.

The parties agreed that Swift pay a

penalty of $1,000 for these violations and that Swift should

promptly proceed to take all actions to obtain the required

permits.

We

note that these canisters were installed as a result

of our previous Order

in EPA v.

Swift and Company, PCB 72-125,

6 PCB 381

(December

5,

1972) which required Swift

to install

such canisters on all twenty—four edible oil storage tanks,

subject to the Agency permit procedures,

in order to abate

18—

57

---

—2—

an odor nuisance.

At the hearing

in the present case Swift’s

attorney pointed out that the Attorney General had filed

a complaint

in the Circuit Court of the 12th Judicial Circuit requesting

injunctive relief and penalties,

alleging that Swift had

failed to comply with our previous Order.

It was further pointed

out that a settlement had been reached in that action whereby

Swift agreed to pay a penalty of $5,000 and to install the

remainder of the canisters

as required.

We regret that it was

necessary

to turn to the courts to enforce our previous Order.

Hopefully,

the settlement reached in the Circuit Court will

speed the completion of the canister installation program so as

to finally abate the odor nuisance.

On the basis of the Stipulation, we find that Swift did

violate the Act and regulations

as alleged.

In consideration

of Section

33 of the Environmental Protection Act we find

there are insufficient facts to determine the degree of

injury,

the social and economic value, or the suitability of

the pollution source to the area in which

it is located.

We

further find that the stipulated settlement of $1,000 constitutes

a reasonable penalty for these violations.

This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact

and conclusions of law.

ORDER

1.

Respondent,

Swift and Company,

shall pay a penalty

of

$1,000 for the violations of Section

9(h)

of the Environmental

Protection Act and Rules

103(a) (1)

and 103(b) (1)

of the Air

Pollution Regulations found herein.

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 Road,

Springfield,

Illinois 62706.

2.

Swift and Company shall promptly proceed to take

all reasonable and necessary actions and to make all reasonable

and necessary submissions to the Agency to obtain the lawfully

required permits for the use of its activated carbon canisters

at

its Bradley plant.

IT

IS SO ORDERED.

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

Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order were adopted on the

J~~day

of July,

1975 by a vote of

_____________________

Christan L. Moffett~erk

18

—

58