ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
July 24, 1975
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
)
AGENCY,
Complainant,
v
)
PCB 74—208
PETER COOPER CORPORATION,
)
DIAMOND GLUE DIVISION,
a
)
Delaware Corporation,
)
Respondent.
MR. DENNIS
R. FIELDS, attorney for Complainant.
MR. HENRY W. SLEDZ, JR., attorney for Respondent.
INTERIM ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Dr. Odell)
On June
5,
1974, the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
(Agency)
filed a Complaint with the Illinois Pollution
Control Board
(Board).
The Agency alleged that from July 1,
1970,
until June 5, 1974, Peter Cooper operated its inedible
rendering process creating odor emissions in violation of
Section 9(a)
of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act
(Act).
The Agency also charged that violations of Rule 802(b)
of the
Air Pollution Regulations
(Chapter
2) have occurred since July
1, 1972.
Respondent’s facility is located at 2930 South Robinson
Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, in a heavy industrial area of the city.
The first hearing was held in Chicago, Illinois, on
October 15,
1974.
At that time the parties stated that negotia-
tions were underway to resolve the odor problem and that an agree-
ment would be forthcoming within a few months.
The second and
final hearing was held on May 16, 1975,
in Chicago.
Joint Exhibit
No.
1 was entered into evidence.
This Stipulation and Proposal
For Settlement
(Stipulation), requiring minor modifications and
retyping, was filed with the Board on June 19,
1975.
The Statement of Facts
in the Stipulation said that
Respondent processes 150,000 pounds of scrap leather daily into
glue and fertilizer six days
a week.
The scrap leather arrives
by trucks and rail cars and is chopped and shredded.
Cold water
washing removes the salt.
The scrap leather then enters a cooker
where the glue substances contained in the leather are dissolved,
leaving a waste product called tankage.
The tankage is removed
from the cooler with an overhead crane and piled in an open yard
on Cooper’s property.
Later the tankage
is fed by a loader into
a rotary kiln drier where it becomes a finished product,
fertilizer.
18—162
—2—
Twelve employees of Illinois Central Gulf Railroad,
the facility to Respondent’s immediate north, signed complaint
forms and indicated their willingness to testify at hearing.
“Each employee complained of continuous objectionable odors
emanating from Peter Cooper’s property.
Many employees stated
that the odors make them nauseous and permeate their clothes
and automobiles.”
Two motorists on the nearby Stevenson Express-
way complained of the odors from Peter Cooper and stated their
willingness
to testify.
Residents, one-half mile south of the
facility,
also agreed to testify at a hearing.
Scentometer
tests conducted on June
5,
1974, required dilution ratios of
128:1 before the odor was no longer detectable.
Procedures carried out by Respondent since 1970 to
abate the odor problem include:
“a.
Initial research of available technology and
intercorporate communications regarding
feasibility of same.
b.
Testing, beginning in March,
1972, to deter-
mine the feasibility of installing a drying
system for the tankage
($10,800.00).
c.
Stack tests conducted by Hoyer-Schlesinger-
Turner,
Inc.,
at the Diamond Glue facility
in Chicago in June of 1974
($5,500.00).
d.
Immediately upon filing of the lawsuit, Peter
Cooper constructed
a building with venting
and odor modification system
arid installed a
perimeter odor modification system in
December, 1974
($25,000.00). The odor modifica-
tion system and the perimeter odor modification
system were removed at the request of the
Environmental
Protection
Agency.”
In the Terms of Settlement, Respondent denied any wrong
doing and denied that it conducts an inedible rendering process.
The Terms of Settlement were conditioned on acceptance by the
Board in all respects and were to be void and of no effect if
not fully approved by the Board.
A brick building has been constructed to store the
tankage prior to its being fed into the rotary kiln drier.
From May
15, 1975,
until November 15, 1975,
the Agency will
inspect Respondent’s facilities to determine whether the brick
building is “eliminating potential sources of odor.”
A com-
pliance plan
--
including possible installation of an after-
burner or wet scrubber
-—
would be implemented
if the Agency de-
termined that the Respondent is violating the Act or the
regulations and properly notified Peter Cooper within the time
limits specified.
Respondent agreed, for the purposes of
settlement only,
to remit to the State the sum of $1,000.
Finally,
the Agency “agrees that in any future proceedings
brought against Peter Cooper
.
.
.
damages shah
be sought
18— 163
—3—
only for violations occurring after November 15, 1975.”
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 com-
pliance program is not specified in sufficient detail
to insure
that the public is adequately protected.
We don’t know the ex-
tent 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.
This case is remanded to the parties for further
proceedings consistent with this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order was
adopted on ths
~
day of July,
1975, by
a vote of
~.~—cj
Illinois Pollution
~ol
Board
18
—
164