ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

October 18, 1973

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Complainant,

)

PCB 73—34

ACME RESIN COMPANY,

Respondent.

James I. Rubin, Assistant 

Attorney

General for the EPA

James W. Gladden, Jr., Attorney for Respondent

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOAPD (by Mr. Henss)

On January 26, 1973 

the

Environmental Protection Agency

filed its Complaint against Acme Resin Company, a division of

CPC International, Inc. alleging Acme had caused or allowed the

emission of odors, gasses, phenol~ formaldehyde, ref lux material

and other air contaminants in

such ouantitv 

and of such duration

so as to cause air pollution in violation of Section 9(a)

of

the

Environmental Protection Act.

Respondent~s plant, located on Circle Avenue at

14th 

Street

in Forest Park, Cook County, Illinois,

is bounded on the east

by

residential

property, on

the

north and south by commercial property

and on the west by U. S. post office, Acme produces phenolic

resins by reacting phenol and formaldehyde in the presence of a

catalyst. Such resins are used in a variety of products including

paints, plastics and adhesives. Four reactors——two reflux type

and two heat exchanger type——are currently utilized to convert

the raw materials into the resin product.

Respondent employs about 90 people at its Forest Park plant.

In February 1973 operations were changed from a 6 day per week,

24 hour per day schedule to the present 7 day per week, 24 hour

per day schedule.

Phenol 

and formaldehyde, the basic raw materials, are delivered

to the plant in railroad tank cars and tank trucks and unloaded

through an enclosed system to storage tanks. There are three

storage tanks for phenol and three for formaldehyde, with storage

9

—

521

—2—

capacity ranging from 16,000 to 20,000 gallons per tank. Constant

temperatures of 1200 

F.

for phenol and 1100 

F.

for formaldehyde

are maintained in the storage tanks. Pressure—vacuum relief valves

(a device which opens on one ounce pressure or one—half ounce

vacuum) were installed on five of the six raw material storage

tanks about 5 years ago (R. 221). The remaining phenol storage

tank was equipped with such a relief valve within the last 6 months

(R. 223). Vapors in the storage tanks are displaced during loading

and are released to the atmosphere through the relief valves (R.

224). Respondent receives and unloads three 4,000 gallon tank

trucks of phenol every two days. Formaldehyde shipments are received

daily.

Unspecified quantities of acetone and methanol are also 

used at

the plant (R. 153) and apparently are stored in 7 underground

storage tanks ranging in capacity from 6,000 to 12,000 gallons which

vent to the atmosphere (R. 208).

Preparatory to the reaction process, raw materials are trans-

ferred to weigh tanks which are equipped with pressure—vacuum relief

valves. The relief valves were installed on the weigh tanks about

two years ago CR. 222) in such manner that any vapors passing

through the valve are released to the atmosphere (R. 205~.From

the weigh tanks the reactants are transferred to hold tanks which

are ventea to the plant’s cooling tower CR. 206). From the hold

tanks, the reactants and catalysts are fed to one of the four

reactors.

In the reflux reactors, vapors released from the boiling

reactants are condensed in water cooled condensers and returned

to the reactor. Uncondensed vapors from the condensers are

channeled to a scrubber where the vapors are washed with water and

then vented to the atmosphere CR. 203). The process in the heat

exchanger reactors differs from the reflux process in that the

temperature of the reactants remains below the boiling point as

the liquid is pumped through a heat exchanger and back to the

reactor. Vapors released from this process are vented directly

to the atmosphere (R. 202).

The reaction process is completed in 4 to 8 hours. The inter-

mediate product is then transferred to one of the eight dehydrators.

Depending on whether the final product is to be in a liquid or

flake form, it takes from 20 to 40 hours to dehydrate the inter-

mediate product. Material removed during dehydration is condensed

and collected in a receiver. Noncondensable vapors from the

dehydrator condensers are pulled through a vacuum pump to the

scrubber while the liquid collected in the receiver is drained

to the sewer (R. 204, 205).

—

522

—3—

From the dehydrator the product is transferred in liquid form

either to liquid product storage tanks or to flake hold tanks

which were also equipped with pressure—vacuum relief valves about

two years ago

(R. 222). Feed from the flake hold tanks goes to a

flaking machine where the product is solidified and placed in a

hopper from which the product is bagged or boxed. The hopper and

bagging station are equipped with a high efficiency cyclone for

emission control (R. 284). Seven of the 16 liquid product storage

tanks are equipped with relief valves and similar devices were

ordered for the remaining 9 tanks during t!ie latter part of April

1973 CR. 223) 

Acme ships the liquid product to its consumers in drums and

tank trucks. The liquid is transferree to the drums through pipes

and enter the drum through a 2 1/2” diameter hung hole. The tank

trucks are loaded through 

16” 

diameter manholes located on top of

the tank trucks.

Product is transferred to the trucks through a

hose

3” in 

diameter which rests on an indented screen used to

filter the product. Respondent’s chief engineer testified that

he was not aware of the commercial availability of a “closed

system” for loading tank trucks CR. 237) but that he thought the

system used to 

unload raw materials might be adaptable to the

loading of the finished product (R. 233).

He stated “Given proner

research and design,

we may he 

able to design something...”

(R. 237)

Acme has not “searched or looked for an alternate method” for

loading the tank trucks (R. 235).

Public hearings on the Agency Complaint were conducted on

May

3 and 4, 1973. Testimony was received from 11 persons who

live or formerly lived near Respondent’s elant.

While all of

these witnesses thought the Acme plant was the source of various

odors, four of the residents,

two firemen and two policemen employed

by the City of Forest Park, positively identified Acme as the source

of odors from having been in the plant on official business.

One

of the firemen, Fred Knaack, testified that a west wind carried

odors from Respondent’s plant to his home located about 2 blocks

east of the plant. He testified to having experienced the odor

on “many occasions” and most recently at 8:45 a.m. on the morning

of May 3, 1973 (R. 11). (However, we will not consider violations

which might have occurred after the filing of the Complaint.) Knaack

also testified that the odors caused him to experience “a pinching of

your nostrils, congestion in your sinuses and lungs” which caused

him to ‘have a hell of a time breathing” (R. 15). According to

Knaack, he had been forced to leave the area at times because of

breathing difficulties brought on by the odors (R. 17) 

specifically

recalled strong odors on June 25, 1972 and again on

July 5, 1972 when guests at his daughter’s

birthday party had to

be taken “inside because the smell was too strong” CR. 18).

Knaack

began calling the Acme plant about 4 years ago to complain about

the odors and has continued calling from time to time “wishfully

thinking that possibly something could be corrected on it” CR. 22).

—

523

—4—

The other fireman, Arthur Licitra, who resides directly

across the street from Respondent’s plant, testified that he

noticed an odor every day CR. 192).

He had also detected a

strong odor at 7:45 a.m. on

May 3, 1973 (after the filing of

the

Complaint). Licitra found the

odor “nauseating and eye

watering.., you can’t stay outside

the house” CR. 190)  

testified that he began calling “the President,Nr.

Polhemus”

about 8

years ago concerning the odor 

but no longer calls be-

cause he felt the calls were

not effective.

Michael Thompson, one of

the police officers, testified that

he had resided about 1/2 block east of the Acme plant until

October 1, 1972 at which time he moved because of an odor like

“decomposed flesh” which he detected every day (R. 88, 91)

(Thompson, who now resides about 3/4 mile northeast of the Acme

plant, also stated that he detected the odor at his present

residence on April 29, 1973 CR. 90). He testified that he had

detected the odor at other times while on duty and recalled de-

tecting a strong concentration “last Tuesday” at 2:30 a.m. when

he and his partner stopped to eat.) During cross examination,

when Thompson was asked if he could have detected the odor at his

former residence “if the wind was blowing at 25 m.p.h. the op-

posite direction”, he answered “very possibly correct, sir”

(R, 107). Prior to moving, Thompson considered purchasing the

building in which he resided but decided against the purchase

because of the odor CR. 92). He found the odor repugnant and

sickening and testified that the odor had caused him to vomit on

two different occasions in August 1972 (R. 92). Thompson stated

that the odor varied in intensity but that when leaving his

residence he and his wife would frequently have to run to his

automobile holding their breath CR. 93). He sent four letters

to Acme during the summer of 1972 complaining of the odor but

failed to receive a reply (R. 97). He also had complained to the

Environmental Protection Agency, Forest Park Village Officials,

the “County Environmental Protection People” and the “Regional

Environmental” CR. 98).

Richard

Archambault, another Forest Park police officer,

testified

that he had experienced a “nauseating” and “very

terrible odor” from Acme at his residence about

3/4 block from

the plant CR, 114). The

“terrible, horrible smell” caused his

eyes to tear “especially at night when I’m home and trying to

sleep” CR. 137) 

He testified that the odor keeps him from

enjoying his patio on occasion CR. 138) and has caused discomfort

to his family. Archambault added that the odor varies in intensity

and is not present on certain days. While on duty, Archarnbault

attempts to avoid working “that end of town” because of the odor

CR. 137) and when he is the senior officer on duty he only goes

into the area “when necessary” CR. 144)

9

—

524

—5—

Other witnesses testified

to having experienced nausea,

headaches and tearing eyes caused by the odors CR. 44, 64, 121,

159, 169, 182), to having been awakened during the night by the

odor (R. 63), to the frequent occurrence of strong odor concen-

trantions

(R. 43, 120, 161, 182)

and to the nuisance experienced

by other members of their families (R. 79, 183)

Two

witnesses

specifically

recalled that strong odors had persisted for almost

the entire day on Easter Sunday 1973 CR. 42, 119).

Although one

witness complained of “billows of smoke”, the record indicates

that this witness had mistakenly identified plant steam discharges

as smoke CR. 169).

Respondent’s case in rebuttal primarily rested on the testi-

mony of an Acme employee, an EPA investigator,

and an attack on

the credibility

of Agency witnesses.

The Acme employee, Bruce

Kimball, testified that, at the request of Respondent’s attorney,

he had initiated

an odor survey of the area on February 8, 1973

(again after the filing of the Complaint)

Kimball stated that

his experience in odor evaluation consisted of “in—hous~ training

by CPC employees” and “an outside firm”.

The methods used for

the survey were of his own choice CR. 367) and he personally made

the survey on all but one occasion (R. 370)

The Kimball survey consisted of walking from the plant to

specified locations in the area once or twice a day from Monday

through Friday and sniffing the air (P. 319)

Using an odor

rating system of one (1) for no odor, two (2) for slight odor,

three (3) for moderate odor, four (4) for moderately heavy odor,

and five (5) for heavy odor, Kimball’s survey initially

checked

three locations east of the plant but was later expanded to five

locations on March 13, 1973. Survey records

show 

that Kimball

never detected an odor above his rating of two (2) and that out of

275 separate tests only six achieved a rating of two (2) 

Those

occasions when he detected slight odor were on February 8 and 23,

March 7 and April 6, 1973.

After each odor detection during the survey, Kimball returned

to the plant and investigated cossible sources of the odor.

attributed

the February 8 odor to a leak in one of the formaldehyde

storage tanks. The tank

~ias drained and repaired (R. 333). The

February 23 odor was attributed to a malfunction in the scrubber

which was corrected 

by unplugging the water distribution nozzles

(R. 334). On March 7 Kimball found the source of the formaldehyde

odor to be an overflow

caused by a faulty scale at a formaldehyde

weigh tank. The problem was corrected

by

emergency scale

repair

service (B.

335) 

An excessive addition of formaldehyde to

one of

the reactors caused excessive venting to the scrubber on April 6.

Kimball stated that the problem was solved immediately by a

—

525

—6—

reduction in the formaldehyde addition rate to the reactor and

that dampers were subsequently

placed on the reactor vent system

“in order to stop over—fume

pickup because of velocities involved

in the duct work” (B. 336).

Mr. Kimball’s use of the “sniff test”

was similar to the

method used by residents in the area.

We do not credit his method

as a scientific survey.

It is generally accepted that

the minimum

number for service on an odor panel is six persons.

Journal of the

Air Pollution Control Association Vol. 13, Number 10, Oct. 1963.

An odor survey panel of one falls far short of this requirement.

Indeed, Kimball testified

that Acme’s parent organization,

CPC

International,

uses 15 individuals for its

odor panel CR. 383).

Also, it seems that some of

the tests may have been conducted

when Mr. Kimball 

was experiencing olfactory fatigue.

Although

most odor experts agree

that the subjective nature of human

olfactory responses surpasses the sensitivity

of most analytical

instruments, evidence has also shown that

the sense of smell: is

fatigued with prolonged exposure to an odor.

Kimball acknowledged

that his time limit

before experiencing olfactory fatigue 

was just

“an hour or

two’~ 

of the phenol or formaldehyde odor (B.

394) 

The

record

fails to show if Kimball, after leaving a plant allegedly

containing fumes and odors (P. 12, 88, 135, 190, 306), allowed

sufficient 

time

for recovery from 

an”

olfactory fatigue 

may have

experienced. Many of Kimball’s readings, however, were taken early

in the day and would not have been subject to error from olfactory

fatigue.

P.esidents said stronq odors have occurred at night and on

weekends, but Kimball

did not test for odors after 

6 p.m. or before

S a .m. or on any Saturday or Sunday.

No testing occurred between

July

1, 1970 and January 

26, 1973, t~ie period of alleged violations

of the

Statute.

Agency investigator Martin Sheahan, 

who resides in the vicinity

of the Acme plant, testified to 

havin9

“been up and down Harlem

Avenue in the vicinity of Acme’s plant” (an estimated distance of

about 3 city blocks) ‘at least 500

times” without experiencing any

odor which he associated with the Acme plant CR. 401).

Sheahan

acknowledged having been on Circle Avenue near

the Acme plant at

least 20

times and said 

3 of the trips directly related to his

investigation of odor complaints.

On several of these

visits Sheahan

failed to detect an odor even though the wind was blowing across the

plant towards the residential

area.

Sheahan inspected the plant on three different dates.

While

inspecting the

plant on January 4, 

1972, Sheahan detected a strong

phenol odor coming from a cooling

tower located on the roof of the

plant. He found the odor objectionable for the short period of

time he remained exposed to it CR. 406). Sheahan informed Acme

—

526

—7—

officials that he considered the cooling 

tower to be the plant’s

main source of odor primarily due to the discharge from the

vacuum pumps to the cooling tower.

Company records indicate that five firms were promptly con-

tacted concerning the odor problem and that by March 17, 1972 at

least one equipment quotation had been received (Respondent Exhibit

No. 11). Acme subsequently decided on a Purification Industries

packed tower scrubber with a guaranteed phenol removal efficiency

of 99.5. An order for the unit was placed on September 8, 1972

with a scheduled delivery date of December 1, 1972 (Respondent

Exhibit fll9). Problems with equipment shipments delayed the actual

scrubber installation until February 12, 1973 (R. 212). After

finally placing the equipment on line, Acme discovered that the

scrubber pump was not of sufficient capacity, liquid distribution

nozzles plugged frequently and excessive wear was occurring on 

the

drive—belts to the scrubber fan. These problems were solved and

the scrubber unit placed back in operation on April 26, 1973 (B.

340).

Investigator Sheahan inspected the roof area of the plant again

in March 1973 and noted a “significant improvement of the odor

condition” since the scrubber installation (R. 415). This is con-

sistent with Mr. Kimball’s observations during this time period.

Sheahan collected a sample of the cooling tower water with his hand

and was unable to detect any odor in the sample CR. 418). He re-

called detecting a “moderate” odor of phenol in the Licitra’s

living room, but also admitted that his only detection of a “strong”

odor off the Acme premises occurred on April 17, 1973, after the

filing of the Complaint and prior to repairs on the scrubber CR. 418)

Acme claims that the Agency witnesses “greatly exaggerated the

episodes of phenolic odor” and that we should consider the Kimball

survey “superior to those of citizen witnesses because Kimball had

had training in odor detection and his observations were correlated

to official weather records”. The record partially supports the

charge of exaggeration but not to the degree claimed by Respondent.

One witness thought she saw “great billows of smoke” when in reality

it was probably water vapor. We also have reservations about the abi

of one witness to possibly detect an odor even when the wind was

blowing 25 m.p.h. in the opposite direction. But the conclusion

that all Agency witnesses greatly exaggerated is simply not supported

Most Agency witnesses agreed that the intensity of the odors varied

and that odors were not present on certain days. But these same

witnesses were also in agreement that, when present, the odors

unduly interfered with their enjoyment of life and property.

As we have noted many times in previous cases involving odor,

neither party chose to provide the Board with the results of any

objective test. The record contains vague testimony alluding to

tests that were conducted on the “exit gasses”. These tests, which

Respondent claims were conducted in March or April 1973, allegedly

9—

527

—8—

showed Respondent’s emissions of an undefined contaminant to be

“over a half a part per million”, “less than five parts per

million”, and “on occasion less than ten parts per million” (R.

364, 365). Such confusing testimony adds nothing to the proceedings

when not accompanied by the test report.

Respondent argues that, should the Board consider the Agency

evidence sufficient to prove Acme odors interfered with the

enjoyment of life and property, the Board is nevertheless prevented

from finding that this interference was “unreasonable”, since the

Agency failed to prove that there was an economically feasible

means of limiting the odor emissions. The Agency, on the other

hand, contends that Acme’s pre-trial conduct removed economic

reasonableness as an issue.

The record shows that the Agency’s Interrogatory No. 13 called

for financial information relating to Respondent’s volume of business

and profits. Acme claimed that this financial information was

“irrelevant and immaterial” and would be provided only if Acme

decided “to make a hardship defense”. The Statute provides that

“the burden shall be on the Respondent to show that compliance with

the Board’s Regulations would impose an arbitrary or unreasonable

hardship”. EPA Sec. 31(c) The hearing officer then issued this

order:

“If said Interrogatory is not answered, no testimony

or other evidence will be allowed at the hearing upon

which the Respondents may base a hardship defense.”

Acme refused to divulge the information knowing full well that the

Agency would need it in order to make a responsible evaluation of

the economic impact of Respondent’s control program. If the record

of economic impact is inadequate, the failure is that of the Re-

spondent.

Equipment exists for the control of odors from phenol and for-

maldehyde. The record contains a number of quotations from firms

eager to sell such equipment to Acme. It was economically feasible

for Respondent to install control equipment in 1973 and thereby at

least reduce odors in the community. We believe it would have been

just as feasible to install the equipment at an earlier date. The

best evidence that control was economically feasible is the fact

that the Company in fact installed equipment which accomplished

some result.

Unanswered during these proceedings was the question whether

or not the newly installed equipment will sufficiently abate the

odor problems experienced by Acme’s neighbors. The parties have

filed a “Joint Motion With Respect to Relief” requesting that this

Board direct the EPA and Acme to conduct a testing program for a

—

528

—9—

period of 150 days to determine whether actions taken by Acme

have corrected the periodic phenolic odor problem. The testing

program will involve both scientific and subjective measurement

of odor at mutually agreeable ground level locations in a manner

mutually acceptable to the parties. A procedure whereby nearby

residents will be encouraged to immediately notify Acme of any

odor complaints will be implemented. Acme agrees to make every

effort to determine the source of the odor. The parties will

attempt to develop a procedure whereby scientific tests will

measure ground level concentrations of phenol at the time and

place of any complaint.

Within 60 days after the conclusion of the test, the parties

are to file a report summarizing the results. In addition, this

report will contain a mutually agreeable program for further

abatement procedures, if the test results show additional procedures

are necessary.

In view of the fact that scrubber operating problems appear to

have been solved and other control equipment has been recently

installed the Board finds the proposed testing program acceptable

and desireable. The simultaneous objective and subjective testing

should provide the parties with a correlation that could determine

the level of phenol deemed objectionable by Acme’s neighbors.

We note, however, that the proposed testing program speaks only

of the phenol odors. Evidence indicates that formaldehyde may also

be responsible for complaints of the residents. We believe the

program should include testing for formaldehyde and shall require

the program be modified to include such testing.

The Joint Motion makes no recommendation regarding monetary

penalty, beyond stating that this is for Board determination from

the evidence presented at the hearings. In its Brief, Respondent

requests that no penalty be imposed because “Acme 

has acted in good

faith 

in its efforts to control odor”. While Acme did react

promptly to the Agency investigator’s recommendation, the record

clearly proves that a number of years passed with little action

on complaint letters and phone calls from nearby residents. We

believe Acme is now acting in good faith, but we do not believe

the record fully supports 

the

claim of “good faith” prior to

January 1972. On the other hand, the Agency comparison of Acme to

Respondent in EPA vs. Lloyd A. Fry Roofing Company, PCB 71-33, is

likewise unjustified by the record.

We are convinced from the record that Acme did cause air

pollution and an odor nuisance in the community on a number of

occasions between July 1, 1970 and January 26, 1973. For these

violations a monetary penalty of $2,000 seems appropriate.

—

529

—10—

We shall approve the testing program in the hope that it

may lead to further understanding of the odor problems which

have concerned Acme and its neighbors and a further control of

odor if that is necessary.

ORDER

It is the Order of the Board that:

1. Acme Resin Company shall pay to the State of

Illinois by November 15, 1973 the sum of $2,000

as a penalty for the violations found in this

proceeding. Penalty payment by certified check

or money order payable to the State of Illinois

shall be made to: Fiscal Services Division,

Illinois EPA, 2200 Churchill Road, Springfield,

Illinois 62706.

2. Acme Resin Company and the Environmental Protection

Agency shall conduct an odor testing program, as

described in the Joint Motion With Respect to

Relief, for a period of 150 days beginning no later

than November 1, 1973.

3. Within 60 days after the conclusion of the test

period, Acme Resin and the Agency shall submit to

this Board a summary report on the results of the

testing program. The report shall include a mutually

agreed upon program by which Acme shall take any

further action the parties deem necessary to reduce

odorous emissions.

4. In addition to the proposed testing for phenol-

phenolic odors, the parties shall incorporate into

the test and control program, objective and subjective

tests for formaldehyde odors.

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

Board, hereby c rtfy the above Opinion and Order was adopted this

j’~”1day of 

____________,

1973 by a vote of ~$‘~ to ~

9— 530