ILLINOIS
    POLLUTION
    CONTROL
    BOARD
    October
    24, 1972
    ENVIRONMENTAL
    PROTECTION AGENCY
    v.
    )
    1 71—88
    RALSTON
    PURINA
    CO.
    Mr.
    Larry
    R.
    Eaton,
    Assistant
    Attorney
    General,
    and
    Mr.
    Steven
    Sutton,
    for
    the
    Environmental
    Protection
    Agency
    Mr.
    Walter
    A.
    Yoder,
    and
    Mr.
    August
    Ottinger,
    for
    Ralston
    Purina
    Company
    Opinion
    &
    Order
    of
    the
    Board
    (by
    Mr.
    Currie):
    Following
    two days of hearings on this complaint
    respecting particulate emissions and odors from Purina’s
    Bloomington
    mill,
    settlement
    negotiations
    were
    undertaken
    but
    no
    agreement
    was
    reached.
    Our
    order
    of
    November
    23,
    1971
    pointed
    out
    that,
    even
    when
    the
    parties
    agreed,
    we
    would
    require
    more
    information
    than
    had
    been
    put
    before
    us
    in
    the
    proposed
    settlement
    in
    order
    to
    evaluate
    the
    proposal
    There
    is
    no
    stipulation
    of
    facts
    as
    required
    in
    order
    to
    give
    us
    a
    basis
    for
    evaluating
    the
    proposed
    order.
    The
    question
    of
    what
    to
    order
    is
    for
    the
    Board
    to
    decide,
    and it
    cannot
    be
    decided
    in
    the
    absence
    of
    a
    knowledge of the facts.
    We call attention specifically
    to the proposal for “directing the emissions of odors
    away from the Sunnyside Housing Development.”
    Any
    settlement proposal ought to explain why it is necessary
    that odors be simply deflected rather than controlled.
    3 PCB 143.
    Noting that,
    if the hearings had
    gone
    on,
    the
    case would already have been decided, we added that “we
    trust there will be no further delays.”
    There have been further delays.
    No
    further
    hearings
    were held until September of 1972, when a second attempt
    at
    settlement
    was
    presented,
    which
    totally
    ignores
    our
    order
    of
    a
    year
    ago.
    For
    example,
    we
    are
    asked
    to
    determine
    the
    issue
    of
    money
    penalties,
    but
    there
    are
    no
    facts
    either
    in
    the
    stipulation
    or
    elsewhere
    in
    the
    record
    to
    tell
    us
    whether
    or
    not
    the
    boiler emissions,
    an
    important
    part
    of
    the
    Agency’s
    case,
    were
    in
    violation
    of
    the
    regulations.
    The
    same
    6—3

    —2—
    proposal
    is
    made
    for
    deflecting
    odors
    away
    from
    nearby
    homes,
    with
    not a
    shred
    of
    evidence
    or
    agreed
    fact
    to
    suggest whether or not such a program
    will
    be
    adequate
    to
    solve the problem.
    The complaint was filed April 21,
    1971.
    A year and
    a half has passed, and the case has made no progress.
    When
    cases are filed, they should be prosecuted.
    And our orders should be read and obeyed.
    The
    proposed
    settlement
    is
    rejected.
    A
    hearing
    shall
    be
    held
    within
    35
    days
    after
    receipt
    of
    this order.
    If
    an
    acceptable
    stipulation
    can
    be
    reached
    in
    the
    interim,
    it
    shall
    be
    presented
    to
    the
    Board
    for
    examination
    and
    upon
    tentative
    Board
    approval
    may
    be
    made
    the
    subject
    of
    the hearing.
    I,
    Christan
    Moffett,
    Clerk
    of
    the
    Pollution
    Control
    Board,
    certify
    t1~atthe
    Board
    adopte,d
    t)’ae
    above
    Opinion
    &
    Order
    this
    ~‘4’”
    day
    of
    &-~_tc-
    _~,
    1972,
    by
    a
    vote
    of
    S.t
    ~
    1/
    6—4

    Back to top