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