ILLINOIS
POLL UTK)N
CONTROL
BOARI)
December
5,
1972
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
v.
)
PCB
72—125
SWIFT
AND
COMPANY
OPINION
AND ORDER
OF
THE
BOARD
(by Mr.
Dumelle)
On
March
29,
1972
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(‘Agency~’)filed
an
enforcement
action
against
Swift
and
Company
(“Swift”)
alleging
the
discharge
of odors
and other
contaminants
from
a Swife plant
processing
edible
oils
near
Bradley,
Illinois
in
Kankakee
County so as
to
cause
or tend to
cause
air
pollution
as
defined
in Sections
3(b)
and 3(d)
of
the
Environmental
Protection
Act.
On October
3,
1972
a hearing
was
held
in Kankakee
on
a
stipulation
dated
September
29,
1972.
No member
of
the
public
appeared
or
spoke
on
the
stipulation.
Counsel
for
Swift
stated
that
persons
who had
complained
in
the
past
had
been
notified
by
telephone
of the
hearing
by
an
Agency
represen-
tative
(R.12).
The
Swift plant is on
74
acres
of land near
Bradley.
Coconut
oil, soybean
oil
and other
edible
oils
are
stored
and processed
in order
to
make
margarine,
shortening
and related
products.
No
rendering
is
done
at the
Swift
plant.
The
plant has
24
tanks
which
store
the
edible
oils
and
at times
the
oil is
heated
to
as
much
as
140°F to
make
it
pumpable.
The
24
tanks
are
vented
to the
atmosphere.
The
Agency’s
only technical
witness
was
I)r.
Charles
A.
Snell
who
inspected
the
Swift
plant
on
September
20,
1972.
The
stipulation
states
14.
That
it
is
Dr.
Snell’s
opinion
that
under
the
conditions
under
which
the
plant
is
operated
it
is
possible
that
odors
are
emitted
which are
caused
by
the
venting
of
the
storage
tanks
into the
atmosphere.
6
—381
—2—
15.
That
it
is
Dr.
Snell’s
opinion
that
said
odor problem
would
be more
evident
at
such
times
as
when the
tanks
are
being
filled
from
railroad
cars
and tank trucks
due to the
displacement
of
air
during
this process.
The
stipulation
also states
16.
That
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
and Swift
&
Company
agree
that
an Order
may be
entered
by
the
Pollution
Control
Board
directing
Swift
& Company to
install
and have
in operation
within
ninety
(90) days
activated
carbon
canisters
on
each of
said
storage
tanks
and to
make
application
for
an installation
permit
for
such
equipment
from
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
which installation
both parties
believe
will
correct
and eliminate
said
odor
problem.
Thus
we have
a situation
in which there
is
a
strong
presumption
of~
odors
having
been generated
from
this
installation.
A
control
program
is
agreed
to
and no
public
witness
has
testified
as
to the
severity
of the
presumed
nuisance.
The
question
of penalties,
if any,
has
been
left
by
the
parties
entirely
to the
Board
(H. 4).
In view
of the
lack
of
evidence
as
to severity
and
indeed
as
to
direct
cause
of
the
odors
we decline
to
assess
penalties.
We
shall
order
that
the
activated
carbon
canisters
be
installed
as
per
the
stipulation.
A letter
from
Swift dated
November
14,
1972
gives
an estimate
of from
$1, 050 to
$1, 250
cost
per
tank for these
devices
or
from
$25, 200 to
$30, 000 for
the
entire
24 tanks.
That
is
a
substantial
sum
to
expend
and we
commend
Swift and
Company for
agreeing
to
this
program
without
the
need for
protracted
litigation.
This
opinion
constitutes
the
findings
of fact
and
conclusions
of
law.
ORDER
Within
90
days
from
the
date
of this
opinion,
Swift shall
install
activated
carbon
canisters
on
each
of
its
24
edible
oil
storage
tanks
subject
to the permit
procedures
of
the
Agency.
6
—
382
-3-
I,
Christan
L.
Moffett,
Clerk
of
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board,
hereby
certify
the
above
Opinion
and Order
were
adopted
on
the
.S
~bay
of
December,
1972
by
a
vote
of
_____________________
Illinois
Pollution
C
6— 383