ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
November
8,
1972
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Complainant,
vs.
)
PCB 72—81
TEE-PAK INC.,
Respondent.
Thomas J.
Irnmel, Assistant Attorney General for the EPA
John B.
Jenkins, Attorney for Respondent
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr. Henss)
The Environmental Protection Agency alleges that Respondent
Tee—Pak Inc.
has continually allowed the discharge of carbon
disulfide,
hydrogen sulfide and foul and obnoxious odors
into
the environment in violation of the Environmental Protection Act
and has failed to submit an Air Contaminant Emission Reduction
Program to control the emissions.
Respondent states that it
has
in fact been operating under a program to reduce emissions
and has recently installed additional equipment for that purpose.
Tee-Pak is
a manufacturer of cellulose casings which are
used in the meat packing business.
A major part of its production
is from its Danville, Illinois plant which employs 800 persons
and has operated since 1957.
During the manufacturing process
hydrogen sulfide gas
(H2S)
is
released.
Some of this gas is
eventually vented to the atmosphere through a 160
ft.
stack
along with other wastes.
The odor caused by the hydrogen
sulfide emission has resulted in
a number of citizen complaints.
The parties agree that hydrogen sulfide is the principal
cause of the odor and the discussion has concentrated on methods
for abatement of this type of emission.
No standard has been set for hydrogen sulfide emissions
in
the State of Illinois.
The EPA complaint is based upon the
theory that
a sufficient quantity of hydrogen sulfide is being
emitted from Respondent’s plant to cause a nuisance in the
community.
Whether a nuisance exists will depend largely upon
the reaction of citizens in the community to the odors emitted
from Respondent’s plant.
Tee-Pak states that it considered the possible nuisance
problem as far back as 1966 and started planning for the reduction
of hydrogen sulfide emissions.
The first cor~.rolequipment,
however, was not installed until 1969.
This equipment
consisted
of two small scrubbers and did not achieve
a total reduction of
6
—
141
—2—
hydrogen sulfide emissions since production of the plant was
greatly
increased at that time.
With the increase of production
the number of citizen complaints greatly increased.
Scrubber
#3 was installed in
July
1971.
This was a large scrubber with
a capacity of 30,000 cubic feet per minute and achieved a
98 or
99
reduction of hydrogen sulfide in the gas
it was scrubbing.
The Environmental Protection Agency
has acknowledged
that
the
number of complaints from citizens subsided substantially
following
the installation of scrubber #3.
Following installation
of scrubber #3 total reduction of hydrogen sulfide emissions was
27 1/2 percent.
Tee--Pak began construction of scrubbers
#4
and #5 but prior
to the
time they were put into operation
the EPA filed its
complaint charging the company with creating
a nuisance by emitting
hydrogen
sulfide and foul and obnoxious odors into
the environment.
Subsecuent
to the filing
of the complaint construction was com-
pleted
on scrubbers
#4 and
#5.
When this matter was called
for
a hearing on the merits
the
parties submitted their Stipulation
and Proposal
for Interim
Settlement stating that emission reductions of 27.6
had been
achieved through
the use of three fully operational scrubbers
and that
the addition
of scrubbers
#4 and #5 would increase
scrubbing capacity
by approximately
60,000 cfm and should achieve
a
total H2S emission reduction of approximately
55,
It was
estimated that the
two newer scrubbers would be fully operational
by August
4,
1972.
Monitoring euuipment,
however, had not yet
been ordered.
The parties now propose that we
authorize
a period of about
ten months for the purpose
of monitoring
and adjusting the
emission control
eouiprnent which has already been installed
and
making various tests
to determine
if this added scrubbing
capacity solves
the nuisance problem.
Respondent
estimates
that
it will need 140 days
to install
the monitoring
equinment following
our approval
of
the testing program.
The
EPA,
Attorney General
and Tee-Pak will then conduct tests
for
a
180 day period promptly
after
the scrubbers
and monitoring equipment have been installed
and are operating efficiently.
The tests will consist
of stack
analysis,
continuous measurement
of stack emissions,
ground
level measurements
and other means of determining odor in the
community.
Within sixty days after
the conclusion of the test
period
the parties will either submit
a Proposal
for Final
Settlement or
a hearing shall
he held
for determination
of
the
matters raised
in
the complaint.
It
is requested that
the
Interim Settlement be considered
a variance
for the duration of
the test period.
As
a part of the Interim Settlement
the EPA
agrees not to seek
a monetary penalty against Respondent
unless
6
—
142
—3--
the Respondent has failed to exercise good
faith and cooperation
in the procedures during the settlement period.
Both parties
recognize that this Board is not bound by any action taken
by
the Agency with regard to monetary penalty and that the Board
may impose
a monetary penalty even without the recommendation
of the Agency.
The parties do not,
of course, guarantee that the untested
scrubbers will solve the nuisance problem.
They state, however,
that the control equipment already installed “may” be sufficient
to abate
the nuisance and ask for a period of time to learn if
that result has been achieved.
(With the addition of the two
recently completed scrubbers Respondent calculates that total
emissions will be reduced to between
36 and 38 lbs. of hydrogen
sulfide per hour.
This
level of stack emission is below the
company’s stack emission in the year 1965——a year when the
company received no citizen’s odor complaints.)
Scientific data is sorely lacking in this area.
No emission
standard for H2S has been established and it would seem worth-
while
to go through a testing period which will correlate the
subjective reaction of citizens to the odor
with
the scientifically
determined emission levels and air quality.
Neither the Agency
nor anyone else has really determined a nuisance level for H2S.
Indeed there
is
some debate as to what is
the threshold at which
persons can recognize the odor,
One article would indicate that
the odor determination level
for the hydrogen sulfide similar to
that produced by Respondent is
.0047 ppm.
See:
Leonardos,
“Odor Threshold Determinations of
53 Oxidant Chemicals’t,
JAPCA,
19
(2)
pp.
91—95, February 1969.
Dr. Howard Hesketh in the
Union Carbide case PCB 72—54 also suggested a nuisance threshold
involving
a specific concentration of the gas for a determined
time period.
In that case Dr.
Hesketh suggested that
.007 ppm
for 30 minutes would he the appropriate nuisance threshold.
These suggested threshold levels from Dr. Hesketh’s calculations
are apparently among the lowest suggested anywhere and the
Agency
is not ready to rely upon them in this case.
The Agency
has filed
a statement terming Dr. Hesketh’s calculations as
‘highly tentative”.
The Agency states “We are unwilling to
predict a nuisance threshold for H2S.
We can only propose to
measure reduction of
H2S
emissions and correlate said reduction
with
known reduction in citizen complaints.
In the Union Carbide case Dr.
Howard Hesketh used
.00047 ppm
as the
H2S
odor threshold and then increased it
15 times to
arrive at
a “nuisance” level of 0.007 ppm in the presence of CS2.
In the absence of CS2 he would only increase it
8 times to 0.004
ppm.
It appears, however, that
1125 made from NA2S has a
6
—
143
—4—
threshold at least
10 times higher or .0047 ppm.
Multiplying
this higher odor threshold by
15 or
8 as the case may he would
give
a substantially higher nuisance level
than the figure
mentioned in the Union Carbide case.
We are unwilling at this point to accept any of these
figures.
To do so would seem to us to be adding inference
to speculation.
We
agree with the parties
that the best way
of determining whether the alleged nuisance has been abated
is
to conduct
a thorough testing program.
We believe that
it will be very desirable to correlate complaints and subjective
analysis with the scientifically determined emission and air
quality data.
If the data accumulated during
the
testing
period reveal that there has been insufficient imerovement in
the air quality around the Respondent’s plant then methods
may be considered for further control of the emissions.
The charge that
a nuisance has been created of necessity
depends upon the subjective reaction of citizens
in the community.
A testing program would seem to us
to offer a practical answer
to the practical problem which does exist and it is at least as
useful as inferences drawn from laboratory testing procedures.
We note
that the stipulation provides for secrecy and con-
fidential treatment of the stack analysis reports, stack
emission measurements, ground
level measurements and other test
results.
The Stipulation at one point refers to such information
as “proprietary”.
We agree that testing procedures should not be
revealed where public knowledge would interfere with the validity
of
the test result.
However,
we will make no advance determination
of the secrecy of the test procedures or results. At the cciriclusion
of the testing period the necessary data shall be made available to
this Board and we will then determine whether the data shall remain
confidential
(under Rule 107 of our procedural rules)
.
Except for
the secrecy provisions of the Stipulation the Proposal for Interim
Settlement is approved.
ORDER
It is ordered that:
1.
The EPA and Tee-Pak Inc.
shall conduct certain
tests described below for a 180 day period
beginning promptly after the scrubbers and moni-
toring equipment have been installed and are
operating efficiently.
The test period will
begin 140 days from the date of this Order.
Tee—Pak will proceed with all due diligence to
install the necessary equipment for conducting
the tests and will promptly notify the EPA and
the Attorney General when such equipment is satisfactorily
operational.
2.
Stack Analysis.
Within 30 days after the beginning
of the test period a sample of Tee-Pak’s stack
b
—
144
—5—
emission will he drawn in the presence of one
or more EPA representatives and an analysis of
said sample for hydrogen sulfide will be pre-
pared and submitted to
the
EPA and Tee-Pak.
The sample will he drawn and a qualitative and
quantitative analysis will be prepared thereon
by
Leon Xirschner,
Tee-PaR’s Consultant, in
such a scientific manner as
shall be acceptable
to EPA.
3.
Continuous Stack
Measurements.
Utilizing
the
monitoring
equipment Tee-PaR will continuously
measure
its
stack
emissions
of ~
and
will
provide
monthly reports of
such measurements
to
the EPA.
4.
Ground Level
Measurements.
The EPA and Tee—PaR
Inc. will
throughout the test period
jointly
measure ground level
concentrations of H2S at
mutually agreeable locations
in residential
areas.
The measurements
will be made
in
a
manner mutualy
acceptable
to the eartias.
5,
Additional
testing.
Beginning thirty days
after
the commencement of the
test period,
and continuing
through the
remainder
of
the
test
period,
Tee-PaR
and
the EPA will implement
and
carry
out
additional
testing procedures
to he mutually
agreed
upon,
including those steps and procedures outlined
and defined
in
a letter dated July
31,
1972 from
Tee-PaR’ s attorneys
to
the Attorney General
of
the State of Illinois
(Representative
of the
EPA)
Such -testing procedures
shall be conducted in
a
scientific and acceptable manner designed to
measure and determine the existance of
an odor
nuisance
(or lack thereof)
deriving
from Tee-Pak’s
emissions of
1-12S and
the effectiveness
of Tee-Pak’s
emission control program.
6.
Within sixty days
after the conclusion
of the test
period Tee-PaR and
the EPA shall either submit a
Promosal for Final
Settlement
of this matter or
a
hearing shall
be
held for determination
of
the
issues.
7.
Following the testing period reports of
the stack
analysis,
stack emission measurements,
ground level
measurements
and other odor testing shall be filed
with
the Pollution Control Board and
at that time
a determination shall
made
as to
the confidential
nature of the test results
6
—
145
—6-
8.
Within
ten days from the date
of this Order
Tee--PaR
will
post
a
bond.
with
the
EPA
signed
b
the
appropriate
corporate
officers,
in
an
amount
sufficient
to
cover
its
equipment
purchase
obli-
gations under this Order.
9.
This Order shall constitute
a variance allowing
Tee-PaR
Inc.
to proceed with emission and control
practices which
are not inconsistent with this
Opinion and Order until November
8,
1973.
Mr.
Dumelle dissents.
I,
Christan
L.
Moffett,
Clerk of
the Illinois Pollution
Control Board certify
the
above Opinion
ane Order was adopted
this-~~~~__day
of No~rember, 1972
by
a
vote
of
_____
to
______—
r
~
k
k
S
•
i
~‘
_i~__~
r
~istanL.~~1ofett~
Illinois Pollution Control Board
6
—
146