ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

November 10,

1976

PEOPLE

OF THE

STATE OF ILLINOIS,

Complainant,

v,

)

PCB 75—190

GRIFFITH LABORATORIES,

INC.,

Respondent.

Ms. Susan H.

Shumway and Ms. Dorothy J. Howell, Assistant Attorneys

General, appeared for the Complainant;

Mr. Charles T.

Martin, Attorney,

appeared for the Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF

BOARD

(by Mr.

Zeitlin):

This matter

is before the Board on a Complaint filed by the

Attorney General for The People of the State of Illinois

(People)

on May

2,

1975.

The Board determined that the Complaint was neither

duplicitous nor frivolous, and authorized a hearing on the matter

on May 22,

1975,

Public hearings were subsequently held in Chicago

on November

25,

1975 and January

20,

1976.

An Amended Complaint was filed by the Attorney General on

May 14, 1976.

At a final public hearing held in Chicago on

September

24,

1976,

the parties submitted a Stipulation and Proposal

for Settlement

(Stipulation), which forms

the basis

for this Opinion

and Order.

The subject of this case is a manufacturing facility operated

by

Respondent Griffith Lahorator’~en, Inc.

(Griffith)

at 1415 West

37~h ~I

rc~o~

i

ii

Cli

i CJ(JO,

Amon(;

h~~op~ra I

I

o~n;

~i

t

hi

ic

I

i

t y

in

a hydroi ysa

tv

procoun

,

uned

for’

I ho product ion

ol

Iiy(lro yzod

vegetable protein from cereal gra~iis,which

COiiSist

ot amino

acids,

used

as flavoring agents in many food

preparations.

The basic

materials are corn, whuat, rice,

and soy flours

(Stip,,

¶3),

The final step in this process involves drying

a liquid filtrate

to produce

a dry product

in finally divided form,

approximately 10

to

30 times finer than common table sugar,

(id,,

¶4)

.

This

is

accomplished by spraying the liquid at high pressure

to

a hot air

stream.

Emissions

from that drying process are the subject of this

case.

24

—

181

---

—2—

The People’s Complaint

in this matter charges that the hydro-

lunate urocess has been the cause of siqnificant,

substantive

violations of the Environmental

Protection

Act

(Act)

and

this

Board’s

Rules

and

Regulations

despite

a

number

of

control

attempts

by

Respondent.

The

Amended Complaint also addresses itself to several

alleged

permit

violations.

In

summary,

the

six

counts

of

the

Amended

Complaint

allege

that:

I.

The

hydrolysate process at the Griffith plant

was,

from July

1,

1970 until December

30,

1973,

a source of particulate emissions

in violation

of Section

9(a)

of the Act and Rule 3-3.111 of

the old Air Pollution Control Board Rules and

Regulations

(continued in effect by Section

49(c)

of the Act, and superseded by Chapter

2: Air

Pollution,

of this Board’s Rules and Regulations);

and,

II.

From December 31,

1973. through the filing of

the Complaint, Griffith’s hydrolysate operations

were a source of particulate emissions

in

violation of Rule 203(a)

of Chapter

2 and §9(a)

of

the

Act;

and,

III.

The packed tower scrubber at Griffith’s hydro-

lysate operation

(as described above) was

constructed in 1971 without a construction

permit from the Agency,

in violation of Section

3-2.110 of the old Air Pollution Control Board

Rules and Regulations and

§9(b)

of the Act;

and,

IV.

The cyclones and packed tower scrubber at

Griffith’s hydrolysate facility were operated

without an operating permit from the Agency,

and,

V.

Emissions from the hydrolysate plant exceeded

60 percent opacity on April

9,

1975 and

Auqusl:

27,

1 975,

in

violation

of

Rule

202

(b)

vi

Chapter

2

and

§9(a)

of

the

Act;

and,

VI.

Emissions

from

the

Griffith

facility

caused

air pollution,

including an excessive odor,

so as to cause an unreasonable interference

with

life and property,

in violation of

§9(a)

of the Act,

from December 31,

1973 through the

filing of the Complaint.

24

—

182

---

—3—

In

the

Stipulation,

Griffith

admits

all

of

these

violations.

That

admission

is

supported

ln~

other

information

in

the

Stipulation.

Complaints

were

received

by

both

the Attorney General

and

Pespondent

from

individuals

living

in

a

residential

area

approxi-

mately two blocks from the Griffith plant.

Emission tests

fully

support the admitted violation of the particulate standards of both

the old Air Pollution Control Board Rules and Regulations and

Chapter

2:

Air

Pollution,

of

this

Board’s

Regulations.

The terms

of settlement in the Stipulation offer

the following

resolution

of

the

admitted

violations:

1.

Griffith

shall

pay

a

$25,000

civil

penalty

for

the various violations

(see breakdown in accompanying

Order);

2.

Griffith

is to engage in a compliance program

which includes both short term measures for interim

control,

and final compliance with all applicable regu-

lations within

a one

year

period.

The

compliance

program in the Stipulation

is extensive and

complete.

Over the short

term, Griffith will install new water

spray nozzles

in the Venturi scrubber,

expected to allow

a

25 per

cent increase in collection efficiency.

This

is expected to cost

$1,000.

Griffith will also extend the inlet duct for the Venturi,

md install straightening veins in this section to impro~’eair flow

and particulate matter distribution into the Venturi

throat.

This

will cost approximately $5,000.

Griffith also has on order

a

$28,000 fan to replace the existing fan and improve static pressure

across

the

Venturi.

Also

on

order

is

a

larger

diameter,

stainless

steel

fan

wheel

costing

approximately

$7,000,

with

installation

to

cost

an

additional

$2,000.

Over

the

long

term

(one

year)

,

Griffith’s

compliance

plan

is

twofold:

Griffith

has enqaqed

IITRI

for extensive studies

to

improve

and

upq rade

a

r

1)011 u

L ton

con tro

I

on

I.

ho

i’x

i

in

I )r~dtic

L

~1vu

I

n~’~

tern;

Cr

i ft

I

t Ii

in

a

I no

i nvesl:

Iqa

U

I

1i(j

a

I terna

I

v

dry

i

iiq

met

lieds

includirig vacuum drum drying

,

extrusion dry ing and

vacuum

she

L I

drying,

which should produce little or no particulate emissions.

Griffith will submit a report to the Attorney General’s office

detailing the results

of the IITRI studies along with a final

compliance plan drafted accordingly.

Allowing nine months for

construction

time,

final compliance should be achieved within one

year.

Griffith has also agreed to apply to the Agency

for all relevant

construction and operating permits.

24

—

183

---

—4—

Because

of

the complex and extensive nature of this compliance

plan,

we

shall

not

set

it

out

fully

here.

Within

the

general

confines

of the preceding summary, the compliance plan makes allowance for

any

of

several

contingencies,

with

the

time for final compliance

being conditioned only on unavoidable delays in equipment delivery.

With regard to the penalty provision,

the Stipulation sets

forth details on each of the factors enumerated

in Section

33(c)

of the Act.

The parties have stipulated

(Stip.,

¶41)

that

it

is

both technically practicable and economically reasonable

for Griffith

to reduce its emissions from the hydrolysate process

to comply with

the

applicable

Regulations.

Griffith’s

plant,

although

located

in

a

predominantly

industrial

area,

has

adversely

impacted

the

adjacent

residential area,

and

the

parties

agree

that,

“Griffith has an

obligation

to.

minimize

the

impact

of

its

operations

on

neighboring

residents,”

(Stip.,

¶46).

In

light

of

those

penalty

and

compliance

provisions,

we

find

the

Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement in this matter fully acceptable,

and shall order compliance

therewith.

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and

conclusions

of law of the Board

in this matter.

ORDER

IT

IS

THE

ORDER

OF

THE

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

that:

1.

Respondent

Griffith

Laboratories,

Inc.

,

is

found

to

have

operated

a

hydrolysate

productJon

mnnu—

lactu r

i

rims

~

i. n

Chi caqo,

i

no

LJ(I

I

ti~

a

soc

I

t ed

a

poll

u t~on

con

tro1 egu Ipmon U

,

and

to

have

~ous

U rum

Led

a

I

polluL~on

control

equipmcnL,

in viola

Lion

ol

Sect

nun

9(a)

and 9(b)

of the Environmental Protection Act,

Rules

3-3.111 and 3-2.110 of the Air Pollution Control Board

Rules and Regulations, and Rules

103(b),

202(b),

and

203(a) of Chapter

2: Air Pollution,

of this Board’s Rules

and Regulations on the dates set forth in the Complaint

in

this

matter.

24

—

184

---

—5—

2.

Respondent shall, within thirty-five

(35)

days

of the date of this Order, pay as a civil penalty for the

above

violations

the

sum

of

Twenty—five

Thousand

Dollars

($25,000),

broken

down

by

violation

as

follows:

Count

I

Count II

Count

III

Count IV

Count

V

Count

VI

$

3,000.00

12, 000. 00

100.00

1,000.00

1,000,00

7,900.00

3.

Respondent shall comply with each

and

every

provision of the Stipulation and

Proposal

for

Settlement

submitted

by

the parties

to

this

matter.

T,

Christan

L. Motlelt

,

Clerk

ol

the

I

H

iiioP;

Pot

tnt

el;

Control

heard,

hereby

(~‘rU

I

Fy

I

lie

above

ti

iia

I

op in

1)11

a

id

Oijer

~

to

,

elm i

~l

I

I

Im

/ø”~

lay

I

~

I

in

Iv

i

v

I

~stanL.Moffetlerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

24

—

185