ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
October
31, 1974
ENVIRONI~ENTALPROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Complainant,
)
vs.
)
PCB 72—81
)
TEE-PAK,
INC.,
Respondent.
Thomas J.
Immel, 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 filed its Complaint
against Respondent Tee-Pak, Inc. alleging that the company had
allowed the discharge of hydrogen sulfide and foul and obnoxious
odors into the environment in violation of Section 9(a) of the
Environmental Protection Act.
The Agency and Respondent entered
into an interim settlement which was approved by this Board on
November
8,
1972.
The Interim Order provided that the parties
would conduct stack tests, ground level measurements and odor
evaluations in order to determine whether odorous emissions from
the Tee—Pak plant are causing a nuisance in the community.
The
studies were to determine the effectiveness of Tee-Pak’s emission
control program and hopefully, were to form a basis
for final
conclusion of this litigation.
The Agency and Tee-Pak have now submitted a Proposal for
Final Settlement.
This Opinion and Order will deal with the matters
in
that
voluminous
document.
Tee—Pak
is
a
manufacturer
of
cellulose
casings
which
are
used
in
the
meat
packing
business.
A
major part of its product 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.
The odor caused by the hydrogen sulfide
emission has in the past resulted in a number of citizen complaints.
The parties have previously agreed that hydrogen sulfide is the
principal cause of the odor and have concentrated on methods for
abatement of this type of emission.
14—311
—2—
As we have previously noted,
no standard has been set for
hydrogen sulfide emissions in the State of Illinois.
The EPA
Complaint was based on the theory that
a quantity of hydrogen
sulfide was being emitted from Respondent’s plant to cause a
nuisance in the community.
Therefore,
citizen reaction to the
emissions and the Tee-Pak control program was of principal concern.
We will not detail all of the background of this litigation
since it is set out in our Opinion of November
8,
1972.
However,
it should be noted that prior to the commencement of the testing
program Tee-Pak had completed installation of five scrubbers in
a period of approximately
3 years, and it was claimed that this
would bring
a total H2S emission reduction of approximately 55.
We believe it is important at this point to review some of
the more important findings of the studies which were conducted
under the Interim Settlement.
Stack testing showed that Tee-Pak
was emitting an average of
31.9 to 35.5
lbs.
of hydrogen sulfide
per hour during the test period.
These averages are reportedly
subject to
a statistical variability of
+
6.6 lbs./hr.
at
a 95
confidence level.
The emissions as measured were found to be
within 9
of the emissions which were theoretically calculated.
This is, therefore,
an acceptable measurement.
A surging emission source was located during the study.
This
source is a machine which is used to produce large diameter re-
generated cellulose casing.
It was discovered to be emitting
nonsteady
(surging)
emissions,
and, since the emissions from this
source are presently not treated,
it is believed to be responsible
for the odor which was observed by an odor ~anel.
The two parties used different procedures in analyzing ground
level measurements, with the result that there were certain
differences of opinion.
Therefore,
they submitted separate dis-
cussions, analyses,
supporting exhibits and conclusions on this
aspect of the testing program.
In spite of their differing opinions,
the parties did agree that the, data did not support a conclusion
that an odor nuisance exists in the communities surrounding Tee-Pak’s
facility.
A community survey was conducted by Professor Gerald R. Salancik,
of the University of Illinois, consisting of
500 interviews of
residents living within two miles of the Tee-Pak plant.
Forty—four
per cent of the people who were sampled said air pollution is the
most severe environmental problem affecting the residential area.
(However,
a surprising
38
felt that noise pollution was the most
severe problem.)
Of the total sample 22
are bothered by industrial
odors which they assumed to be emitted by Tee-Pak.
Because there are
several factories and plants in the area it is possible for the
residents to be unsure as
to which firm is truly responsible for
14—312
industrial odors.
About 2
of the total sample said they were
annoyed daily by Tee-Pak odors and 9
of the sample feel odors
emitted by Tee-Pak do interfere with their lives in some manner.
Of this 9
over one-third responded illogically to one or more
questions
(i.e.,
type of odor, wind direction),
and this caused
those responses to be deemed nonplausible.
Therefore
6
of the
total interviewed plausibly claimed that Tee-Pak odors consti-
tuted a nuisance.
These people were located within
1 1/2 miles
of Tee-Pak.
Market Facts,
Inc.
of Chicag~was employed to
process and analyze the data from Professor Salancik’s
study.
Another set of tests involved the use of odor panels--groups
of people who were asked to record their observations under expert
guidance.
Thirty-eight panels were used in this phase of the
testing program.
Only 1
of the panel members recorded objectionable
findings of odor.
Not one of the total of thirty-eight panels had
a majority opinion that there was an objectionable sulfide odor.
On three panels one panel member detected objectionable odor.
On
a fourth panel there were two panel members detecting objectionable
odor.
All of the detections of objectionable odor were found at
locations downwind from the Tee-Pak facilities.
Twenty-three of
the panel tests were conducted downwind from Tee-Pak.
One of the conclusions from the odor panel sampling was that
the plume is apparently very narrow and it appears to fall out be-
tween 1/2 and 1 1/2 miles downwind from Tee-Pak’s facility.
At the
request of the EPA Dr. Howard Hesketh of Southern Illinois University
examined the data accumulated from the field odor panels.
Dr.
Hesketh concluded that it was difficult to locate suitable pos.tions
to smell the odor.
There were times when panel members on one side
of a test site could smell the Tee-Pak emissions and members
40 feet
away could not.
He said “the detectable width of the odorous plume
downwind on the ground is about
100 feet.
The maximum concentration
of the plume varies with wind speed but occurred 0.75-1.2 miles
downwind at winds ranging from 5-10 miles per hour.”
Dr. Hesketh
concluded that
“it would not be possible to correlate the field odor
results with the EPA air sampling data because the odorous plume
moves back and forth from place to place too rapidly”
The parties agree that no relationship has been established
between odor nuisance and the ground level concentrations of hydrogen
sulfide as measured by instruments.
The results of the odor panel
tests do not provide a basis for determination of an ambient atmos-
perhic concentration standard and do not alone show the existence
of an odor nuisance.
However, the total evidence apparently indicated to the parties
that additional controls are needed.
As part of the settlement
package, Tee-Pak will install a sixth hydrogen sulfide scrubbing
unit which will be used to treat emissions from the surging source
and other smaller sources.
When this scrubber is completed and
14—313
—4—
placed into operation in conjunction with present scrubbers it
is expected that Tee-Pak’s average hydrogen sulfide emission
rate will be reduced to 25 lbs. per hour.
The parties agree
that this
level of hydrogen sulfide will preclude the existence
of any odor nuisance in the community.
Capital costs for the
sixth unit are expected to be $115,000 and annual operating
costs about $24,000.
Although they expect the emission rate to be 25 lbs./hr.,
:he parties recommend that Tee—Pak be allowed a maximum emission
rate of
36 lbs./hr.
to be determined by averaging over two hour
periods.
This additional allowance is said to be necessary
because of the uniqueness of Tee-Pak’s operation.
The Tee—Pak
process for production of regenerated cellulose casings is
a
continuous one in which the initial phase of the process involves
a chemical reaction whic~ihas a finite degradation rate.
A
characteristic of
this process is that once the sodium salt
xanthic acid has been formed,
it becomes suitable for the regen-
erative reaction only between 40 and 45 hours later.
If the raw
material cannot be used during that time it must be dumped.
Simple voltage drops in the electrical system have in the past
caused failures in the regenerative step and have resulted in
losses
as
high
as
$45,000
for
a
single
event.
To require that Tee-Pak shut down the regenerative process
upon failure of one or more scrubbers might create significant
problems depending upon the stage of chemical reaction at the
time of
shutdown.
Halting the regenerative process before a
reactor reached the fortieth hour of the reaction would require
the dumping of the reactants.
This is necessary in order to
keep the reactants from gelling in the reactor and thereby
causing cleaning and maintenance difficulties.
If the reactants were in the 40 to 45 hour time period and were
already in the piping system to the regenerative process equipment,
a forced shutdown would allow the reactant to gel
in the piping and
equipment.
It would then be necessary to remove and clean all
such piping and equipment prior to commencement of operations.
Such costs
are described as “fantastically high”.
Another serious problem which would be caused from a shutdown
at
this
facility
involves
the
discharge
to
the
Danville
Sanitary
District.
When the sixth scrubber goes on line, effluent from
Tee-Pak will be near the BOD concentration limits imposed on Tee-
Pak by the Danville Sanitary District.
The dumping of a 3,000
gallon reactor which contains highly alkaline reactants would
cause an additional 12,000 population equivalence of BOD to enter
the sewer system and would result in a Tee-Pak violation of the
District’s limitations.
About $1 million in capital funds would
14—314
—5--
be required for planning and installation of facilities to treat
the
liquid
effluent
if Tee-Pak wereforced to cope with the higher
BOD discharges.
In the event of a scrubber failure it is theoretically
possible that hydrogen sulfide emissions could rapidly escalate
to an average of
36 lbs./hr.
This represents
a maximum emission
rate of as much as 42.6 lbs./hr. because of the 6.6 lbs./hr.
statistical deviation.
Maintenance experience with the five scrubbers now in operation
leads Tee—Pak to believe that the probability of
a sudden and totai
failure of
a scrubber is minute.
If such failure did occur the
studies indicate that the expected level of hydrogen sulfide in the
stack discharge would cause some minimal interference with the lives
and activities of citizens in Danville while repairs are being
made. to correct the malfunction.
Although we reject the settlement, there
is much in this
proposal which we could approve.
Based upon its past conduct we
believe Tee—Pak will perform the degree of maintenance required
on the scrubbers to keep the hydrogen sulfide emissions
at a level
sufficiently low to preclude any odor nuisance.
The two tiered
emission rate is reasonable, especially in view of the economic
or environmental problems which would be caused by the dumping of
a reactor.
~e could accept the recommendation of the parties that
no monetary penalty be imposed upon Tee—Pak.
The record shows
Tee-Pak’s good faith and cooperative efforts
in performing
its
commitments.
Tee-Pak has agreed to install an additional scrubber
at. considerable capital and operating expense and spent over $113,000
for the testing program which was ordered in November 1972.
There
is
;no need to add monetary penalty to the already large expense.
The settlement is rejected because it appears to give Tee-Pak
a permanent defense to Section 9(a) prosecutions.
Under
the terms of
the settlement Tee-Pak might claim that its compliance with this Board
Order constitutes a prima facie defense to any prosecution resulting
from future odorous emissions.
We are willing to provide a limited
period of freedom from prosecution.
However, we do not have such
absolute faith in the figures presented to us that we should proclaim
for all time
to come that compliance with these emission limitations
is prima facie compliance with Section 9(a).
We believe it was reasonable
to attempt to correlate human
reactions
in the community with actual scientific measurement of
emissions and air quality.
The record is not sufficient, however,
for us to accept the test results as
a Section 9(a)
“standard”.
14 —315
—6—
Because we believe there is much merit in the settlement
we suggest the parties renegotiate this phase of the agreement.
If
the
parties
inform
us
that
they
cannot
agree
on
new
language
which
conforms
to
this
Opinion,
then
we
will
assign
the
matter
to
a
hearing
officer.
ORDER
The
proposal
for
final
settlement
is
rejected.
The
parties
shall
report
to
the
Board
in
30
days
regarding
the
possibility
of
disposing of
this matter through negotiation or the need for a
hearing on the merits.
I, Christan L.
Moffett, Clerk’of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify th
above Opinion and Order was ado ted
this
,~(4’~
day of
,
1974 by a vote of ____to ~
~~472~L
14—316