ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
April 12, 1973
ENVIRONNENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Complainant,
vs.
)
PCB 72—433
LEONARD GREEN, a/k/a M & L
RENDERING,
Respondent.
Mr. James D. Keehner, Assistant Attorney General for the EPA
Mr. James N. Byrne, Attorney for Respondent
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Henss)
Respondent Leonard Green operated a rendering plant at
Belleville, Illinois. The plant normally processed 80,000
-
100,000 lbs. of bones, fat and salts and 1,000 lbs. of blood
each day. The Environmental Protection Agency alleges that
the plant emitted obnoxious odors so as to cause air pollution
in violation of Section 9(a) of the Environmental Protection
Act. The Statute was enacted July 1, 1970 and the Complaint
was filed November 6, 1972 and we will, therefore, consider
only those violations alleged to have occurred between those
dates.
Ten nearby residents appeared at the public hearing.
Five of them related how the odors from the rendering plant
interfered with their lines. Respondent stipulated that the
other five witnesses would provide similar testimony and they
were not called to testify. The complaining witnesses said
that the rendering plant gave off an “obnoxious” “greasy” odor
(R. 58) which caused headaches (R. 69) and drove them indoors
from their yards.
Since Respondent operated the business principally at
night most of the odors occurred during the evening and night
time hours.
Witnesses appeared on behalf of Respondent and said that
although they noticed the odor from time to time they were not
especially bothered by it. The defense witnesses said that
other odors in the area were also strong. These included
7
—
529
—2—
odors from a hog farm and the municipal sewage treatment plant.
One witness said the odor from the municipal sewage treatment
plant on a hot summer night was so bad it “would gag a maggot”
(R. 133). All of the witnesses seemed able to distinguish
between the odors coming from these various sources.
The rendering facility has been in existence since 1914
and was purchased by Respondent Green in 1952. Green operated
the plant until it was put out of business by a fire in 1969.
Green reconstructed a portion of the plant which had been
damaged by the fire and also installed a gas fire “after burner”
for the purpose of controlling odors. The plant was then
reopened and was operated from September 1970 until it was
closed by voluntary action of the Respondent on the morning
of the public hearing February 17, 1973.
Respondent acknowledged that he had received odor complaints
from his neighbors after resuming business in 1970. He took
several steps to control odors during that period of time none
of which involved expenditure of large sums of money. Respondent
did add chemicals to the material being processed in order to
reduce odors, sent his maintenance man to other rendering plants
to review their methods and would occasionally shut down his
operation until wind directions and atmospheric conditions made
the odors less obnoxious in the community.
Much of the testimony related to the efficiency of the
“after burner” installed by Respondent when he resumed business
in 1970. An EPA employee said the device had no combustion
chamber, did not operate at the approved 1400°F. range and
should simply be called a gas burner. Mr. Green conceded that
he learned soon after it was installed that the device “didn’t
work” (R. 18, 20). Therefore, he used the gas burner only
about a dozen times.
Respondent’s procedure was to cook bones, fat, salts and
blood under steam pressure in vats 12 feet long and 5 feet deep.
The steam was then drawn to a condenser and was precipitated
back into a tank as water. The remainder of the emission went
past the gas burner (which usually was not operating) and out
the stack.
Respondent was aware that an improved after burner was
needed. He requested his butane gas supplier to come up with
such a device but somehow that contact did not bring results. The
principal reason Respondent did not install a more efficient
after burner is that he did not have the money. Respondent
testified that he believed a first class installation to control
the odors would cost $75,000 to $125,000 for installation and
7
—
530
—3—
might cost $50,000 per year for operation. Since the business
lost $15,000 in 1971 and was showing only a small profit in
1972 it can be seen that such cost was beyond his capability.
An exhibit introduced into evidence indicates that the least
expensive installation to obtain 99 reduction in odor level
is a two stage horizontal spray tower scrubber. The install-
ation cost for such a scrubber to treat 25,000 CFM flow is
$28,600, and the installation cost for treatment of a 150,000
CFM flow is $126,300.
We find from the evidence that Respondent’s odor emissions
did unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment of life or property
in the area and that Respondent violated Section 9(a) of the
Act. Respondent has closed his business and states that it will
not reopen. Nevertheless, we will order him to cease and desist
from the violations to insure that the rendering plant does not
resume operation in violation of the law.
In actuality this rendering plant has been put out of
business through the changing nature of the community and the
inability to keep pace financially with the need for modern
equipment. Respondent has suffered his financial loss through
the closing of his business. He is not a wealthy person. We
do not feel the need to impose a monetary penalty in this case.
The improvement in the environment is satisfaction enough.
ORDER
It is ordered that Respondent Leonard Green shall cease
and desist from the violations of Section 9(a) of the Environ-
mental Protection Act found in this Opinion.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and O;der was adopted
this /~+~dayof April, 1973 by a vote of
q
to
0
QA~L~4LZ~
7
—
531