ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
THE
NESTLE
COMPANY
)
R~i3
No.
70—22
v.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OPINION OF THE BOARD
(BY MR. LAWTON):
December 22,
1970
The Nestle Company,
Inc. operates an instant tea manufacturing
facility in Granite City,
Illinois.
At the present time, the manu-
facturing process causes emissions of approximately
21 pounds per
hour of water-soluble tea and non-soluble dust, based on
a production
rate of 1,600 pounds per hour.
Emissions permitted for such an opera-
tion are limited to 3.52 pounds per hour.
(Rules and Regulations
Governing the Control of Air Pollution 3-3.113; Chapter III Table
1).
Petitioner’s original application for variation received by the
Board on October
8, 1970 requested a period of time until Decem-
ber 31,
1971,
in which to install a secondary wet scrubber of the
Joy Microdyne type which the evidence indicates would achieve approx-
imately 98
efficiency
in controlling emissions and would bring
the Nestle operation well within the legal limits.
Hearing was held
on the Petition for Variance at Granite City, Illinois, on Novem-
ber 30,
1970.
The Environmental Protection Agency submitted its
recommendation,
recommending allowance of the variation subject
to the posting of bond equal
to the cost of the control equipment
proposed to be installed.
Petitioner employs 175 people at the Granite City plant.
95
of its instant tea production takes place at that location.
The emis-
sions are inert and non—toxic.
No one appeared in opposition to the proposed variation.
The
Chairman of the Granite City Air Pollution Control Board filed a
letter received as Exhibit 5 requesting that any action of this Board
be contingent upon Nestle complying with requirements of the Granite
City Air Pollution Control Ordinance.
The terms of the ordinance
were not introduced in evidence at the Hearing although the letter
indicates that the “Illinois Rules and Regulations” are incorporated
in the ordinance.
It would appear that the local regulations require
a variance and reporting program comparable to that required under
the Environmental Protection Act.
At the hearing, Petitioner stated that it had received a
proposal from Hart-Carter Company for a dry—type scrubber which would
1 —97
result inrernoval of particulate emissions at 98.83 efficiency
and that the total cost of equipment and installation would be
$20,000.00 more than the wet scrubber originally oroposed.
Peti-
tioner requested that this proposal be considered as an alterna-
tive
to that originally specified.
The
Hearing Officer suggested
that if the Hart-Carter dry-type scrubber was superior to the
Joy Microdyne scrubber that it should be the basis
of
the variation
request and that the Board should not be put
in
a position of
selecting alternatives.
Petitioner accordingly asked for and was
given
leave
to
amend
its
petition
for
variation
to
provide
for
the
installation of the Hart—Carter Dry Process Dust Collector
and to
decrease the time in which the installation would be made from
December
31,
1971 to
a period of seven months from the granting
of the variance.
By stipulation of the parties,
the Hearing Officer was per~-
mitted to view
the premises.
The view included a thorough examination
of the interior of the plant and the tea—drying facilities as well
as the roof where the exhaust from the tea-making process is located.
The
tea is manufactured in
a spray dryer approximately
five stories
in height, utilizing primary cyclones
at the end of
the spray-drying
cycle.
Two air streams are emitted carrying the effluent, now exhausted
on the
roof, which would be controlled by the proposed dust control
eauipment.
It was the Hearing Officer’s observation that the emissions,
even if uncontrolled,
are not unduly offensive,
are virtually odor-
less and do not appear to have attributes of dirt or oil.
The record indicates that some
time ago, Petitioner
caused samplings of its emissions
to be made by private consultants
and was advised that the emissions did not constitute .a violation of
the Air Pollution Regulations.
Inspecticn during the month of July,
1970 by representatives
of the Environmental Protection Agency re-
sulted in Petitioner retaining
the firm of
Ryckman, Edgerly, Tomlin-
son and Associates, whose report indicated the emissions above
set
forth would constitute
a violation of
the regulations.
As
a consequence
of this report, Petitioner sought bids
for suitable equipment to abate
the emissions indicated and filed the variance proceeding which is
the subject matter
of this Opinion.
While the emissions from Petitioner’s plant are unquestionably
a violation of the law, it should be noted
that this operation takes
place in an area where air pollution from other manufacturing opera-
tions
is
a major problem.
The emissions from the Nestle plant are
extremely mild
in consideration of
the overall ambient air character-
istics in Granite City,
Nestle’s prooertv
is located in an industrial
area and does
not appear to produce any substantial iiapact on any
residential properties.
It is believed that allowance
of the varia—
tion would he in the best interests
of the state
and the municipality.
The ultimate install~r:ionas proposed would be
a step forward in an
1
—
area where much remains to be done.
The Environmental Protec-
tion Agency’s investigation indicates that while adjacent neighbors
are not burdened by the plant’s emissions, they would be pleased
to have the operation brought into compliance.
The proposal of Hart—Carter indicates, and the evidence of the
witnesses substantiates, that a seven-month period would be
appropriate to fabricate, obtain and install the necessary equip-
ment.
It is the Opinion of the Board that the Petitioner has sustained
the
statutory
requisites
for
the granting of a variance.
Requiring
Petitioner to shut down its operation in lieu of permitting installa-
tion of the dry scrubber,
as proposed, would constitute arbitrary
and unreasonable hardship upon Petitioner, without sufficient corres-
ponding benefit to the public.
The tea-drying process is an essen-
tial part of the manufacturing operation and insistence
on immediate
compliance would necessitate a shut—down of the entire plant, the
lay-off of 175 employees and the elimination from the market of
Petitioner’s product.
The foregoing opinion constitutes the Board’s finding of fact
and conclusions of law.
IT IS THE ORDER OF THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD THAT:
1.
A variance is hereby granted to The Nestle Company,
Inc., Granite City, Illinois, expiring July 31,
1971,
to permit emissions of particulate matter in excess
of those permitted by the regulations during the in-
stallation of dust control equipment for spray dryer
operation pursuant to dry scrubber proposal dated
November 24, 1970,
from Hart-Carter Company, and
received in evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit B.
2,
This variance shall be conditional upon the filing of
a personal bond in the amount of $60,000.00 with the
Environmental Protection Agency to assure correction
of the existing violation within the time prescribed.
The face amount of the bond shall be reduced propor~
tionately as the installation of the equipment pro-
gresses, pursuant to the certification by the Envir-
onmental Protection Agency as to the degree of comple-
tion.
If Petitioner operates the facility after
July
31,
1971, without having installed the equipment
described in paragraph
1 of this Order, it shall
forfeit the remaining face amount of the bond and
shall be subject to such statutory penalties as are
appropriate.
1
—99
3.
During the period that this variance is in effect,
Petitioner shall not cause or allow any increase in
the emissions of particulate matter
in excess of
that amount being emitted on the date of this
Order.
4.
Petitioner
shall
submit
to
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
a monthly report,
the first of which shall be
received by February 1,
1971,
stating the progress
of
its
installation.
The
Environmental
Protection
Agency shall certify to the Pollution Control Board
the degree and percentage of installation at which
time the bond set forth in
Paragraph
2
shall
be re-
duced proportionately.
I dissent:
I,
.Reqina
F,
Ryan,~, certi~fythat the Board adonted the above O-rinion
this
,~.
day of
~
,
1970,
~‘-~L~
‘-~7(
Rea~jia
E.
Rya~j
Cl~rkof the Board