ILLINOIS POLLUTION CC~TROLBOARD

July

7,

1977

ARMOUR-DIAL,

INC.,

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB 77—54

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

and PEOPLE OF THE

STATE

OF

)

ILLINOIS,

Respondents.

MR.

JOSEPH

S. WRIGHT,

JR.,

OF ROOKS, PITTS, FULLAGAR & POUST, APPEARED

ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER;

MS. DEBORAH SENN APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY;

MR. GEORGE W.

WOLFF, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON BEHALF

OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Mr. Goodman):

On

February

17,

1977, Petitioner Armour-Dial,

Inc.,

filed a

Variance Petition before the Board requesting variance from

Rules

205(f)

and 103(b) (2)

of the Board’s Air Pollution Regulations

(Chapter

2)

and Section 9(a)

of the Environmental Protection

Act

(Act).

Petitioner has subsequently substituted a request for

variance from Rule 103(b) (6) (A)

for its request for variance

from

103(b) (2).

On March 11, 1977,

the Attorney General on

behalf

of

the People of the State of Illinois

(People)

filed a Petition

for

Leave to Intervene.

The Board granted the Petition for Interven-

tion on March 28,

1977.

The Agency filed its Recommendation on

April

28, 1977.

Hearings were held in this matter on May 25

and

26

in

Montgomery,

Illinois.

Armour-Dial has filed a waiver of

the

statutory 90-day decision period until July

7,

1977.

As

a preliminary matter,

the

Hearing

Officer denied

Armour-Dia1~s

motion for

a one-week delay in filing its Reply Brief,

The

Board

---

—2—

finds that no prejudice will result to

the yw

‘i’?’

~.?

~t tocepts the

late filing of Petit±oner’s brief and hereby o~

‘~‘;r’C~s ‘the Hearing

Officer’s Order.

Armour—Dial

cçorates

a

soap

manufactur!rç

~

1

ktv

:ioar

the

Village

of

Mcnt;orna:y,

Kane

County,

Illinois.

‘a

i’;’..c

raw

materials

used

at

the

plant,

which

has

beers

in

:~rrr::~.onsince

1964

and

employs

700

persons1

are

tallow,

coconut

oil

&nC.

cr.’~stio

soda.

Armour—Dial’ s

operation

has

been

descri’33d

?t

pr

ti

~acec-d~ngs

be-

fore

the

Board,

Armour—Dial,

Inc.,

v.

Pcllutioi

C”ntrol 3oard,

PCB

73—105

and

PCB

73—388.

On

June

21,

1973,

the

aoard

granted

Arnotr.C

.

C.

a

variance

.n

PCB

73—105

from

Rules

205(t),

l03(b)(6i(~,,

!a2

.‘‘.‘c(.’~

o~Chnter

2

in

order

to

allow

the

company

to

replace

±xq

...rntetric

type

con-

densers

with

sdrface

condensers

to

preuent

direr

contact

between

the

vapor

stream

given

off

by

the

boiling

of

fat::’

acids

and

the

cool-

ing

water

and,

therefore,

reduce

its

odor

eniss tern.

On

!)ocenber

6, 1973, Armour-Dial’s variance was extended in

PCD

73—388

such

that

variance from Rules l03(bfl6)(E) and l04c)CJ

‘a:

granted

until

December

31, 1973, and variance from Rilie 205V

•~q

granted

until

December 6, 1974.

Compliance was to

k’s ccthieved by Atgust 31, 1975.

On January 31, 1974, the Board modified :ts Order

to substitute a pro-

posed biodegradation process to contros nior fcr tie original pro-

posal.

The substituted proposal entailed modiF.cation of Armour-Dial

waste treatment facilities

and

plant

so

c~sto

aslcw

the

diverston

of

waters

bearing

organic

material

to

the

waste

ttettrannt

p.ant

and

the

subsequent

return

of

treated

water

to

the

cool:.ng

water

system.

The

biodegradation

program,

which

was

experiaentE~ ard

undertaken

at

Petitioners “own risk”

(R. 129), was intended L~z-’-ieve compliance

one year earlier than the original proposal r~‘~feredthe company

substantial cost savings

(R.126).

Should the eroqra’xt fail,

the

original program was to be implemented with a onc’-ye:r delay in the

original schedule

(R.l29).

Armour-Dial installed the biodegradation system in 1974.

:iow-

ever, in November, 1974, the company fcund

that the diversion rate

of 500

gpm ~auuc’c1

incrnaurd nurqc~t; nf• uu~x’ntk’c

z;~

ii.:

w:’ i.h

r’s’iIted

in upset conditions in the Aurora Sanitary District

treflz.~ntplant.

Evidence

produced

at

the

hearing

here.’

~‘

indicate:~ that

the

contract

between the Aurora

Sanitary

District ar.d Armour-Dia~contained dis-

charge limits of 200 mg/l suspended solids

(SS) and EC~5,and

that

should Armour-Dial exceed the limits, a surcharge would be assessed

(R.106).

The evidence indicates that during l9YI tne suspended

solids

and

HOD limits were exceeded 58

of the ti’t°

t~

lO7L.

itt the

request of the Aurora Sanitary District,

krmour—Tha~

reduced its

diverted volume to 50 gpm,

leased sludge dewaterinq equipment

and

began to haul biosolids from its plant

---

—3—

In January,

1976,

Armour—Dial again commenced a program to in-

stall surface condensers.

In addition,

the company has undertaken

substantial modifications

to other portions of the plant that are

intended to significantly reduce the amount of organic emissions

from the plant.

The modifications include replacing barometric

condensers with surface condensers not only on the fatty acid trains

but also on the evaporators and glycerin distillation units as well

as replacing existing dust collectors with multi-cycle dust collectors

on the soap dryers

(R.136).

The new program, which was submitted

to

Armour-Dial management in May,

1976,

is estimated to cost between

$11 million—$13 million and is scheduled for completion before the

end of 1979.

Rule 205(f)

limits the emission of organic material

to

8 pounds

per hour.

Caldulations performed by the Agency indicate that

Petitioner’s emission rate from its oily cooling tower is

35 lbs./hr.

(Agency Recommendation, Attachment A).

Armour-Dial’s own witnesses

indicated emission rates ranging from 17 pounds per hour

(R.2l4—2l7)

to 294 lbs./hr.

(R.42),

the latter considered to be an overestimate

on the witness’ part

(R.42).

The Board notes that these emission

rates account only for emissions from the oily cooling water tower.

A “Forecast Project Schedule” submitted by Armour—Dial indicates

that at the completion of the current project,

a

73

reduction in

emissions

is

to be achieved

(Petitioner’s Exhibit 10).

Interim

reductions

to be achieved are 3.3

by January,

1978,

40

by November,

1978,

and 65

by July,

1979.

In considering whether to grant a variance, the Board must con-

sider the harm which the public will suffer if continued non-

compliance with the Act and Regulations

is allowed.

In the present

ca~se, harm to the public arises potentially in two ways:

continuation

of a serious odor nuisance and possible contribution to a violation

of the health—related air quality standards for hydrocarbons.

Both

issues have been addressed in the record and deserve attention herein.

At the hearings held in this matter,

five witnesses who reside

in the vicinity of the Armour—Dial plant testified on the impact of

the company’s odor emissions on their lives.

The witnesses described

the odor, which has apparently been

a problem since

1965

(R.224,

316)

as similar to, a very cheap,

strong perfume

(R.331),

rotting vegetable

oil or animal fat

(R.317), rotten soap

(R.258)

or a chemical process

(R.225,

326).

The witnesses lived or had lived in various directions

from the plant and one witness offended by the odor lived 3-4 miles

away

(R.309).

The witnesses testified that the odor prevented them

from staying outdoors

(R.l67,

226,

310,

316,

329),

nauseated them

(R.258,

310,

327),

embarrassed them in front of company

(R.l68),

---

-a

a

cl

0

r-)

fl

a

I—

Fc,

se

ca

-

Pa

or.

n

fro

U

0’~~

P..

I

4

no

co

cer

1.

h’s4

da.

A

be

bt

0

13~

(R

3tv0

a’

---

—5—

The Board concludes that harm to the pubi

L

e~B

~

our-j

Dial’s continued failure to comply with

the

Z’

~r~cttc

“

R~au1~

tions is substantial.

However,

the Board

mus

B tie

~i~dsrip to

Petitioner caused by denial of this

variance

‘

t~c

~i31~

barr.

The Board has held that denial of a

variance

,

c

to a

shub~-downorder,

Fllntkote Company v.

EPA,

3 P

3

3

(‘~9~

merely denies Petitioner a shield from prose

i

J~r”

t

L~4ru~.

s

original proposal and variance contemplated a

i~rc~

i

is now 1977;

the odor reduction has not

been

i

ru

~

current proposal contemplates compliance by 1~

‘~‘ut

j~.

later than the original target date,

When

1~i.

3~a

a

to substitute the biodeqradation program

for

condenser program,

it indicated that should

u.

,xp r

i~

t~o~-

degradation program fail, it would lose

at th

r

o~

achieving compliance through its original pla.

~rr~ojr~

~

learned by November, 1974,

if not sooner,

tha~

e ~o e~~c3~i

system was not feasible because of the upset

‘I.

our

e

in the Aurora Sanitary District’s treatment p1~

i~e orc

n

-

most recent variance expired in December,

1973

A~rrour

ra

Ba~,.

made no showing as to why it waited over

two

,,,

‘~-~sco iuui

another variance, why it took well over a ye~u~

teinsti

a

surface condenser program and why it

will tak’~ a

ii~ ~hc er~of

1979 to complete its modifications.

The Board recognizes that Armour—Dial’s

r’

proj ~

significantly more extensive than the origin

r p s~l

~ci~

~i~ke~r

to achieve compliance with the Act and Regula~uin~ P

must conclude that, considering the long

de1a~

in

icn~er

~j

a

p1i~

ance, the hardship to Armour-Dial is

at this

at

se3 ~a a

The residents in the vicinity of the plant

I-.~ebeer ~ub”e.te~to a

serious odor nuisance for 12 years.

In addi~

, t e ev”Qe

cc indi’~

cates that Armour—Dial, which by its own

adiri’

n

cmi

‘~

a

twice the amount of hydrocarbons allowed

under u~ 2)5~

~“aybe

contributing to a violation of ambient

air

qu~

y

sLar~~’Jc

The

Board finds that the hardship to Armour—Dial,

~ic~

we h~

corciudad

is self-imposed,

is outweighed by the harm

~o

e puilic

a

that a

shield from prosecution

is not warranted~

0 r

e~

or~rg~pp ~e~r

equally

to the request for variance from

Sectior 9(a)

~f

~c

at as

well as

Rules

205(f)

and 103(b) (6) (A)

of Chapr~i 2

~

‘ar~ancc

petition

is, therefore, denied.

This Opinion constitutes the findings

of

dCL

and cora

~o~s

of law of the Board in this matter.

---

It

is

ths

Order

of

the

Pollution

Control

Board

that

the

Petition

for Varian.ce

fi..ed

by Arrnour~Diaion February

17,

1977,

be

and is

hereby deniedO

I, Chredt~L~Moffett,

Clerk of the

Illinois

Pollution Control

Board,

~hereed

~rt1fy

the

~bove

Opinion

and

Order

were

adopted

on

the

~

of

~

1977

by a

vote

of

‘1—4

Chr.istan

L~Noffett,

C~I~k

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board