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