ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

November 22, 1974

NATIONAL BY-PRODUCTS,

INC.,

Petitioner,

vs.

)

PCB 74—322

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

John L.

Parker, Attorney for Petitioner

William A.

Erdman, Attorney for the EPA

OPINION OF THE BOARD

(by Mr. Henss):

On November 7,

1974 we granted National By-Products,

Inc.

variance from Rule

802(b)

(odors)

of the Air Pollution Control

Regulations for its Decatur rendering plant.

The variance is from

August 15, 1974 to June 15,

1975.

Variance from Section

9(a)

of

the Environmental Protection Act was denied.

This Opinion states

the reasons for our decision.

National By—Products reauested that we extend the variance

which had previously been granted in PCB 73-~08.

In PCB 73-208

Petitioner had been allowed, a variance from Rule 802(b)

of the Air

Pollution Control Regulations and Section 9(a) until August 14,

1974 provided it comply with certain requirements.

One of the

requirements was that an odor evaluation be made after installation

of

a hot well cover.

Completion of the hot well cover project was achieved within

the allowable time period and Petitioner proceeded to evaluate the

success of the project through an odor test

.as ordered.

Petitioner informed the Board that it had performed the required

test, which )~esultedin low levels of odor detection

(less than

3 odor

units per cubic foot), but that it had been necessary to use a test

method different from that required by the Order.

The odor measuring

technique which was used was a dynamic forced-choice olfactometer

method and is described in ~Source Emission Odor Measurement By

a

Dynamic Forced-Choice Triangle Olfactometer’~by Andrew Dravnieks and

William

H. Prokop (presented

at 66th Annual Meeting of the Air

Pollution Control Association,

June 24-28,

1973, Air Paper

#73-276).

14 —515

---

—2—

These tests were conducted in the presence of Agency repre-

sentative John Schum,

Jr. and according to Petitioner, all results

were submitted to the Agency.

However,

in its Recommendation the

Agency denied receiving details of the test and,

therefore, could

not report to the Board regarding the odor evaluation.

Since the

method used was different from that which had been ordered and

the Agency’s evaluation

of the method and results was essential,

the Board ordered National By-Products to submit a complete record

of the odor evaluation

to the Agency.

The Agency in turn was

ordered to submit its report to the Board within

7 days of receipt

of the evaluation report.

National By-Products responded by providing the Agency with

the required materials and,

in addition, by supplying additional

information to

the, Board.

This new information indicates that

Petitioner’s Dr.

Fred E. Bisplinghoff had visited the Agency’s

Regional Supervisor, Edward Campbell, in Springfield to arrange for

the testing.

Petitioner asserts that,

after Dr. Bisplinghoff

explained the alternate technique to Campbell, extolling its super-

iority over the Mills technique,

Campbell granted permission to use

the alternate technique.

The Agency acknowledged that the meeting had taken place, but

Campbell denied that he had granted Dr. Bisplinqhoff permission to

use any procedure not authorized by the Board.

While the issue of

what took place in that meeting is unresolved, the Board does not

feel that this is crucial to

a decision in this matter.

John Schum, Jr. noted that atmospheric conditions during

testing were “quite conducive to the rapid dissemination of odors”,

but the Agency concludes that the test result indicated no violations

of Rule 802(b).

If the Rule is not being violated then

a variance

is not needed,

However, we have decided that there might be

a

violation of the Rule under certain atmospheric conditions and the

variance request is not moot.

During interviews with persons residing near Petitioner’s plant

the Agency received mixed response to the hot well cover project.

Some citizens felt that they had received relief but others felt

that the odors from the plant were’ just

as intense and bothersome

as they had been prior to installation of the hot well cover.

The Board feels that Petitioner has complied with the intent of

the previous variance Order.

The record indicates a degree of success

in alleviating the odor problem and justifies variance from the

numerical limitations

of Rule 802(b).

There is some citizen dissatisfaction with the odor reduction

and we think Petitioner shoul~1remain subject to Section 9(a)

of

the Act.

The best way to reduce the odor problem in the short

remaining life of this plant

is to respond

to differing atmospheric

14—516

---

—3—

conditions

and citizen complaints by any necessary day—to—day

adjustments

in plant operations.

Petitioner will perhaps remain

more sensitive to odor complaints and more readily adjust the

day-to-day operations and housekeeping practices if subject to

Section 9(a)

of the Act.

With the conditions required by our November 7,

1974 Order

and some sensitivity toward odor complaints the Petitioner should

be able to continue operating its Decatur plant until

the June 15,

1975 shutdown with minimal environmental impact upon its neighbors.

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions

of law of the Illinois Pollution Control Board.

I, Christan L. Moffett,

Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Cont

1

Board, hereby certify the above Opinion was adopted this ~

day of

~

,

1974 by a vote of

4$

to

~

U~?L