ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

March

14,

1974

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

COMPLAINANT

v.

)

PCB 71—348

PCB 72—73

DARLING

& COMPANY

RESPONDENT

NICHOLAS

G. DOZORYST II, JAMES JENKS ET AL.,

ASSISTANT ATTORNEYS

GENERAL,

in behalf of

the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

JOSEPH

J.

LAROCCO, ATTORNEY,

in

behalf of DARLING

.~

COMPANY

OPINION

AND

ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by ~4r.Marder)

This

case comes

to

the Board with

a long and confusing history.

Snvironmental Protection Agency

v.

Oarii~ was

filed on November

3,

1971,

charging Darling

&

Co.

with

a violation of Section

9

(a)

of

the Environmental Protection Act and Rule

2-2.31

F

and 2-2.41 of the

~u1es and Regulations of the Air Pollution Control Board for its fac-

~llty

at

42nd Street and Ashland Avenue.

On February 25,

1972,

Dar—

l~n filed

a petition for variance in response to the aforementioned

case with the Board for its qlue-mak~ngfacility located at 42nd

Street

and Ashland Avenue in Chicago.

The variance was requested

from Sect.

9

~

of the Environmental Protection Act and Rule

2—2.31

F and 2-2.41

of

the Air Rules

Ear a period

of

27 months, from the

time

the

variance was granted.

A hearing was held on the

variance,

PCB

72-73,

on July 26,

1972.

At that time Oarling presented its

case fgr variance,

but the Agency

did not proceed,

as there was no Agency recommendation filed

(R.

7/26/72

P.

4).

On November 14,

1972,

the Board ordered

the Agency to proceed with

the matters or suffer a dismissal of the enforcement action.

The Agency filed an amended and corrected complaint on December

1,

1972,

adding

a

9

(a)

complaint against Darling

for its rendering fac-

ility

at

45th

and

Racine

Avenue.

The

Agency

then

filed its recommendation to the variance case on

December

18,

1972.

In

it

the

Agency

recommended

a

denial

or

as

an

alt-

ernative

a

grant

subject

to

a

long

list

of

conditions.

11

—535

---

The enforcement and variance cases were consolidated

for hearing.

Hearings were held

on

July 26,

1972; December 21,

1972;

January 15,

1973;

February 20, 1973; February 26, 1973; August

3,

1973; September

18, 1973;

December 3,

1973; December 4,

1973;

and December 5,

1973.

Members of the public were present at some of the hearings and

testified in the Agency~scase-in—chief in the enforcement action.

We will consider both cases in one opin~ion,but they will be

con-

sidered separately in

the

opinion.

PCB 71—348

The Agency began its case with citizen testimony.

Mrs.

Rose Ann Burns, an employee of Hammond Columbia Refrigerated

Warehouse

Co.

(herein referred to as Hammond)

,

located at 4551 S. Racine

Avenue, testified that there has been an odor in the area

of her job

since she began working there.

She characterized the odor

as

the smell

of fertilizer

(R. 12/21/72 P.

12)

or like the uwhole Russian army bare-

foot’s

(R. 12/21/72 P.

12).

She stated that Darling is the only possible

odor source in the area that has been in operation for

the full 9

1/2

years

CR, 12/21/72 P.

10)

that she has been working for Hammond

CR,

12/

21/72

P.

12),

She stated that Darling is located directly west of Ham-

mond on Racine Avenue and

when the

wind is from the east the

odor

is

less

(R. 12/21/72 P.

13).

The witness testified the

odor

is

a daily oc-

currence

(P.

12/21/72 P.

14)

and when she drives

to work she notices the

smell at about 55th Street and Racine, and it gets worse as she drives

closer to work

(P. 12/21/72 P.

16).

The witness has always believed

the odor to be from Darling and does not associate it with any other bus-

iness

in the area

(R.

12/21/72 P.

18).

On cross-examination the witness

testified that there had been livestock pens in the area until July of

1972

(R.

12/21/72 P.

25) and that other odor-producing sources in the

area have left the yards

(R. 12/21/72 P.

37).

On cross-examination the witness further stated that she assumed

the odor in the area was that of Darling.

She was not

able

to state

whether other possible odor sources were not contributing to the odors

she smelled at work

(P.

12/21/72 Pp. 49-52),

She did state that the

odor was worse when the wind was coming out of the west, passing over

the Darling facility

CR. 12/21/72 P.

54).

The next witness was Lillian Garza who lived at 1207 47th Street,

chicago.

She works for Hammond, in the order department.

Her home is

located two blocks southwest of the Hammond plant,

She testified that

when the wind is from the north on a hot, humid day, the odor is so

that she is nauseated

(P. 12/21/72 P.

59).

She also believes the odor is that emanating from the Darlina ~

a

pany

(P

12/21/72 p

53)

There is no odor at nor homa saien ti~

comes

from the south

(P. 12/21/72 P.

60).

When the wind is

frcaa,

a

west,

the odor is stronger at work

(P.

12/21/72 P,

61).

She

~

~

~9.

odoc at least four tavs a week from 19~’O ~R

12/21/72 P

66

sne

---

parks her car at both home and work,

it is covered with

a greasy, oily

film

(P.

12/21/72 Pp.

67,

74)

The third Agency witness was Anita Piwnicki, who also worked for Ham”~

mond.

She lived

at

4839

S.

Elizabeth, Chicago, which is four blocks

south of her work.

She has lived there for 27 years.

When the wind is

from the north, she receives odors

at her home,

the same odors which

she

smells

at work

(P. 12/21/72 Pp.

82-83).

The smell is stronger at

work

than

at

home

(R.

12/21/72

P.

86).

She also gets grease on the

windshield

of

her

car

every day

(P.

12/21/72

P.

90).

The witness

testified

that

the

odor was that

of

cabbage cooking

(P. 12/21/72

P.

95),

On

cross~exam-

~at1on

tne

witness admitted that

the

odor

at

her

home was

less

tnar

27

years

ago when the stockyards

were

operating,

but stated that

for

the

eight

years she has worked for Hammond, the odor has been

constant

at

work

(R.

12/21/72

P.

96).

Pat Holland,

an employee of Hammond for five years

preceding

the

hear~

log,

next

testified

for the Agency..

At

work

she

notes

that

there

are

ver

lad odors

that

she

thinks

come

from

Darling

and

Company

that

make

her

sick to her stomach

(P. 12/21/72.

Pp.

114-115).

~She

said

that

she

has

smelled the same odor

as

far

away

as

4100

South

on

Haisted

St.rc~

~et.

se

odor

t~aL

ste

noniced

~s

not

the

s~rne as

the

one

from

the

aana

at

the

stockyards,

and

she

does

not

see

pigs

in

the

area

any

more

•~

72

Pp.

119,

120,

129).

Carmen Chapa

of

5124

S.

Carpenter,

Chicago,

next

testified.

She

has

worked

for

Hammond

for

3

1/2

years,

She

stated

she

got

a

light

odor

at

home,

and

a

leavy

one

at

work.

It

is

the

same

odor,

but

of

different

degree.

She

characterized

the

odor

as

“stinky,

bad,”

and

that

she

thln.ks

it

comes

from

Darling

(P.

12/21/72

P.

~l35).

She

believes

it

IS

.Dari.ng

because

she

sees

“smoke”

from

there

and

the

odor

is

very

hea~

or

~ac~ne

(P

l2/2~~~2

P

.~3”)

She

also

sets

a

creasv

f~1m on

~er

windshield

(P.

12/21/72

P.

138).

Wlen

the

wind

is

from

the

west,

tIe

‘~or at

~or~

is

worse

P

12/21,la

p

140)

The

odor

she

notes

as

diff—

.arer.~t from

that

from

the

“pens”

as

the

pens

smelled

“cattley,”

whereas

•~~lais

odor

is

“putrid,

stinky.”

(P.

1.2/21/72

p

141)

The

witness

admit—

l.Aat

he

only

ass ume.s

1.Tfle

odor

is

from

Darling

and

had

no

other

.bas

—

~

~

12/21/72

P.

144)

F.I~zaAeth

Duvick

of

6726

S..

Winchester,

who

also

works

in

the

Hammond

~cms.~ex,

a~st~r_ea taat

ihere

s

a

neavy

rotted

smeil

near

her

work

ohich

makes

her

want

to

vomit

(P.

J.2/21/72

p.

158).

The

odor

is

defin-

.it.ely

worse

as

she

waLks

to

work

as

she

passes

the

Darling

facility

(R,

.12/21/72

p

159).

There

is

a

constant

smell

in

the

area,

but

it

is

worse

m

hot

humid

days.

When

the

wind

is

blowing

toward

her

from

Darling,

the

odor

is

worse.

When

her

daughter

goes

into

the

a~rea, she

vomits

(P.

~

Pp.

L59—i.63).

The

witness

has

been

in

the

Darling

plants

and

‘cc

Lk’ac

a~a odors

ace

or

~te

same

at

cots

plants

At

tse

42nd

,~rc

chore

~s

a

ctemical

ammoria

smell

At

the

45th

Street

~rs

it

~

iust

ice

dead

caste

mouldering~

(P

12/21/72

P

168’

The

o.r

at

the

42nd

St.

plant

is

especially

strong

when

the

witness

was

j.ust

‘“‘~ter

f~&~

a~.i

dlncr

to vlslF fcaends

P

~2/la/’~

P

~59’~

~4”er

---

—4—

the witness

goes to visit

a relative,

at the 45th St. facility, the

smell is worse inside the building than out, and it

is the same smell

she gets on the street

CR. 12/21/72 P.

169).

Mr. Juan Salazar is

a retired worker who lives at 4558

S.

McDowell.

When the wind comes from the east, he has difficulty in breathing.

He

feels the odor comes

from Darling

CR. 12/21/72 Pp. 208-211).

He feels

dizzy from it.

The odor smells like grinding bones

CR. 12/21/72 Pp.

211--

212)

Raphael Mitchell next testified for the Agency.

At the time of the

hearing he was an inspector for the United States Department of Agricul-

ture, assigned to the Hammond complex~ He stated that the smell outside

the Hammond complex was putrid

CR.

1/15/73 P.

236).

In his expert opin-

ion as a meat inspector and from his past experiences, he stated that

the smell was that of inedible rendering

(P.

1/15/73

P.

236).

The odor

could not come from the Hammond complex because no operation would be

allowed to run if it was producing such

a smell,

as the major tenants

of Hammond produced edible products

CR.

1/15/73 Pp.237-38).

It would be

unthinkable to have such an odor from a meat cutting and packing opera-

tion

CR.

1/15/73 P.

241),

There

is no putrid odor coming from meat scraps

or a smokehouse located in the Hammond facility

(R.

1/15/73

P.

243).

Renate

Wimmer lived

at 4326

5. Honore.

At home the smell was

“bad”

like rotten eggs

CR. 1/15/73 P.

278),

She got the same smell at home

as at her work in the Hammond complex.

The smell

is worse when it

is

humid outside.

Her children did not like

to

stay outside.

The odor

at times made the witness sick to her stomach and caused her to “gag”

(P.

1/15/73 Pp.

277—284).

The testimony of the citizen witnesses definitely indicates that

there is an odor problem in the area,

and we are led to the conclusion

that Darling is a contributing source.

Cross-examination of the lay wit-

nesses indicated that they associated

the odor with Darling,

but had no

real information

as to other possible odor sources in the area,

of which

there are many.

Mrs. Duvick’s testimony as to her experience

in visiting

the Darling facility and the fact that the odor she smelled in the Dar-

ling plants was the same as she smelled in the area and at work was most

persuasive.

From the testimony of the lay witnesses the Board has been

able

to conclude that Darling and Company at both its 45th Street and

42nd Street plants contributes to the odor problem pervading the “Yards”

area, but it is impossible to conclude that Darling is the sole source

of odor in the area.

The next Agency witness was Joe Hoffman, a surveillance engineer with

the Agency’s Division of Air Pollution Control.

He testified that the

Agencyts attention was directed to an odor problem in the Yards

area

by

a letter

(Complainant~s

Exhibit

#8) directed to the Agency from

“Action

7,” indica.ting an odor problem at about 47th Str. and Racine

CR,

1/15/71

P.

340).

Being

unfamiliar with the

area, Mr. Hoffman began his investi-

gation at the Hammond complex in the facilities

of Glenn and

Anderson

Co.

His inspection indicated that Glenn and Anderson, and in

fact

the

Hammond

complex, was not the source of the odors being complained

of~

11

—

538

---

—5-.-

The foreman at Glenn and Anderson indicated that the offensive odor in

the area came from Darling and Company

(Resp.

Ex.

#1).

On October 29, 1971, Mr. Hoffman went to the Darling facility to view

the premises.

At that time he walked around the plant with camera in

hand.

Complainant’s Exhibit

#4 showed the truck and loading facilities

at the 42nd St. plant.

The legends on the exhibit indicated Mr. Hoff-

man’s belief that a lack of housekeeping on the dock allowed for spilled

material to lie on the dock, creating a potential odor source.

He said

that in the dock

area there was

an odor of putrid animal matter

(R. 1/15/

73

P.

350).

As he walked around the Darling facilities, he detected the

odors

of “well ripened carrion,” rendering and bdne meal odor

(R. 1/15/73

Pp.

351,

354,

357)

.

Complainant’s Exhibit #50

2,

1971)

On February 29,

1972,

staff, took a pre-arranged tour of the Darling plant.

dock at 42nd St.

(R. 1/15/73

P.

358.)

42nd St. plant was antiquated

(R. 1/15/73

P.

359),

wood was covered with grease and other material

(R.

1/15/73 P.

nant swamp”

(P.

1/15/73

P.

361).

tower on the 42nd St. plant was

an odor source.

but that there still was an odor of bone meal

(R. 1/15/73 P.

365).

noted that the receiving docks were open on one side

(P. 1/15/73 P.

He further testified that the odors on this date were not particularly

strong

CR.

1/15/73 P.

371).

rendering plants in the area,

by Wilson Pharmaceutical

Co.

(P.

1/ 15/73

P.

378).

of knowledge as to the complete complement of tenants

plex and to their respective operations

(R. 1/15/73

P.

388).

testified to seeing livestock cars in the area of the Hammond plant

1/15/73 P.

yards would retain odors.

plex after his initial investigation of Glenn and Anderson

Darling’s operation is the major source of odor in the area

P.

Hoffman testified that on November

2,

1971,

he and Mr.

Sy Levine,

plant

(R. 2/20/73 P.

40).

termined that an odor was emanating from Darling

(P. 2/20/73

P.

42).

The

St. was still bone meal

(P. 2/20/73 Pp. 43-44).

Mr.

the record that the 42nd St. plant is not under negative pressure, and

11

—

539

---

he

further stated

that Mr.

Clark

Rose

at

~ar.L1nq

ac.mitted

to

him that

it

was Impossible

to

maanta~r

toe

a~a

1

t

inst

negative pressure complete-

~y

(P. 2/20/73 Pp. 55-56).

The

‘~‘oo in~

~rner,

Inc

receiving dock,

and

open windows were cited by Mr

Hoffman as

AcIng

~“e

major sources of

,~dorsoutside the buildina

“P

2’20’-~

P

~-3),

~

testified that

the

45th

St.

plant

is under

relarivelv

co~~

numa+~t~e

pressure, but there

is

stila

odor

coming

from

the

plant

H.

~U,’ ‘T~

67)

.

He

detected

ocoru outside the building

as

that

of

.o’~a

‘~asldrying and odors

from

~e

eneiving

dock

(P.

2/20/73

Pp.

67

~

~ne

next

ttgency

witness

las

Laxcir

tea

cr1

~n

trvironmental

Engineer

12,

~itn

the

Division

of

AIr

~otTht1or-

12~tro’,

‘~‘e

testified

that

he

mellet

umaton

meat

odors

at

The

usc’

~t

cant

/

?

2/20/73

P.

111).

On

larch

3

i9”2,

Mr.

Kesari

dp~

tvo

a

E

uc’

o-

~f

personnel

went

to

a

land

St.

plant

to

tale

~o’tuntometcr

~c~h’’~

is

~“re.

The

results

wers

rmnauized

In

Complainant’s

~y~’

siy

“~

~“

were

effectively

to-

attea

o~ the

testimony

of

Henri

12’ec

:ich

of

aol

ution Curbs,

Inc.,

St.

ul

aisnesota.

We

will

seP

so

lnC0

~

oe’ai

of

Mr.

Friedrich’s

~s1imonv

t

just

to

sprn~

-

cc

‘n

rr

on

icr

i

toe

fact that there

,~

~ri

ceterminatisn

a~

‘~

‘~

~i

c

the test personrel

umors,

mere

was

rca

if

Dii

uu

~n~’~-

o~ ~

a

device

that

there

“~

~

r

t.

arson

of

p,~

t45

I

~I’~”~

for

what

It

is

worL

-(0

letection

devic~c

‘

a

reliability

of

tbr

hog

planr

to

h-Ic

rs

at

hot

plar~s

.y

the

odo”

net’

73

1.

2t.

Ia

12

~

~icture

t

ki~i

Ia

•

,-

ame

Hr.

Xssax-

was

round

tum

Darl’~

~-

“,

Ext

bit

12

c

42nd

St.

‘Thant

ar

so

s

~-~-

uminci

(R

8/3/15

P

e

Ice icy

12cr

presentec

~flotho

c

-‘

sr

r’i-~’r~s,

David

(“

‘uvar~

ceil

~no

lived

a

As

me

a

-

‘

12

1626

W

~tfl

12

testifiec

that

while

he

on

tn

s~av

~vor~’~

bus,

ho

and

1he

~ti-

LCICOO

on

the

ous

~a

o

~c

ti~

e~t~

~

sse

of

the

a ½r

~

~

~,

~hen

tn~

~

sa~~’

a

ccc.

inds

12

drf~icu~

L’

ceacue

i~

3/3/7/3

5.

b

ten

raa~

‘i~

:~i

~“

•

a

is

tA~

ur’

,~

a.~or icr

she

Agenc

s

Oi1i~.~fl

~r

12

uAan

Ccntr

-

He ‘a’~~

.0

isits

12

the

Carla-

~r

t

r

oar

127

urn5

12

‘1

“rbruary

29,

P.

s’

1’~

tesbifi,”’

r~

I

12

1.

~Ae

~

-

u

cc

0

sgf

~

~

r,12

1io’~”

aa:ur’~c

WcS

..hac

12

12

~~mc~ar

tastimo’-~

I

dn~

not

disce

ii

-

a;

srooer

ccncr—a,--

u’~

~+‘

cast

—,

a972,

.11

.~:

r

~nd

on

ta

-,

‘c

~r3,

12

t

i

mmci

a

scam

sms~ted the

stan

‘r

12

a

12cmplarnant’s

las

aThs

12~-A’

aimnite

tOa”

the

odors

a

e~

were

n

lact

comm

-on.

c

r’

s

‘o

a

a

omct are

0

lan

r”a’i

icr

~

urn

s

~oi~ut

Hr.

Kesar~

1-ate

i~,

---

waste

(P.

8/3/73

Pp.

129,

130).

There

was

less

of

an

odor at his Feb-

ruary

visit,

as

compared

to the November visit.

He

testified

to

the

fact

that the odors

outside the plant were

more

concentrated than those

inside

the

plant

(P.

8/3/73 P.

138)

The

last

Agency

witness

was

William

Zenisek,

a

surveillance

engineer

with

the Agency’s

Division of

Air

Pollution Control.

On Feb.

29,

1972,

he

visited

the

Darling

plant.

He

noted

a sickening, nauseating odor

outside

the

42nd

St.

plant

(P.

9/18/73

P.

176),

During

the tour of the

plant the witness testified that the odor was so bad that all

he

wanted

to

do

was

to

get

the tour over with and get out of the plant

(P.

9/18/73

P.

182).

The odor

outside of

the

42nd

St.

plant

was

the

same

outside

the plant

as

inside.

The

case

that

Darling

presented

was

both

for

the

enforcement

action

and the

variance request.

The

testimony

relating

to

the enforcement

action

was

basically

that

of

Mr. Friedrich of Pollution Curbs,

Inc.

His

company was retained

by Darling to determine what

odors

Darling was eman-

ating and also what

other sources in the area could be causing the com-

plaint of

odor.

Respondent’s

Exhibits 5 and

6 are

data

sheets of tests

run by Pollution Curbs,

Inc.,

to

determine

odor

emissions

from

Darling’s

plant.

The

tests

run

are

very

controlled

and

scientific

in

nature

and

the

odor

panel

technique

used

to

determine

the

final

numbers

has

been

accepted

by

many

states

in

their

odor

control

programs.

The

problem

with

this

data

is

that

nowhere

in

the

record

is

the

Board

informed

as

to

the

meaning

of

these

numbers.

Is

10

odor

units

per

cubic

foot a strong odor

or not?

The Board has no

way

of

determining this

on

its

own,

and

the

Board

will

not

go

beyond

the

record

to

determine

this

or

take

notice

of

its results.

Another

problem

with

these

tests

is

that

they

were

taken

from process unit stacks

and

not

from

open

windows

or

at

the

receiving

docks,

which

were

both

possible

odor

sources.

The

rest

of

Mr.

Friedrich’s

testimony related

to

other

possible

emission sources

for

odors

in

the

area.

Mr.

Friedrich

was supplied

by

Darling with a list

of

possible em-

ission

sources

in

the

area of Darling and Company that could possibly

create

the odors that

are complained of in the area.

(Respondent’s Ex-

hibit

#9.)

From this

list he prepared a map of the area with the sources

listed

on them.

This

map (Respondent’s Exhibit

#10)

indicates

a number

of plants that

Mr.

Friedrich went by to determine if they were possible

odor sources.

The

map

shows

a

number

of

such

possible

sources

that

the

citizen

wit-

nesses did not testify to or seem to know

about.

The

thrust

of

Mr.

Friedrich’s

testimony

was

to

mitigate

that

of

the

lay witnesses

as

to

Darling

being

the

odor

source, because Darling is the only source emitt-

er

in

the

area,

according

to

the

lay

witnesses.

Respondent’s

Exhibits

9

and

10

completely

show

that

there

are

other

possible

sources

in

the

area, and it does in

fact

tend

to

mitigate

some

of

the lay testimony

as

to Darling being the sole odor source ii~the Yards area.

It also brings

into question the investigative techniques of the Agency as

to determin-

ing

background odor

in

the

area.

The

Board,

however,

finds

ample

testimony

to

show

that

Darling

and

Company

at

both

its

42nd

St.

and

45th

St.

plants

violated

Section

9

(a)

---

—8—

of the Act.

Section 9

(a)

is violated when a person allows

“the dis-

charge or emission of any o~ntaminantinto the environment in any state

so as to cause or tend to cause air pollution in Illinois, either alone

or in combination with contaminants from other sources...”

(emphasis

added).

Section

3

(b) of the Act defines air pollution as

“the pres-

ence in the atmosphere

of one or more contaminants in sufficient quanti-

ties

and

of such characteristics and duration as to be injurious to

human, plant or animal life,

to health

(emphasis added),

or to prop-

erty, or to unreasonably interfere with

the

enjoyment

.of

life

or

pr~~y,

.“

The Board finds that Darling and Company, in combination with other

point sources not determined,

did emit into the

atmosphere of the State

of Illinois,

contaminants

(in

the form of odors)

which in fact unreas-

onably interfered with

health

and

the use and

enjoyment of life and prop-

erty.

The citizen testimony,

though rebutted as to

Darling’s being

the

only source

of

odor emission, was

such

as

to

let us know that there

is

a

tremendous

odor

problem

in

the

area

and

that

Darling

and

Company

contrib-

utes

to

it.

The

testimony

of

Mrs.

huvick

and

the

Agency

personnel

that

the

odor

in

Darling’s

plant

is

the

same

as

the

odor

in

the

neighborhood

is

sufficient

to

indicata.

Darling’s

contribution,

The

area

has

odors

that

interfere

with

the

life

of

persons

who

both

live

and

work

in

the

area.

As

such,

Darling

will

be

required

to

abate

these

odors

in

a

manner

set

out

in

the

Order

that

will

follow

this

Opinion.

The

Board

finds

that

there

is

an

unreasonable

interference

with

the

quality

of

life

for

those

who

must

resmde

in

the

area

and

those

who

must

work

there

daily.

People

should

not

be

exuected

to

hold their breaths

on

buses

and

gag

from

the

air.

The

Beard

further

finds that Darling

and

Company,

while

operating

for

profit

and

not

as

a

public service,

does

provide a service

that

is necessary for health and sanitation by dispos-

ing of the

waste

products from the meat industry.

The record indicates

•and.

the

Board

agrees

that

the

servAce

Du.rhi.ng

provides

in

disposing

of

this

material

would

not

be

readily

transferrabie

to

other

sectors

of

the

econ-

omy

or

to

government,

because

of

the

uroblems

involved

in rendering.

The

Board

finds

the

area

of

the

Stockyards

Is

as

suitable

to

the

ren~dering

industry

as

any.

While

part

of

the

area

is

resIdential,

in

the

so-called

Back

of

the Yards

area,

Darling

is

part

of

the

meat

industry

and

is

log-

ically

located

in

that

area.

The

Board

has

taken

these

findings

into

consideration

in

determining

its

Order

in

this

matter,

along

with

the

practical

and

economic

reason-

ableness of

abating the

odors

generated

by

Darling.

The

Order

will

be

for

Darling to cease and desist creating an odor

nuisance

as

defined

in

Sec.

9

(a)

and

Sec.

3

(a)

of

the

Environmental

Protection Act at

both

its

plants.

Darling

wilHt.

be

ordered

to

submit

a

compliance

plan

for

the

45th

St. plant, which Shall. include a

truly

effective

negative

pressure

sy~tem

and

very strict housekeeping requirements to prevent material

from

spill-

ing

in

such

areas

as

the unloading docl~to

prevent

odors.

The

42nd

St.

plant wifl be ordered to cease

and

desist

all

odor

emissions

in

violation

of the

Act, the rQethod for

which will be

considered

in the variance

part

of

this ~cision.

Darling

Will

also

be

ordered

to

pay a monetary

penalty

foflats

violations

of

the

Act,

---

VARIANCE PCB 72-73

This variance request

is basically in response to the enforcement

action filed against Darling and Company

(PCB 71-348).

Darling requests

a variance for its glue plant located at 42nd St. and Ashland Avenue in

Chicago,

in the event such plant is found to be in vioiation.

The Board

will now consider this variance, since our decision in the enforcement

case has found a violation of Sec.

9

(a)

of the Environmental Protection

Act.

The Agency recommended a denial of this variance or in the alternative

a grant subject to conditions stated

in

the recommendation.

In effect Darling wants

a variance from the Environmental Protection

Act and regulations relating to air pollution,

so that

it can operate

its glue plant until construction of

a new and modern plant can be com-

pleted at its 45th Street facilities.

Darling is requesting

a 27—month

variance from the time of granting to complete design of a new glue—mak-

ing process, engineering to develop hardware for the new process, acquis-

ition of the new equipment,

and installation and shakedown of the new

plant.

The existing plant has been in operation since 1882.

It

directly

has

103 employees with an additional 139 support employees.

The production

at the plant varies from 2,000,000

to

3,000,000

lbs.

of raw material a

week.

The raw material is brought into the plant by trucks.

The mater-

ial is dumped into a receiving hopper; from there it is transferred to

a

bone crusher and thence to cooking tanks so

as to release the protein in

a soluble

form.

The tallow and bone material are transferred from the

plant for further processing,

while the protein material is further re-

fined until it

is cooled to

a “jello”-like

foirm.

Then it is dried and

ground as glue and shipped to Darling’s customers.

In 1963 the plant was required by the City of Chicago to run an air

emission inventory.

In 1965 this ripened into a formal compliance plan

with

the city which called for:

1.

A

counteractant

spray

system

for

the raw material receiv-

ing

area

and

the

pressed

bone

meal

loading

area.

2.

A cyclone entrapment separator,

surface condenser,

and

from the bone cookers.

3.

A 75,000 CFM ventilation system using counteractants,

along

with

a

sealing

of

windows,

etc.,

to

prevent

escape

of

odors.

4.

A 25,000 CFM vent duct and fan system to control emissions

from the drum dryers.

5.

Hoppers

to

eliminate

bulk

storage

of

pellet

glue

on

the

floor.

6.

Research

and ‘~deve1opment to

eliminate

bacterial

and

fun—

---

10

—

This program received approval by the cit~-in 1966,

Since that

Darling has decided that the best course for them to take was to develop

a new glue—making process and construct a new plant

for it

to run in.

Testimony by Mr. Rose and Mr. Mitchell showed a dearth of research mater--

ial on glue making.

Most of

the

plants that do make glue are old,

such

as

Darling,

or designed to handle much smaller quantities of material

than Darling does

(P.

7/26/72 P.

21).

Darling is the only bone glue

plant in Illinois.

The Board appreciates that the development and research to develop

a new process fora product

as volatile as protein glue

is

involved process and cannot be done overnight.

The new plant will be located at 1245

W.

45th Street in Chicago.

The

improvements of the new plant as compared to the present site are

alleged

to

be

as

follows:

1.

The

new

plant will reduce the

number

of

floors

from

5

to

3,

thusly lowering the number of transfers.

2. The unloading docks are twice as

large,

to cut down

on.

the

time

trucks

with

raw

materials

must.

wait

for

unloading.

3.

There

will

be

no

need

to

truck bone meal any more.

4.

Cooling towers will be eliminated.

Instead

there

will be a water treatment plant

with

tion and a clarifier.

5, Protein condensation will

~e

done more efficiently.

7. The boiler house at 42nd St.

will

be

eliminated.

The

proposed completion schedule is as follows:

1.

and engineering

6 months

2.

EPA

permit

approval

2

months

3.

Equipment

procurement.

12

months

4.

Installation of equipment

4

months

3.

Shakedown

and.

startup

of

plant

3

months

2:

~

a

---

—

Il

—

Since

this

petition

was

filed

in

February

of

1972

the

27

month

per-

iod

should

be

over

in

March

of

1974.

Mr.

Rose

of

Darling

testified

that

one

of

the

reasons

for

the

new

plant

is

Darling’s

determination

that

not

much

more

can he

done to

elim-

inate

odors

at the old plant

(R,

12/26/72 P.

34),

$400,000

to

$500,000

of the cost

of the new plant

and process will be for environmental equip-

ment.

Also,

part of the $200,000 spent by Darling on its sewage treat-

ment plant is attributable

to

the

glue plant

(P.

7/26/72

P.

78).

Thomas

Mitchell,

director of research

for

the glue operation,

testi—

tied

as

to

the economic advantage to Darling

to

have non—odorous

glue

and

processing because the value of

the

product

is reduced by unpleasant

odors

(P.

7/26/72

p.

99).

The

data

acquired

at

the hearing in 1972 was updated

in

1973

when

Mr.

Hugo

Grassl

of

A.

E.

Epstein Consulting Engineers testified

as

to

the

progress of the work on December

3,

1973.

Mr. Grassi testified

to

problems

that

Darling

and

Epstein

were

having

in

completing

the

new

glue

process

and

acquiring

equipment

to

implement

it.

The basic problem

is

that

glue

liquor

is

a

non—Newtonian

fluid,

and

as

such

its

flow

is

unpredictable

(P.

12/3/73

P.

249)

.

This

means

that

equipment and pumps

that

could

be

used

for

processing

Newtonian

liquids

would

not

be

appropriate

for

handling

~the

glue

liquor.

The

process

must

be

done

expeditiously,

with

little

delay,

or

the

glue

hardens

and

clogs

.al

of

the

equipment

(P.

12/3/73

P.

251).

He

testified

that

problems

developed

in

designing

the

equipment

as

sell

as

getting

manufacturers

to

bid

on

the

job,

because

of

the

nature

of

the

glue

operation

(Pa

12/3/74

Pp.

250-287),

Res~ondent’s

Exhibit

*2

snows

the

new

process

ano

rloor

plan

mayout,

which

has

been

designed

with

environmental

and

odor

considerations

being

integrated

into

the

plan.

All

air

in

the

plant

will

be

exhausted

to

scrubber

units

and

the

cow

plant

will

be

kept

under

effebt.ive

negative

pressure

(P.

12/3/73

P.

.121),

it is

hi.s opinion that the new process and plant will be ready

or operation by the end of 1974

(5.

12/3/74

P.

306)

Equipment is now

...is

order

and

installation

should

begin

in

March.

The

testimony

showed

aflat

this

completion

date

is

about

9-12

months

past

the

original

27

:r~a~st~.s

requested

from

the

time

of

the

filing

of

the

variance

petition.

The

reason

for

this

is

that

problems

develop. ed

in

designing

the

equip-

ment

for

the

plant

and

the

new

evaporation

drier

for

the

plant

was

de-

layed

about

18

months

in

working

out

this

problem.

Thomas

Mitchell

of

Darling

testified

that

the

original

plan

of

Dar-

ling

was

to

have

a

variance

of

27 months from the

time

of

its

grant,

but

that

Darling

has

continued

to

work

steadily

on

the

plan,

and

th.ough

the

course

of

this

action

has

been

long

and

drawn

out,

Darling

did

not

sit

and

wait

to

continue

work

on

the plan

(P.

12/4/73 P.

385).

Darling

alleges

that

the

failure

to

grant

the

variance

would

be

an

unreasonable

and

arbitrary

hardship,

as

they

would

be

forced

to

close

---

—

12

—

down their glue operation,

way

it is, would cause

a loss of customers, both for the glue and for

the

acquisition

of

raw

materials

that

would

never

be

recovered

(R.

7/2:!

72

P.

73).

Though

the

Board

does

not

readily

accept

the

argument

that

a

failure

to

grant

a

variance

is

a

close

down

order,

as a variance is

basically

only

a

shield

from

enforcement

(E.

I.

du

Pont

de

Nemours

an:

Co.

v.

Environmental

Protection

Agency

PCB

73-533),

here

Darling

is

5~”

der

an

Order

of

the

Board

(PCB

71-348)

to

cease

and

desist

the

odor

violation

of

Sec.

9

(a)

of

the

Environmental

Protection

Act.

Darling

-

is

no

longer

just

subject

to

prosecution;

they

have

been

prosecuted

found

in

violation.

To

deny

them

a

varianôe

here

means

that

they

shut

down

or

face

court

action

in

the

nature

of

contempt

and

for

violating

a

Board

Order

(Environmental

Protection

Act

Sec.

42).

Darling’s

shutdown

at

42nd

St.

would

be

great

loss,

not

only

to

corporation,

but

also

to

the

employees

who

would

be

put

out

of

work

as

well

as

the

loss

of

Darling’s

rendering

capacity

to

dispose

of

the

waste

products

from

the

meat

industry.

The

environmental

impact

of

Darling’s

continued

operation

of

course

centers

around

the

odors.

There

is

an

adverse

impact

on

the

enviroir

ment,

but

the

Board

finds

that

since

this

odor

problem

has

existed

irl

the

area

for

years,

a

few

more

months

will

not

be

so

detrimental

to

the

environment

as

compared

to

the

loss

to

Darling

and

its

employees.

It

should

also

be

noted

that

Darling

will

not

be

given

carte

blanche

during

the running of this variance.

It shall be required to seal all

windows

in the plant as well as to file with the Agency reports

as

to

odor emissions.

Also,

a

plan

as

to

regular

housekeeping and maintefl

ance

will be required.

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of law

of the Board.

ORDER

-

PCB’

71-348

IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that:

1)

Darling and Company shall, within

90 days from the entry of

this Order,

submit

to the Environmental Protection Agency a

plan

to

abate

nuisance

odors

from

its

45th

St.

rendering

fac-

ility.

2)

Darling

shall,

within

120

days

from

the

entry

of

this

Order,

9

(a)

of the Environmental Protection Act at its 45th St.

facility.

3)

Respondent shall pay,

for violations

at both facilities

aS

detailed above,

the sum of $5000 to the State of Illinois

within

35 days from the date of this Order.

Penalty payment

by certified check or money order payable to the State

o:~

1:0

-,

54(;

---

—

13

—

inois shall be made to:

Fiscal Services Division, Ill-

inois Environmental Protection Agency,

2200 churchill Road,

Springfield,

Illinois

PCB

72-73

ORDER

1.

Darling and Company is granted a variance from Sect.

9

(a)

of the Environmental Protection Act for its 42nd St. plant

until January

31,

1975, subject to the following conditions:

a)

Darling and Company is ordered to submit to the En-

vironmental Protection Agency for its approval a

maintenance program designed to achieve an attain-

able reduction of odorous emissions from its 42nd Street

plant, which shall include, but is not limited to’strin—

gent housekeeping requirements, controlled ventilation,

and sealing of windows to maintain negative pressure

in the plant, within

60

days of the entry of this Order.

b)

Darling

and

Company shall submit monthly reports to

quired in subparagraph 1

(a) of this Order.

c)

Darling

and

Company shall submit

a compliance plan

to the Agency, detailing the new glue plant and pro-

cess,

along with a schedule for completion of the

plan within

60 days of this Order.

d)

Darling and Company shall diligently

carry out all

programs

outlined

in

the

plan

ordered

in

subparagraph

1

(c)

of

this

Order.

e)

Darling

and

Company

shall

submit

quarterly

reports

to

the

Agency

starting

90

days

from

the

issuance

of

this

Order,

which

detail

the

progress

of

the

construction

as specified in the compliance plan required under

subparagraph

1

(c)

of this Order.

f)

Respondent shall, within

35 days from the date of this

Order, post a performance bond in a

form

satisfactory

to the Agency in the amount of $100,000, guaranteeing

compliance with Order ~l, subparagraphs

Cc),

(d),

and

(e).

IT

IS

SO

ORDERED.

I, Christan L.

Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, certify th~tthe above Opini n and Order was adopted by the

Board on the

T\.

day of

____________,

1974, by

a vote of

~

to

~

11—547