ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
March l4,~ 1974
NATIONAL BY-PRODUCTS INCORPORATED,
Petitioner
v.
PCB 73-208
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent
John L. Parker, Attorney for National By-Products Incorporated
Thomas A. Cengel, Assistant Attorney General for the EPA
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Henss)
Petitioner, National By—Products Incorporated seeks variance
until June 15, 1975 from Sections 9(a) (Air Pollution) and 9(b)
(permits) of the Environmental Protection Act and Rules 103(b) (2)
(operating permit), 104 (compliance programs and project completion
schedule) and 802(b) (odor nuisances) of the Illinois Air Pollution
Control Regulations
This company owns and o~eratesa facility near Decatur~
Illinois for the processing and rendering of animal by-products
and fallen animals. The plant is located in an area known as
Harristown Township, about 4.8 miles from the Decatur city limits~.
It is bounded on the east arid southwest by landfills and on the
south by the Sangamon River. To the north are homes and a corn-
mercial area, with the nearost rome being about 0.2 miles distant
(R. 5R, Petitioner Exhibits #2 and 4) The original plant was
constructed in the late l930~s (R. 55) but. was not acquired by
Petitioner until 1965 (R~
48)
.
It is one of 13 ‘such plants
operated by Petitioner throughout the country.
Petitioner’s Decatur
plant oricrinally served a
large area
including parts of western Kentucky, western Tennessee, eastern
Arkansas, southeastern Missouri and the lower two—thirds of Illinois.
The plant now processes animal and poultry fats. bones, viscera
and
fallen animals from supermarkets, locker plants, restaurants and
farms located throughout central and southern Illinois (P. 61). It
is the only such facility between Jolier, Illinois and St. Lcuis,
Missouri.
—2—
About 1,650,000 lbs. of animal waste materials per week
are
procurred by the Decatur plant of which about 1,350,000 lbs. per
week are actually processed at the Decatur plant. The remainder is
shipped by truck to Petitioner~s Indianapolis, Indiana facility
for processing. Shipping costs are estimated to be $1,500 per
week (P. 63, 152). Processing equipment at the Decatur plant includes
a receiving hopper, a Stedman grinder, five batch
type cookers,
“perc pans” (draining conveyor system)
,
two batch type expellers,
product storage tanks, two shell and tube condensers, two barometric
condensers, a hot well, and four lagoons for plant
waste water.
Part of the plant is in the path of a proposed
1-72 bypass and
will probably be condemned by eminent domain by the State of Illinois
(P. 59-60, Petitioner~s Exhibit #3)
.
Upon discovering this possi-
bility, Petitioner immediately formulated plans to build a new
rendering plant at Mason City, ~linois, Petitioner currently
operates a fat blending, protein blending and waste grease processing
plant at the Mason City site. When the Mason City plant is completed
in June 1975 all of the Decatur operations will be transferred to
Mason City and the Decatur plant will be dismantled. Petitioner
presented the following time schedule for this change over (Amended
Petition, page 14)
Item
Completion Date
Detailed engineering drawings
and specifications of basic
process and odor control equipment
By March 15, 1974
Bids received on equipment
By April 15, 1974
Equipment ordered
By June 15, 1974
Construction contracts let and
construction started
By July 1, 1974
Equipment delivered
By November 1, 1974
Equipment installed and beginning
of start—up tests
By April 15, 1975
Full plant operation, odor tests
performed, discontinue processing
at Decatur
By June 15, 1975
Petitioner’s district manager, Dr. Fred D, Bisplinghoff, testi-
fied that the Mason City program is presently on schedule (R. 251).
A considerable portion of the record in this proceeding pertains to
the new Mason City operation. Petitioner is planning to spend about
$250,000 for pollution control devices at the new four million Jollar
—3—
plant. Dr. LaVerne W. Rees, President of Environmental Research
Corporation, whose firm will design and supply the control
equipment for the Mason City plant, testified that the new plant
will be the best controlled in the world (P. 214). EPA employee
Anton Telford stated his opinion that the Mason City plant ‘program
is adequate to control rendering odors from the plant” (P. 32)
The Board commends Petitioner for its diligent efforts to provide
the new plant with control devices that have achieved excellent odor
reduction results at other rendering plants throughout the world.
But, while it is apparent from the record that the Mason City plant
will be capable of operating in compliance, we must address our-
selves to the present problem at the Decatur plant.
Petitioner admits that odors from the Decatur plant have on
occasion been of such intensity as to cause possible violations of
the act and applicable rules and regulations. Petitioner tried to
show that the odors could have originated at the nearby landfills,
or from a nearby sewage treatment plant, or from the A. E. Staley
plant some eight miles away, or that the odors were a combination
of emissions from these sources. However, the testimony of 12 of
Petitioner’s neighbors and of Maurice Doyle, supervisor for
Harristown Township, leaves no doubt as to the source of the odors.
Doyle testified that the odor came from the rendering plant and
that “there is no question that I know where it comes from” (P.
142)
Diane Davies described her reaction to the odor by stating,
“I have never smelled anything that
bad, never” (P. 102). Other
witnesses described the odor as the “most godawful smell you ever
smelled” (R. 87), “horrendous, like something spoiled, very powerful”
(P.
336) and “nauseating”
(P. 341) Most witnesses agree that the
duration and intensity of the odor increased during the summer months
(P. 90, 101, 110, 133, 145, 337, 377, 384) Ellen Allan testified
that she had suffered from odors from the plant for about 30 years
(P. 348). Helen Hurley Turner testified that she had perceived the
odors for 22 years (R. 337)
The Decatur plant has been at its
present location for nearly
40 years. None of the witnesses who testified at the public hearing
were living in this area before operations began at the plant.
Only
two of the witnesses
had
lived in
the
area for 20 or more years, yet
the record shows that the surrounding area now has over 180 homes
(Respondent Exhibit #1). Only two of the witnesses indicated that
they did not have knowledge of the plant’s existence prior to
purchasing or building their homes.
We can only speculate as to
why the great majority of Petitiorier~s neighbors chose this area
for their dwellings while having knowledge of the odor problems.
11 ~—551
—4—
Most witnesses said they had called the plant on numerous
occasions to complain of the odors. One witness, Betty Hopkins,
testified that she had called the plant over 120 times in 1969
(P. 361). Nearly all of the witnesses who had called the plant
testified that the odors would disappear within 15 to 30 minutes
after the call. (P. 89, 112, 118, 132, 361, 383)
.
We find this
to be a very interesting aspect of the case.
Dr. Bisplinghoff said the “almost instant” relief described by
the plant’s neighbors might have come from hurried repairs to
equipment. Plant employees have standing instructions to check all
phases of the plant operation when an odor complaint is received.
Bisplinghoff stated that an increase in odor could result from a
burned out motor on a water pump, a broken water line, a broken valve
on a water line or a sudden flash of noncondensable gasses from the
hot well. If one of these problems has occurred, it is repaired as
quickly as possible. If no such problem is encountered, Bisplinghoff
stated that there is nothing that can be done at the plant to provide
the instant relief (P. 162-164)
.
It was suggested that a sudden
change in wind direction in some cases could have given abrupt relief
from odor.
In light of citizen testimony that numerous complaints were made
to the Company over the period of time National By-Products has
operated the Decatur plant, we must look at Petitioner’s past efforts
to abate the odor problem. NationalBy-Produ~ts President Robert J.
Fleming testified that odor control in past years was a “very vague
and unscientific problem”. He added that it has only been in the
last couple of years that the industry has “zeroed in on control
technology that we felt comfortable with”, Fleming testified that
the rendering industry has participated in “very expensive experimentatio
from 1969 to 1973 on the use of chemical oxidation or scrubbing as a
method of controlling odors.
Since 1969, Petitioner claims to have spent $74,000 at the Decatur
plant for odor control (R. 311, Petitioner’s Exhibit *1)
.
This
money was represented to have been expended for the following items:
1969—added barometric condensers on shell and tube condenser
(R. 148)
1970-added another shell and tube condenser (R. 149)
1971-changed barometric condensers, added more water lines
and pumps (P. 149)
1972-more pumps, more water (P. 149)
1973-more water (R. 149)
On cross examination Dr. Bisplinghoff disclosed that $29,000 of the
$74,000 had actually been expenses for hauling excess raw materials
to the Indianapolis plant. Petitioner included this amount in the
expense
column for odor control
since the Petitioner considers suct
hauling to be a method of controlling odors (P. 312).
—5—
Bisplinghoff testified that the Decatur plant had used
various chemical masking agents in past years but a truly
effective
maskant was
not found until about 1 1/2 years ago.
The chemical is added to each cooker during loading which
allegedly helps
mask odors which are contained in vapors from
the drain conveyor system (P. 79)
.
Bisplinghoff stated that the
primary constituents of the odors were aldehydes, ketones and
alcohol.
There are six major sources of odor within the plant and at
least
two outside
the plant. Those inside include pe cookers,
the draining conveyor, raw material hoppers, the Stedman grinder,
the Duke Hard.Press and the French Soft Press. Only the cookers
and the draining conveyor have some odor control. (P. 78) Out-
side the plant odors originate at hot wells and liquid discharges
from trucks delivering the raw materials. The record indicates
that odors from the four lagoons are not a major problem. Two of
the lagoons that could be major sources of odor have been completely
covered with a layer of grease, straw and other organic material
(P. 77)
Petitioner has found an alternate delivery route to the plant
which involves routing trucks through one of the landfills in
order to avoid passing by any homes in the area. This route is
passable about 50 to 70 per cent of the time hut Petitioner testi-
fied that an all weather surface will be proviJed for the road in
the Spring of 1974 thereby allowing use of the alternate route 100
per cent of the time (P. 158).
Petitioner estimates that $127,000 will be invested in the
Decatur plant for odor control prior to June 1975. About $10,000
of this amount will be spent for a cover over the hot well and
~iping to convey gasses from the hot well to the plant boilers.
The cover will consist of a wood and masonite hood. Gasses from
The hot well will be transferred to the boiler fan intake by means
a fan which will be mounted on top of the hood. (Petitioner’s
tthbt #9)
Gasses and vapors from the hot well are considered by Petitioner
to be the major source of odor from the Decatur plant (P. 76)
Petitioner’s manager of engineering services, H. W. Heilman, testified
that the proposed hot well cover will not eliminate all odors from
the plant but will significantly change the odor situation (R. 170).
On cross examination Heilman acknowledged that the engineering drawings
for the cover were completed on December 18, 1973 after having been
requested for the first time only two or three days prior (P. 187).
Heilman also acknowledged that hot well covers have been used by
Petitioner “many times” before, that such “technology” was known in
1965, and that if such a cover had been installed at the Decatur
ulant in 1965 the cost would have been about seven thousand to
~?qht thousand dollars (R. 188).
—6—
Petitioner has undertaken a program whereby it attempts to
process all fallen animals brought to the plant within four hours
of delivery (P. 150)
.
Bisplinghoff testified that there are
difficulties with the program when frozen animals are delivered
and during periods when unusual stress conditions cause the death
of large numbers of animals. These difficulties allegedly occur
about 30 days out of each year (R. 298). EPA investigator John
Schum testified that he observed animal carcasses in various states
of decay on each of his two visits. He was informed that the car-
casses had been delivered the night before (P. 326, 329). Mattie
Jane Rose testified that she and several neighbors and friends drove
to the plant on a night when the odor was particularly intense. They
observed a pile of bloated animals with “maggots working all over the
place” (P. 370). Such testimony as this does not speak well for the
effectiveness
of Petitioner’s
four hour processing program.
However,
Petitioner’s four hour processing program is a voluntary program.
Dr. David B. Bromwell of the Illinois Department of Agriculture
testified that Petitioner is only required under the Dead Animal
Disposal Act to process fallen animals within 48 hours after delivery
(P. 329). Such animals could have been delivered to Petitioner’s
facilities in the condition described by Mattie Jane Rose, and
Petitioner would still have 48 hours in which to process the animals.
Dr. Bromwell testified that it was his determination, based on
personal inspections and inspection reports of his subordinates,
that the Decatur plant was in compliance with the Dead Animal
Disposal Act as that Act pertains to odors (P. 232). He stated that
Petitioner can achieve compliance with that section of the Act dealing
with odors by making “an honest effort to control the odors
“
(R. 232).
A review of that portion of the Dead Animal Disposal Act dealing
with odors does not support Dr. Bromwell’s contention. Chapter 8,
Section 159(d) of the Illinois Revised Statutes states: “Odors
shall be controlled and steam disposed of in such manner to be in
compliance with the Environmental Protection Act”. The record in
this case clearly shows that odors from the plant are not being
controlled. Compliance with Section 159(d) is dependent upon
compliance with the Environmental Protection Act and clearly, Petitioner
is not in compliance with the Environmental Protection Act.
H. W. Heilman testified that it would cost between $280,000 and
$345,000 to control the odors from the Decatur plant (P. 182). A
minimum of ten months would be required for completion of such a
project and any equipment so installed could not be used at a later
date in the new Mason City plant (B. 183, 186). To be ordered to
implement such a program would, in Petitioner’s estimation, impose an
arbitrary and unreasonable hardship.
Ii
—554
—7—
In the event this variance petition is denied, National By-
Products claims it will close the Decatur plant rather than install
odor abatement equipment. In the event the plant closes operations
at this time, Petitioner claims the following consequences will
result:
1. Approximately 45 employees will be out of work. Few
of these employees will find their skills transferable
to other employers in the area,
2. The Decatur community will be deprived of the benefits
flowing from a $425,000 per year payroll and $400,000
per year in raw material purchases. An additional
$450,000 per year will be taken from the area in expendi-
tures for maintenance, repairs, services and miscellaneous
operating expenses.
3. Over 500 supermarkets, grocery stores and restaurants
and over 100 locker plants and packing houses would
have no practical alternative for disposing of their
waste materials. Farmers would. have no ready manner of
disposing of fallen animals.
4. Because of its long and highly satisfactory business
relationship with its raw material accounts, Petitioner
might have to continue to haul bones and fat material
away from the premises of these accounts and deliver
them to competitive renderers located many miles away
for the approximately 16 month long period involved.
In this event, Petitioner will undergo substantial
additional expense, possible loss of accounts, and
other resulting hardships,
5. Several hundred thousands of dollars in gross sales
will be lost to Petitioner. In addition, damages from
possibly permanent loss of accounts, loss of customers
and other intangibles will be substantial.
6. A total plant investment (i.e. replacement costs as is,
at market prices,) of approximately $1,500,000 would sit
idle for a period of about 16 months.
The Agency recommends denial of this variance, or in the alter-
native, the granting of a variance from Rule 802(b) only. In its
Recommendation and post hearing Brief, the EPA argues against a
variance from Section 9(a) of the Act on the premise that Petitioner’s
past actions do not warrant protection from prosecution under that
Section. The Agency correctly points out that, under Section 3 of
the Illinois Air Pollution Act Illinois Revised Statutes, 1963,
Chapter III 1/2, paragraph 240.3J, Petitioner has been required to
abate its odor nuisances from the date the Company first took control
of the plant.
11 —555
—8—
Additionally, the Agency
argues that odors from
Petitionerds
plant should have been
in compliance with
Rule 3-3.284 of the
Rules and Regulations Governing
the Control of Air
Pollution since
the 1967’ effective date of
that Rule. Petitioner’s
proposed hot
well cover
is
attacked as a
belated effort tO strengthen Petitioner’s
position for obtaining a variance.
The record in this case clearly shows that odors from Petitioner’s
plant have been
at least partially
responsible for the existence of
an odor nuisance since long
before Petitioner took
over the operation.
The odorous emissions have
continued virtually
unabated since
Petitioner assumed control’. What
is surprising in this case
is
that, although EPA records show complaints “as far
back as 1969”
no enforcement action was filed
against
National
By—Products.
Dr. Bees testified that he surveyed the odor problem near
Petitioner’s plant with a scentometer
on
the day before the public
hearing.
However, his
discussion of the result provides precious
little on which to
base any
definite
conclusions,
The Agency pro-
vided no information whatsoever as to any testing they might or might
not have done in the area. Thus we west rely on the descriptive
testimony of Petitioner’s neighbors from which we’ can only conclude
that Petitioner’s emissions are responsible for the existence of an
odor nuisance.
Petitioner has known the major’ sources of it’s emissions and even
the technology necessary to :cc,ritLro’l the woist of the sources since
1965. The fact tha~Petitioner made no
effort
whatsoever to control
the odors from the hot well for over B vcairs does not favor the
granting of this variance. We are not “i’moressed by Petitioner’s
contention that the hauling of eweass raw materials to the other
plants is an odor control method. Such transfer cf
raw materials
could just as easily be a means of insuring no loss of profits due
to the failure to process the animals bad”ore a significant weight
loss occurred due to animal dec’omposi’tion. The right of Petitioner’s
neighbors to the enjoyment of life and property was of little
apparent concern to Petitioner until it
~5
Jets’,twined that such
concern mioht be necessary for rontinued operation.
Petitioner
turned
a deaf ear to the pleadings of neighbors when $7,000 or $8,000 might
have
controlled most
of
the odor problem.
However,
we shall grant
a relatively ~short~variance in order to
facilitate the improved operation of a m’u,ch needed service to a large
part of Illinois, A decision by National By-Products Company to close
the Decatur plant at this time would cause some loss to farmers and
the food industry. On balance, we believe that the
continued operation
of
the plant with improved
odor control is
the better course.
This
variance
will allow Petlt~oner t.o contnnue
operations
through the period of time required t’~o construct a
hot well
cover
and place.the gas—to-boiler system in operation.
In additional 45
days after completion ow the hot will
~
is ai,lowed tot odor
—9—
testing and evaluation.
Any extension of this variance will
depend largely on Petitioner’s actions during the next four
months and the
degree of relief provided Petitioner’s neighbors,
as shown by the odor test.
In addition to controls at the hot well and odor testing, our
Order will require covering of the scrap pit, the limitation of
amounts of materials processed, efforts to process fallen
animals
within 4 hours after receipt, use of the
alternative route for
delivery of raw material to the plant, covering of lagoons A and B,
and good housekeeping practices.
The variance is granted only from Section 9(a) of the Act
and
Rule
802(b) of
the Air Pollution Control Regulations.
We deny
variance from Section 9(b) of the Act and Rule 103(b) (2) of the
Air Regulations and require that National By-Products apply for
necessary installation and
operating permits. Rule 104 of
etie
Air Regulations is not applicable to Petitioner’s operation.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s Findings of fact and
Conclusions of Law.
ORDER
It is the order of the Pollution Control Board that National
By—Products Incorporated be granted variance from Section 9(a) of
the Environmental Protection Act and Rule 802(b) of the Air
Pollution Control Regulations for its Decatur rendering plant until
August
l5,.,1974
for the purpose of constructing a cover over its hot
well and evaluating any odor reduction
effects of such cover in
order to achieve compliance with Section 9(a) of the Environmental
Protection Act and Rule 802(b) of
the Regulations. Variance from
Section 9(b) of the Act, Rule 103(b) (2)
and Rule 104 is hereby
denied.
This variance is subject to the ~following
conditions:
1. Petitioner shall apply for all necessary permits
required for
the installation of the hot well cover.
2. The installation of the
hot
well cover and the
sub-
sequent routing of all noncombustible gasses from the
hot well to the plant boiler shall be completed not
later than June
1, 1974.
3. Petitioner shall cover its scrap pit.
4. Petitioner shall conduct its operations so as not to
process in excess
of
1,350,000 lbs.
of raw material per week.
5. Petitioner shall insure that a complete cover is main-
tained over lagoons A and B.
6. All possible efforts shall be made to process
all
fallen’ animals withih
4
hours after reCeipt.
—10—
7. All good houskeeping practices described during
these proceedings shall continue for the duration
of this variance.
8. Within 30 days after installation of the hot well
cover, Petitioner shall cause an odor nuisance de-
termination test
to be performed by an independent
testing service in accordance with the procedure
set forth
in “Quantitative Odor Measurements” by
John L. Mills, as referred to in Rule 802(b) of the
Regulations and shall provide the Environmental
Protection Agency with a complete evaluation of
such testing. Testing shall be performed in a manner
approved by the Agency including selection of potential
odor sources to be sampled.
9. Within 15 days after the receipt of’the
evaluation
report specified in part 8 of this Order,
the Agency
shall report to the Board regarding the effectiveness
of the hot well cover program.
10. Petitioner shall wake
every effort for early
completion
of the all weather surface road through ‘the landfill
area. Upon completion of the road, Petitioner shall
route all delivery trucks
ovar the
alternate route.
11.
Petitioner shall submit monthly progress reports to
the
Agency. Said progress
reports shall
commence
March 25, 1974 and shall provide details of
Petitioner’s
progress toward
completion of thw hot well
cover program,
the amount of raw materials çrocessed since the last
report
(since
February 25, 1974
for
the
initial report
only)
,
the condition
of the’ cover on lagoons A
and B,
the
amount of raw materials
that could not
be processed
within 4 hours of receipt, progress towards
completion
of the alternate truck delivery route,
selection
of the
independent testing service
for the
odor reduction
evaluation, and finalization of plans
for conducting
the
odor reduction testing.
12. Petitioner shall, by April 8, 1974, post a bond in the
amount of $10,000 in a form acceptable to the Environ-
mental Protection Agency, such bond to be forfeited in
the event Petitioner fails to
install the
hot well control
and perform the required odor testing. Bond
shall be
mailed
to: Fiscal Services Division, Illinois EPA, 2200
Churchill Road, Springfield, Illinois 62706.
—11-
1, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify the above pinion and Order was adopted
this
/~/‘t1
day of
_____________,
1974 by a vote of
______to ~
