ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
December
13, 1973
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Complainant,
v.
)
PCB 72—285
ILLINI BEEF PACKERS,
INC.,
Respondent.
Larry
R.
Eaton, Assistant Attorney General
for the EPA
William
R.
Carney, Attorney for Respondent
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr. Henss)
The Environmental Protection Agency alleges that Respondent’s
Joslin,
Illinois beef processing and packaging plant has dis-
charged methane, hydrogen sulfide and other odorous contaminants
in violation of Section
9(a)
of the Environmental Protection Act
and Rule 3-3.280 of the Rules and Regulations Governing the Control
of Air Pollution.
The period of alleged violations
is from
September 16, 1971 until the date of the filing of the Complaint
on July
2,
1972.
It is also charged that the installation of
facilities on December 29,
1969 and the installation of after-
burner on December 15,
1971 were conducted without Agency permit
in violation of Section
9(b)
of the Act and Rule 3-2.100 of the
Rules.
Public hearing was held on September
28,
1973.
In lieu of
testimony,
the parties presented
a Stipulation of facts and an
agreed settlement.
The only testimony at the hearing was pre-
sented by Charles Wilkins, one of Respondent’s neighbors.
Wilkins
said that odors from Respondent’s plant had created
a “problem”
in the past but had been significantly abated.
He indicated that
he had reviewed the Stipulation
and. believed it to be an acceptable
solution to the odor problem.
The Stipulation stated that Illini Beef Packers,
Inc. was
organized in 1968 by
a qroup of business and professional men
residing in Geneseo, Illinois.
The firm was to construct an
automated packing plant capable of processing 150 head of cattle
per hçur, or an average of 6,000 head per week,
including hy~
products.
Construction
3lans
were approved by the Rock
Island
—2—
County Zoning Board and, on June 16,
1970,
the Illinois Sanitary
Water Board issued an installation and operation permit for the
facility.
The plan called for construction of a $650,000 sewage
lagoon system engineered to meet all Standards of the 1972
Federal Water Quality Amendments.
The Stipulation states that Respondent failed to obtain an
installation permit from the Environmental Protection Agency’s
Air Pollution Control Permit Section at the time the original
facilities were being installed in December 1969.
Since the Agency
was not in existence at that time, we shall consider the Stipulation
to refer to the Air Pollution Control Board rather than the Agency.
Operations commenced on August 2,
1971.
The filling process
and accompanying bacterial action proceeded satisfactorily in the
anaerobic lagoons.
This process allowed the first two anaerobic
lagoons to crust over within the first few months of operation and
aided in controlling odors
from the lagoons.
However, Illini
Beef decided it would be necessary to install an afterburner to
control odors from its dry rendering cookers.
Permit applications
were mailed to the Agency on September 28, 1971 and acknowledged
by the Agency on October
5,
1971.
Respondent installed the
device in December 1971 and the Agency finally issued the permit
on February 18,
1972.
We feel that the Stipulation is adequate to establish the
fact that there were minor permit violations.
The Stipulation, however,
is inadequate to establish the
“odor” violations.
Respondent has denied that it emitted odors
so as
to cause or tend to cause air pollution but agrees that the
Board may find violations “based on the stipulated facts.”
The
stipulated facts do not prove either a 9(a) violation or a
violation of Rule 3—3.280 of the Rules.
On September 16, 1971 two Agency investigators and the repre-
sentative of a local air pollution control agency investigated
the plant and detected odors in the area of the lagoon system.
The Stipulation also relates that,
prior to installation of the
afterburner, odor was detected at the inedible rendering room,
possibly from cookers.
percolators, cracklings trough,
expellers,
sewage sumps,
a dry storage bin, vents from a barometric condenser
and a hot well.
Two EPA investigators returned to the plant on January
21,
1972 and detected “sewage” odors on the north
(downwind)
side of
the aerated lagoon and the west end of the anaerobic lagoons.
Odors were also detected in the hide room,
the inedible rendering
room, and at
a duct venting from the hide department.
At 5:30 p.m.
on that date,
odors were detected on
a black top road about
3/8
of
a mile north of the plant.
10
294
—3—
On both of those dates
the odors were thought to be methane,
hydrogen sulfide amines and sulfur compounds and possibly ammonia,
ethyl amines, hydrogen sulfide, skatole, sulfides, mercaptans and
other undefinable odors.
The Stipulation did not specify the
degree of intensity of any of the odors or any information from
which we could infer that the odors unreasonably interfered with
the enjoyment of life or property.
We are therefore unable to
conclude that the odors caused air pollution on the two dates in
question.
Three Agency investigators again visited the plant on February 17,
1972 for the purpose of conducting an odor survey.
The odor survey
is pertinent in determining whether there was a violation of Rule
3-3.280 of the Rules and Regulations Governing the Control of Air
Pollution.
The survey was conducted using a scentometer at a
site approximately one-half mile southwest of Joslin.
The
scentometer allows the investigator to determine the strength of
an odor by measuring the quantity of clean air which
is needed to
dilute the contaminated air below its odor threshold.
Results of
the survey were
as follows:
Dilution Opening
Dilution/
Observer
Time
Inside Diameter
Threshold Ratio
Rick Rubenstein
l:53P
1/16 inch
128
Fred L.
Smith
l:56P
1/8 inch
32
Frank Sherman
l:58P
1/4 inch
8
Rick Rubenstein
2:l5P
1/8 inch
32
Frank Sherman
2:17P
1/4 inch
8
Fred L. Smith
2:20P
1/8 inch
32
Rick Rubenstein
3:OOP
1/8 inch
32
Fred L. Smith
3:12P
1/4 inch
8
Frank Sherman
3:25P
1/4 inch
8
Since the investigators did not reveal their locations at the
times the tests were made, we are unable to say which part of Rule
3-3.280, Sub-part 3-3.284 might have been violated.
We note that
the most lenient dilution volume allowed by that Rule
is twenty-four
(24)
and it would seem that some of the readings were in violation
of the most lenient part of the Rule.
We can not assume, however,
that the odor was caused by Illini Beef.
We are not told which way
the wind was blowing.
Nor is there any description of the nearby
area to establish that the odor wasn’t caused locally.
The stipu-
lated facts are simply inadequate for us to draw the necessary
inference regarding the odor violation.
The Stipulation does indicate that Respondent had installed
additional odor control equipment”as a further precautionary
10
—295
—4—
measure”.
A construction permit was obtained for a wet scrubbing/
chemical oxidation system to treat air from the inedible rendering
room,
and after testing showed the system to be successful,
an
operating permit was issued by the Agency.
Although Illini Beef does not admit violation of any law,
rule or regulation it does agree to pay a penalty not exceeding
$2,000 in the event we find from the Stipulation that violations
did occur and Respondent also agrees that we may enter an order
requiring the Company to improve its operational and housekeeping
practices and institute a program of investigation of citizen
complaints within
a
5 mile radius of the plant.
We approve of the
suggested order and will
impos.e
a monetary penalty in the amount
of
$500 for the permit violations.
The full $2,000 penalty can
not be ii~posedsince the record is inadequate
to prove a violation
of Section 9(a)
of the Act and Rule 3-3.280 of the Rules.
One issue remains.
Earlier Respondent filed a Motion to
5trike the Complaint,
alleging that the hearing officer had delayed
scheduling the hearing
in this matter an unreasonable period of
time to the prejudice of Respondent.
That part of the Motion to
Strike was taken with the case in order to give Respondent an
opportunity to present evidence that it had been prejudiced by the
handling of the case.
Respondent did not offer any such evidence
and the Motion to Strike is therefore denied.
ORDER
It is the order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board that:
a)
Illini Beef Packers, ~tnc.shall immediately commence
a program to investigate its processing, including
its inedible rendering processing facilities and its
waste water treatment system,
to determine whether
methods of operation, housekeeping
or other main-
tenance practices may be causing periodic odor
emissions from the plant; and upon determination of
same,
if any,
shall immediately take,
or propose a
program for taking, whatever available steps are
deemed to be required as technologically practicable
and economically reasonable
to improve such
operational, housekeeping and maintenance practices;
and further shall report all such findings together
with all steps taken or proposed to be taken and
any
alternative steps available,
as result of said
in~
vestigation to the Environmental Protection Agency
and
10
—
296
—5—
the Pollution Control Board, within 60 days of
the entry of this Order.
The Agency shall review
and comment upon said report within 30 days of
its filing.
b)
Illini Beef,
for a period of one year following
entry of this Order, shall conduct
a program to
allow any citizen residing within a
5 mile radius
of the plant and having a bona fide complaint
concerning an odorous emission from the plant,
if
any,
to call a designated telephone number at any
time,
24 hours a day,
7 days
a week,
to report
such complaint;
that Illini Beef during the said
one year period,
shall see to it that a person
is
available at all times to answer said telephone
number on behalf of Illini Beef and to record
said complaint;
and further that Illini Beef,
during the same one year period,
shall keep a
person available between the hours of
6 a.m. and
12 p.m. Monday thru Saturday, holidays excluded,
to escort any such person
so desiring upon the
plant premises to ascertain the cause and source
of alleged odorous emissions during that time;
c)
Respondent shall within 35 days of the date of this
Order pay to the State of Illinois the sum of
$500
as a penalty for the violations
found in this pro-
ceeding.
Penalty payment by certified check or
money order payable to the State
of
Illinois shall
be made to:
Fiscal Services Division, Illinois EPA,
2200 Churchill Road,
Springfield, Illinois 62706.
d)
The Illinois Pollution Control Board retains juris-
diction of this cause to enter further orders regarding
any program reported by Illini Beef and approved by
the Agency as provided in Paragraph
a.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify t e above Opinion and Order wa
adopted
this
j~1”
day of
________
.
1973 by
a vote of _____to
C)
10
—
297