Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit 87-03-UCU - SEATTLE RENDERING WORKS - UNCLASSIFIED USE87-3-UCU 87-03-UCU SEATTLE RENDERING WORKS UNCLASSIFIED USE CITY OF TUKWILA WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO /D 8 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, APPROVING AN UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT FOR-SEATTLE RENDERING WORKS, INC., TO INSTALL AN INCINERATOR AND WASTE -HEAT BOILER. WHEREAS, Seattle Rendering Works, Inc., has filed an application with the City Planning Department for an Unclassified Use Permit to install an incinerator and waste-heat boiler to the existing processing plant on the Applicant's property located at 5795 South 130th Place, Tukwila, and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.66.050 of the Tukwila Municipal Code, the City Planning Commission held a public hearing to z consider the permit application, and at the conclusion of said hearing adopted =t= findings, conclusions, and a recommendation to the City Council to approve the m permit, and -.1U WHEREAS, the City's SEPA Responsible Official has issued a Determina- N 0 tion of Nonsignificance (DNS) for the project, and w w J H WHEREAS, the City Council considered the permit application at a co u. regular City Council meeting on March 7, 1988, and determined to defer the w O matter until the application could supply additional information, and g Q u. WHEREAS, on March 14, 1988, at a Special Meeting of the City Council, co a additional information supplied by the applicant was considered, and I w zpt WHEREAS, air pollution from the Applicant's premises has been a prob- z 0 lem, and w w WHEREAS, previous owners have been granted unclassified use permits D for the specific purpose of remedying the pollution problem, without solving o H the problem, and w w = U WHEREAS, the City Council advised the applicant that the applicant LL would assume all risk that the proposed equipment might not solve the pollu- r z tion problem, and Lilo PI WHEREAS, the City determined to adopt the findings, conclusions and 0 recommendations of the Planning Commission with certain conditions and pro- z cedures. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, DO HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Unclassified Use Permit Approved. Pursuant to Section 18.66.050 of the Tukwila Municipal Code, the City Council hereby approves the issuance of an unclassified use permit for Seattle Rendering Works, Inc., to install an incinerator and waste -heat boiler at the existing processing plant located at 5795 So. 130th Place, Tukwila, Washington, as shown on drawings submitted with the application. Section 2. Installation and Testing. The system that is the subject matter of this application will be fully installed and operational no later than June 1, 1988. Within sixty (60) days of installation of the system sub- ject to this permit, applicant shall provide the City with written certifi- cation from an independent testing agency approved by the City that the operation of the system meets or exceeds standards as promulgated by the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency for odor units; provided, that if there are no such local standards for odor units, the system meets or exceeds standards for odor units as promulgated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency or the standards for odor units of the California South Coast Air Management District as attached to this resolution. Section 3. Verified Maintenance. Applicant shall supply the City with a copy of any maintenance manual or maintenance instruction provided by the manufacturer of the incinerator and waste -heat boiler and shall, at the City's request from time to time, provide verification that all recommended maintenance procedures are complied with. Section 4. Record Keeping. Applicant shall keep a record of all events that cause the system to shut down and the length of time of the shut down. All shut downs shall be immediately reported to the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency and to the City. Section 5. Complaints. If a verified complaint leads to a citation from the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency, applicant will supply the City with a detailed explanation of the cause of the odor and the action taken to correct a problem. Section 6. Investigation of Odor Sources. If there is one citation for which there is no explainable cause or three citations regardless of explanation in any ninety (90) day period, applicant will have thirty days to conduct an in -house investigation of the problem and arrive at a corrective procedure which shall be immediately implemented. If at the end of thirty days, applicant has not determined the source of the problem and determined an effective remedy, applicant will have an additional ninety days to determine, at its cost, the source of the problem and the remedy therefore through the services of an independent engineering company. Failure to promptly employ such an independent engineering company or failure to implement the remedy within sixty (60) days shall be a violation of this condition. The results of all in -house or independent investigations shall be immediately provided to the City. Section 7.,Future Council Review. The City Council shall hold a public hearing six months from the date of this resolution, or on such earlier date as shall be determined by the City Council if air pollution complaints shall be received from residents of the City, to consider the effectiveness of the equipment which is the subject of this permit. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a regular meeting thereof this /4V6 day of Filed with the City Clerk: 3-7-Pe Passed by the City Council: 3-/V-P? Resolution No. 106 g , 1988. Mabel J. Harris, Council President Attest /Authenticated axine Anderson, City Clerk z =z Ce w 6 U 00 N • LLI J 1- • w w0 u.¢ =• a z� 1- 0 zE- w w U 0 O — o F- LU W LL- 0 Z w U= O I z March 14, 1988 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL OF COUNCIL MEMBERS OFFICIALS PRESENT Ord. #1455 - Ordering improvement of prop. along portions of SC Pkwy, by install- ing sanitary sewer trunk lines & estab. LID #32. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES • Tukwila City Hall Council Chambers Mayor Van Dusen called the Special Meeting of the Tukwila City Council to order. MABEL J. HARRIS (COUNCIL PRESIDENT), JOE H. DUFFIE, EDGAR D. BAUCH, MARILYN G. STOKNES, JOAN HERNANDEZ, DENNIS L. ROBERTSON, CLARENCE B. MORIWAKI. Ross Earnst (City Engineer), John Cosgrove (City Attorney), Larry Hard (City Attorney), Don Morrison (City Administrator), Don Persson (Acting Police Chief), Byron Sneva (Public Works Director). MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED. City Attorney John Cosgrove read an ordinance of the City of Tukwila, Washington, ordering the construction of a sanitary sewer main in accordance with City standards within an area along Southcenter Parkway, within the City of Tukwila boundary, and establishing Local Improvement District No. 32; providing that payment for said improve- ment be by special assessments on property in said district payable by the mode of "Payment By Bonds "; and providing for the issuance and sale of Local Improvement District bonds by title only. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT ORDINANCE #1455 BE ADOPTED AS READ. * City Attorney John Cosgrove stated Exhibit A of the ordinance is a legal description and map of the area affected by the LID. Kathy Fenham, 16876 Southcenter Parkway, stated the cost of these improvements is being passed from the property owners to the retail merchants. The retail merchants will have to stand the entire cost of the improvement. The area is already burdened with traffic. With construction there will really be a problem and added burden. This will have a negative effect on business; customers will not be able to get into the businesses. Nick Smith, representing Programs Plus, stated it is his understanding there should be a road from east /west through the Bon warehouse. It seems construction should be coordinated. The impact during construction will be on the business places. Rebecca Strand, representing CCF Management, stated it has been hard to hear of the meetings that are held at City Hall. The notices are received late. The cost of this improvement will affect the tenants; the cost will be passed through to them and they should protest. She thought the cost of this improvement should be borne by the developers of the area. Larry Summers, representing Toys R Us, said they have had a chance to inform their customers of the cost that will be passed on to them. Hestated he did not fully understand the allocation of the cost in relation to the 60% rule. It appears that 42% of the LID cost is for the undeveloped property. It seems there is no power to vote down the development. He felt strongly that the undeveloped land should bear the cost of the project. Don Williams, consultant, said the proposal is to bring the sewer from the street up to the buildings. Lift stations have previously been used. Councilmember Hernandez asked if there was any way construction could come through the back so the entrances will not be affected? Don Williams, consultant, said they would try to minimize disruption of business and traffic. He said the Bon has been excluded because their land cannot be developed because the parking spaces are required for their business. z w re 2 000 w = co u. w 0 u. Q =• a Fw Z f=.. �0 Z~ 0 0- wW wz UN — _ 0 z TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIP' `MEETING March 14, 1988 Page 2 Ord. #1455 - estab. LID #32 - contd. Ross Earnst, City Engineer, said with respect to running the sewer up the driveways, the City is not going to run them across the streets, they will be undergrounded. It will miss the driveways. There will be construction but traffic will be able to get out of the driveways. Councilmember Robertson asked about the cost for #5 and 6 if they used a pump station. Don Williams, consultant, said they would have to build a pump station, it would cost about $50,000, and it is doubtful it would be allowed. The total cost would depend on how they developed. Councilmember Stoknes asked what options the Mikami's would have other than the LID? Ross Earnst, City Engineer, stated the City will not authorize another lift station. Councilmember Robertson asked what choice they would have if the City turns down the LID? Mr. Earnst, City Engineer, said they would have to stand the cost of the improvement and anyone connecting at a future date would have to pay them. Councilmember Moriwaki stated it was his understanding there were failures of some lift stations. Ross Earnst, City Engineer, said if the power goes off it shuts down the lift stations. The repairs are costly. The lift stations should not have been permitted and we are now trying to make up for what has been done wrong. The assessments to those with lift stations is less than those without them. Councilmember Stoknes asked about the period of construction. Mr. Williams, consultant, said an estimate would be a week and lesser construction for a month. Councilmember Bauch said he would like to speak in favor of the ordinance. It has been pointed out that the people requesting the development would be charged less than if they participated in this LID. It is costing them money to extend the sewer line north to pick up the lift stations. The lift stations do not have standby. Failure could cause pollution and they could be shut down due to sewer failure. Most of the City is on a system so if the line fails it will flow in the other direction. The City should get rid of the lift stations and this is a good way to do it. .Don Williams, consultant, said if each individual puts in their sewer system it would cost much more; doing it together they would have a broader base for distribution. Councilmember Duffie asked for the life of a lift station. Ross Earnst, City Engineer, said well maintained it would last 30 - 50 years but money would have to be spent to maintain it. Byron Sneva, Public Works Director, said the lift stations would not be allowed to be built today. The requirement would be a secondary power and a second pump. The Clean Water Act requires there be a secondary power and pump system. The City wants them out so they will not be a risk. Patrick Sweeney, representing Waterbeds, said he just became aware of the meeting about one hour ago. Councilmember Moriwaki stated the owners of the property were notified and most of them have not protested. Councilmember Bauch said after the ordinance passes there is still 30 days to receive protests. Larry Hard, City Attorney, said if 60% or more of the property owners protest the City Council can override the protest. The owners, not the tenants, would have to protest. When the owners are told of the assessment they pay they can come in and ask for an adjustment. Bob Scoffield, legal representative for the Mikami's, said they did not want to feel they were taking advantage of others. They have z Iz CC w QQ2 Jo 000 co J CO Li_ IA Id =• w z�. z0 w U • � O — O H wW _ u o wz U= P • 1- z TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPEC SPECO MEETING March 14, 1988 Page 3 Ord. #1455 - estab. LID #32 - contd. owned the property for over fifty years. In 1978 there was an ordinance for storm sewers and properties were assessed. They said it would be a hardship on them as farmers but they came in and paid it when they did not have to. Today they ask that one piece be developed. They want some utilities. It will cost about $40,000 more than if the smaller ordinance had been done. These people are outstanding citizens. Dennis Cochran, representing Parkway Sqare, asked for the time table. Byron Sneva, Public Works Director, said the construction should take place this summer so the sewer is in by September. Council PResident Harris said if property owners change they will have to pay the assessment to hook into the sewer. This would apply to the Bon parking lot if it is every used for anything else, although they have to have that many parking spaces for the buildin *MOTION CARRIED. Res. #1068 - Approv- M ing an Unclassified B Use Permit for Seattle Rendering Works, Inc. to install an incin- erator & waste - heat boiler. OVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION E READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED. The City Attorney read a resolution of the City Council of the City of Tukwila, Washington, approving an Unclassified Use Permit for Seattle Rendering Works, Inc., to install an incinerator and waste -heat boiler by title only. MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION BE APPROVED AS READ. * Councilmember Moriwaki stated he has requested documentation as to how the incinerator and waste -heat boiler will accomplish the end result. g• Barry Briggs, attorney for the applicant, stated the Spencer Boiler Company is the manufacturer of the incinerator. Mr. Frank Reed, applicant, stated these systems are recommended by the pollution control. They have been consultants for similar control devices. He stated he had a copy of a test report that was conducted by the Air Pollution Control District of Los Angeles. In order to test for odors a sample is taken into a room and the judgments are entered by the Control District. The systems are tested periodically. The system has been used successfully for a long time. Councilmember Duffie stated he was in favor of this system and the City should allow the applicant to install the system. However, if it does not work in 30 days the plant should be closed. The City has had a lot of trouble with the problem of odors coming from the rendering works. Mr. Reed, applicant, said odors are removed and the air is cleaned by incineration. Council President Harris stated Section 2 of the resolution stated the system will be fully installed and operational no later than June 1, 1988. Mr. Reed said they would be able to meet that schedule. Mayor Van Dusen stated the City will require tests if there are complaints. City Attorney Cosgrove said the City could require the tests according to citations by air pollution control. Citizens can call air pollution. They will come out and make a determination on the air pollution. Councilmember Moriwaki stated the resolution as written gives the applicant up to four months to do something about the air pollution. He would like something with more bite to it. Councilmember Robertson said in looking at Section 6, why the date of September 1, 1988? z z ce w JU 00 w= 1- U) U_ w0 ga is ~w Z = zo W 0 0 -- w LI o wz U= 01" z TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING March 14, 1988 Page 4 ,Res. #1068 - approv- ing an Unclassified Use Permit for Seattle Rendering Works, Inc. to install an incin- erator & waste - heat boiler - cont. RECESS 9:05 - 9:12 P.M. ADJOURNMENT 9:25 P.M. City Attorney Cosgrove said the applicant Ranted three complaints per month. The summer months are months in which the odor is most apparent. If they get through the summer without odors it will likely work. The limit of the penalty is the revoking of the unclassified permit. If they do not have a permit they will have to shut down. If it is revoked that would remove the system. Mr. Briggs, attorney for the applicant, stated the reason September 1 was put in is because the odor is worse in summer. If it is working there should not be any complaints. Someone from the Los Angeles office will be here immediately to determine the cause if the odors are not taken care of. If the cause cannot be determined an outside engineering firm will be consulted. Complaints will not be ignored at any time. MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY MORIWAKI, TO AMEND THE RESOLUTION AND STATE IN SECTION 6, THIRD LINE, RATHER THAN "PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 1, 1988" IT STATE "IN ANY NINETY DAY PERIOD." MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY MORIWAKI, TO AMEND LINE 10 OF SECTION 6 BY INSERTING THE WORDS "OR FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT THE REMEDY WITHIN SIXTY DAYS" BETWEEN WORDS "COMPANY" AND "SHALL." MOTION CARRIED. . City Attorney Cosgrove stated in Section 6, second paragraph, second line, it should read "the problem and determined an effective remedy, Applicant will have an additional ninety ". Mayor Van Dusen stated the company should perform with an independent testing laboratory and provide the documentation to the City. MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY ROBERTSON, THAT THE COUNCIL RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. The Special Meeting was called back to order with Councilmembers present as previously listed. Larry Hard, City Attorney, stated he has reworded Section 2 of the resolution. It should read: Section 2. Installation and Testing. The system that is the subject matter of this application will be fully installed and operational no later than June 1, 1988. Within sixty (60) days of installation of the system subject to this permit, • applicant shall provide the City with written certification from an independent testing agency approved by the City that the operation of the system meets or exceeds standards as promulated by the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency for odor units; provided, that if there are no such local. standards for odor units, the system meets or exceeds standards for odor units as promulated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency or the standards for odor units of the California South Coast Air Management District as attached to this resolution. MOVED BY MORIWAKI, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION BE AMENDED AND THE SECTION 2 TITLE AND WORDING BE AS PROPOSED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. MOTION CARRIED. *MOTION CARRIED, AS AMENDED. MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT THE SPECIAL MEETING ADJOURN. MOTION CARRIED. Gary L. Van Dusen, Mayor t/ Norma - Booher, Recording Secretary z w 00 u) 0 Wz F- U)LL w 0 2aa Wj a w E-_ zE.. �o z w • C-2 o I- W W tL 0 wz U CI) 0 H 0 z A, 'IDAVIT OF DIST 'IBUTION t a,•.LeLi hereby declare that: Notice of Public Hearing [J Notice of Public Meeting [l Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet [[ Board of Appeals Agenda Packet J Planning Commission Agenda Packet [l Short Subdivision Agenda Packet [[ Determination of Nonsignificance [j Mitigated Determination of Non - significance [[ Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice [l Notice of Action [l Official Notice [[ Notice of Application for [] Other Shoreline Management Permit (l Shoreline Management Permit [1 Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on , 19 . (SEE ATTACHED) BILL HAMMOND SEATTLE RENDERING WORKS 5795 S. 130TH PLACE SEATTLE, WA 98178 Name of Project t. .,1Piate c. Qtitie;&,c; File Number 37 ^3 —Cce [d Signatur,`e, z 1 w Q• L JU O 0 co w= w• 0 LLQ tn❑ =a I-w z I- 0 zt- w w U❑ O N ❑ E- wW U-'0 wz 0— 0 z PLANNING COMMISSION DAVE LARSON - Chairman 14244 55th Ave. So. Tukwila, WA 98188 RANDY COPLEN - It a Ch ai rman 17487 7th Ave. S.W. Seattle, WA 98166 Work: 244 -9004 Home: Same Work: 575 -4114 Home: 246 -5727 Auto: 947 -4900 /113 JIM HAGGERTON Hom &: 244 -7846 1200 S. Dearborn St. Work: 328 -1750 Post Office Box 88067 Tukwila, WA 98188 RICHARD KIRSOP, 16816 53rd Ave. So. Tukwila, WA 98188 GERALD KNUDSON * 6421 So. 143rd P1. Tukwila, WA 98168 JERRY HAMILTON 5624 So. 147th St. Tukwila, WA 98168 LEO SOWINSKI 16050 51st Ave. So. Tukwila, WA 98188 Work: 1- 591 -5503 Home: 242 -7894 Work: 246 -9456 Home: 242 -1409 23 7 7 / /4/ Work: 237 -5347 Home: 248 -1534 Home: 246 -0398 *If delivering packet, deliver to: Green River Constructon 14062 Interurban (mail slot) (23 /P5.PC -BOA) z 1 cc w JU 00 WI w w0 ua 1_w o w w O • - O H w w 1- III O w ..z I= ▪ I • ' z rIDAVIT OF DIS1'IBUTION JOANNE JOHNSON Notice of Public Hearing Q Notice of Public Meeting hereby declare that: Q Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Q Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Q Planning Commission Agenda Packet Q Short Subdivision Agenda Packet Q Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit Q Determination of Nonsignificance Q Mitigated Determination of Non - significance Q Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice Q Notice of Action Q Official Notice D Other Q Shoreline Management Permit Q Other FRIDAY, JANUARY 15, 1988 was mailed to each of the following addresses on , 19 (SEE ATTACHED) ALSO PUBLISHED IN NEWSPAPER Name of Project SFATTIF RFNDFRTNr WORKS, INC File Number 87 -3 -UCU `ice f J Signat z w aa• L JU O O co O in _1• _ • w w0 5 co a w z wo w O N o ff ww u O z w = O 1' z City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 City of Tukwila PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE Notice is hereby given that the City of Tukwila Planning Commission and Board of Architectural Review will conduct a public hearing on January 28, 1988, at 8:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, to consider the following: 1. Case Number: Applicant: Request: Location: 2. Case Number: Applicant: Request: Location: Planning Commission Public Hearing 87 -6 -R Gerald R. Schneider Rezone 27,153 square foot parcel from R -1 -7.2 (Single Family Residential) to P -0 (Professional Office) 6540 Southcenter Boulevard (north of Southcenter Boulevard and east of Macadam Road) 87 -3 -U CU Seattle Rendering Works, Inc. Unclassified Use permit to install an incinerator and waste -heat boiler to reduce odor emissions from the site. 5795 South 130th Place Persons wishing to comment on the above cases may do so by written statement or by appearing at the public hearing. Information on the above cases may be obtained at the Tukwila Planning Department. The City encourages you to notify your neighbors and other persons you believe would be affected by the above items. Published: Valley Daily News - Sunday January 17, 1988 Distribution: Mayor, City Clerk, Property Owners /Applicants, Adjacent Property Owners, File (21 /NTC.1 -28) z Z JU 000 CO J = wo LL? to = F- w _ z Z0 F- LU w 0 w 0 I-- wW u'o wz U= O z -3=UCU SEATTLE RENDERING WORKS CITY OF TUKWILA OREGON - WASHINGTON R.R.& NAV.CO. C/0 UNION PACIFIC R.R. P.O. BOX 2500 BROOMFIELD, CO 80020 BURLINGTON NORTHERN R.R. 2100 1ST INTERSTATE CENTER 999 - 3RD AVENUE SEATTLE, WA 98104 UNION PACIFIC R.R. P.O. BOX 2500 BROOMFIELD, CO 80020 WILLIAM SCHAIBLE 820 SOUTH DONOVAN STREET SEATTLE, WA 98108 ANTHONY SCHWAB 6326 N.E. 124TH KIRKLAND, WA 98034 z �U 00 (,) 0 ww J w0 2 LLQ co � � w I- 0 z w w U O O - O I- LL w I u"O wZ U= o�- z MAILING LIST FOR PUBLIC NOTICE ., TAX LOT NO. • • OWNER'S NAME AND ADDRESS PROPERTY ADDRESS (IF NOT OWNZR•OCCUPIGD) 0003000049 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 r Foster Golf Links 13500 Interurban South Seattle, WA 98178 0001400002 Oregon- Washington R.R. & Nay. Co.. c/o Union Pacific R.R. Railroad Right of Way 2172000390 P.O. Box 2500 Broomfield, C0.80020 0001400003 Burlington Northern R.R. 2100 - 1st Interstate Center 999 - 3rd Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 Railroad Right of Way 1423049041 0001400006 Union Pacific R.R. P.O. Box 2500 Broomfield, CO 80020 • Railroad Right of Way " • 2137000060 William Schaible 820 South Donovan Street Seattle, WA 98108 ' Vacant 2172000385 1 Anthony Schwab 6326 N.E. 124th Kirkland, WA 98034 ..... Vacant I • • I CERTIFY THAT THIS 1S A TRUE AND ACCURATE LIST OF PROPERTY OWNERS OF PARCELS WITHIN 300 FEET OF SITE PERIMETER TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. z • 1-1 6 U0 co W= H N LL w 0 N u. =• d �w z= I- 0 zt- w U• D O N O I_- ww ..z w U= O 1- z April 1, 1988 The Honorable Gary L. VanDusen Mayor of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Gary, RFcFivEn APR 0 1 198$ We at Baker Commodities and Seattle Rendering want to thank you for your patience, understanding, and direction given on both City Council meetings March 7, 1988 and March 14, 1988. I wish to submit to you and Mabel J. Harris, Council President as part of resolution No. 1068 Section 2, Prokop Enviro consultant's biography and methods of testing odor's. We hope this meets yours and the Councils approval, if so we without delay will contract this firm and should be able to guarantee all tests and reports completed by July 15, 1988. Again, thank you for the opportunity to comply and to be the compat- ible neighbor we know we can be. Respectfully yours, SEATT NG WORKS, INC. William H. Hammond III General Manager WHH /lw SEATTLE RENDERING WORKS,INC. * 5795 south 130th til * suattle, washington 981 78 *12061243-7387* 18001562- 51)'58 PROKOP E.nviro Consulting P.O. Box 602 Deerfield, Illinois 60015 March 16, 1988 F.lr. William Sikes Baker Commodities, Inc. 4020 Bandini Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90023 Dear Bill: Telephone (312) 945-1465 jaC�rn frrt ADD 0 1 1988 It was a pleasure to hear from you and find out that an operating permit was issued to your Seattle plant. Attached are copies of my professional biography and list of odor activities which were conducted during 1986 and 87. Also, I have included a technical article on the development of the IITRI dynamic olfactometer and certain excerpts from IITRI's manual which describes the current version consisting of six odor dilution levels. As I indicated in my letter of March 9th, the ED values obtained with the IITRI olfactometer are approximately' of the odor units obtained by the ASTM syringe method. As we discussed by phone, I would be most interested in conduct- ing an odor performance test program at your Seattle plant and its cost would be based on my consulting fee of $ 50 per hr. I would recommend that a week long program be undertaken similar to those performed at Corenco and Stappenbeck. This would allow for at least three days of sampling and eight samples to be evaluated per day. This should provide us with an adequate opportunity to evaluate performance not only of the proposed waste heat boiler but also of the existing scrubber system. Based on my test work at Corenco and Stappenbeck, I would estimate a consulting fee of approximately $ 3000 and $ 1000 travel expense. There would be an additional cost of about $ 700 for air freight shipment of the olfactometer between Chicago and Seattle, for the cost of the sampling bags and tubing, and a service fee for IITRI's handling of the olfactometer. As you know, we would need a well ventilated room essentially free of background odor. Also, a panel of 9 people should be available and they should be representative of the average population regarding olfactory sensitivity. z ~ W 00 J w• o LL a =• o I-- U-1 Z= zo W w U� o1- W W o wz U= P • i-- z As you indicated, this test work is to be scheduled during June or as soon after completion of the waste heat boiler installation as is feasible. Bill, I look forward to working with you on this project. WHP /jp Enclosures Sincerely yours, William H. Prokop, P.E. 2/ z w QQ� JU 00 w0 J o w g? F z� I- 0 z w w U0 0- 0 F- wW H�IL. WZ U= 0 z WILLIAM H. PROKOP Prokop Enviro Consulting P.O. Box 602 Deerfield, Illinois 60015 Phone: 312/945 -1465 Educational Background B.S. in Chemical Engineering, University of Notre Dame, '49 M.S. in Chemical Engineering, University of Wisconsin, '50 A -6 UO D Professional Experience w w w CPC International (formerly Corn Products Co.) 1950 -60 O Central Engineering Dept., Argo, IL w Process and project engineering responsibility for the design, installation ' and startup operation of production scale facilities. These projects co concerned the manufacture of dextrose, starch and chemical products. i—w = d zi_ THE PILLSBURY COMPANY 1960 -70 z o Research & Development Dept., Minneapolis, MN W w Licensing of technology developed within Pillsbury to outside companies. As o o senior engineer, process and project responsibility for the design, instal- o 1— lation and startup operation of production scale facilities for licensees, = w both domestic and foreign. From 1968 -70, manager of licensing department. �— P This included fiscal responsibility as well as technical supervision. -- o ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CORP. 1970 -71 St. Paul, MN Technical manager for design, construction, installation and startup of air pollution control systems purchased by customers. Provided technical support for sales contacts. NATIONAL RENDERERS ASSOCIATION 1971 -85 Des Plaines, IL Director of Engineering Services for NRA which is an industrial trade associ- ation representing the rendering industry internationally. Was responsible for technical programs concerning rendering plant operations. These included air pollution control, wastewater treatment, safety, energy use and develop- ment of rendering process technology. Duties included the evaluation and solving of air pollution control problems, particularly those concerning odors. Was instrumental in developing the wet scrubber technology used in rendering plants for odor control. Also, with IIT Research Institute, jointly developed the triangle, forced - choice dynamic olfactometer for odor sensory measurement. wz U= o� z William H. Prokop Page -2- A -7 NATIONAL RENDERERS ASSOCIATION (continued) Represented the rendering industry in matters concerning Federal and state regulations and legislation. Statements presented at public hearings and comments submitted to Federal and state regulatory agencies. • Also, provided expert witness testimony in court trials concerning odor nuisance problems experienced by individual NRA members. Areas of testimony included odor sensory measurement, detection, control and regulation: • z ~ w UO U 0 Current Status w Initiated my own consulting firm during October 1985. w0 Provide consulting services to individual companies within rendering industry u a in all areas of plant operations. For those companies outside the rendering industry, the primary focus is on odor problem evaluation. w z= Air Pollution Control Association (APCA) Activities z o Member of APCA since 1971 and member of Technical Council since 1972. D o Past Chairman, TT -4 Odor Committee Member, TC -2 Gases and Odors Committee Vice - Chairman of Control Division of the Technical Council = w U Chairman of the TT -4 Committee during 1978 -81. Committee active in the presentation of technical papers at APCA meetings. Submitted comments to .. z USEPA on technical issues concerning odor control regulations which provided vcn basis for their report to Congress on that part of 1977 Clean Air Act Amend- P ments relating to odors. o Technical session arranger and chairman: Session No. 53 on dynamic olfactometry at 1979 APCA meeting. Session No. 37 on recent odor technology development at 1983 APCA meeting. Presented technical papers on odor control at APCA Specialty Conferences on Odors of 1974 and 1977. Have authored or co- authored numerous papers presented at APCA annual meetings on odor measurement, control and regulation. Over 30 published articles in APCA Journal and other technical journals. Other Professional Organizations and Affiliations Water Pollution Control Federation (WPCF) Member of the Odor Measurement, Industrial Wastes and Technical Program Committees of WPCF Registered professional engineer in State of Illinois Diplomate of American Academy of Environmental Engineers 2/15/88 A -9 PROKOP Enviro Consulting 1986 -87 Odor Activities 1. Rendering Plant - Odor Studies and Control System Design 1—z Conducted two separate studies to evaluate performance of two odor CL U-12 control scrubbing systems used to treat emissions from a rendering plant operated by a beef slaughterhouse in Texas. Evaluation of the o odor emissions by dynamic olfactometry indicated additional scrub- coo bing capacity was required to treat the high intensity odors from uJ the rendering process. Specifications were prepared for the addi- tional odor control scrubber which was installed and operated during N n- early 1987. The scrubber systems are operating satisfactorily and w o the numerous complaints received during early 1986 have not been received this year. S- u_ a co 2. Rendering Plant - Odor Studies and Revision of Control System = o Operation r = z� Conducted two separate studies to evaluate performance of odor z o control equipment (wet scrubbing and incineration) used to treat w w emissions from an independent rendering plant (collects raw material 2 o from off -site sources) in Massachusetts. Evaluation of the plant 0 N odor emissions by dynamic olfactometry and atmospheric dispersion o — modeling indicated that the two scrubber systems were a potential w 11.1 cause of the odor complaints received from the community. Specific c) recommendations were made regarding a revision of the scrubber operating procedures including the type of scrubbing solutions used. —o Since implementing these recommendations, essentially no complaints have been received to date. However, an odor study is to be con- ducted during the summer months to confirm that the community odor o 1— complaint problem has been satisfactorily resolved. z 3. Solid Waste Reclamation Plant - Odor Measurement and Modeling Conducted a study to evaluate odor emissions from a solid waste reclamation plant operated by the State of Delaware. These emissions concern the digestion and drying of municipal sewage sludge. This evaluation included the use of dynamic olfactometry and atmospheric dispersion modeling to predict the potential for odor complaints in the adjacent community. Specific recommendations were made regarding operation of the digestors and the odor control system. The recommended changes were made recently to improve digestor performance and facilitate odor abatement. 4. Renton, WA Sewage Treatment Plant - Odor Measurement Conducted a study to evaluate the odor emissions from different stages of the treatment process. Since most of these emissions were from area sources instead of point sources, a special technique was used to sample the area type of odor emission. Dynamic olfactometry was used to quantify each of eight categories of odor emission. This study provides a data base for the design of an odor control system for a future sewage treatment plant to be located in the Seattle metropolitan area. A -10 5. Rendering Plant - Odor Control Design A new rendering plant was installed and started up recently in the Salt Lake City, UT area. During 1986, an odor control system plan was prepared and presented to the state agency. This plan included treatment of the high intensity odors from the rendering process by boiler incineration and treatment of the plant ventilating air by wet scrubbing. Upon approval of the plan by the state agency, the recommended odor control system was designed, constructed and installed. Recent startup of the control system indicates satisfactory operation and essentially no complaints have been received to date. However, an odor study is planned during the summer months to confirm that no community odor problem exists. 6. Rendering Plant - Odor Studies and Modeling Conducted a series of studies to evaluate performance of odor con- trol equipment (incineration of high intensity odors from process and wet scrubbing of plant ventilating air) used to treat emissions from an independent rendering plant in the State of New York. Evaluation of the plant odor emissions by dynamic olfactometry and atmospheric dispersion modeling indicated that the control equipment was operating satisfactorily and should not result in an odor complaint problem impacting the surrounding community. A series of odor monitoring surveys conducted in the adjacent community confirmed this to be essentially true since a slight, rendering odor was detected on only one occasion in a rather small area adjacent to the plant. 7. Seattle Metro Sanitary District - Odor Measurement Conducted a study to evaluate odor emissions from three sewage treatment plants (total of 33 emission sources) and 26 locations in the sewage collection system of the Seattle, WA metropolitan sanitary district. Dynamic olfactometry was used to quantify each of the odor emissions sampled. This odor sensory data base provided Seattle Metro with the basis for evaluating the current odor control systems being used at their treatment plants and throughout their collection system. 8. Pet Food Plant - Odor Measurement and Modeling Conducted a study to evaluate the odor emissions from a pet food manufacturing plant in Kentucky. Six emission sources were evaluated by use of dynamic olfactometry and atmospheric dispersion modeling to predict the potential for odor complaints to occur in the adjacent area. Specific recommendations were made to modify the present exhaust discharges which were considered to have poor atmospheric dispersion characteristics. z z �w 6 00 o LLI J = F- Cf)w w0 ua co =a w z= w'- U� oI- wW LL--o wz U= P 1— z •1 General Information Section 1. Introduction The IITRI Olfactometer utilizes the forced - choice triangle principle to determine how much of an odorous gas sample must be diluted by non - odorous air to make it indistinguishable from non - odorous air. The literature ref- erences applicable to this model may be found at the end of this section. The olfactometer supplies 6 dilution levels. At each dilution level, 3 samples ( "triangle ") are presented to the panelist from a set of glass sniffing ports: two are test room air (two blanks), and the third is the odorous gas diluted with the test room air. The panelist is instructed that one of the three ports in each set may exhibit an odor (be different from the two others in the same set), and that his task is to smell the effluents from the ports and find which port, in his opinion, delivers an odorous sample. He must (forced choice) decide; if he feels that none of the three delivers an odor, he must simply make a guess. The panelist proceeds from the most diluted sample (left) towards higher concentrations of the sample. This is necessary to eliminate a temporary loss in sensitivity which occurs if a stronger odor is smelled first. The choice issignalled by depressing the button corresponding to the port thought to be odorous. The choice is observed by the panel leader on a panel of lights in a separate signal box. Other panelists should not observe the selection of ports by the working panelist. The panelists also should not be rushed. The panel leader records the judgements on a special form and calcul- ates data following a statistical procedure which results in an averaged panel value termed EDso. This term denotes Effective Dosage at the 50 per- cent level; it is that dilution at which 50 percent of the panel would, and 50 percent would not detect odor of the diluted sample. The dilution is denoted by the dilution factor. For instance, EDso = 100 means that volume unit of the odorous gas must be diluted to a total of 100 volume units with non - odorous air to reach the panel threshold termed EDso. IIT RESEARCH INSTITUTE 1 z F- w o:I 00 N D J = U)w wo LLQ co=d I-w zI- w • w U o O - O H wW -o wz U= 0 z General Information The forced choice triangle procedure solves the problem of handling "false positives" which report the presence of odor in blanks. The dynamic (in -flow) dilution to obtain a series of dilution levels, and the delivery of constant rates from sniffing ports permit unhurried comparisons of the diluted samples and blanks. The volume of the odorous samples used, and the extent of the odorous emission from the olfactometer ports, are at a level which permits working with the olfactometer in any reasonable well ventilated room. The unmarked ports and the remote signalling system elim- inate the possibility that the panel leader might influence the panelist's judgement. I I T R E S E A R C H I N S T I T U T E 2 z w re J0 00 cn ww J F w0 2 u. ill a �w Z� o w w O • N 0 W W L.1: O Z W 0~ z General Information Section 2. Specifications Range: 7x to 1600x dilutions (without attenuator) 200x to 40,000x dilutions (with attenuator) range can be extended beyond 40,000x dilutions by use of two attenuators in series or by use of specially made attenuators Time Required: 1 to 1.5 minutes per panelist Panelists: Panelists need not be trained, simple instructions allow novices to be panel members 8 to 9 panelists are recommended. Waiting' time between panelists is zero, time between samples may be 1 to 2 minutes for weak odor and may be 5 -15 minutes for strong odors. Electrical Power: 120 VAC, 60HZ Dilution Air: 9000 mL /min minimum Odorous Source: 100 m L /min Samples: May be liquid, solid or gas samples Size: 331/2" x 2415" x 9" Weight: 39 l bs . Recycle Time: 1 IIT RESEARCH INSTITUTE 61 General Information Section 3. Installation and Installation Planning The IITRI Olfactometer requires no special installation prior to its use, however, a few suggested precautions will greatly facilitate its use. 3.1 Locations The IITRI Olfactometer may be setup anywhere that is convenient. Any room with normal ventilation is adequate. Unventilated rooms are not recommended. Panelists should be kept in an adjoining room to prevent them from seeing other panelists responses, though this is not entirely necessary. The follow- ing should be available as they are not supplied with the instrument. 1. 'A method for delivering the sample to the olfactometer at approximately 100 mL /min. Gaseous samples from bags may be delivered using a peristaltic pump. A satisfactory pump for this purpose is: AL -4 Pump, Cat. No. 2241, 200 RPM from Sigma Motor, Inc, 14 Elizabeth Street, Middleport, N.Y. 14105. This pumping element is discardable tubing of Food Grade Tygon R -3603, 1/8 m. ID., and 1/16 in. wall, supplied by the same company, Cat. No. 3805. 2. Dilution air must be supplied at 9000 mL /min. Laboratory air may be used, however, an oil filter should be used to remove any oil that may be present. If suitable lab air or compressed air is not available, a satisfactory compressor is Cat. No. 917CA18 -TFE from Thomas Industries, 1419 Illinois Ave., Sheboygan, WI 53081. This compressor is equipped with a teflon- lined neoprene diaphragm. 3. 115 VAC, 60 Hz electricity 4. Snoop soap bubble solution 3.2 Panel Size and Panelists The recommended panel size is 8 or 9 people. This is the minimum number needed to provide a statistically significant response. In a test using up to 40 people, the normal distribution of responses was the same as that ob- tained from nine panelists treated by the statistical procedure described in calculations sections 1 and 2. Panelists need very little instructions prior to using the olfactometers. The design is such that any person may be used as a panelist after only a brief description of the procedure. IIT RESEARCH INSTITUTE 62 z ~ w re 6 JU 00 U F- U)w w0 2 u. Q co =d �.w z= t- 0 zt- w w U� o _ F- wW .. z w U= 0 I— z General Information Section 4. Description of Internal Connections In the following discussion al) references are to Figure 1, page 65. The red and blue glassine sheets should be turned back for clarity. 4.1 Dilution Air Lines Dilution air at approximately 9000 mL /min or greater enters through the F- Dilution marked Non - Odorous Air. JU 00 The dilution air is controlled by needle valve E (on the rotameter) and w w an excess air - discard valve F. The latter is needed to adjust for a better -JI=- �w match between the pumping capacity of the pump and the demand of the olfacto- w o meter. Rotameter G permits monitoring the total flow rate to the olfactometer. g The 18 -way splitter manifold (H) utilizes 0.020 in. I.D. capillaries to dis- tribute the air to the 18 ports at a rate of 500 mL /min. H w Z= An L- channel with grommetted holes carries three Teflon tubing lines to z O each set of ports. Each of these lines end in a different port. 2o A separate rotameter, R, is provided for checking the flow rates from the 0D- L) dilution air tubings in each cup. See section on calibration. ww o H 4.2 Sample Lines LL• o Move the red glassine sheet entitled "IITRI Olfactometer showing connec- w _ tions for low emission odors" into position over the drawing of the olfacto- 0I•- z meter. The manifold B splits the sample flow which enters as shown into 6 portions, each fed to a separate port. The splitters consist of calibrated stainless steel tubings, 0.010 to 0.020 in. I.D. The L- channel with gronmeted holes carries three Teflon sample lines to each set of ports. Each of these lines end in a different sniffing nozzel. One of these three lines (the panel leaders choice) is connected to the corresponding capillary of splitter B. The other two Teflon lines, to the two other ports of the same set, remain idle. This arrangement permits switching the sample flow from one port to another, in the same set, as in the case when a Teflon line seems to be con- taminated, or when a weak odor sample must be measured quickly after a strong sample has been tested. IIT RESEARCH INSTITUTE 63 General Information The grommetted hole sequence in the L- channel corresponds to the signal light sequence in the signal box. • Tubing through the left grommet in each set of three corresponds to the upper light (farthest from the numbers on the sig- nal box); through center grommet -- to the center light; and through the right side grommet -- to the lower light. A soap bubble flow meter is provided for measuring the sample line flows. See section on calibration. 4.3 Connections for Strong Emission Odors In the case of odors that are very strong (odor is easily detected in • port 1), an attenuator is provided which reduces the incoming odor sufficiently to bring it within the range of the six ports. The blue glassine sheet shows the connection of the attenuator in the incoming odor line. The sample connection to splitter, 8, is pulled off, and this stub of splitter B is connected by a spare Teflon line to the exit (in the olfactometer box) of attenuator A. The sample is now delivered to the other end of the attenuator. A, through the Teflon line outside the olfactometer box. The flow through A should always be in the direction of the pasted -on arrow. In the attenuator (see Figure 2, page 66) 26/27 of the odorous air sample passes through a de- odorizer capsule, containing activated carbon and Purafil (permanganate- coated alumina) de- odorizing materials, and emerges from the capsule with odorants removed. A smaller portion, 1/27 of the sample flow which contains odorants, by- passes the de- odorizer. Both flows mix in the T at the exit from the attenuator. The resulting total flow rate is the same as before, but it contains odorants reduced in concentration by a factor of 27X. Instructions for calibration are given in the section on calibration. IIT RESEARCH INSTITUTE 64 z ~ w re JU O 0 N J F- N LL w0 u. Q co g =d I- w z= I- 0 Z w D • O O • N o I- w w LLz w U= O~ z 1 2 • 3 4 MAKE —UP AIR NON — ODOROUS pIR 115V 60 HE Figure 1 IITRIROLFACTOMETTERRsiiVNN8 ERINEEPRPFFeinq.FO�dP )N g RS IITRI OL.FACTOMETER SHOWING CONI'CTIONS FOR STRONG EMISSION ODORS z • ~ w ce JU U0 N0 CD U.1 J= H N L L WO Q W cn H W z 1— 0 Z I- W • W 0 O N O I- W W I- 7- • O .• W U= O ~ z GLASS WOOL ACTIVE CARBON ATTENUATOR EXIT T n r1 BYPASS a-- PURAFIL Fig. 2 ATTENUATOR FOR STRONG ODORS 66 z r 6 w JU O 0 CO ILI J = CO LL wo 2 u w d =w z�. I--0 z E-- w w U0 o- of- w� _ u-'0 ..z w U= 0~ z U 'lMll. 1'KLANULt. ULEACTUMETER CALIBRATION DATA AND PLOTTING TABLE DATE FLOW CALIBRATIONS, ML /MIN PRE- ATTENUATOR (IF ANY) PRE - ATTENUATION Factor A Port No Log Total Dilution Factor THROUGH C BYPASS 1 6 DILUTION IF NO PRE - ATTENUATION, A =1 LEVELS: No. Odor Dilution Air Dilution Factor' D D x A 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 TABLE FOR CONVERSION OF RANK DATA TO X -AXIS PLOT VALUES Number of Panelists Average Rank 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 jo.0 6 7 8 9 10 -1.07 -1.15 -1.22 -1.28 -1.33 -0.79 -0.89 -0.97 -1.04 -1.10 - 0.57 -0.67 -0.77 -0.84 -0.91 - 0.37 -0.49 -0.59 -0.67 -0.75 - 0.18 -0.32 -0.43 -0.52 -0.60 0 -0.16 -0.28 -0.39 -0.47 +0.18 0 -0.14 -0.25 -0.35 +0.37 1-0.16 0 -0.13 -0.23 +0.57 +0.32 +0.14 0 -0.11 +0.79 +0.49 +0.28 +0.13 0 +1.07 +0.67 +0.43 +0.25 +0.11 +0.89 +0.59 +0.39' +0.23 4-1.15 +0.77 +.1.52 +0.35 +0.97 +'.).67 +0.47 +1.22 +0,84 +0.60 +1.04 +0.75 41.28 +0.91 +1.10 +1,33 :' ' 88 z Fz re w QQ� JU O 00 w J � w w0 co =d w z� z1- w O • Cl co O - C)ff wW u. O wz U= o • I z ED50 Evaluation Form for Dynamic Triangle Olfactometer Evaluation Date: RESULT: Log ED50 Cons. No. Panelist Dilution Level Number 1 1 2 3 1 4 1 5 6 1 Correct Choice Would Be: (t = top, c = center, b = bottom) ED50 = Panelist Indicated: 7 8 9 10 Frequency Tally Average Rank X = Plotting Value Y = Log(Tolerance Level) Log(Dilution Factor) Dilution Level No. i Hi 1 <1 Plot Y versus X Y at X =0 is Log ED50 1 1 from connections in olfactometer For Rank Count: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 E- how many begin to detect E-from frequency count E- from average rank and table - average of Log(Dil. Fact.) 2 3 4 Panel Leader 87 5 6 11 711 E-from flow calibration } z 1- w QQ• � JU O 0 N 0 W W J � w WO LL? W zE.. H O Z~ w O9- 0 )- WW ►- H �-o wz UCP- i- _ O~ z • Source Emission Odor Measurement by A Dynamic Forced - Choice Triangle Olfactometer Andrew Dravnieks Odor Sciences Center, IIT Research Institute, Chicago, Illinois and William H. Prokop National Renderers Association, Des Plaines, Illinois Current odor emission control regulations specify a syringe dilution technique to determine odor concentration level of exhaust stack emissions. This procedure in practice is cumbersome, slow, and subject to improvisations. Further, there is no satisfactory provision to check reliability of positive- negative responses of panel. An approach is desired where the diluted odor sample is presented to the panel for discrimination from samples of non - odorous air and results can be related to statistically significant confi- dence levels. An olfactometer based upon forced - choice triangle statistical design was designed and constructed. One di- luted odor sample and two non - odorous air blanks are pre- sented dynamically at each dilution level. Each panelist is required to judge which of three ports is odorous and to signal a choice. The three ports are arranged in a circular symmetrical pattern to achieve a double -blind sample presentation since neither panelists nor panel leader know the correct choice until after the judgment is made. Dy- namically diluted stimuli are presented at constant flow in ascending concentration order, increasing by a factor of 3 per step. Three odor dilution steps are available on a continuous basis during the evaluation. Evaluation of one sample is routinely completed by a panel of 9 within less than 15 minutes. Statistical data compilation is achieved by ranking procedures to obtain the average panel odor threshold for each sample. Testing of rendering plant odor emissions resulted in a satisfactory correlation between the dynamic olfactometer and syringe dilution methods. I)r. Dravnicks is in Odor Science Center, 111' Research Institute, Chicago, I1. 60616. \Ir. Prokop is wit h the National Renderers Association, Des Plaines, 114 6001S. This was Paper 73 -270 presented at the 00th Annual Meeting of APCA in June 19V. 7 . Needs exist for a fast, convenient procedure for measuring the odor dilution thresholds of odorous emissions from various sources including rendering plants. Various regulations establish the compliance limit, usually in terms of ASTM odor units. When- ever regulations apply to ambient odors only, the industrial plant needs a measuring device to determine the odor level in stack emissions, particularly where adjustments are required in the plant, operation to compensate for a change in atmospheric condi- tions that could influence compliance with the ambient odor standard. Odor control devices need monitoring to determine their performance to the mutual satisfaction of both purchaser and vendor. Although the syringe dilution test' or its variants= -4 are exten- sively used for these purposes, they are subject to improvisation, especially in selecting the order of the dilution presentations. Whenever such procedures are used routinely, there is a tendency to expedite the test and minimize the number of the sample pre- sentations. Data obtained tinder these conditions are of question- able value. A study was conducted to alleviate this problem. Principles of sensory evaluation were reviewed. Those which held promise for a practical odor evaluation procedure were selected and an olfuctometer was built for their convenient implementation. 'Pests were conducted to compare the new method with an up- dated version of the ASTM syringe dilution test. A compatible source emission sampling technique was also evolved. General Considerations The simple notion that the odor threshold of a substance is a constant which is measurable as confidently as its melting point has been dissipated by the psychophysical signal detection theory.6-7 The threshold value varies with the method of the panelist's exposure to the odor stimulus, with the type of the response requested and with the judgment criteria used by the panelist to arrive at his decisions which depend on his motives and on 1 he consequences of the judgment. The number of measurements needed to account for all such effects to the satis- faction of current threshold theory is too large for routine use. Since t he panel- determined odor threshold is a function of the method used, it does not directly measure the odor delectability in the ambient air but merely relates to it in some way. There- fore the laboratory values of the odor thresholds by any technique are expedients subject to interpretation. The desirable tech- niques are those which are least arbitrary, more reproducible, and require the least effort. Reprinted from APCA JOURNAL, Vol. 2.5, .Vu. 1, January 197.5 z �W iY L �U UO U tz J = W O 2 U_? = W Z� 1-O W F- W U ca ON c F- W W _ 1— H W Z U- O~ Z Principle. A requirement tint' " "'e volume of the effluent diluted to X volumes by air shout, ;:cult in an odor below the threshold can be restated. The target is an odorless air. Will one volume of the effluent diluted to X volumes by uir be indistin- guishable from this target at some prescribed statistical signifi- cance level? Such comparisons with a target are common in industrial quality control and are usually solved by multiple choice methods. Thus, in the triangle method, two target, samples and the un- known are presented. The panelist must indicate the odd sam- ple —that which is different from the other two." Such a test would establish whether the subject can reliably detect odor at a selected concentration. Elimination of Sources of Variability. Odors above the thretsh- old rause a temporary desensitization which requires imposition of certain timing in tests. Ascending order of presentation (with a multiple choice at each dilution) proceeding from the more di- lute to more concentrated mixtures of effluent with air circum- vents this difficulty. The consistency of response is recognized by the correct choices. If the panel leader knows the correct choice, he can uncon- sciously influence t he panelist through clues such us gestures, intonations, sample codes, and positions. A doi1 le- -Mind pro- cedure, in which neither the leader nor the panelist knows the correct choice until after the judgement, eliminates the leader/ panelist interaction. Positional preferences (e.g., preference of the center sample over the left or the right ) may he reduced by a symmetrical design. Clues in the sample code can be prevented by no coding at all. Speed. Time is wasted when the panelists wait for the prepa- ration of dilutions. All needed dilutions Hurst be ready for pre- sentation before the test and should remain constant during the -test. This is possible if several odor levels are simultaneously generated by dynamically dilating the effluent with air. A system in which the leader records pastelists' judgments also saves time. Physical Dimensions. Fasst flow rates of diluted effluents have been known to produce lower dilution thresholds (higher number of odor units) and are assumed therefore to be more "correct "; the question remains whether n combination of an odor stimulus and a stimulation of nose by high air flow results in a lower odor threshold.° high flow rates require large effluent samples, special ventilation systems, etc. The ventilation and space requirements for the odor evaluation roost should be minimized. Portability of the olfactometer is un asset. Currently, effluent samples are taken in a variety of plastic bags. For routine sampling, smaller and inexpensive bags are preferred. Although an immediate evaluation is desirable, it is often not feasible. Therefore, the samples may need to be stored for 1 -2 days and should not significantly deteriorate in storage. Data Evaluation. Since panels of 10 subjects or less are u rule rather than an exception in industry, the mathematics of the data evaluation should be suitable. An exact calculation, as an alter- native to plotting, should assist in avoiding arguments 11:i to the "best straight line." Correlation with Syringe Dilution Method. Much of the existing odor control technology has been based on odor data obtained by the syringe dilution method. A correlation between the de- veloped method and the ASTi\1 method should exist. This may be in a form of a proportion or a more complex relation. How- ever, for a given ASTI\1 value the corresponding value by the new method should be established. Standardization of Panelists. A provision for testing the panelists' sensitivity with some known odorant is desirable to avoid panelists who exhibit, an abnormal sense of smell at the time of the tint. Experimental Odor Sampling and Evaluation Methods Figure 1 shows the sampling method where a peristaltic pump (P) extracts the effluent and delivers it into container (B). The container is a thick -wall (0.0211 in. plus) hand-collapsible 18 liter (3 gal) polyethylene container available routinely in commerce with a polyethylene faucet valve. The sampling rate is -,--1.100 ml /main. The pumping element is a length of a diseardahle'Tygon January 1975 Volume 25, No. 1 ` EFFLUENT DUCT Figure 1. Sampling. tubing (low -odor grade, for food) which is rapidly "milked" by the pump rollers. The sampling tubing is first equilibrated by pump- ing and venting the effluent. The bag is then flushed with a few liters of the effluent, disconnected, and collapsed by hand to expel this preflush. Finally, t he bag is filled with the effluent sample. Figure 2 depicts the olfactomctric evalution. Figure 3 shows the internal connections in more detail. A similar peristaltic pump (I'), but pumping at n rate of 31) nil /min, delivers the sam- ple from bag 11 into he split ter of the olfactometer. The splitter consists of 3 different lengths of l i ; in o.(1. 0.010 in. i.d. stainless steel capillary tubing and produces effluent flows of 1, 3, and '3 ml/min (L, T, iI in Figure 3). 1)nnrp t ubing is provided to divert the excess effluent into a small active carbon absorber (not shown). A carbon vane pump (A) delivers room air through nn active carbon adsorbcr (F) to a primitive manostat (M). This consists of a plastic standpipe immersed to 1111 adjustable depth in wafter. As long 118 t he excess air bubbles at the lower end of the standpipe, the air pressure in the tee ('1') is approximately constant. From T, the air is distributed through 0.030 in. i.d. stainless steel capil- laries at 6(1(1 ml;'nnin to each sniffing port. There are '3 ports mounted in symmetrical circular arrangement in groups of 3 in 3 p1ast le t amblers. The connections to the ports consist of A'iVG 16 Teflon tubing. An electrical pushbutton switch is mounted below each port .on the tumblers. The tubing lines and the wires pass from the tum- bler to the main apparatus through a flexible neoprene tube which Figure 2. Sample evaluation in the dynamic dilution forced-choice tri. angle oltactometer. 29 Z 1 W QQ JU 00 W = i- W W0 La 12 3 I . 2 W Z WO U • C) O — C) WW 2 WZ U= 0 Z r 6.3 V D.CorA.C. PUSH B' '-TON -- sw PORTS ARRANGED CIRCULARLY DILUTION AIR A SIGNAL BULBS ATTENUATOR BYPASS EFFLUENT SAMPLE L DUMP �— D CARBON ATTENUATOR r PERISTALTIC PUMP Figure 3. Flows and connections in the olfactometer. permits a limited rut at ion of the tumbler. Effluent, e.g., from the middle splitter flow line at 3 ml/min, can be channeled to any port in t he same tumbler, but to only one port at a time. The two other ports hold spare idle Teflon lines. In each tumbler the panelist smells all three ports and must signal his decision by depressing the button corresponding to that port which is judged to be odorous—"different" from the other two in the snort tumbler. The p:uic1 lender observes the signal panel. Ile knows which line delivers the effluent front the split- ter, but does not know to which port this line goes. Signal lamps (L) indicate the panelist's choice. This implement; the double -blind feature: neither he panelist nor t he lender knows the'correct choice, which becomes known to the leader only after the judgment. Provision could be made to record the judgments. The same panelist can repeat a judgment provided that the tumbler is rotated back and forth before the judgment is repeated. For example, the middle tumbler may supply n nominal dilution of 1:200. The other two tumblers supply dilutions of 1:68 and 1:600 — varying by a factor of 3 from the middle concentration. The actual flow rates to he used in the dilution calculations are checked before the test by n conventional soap filet flowmeter, shown in the insert of Figure 2. The range can be extended to higher concentrations (lower odor units) by changing the peri- staltic pump head. The range can be extended to lower concen- trations (more odor units) by inserting one or more attenuntols, cf. Figure 3. The attenuator is a 1:27 splitter, with 26/27 of flow passing through a small carbon adsorber, and 1/27 of the effluent bypassing. The two flows —the deodorized 26/27 and the odorous 1/27—mix again after the ultenuator so that the initial flow rate of the effluent is maintained. With the aucnu- ator in the Teflon line between the pomp and the splitter, the dilutions increase by a factor of 27, to 1800, .1400, and 16,200 odor units. Additional attenuutors, not shown, permit more dilutions. If intermediate dilution levels are required, appropriate attenu- alors can be used to supply finer adjustments, e.g., raising the dilutions by a certain percentage. A reference odorant vapor generator (R) can be inserted into the line between pump 1' and the splitter to evaluate the sensitiv- ity of the panelists to known tniorauts. The apparatus of Figure 2 was intended to explore the method and to compare its odor values with those obtained by the syringe method. The dilution in the middle tumbler could be adjusted to any selected target value. The two other tumblers have their dilutions set at levels above and below the target value. By obtaining panel judgments at these :3 dilution levels, t he degree of tweeting the target value is evaluated. 30 Odor Value Calculation Two questions arise' `etermining the odor threshold of the panel: how to derive e,., n panelist's threshold and how to com- bine the panelists' thresholds into a group threshold. It was felt that instead of adhering to the simple cumulative plotting on the logarithmic vs. percentage probability paper, a fresh look should be taken and the best suitable procedure adopted. Detection Criterion. The experimental design used is known in psychophysics as the ascending method of Iimits.10.t1 A correct response (indicating the correct stimulus in a choice between blanks and the stimulus) at several consecutive ascending stim- ulus strength levels is taken to indicate that the lowest strength stimulus in the series has not been selected by chance. In the ascending forced - choice triangle method used here, a correct choice at two consecutive odor concentration levels can occur by chance in one attempt out of nine. Usually, with an increase in odor concentration by a factor of 3 per step, the panel- ist is then already positive that he judged correctly. Thus, for example, a panelist missed nt 1800 dilutions, but made a correct choice at 600 and again ut 200 dilutions. This indicates that the panelist began to detect consistently at 600 dilutions. Furthermore, it is statistically valid to consider that this ability to detect could have started sotnewhere between 1800 and 600 dilutions. The overall error is minimized if it is assumed that the ability began at the geometrical mean (1800.600)1/, = 1040 dilutions. In practice, logarithms are used and the arithmetical mean of the logarithms represents this intermediate level. A terra "tolerance level" has been applied to such intermediate value." It is retained here to stress its specific meaning. Calculating Group Threshold. Within panels of 10 or less subjects, a normal distribution of the individual sensitivities can- not be expected to occur systematically. Ranking procedures are advised in such cases" before the conversion to the probability plot coordinates." Table A in the Appendix simplifies the calculation. It produces plotting values which can be used to enter data on regular rectan- gular graph paper or to calculate the least squares fit straight line, cf. formula in the Appendix. Exact calculations eliminate argu- ments on the position of the best line. Example Calculation. Table I shows typical raw data. The log (tolerance level) value is the arithmetical mean of the log- arithm of the dilution factor that applies to the given stimulus and of the logarithm of the dilution factor that applies to the next more diluted stimulus. The bottom line summarizes the number of the panelists beginning to detect odor "consistently" at the respective tolerance levels. Table I. Raw data. Dilution (levels 1 2 3 4 Log (Dilution Factor) 2.02 1.57 1.13 Log (Tolerance Levels) = Y 2.24 1.80 1.35 0.91 Panelists 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Frequency of Thresholds (+ + + (+ (+ (+ 1 4 3 1 Notes: + panelist made a correct choice of port. (!) panelist very positive that his choice is correct. (7) this level was not actually presented, but it would not make any difference after ranking, since it will be occupied by the last rank. ( the lowest "consistently detected" level for the particular panelist, per criterion in the text. Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association Z Z W UO CD UJ J H WO �< = W H= Z� H O W1-- U0 OP- CI— W UJ N r- ut. O .. Z W U= O~ Z Table II converts these values t• ""'- otting values. The first column repeats the tolerance level. .'). The second column transcribes the last line from Table I. The third column ranks the tolerance levels as follows. At the lowest odor concentration, only one panelist, began to detect; he occupies rank 1. At the next odor concentration, 4 more began to detect.; they occupy ranks 2, 3, 4, and 5, with an average rank of 3.5. At a still higher level, 3 more panelists began to detect, occupying the ranks 6, 7, and 8, or an average rank of 7; etc. The average ranks are converted to the probability- related plotting values (X) shown in the last column, using the table in Appendix; for information, these are equal to (probits — 5).16 Here we use the column for 9 panelists. The Y values are plotted vs. the X values on a rectangular graph paper, Figure 4, left and bottom scales. The upper and the right -hand scales illustrate the corresponding log probability paper coordinates. The straight lino plot intercepts the X = 0 coordinate at the level of the group threshold, log EDbo. For the exact calculation of the intercept value, refer to the example in Appendix. Nomenclature. To distinguish the dynamically obtained group threshold values from the ASTM odor units, the terns Isllt,u is used.aa'a" This term is a traditional concept and denotes the "Effective Dose at 50% level." ED50 is defined as that odor concentration at which half of the panelists would begin to detect odor in the dynamic test. • Table 1I. Conversion to plotting values. Log Frequency of Average rank (Tolerance level) threshold of tolerance = Y distribution levels Plotting value from Table A in Appendix = X 2.24 1.80 1.35 0.91 1 4 3 1 1 3.5 1 9 —1.28 —0.39 +0.58 +1.28 ASTM Syringe Dilution Test Considerations. The text of the ASTM 1) 1301 method is imprecise regarding certain points. These include t he order of stimuli presentation, definition as to when consistency has been reached, and the method of threshold averaging. It is under- stood that clarifications may be made in its scheduled 1973 re- confirmation. The basic intent is to maintain a fundamental trend in the order of presentation and to prevent a predictable sequence by frequent presentation of out -of -order stimuli. Convincing evidence exists1°'6-2° that an ascending order of concentrations is better and more practical than a descending or one completely randomized.* It reduces the effects of the temporary olfactory fatigue (adaptation). It also eliminates a carry -over of stronger odors in the equipment,. The effect of predictable order is avoided if the panelist must, choose between an odor- containing and a blank syringe, presented to him in a randomized order (blank either on the left or on the right). The ASTM test further requires that a consistency in the panelist's judgment is to be reached. Occasional reports of odor in planks, termed "false alarms" in the signal detection theory in psychophysics, are n normal part of the judgment. matrix,6.6 Following the statistical reasoning of the method of limits, a simple criterion is available: three correct choices at three consecutively increased odor concentrations indicate that the panelist's odor threshold has been approximately reached at the lowest of these levels. This can occur by change in one case out of 8, or typically once for each panel evaluation, which is of small consequence after averaging the panelists' data. The ASTitI test prescribes averaging the panelists' thresholds. In the geometric presentation series, a geometric averaging is tradit ional. These clarifications are, within the possible interpretation of the ASTM text and are in accord with sound sensory evaluation practices. • Lindvulla, states: "randomized order ... :nukes it almost impossible ade- quately to evaluate odor threshold .. lie advocates an ascending dy- namic method of limits, with a blank and u stimulus at each odor level.» January 1975 Volume 25, No. 1 'CENT PROBABILITY 10 20 60 40 50 60 70 80 -J W w 2.0 J w c) z tr w J 1.0 O J 0.5 90 0 PROBABILITY UNITS • (PROBITS -5) Figure 4. Obtaining ED., by plotting. +1 DILUTION FACTOR Procedure Used. On the basis of the above and in anticipation of the probable clarifications in the D1391 text, the following procedure Wa4 used. Each panelist was presented individually with ascending odor concentration samples from syringes. At each concentration, a companion blank syringe was also supplied. The panelist judged both and indicated the odorous syringe. The panel leader monitored the use of the syringes by noting the manufacturer's identification numbers. The leader prepared the dilutions in the panelist's syringe and tilled the blank syringe with air behind n screen. The odor concern rat ictss were increased by a factor of 2 per step. When the panelist trade the correct choice nt 3 consecutive levels, or was positive and correct at the second level, he was excused from further judgments on the same sample. This accelerated the test. The procedure described was regularly completed on one effluent sample by a panel of nine in less than 50 minutes. The lowest of the correctly selected consecutive odor concentrations was considered as the panelist's threshold. The logarithms of the panelists' thresholds were averaged arithmetically. The anti- logarithm of this average is the geometric mean of the thresholds and is.equivalent to the odor units. Experiments Conducted. Odor emissions were obtained from rendering plants itt Illinois and Massachusetts using the sampling system described. The sample evaluation was conducted at the Sensory Research Facility of IiT Research Institute in Park Forest, near Chicago, 111. One sample was taken and evaluated by a local panel at St. Paul, Minn. For the comparison of the dynastic triangle test with the ASTM test, each sample was evaluated by both methods by the same panelists in the same session. A few samples of the stronger odors were diluted in bugs and evaluated to provide additional odor levels. Samples of 1- butanol and n- pcntanal (valeraldehyde) vapors were also dynamically diluted and pumped into similar bags, for the comparison by both methods. This dilution system provided a source for a direct sampling either by the syringe or by the dynamic t riangle Mad ometer. Several samples were stored in bags to evaluate the storability of the odors in the thick -wall polyethylene bags used. The saute panelists were used as much as possible for the repeated evalua- tions. Results and Discussion Comparison with ASTM Test Correlation. Figure 5 shows the correlation of the 1:Dso values obtained by the dynamic, dilution forced - choice triangle method and by the ASTiU syringe dilution method. Each point is based on evaluating the name sample by the same panel at the same session; Ilse plotted point represents their geometric average. 'I'Ihe open circles represent data obtained using the ascending presentation with a stimulus and a blank at each level in the AST?\I test. The filled circles represent data obtained by ascending odor concentration series without blanks using an experienced panel trained to be consistent. I3ere the odor units 31 ti z F- W re 2 00 W = F- N Ll_ WO 2 g fn Sd �W z= 0 zI- W W U O O N O I- WLU H H u_Z 111 U= H 0 1- z DYNAMIC TRIANGLE • 5 / EQUIVALENCY LINE. 4- � o2 2 _ w •/ 0 ,0 o6d o / o J II 2 3 4 5 LOG (ODOR UNITS, ASTM) Figure 5. Correlation between the dynamic tri- angle and ASTM test. were calculated by utilizing a cumulative positive response per- centage plot in log probability coordinates: this is frequently practiced although not within the D1391 text .2 The butuaol (i3) and the vnleraldehyde (V) points are also shown. The indicated diagonal line would reflect a 1:1 equivalency. The actual correlation between the two sets • of values was evaluated by a computer. The following regression equation waLs obtained: Log (EDso) = 0.20 -1- 0.94 log (odor units) Since the correlation coefficient wzLS 0.98 and the statistical F- ratio° was 315, the probability that such correlation world occur by chance is much less than 0.001 (confidence level higher than 99.9e,;,). The equation yields ED:., values which are higher than the AST\I odor unit values: at 1000 o.u. level, by 3;(; at 100 0.11., 20%; at 20 o.n., by 33'%x. Evaluation of another dynamic method (Ifenteon Odor ileter)=t vs. the ASTM test elsewhere,"R indicates a similar trend where differences increase at lower concentrations. However, the degree of difference was considerably less in this study compared to the ilemeon study. Reproducibility. Ten effluent samples from rendering plants were evaluated two or more times by the dynamic triangle method. Five of these were evaluated twice by the syringe method. The average standard deviation of the dynamic log (E1):0) values was 0.10 log units, and of the syringe log (odor units), 0.11 log units. This corresponds to approximately' Ochs in the odor unit value. Thus, the variability is similar although the odor concentrations were increased by it factor of '2 per step in the syringe test and by it higher factor of 3 in the dynamic test. This is in agreement with practice in some industrial sensory evaluations where n factor of 3 per step is found to generate less boredom and to result in data just as reproducible. Conunon t -Test indicated no statistically significant differences between the two sets of data for those cases where multiple determinations on the saute sample were conducted. Convenience and Speed. The panelists found the syringe method to be inconvenient. Under less supervision, t he panelists would be less rigorously adhering to the rules. The panelists preferred the dynamic triangle method since They could recheck their response to each port and reinforce their original judgntea before signalling their choice. Under the same conditions, the dynamic triangle teat with 11 panelists was routinely completed in less than 15 minutes —store than three tines faster than the syringe test. The olfactometer, once connected to the sample bag, supplied the stimuli for several hours. This is an advantage where panelists' judgments can be collected at their convenience without additional preparations by the operator. The time needed to stabilize the concentrations in the oifactom- 32 eter was evaluated by • -.ae1 tests. Judgments stabilized within leas than 10 min pro- the Tygon tubing in the peristaltic pump was replaced. Odors from the olfactometer did not accumulate in reasonably ventilated rooms. However, the pump generated an odor and was kept in a ventilated passage. The pump selection needs review. The olfactometer was portable and durable since it was carried by one person and remained operable after four plane trips. Storage' Experiments The stability in sampling was explored only with a valernlde- hyde /air mixture. A continuously dynamically generated stimu- lus was evaluated by direct introduction into the olfactometer and also from the bag immediately after filling it from this source. The bag sample was evaluated again after it 48 hr storage in the bag. The values, using the same panelists, were: log ED:4 from the source from the hag at once from the bag after 48 hr 3.83 (= 6800 o.u.) 3.70 ( =5000 o.u.) 3.67 ( =4700 o.u.) The slight decrease observed was found insufficient to reach a statistical significance by the t- Test -by- Differences on the indi- vidual responses. Two rendering plant effluent. samples were stored in the bags and evaluated 3, 27, and 98 lir after sampling. The results in log (ED;0) units were as follows: flours After Sampling 3 27 98 Sample I (chlorine free) 3.53 3.63; 3.60 (2 tests) 3.77; 3.77; 3.83 (3 tests) Sample II (contained chlorine) 3.65 3.60 3.89 These data do not indicate a significant change of the odor in storage. In an earlier experiment with a simpler olfactometer, a mixture of 5.5 ppm (vol ) of hydrogen sulfide and air was evaluated by the saute 1)111101 immediately after filling the bag and after a 48 hr storage. The EI):,, increased slightly but the change was statistically insignificant. Thus, odors seem to be adequately storable for at least a day in the thick -wall polyethylene bags used. Application as Compliance Method The dynamic dilution forced - choice triangle method could be used for compliance by perforating a one - dilation level test. Assume that a compliance level of X dilution units is specified in the regulations for a slack emission. This would require that one volume of stack sample he diluted to N. volumes with non- odorous air and that this diluted odor stimulus be statistically indistin- guishable from non - odorous air. The test then consists of presenting to the panelists an assembly of three sniffing ports where one port delivers the diluted odor stimulus and t he other two deliver non - odorous air. The panelist mast indicate which of the ports delivers the odor. If a statisti- cally significant fraction of the panel identifies the odorous port correctly, non - compliance is indicated. To establish a violation at a 0.05 probability of error by chance (lib percent coailidcncc level), the following number of panelists must indicate the correct port: 5 in a panel of 7 panelists 6 in a panel of 8 or 9 panelists 7 in a panel of 11) panelists To establish at violation at a 0.01 probability of error by chance 09 percent confidence level), !lie following number of panelists mist indicate the correct port: 6 in a panel of 7 panelists 7 10 a panel of 8 oi 1) panelists 8 in a panel of 10 panelists This test would be simple to perform and would quickly estab- lish the proximity to being in compliance. However, if a critical determination of compliance is required, it is proposed that a three- dilution -level test be made. This requires the use of three Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association assemblies of triangular sniffing ports•._ 'T'Ire odor stimulus port for one assembly has its dilution st the compliance limit or middle level. The odor stimulus pot- for the other two assem- blies have their dilutions set at the upper and lower levels with the compliance level being in between. For example, if X dilu- tion units coincides with the compliance limit, the lower dilution level is X/3 and the upper level is 3X. By this approach, the dilution level detected by a statistically significant fraction of the panel could bo numerically defined. Thus, the magnitude of variation in being either above or below the compliance level is clearly established. Tho procedure for selecting the panel members should be de- fined in the compliance method. Panel selection was not con- sidered to be within the scope of this study. Acknowledgment Acknowledgment is nutde for the support provided by the Futs and Proteins Research Foundation, Inc., Des Plaines, 111., which is affiliated with the National Renderers Association. References 1. Standard Method for Measurement of Odor in Atmospheres (Dilution Method) AS'!'\1 1)1391 -57 (Reapproved 19(17), 1972 Annual Book of ASTM Standards Part 23, Amer. Soc. Test. Mater., Philadelphia, Pa. 2. J. L. Mills, R. '1. Walsh, K. I). Luedtke, and L. K. Smith, "Quantitative odor measurement," J. Air Poll. Control Assoc. 13: 467 (1963). 3. J. A. Danielson, Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Air Poll. Contr. Distr. County of Los Angeles, 11.S. Dept. Health, Education and Welfare, PITS, Natl. Center Air Pollution Control, Cincinnat i, Ohio, 1967, pp. 861 - 86.1. 4. 1). M. Benforado, W. J. Rotella, and 1). L. 1Lorton, "De- velopment of an odor panel for evaluation of odor control equipment," J. Air Poll. Control Assoc. 19: 101 (11)61)), 5. 1). M. Green and J. A. Swets, Signal Defection Theory and Psrlchophysics, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1966. 6. J. P. Egan and F. R. Clarke, in Experimental Methods and Instrumentation in Psychology, Siduwski, ed., McGraw- 11111, New York, 1966. 7. G. Semb, "The dotectability of the odor of butanol," Percept. Ps ychoph. 4: 335 (1968). 8. Manual on Sensor17 Testing Methods, ASTM Spec, Techn. Publ. No. 434, May, 19(18. 9. F. N. Jones, "A comparison of the methods of olfactory stimulation: blasting vs. sniffing," Ant. J. Psycho!, 68. 486 • (1955). 10. F. N. Jones, "A forced - choice method of limits," Ant. J. Psychol. 69: 672 (1956). 11. R. Cederlof, .M.-L. Edfors, L. Friberg, and '1'. Lindvull, "On the determination of odor thresholds in air pollution control -an experimental field study on flue gases from sulfate cellu- lose plants," J. Air Poll. Control Assoc. 16: 92 (1966). 12. B. Ellis Hall, "The application of the quantal response method to a small flavor panel," Proc. 1, Intern. Congr. hood Tcchn. 3: 307 (1967). 13. It. Langley, Practical Statistics, Dover Publ. Inc., N. Y., 1971. p. 167. 14. C. F. Lewis, "Some Transformations and 'Techniques Useful for Graphical Solutions." 3rd Annual Trclur. Conf. Transact., Chem. Div. Amer. Soc. Quality Control, 21 -35, Sept, 24, 1959, Houston, Texas. 15, 11. A. Fischer and F. Yates, Statistical Tables, Ratner Publ. Co., New York, 1948. pp. 50 -52. 16. T. Lindvull, "On sensory evaluation of odorous air pn lutant intensities," .Ford. I1yg. Tidskr. Suppl. 2, Stockholm, 1970. p. 39. 17. 1. A. Young and 1). F. Adams, "Comparison of olfactory thresholds obtained on trained and untrained subjects,r' Proc. 74 Ann. Cone. Am. Psycho!. Ass., 75 -76 (11)116). 18. R. A. Baker, "Response para met er:s including synergism- antagonism in aqueous odor measurmenIs,'' Ann. N. 1'. Acad. Sci. 116: •11)5 (1964). 19. 11. M. Pangborn, H. W. Berg, E. 13, Roessler, and A. 1)• Webb, "Influence of methodology on ulfa Tory response," Percept. Jlotor Skills 18: 91 (1964). 20. Consensus of :1ST \l 1:18 (Sensory Evaluation Committee) 0.4.06 task group (14 members) reviewing the threshold techniques (1973). 21. W. C. L. llemeun, 'Technique and apparatus for quantita- tive measurement of odor emission,' J. Air Poll. Control Assoc. 18: 166 (1965). 22. C. A. Johnson, Air Quality Systems, Carrier Corporation, Syracuse, N. Y., private communication (11)72). January 1975 Volume 25, No. 1 23. 'I'. Lindvull, " -'dish Experience on Sensory Evaluction of Odorous Air stunt. Intensities," Proc. 2nd Int. Clean Air• Conf., II. M. Englund and W. '1'. Beery, ed., Academic Press, Nev.' York, pp. 52 -61, 1971. Appendix Aids for Calculation of ED;0 Values in Olfactometry Table A. Plotting values for the best fit ( "Least squares ") straight line. Explanation: the equation for the straight line is: Y = b + mX Y is log (tolerance level), see text of the paper, Table 1 X = plotting value, for the corresponding number of panelists in the panel and the average rank assigned to the respective tolerance level, see text of the paper, Table 11 b = intercept on Y at X = 0. It is equivalent to log (EDso) Number of Panelists Average Rank 6 7 8 9 10 1.0 -1.07 1.5 -0.79 2.0 -0.57 2.5 -0.37 3.0 -0.18 3.5 0 4.0 +0.18 4.5 +0.37 5.0 +0.57 5.5 +0.79 6.0 +1.07 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 -1.15 -0.89 -0.67 -0.49 -0.32 -0.16 0 +0.16 +0.32 +0.49 +0.67 +0.89 +1.15 -1.22 -0.97 -0.77 -0.59 -0.43 -0.28 -0.14 0 +0.14 +0.28 +0.43 +0.59 +0.77 +0.97 +1.22 -1.28 -1.33 -1.04 -1.10 -0.84 -0.81 -0.67 -0.75 -0.52 -0.60 -0.39 -0.47 -0.25 -0.35 -0.13 -0.23 0 -0.13 +0.13 0 +0.25 +0.11 +0.39 +0.23 +0.58 +0.35 +0.67 +0.47 +0.84 +0.60 +1.04 +0.75 +1.28 +0.91 +1.10 +1.33 Formula for Exact Calculation of Log (ED:,.,) Value from 1' = Log (tolerance level) and X = Plotting Value from the Preceding Table A. Log(E Duo) = I' - (.�') :(\ . )) - : \. f'. Y Here: Y = mean value of 1' for the data = mean value of X for the data :'(X.1') = sum of products of each .V with the corresponding Y :'(X=) = sum of squares of X values \' = number of plotting points Example of Calculation for Data in Table 1I of the Paper Rank Plotting Log Value from (Tolerance) Table A Number of points =.V = 4 1' X X. Y X t 2.24 1.78 1.35 0.91 -1.28 -0.39 +0.58 +1.28 - 2.8672 - 0.6942 +0.783 +1.1648 1.6384 0.1521 0.3364 1.6384 1:Y=6.28 :•X = +0.19 ::(X.1')= - 1.6136 ::(X2) = 3.7653 }' =6A8 v -- 0.19 = 1.57 = 0.0475 - 1.6136 - (4)(0.0475)(1.57) Log(ED:,,,) = 1.57 - (0.0475) - 3,7653 - 4(0.0475)Y = 1.59 33 Z Q• W cc 00 CO J 1- U) LL WO u U � I W Z F•- ZI W U� O( 1-- W W _ - 0 11JZ F- 0 I- Z Discussion • R. E. Nisbet A. E. Staley Manufacturing Company Decatur, Illinois 1. We are definite proponents of the dynamic method, but we feel that the olfactometer designed by Dr. 1)ravtieks is too complicated and probably too expensive for general use. 2. We feel the seeking of the "ultimate" threshold is probably not justified by the objective we are pursuing. Our concern is for annoyamcc of our neighbors. At any level where the panelist questions whether or not he can detect the odor, it is surely at it level below annoyance and we are not overly concerned beyond this point. The triangle approach introduces psychological aspects which we feel do more harm than good to the decision- making process. 3. We cotton. in I )ravnicks' conclusion about the keeping quality of samples. This should probably be verified for generic types, but for the gases with which we have most concern, we stored a sample in a Nears - Roebuck leaf hag for 30 days and got the same values as pleasured before storage. 4. One thing we feel should be added to the article is a discussion of the preparation of dilution air. We filter the Air, dewater it through Urierite, deodorize it through activated carbon, and then rehutnidify the air by bubbling through distilled water. We think the re-humidification is important because dry air gives an unnatural "nose feel." This preparation of the air gives it constant zero value for comparison purposes. 5. We question the value of the higher mathematics and elabo- rate plotting to obtain 1:Uro. We think the basic reliability of the data does not justify more than a simple overage Of panelists threshold dilutions. In the case of large panels (+6), the high and low values could be discarded. 6. We would not question the complexities of 1)r. 1)rnvnieks' technique for use in enforcement action or litigation. It has checks and balances which offer a measure Of protection not needed for the usual in -plant odor panel where process and equip- ment choices are being made. We do feel some order needs to be brought to the subject of legislation and regulation of odor. Several states in which we do business have regulations ritquiring "no odor" to be transmitted beyond a plant boundary. In Illinois the EPA has actually solicited complaints from areas surrounding a plant and sued, in the absence of stated limits, based on a claimed nuisance value. We definitely prefer the academic to the emotional or political approach. And we feel that it is the duty of the APCA to lead the way to rationality. 7. We tried the syringe method in the beginning for a brief period, but we didn't like it because not enough sample was avail- able to the panelist. We then modified the technique to use 1 liter plastic squeeze bottles. This was a definite improvement, but it took a lot of operator time to make up all the dilutions required for a 5 -6 member panel. Cleaning the bottles was a worse chore. When we discovered the dynamic method de- veloped by IIemeon Associates we became real enthusiasts. This permits a large sample volume and a source of purified air for comparison. 8. One further continent. \\'e do not question the syringe method. Under careful hands comparable results should be obtained. We feel that the dynamic method is simpler, faster, and requires ahnost no panelist training. Discussion W. C. L. Hemeon Hemeon Associates Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania The authors present an interesting dynamic dilation apparatus for quantitative measurement of odor concentrations tchich will compete for attention with the AS'T \I small glass syringe met hod and the high volume dynamic method.' This discussion concerns itself partially with the very large discrepancy of several hundred percent between results by the 34 different methods. This _new method yields results in agreement with the ASTM syring'' ';hod according to the authors, but the latter commonly enders. .es concentrations of odor by a factor of 5 or 6 to one when continued to results by the high volume dy- namic odornleter. Unfortunately this is a low volume device 0.02 cfm, 0.6 l /nlin), as is the ASTM method, which provides only a small fraction of air inspirated during a sniff. This would permit unmeasured dilution at the nostril entrance fully sufficient to account for its agreement with the low values of odor concentration that are given by the syringe method. The principle of the forced - choice feature for refining the deriva- tion of threshold odor values has merit in our opinion. Although different, it is comparable, as to its ultimate result, to the pro- cedures we employ for this purpose. In order to understand better the typical results given by the authors, we have translated and rearranged the data in their 'fable I so that they would conform to our system of data record- ing and handling, and thereby permit comparison. In doing this, we changed the "log (dilution factor)" to the number itself, i.e. dilution radio, and transformed the authors' symbols to our system of 0- 1 -2 -3, as follows: (Odor not detected) (Very faint, or doubtful) (Perceptibly stronger than 1) (Perceptibly stronger than 2) Using these transformed data, and rearranging them as shown, makes 1110111 comparable to our system for displaying raw test data ('Table iA). Table IA. Raw test data. Dilution ratio 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Panelists: 105 0 37 0 11 3 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 - 2 2 3 3 2 0 2 This method of comparison shows that there is marked dis- agreement among panelists. The disagreement resembles that typical of the syringe method. The statistical treatment of the data the authors adopted is also employed in the treatment of ASTM syringe data because of the difficulty in establishing an absolute detection level. The agreement among panelists possible with the high volume systems leads us to the conclusion t hat the differences among the panelists displayed in the atablc above, do not reflect differences in individual sensitivity. We feel it roust be a consequence of the particular characteristics of their system. Reference 1. "'Technique and apparatus for quantitative measurement of odor emissions," W . 0. L. Hemeon. J. Air Poll. Control Assoc. 18: 166 (March 1068). Discussion Howard E. Hesketh Southern Illinois University at Carbondale The development of this forced choice dynamic olfactometer can certainly he another step toward obtaining improved odor data. There is no doubt in my 011nd that portable, dynamic systems such as this can be reliable and consistent ; however, I and con- cerned about the low air flow rate supplied to the panelists by the olfactometer. St tidies at. Soul hern Illinois University at Carbondale show that healthy mule adults have a ventilation rate of about 8 liters per minute (Ipm) of inspired air when at rest and anywhere from 40 to 80 Ipm after a brisk walk when the pulse rate is 150 beats per minute. 'I'Ihe 0.6 Ipm supplied by the olfactometer must lead to dilut ion errors under even the most ideal conditions. Most of my odor studies are performed using the dynamic "odor meter" which by contrast produces about 30 1pm to each panelist. This amount of air flow eliminates the possibility of dilution errors when panelists are used to detect odors while at rest and when instructed not to breathe excessively large gulps of air. Air movement across the face of a panelist can create a Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association Z I--- Z W • 1 U O CO O W F- U) WO 2 _c5 = W I- Z� l- O W Ir uj U� O- 1— WW I— H WZ UQ — I O I✓ Z Z ~ W !Y � 00 (nom W w J ! L1. w0 2 Q a w Z I- 0 W • w U � 0- w • W 1— H LLlZ C.) Cr) 0 h' Z CAS COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOP3IS CAS NO. AGENDA ITEM TITLE SEATTLE RENDERING WORKS UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT Original Agenda Date March 7, 1988 Original Sponsor: Council Timeline /Admin.Plan. Comm. Apprvd. Purpose of Item and Objective of Sponsor: The applicant is requesting an Unclassified Use Permit to install an incinerator and waste -heat boiler to reduce ordor emissions from the site. The Planning Commission is recommending the applicant's permit be approved. Sponsor's Recommended Action: Alternative Action: (1) Deny Permit (2) Approve with conditions Committee Recommendations: Administration Recoaseendatlons: Date 3 -7 -88 COST IMPACT (if known) RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION Action FUND SOURCE (if known) APPENOICES A. Planning Commission Minutes - January 28, 1988 B. Staff Resort dated - Januar 19 1988 z ~ w oQ:1 JU 00 U O • LLI WI 1- W 0 Lj ▪ w z� I- 0 z I- w • o 0 O N O H W W 1- r- u_ o w Z U= O 1— z CITY OF TUKWILA WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, APPROVING AN UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT FOR SEATTLE RENDERING WORKS, INC., TO INSTALL AN INCINERATOR AND WASTE -HEAT BOILER, CITY FILE NO. 87 -3 -UCU. WHEREAS, Seattle Rendering Works, Inc., has filed an application with the City Planning Department for an Unclassified Use Permit to install an incinerator and waste -heat boiler to to the existing processing plant on the applicant's property located at 5795 So. 130th Place, Tukwila, and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.66.050 of the Tukwila Municipal Code, the City Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the permit application, and at the conclusion of said hearing adopted findings, conclusions, and a recommendation to the City Council to approve the permit, and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the permit application at a regular City Council meeting on March 7,' 1988, and determined to adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the Planning Commission, and WHEREAS, the City's SEPA Responsible Official has issued a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) for the project. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, DO HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section --4I:. Unclassified Use Permit Approved. Pursuant to Section 18.66.050 of the. Tukwila Municipal Code, the City Council hereby approves the issuance of an unclassified use permit for Seattle Rendering Works, Inc. to install an incinerator and waste -heat boiler at the existing processing plant located at 57954o. 130th Place, Tukwila, Washington, as shown on drawings submitted with the application, City File No. 87 -3 -UCU. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,: WASHINGTON, at a regular meeting 'thereof this day of , 1988. Mabel J. Harris, Council President Approved as to Form Attest /Authenticated Office of the City Attorney Filed with the City Clerk: Passed by the City Council: Resolution No. Maxine !Anderson, City Clerk z ~ w 6 O 0 W W_ f- U)� w0 J • j cna = i- w _ Z F.. zI- w w U U) U)_ o f- w W _ u_O ..z w U= 0 z Cit. of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 Attachment A CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 28, 1988 Corrected Minutes (2- 25 -88) The meeting was called to order at 8:03 Vice - Chairman. Members present were Messrs. Larson, Mr. Haggerton, Knudson, Hamilton and Haggerton. Larson, Kirsop, Members absent: Mr. Coplen. Representing the staff were Jack Pace, Rebecca Fox and Joanne oanne z Mr. Haggerton noted the passing of Leo Sowinski on Januar ~ w 1988. y 25, CC MR KNUDSON MOVED THAT FLOWERS BE SENT AND o MADE TO THE CITY OF TUKWILA AIO UNIT. $100.00 DONATION BE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. w H w • 0 MR. LARSON MOVED TO ADOPT THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 14, 1988 MEETING AS WRITTEN. MR. KNU�:n! r� UNANIMOUSLY. :,FC,.OE� T:it MOTION WHICH PASSED � Do 87 -6 -R: GERALD R. SCHNEIDER Request for rezone of a 27,153 w zI- square foot parce from R -1 -7.2 (Single Famil y Residential) to P-0 (Professional Office). z o ▪ w Rebecca Fox, Planner, reviewed the staff report recommending D o approval. o0 ot- Gerald Schneider, 6510 Southcenter Blvd., concurred with w w staff report and staff's comments. th the H "- - o Carl Bloss, 6510 Southcenter Blvd, clarified that Attachment A of U z the staff report is not the design that will be used. He w = p. o ~ submitted the legal description of the proposal which was entered into the record. z Lee Phillips, 6550 Southcenter Blvd., spoke for Mr. Hienke and others in the neighborhood opposed to the proposal. He felt it would decrease property values, and constituted a spot rezone. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION January 28, 1988 Page 2 Discussion ensued on the proposal. MR. LARSON MOVED AND MR. HAMILTON SECONDED A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL, BASED ON THE STAFF'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION WITH THE ADDED STIPULATION THAT ANY PROJECT THAT BE PROPOSED ON THIS PROPERTY BROUGHT BEFORE THE BOARD OF ARCHITECT- URAL REVIEW. THE MOTION CARRIED WITH HAGGERTON, HAMILTON, KIRSOP AND LARSON VOTING YES. MR. KNUDSON VOTED NO. 87 -3 -UCU - SEATTLE RENDERING WORKS Request for an Unclassified ® Use Permit to install an incinerator and waste -heat boiler to reduce odor emissions from the site. Jack Pace, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report recommending approval. eRick Tomkins, 304 Main Avenue So., Renton, represented the ®applicant and further clarified the proposal and adding that the z installation of the machinery will represent a substantial improvement over what now exists. w OF re 02 0 0 Bill Hammond, Seattle Rendering Works, 5795 S. 130th Place, OA ®responded to a question raised by Mr. Knudson by listing the ❑ o other sites using this same machinery proposed to be installed w w here. _ A 11 w Discussion ensued on the proposal. w w0 J 4 0 MR. KNUDSON MOVED AND MR. LARSON SECONDED A MOTION TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR AN UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT TO INSTALL AN INCINERATOR c AND WASTE -HEAT BOILER, BASED ON THE STAFF'S FINDINGS AND RECOM- I =ci w 5 MENDATIONS. THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. �- _ z'... DIRECTOR'S REPORT t— 0 zr LU w Jack Pace reported on the status of the Sidewalk Plan. He m 0 reviewed the 1987 accomplishments of the Planning Department as 0 - well as the 1988 Work Plan. ❑ F- wW ADJOURNMENT . - v wo The meeting was. adjourned at 9:40 pm. w z U o PI O 1— Re ectfu1ly,.sj bmitted, � 1 Joanne Johnson Secretary z Cit.. of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 Attachment B STAFF REPORT to the Planning Commission Prepared January 19, 1988 HEARING DATE: January 28, 1988 FILE NUMBER: 87- 3 -UCU: Seattle Rendering Works APPLICANT: Seattle Rendering Works REQUEST: Unclassified Use Permit to install an incinerator and waste -heat boiler to reduce odor emissions from the site. LOCATION: 5795 South 130th Place ACREAGE: 11.9 acres COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Light Industrial ZONING DISTRICT: M -1 (light industrial) SEPA DETERMINATION: Determination of Non - significance issued on January 13, 1988 ATTACHMENTS: (A) Narrative Description of Proposed Air Pollution Control System and Operation (B) Picture of Typical Air Pollution Control System (C) Site Plan (0) Elevation z F- w o:2 JU U0 co J = F- U) LL w0 u_? wa �w z� �0 w~ • w U c off w w uO wz U N H= O z STAFF REPORT to th' Planning Commission, VICINITY /SITE INFORMATION FINDINGS 17- 3 -UCU: Seattle Rendering Page 2' 1. Existing Development: The applicant's manufacturing plant processes waste - meat and fish by- products which are rendered into feed meal. The adjacent property to the east is Burlington Northern Railroad. The remaining portion of the property is bounded on the north, west, and south by the Duwamish River. 2. Terrain: The buildings are located on flat terrain with the remaining prop- erty sloping to the river. 3. Vegetation: The site has a few deciduous and evergreen trees with black- berry bushes along the river banks. BACKGROUND Unclassified Use Permits are for the regulation of uses of such unusual, unique or large -scale characteristics. Seattle Rendering Works received previous City approval for improvement of portions of their site. The latest occurred in September 1987, when the City approved a permit to build a 12' by 42' metal- frame lean -to addition to the existing processing building. The lean -to was built to enclose a container washing area. Now, an odor emission control system is proposed in response to continuing problems with odors during the summer months. This proposal was approved by Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency as an appropriate method to reduce the odors. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the proposed project. The City Council may or may not hold a public hearing, but shall consider the planning commission recommen- dation at a regular council meeting. DECISION CRITERIA The applicable Zoning Code criteria are listed below in bold, followed by pertinent findings of fact. Zoning Code Section 18.66.060 - Criteria, Unclassified Use Permit 1. The proposed use will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity. • Residents surrounding this site experience continual problems with odors from this plant, particularly in the summer months. The current air pollu- tion control system does not have the capacity to treat the existing volumes of odors produced. As noted in Attachment A: z 1z re w 00 uu,iw J H N LL w0 gQ =• a ▪ w z = 1- 0 zI- ui U� O - O H ww z w O~ z STAFF REPORT to the 3 -UCU: Seattle Rendering Planning Commission Page 3 "The odorous fumes and vapors that are presently being scrubbed and con- densed in a venturi scrubber and burned in the existing boiler will be relocated to the proposed incinerator for 99% incineration. "The vapors that are presently being ducted to the E.R.C. scrubber will be processed in the wet vapor condenser that is part of this project with the exception of the vapors from the yellow grease system. They are low inten- sity odors and can be easily processed in the E.R.C. scrubber." 2. The proposed use shall meet or exceed the same standards for parking, land- scaping, yards and other development regulations that are required in the district it will occupy. In a separate permit process (87- 2- DR/87 -7- EPIC), the applicant received approval to improve the existing gravel parking lot and provide additional landscaping. The proposed incinerator and waste -heat boiler as shown by Attachments C and D will comply with setback, parking and other Zoning Code regulations. 3. The proposed development shall be compatible generally with the surrounding land uses. As noted in Attachment A, the proposal is expected to reduce odors emitted from the existing operation. This increases the compatibility of the plant with adjacent neighborhoods. 4. The proposed use shall be in keeping with the goals, objectives, and poli- cies of the comprehensive land use policy plan. Applicable Comprehensive Plan Objective /Policy Objective 5: Policy 1: Strive to improve the qualities of the air to a level condu- cive to a healthy, clean environment. Recognize, encourage and support the efforts of authorized agencies involved in the regulation and control of air pollution. The objective and policy are aimed at improving air quality so that it is fit to breathe and smell, and is not visible. The applicant's proposal complies with the intent of the plan by reducing the odors that are cur- rently being emitted from the plant. The applicant worked with the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency to gain approval of the proposal. 5. All measures shall be taken to minimize the possible adverse impacts which the proposed use may have on the area in which it is located. As noted in :previous findings, the proposed incinerator and waste -heat boiler is intended to reduce the odors from the existing plant operations. STAFF REPORT to the Planning Commission CONCLUSIONS :-3 -UCU: Seattle Rendering Page 4 ' 1. The applicant is responding to a long- standing issue of odors coming from the plant. This equipment, together with locating it towards the railroad tracks, will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare. 2. The proposed equipment will be located in a structure which will comply with zoning code regulations. 3. Air quality should improve, in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan. 4. The proposal complies with the five review criteria for an Unclassified Use Permit. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the above Findings and Conclusions, Planning staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the request for an Unclassified Use Permit to build an incinerator and waste -heat boiler. (22/87 -3 -UCU) z ~ w JU 00 N0 LU J H CO W W¢¢O =• a 1--W z� �O W U• � O — O 1— WW 1E U. b- ,; z U- O z ATTACHMENT A NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEM AND OPERATION The control system will be in two parts. System No. 1 will collect the hot moist vapors and systtem No. 2 will collect the dry hot fumes. The wet vapor system will collect approximately 4600 cubic feet of vapors per minute and at an average temperature of 184 degrees fahrenheit. These vapors will be transported by ducting to an air to air condenser that will be installed as part of this project. This condenser will have 806 square feet of bare tubing. The tubes are one inch in diameter and have ten aluminum fins per inch and they are two and one quarter inches outside diameter. The hot wet vapors will pass through the tubes, ambient air will be pulled across the outside of the tubes, cooling them as the heat from the hot vapors passes through the wall of the tubes and into the aluminum fins where it will than be transferred into the ambient air as it passes over the fins. It is planned to cool the vapors down to 100 degrees Fahrenheit. As this happens water will be condensed from the vapors. This water will be piped to the water treatment system for processing. The non- condensibles, (the air that will not condense anymore) some 600 cubic feet per minute, at maximum conditions, will be ducted to the proposed incinerator where they will be incinerated along with the fumes from system No. 2. The fumes from system No. 2 approximately 2600 cubic feet per minute (at maximum conditions) will pass through a cyclone. The cyclone will separate the majority of the particulate matter prior to entering the incinerator. The incinerator will be installed first as there will be a 10 to 12 week 1.ad time on the boiler. The incinerator is presently in preparations for installation and will be on job site, in Seat- tle, by November 18. It is designed to incinerate 5000 cubic of air per minute from 80 degrees Fahrenheit to 1200 degrees Fahren- heit and retain the vapors at 1200 degrees for at least .3 seconds before exhausting them through the stack to the atmo- sphere. Phase No. 2 will be to install the new waste heat boiler. The stack gases (hot incinerated air) will then pass through the waste heat boiler, which is a shell and tube heat exchanger. The hot stack gases from the incinerator will pass through the inside of the tubes. The tubes will be inside a cylindrical shell. Water will be pumped into the shell and flow around the tubes where the heat from the stack gases will be transferred into the water and be heated until it becomes steam. The stack gases will enter the waste heat boiler at 1200 degrees Fahrenheit and discharge to the atmosphere at 450 degrees Fahrenheit. There will not be any fume or vapor generating equipment added to the plant operation as part of the project. There will be changes made in how the vapors and fumes are processed as listed and described below. 1. There will be a 5000 cubic feet per minute incinerator installed with full intentions of adding to it a waste heat boiler. 2. The odius fumes and vapors that are presently being scrubbed and condensed in a venturi scrubbe and burned in the exist- ing boiler will be relocated to the proposed incinerator for a 99% incineration. The vapors that are presently being ducted to the E.R.C. scrubber will be processed in the wet vapor condenser that is part of the new project, with exceptions of the vapors from the yellow grease system. These vapors contain low intensity odors and can be easily processed in the E.R.C. scrubber. 3. Two stainless steel vapor recovery systems will be in- stalled, one for hot wet vapors and the second one for dry hot fumes. 4. An air to air condenser will be installed to condense the hot wet vapors. The non - condensibles (air that will not condense any further) will be ducted to the incinerator and and waste heat boiler. 5. T e E.R.C. vapor scrubber will continue to operate for the purpose of scrubbing any scavenger odors and to provide vapor scrubbing for the yellow grease system. z w 00 N o CO LLI J= f-- • w w 0 2 �w Z= zI- w w U0 0— o� Ili IL O w z U= 0 z z Z Ce JU 00 co co w J WO u_ "Id = W F— _ Z F— O ZF-- W W U� ON 0 I- WW HI- u" O WZ co O~ z ATTACHMENT B TYPIChL AIR POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEM z ~ w JU 0 J I-- wo La Id W z H O z I- w O - cl W • W 0 r-u_ wz U N H1- O z 1101V1111413041 cm 111101 1V3H-211SVM 0310.10111 ttlrld Nouracri .0..c. loos$ 111•0111111 ••••■ ••0•••■•11 841•140111 111f1011~ %OWN 11•0C tuts NOLOWINSVM *name "Id MSG 1111101 VIII "MI VINO* 01WWW011811 FILLVIS SNI:JOM 0141830N311 31111/3S 214 • Z 7:3 • 1- 111 • Z a 0 3u ›' 2 4 2 ui 2 ig • 11 1 4 ................ ..... ..... y.. . 1 t .... I, . • : • • - 4. . 51 .. -0. ,. \ to L) - • r. 1 11 ; g 1 / 2 ll li * .• / I /1. >III .. / %, • •11 I '''..•■• . ... •: :).....)." ? ,.. l 11; Ai - - * I I • ll . . lia ...; ; ,.. -: . • 1 ,s -z .ei i 4 „ . .. 7;,c• N__ 14---t-1114ito, E-4 7. ; ggll 1 § I, , g T 'z6 i O .-1 .= Efi Phg .0 _J inl isgr 1,5 .1 ._.... --It os • ' .,,_..: : 1 022 0z i 1 \ a % 44 ' ! . 0 IN3WH3VIIV 1 1f1,fI'ICi1; OF1-olC;1JIP ' Qo NL `� vi Leg cou PPu eR -Ptef R x , LAC I'T 5/5 �. �XI�TI I4 DUI L �dkJ D IJ�W MCT'AL -�� buILa111 METAL I v11.1 --7f MI -1'AL cerpg 111. -G� 1 eL.EVAT 1 01,1 . f8 I_ 7II I o P= 11 -©'1 LT 11.1 c rram a. Date •_'t:XI4'7 • BUILD, Wit! I.DI �, '4L reag IFRow LE/ATILJ I1 / /a 7 %n 1 15 we r F•R u='NS LK-Tbk 1 -.ITS' Lrr oN L-1 WASTE .HEAT BOILER BUILDING for SEATTLE RENDERING z • Z re W J0 O 0 co co 0 = H co W W o 2 =W H = Z° W U0 O N • h- W W 2 ui O ~ z CIO/ of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 STAFF REPORT to the Planning Commission Prepared January 19, 1988 HEARING DATE: January 28, 1988 FILE NUMBER: 87- 3 -UCU: Seattle Rendering Works APPLICANT: Seattle Rendering Works REQUEST: Unclassified Use Permit to install an incinerator and waste -heat boiler to reduce odor emissions from the site. LOCATION: 5795 South 130th Place ACREAGE: 11.9 acres COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Light Industrial ZONING DISTRICT: M -1 (light industrial) SEPA DETERMINATION: Determination of Non - significance issued on January 13, 1988 ATTACHMENTS: (A) Narrative Description of Proposed Air Pollution Control System and Operation (B) Picture of Typical Air Pollution Control System (C) Site Plan (0) Elevation z w o:L 10 00 co J u) t— w0 2 u. (.9.a �w z= E- O w~ 0 ON CI F- Ww Ir u' O w ..z co 0 z STAFF REPORT to the. Planning Commission 87- 3 -UCU: Seattle Rendering Page 3 "The odorous fumes and vapors that are presently being scrubbed and con- densed in a venturi scrubber and burned in the existing boiler will be relocated to the proposed incinerator for 99% incineration. "The vapors that are presently being ducted to the E.R.C. scrubber will be processed in the wet vapor condenser that is part of this project with the exception of the vapors from the yellow grease system. They are low inten- sity odors and can be easily processed in the E.R.C. scrubber." 2. The proposed use shall meet or exceed the same standards for parking, land- scaping, yards and other development regulations that are required in the district it will occupy. In a separate permit process (87- 2- DR/87 -7- EPIC), the applicant received approval to improve the existing gravel parking lot and provide additional landscaping. The proposed incinerator and waste -heat boiler as shown by Attachments C and D will comply with setback, parking and other Zoning Code regulations. 3. The proposed development shall be compatible generally with the surrounding land uses. As noted in Attachment A, the proposal is expected to reduce odors emitted from the existing operation. This increases the compatibility of the plant with adjacent neighborhoods. 4. The proposed use shall be in keeping with the goals, objectives, and poli- cies of the comprehensive land use policy plan. Applicable Comprehensive Plan Objective /Policy Objective 5: Policy 1: Strive to improve the qualities of the air to a level condu- cive to a healthy, clean environment. Recognize, encourage and support the efforts of authorized agencies involved in the regulation and control of air pollution. The objective and policy are aimed at improving air quality so that it is fit to breathe and smell, and is not visible. The applicant's proposal complies with the intent of the plan by reducing the odors that are cur- rently being emitted from the plant. The applicant worked with the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency to gain approval of the proposal. 5. All measures shall be taken to minimize the possible adverse impacts which the proposed use may have on the area in which it is located. As noted in previous findings, the proposed incinerator and waste -heat boiler is intended to reduce the odors from the existing plant operations. z ~ w 2 6U 00 CO 0 W w J H LL w0 U_a CO w z1- w w 0 22 o- wW 1-- - LLO wz U= o� z STAFF REPORT to the Planning Commission CONCLUSIONS 87 -3 -UCU: Seattle Rendering Page 4 1. The applicant is responding to a long- standing issue of odors coming from the plant. This equipment, together with locating it towards the railroad tracks, will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare. 2. The proposed equipment will be located in a structure which will comply with zoning code regulations. 3. Air quality should improve, in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan. 4. The proposal complies with the five review criteria for an Unclassified Use Permit. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the above Findings and Conclusions, Planning staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the request for an Unclassified Use Permit to build an incinerator and waste -heat boiler. (22/87 -3 -UCU) z • H w wiO 00 o J CO w0 2 u I-▪ w z= Zo w • w 0 O N. aF- W w 1-- wz O - O • F- z ATTACHMENT A NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEM AND OPERATION The control system will be in two parts. System No. 1 will collect the hot moist vapors and systtem No. 2 will collect the dry hot fumes. The wet vapor system will collect approximately 4600 cubic feet of vapors per minute and at an average temperature of 184 degrees fahrenheit. These vapors will be transported by ducting to an air to air condenser that will be installed as part of this project. This condenser will have 806 square feet of bare tubing. The tubes are one inch in diameter and have ten aluminum fins per inch and they are two and one quarter inches outside diameter. The hot wet vapors will pass through the tubes, ambient air will be pulled across the outside of the tubes, cooling them as the heat from the hot vapors passes through the wall of the tubes and into the aluminum fins where it will than be transferred into the ambient air as it passes over the fins. It is planned to cool the vapors down to 100 degrees Fahrenheit. As this happens water will be condensed from the vapors. This water will be piped to the water treatment system for processing. The non - condensibles, (the air that will not condense anymore) some 600 cubic feet per minute, at maximum conditions, will be ducted to the proposed incinerator where they will be incinerated along with the fumes from system No. 2. The fumes from system No. 2 approximately 2600 cubic feet per minute (at maximum conditions) will pass through a cyclone. The cyclone will separate the majority of the particulate matter prior toentering the incinerator. The incinerator will be installed first as there will be a 10 to 12 week lead time on the boiler. The incinerator is presently in preparations for installation and will be on job site, in Seat- tle, by November 18. It is designed to incinerate 5000 cubic of air per minute from 80 degrees Fahrenheit to 1200 degrees Fahren- heit and retain the vapors at 1200 degrees for at least .3 seconds before exhausting them through the stack to the atmo- sphere. Phase No. 2 will be to install the new waste heat boiler. z w ce JU 00 • 0 w= co w w 0 g a co =a F._w zt._ I- 0 w~ • w n O • — o � w w u" O z w U= O 1- z The stack gases (hot incinerated air) will then pass through the waste heat boiler, which is a shell and tube heat exchanger. The hot stack gases from the incinerator will pass through the inside of the tubes. The tubes will be inside a cylindrical shell. Water will be pumped into the shell and flow around the tubes where the heat from the stack gases will be transferred into the water and be heated until it becomes steam. The stack gases will enter the waste heat boiler at 1200 degrees Fahrenheit and discharge to the atmosphere at 450 degrees Fahrenheit. There will not be any fume or vapor generating equipment added to the plant operation as part of the project. There will be changes made in how the vapors and fumes are processed as listed and described below. 1. There will be a 5000 cubic feet per minute incinerator installed with full intentions of adding to it a waste heat boiler. 2. The odius fumes and vapors that are presently being scrubbed and condensed in a venturi scrubbe and burned in the exist- ing boiler will be relocated to the proposed incinerator for a 99% incineration. The vapors that are presently being ducted to the E.R.C. scrubber will be processed in the wet vapor condenser that is part of the new project, with exceptions of the vapors from the yellow grease system. These vapors contain low intensity odors and can be easily processed in the E.R.C. scrubber. 3. Two stainless steel vapor recovery systems will be in- stalled, one for hot wet vapors and the second one for dry hot fumes. 4. An air to air condenser will be installed to condense the hot wet vapors. The non- condensibles (air that will not condense any further) will be ducted to the incinerator and and waste heat boiler. 5. The E.R.C. vapor scrubber will continue to operate for the purpose of scrubbing any scavenger odors and to provide vapor scrubbing for the yellow grease system. z �w Ce 00 wE- U) LL wo 2 u. =• d • Z 0 `w • w 0 0— o 1- wW H r- LLz Ili • = O 1- z g = d Q r Z ATTACHMENT B TYPICAL AIR POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEM , . z 1 1—: 1-- z rtl-I 6 n -J c-) 00 co 0 co u.1 LIJ = .1_ U) u_ tij 0 2 :3 u.. < co I a m I- 0 Z I- W tu 2 m D Ci 0 O — O I- W Lij X 1- _. : Z w to 0 P I O 1— z UGUVEINTONI UNV M31100 1V311-31SVMG3S0J0Md :NV14 Nolivocrt mese.smotoossi tilso•• WM NOANDIS univemy NOVA! woe ems *NOIDMIIISVM '211.1V3S W HIOCI moos seLS 31•11.3)11/0M DWI/30NR' 311.LYIS SNHOM ONI1:130Nal 311.1.1/3S % . 1 •. ''-.:, ............... .. ...... I ..... y, . f s : I 's % ? • : ! . h. I. i / 1 J , 0 o ... 8 .k o 2., i ■ . - • J : ii It ;,•Z s'-'"... . : i- ........ 1 st 2 LI 21! 4F=1 4 23 Elm 110 ZU 50 2Z II ,2 5j u >. 2 LL C) 1.) E9 2 2 r 2 4s, 4 1. 11 . .. : 1 ai•• • ... 1 ' 1! .11 s • z PT 0 o$ o 0 z 43 EP 06 14.9 Rg G -E! glirOq I 21 gg IT 6 t; . :11. • .1.2. Li al ••;..': I ' . „0.... . 0 7 0 8 " " " • // / • • 1. ATTACHMENT D O I P '' - -p I Leg coil PPuER P49fR x. cI'"r __�UI�o.r✓Q; :>:XV TI J 6UIL >e-fd+J O �UILO11.1G -{ �i Vl*TA . =- Ur DIkj r --r1 CL c.A.IRTAcl ►J R9o1z 1 eA►t eLE'JAT1 t\J 1.101 H : - -n}Iep ogArW I1JG� IFi2Lnkrr I I / ° /cs 7 *I S 1d t FAQ cnN�T# tr-Tic '.1, I �-1T L1-r otii L-- • WASTE HEAT BOILER BUILDING for SEATTLE RENDERING ' ', z ~w rdd JU 00 co J = (/)w w0 uQ =a I-w z= I- o zI- w w 0 ON ww �I- wZ 0- F-= O~ z I- H WOJ/ panU! UO3 CCD Cn sa3 0 CD 1) rF Tukwila holds its nose, will go to court , Lawsuit will ask rendering plant to end foul odor or close down by Mark Matassa Times South bureau Ili TUKWILA Some days, the stench on Fos- ter Golf Links' fourth fairway is so rotten that players become sick to their stomachs. On the hill nearby, property owners grouse about pro- spective buyers turning up their noses at an otherwise desirable location. Golfers and nearby residents have complained to the city about the smell for at least 10 years, said Mayor Gary Van Dusen, and now the city has decided to do some- thing about it. The foul odor, Van Dusen said, comes from Seattle Rendering Works, one of two Western Wash- ington plants that destroys dead animals and reduces slaughter by- products to tallow or meat meal for animal feed. "It gets OK for a little while and then for some reason or another, either because of a lack of monitoring or a lack of concern, all of a sudden there's a day where you get whacked real good," he said. "Once you've smelled it, it's an experience you'll never want to repeat." This week, Van Dusen said, the City of Tukwila will file a suit that would require Seattle Rendering Works to clean up the smell or shut down the plant. He would not release details about the suit, however, and City Attorney Chris Washington would say only that he is exploring legal issues in the case. Bill Hammond, plant manager -- of Seattle Rendering, said the city has not informed him of any impending legal action. Hammond acknowledged that odors occasion- ally escape from the plant, espe- cially during long periods of dry weather, but said the company has installed scrubbers and filters to correct the problem. Ron Busby, chief of enforce- _ Pollution Control Agency, said there are no air - quality standards that apply to odors, but a citizen can file a public- nuisance com- plaint with the agency if an odor "makes life unpleasant." For the agency to prosecute the offending party, an investigator must smell the odor in the same place and at the same time as the complaining party, he said. The agency has fined Seattle Rendering $1,000 on three occa- sions 4n the past 15 months, including a fine levied July 22. Busby said he does not expect his office to join a suit by the city against the rendering plant. While some golfers complain, other players — along with some longtime neighbors of the 50 -year- old rendering plant — say stink is in the nose of the beholder. If there are any funny smells around here, these folks say, they're coming from a City Hall that's taken a strangely sudden interest in an old issue. "Why now ?" asked one golfer at the Foster Links restaurant, where the issue is a frequent post - round subject. "I don't get it. That plant and that smell have been here for what, 40 years. and they've never done anything about it." "I've been living here 10 years, and I've only smelled it bad a couple times a year during the day," said Chuck Bratcher, who lives about three blocks from the rendering plant. The plant itself is tucked incon- spicuously between a hillside and a -slow elbow in the Duwamish Riv- er. Hammond says the rendering plant was here first, before Tuk- wila became more than a tiny farming community. "We've spent a sizable amount of money in the last couple of years on filters and wet scrubbers — more than $70,000 — and we're PIaaca CPO nPAPE.l_ nn I-1 Z <• re W2 00 W= I- W0 L< =d Lux W O • W U 0 to 0 I— WW LI Z ui U T O~ Z July 23, 1987 The Honorable Gary L. VanDusen Mayor, City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mayor Van Dusen: RECEIVED JUL 3 0 1987 Thank you for your letter of July 8, 1987. I want to assure you that we are working feverishly to complete the construction of the air ventilation system. Enclosed is a copy of my most recent report to Mr. H. J. Twomey of the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency. I assure you that Seattle Rendering Works, Inc. wants to be a good citizen and is doing everything that it can to eliminate any adverse impact from its business. We have spent in the past, and we will continue to spend in the future, considerable amounts of money on upgrading and improving our facilities and our methods of operation so that no one will be offended by our business. The current problems that we are experiencing with National Blower and Sheetmetal Company have been very difficult for us, but we are taking every step that we can think of to get the current construction completed. If you think it would be helpful, we would be happy,to meet with you or someone from your staff now, or periodically in the future, to keep the city advised of the steps we are taking to further improve our facilities and our operations. Respectfully yours, SEATTLE ORKS, INC. William H. Hammond, III Area Manager WHH /ags SEATTLE RENDERING WORKS,INC. * 5799 south 130th p1 * �: ;; tk , v:uslunrttor, 98 178 * t2)(32,:i City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 ; 1987 ' (206) 433 -1800 Gary 1. VanDusen, Mayor July 8, 1987 Mr. William H. Hammond, III Seattle Rendering Works, Inc. 5795 South 130th Place Seattle, WA 98168 Subject: SEATTLE RENDERING WORKS PLANT Dear Mr. Hammond: Because I continue to receive complaints about odors from this plant, I had the Planning Department staff brief me on the status of construction of the air ventilation system. I now understand the delays you have been caused and the investment you are making before you commit to purchasing this facility. But I want to express my deep concern that this ventilation system eliminates odors off of the site, and that there be no more delays in correcting the air pollution problems. The City accepted this use many years ago as a viable business contributing to the City and meeting a regional need. We overlooked some of the problems and odors the plant created. However, the odor problem has substantially increased to the point of exhausting our patience. Tukwila residents and Foster Golf Course users cannot be expected to incur further offense from the plant. City staff will closely monitor the air filtration system. If the system is unsatisfactory, we will need to aggressively pursue all avenues to correct the problem. On behalf of the citizens, businesses and workers of Tukwila and people who use our facilities, I appeal to your responsibility to these people and for the health and welfare of the City. We want you to succeed in business, but can no longer endure the adverse impacts the odor has created in the community. R espectf ul l y Ga' ' L V.n Dusen Mayor cc: Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Authority Tukwila City Council !Manning Director Ernie Lueckenotte, Golf Course Manager , z w re JU 00 Co W J LL wo u co =w z� 1— o zt- w w U � O — O H wW I - r- - • O wz O — P o � z City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 City Council 433-1800 June 11, 1987 Michael and Maureen Johnston 5711 South 129th, Space #21 Seattle, WA 98178 Dear Mr. and Ms. Johnston: Thank you for sending the Tukwila City Council a copy of your letter to the Puget Sound Pollution Control Board. The rendering plant is in Tukwila so we, too, are concerned that they comply with air quality standards that will make their plant less offensive to the surrounding area. Last winter the Rendering Works applied for and received a permit from Tukwila to install better air scrubbers and pollution control devices in their plant. They are presumably working on the plans for these cleaners now, though they have not yet started to build them. These improvements were suggested by the Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.) after they got complaints about the odors from the plant. E.P.A. thinks this will help the air quality once completed. Tukwila is also working with the plant operator on trying to change their sewage system to hook into the METRO secondary treatment sewage system. It is unfortunate that the smell is still very bad. It's possible for the Pollution Control board staff to take air samples at off - hours, so please let them know the times the odor does occur so they can send someone out on a Saturday or Sunday evening or other "non- working" time. A planner on our City's staff, Jack Pace, is working on this issue for Tukwila. He can be reached during work hours at 433 -1847, and he'll be happy to speak with you. Please don't hesitate to get in touch with Jack, or with me. We need to make sure this problem gets solved before too long. Thank you for your comments and keep us informed on the rendering works' operations. Sincerely, -47?4,40P-te endy 06rgan, 'res dent Tukwila City Council WM:nb z • . � z wi O 0 cn❑ • LLI JI F- M LL w 0 uQ =• d F.w Z= F- 0 Z• ~ w • ❑ 01- wW F-- w z w = 0I z OFF ,CE MEMO CITY OF TU KWI LA TO: D5 49(12-(1, FROM:c-L DATE: t1 SUBJECT: , �f VC..� lL`�•�� C, -N P SO - .-ns OLs . �-� NV'( AARMGIeN Is -Itr _KS1. " Z., 1241,d) r t).1• -:S , 1S Q ~ w 00 cow J = H LL W0 cn =a �W Z= Zo w w 0— O H W W U- O WZ co O F- z November 10, 1987 Mayor Gary L. Van Dusen City of T ukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington 98188 Dear Sir: On November 6th, 1987, Friday evening, at approximately 8 :15 p.m., Mrs. Caryl McConkey and myself were returning from the Tompson Swimming Pool which is located in the Renton Skyway area. I was driving my car, a 1987 Tempo GL, West, downhill, on the 129th Street overpass and then made a left hand turn onto South 130th Place, driving south paralleling the Duwamish River. Although the streets we had driven over were dry we noticed that South 130th Place was obviously wet and both of us remarked on it. At the stop sign at South 130th Place and 56th Avenue South we saw a large, white truck continuing South on South 130th Place toward the Seattle Rendering Works. We could see fluid pouring from the back of this truck onto the road. The following morning I inspected my car and the lower one - fourth of the car was spattered with dried blood, tissue and bone fragments. I presume that the City of Tukwila has laws on the books governing the transportation of dead animals. Is there any regular surveillance of the trucks going to the Seattle Rendering Works? I do draw the conclusion that the truck was traveling to the Seattle Rendering Works after dusk to avoid detection. My sympathies are extended to the people who live in that area. Imagine having to live with those conditions on a daily basis. The conditions are most beneficial for support of the rat population. Looking forward to your response. cc: Councilwoman Wendy Morgan Very truly yours, Mary K. Kreidler 14734 59th Avenue South Tukwila, Washington 98168 (206) 243 -0943 -) i Ir'I(C,:!;_! it �,_ I; .,,'i n 1937 .I z w fY 0 UD ww �w wo 2 g< id �w Z I- 0 Z I- w w ZD U CI o- D wW �- u.o . U= 0 z 5711 South 129th, Space 21 Empire View Mobile Home Park Seattle, WA 98178 Puget Sound Pullution Control Board P.O. Box 9663 Seattle, WA 98109 RE: Duwamish River Rendering Plant Tukwila, Washington Dear Sirs: During the past two years, we have called the number listed on the board in our wash house - 433 -1808 and 344 -7330. When we reached your office, we explained that the Rendering plant was offensive and caused nausea and vomiting with headaches and that there were others complaining about this problem but they said complaining to you did no good. I find this hard to believe, but then when I called, your people wanted to make out a long form, send us a form, and have us testify in court, but also informed us that you would have to have one of your people come to smell this mess and verify it. Well, that is hopeless and we are all helpless in the face of this requirement and the rendering plant knows this quite well. You see, when they are using the plant now, your office is not open. It is at night, on week -ends and holidays. All times when they know calling you won't help. They also set up early in the AM and late PM spoiling any peaceful time people might have outside or in nice weather being able to open their windows. This is getting rediculous. Have any of you people ever been to a cancer ward for dying patients? If not, you should visit one, and perhaps this will give you idea of how awful this is making our lives. That is exactly what it smells like - dead and decaying flesh! Try eating dinner to that smell sometime, or enjoying a peaceful beautiful sunset with that smell coming at you from all directions. The people haven't stopped having problems from it, but have given up on expecting some help from you. Is there nothing you can do? It isn't a constant thing, so therefore we cannot call ahead and have you come out to verify it. What do we do? What CAN you do to help us? Thank you listening, and for any assistance you can give on this matter. Sincerel 1. Michael Fred Johnston and Maureen Rose Johnston cc: Tukwila City Council Michael Fred and Maureen Rose Johnston 5711 South 129th, Space #21 Seattle, WA 98178 UNCLASSIFIED USF PERMIT APPLICATION 1. BRIEFLY DESCRIBE YOUR PROPOSAL: Upgrade present Air Polution Control Equip- ment: .Install new incinerator and waste -heat boiler within new 12' x 30' metal -frame lean -to addition. Proposal will significantly reduce odor emission. See attached narrative description. 2. PROJECT LOCATION: (Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block, and subdivision; or tax lot number, access street, and nearest intersection) Site of Seattle Rendering Works, Inc. 5795 So. 130th Place, Seattle, WA Quarter: N.E. Section: 14 Township: 23 Range: .4 (This information may be found on your tax statement.) 3. APPLICANT:* Name: Seattle Rendering Works, Inc. Address: P.O. Box 58368, Seattle, WA 98188 Signature: * The applicant is the person whom the staff will contact regarding the application, and to whom all notices and reports shall be sent, unless otherwise stipulated by applicant. Phon 87 Date: AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP 4. PROPERTY Name: Mr. Ron Johnson OWNER Address: 4222 S.W. 107th, Seattle, WA 98146 Phone: 937 -4074 I /WE,Csignature(s)7 !� swear that we .re the owner s or ontract purchaser s o the property involved in this applicat on and that the foregoing statements and answers contained in this application are true and .---correct to t e b �f my /our // _ ��- knowledg- • olief. Date: �'. ARY PUBL f S ORN AND SCBflCRIBED :E ORE ME THIS 4th DAY OF NOVEMBER 1987 RESIDING AT ISSAQU1s, WA. z ww QQ� JU UO CO 0 WI F- CLL W0 uQ za I- W z= I- 0 w~ uj U� 0s O I- WW L- O w Z = o1- z UNCLASSIFIED US' PERMIT APPLICATION 1. BRIEFLY DESCRIBE YOUR PROPOSAL: Upgrade present Air Polution Control Equip- ment: .Install new incinerator and waste -heat boiler within new 12' x 30' metal -frame lean -to addition. Proposal will significantly reduce odor emission. See attached narrative description. 2. PROJECT LOCATION: (Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block, and subdivision; or tax lot number, access street, and nearest intersection) Site of Seattle Rendering Works, Inc. 5795 So. 130th Place, Seattle, WA Quarter: N.E. Section: 14 Township: 23 Range::4 (This information may be found on your tax statement.) 3. APPLICANT :* Name: Seattle Rendering Works, Inc. Signature. Address: P.O. Box 58368, Seattle, WA 98188 Phone. - 787 Date: / "i5? * The applicant is the person whom the staff will contact regarding the application, and to whom all notices and reports shall be sent, unless otherwise stipulated by applicant. AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP 4. PROPERTY Name: Mr. Ron Johnson . OWNER Address: 4222 S.W. 107th, Seattle, WA 98146 Phone: 937 -4074 I /WE,Csignature(s)] swear that we .re the owner s or ontract purchaser s o the property involved in this applicat on and that the foregoing statements and answ s contained in this application are true and correct to t e b- .f my /our // _ �� �� knowledg- •.lief. Date: Y PUBL S ORN AND S RESIDING AT ; CRIBEDool.:E• ORE ME. THIS 4th DAY OF NOVEMBER 1987 SSAQU", WA. z �w o:L 00 V) o J = 2u w0 g< _ a w Z= I— O zf-- w w U� 0— oF- W W iLco 01— z UNCLAS, IED USE PERMIT APPLICATION Page 2 5. PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY: Rendering Plant 6. PROPOSED UNCLASSIFIED USE REQUESTED (from list in TMC 18.64.020): Addition to existing structure • 7. WHAT IS THE TIME FRAME FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PROPOSED USE? Incinerator installed by 1/01/88; waste -heat boiler installed by.3/O1/88 Describe the manner in which you believe that your request for an unclassified use permit will satisfy each of the following criteria as specified in Tukwila Municipal Code 18.66.060 (attach additional sheets, if necessary). 8. The proposed use will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity. RESPONSE: Proposed use will benefit public by improving air quality odor. emissions will be significantly reduced. 9. The proposed use shall meet or exceed the same standards for parking, landscaping, yards and other development regulations that are required in the district it will occupy. RESPONSE: The proposed use shall have no impact on existing parking, landscaping, yards, or other development regulations. z ~ w o:L 00 W J = U) LL w0 u. =d I-w z wo U0 0— Ca F— W H0 tL O .. z W U= 0~ z UNCLASSIriED USE PERMIT APPLICATION Page 3 10. The proposed development shall be compatible generally with the surrounding land uses. RESPONSE: The proposal will remove a large percentage of the high intensity. odors generated during the rendering process. The proposal has the approval of Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Inspector Mr. Harry Waters. Improved air quality (reduced odor) is compatible with the surrounding land uses. 11. The proposed use shall be in keeping with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan. RESPONSE: By improving air quality, the proposal is in keeping with general comprehensive land use goals. 12. All measures shall be taken to minimize the possible adverse impacts which the proposed use may have on the area in which it is located. RESPONSE: No known adverse impacts. (25 /UNCL.APP) z a w o!L 00 CO CO LLJ J F-- N w0 2 u. =a I- z zI- w w Uc 0- OH wW O wz — O z • NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEM AND OPERATION The control system will be in two parts. System No. 1 will z collect the hot moist vapors and system No. 2 will collect the 1.-. dry hot fumes. z The wet vapor system will collect approximately 4600 ACFM vapors -JO o tn at an average temperature of 184 F. These vapors will be transported by ducting to an air to air condenser that.will.be w w installed as part of this project. co LL. w0 This condenser will have 806 sq. ft. of bare tubing. The .tubes 2 are one inch outside diameter and have ten aluminum fins per inch j at two and one quarter inches in diameter. u.< =w It is planned to take the vapors down to 1000 F. + 200 H Z F. The condensate will be piped to the existing water treatment zI... system for processing. The noncondensibles, some 600 SCFM at ' Z 0 maximum conditions, will be duct to the proposed incinerator z waste heat boiler where they will be incinerated along with the v 0 fumes from system No. 2. off The fumes from system No. 2, approximately 2600 SCFM at maximum w w conditions and after collection, will pass through a cyclone w O where the majority of the particulate matter will be removed z prior to entering the incinerator - waste heat boiler. ciz The incinerator will be installed first as there will be a-10• to Pi ~ 12 week lead time on the delivery of the waste heat boiler. The incinerator is presently in preparation for installation and will be on job site in Seattle by Nov8mber 18. It is designed to incinerate 5000 air SCFM from 70 F. to 1200 F and at a retention time of not less than .3 seconds before exhausting through a stack. Phase No. 2 will be to install the new vapor system condenser and waste heat boiler. The stack gases from the incinerator will passothrough tte waste heat boiler and will be decreased from 1200 F.to 450 F before they are emitted out the stack. There will not be any fume or vapor generating equipment added to the plant operations as part of this project. There will be changes made in how the vapors and fumes are processed as listed and described below. 1. There will be a 5000 SCFM incinerator installed with full intentions of adding to it a waste heat boiler. 2.' The odorus fumes and vapors that are presently being scrubbed and condensed in a venturi scrubber and burned in the existing boiler will be relocated to the proposed incinerator for 99% incineration. The vapors that are presently being ducted to the E.R.C. scrubber will be processed in the wet vapor condenser that is part of this project with exception of the vapors from the yellow grease system. They are low intensity odors and can be easily processed in the E.R.C. scrubber. 3. Two stainless steel vapor recovery systems will be in- stalled. One for hot wet vapors and the other for dry hot fumes. 4. The second air to air condenser will be installed to con- dense the hot wet vapors. The noncondensibles will be • ducted to the incinerator - waste heat boiler. 5. The E.R.C. vapor scrubber will continue to operate for the purpose of scrubbing any scavenger odors and to provide vapor scrubbing for the yellow grease system. " °• z • ~ 1.1 6 .J U 00 wI (w w0 u_ Q w Z = I- 0 Z ~ in U� O- o1- wW �- wz U= O~ z t. _ tolLeg cot! PPLIEK HP.,efRX , XVT bL1 I L. _..1551(01.10 • /1"'l MT1AL 151.W-191 pcc,f2. M•1101011•MINFOIM. = jLL / 4,1 1. ibu I " 1-rAL _ ;tvle-12vL. ugrA i.J 994,g Le. VA-T1 2tJ Pare Tit leo- OFP-ct,i Lic.1 Fr c‘,6%-recto c:71e..5 kJ 1.1-r 1._EN/Pc-rl.cf)ki 11/0x3A5 7 -Is 14:7-1. anwo-fiaLK:ric.)KI 11-1-rEt.rr 01.1 WASTE,HEAT BOILER BUILDING for SEATTLE RENDERING z Z LI-12 —1 0 1- 00 ° U) LU -J w 0 5 I a I- IA z t- 0 z w 0 O FR O 1— w • w z 0 o • 1- z (DIV 113110H I.V311-311SVAA 1:13S0,1011d NV" NOI1VDCY1 swag • yea ism, 012086 VM "NOLNIIII •HAnos WINNMY NIWIN bOC 01l96 *N0.1.0NIHM HIOC1 S815 3111 'MOM 131111130N311 3111Y3S SNHOM ON11:130N3E1 31111/39 0 8 2 ). • ; Zs g= = t.... if.l. ? ! a 1 1-/ ! i 1 il i'v 1 il:: 1 i / I 1 ri, ! 1 ...., 1 ' ...:. I 1, 1 1 00) 21" 42 4 t- z 3 fito .12 IVO 21.1 22 w 2 .12 5‘.1, pa >- 2 0 0 0 w 2 2 0 2 ij z Z C4 C.) 00 to 0 i • LL, uj 2 I a I- ILI Z I- 0 Z O u) • — (3 W I 0 LI 0 Z 'or r. I o M Mark A. An.ierson & Associates '' SEATTLE RENDERING WASTE HEAT BOILER BUILDING THE PROPOSED BUILDING IS AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING METAL PANEL BUILDING AND WILL HOUSE A NEW BOILER SYSTEM FOR THE SEATTLE RENDERING FACILITY. THE NEW ADDITION UTILIZES A STEEL FRAME WITH METAL PANEL CLADDING FOR THE ROOF AND WALLS. THE COLOR OF THE NEW ADDITION PANELS WILL MATCH THE EXISTING BUILDING. 7232 Interlaaken Dr. S.W. Tacoma, WA 98499 (206) 581.7043 , .,, , Structural Engineering 304 Main Ave. S.. Suite 300 Renton, WA 98055 (206) 235.6690 A4 MAILING LIST FOR PUBLIC NOTICE. • TAX LOT NO. OWNER'5 NAME AND ADDRESS PROPERTY ADDRESS (IF NOT OWNER•OCCUPIED) 0003000049 City of Tukwila 6200 Southccnter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Foster Golf Links 13500 Interurban South Seattle, WA 98178 0001400002 Oregon- Washington R.R. & Nay. c/o Union Pacific R.R. P.O. Box 2500 • Broomfield, CO.80020 Co.. Railroad Right of Way . 2172000390 0001400003 Burlington Northern R.R. 2100 - 1st Interstate Center 999 - 3rd Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 Railroad Right of Way 1423049041 0001400006 Union Pacific R.R. P.O. Box 2500 Broomfield, CO 80020 Railroad Right of Way . 2137000060 William Schaible 820 South Donovan Street Seattle, WA 98108 ' Vacant 2172000385 Anthony Schwab 6326 N.E. 124th Kirkland, WA 98034 Vacant • • z 1 Z re JU 00 N CO J F- N LJ., w0 u-Q =a 1.. w z I-0 z 1- w w U� O- CI F- ww 1--H uO z w U(1) F-I 0 I' z z =Z W QQ JU 00 u)0 • LU J= F- LL W O u a =a �W z �O z�- W uj no U O - 0 H W W u. O W z • = O ~ z A P P C A N T P '.get Sound Air Pc 'cation Control Agency 411.-1-0-1 HEREBY ISSUES AN ORDER OF APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT, INSTALL, OR ESTABLISH Date *DV 1 3 1987 One SBECO Incinerator at 7MMBH with #3 HR Single Pass Heat Recovery Boiler; System No. 1 collects hot moist vapors to Air -to -Air Condensor, non - condensibles to incinerator; System No. 2 collects dry hot fumes and ducts to incinerator; incinerator has temperature setpoint controller Notice of Construction No. 2988 Mr. William Hammond SPatt1P RPn- 1Pring Wnrks, Tnr NAME. 5795 Sn_ 1lflth P1acP Sl RTl' "t' Seattle, WA CITY STATE 5795 So. 130th Place, 98178 UP INSTALLATION ADDRESS STATE T Same 0 NAME w N E STREET R CITY STATE Seattle, WA 98178 CITY STATE T111S ORDER IS ISSUED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS 1. Approval is hereby granted as provided in Article 6 of Regulation 1 of the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency to the applicant to install, alter or establish the equipment, device or process described hereon at the INSTALLATION ADDRESS in accordance with the plans and specifications on file in the Engineering Division of PSAPCA. 2. Compliance with this ORDER and its conditions does not relieve the owner or operator from the responsibility of compliance with Regulations 1 or 11, RCW 70.94, or any other emission control requirements, nor from the resulting liabilities and /or legal remedies for failure to comply. • This approval does not relieve the applicant or owner of any requirement of any other governmental agency. 4. Seattle Rendering Works, Inc. shall follow its "Raw Materials Trucks and /or Trailers Handling Procedures" at all times. (over) Harry A. Watters �,- Reviewing E ineer sjn Form 50-118, (1/85) A oat A. . Dammkoehler Air Pollution Control Officer z �z rew 00 CO (ow M_ H U_ w0 2 u_ Q d I— Z H O Z w U � O — O I— W W _ LL O .. Z W 0 1- z RAW MATERIAL TRUCKS AND /OR TRAILERS HANDLING PROCEDURES z F1' z rew JU UO CO 13 1. At the last raw material pick up, the driver will spray N u. a neutralizing agent on the raw material. w o 1Q id z= zI- tu c) if material should be covered with a tarp, he will see that it is covered d) he will have the lower quality raw material 01- processed first w W U e) after unloading the raw material, the truck and /or trailer will be washed and sprayed — z with a neutralizing agent vus f) after the truck and /or trailer leaves the un- of-' loading area, the area will be cleaned and neutralized g) the unloading area is to be washed and neutralized every shift a� 3. Each weekend on Saturday all trucks and trailers are washed and neutralized by an outside service, or by our personnel. 2. When the trucks and /or trailers arrive at the yard, the shift foreman will see that the following will be done: a) inspect the condition of the raw material b) if additional neutralizing agent is needed, it is to be added SEATTLE RENDERING WORKS,INC. * •• • ..• * * NOtICE Of COt4PL(TIOh co- Rieaul t�ion I ' Section 6.09(a), requires that the owner or applicant notify the Agency of the completion of the work covered by the application and when its operation will begin. This form is provided for your convenience to assisty4ol:in complying with this part of the Regulation. APPLICANT or OWNER SECTION Mail to;0Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency ;`" "''''I PIan'Review Section ROOWest Mercer Street lioan 205 eat4e. Washington 98119 t! Wirt %!J Ti :r �r4.t�.c'uk E'1.: 'i ._� �.':4 it .. ..,yFL.A +. _i.. �_ 3• ::r; i.,.- . t�,, Gentlemen: The project described below was completed on and will be in opera }orr: on ' Signature of Owner and /or Applicant Title Date I AGENCY USE ONLY 'T. Notice of Construction No. 2988.; Project Description: One SBECO Incinerator at 7MMBH with #3 HR Single Pass Heat Recovery Boiler; System No. 1 collects hot moist vapors to Air -to -Air Condensor, non - condensibles to incinerator; System No. 2 collects dry hot fumes and ducts to incinerator; incinerator has temperature setpoint controller (over)., Owner's Name Mr. William Hammond /Seattle ._._-- Place, Seattle, WA 981 /8 Location 5795 So. 130th Place, Seattle, t. Rendering Works, Inc . , 5795 So. 130th . WA 98178 Follow•up ® Inspector check ❑ Engineer • • Data Inspected Inspector and Inspector check (Estimated Completion Date Plus 7) REMARKS. ❑ See Attachment i . OfiM 43-11.1 4/43 z w fQY � J0 O 00 W J w• 0 N = =a I— al Z= W C = O• . O I— W • 0 wz UW = O ~ z ' • . . 4.4 RESTRICTIONS & CONDITIONS CONTINUED: 4. Seattle Rendering Works, Inc. shall follow its "Raw Materials Trucks and/or Trailers Handling Procedures at all times. (See below) . ' • • , . • RAW MATERIAL TRUCKS AND/OR TRAILERS HANDLING PROCEDUR'E'S'''' , ! , •, ', personnel. • • •••,, z < • • z w w 00 (/) (f) L11 • u_ uj 0 Zi I• ct 1--w m I-0 ZI- O co O — CI I— W uj 1— — 0 di co z 0- -1 o • File: 35mm Drawing# 87-03-ucu checked out