A Texas animal-byproduct rendering plant is back under scrutiny after the state’s environmental regulator issued a fresh notice of enforcement, citing seven violations that span wastewater spills, odor nuisances, equipment failures and record-keeping lapses. The notice follows a history of complaints from residents who have reported persistent, fecal-like odors that have intensified over the past few years. Darling Ingredients, the operator of the Bastrop facility, has publicly pledged to be a “good neighbor” and has committed millions of dollars to upgrade its odor control systems. Yet the enforcement action indicates that the company’s efforts have not yet fully addressed the environmental and health concerns raised by the surrounding community.
Darling Ingredients operates the Bastrop facility, turning animal byproducts such as chicken feathers and blood into pet and livestock feed while also converting used cooking oil from local restaurants into raw ingredients for renewable fuel. The plant’s processes involve high-temperature rendering, separation, and refining steps that produce a variety of feed products and a renewable fuel feedstock. The facility’s location near residential areas has made its odor emissions a frequent point of contention among neighbors. Despite the company’s stated commitment to community stewardship, residents continue to report that the smells-described as fecal, death-like, and “burning wet feathers”-have become more frequent and more intense.
On July 9, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) approved an agreed order that imposed a $39,000 penalty on Darling Ingredients for violations, including nuisance odors and excessive airborne hydrogen sulfide, that dated back to July and October 2024. The order was the result of a multi-month investigation that uncovered repeated failures to control emissions and to maintain adequate water treatment processes. The penalty is one of several enforcement actions the state has taken against the plant in recent years. It reflects TCEQ’s ongoing effort to hold the company accountable for the environmental impacts of its operations.
The latest notice of enforcement lists seven separate violations, ranging from unauthorized wastewater discharges into a creek to failures in logging raw material deliveries and dumping, and from inadequate venturi scrubber monitoring to repeated equipment operation lapses. Each violation was documented through field inspections, laboratory analyses, and review of the plant’s operational logs. The violations collectively demonstrate a pattern of non-compliance that spans multiple operational areas of the facility. They also highlight gaps in the company’s environmental management system.
Three separate incidents of wastewater spilling into the creek were documented: a broken irrigation mechanism on October 8, a previously undisclosed residue spill on October 30, and another spill on November 5, each involving unknown amounts of wastewater. The spills were identified by TCEQ inspectors who noted the presence of untreated effluent in the creek’s water column. The plant’s wastewater treatment system was found to be inadequate for handling the volumes of liquid generated during rendering. The incidents raise concerns about potential contamination of local waterways and downstream ecosystems.
TCEQ detected strong, foul odors classified as “nuisance odor conditions” on at least four separate occasions in August and September, prompting residents to file complaints and seek enforcement action. The odor events were recorded using the state’s odor monitoring program, which logs odor intensity, duration, and source direction. Residents reported that the smells often lingered for hours and were accompanied by a sulfurous or rotting quality. The odor incidents underscore the plant’s failure to meet its odor control obligations under state law.
The facility also caused, suffered or allowed excessive emissions of hydrogen sulfide, a toxic gas that can cause eye irritation, dizziness and nausea, as measured at four ground-level sampling sites in mid-October. Hydrogen sulfide concentrations exceeded the state’s ambient air quality standards during the sampling period. The gas is produced during the anaerobic decomposition of organic material in the rendering process. The presence of elevated hydrogen sulfide levels indicates inadequate scrubbing or ventilation at the plant.
Record-keeping lapses were also identified, with workers failing to log the time and date of raw rendering material deliveries from July to late September, and similarly failing to record the dumping of that material into the rendering process during the same period. Accurate record-keeping is a regulatory requirement that ensures traceability of hazardous materials and compliance with environmental permits. The missing logs impede TCEQ’s ability to assess the plant’s compliance with discharge limits. They also raise questions about the company’s internal oversight mechanisms.
In May and June, workers also failed to measure the liquid flow rate into a venturi scrubber-a device that removes particles from industrial exhaust-while multiple failures to maintain an adequate flow rate were recorded between July and early October. The venturi scrubber is critical for removing particulate matter and odor precursors from the plant’s exhaust stream. Failure to monitor or maintain its flow rate can result in the release of harmful pollutants into the air. The repeated deficiencies point to a systemic problem with the plant’s environmental monitoring protocols.
Local residents have organized a grassroots campaign, citing the need for action after TCEQ and Darling Ingredients have not, in their view, acted responsibly or proactively to protect the community. The campaign includes public meetings, online petitions, and a dedicated website that aggregates complaints and evidence of violations. Residents argue that the company’s lack of transparency and delayed response have exacerbated the odor problem. They demand that the plant implement comprehensive mitigation measures and provide timely updates to the public.
Kathryn Guerra, Public Citizen’s TCEQ campaign director, said the campaign is “out of necessity because neither the TCEQ or Darling are acting in, you know, responsible and proactive and protective ways,” and that residents are “absolutely resolved that they are not going to stop, or let this issue go, until Darling and the TCEQ resolve it.” Guerra added that the community’s persistence reflects a broader concern about environmental justice in the region. She emphasized that residents have organized to hold both the regulator and the company accountable. Guerra’s statement underscores the intensity of the local opposition.
Residents have also created the Stop the Stink Bastrop website, which links directly to TCEQ’s complaint submission page, and the site has seen a surge in complaints, totaling nearly 200 this year according to TCEQ records. The website provides a user-friendly interface for residents to submit odor reports, upload photos, and track the status of their complaints. The surge in complaints indicates a growing awareness of the plant’s impact on the surrounding environment. The website has become a central hub for community advocacy.
Elgin resident Corbett Jones, who has lived in the area for five years, said the smells have become far more frequent and, at times, “unbearable,” and he has been a leading voice in the community’s push for action. Jones has documented the odors in a series of audio recordings that he shares on social media. He argues that the plant’s odor emissions have negatively affected his quality of life and the health of his neighbors. Jones’s testimony has helped galvanize local support for stricter enforcement.
A spokesperson for Darling Ingredients told KXAN that the company is “continuing to work on upgrades to our Bastrop facility, which will optimize performance for the benefit of the local community.” The spokesperson also highlighted that the company has invested in new scrubbers, improved wastewater treatment, and upgraded monitoring equipment. They stated that these upgrades are part of a broader strategy to reduce emissions and improve environmental performance. The company maintains that it remains compliant with all applicable regulations.
The statement also emphasized that “complying with the law is a top priority for us, and we are committed to being a good neighbor. We encourage the community to visit www.darlingii.com/bastrop to easily report concerns and stay informed on our ongoing upgrade projects,” the company said. The company’s website provides a dashboard of real-time monitoring data and a calendar of planned maintenance. The spokesperson reiterated that the company is open to dialogue with residents and regulators. They expressed confidence that the upgrades will address the odor and water quality issues.
TCEQ’s enforcement process can take many months, with the agency’s latest biennial report indicating an average of about 350 days to process a case and secure commissioner approval. The lengthy timeline reflects the complexity of environmental investigations, the need for data collection, and the procedural steps required for formal enforcement. The delay has frustrated residents who seek immediate relief from the plant’s emissions. The agency has acknowledged the need for more efficient processes but has not yet announced specific reforms.
Guerra criticized the pace, calling it a “big problem for the community” and adding that TCEQ’s policy of not issuing additional violations while a company is already under enforcement is unfair to residents. She noted that the policy allows companies to continue operating with known violations for extended periods. Guerra argued that this undermines the purpose of environmental regulation. She called for a review of the policy to ensure timely enforcement.
In response to KXAN’s questions, TCEQ said it has an active enforcement case against Darling but would not comment on pending litigation or its enforcement process. The agency reiterated that it follows established procedures for enforcement. TCEQ stated that it is working to resolve the violations through its formal channels. The agency declined to provide additional details about its internal timelines.
The agency also declined to respond to Guerra’s comments about its average enforcement time or its policy against issuing additional violations for the same problem while under enforcement. TCEQ reiterated that its policies are designed to prevent duplication of enforcement actions. The agency explained that it focuses on resolving the most serious violations first. Residents remain skeptical of the agency’s commitment to swift action.
Corbett Jones said he was not hopeful that the nearly $40,000 fine would have much effect, calling it a “drop in the bucket” for a multi-billion-dollar corporation. He pointed out that fines are often insufficient to compel behavioral change in large companies. Jones emphasized that the community’s main concern is the continued presence of odors and pollutants. He urged regulators to consider more stringent penalties.
He added that the company “knows how to control their smells. We are just asking that they do it here,” and that residents are not eager to see the plant shut down or leave the area. Jones clarified that residents want the plant to operate responsibly while preserving the local environment. He stressed that the community is willing to collaborate if the company commits to measurable improvements. Jones’s remarks reflect a desire for practical solutions rather than punitive measures.
Residents also emphasize that they only want the facility to operate cleanly, saying they can tolerate some activity but not widespread pollution that harms their environment and health. They have organized community clean-up events and educational workshops about environmental protection. Residents argue that the plant’s current emissions exceed acceptable limits and pose a risk to public health. They are demanding transparency and accountability from both the company and the regulator.
TCEQ’s current enforcement case remains active, and the agency has indicated that it will respond through its established process, a stance the company has echoed in its statement. The company reiterated its commitment to compliance and to working with TCEQ to resolve the violations. The agency’s process includes data review, public comment, and a final decision by commissioners. Both parties are awaiting the next steps in the enforcement timeline.
As the Bastrop community continues to demand accountability, the plant’s future hinges on how quickly the state and the company can resolve the violations and restore a safe, odor-free environment for residents. The community’s activism has brought national attention to the issue, prompting media coverage and social media campaigns. The company’s upgrade plans are under scrutiny for their effectiveness and timelines. Residents hope that the combined efforts of TCEQ and the company will bring lasting relief.
The ongoing dispute highlights the broader challenge of balancing industrial activity with environmental stewardship in growing Texas communities. It underscores the importance of robust enforcement mechanisms and transparent communication between regulators, companies, and residents. The case remains a focal point for discussions about environmental justice, public health, and corporate responsibility. The outcome will likely influence future regulatory approaches to similar facilities across the state.
