ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
May 22, 1975
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Complainant,
v.
)
PCB 74—479
CON
AGRA,
INC.,
Respondent.
MS. MARILYN B. RESCH, attorney for Complainant.
MR. THOMAS J. IMNEL, attorney for Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Dr. Odell)
On December 18, 1974, the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency (Agency) filed with the Pollution Control
Board (Board) a Complaint against Con Agra, Inc.
Respondent owns and operates a facility at Water Street,
Chester, Illinois. This facility, which includes a hammermill,
is a flour mill that processes wheat into flour and produces,
as a by-product, pellets which are used as cattle feed.
The Complaint charged that:
“At no time before, on, or since February 1, 1973, did
Respondent possess an operating permit granted by the Agenc~
for the operation of the aforesaid haminermill nor has the
Agency issued to Respondent any such permit.
“Rule 103(b) (2) of the Board’s Air Pollution Regulations,
Chapter 2 provides, in pertinent part:
no person shall cause or allow the operation
of any existing emission source or any existing ~iir
pollution control equipment without first obtaining
an Operating Permit from the Agency no later than
the dates shown in the following schedule:
***
Food and Kindred Products Industry operations as
defined by code 20
. . .
of the ‘Standard Industrial
Classification Manual’
. . .
By January 1, 1973.
“Pursuant to Rule 103(b) (2) (B) of the aforesaid Air Pol-
lution Regulations, the Agency extended the above date of January
1, 1973, by one month, thereby making the deadline date
February 1, 1973.
17—
119
—2—
“Respondent’s hammermill is an emission source as de-
fined in Rule 101 of the aforesaid Air Pollution Regulations.
Respondent’s flour mill operation, which includes a hairimermill,
is a “Food and Kindred Products Industry” operation as defined
by code 20 of the Standard Industrial Classification Manual.
“Section 9(b) of the Environmental Protection Act (Act)
provides, in pertinent part:
(No person shall:) Construct, install, or operate
any equipment, facility, vehicle, vessel, or air-
craft capable of causing or contributing to air
pollution or designed to prevent air pollution, of
any type designated by Board regulations, without
a permit granted by the Agency
“In light of the foregoing, Respondent has violated
Section 9 (b) of the Act, and Rule 103(b) (2) of the Air Pollution
Regulations, by operating its hammermill without an appropriate
operating permit having been issued therefor by the Agency, on
every day of operation since February 1, 1973, up to and in-
cluding the date of filing of this Complaint.”
A hearing was held in Chester, Illinois on March 20, 1975,
at which a Stipulation of ?arties and Proposed Settlement (Stipu-
lation) was submitted. No citizens attended the hearing (R. 26).
Mr. Lloyd McQuilliam has been manager of Respondent’s
facility in Chester, Illinois, since February 13, 1972, soon
after Con Agra took title to the premises (R. 7). This facility
in Chester was the first one purchased in Illinois by Respondent,
but it owns 18 flour milling facilities in other states (R. 8).
The home office of Respondent is in Omaha, Nebraska, and technical
personnel there have the primary responsibility for determining
the need for permits and pollution control (R. 9).
On October 4, 1973, the Agency notified Con Agra that it
needed operating permits for its ~acility (Comp. Ex. 3). Respon-
dent replied to the Agency on November 1, 1973 (Res. Ex. 4) and
submitted operating permit applications to the Agency on January
21, 1974 (Resp. Ex. 5). It was stated in the Stipulation that
“on April 16, 1974 Complainant rejected Respondent’s application
covering the wheat cleaning house because Respondent’s application
indicated that its hainmermill, which is included in the wheat
cleaning house, was emitting particulate matter in excess of
that allowed by Rule 203(b) of the Air Pollution Regulations and
because the application was not accompanied by the required evi-
dence of authority to sign the application.
. . .
On June 26,
1974, Respondent’s attorney, Thomas Immel, sent a letter to
Complainant, included in which was a resolution from Respondent’s
Board of Directors conferring the necessary signatory authority;
(and) on ~uly 8, 1974 Complainant again denied Respondent’s
application covering the wheat cleaning house because Respondent’s
application continu~d to inLicate that the hammermill was emitting
particulate matiei n excess of that allowed by Rule 203(b) of
the Air Pollutic R-~”1ations.”
17
—
120
—3—
In Con Agra, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency
PCB 74-311, 14 PCB 295 (October 24, 1974), the Board granted
a Variance to Respondent under the following terms while it
installed pollution control equipment on its hammermill:
“1. Con Agra, Inc. is hereby granted a Variance from
Rule 203(a) of Chapter Two from August 22, 1974,
until March 22, 1975, or such earlier date that it
can install a Buhler model ASF-24 air shock stock-
ing filter to control particulate emissions caused
by the operation of a hamniermill at its facility.
“2. Petitioner shall apply for all necessary permits
from the Agency.
“3. Petitioner shall submit to the Agency written
progress compliance reports on January 22 and
March 22, 1975, or such earlier date that it can
install the air pollution control equipment
specified in Order 1, above.”
Con Agra complied with Board Order 3, above (Resp. Exhibits
1 and 2), and the bag filter became operational March 10, 1975,
to control emissions from the hammermill. Con Agra reapplied
for the operating permit for its hainmermill on March 12, 1975
(Resp.
Ex. 3).
The Stipulation stated that: “Subsequent to the filing
of this Complaint, pre-hearing negotiations indicated to both
parties that there exists no issue of fact as to the occurrence
of the violation charged in the Complaint in this matter.
Respondent, for its part, admits that it has operated said
hammermill without possessing the requisite permit, as above
set forth, thereby violating Section 9(b) of the Environmental
Protection Act and Rule 103(b) (2) of the Board’s Air Pollution
Regulations promulgated thereunder.
. . .
Complainant states
that its interest in the matter shall be satisfied by an Order
requiring a penalty of $2000.00 and ordering Respondent to dis-
continue all hammermill operations at its aforesaid site unless
an appropriate permit has been applied for within ten (10) days
of the Board Order herein and obtained within one hundred (100)
days of the Board Order herein.”
The Board finds that Respondent violated Rule 103(b) (2)
of the Air Pollution Regulations and Section 9(b) of the Act
from February 1, 1973, to December 18, 1974, as alleged in the
Complaint. We accept the settlement proposal by the parties
in the Stipulation.
This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and con-
clusions of law of the Board.
17
—
121
ORDER
1. Con Agra, Inc. violated Rule 103(b) (2) of the
Air Pollution Regulations and Section 9(b) of
the Environmental Protection Act as more fully
set out in the above Opinion.
2. Respondent shall pay, within thirty-five days (35)
days of the adoption of this Order, a penalty of
$2,000.00 for its violations of the Act and Reg-
ulations established in this Opinion. Payment shall
be made by certified check or money order payable to
the State of Illinois, Fiscal Services
Division,
Environmental Protection Agency, 2200 Churchill Road,
Springfield, Illinois 62706.
3. Respondent shall discontinue all haxnmermill opera-
tions at its Chester, Illinois facility unless an
appropriate operating permit has been applied
for
within ten (10) days of the adoption of this Board
Order and obtained within one hundred (100) days of
said Board Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby cert~fythat the above Opinion and Order
was
adopted on the~”~’ day of May, 1975, by a vote of
____________
Q&~nL.No~f~~
Illinois Pollution ntrol Board
17
—
122