ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

March 2, 1978

FARMER’S

GRAIN AND COAL COMPANY, 

)

Petitioner,

)

PCB 77—335

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, 

)

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Dr. Satchell):

Farmer’s Grain and Coal Company in Mason City, Mason

County, Illinois filed on December 15, 1977 a petition for

variance from the Board~sChapter 8: Noise Regulations

(Chapter 8) and Section 24 of the Environmental Protection

Act (Act). The Environmental Protection Agency (Agency)

filed its recommendation on January 17, 1978, On January 23, 

1978

Petitioner filed a waiver of hearing pursuant to Procedural

Rule 401(b).

Petitioner is a co-operative grain elevator organized under

the Agricultural Co-Operative Act of 1923 serving rural com-

munities of Teheran and Mason City in Mason County for the

sale, storage and handling of grain, primarily corn and soybeans.

Participating farmers share in the profits of the co—operative

elevator by stock and patronage refunds. Further benefit is

derived from 

the

existence of an elevator in reasonably close

proximity to their farms to allow transportation of their

harvest in relatively small vehicles.

Mason City, the location of the operation in question,

has a population of approximately 2,600. The co-operative

serves landowners and tenants of approximately 45,000 acres.

Using 1976 Mason County average farm yields, this represents

yields and potential processing and handling of 3,500,000

bushels of corn, 700,000 bushels of soybeans, and 125,000

bushels of wheat per crop year.

The co—operative has an investment at the Mason City

facility including equipment of $1,800,000. Substantial im-

provements were made in 1976 at an approximate cost of $750,000.

The storage capacity of the elevator is 2,450,000 bushels. The

operation is a day business operation and requires no shift

work. Occasionally, during the peak of the harvest season,

late hours are worked as are demanded by the urgency of sur-

rounding farmers needs. (During the 1977 season this occurred

20 times.)

29

— 315

At the 

Mason City iso 

L tI o L~r~~ 1976 through

May 31, 1977, 

2,953,rOO busheis oF q~J~~as processed, handled

and

stored.

The total. vaiuo pr eo~ad, sandled and 

stored was

$12,246,000.

The noise

emitted

~ Tho chuL?~. 

t~ causoi

by

grain

moving

through the 

gravity chutes ~rn

tTh

d~:~nihi~torhead to

storage

bins, grain 

dryer and F u~LTh1n~~i T;~. Thuer legs exist

one

115 feet above 

grade cnd one hO

t*~ F- 

~cio

:;rade, Grain

is

moved up 

the power Ieqs and then ~

ITh

Through

the grain

chutes to the 

grain dryer and

cn~

r~nt:Th Deorage

bins. 

During

the fall harvest 

season, ~ pe~i~dc~ Th2r)xanatei~y 2

1/2

months, these

grain 

chut:ss ceere

~ct ~ i reguhar

basis during

the day and on 

twenty nLq~~s b~:ri~-e ttu~ ~icurs of

10:00 

P.M.

and 7:00 

A,M, for 

a total of tOO nThni~t ne hours, Multiple

chutes of

approximately 300 ~Feea~ ~noF exist

from 

ten

inches

in diameter to twelve

inche~~in d: ametn:

of.

seven and

ten gauge

metal thickness.

The chutes havE. :i ~: fu

life of five

eight years and

are rotated psi:i :~n1cTh,

s as

to extend their

useful life.

Grain moving uhr:uih the. c nttcs has been

found

to cause noise

emissions in exeE;S:; u F turtaariLs a~ certain

frequencies.

Petitioner

has retaine-J x~

~-~ni us. atsjire

direct and

design efforts

to a~:tenuste niise

~LE~H   

~n Ohs 

resent

and

future operations

of the el atcr.

bThck

sound

barriers

and aeration

fan eeLi1.OSU’~3S have

:~n~

lean

constructed,

time schedule

of compLfdnce is di hi:

us noise

attenuating

techniques

for elevatces are se~l F

: ~i:i:d:~

Petitioner

would like

to monitor the prcui-s~r o. ~

Ode chutes)

Atwood,

Illinois

br Tho rears p:

~ahnnLttng

a detailed

compliance

p1cm

P- tiluicrim Th

:Fes call double

lined chuting

at one spout. x::

cn1nn: :nun’ ~i. :urposes.

The

cost

of double

lining the present qrein ~

~ce

~etwork

is $17,000.

Petitioner~s

consThtant s advite

nit :n~ jindafication

will not

assure adequate

alieviatLu

ot n use

I

e~ouhie

lined

chuting further

modificatIons

snip b

nissar~ for

extra support

because of the

added m~-b~int It L. e ho:

lined

chuting meets

the required

sound tmnisl s ~hni~ ne: ri:

oani1fl~s wall he

initiated.

Petitioner

states tTh

Its :Furer

Fe further

attenuate

noise levels

thro i-h mcie i~ id ~:e

nepair and

modifi-

cation as the

same oeuv~e mu es~.u

1

I

Thohnically

feasible and

econo:raintLi;

~Linh m

g-t:her than

double

lining or

wrapping the chic ::ea

th~ a: 0. :u experiment)

no other

sound attenuating

tocnnug ni mci oe a

be

~at:eTLy

developed or

tested to

assure succe ~sfu.

noise emissions.

The

Agency agrees

u ~d P-~ut, a us:

:atel factm

The

Agency further

points oTh ~nit ~

i Thuoction that

the

noise from

the grain nmut:

~ncni~o:

nicrsased

grain

velocity in

the

rain chunu

Th~- ~uii~

‘ciut:e with

the

steepest

slope, and

therefore the q~niatost ~a: L~ .~lcLi~ty~

appears to

be the chute

from The sout;hernmo:

ai~or cn the load—out

holding bin

over the dumm

Tb~a

s cruba~1y the

most

noisy of all

the c;hutes aeF w~iii mc;~

i~&L choice for

the

first chute

to be quiet oF~

—3—

The Agency concurs in

the cost estimates supplied by

Petitioner with respect to replacing

the

grain chutes with

double walled chutes.

However, the Agency feels that the

elevator head houses may require enclosures to insure compliance

with Rule 202, The Agency states that these could be built with

plywood at a total cost of $88.00.

The Petitioner submits that the granting of the variance

to permit the operation of the elevator grain chuting under the

present conditions would impose no perceptible harm to the

public. The Agency’s recommendation does document interference

in the day-to-day living habits of Petitioner’s neighbors.

Petitioner~s closest neighbors could enjoy less noise inter-

ference in conversation during outdoor activities if Petitioner’s

grain chute noise was within standards. Indoors noise can

interfere with conversation, radio and television communication

and sleeping. During its investigation the Agency did send out

47 inquiries in Mason City concerning the variance. There was

no response to most of the inquiries~ Of the responses re-

ceived three are against granting the variance, none are for,

and three are undecided, The homes of the three against are

in close proximity to the elevator, Several of the responses

dwelled on dust and chaff emissions rather than noise.

The Agency points out that since the noise is seasonal,

the “average interference” to residents is not great in terms

of either hearing loss or health and welfare problems. How-

ever, when the grain chutes are in operation for two and one—

half months per year some people should expect to experience

outdoor speech interference and for about twenty nights per

year interference with their sleep. Responses to the inquiries

did not mention indoor speech or sleep interference indicating

these problems are minor if existent.

A denial of this variance would not require Petitioner to

cease business; it would require an immediate expenditure of

$17,000 with somewhat uncertain results or it would expose

Petitioner to potential enforcement action. There is no

other elevator which serves the primary area in which the

patrons of Mason City live, Adequate storage in peak harvest

season and the rapid processing of the harvest from the field

is of increasing importance to the farmer. The Agency further

states the Petitioner has shown good faith in undertaking noise

abatement procedures with its grain dryers and aeration fans.

Petitioner has spent a considerable amount of money in re-

placing its original grain dryer with a new grain dryer which

was acoustically designed to reduce noise. The Agency re—

commends the grant of the variance with certain conditions.

The Board finds that Petitioner has shows sufficient

hardship to warrant a variance subject to the conditions the

Agency recommends. Petitioner has shown good faith in efforts

of abatement. Satisfactory techniques of abatement are still

being developed. Petitioner’s willingness to experiment with

double-lined chutes may aid this development. The conditions

imposed should help abatement and assuage Petitioner’s neighbors.

—

317

—4—

This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact

and conclusions of law in this matter.

ORDER

It is the order of the Pollution Control Board that

Farmer’s Grain and Coal Company is granted a variance for five

years from the date of this order from Rules 102 and 202 of the

Chapter 8: Noise Regulations and Section 24 of the Environ-

mental Protection Act as they pertain to Petitioner’s Mason

City grain elevator subject to the following conditions:

1. That sounds emitted by said facility shall at no

time exceed the limits of Rule 202 except for sounds

emitted by the grain chutes.

2. That no new equipment process or facility installed

at Petitioner’s grain elevator shall at any time

emit sounds in excess of Rule 202.

3. That on or before August 15, 1978, Petitioner shall

replace the grain chute to the outload holding bin

over the dump at the southern most elevator with a

double-lined chute as described in Petitioner’s

Exhibit V (sleeved, with rubber grommet separation).

4. That from and after the date of the filing of the

Petition herein, Petitioner shall replace any grain

chute requiring replacement with such double—lined

chutes*asdescribed in Petitioner’s Exhibit 5.

5. That on or before the expiration of the five (5)

year Variance period Petitioner, regardless of

whether said grain chutes require replacement from

wear, or otherwise, shall replace all grain chutes

with double—lined chutes*asdescribed in Petitioner’s

Exhibit V.

6. That on or before the expiration of the five (5) year

Variance period, Petitioner shall install around the

two grain chute headhouses, sound abatement enclosures

of material with at least a 20dB transmission loss

(3/8” plywood or better) with all joints acoustically

sealed.

7. That during the term of the Variance all noise con-

trol equipment now in place on the aeration fans and

the dryer, shall be properly maintained.

8. That Petitioner shall report to the Agency:

(a) On or before August 15, 1978, as to the replace-

ment of the grain chute to the outload holding

bin.

(b) At intervals of not more than six (6) months

29—318

—5—

from and after the Board Order herein, as

to the progress of and future plans for

accomplishing the conditions set out above.

9. Within 45 days after the date of this Board Order

herein the Petitioner shall execute and forward to

the Environmental Protection Agency, Division of

Noise Pollution Control, Enforcement Section,

2200 Churchill Road, Springfield 62706 a Certifi-

cation of Acceptance and Agreement to be bound to

all terms and conditions of the variance. This 45

day period shall be held in abeyance for any period

during which this matter is appealed. The form of

said Certification shall be as follows:

CERTIFICATION

I (We), 

_____________________

having read and fully under-

standing the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board in

PCB 77-335 hereby accepts said Order and agree to be bound by

all terms and conditions thereof.

Title

Date

*or other Agency approved chuting

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, hereby ce~tify the above Opinio~ and Order

were adopted on the ~

day

1978

by a vote of

____

Christan L. Moff   

lerk

Illinois Po1lution’~ntro1 Board

29 —3~~