ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
October 1~. 1983
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY
)
)
Complainantr
)
)
PCB 79—26
)
CONTINENTAL GRAIN COMPANY
)
Respondent.
MR. GREIG R. SEIDOR, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON
BEHALF OF THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.
MR. ROY £4. HARSCH OF MARTIN, CRAIG, CHESTER R. SONNENSCHEIN
APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE CONTINENTAL GRAIN COMPANY.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by J. D. Dumelle)
This matter comes before the Board upon a February
5.
1979
complaint and a June 28, 1979 amended complaint filed by the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) alleging
certain violations of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act
(Act) in the operation of Continental Grain Company’s
(Continental’s) grain handling facility located on the
Mississippi River in East St. Louis. Hearings were held on
March 9 and on December 16, 1982. Depositions, which were later
admitted into evidence, were taken on March 9, 10 and 18. 1982.
The Agency’s closing brief was filed on March 2, 1983.
Continental’s closing brief was filed on June 8, 1983 and the
Agency’s reply brief was filed on July 5, 1983. The latter two
briefs were accompanied by motions to file instanter which are
hereby granted.
Continental is alleged to have violated Rule 203(d)(8)(B)(iv)
(c)(2) of Chapter 2~ Air Pollution (Watercraft Loading Rule),
Section 9(a) and (b) of the Act and Rule 103(b)(2) of Chapter 2
for operating without a permit. Both parties agree. as stated in
the Agency’s opening remarks that “the only issue remaining is
the question of what should the company (Continentall have done,
when should it have done it and to what extent the company should
be penalized for its failure to come into compliance” (3/9/82
R.5).* The only penalty requested is monetary (3/9/82 R.7).
W~áü~ófthe ~ThIquedeveT~ments in this case, including the
illness of both the hearing officer, who was ultimately replaced,
54-215
2
Continental contends, briefly, that it is not suh~ectto the
Watercraft Loading Rules because its East St. Louis elevator was
an existing elevator not located in a ma’~orpopulation area and,
therefore, was exempted from coverage, However, the Board,
today. has held in a related permit appeal action (PCB 79—167)
that the facility was not in fact, exempted.
Continental contends further that it has participated in the
development of technology to control watercraft loading
emissions. that by the time of filing of the complaint in this
matter it had been engaged for nearly a year in a ma~iorproject
to attain compliance, and that it carried out the project in “an
extremely timely, efficient manner” (Cont. Br. p.3). Continental
has now installed pollution control equipment using aspiration at
the end of the loading spout (Cont. Ex.20, p.2) and has received
the required permits.
Continental’s East St. Louis elevator was built in two
phases with the old house (A house) having been constructed in
the 1920’s and the new house (B house) having been built in the
1950’s (Gibson P. 13), The East St. Louis elevator is part of
Continental’s Midsouth Region which has two export terminals
located at West Weigo and Reserve. Louisiana which are fed grain
by 23 interior elevators (12/16/82 R. 20). Due to its location
on the Mississippi River near highway and rail transportation.
the East St. Louis elevator is considered by Continental to be
its most important facility (12/16/82 R.23). Its operation is
of great importance to Continental during the winter months when
the Illinois River freezes as does the Mississippi River above
St. Louis. thereby eliminating the possibility of barge use
(12/16/82 R. 23). During such periods the East St. Louis
elevator is the northern most grain elevator located on the
Mississippi River which can ship qrain by barge (Gibson p. 56).
The elevator normally draws grain from a 150 mile radius
extending out into both Illinois and Missouri (Gibson p.40), and
has had an annual grain throughput of approximately 35 million
bushels per year. Between 25 and 50 people are employed at the
elevator on a seasonal basis on a two shift per day schedule
(Gibson p. 9).
~
fEg transcri~Econ~its of the hearing
transcripts of March 9 and 10 and December 16. 1982, as well as
evidence depositions of Mr. Artis Talley and Mr. Jerry Gibson of
March 9 and March 18, 1982, respectively, and a deposition of Mr.
Hendrick Hartsuiker which was taken sometime in November,. 1982.
Transcript citations will include the date of the transcript,
followed by “R.~and the page number of the referenced
transcript. Evidence depositions will be cited using the last
name of the deponent followed by the page number.
54-216
3
The existing watercraft loading dock was located approxi-
mately 700 feet west of the A and B houses (Gibson p. 14). Grain
was moved from the elevator to the existing loading docks via a
conveyor belt which was elevated above the street. railroad
tracks and Mississippi levee, Photograph #5 from Continental
Exhibit 33 shows the old conveyor to the left of the new
conveyor. Grain was discharged from the belt into a telescoping,
inclined barge loading spout (Gibson p. 29). The then—existing
spout, shown in Photograph #11 of Continental Exhibit 33, loaded
barges at an average rate of approximately 10,000 to 12,000
bushels per hour (Hartsuiker p. 94), The then—existing loading
dock and tower were supported on four concrete pilings (Photo #3
of Cont. Ex, 33).
In order to achieve compliance with the Watercraft Loading
Rules, Continental replaced the entire loading system at a cost
of approximately $7 million (Hartsuiker p. 64). In addition,
Continental replaced its barge haul system at an additional cost
of approximately $250,000 (Hartsuiker p. 53). The new watercraft
loading system involved the installation of a vertical spout
equipped with aspiration at the tip using a Midwest Loader (Cont.
Ex. 41, Hartsuiker p. 83), The new and old systems are shown in
Photographs 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 of Continental Exhibit 33.
Continental applied for a construction permit to install the
Midwest Loader on June 19, 1979 and was issued a construction
permit on August 30, 1979 (Cont. EX~S 25 and 26), On May 28, 181
Continental was issued an operating permit for a Midwest Loader
(Cont. Ex. 27),
BACKGROUND OF GRAIN HANDLING RULES
In order to understand the allegations made by the Agency it
is useful to review the background to Air Rule 203(d)
(8)(B)(iv)(c)(2). In December, 1972, the Board opened docket
R72—18 to consider the imposition of grain—loading rules (WIn the
Matter of: Amendments to Chapter 2, Air Pollution Regulations
for Grain-Handling and Grain-Drying Operations~’). The Illinois
Feed and Grain Association, of which Continental was (and is) a
member, participated fully in the development of the final
regulatory product (see the Board~sOpinion of June 13, 1975, 17
PCB 355). In that proceeding, the Board adopted the Watercraft
Loading Rules pertinent to this case.
The Board established in ~ir Rule 203(d) (8)(B) (iv) (1) two
classes of watercraft grain—loading facilities’ (1) those which
either loaded 2 million bushels of grain per year or less or were
located outside a ~‘maiorpopulation area~ (as that term was
defined in Air Rule 201), and (2) those which both loaded in
excess of 2 million bushels per year and were situated within a
major population area. In the latter case, covered by Rule
203(d)(8)(B)(iv)(c)(2), the Board required capture of
particulate emissions occurring in grain—loading of watercraft
through an “induced draft air stream” with 98 removal efficiency;
54~217
4
in the former, the efficiency demanded was only 90. Since
Continental’s East St. Louis facility met both criteria of the
more restrictive rule, it was required, as of April 30, 1977 (Air
Rule 203(d)(8)(J)), to comply with this 98 removal efficiency.
THE PERIOD OF NON-COMPLIANCE
Continental now possesses all of the required permits and
has installed and is operating all of its required pollution
control equipment. An operating permit for watercraft loading
was issued on May 28, 1981 (Cent. Ex. 27). However, Continental
was not in compliance from April 30, 1977 (when the rules became
effective) until May 28, 1981.
In the fall of 1976, Continental submitted an operating
permit application to the Agency for the entire grain—receiving,
storing and loading facility (Cont. Ex, 1). That application
was denied on October 21, 1976 because the truck dump, internal
grain transferring equiment, screening and cleaning equipment,
and grain load-out operations did not comply with Rule
203(d)(9)(B) (Cent. Ex. 1). On December 16, 1976, Tom Marlow,
then Continental’s engineer for the Mid—South region (which
includes East St. Louis), wrote to Keith Conklin, Manager of the
Air Permits section at the Agency, concerning the barge loading
situation, and requesting a meeting (Cent. Ex. 2).
That meeting, the first of six meetings Continental
representatives had with Agency personnel regarding permits
for the East St. Louis facility, took place on January 21, 1977.
The Company was represented by Mr. Marlow, Tom O’Laughlin, then
superintendent of the East St. Louis Operation, and Stanley
Gasawski (3/9/82 R. 12 and 12/16/82 R. 130), Mr. Conklin
and Walter Franke, the Agency’s Air Pollution Division regional
manager, discussed the pertinent regulations, the reasons why
Continental’s permit application had been denied, and
Continental’s inability to meet the new standards (12/16/82 R. 29,
3/9/82 R. 17 and Cent. Ex.
2).
The Agency advised that this prob-
lem could be met if Continental received a variance for barge
loading emission control equipment (Agency Ex. 1 and Cont. Ex. 3).
A second meeting occurred on March 24, 1977, at which
Continental representatives included its attorneys. Continental
had, apparently, ruled out pursuing a variance, but agreed to
submit permit applications for those separate units at the
facility which satisfied the new air regulations (Agency Ex. 2
and Cont. Ex. 4). Although Continental asserted emission
controls for barge loading were technically not feasible, the
Agency staff suggested that Continental view the Peavey grain—
loading facility in Alton, Illinois, which had some emission
controls for barge loading and had been permitted in 1975
(Agency Ex. 2, Cont. Ex. 4 and 3/9/82 R. 20).
54-218
5
On March 30, 1977 Mr. Marlow wrote to the head of Continental’s
engineering department in New York, Max Spencer. recommending
that Continental “defer” any further mention of the barge
loading permit situation “at some risk of citation.” He
observed further that “barge loadout, of course, is an
area which can be very costly if full control is required.
(Token control mentioned above could probably he done for
$50,000 in duct work.)” (Cont. Fx. 4).
A third meeting took place in May, 1977, at which Mr. Franke
and Mr. Otis Banes, an inspector working under Mr. Franke, went
over the Agency permit engineer’s notes with Mr. Marlow and
Mr. O’Laughlin (3/9/82 R. 21). The Agency personnel indicated
specifically which sources could he permitted and asked Continen-
tal for a written compliance program for the remaining emission
sources. Continental agreed to provide such a written program
within three weeks, but failed to provide the program within that
period (3/9/82 R. 21—22 and Agency Ex. 5).
Mr. Franke and Mr. Banes next met with Mr. Marlow and
Mr. Gasawski on August 24, 1977 (3/9/82 R. 22—23 and Agency
Ex. 3). This meeting concerned Continenta.’s compliance
plan for the as—yet unpermitted emission sources, which plan
was rejected by Mr. Franke on the grounds that compliance
would take too long to accomplish (3/9/82 R. 24), Mr. Marlow
agreed to shorten the timetable, but did not make any commitment
as to when Continental would come into compliance with respect
to the barge loading system (3/9/82 R. 24—25).
Mr. Marlow presented the reworked compliance plan at the
fifth meeting, held on September 27. 177 (Agency Ex. 4).
Mr. Marlow, Mr. Franke and Mr. Banes attended. The compliance
plan (Cont. Ex. 8) spelled out in detail Continental’s plans for
bringing three of the particulate sources at the facility into
compliance. With respect to barge loading, Continental stated
it was “hopeful” of presenting “a solution W/Schedule” to
the Agency by March 1. 1978. Mr. Franke responded that it would
be acceptable for Continental to bring the other sources into
compliance in phases, rather than all at once. in part so as
to relieve some of the financial burden on the company (3/9/82
R. 27).
The phases involved installing dust control on rail load—
out, rail hopper car unloading pits, dust control on dust
loadout tanks, truck dump pit dust control, replacement of
existing cyclones with bag houses which control aspirated
internal transfer points, as well as watercraft loading
(3/9/82 R. 42). The phased compliance program included a
general commitment for developing control strategies and their
implementation for the barge loadout, truck dust loadout and
truck unloading (3/9/82 R. 44).
54-219
6
Continental, however, did not submit any written compliance
plan for the barge loading source by March 1, 1978, and at the
sixth meeting on March 14. 1978, Mr. Marlow stated that there was
still no written compliance program for barge loading. hut that
Continental intended to submit a construction permit application
on April 15, 1978 for barge load—out (3/9/82 R. 28-29) which
would propose controls at the conveyor belt discharge points and
the top of the barge loading spout, but not the bottom of that
spout (Cont. Ex. 12). Mr. Franke said that he doubted that the
Agency would find this application acceptable, but that
Continental should forward the permit application to the Agency’s
Air Permit section for its review (Cont. Ex. 12, 13 and 3/9/82 R.
48—5). That construction permit was submitted on May 16, 1978
(Resp. Ex. 18), and was denied on June 16, 1978 on the basis that
no aspiration or equivalent control was provided at the loading
spout tip (Cont. Ex. 19).
In April, 1978, Continental hired Mr. Robert Pacquer, an
engineering consultant, to evaluate various methods of complying
with the Watercraft Loading Rule (12/16/82 R. 150). Beginning in
June,. 1978. and continuing through most of 1979, Mr. Pacquer and
various Continental personnel, including Mr. Hendrik Hartsuiker,
Manager of Engineering; Mr. Jerry Gibson, the superintendent of
the East St. Louis facility; Mr. Marlow; and his successor as
regional engineer~ Mr. Richard Tohetz, developed plans for
substantial modifications to the entire facility (12/16/82 R. 122
and 124), including an, as yet unimplemented, plan to expand the
facility from its present 35 to 50 million bushels per day. The
loading spout tip emissions were to he controlled through a Midwest
Loader, a device installed on the end of the loading spout employ-
ing aspiration for grain dust control (Agency Fix. 8; Hartsuiker
p. 47—48).
The Agency issued a construction permit for the work on
June 20, 1979, bids were first requested in December,. 1979. a
contract was awarded on March 20, 1980. construction was
completed in mid—1981, and an operating permit was issued by the
Agency of July 23, 1981 (Flartsuiker pp. 50—61).
EXISTENCE OF CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
Continental argues that as of the effective date of the
Watercraft Loading Rules, technology had not developed to the
point where it was feasible to apply aspiration on existing
inclined loading spouts. However, that argument is unpersuasive
in that eventual compliance was achieved through the use of a
Midwest Loader on a newly constructed vertical dron spout rather
than on its existing inclined spout (see Agency Ex. 8).
Continental elected to install a Midwest Loader in a June,
1978, meeting attended by Continental engineering and operations
personnel and Mr. Pacquer, who had been hired by Continental
54-220
7
two months earlier to help Continental comply with the Watercraft
Loading Rule (Hartsuiker R. 47—48 12/16/82 R.150). Mr. Pacquer
had been in touch with the manufacturer of the Midwest Loader
prior to the June, 1978 meeting (Partsuiker R. 47), and 20
months earlier the manufacturer of the Midwest Loader had mailed
a document detailing various versions of the Midwest Loader,
including two for barge loading, to various “environmental
personnel” (Agency Ex. 8). That document indicates that the
Midwest Loader was available for purchase as of October 11, 1976.
Further, Continental worked on installation of aspiration at
the tip of the loading spout at its Port of Tacoma facility
beginning in early 1973 (Cont. Ex. 36). It installed a similar
piece of equipment at its West Wiego export elevator and at its
Evansville grain loading site (Hartsuiker R. 20~90 and 108—113).
Engineering work at Evansville began in January. 1977
(12/16/82 R. 263).
Aspiration as a means of controlling dust in grain trans-
ferring operations, according to Continental’s own former
regional engineer, has been used for 80 to 90 years (12/16/82
R. 223 and 225), and application of this method for dust control
in grain loading has occurred in the last seven to ten years
(12/16/82 H. 226).
Finally, representatives of the Illinois Feed and Grain
Association (of which Continental is a member) viewed a Midwest
Loader being used for watercraft loading in Minnesota on May 3—4,
1977 (Cont. Ex’s 7 and 40; 12/16/82 R. 65 and 105—107). Attached
to Continental’s Exhibit 40 is a letter dated June 17.. 1976 from
H. A. Campbell, an engineer, stating that he believed the Midwest
Loader design “can totally eliminate the dust normally associated
with grain load out operations.”
Based on these facts, the Board finds that the technology
for aspiration at the tip of a vertical drop spout existed as
early as October of 1976 and that control technology was.
therefore, available to Continental at that time. While the
Board recognizes that there may have been no acceptable tech-
nology in use in Illinois on inclined loading spouts as of
January 24,. 1978 (Cont. Ex. 42) and that the Agency was unaware
of any means to add aspiration to the tip of existing inclined
spouts as of May. 1q78 (Hartsuiker p. 30), there is no evidence
in the record demonstrating that Continental could not have
proceeded with construction of its present facilities beginning
as early as the start of 1977.
54-221
8
FINL)ING OF VIOLATION
Count I of the amended complaint alleges violation of
Rule 203(d)(8)(B)(iv)(c)(2) and Section 9(a) of the Act,
in that Continental failed to have the required pollution
control equipment for removal of particulate emissions generated
in the loading of barges. Count tI alleges that Continental
operated its East St. Louis facility without an operating
permit in violation of Rule 103(b)(2) and Section 9(b) of
the Act.
Continental presented no evidence demonstrating that it
had the proper permits or emission controls under the Watercraft
Loading Rule. While it did argue that it was not covered under
that rule, as noted above, the Board has rejected that contention.
Continental also argues, albeit briefly, that the Agency
“accepted” its compliance schedule and cannot now prosecute
this case, arguing, in effect, that the Agency granted some
form of an informal variance, or that the Agency is estopped
by its “acceptance”. The Board, not the Agency, has the power
to grant variances and the “acceptance” of a compliance plan,
under the circumstances of this case, where Continental failed
to comply with that plan, cannot rise to the level of estoppel.
Therefore, the Board finds that Continental has violated
Rules 103(b) and 203(d)(8)(B)(iv)(c)(2) of Chapter 2: Air Pollution,
and Section 9(a) and 9(b) of the Act during the time periods
alleged.
PENALTY
Having found a violation, the Board is required to consider
“the facts and circumstances bearing upon the reasonableness
of the emissions” pursuant to Section 33(c) of the Act.
First, little evidence was presented regarding injury
to “the health, general welfare and physical property of the
people” (Section 33(c)(1) of the Act). As detailed more fully
below, Continental’s East St. Louis facility is located in a
relatively isolated area. Continental’s regional manager,
Mr. Fisher; the elevator manager, Mr. Gibson; the special
assistant to the Mayor of East St. Louis, and Mr. Talley,
each testified that they were unaware of any complaints
having been made regarding dust emissions from the facility
(12/16/82 H. 46, Gibson p. 47, Talley p. 15). Further,
emissions occur at a low point relative to the surrounding
terrain since they are at river level (12/16/82 H. 166).
Therefore, the Board finds that there has been little or
no injury to the health, general welfare or physical property
of the people.
54-222
9
Second, the East St. Louis elevator has an unquestioned
social and economic value in that it is a major grain market for
the St. Louis area, and shutting down the East St. Louis elevator
would have a significant impact on farm economy in the area
(12/16/82 R. 54). Continental is one of the few major employers
left in East St. Louis (12/16/82 R. 59), adds appreciably to East
St. Louis’ assessed valuation, and contributes to the City’s
economy through utility taxes and employment (Talley pp. 8 and 20).
Third, the elevator (which was originally constructed over
60 years ago) is well suited to its location on the banks of the
Mississippi River where it can load barges and adjacent to a
complex rail and highway system to aid in the receipt of grain.
The elevator is located in an isolated area that is approximately
1½ miles from the City of East St. Louis (Talley p. 15 and Cont.
Ex. 34). A railroad owns all of the property surrounding the
elevator including to the immediate south an abandoned railroad
warehouse (Gibson p. 17), Farther south is a rail car repair
facility, the terminal railroad ship yard, an abandoned vacant
landfill, and another barge loading dock. The elevator and the
land surrounding it is physically separated from the City of East
St. Louis by an elevated highway system (Gibson p. 21 and
12/16/82 R. 169). There are no residents between the elevator
and these elevated highways (Gibson p. 21).
Fourth, Continental has demonstrated that it is technically
feasible to comply with the Watercraft Loading Rule by replacing
an existing inclined telescoping spout with a new watercraft
loading dock employing a vertical drop Midwest Loading spout.
While the record also demonstrates that it was not technically
feasible at the time Continental began its compliance program to
install aspiration at the tip of a telescoping inclined
watercraft loading spout, that is irrelevant except as to
economic reasonableness.
Continental spent approximately $7 million in order to
comply with the watercraft loading emission rule, The elevator
was a 35 million bushel per year elevator before Continental’s
renovation program and remains such today.. Approximately 2—½
years of construction and
$4½
million would be needed to upgrade
the elevator to increase its capacity to 50 million bushels per
year (Hartsuiker p. 122). The fact that Continental has
completed the system shows that compliance was economically
feasible, although expensive. The fact that these improvements
could ultimately result in increased throughput, thus resulting
in an economic benefit, further supports the economic reasonable-
ness. Thus, the Board finds that compliance was both technolog-
ically feasible and economically reasonable.
54-223
10
Continental argues that the imposition of any penalty would
he contrary to the Act in that it would be punitive and would not
aid in the enforcement of the Act see C~y~of Monmouth v. PCB,
57 Ill. 2nd 482 arid 490, 33 N. E. 2nd 161 (1974)1. While it is
true that the Board need not impose a penalty whenever a
violation is found Metropplitan Sanita~ District v. PCB, 62
Ill. 2nd 38 and 45, 338 N. H. 2nd 392 (1975) and. Southern
iUinois_~halt v. PCB, 60 Ill. 2nd 204 and 207, 326 N. F.. 2nd
406 and 408 (1975), the Board concludes that a penalty is
~iustifiedin this case despite present compliance in that “the
assessment of penalties is appropriatel against recalcitrant
defendants who have not sought to comply with the Act voluntarily
but who have by their activities forced the Agency or private
citizens to bring action against them may cause other violaters
sic to act promptly and not wait for the prodding of the
Agency” Fry Roofing Co. v. PCB, Ill. App. 3d, at 419. The
record here demonstrates that Continental’s refusal to obey the
watercraft loading rule made Agency enforcement action necessary.
The effectiveness of the Act is premised upon voluntary
compliance in that neither the Board nor the Agency has the
resources to “force” all dischargers into compliance through the
enforcement mechanism. The Board, further, is committed to the
attainment of universal compliance as soon as is reasonable. It
is unlikely that the goal will he reached if polluters learn that
no adverse consequences and, indeed, positive economic consequences.
may flow from delay.
Continental offered considerable evidence showing that its
efforts to comply with the Watercraft Loading Rule after
June, 1978 were timely and expeditious (see e.ci. 12/16/82 P..
158—160). This evidence however, fails to address Continental’s
recalcitrance in complying with that rule from the time it was
enacted (June 13, 1975), through the time it became effective
(April 30, 1977), to the time the Agency sent its Notice of
Violation to Continental (April 10. 1978).
Taking the view most favorable to Continental, that time was
spent in an unsuccessful attempt to develop or discover a control
program compatible with its existing equiprnent.* However,
nothing in the Watercraft Loading Rule exempts dischargers who
cannot control their emissions using existing equipment, and Conti-
nental never attempted to prove arbitrary or unreasonable hard-
ship through a variance petition. Continental had been on notice
since June 13, 1975 that it would be expected to comply with the
rule by April 30, 1977. The Board has found that the technoloqy
*The Board finds no merit in Continental’s argument that the
delay was occasioned, in part. by possible eminent domain
proceedings on the part of the City of East St. Louis; such
action appears to have been highly speculative at best and
Continental would assumedly have been recompensed ‘for any
improvements.
54-224
11
ultimately used to attain compliance was available by that date~
and as of that date Continental should have ~ither come into com-
pliance or obtained a variance. However, it did neither. Conti-
nental has not established that compliance could not have been
attained seventeen months earlier than it was (February 1980) by
commencing its 37—month control program in January. 1~77.*
The Agency argues that “at the interest rates in effect
during these periods, Continental’s recalcitrance saved it
hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars” and that “it
must not he allowed to profit from its disobedience of the law”
(Ag. Brief p. 24). It does not, however, recommend a particular
penalty.
The Agency’s argument is overly simplistic in that it
ignores the Section 33(c) factors, Continental’s early attempts
to retrofit, and the fact that delay also results in construction
cost increases. Given the lack of harm. the suitability of the
site, the social and economic value of the site, and the fact that
considerable new construction had to he completed at a cost of
$7 million in order to install effective controls, a penalty of
hundreds of thousands of dollars is not ~iustifled. On the other
hand, the corporate attitude expressed through slow action toward
compliance and the concomitant disregard of environmental rules is
in aggravation. Continental should have come into timely compli-
ance or received a variance or regulatory change, but did not.
Upon full consideration of all of these issues. the Board finds
that a penalty of $10,000 is appropriate.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
1. The Board finds that the Continental Grain
Company has violated Rules 103(h) (2) and
203(d)(8)(B)(iv)(c)(2) of Chapter 2~
Air Pollution, and Sections 9(a) and (h)
of the Environmental Protection Act.
~
~5~Tff~7une.
1978 to July. 1981). As the Agency as shown, it could have begun
work in January, 1q77, by which date it knew of the Midwest
Loader and could have made the decision to proceed. This 17
month calculation does not take into account the six to eight
weeks added to construction because Continental souqht to remain
open during construction (~artsuiker B. 78-79).
54-225
12
2. The Continental Grain Company shall, within
45 days of the date of this Order, pay a
penalty of $10,000 by certified check or money
order payable to the State of Illinois, to be
sent to:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Fiscal Services Division
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, IL 62706
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby certify that th above Order was
adopted on the
/q71
day of
‘
,
1983
byavoteof ~-O
.
3i~~
Christan L. M~f(~tt,
~
Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
54-226
