ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
November
30,
1978
HOMER GRAIN COMPANY,
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 78—184
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
OPINION OF THE BOARD
(by Dr. Stachell):
This matter comes before the Board upon a variance petition
filed on July 13, 1978
requesting a continuation of its variance
from Rule 203(d) (9) (B)
of the Chapter
2:
Air Pollution Control
Regulations.
Previously Petitioner had been granted
a variance,
PCB 76—312,
25 PCB 39
(1977)
,
until October
1, 1978.
An amended
petition was filed on August
21,
1978.
The Environmental Pro-
tection Agency
(Agency)
filed its recommendation on October
10,
1978.
This Opinion is
in support of the Board Order
in this matter
passed on November 16,
1978.
Homer Grain Company’s facility,
Homer,
Illinois,
is engaged
in the receiving,
storing, cleaning, drying,
handling and shipping
of whole kernel grain.
The elevator employs twelve people with
an annual payroll
of $230,000 and purchases approximately
$350,000 worth of operating supplies
in Champaign County.
Approx-
imately 10,000,000 bushels are received and shipped every year.
The original variance
was granted to allow Petitioner time to
install certain air pollution control equipment.
This additional
variance
is required because Petitioner has not completed its
program.
Petitioner claims financial hardship due to the effect
of falling grain prices,
rising operating costs and inflation.
The Agency states that lack of timely compliance
is more likely
because Petitioner did not hire an engineering consultant to
handle the problem until February,
1978.
However,
the parties
do agree that the source
is currently unable to comply with the
Board’s Rules.
The facility has six dump pits for receiving grain.
Pits G-1
and G-2 have had dust pick-up installed
(which is beyond the
original compliance plan)
.
Pit C—i
is exempt from Rule 203(d) (9) (3)
because
its annual through-put
is less than 300,000 bushels.
Pit
B-2 has been brought into compliance by restricting its through-put
to 300,000 bushels or less annually.
On August 21,
1978 Petitioner
applied for construction permits for air pollution control systems
for the railroad load-out, conveyor D-l and dump pits B-i and B—3.
32—155
—2—
The Agency believes that these systems, if installed, will be
adequate to bring Petitioner into compliance with Rule 203(d)
(9) (B).
The Agency further states that it believes it is more
likely these systems will be installed and operational by June
30,
1979 if the schedule set out by Petitioner is approved.
Further-
more,
since controls were installed on the reversible belt and
the rack type grain dryers were replaced, the number of citizen
complaints concerning Petitioner’s operation have decreased
considerably.
Two former complainants contacted by the Agency
observed few dust problems from Homer Grain during the summer
of 1978;
one person did express concern over the potential for
dust problems during the 1978 harvest season.
Petitioner’s current compliance plan contains the following:
1.
Binding agreement to design modifications
as necessary
(Engineering consultants are E.A. Campbell
& Assoc.,
Inc.).
Complete
2.
Survey of all emission sources
to determine what can and
need be controlled.
Complete
3.
Preliminary design for dump pit dust control
(Pit B-i
and B-3).
o/b 7/31/78
4.
Compliance engendered on Pit B-2 via through-put
restriction.
Complete
5.
Construction permit application filed with EPA for all
additional systems
(DC-4,
5,
6,
7
&
8).
0/b 8/15/78
6.
DC—5 rail load-out preliminary design.
Complete
Solicit bids
6/15/78
Let contracts
7/15/78
Permit Applications
8/15/78
Construction complete
10/15/78
On line operation
10/31/78
7.
DC-4, Conveyor D-l
DC—8, Boot pit & basement
Preliminary Design
Complete
Permit Applications
8/15/78
Solicit Bids
9/15/78
Let Contracts
11/15/7 8
Construction complete
6/1/79
On line operation
6/30/79
32—156
—3—
The Agency recommends the grant of the variance.
The Board
will grant this variance.
Petitioner cannot currently comply
with the Regulations without undue hardship.
The Agency
recommends several variance conditions.
Several of these condi-
tions
are not consistent with Petitioner’s proposed compliance
plan.
In the earlier variance,
PCB 76-312, Petitioner had
proposed emission controls for
dump
pit 3—2.
Petitioner’s
current plan is to limit through-put to less than 300,000 bushels
which would exempt it from the Board
rules..
The Agency
feels
this is difficult to enforce and recommends Petitioner either be
required to seal off the grate area for dump pit 3-2 or install
emission controls,
Because of Petitioner’s cash flow problems
the Board will accept Petitioner’s method of compliance and will
not require different methods unless violations of the Act or
Regulations become apparent.
However, Petitioner will be re-
quired to make annual verification to the Agency of the grain
through-put of pit B-2.
The prior Board Order required emission controls to replace
the cyclones on top of the workhouse;
this has not been done.
Currently Petitioner’s engineering consultant indicates that
compliance can be achieved through
a maintainance and mal-
function program without replacing the existing workhouse
cyclones.
The Agency recommends that Petitioner be required
to verify the efficiency of the existing cyclones and that a
program to replace these cyclones be submitted if the existing
equipment is not adequate.
This condition will be required by
the Board.
Petitioner runs two grain cleaners which the Agency states
may need aspiration because of potential safety and housekeeping
problems.
If the grain cleaners are aspirated to existing dust
control equipment the Agency recommends Petitioner should be
required to verify
the
efficiency of the existing control
equipment and that a program to replace this equipment be sub-
mitted if the existing equipment is not adequate to meet the
requirements of Rule 203 (d) (9).
The Board finds that since this
is a potential problem,
not an existing one, that this Oondition
is inappropriate.
The Agency further recommended that another performance bond
of $100,000,
in addition to the one posted in PCB 76—312,
be
posted.
The Board will require a continuation of the bond posted
in PCB 76-312;
however, additional bond will not be required as
it
is not likely to serve
a useful purpose and would intensify
the cash flow problems.
In accordance with Section 35 of the Environmental Protection
Act, amended August
2,
1978 by P.A.
80-1299, the Board may grant
variances only
if they are consistent with the provisions
of the
32—157
—4—
Federal Clean Air Act.
In this case the variance must be
consistent with Section
113(d).
The Board believes the re-
quired conditions have or will be met.
The source is unable
to currently comply.
Notice and opportunity for public hearing
have been provided.
A compliance schedule
is provided.
Reason-
able and practicable interim controls must be provided along
with monitoring and reporting.
Compliance will be provided by
June 30,
1979.
Since Petitioner is a major source it is now
warned of its possible liability for noncompliance penalties
under Section
120 of the Clean Air Act.
Petitioner
is granted
a variance to June
30, 1979, subject to conditions.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s
findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
I, Christan L.
Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Bo~rd,hereby certify the above Opinion was adopted
on the
~‘~‘
day of
~
,
1978 by a vote
of ~—O
Christan L. Moff~t, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
32—
58