ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

May

1,

1980

r4IS:;TS~T1~PT RIVER

GRAIN

ELRVATOR,

INC.

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB

80-19

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY,

Respondent.

OPINION

AND

ORDER

OF

THE

BOARD

(by

Dr.

Satchell):

This

matter

comes

before

the

Board

upon

a

petition

for

variance

and

amended

petition

filed

January

24

and

February

11,

1980

by

Mississippi

River

Grain

Elevator,

Inc.

The

petition

requests

for

particulate emissions from

a watercraft grain loading facility a

variance from Rules

103(b),

203(d) (8) (B) (ii)

and 203(d) (8) (B) (iv)

of Chapter 2:

Air Pollution Control Regulations*

(Chapter 2).

On

March 28,

1980 the Environmental Protection Agency

(Agency) recom-

mended denial of the variance.

No hearing has been held and no

public comment has been received by the Board.

Petitioner operates a facility for grain handlina and barge

loadout at

109 Front Street, Pekin, Tazewell County.

The facility

has a throughput of seven or eight million bushels

(178,000 or

203,000 metric tons)

of corn and soybeans per year

(Pet.

3,

Rec.

1).

It

is capable of loading watercraft at a rate of 40,000 bushels per

hour

(1000 metric tons/hr).

The facility presently operates a

cyclone havin~an efficiency of 92.3

at its truck dump pit.

There

are no controls at the barge

loadout

(Rec.

2)

.

There are no emission

sources except the dump pit and loadout

(Pet.

2).

Petitioner does not have an operating permit

for the facility.

An application for construction and operating Permits was denied on

August

24,

1979

(Pet.

Ex.

D; Rec.

3).

The denial letter cited viola-

tions

of Rule 203(d) (9) (B) (ii) (a) (1)

and

(a) (3)

and Rule

203(d) (9)

(D) (iv) (c) (2)

of Chapter

2

(Pet.

Ex.

D)

.

Rule 203(d) (8) (B) (ii) (a)

requires in the dump ~it

a minimum face velocity at the effective

grate surface of at least 200 fpm and an overall rated and actual

particulate collection efficiency of

98.

Rule 203(d) (8) (B) (iv) (c)

(2) requires an induced draft system with 98

efficiency at water-

craft loading spouts.

*The petition actually referred to Rules 203(D) (9) (B) (ii)

and

(iv)

,

however,

Rule 203(d) (9) has recently been renumbered and is

now Rule 203(d) (8).

---

Petitioner has attached descriptions

of ecruiprnent it proposes

to install

to come into compliance

(Pet.

3,

x.

E,

F).

Compliance

is expected by January

15,

1981

(Pet.

4).

The Agency has offered

no comment as to whether it believes Petitioner will achieve com-

pliance.

Petitioner states that 10 to 20 pounds

(5 to 10 kg)

of grain

dust are emitted daily.

Petitioner states that the grain dust has

no adverse effect

(Pet.

3)

.

The Agency calculates particulate

emissions of 125.9 tons per year or 690 pounds per day

(310 kg/day)

(Rec.

2)

.

The Agency does not indicate whether this

is a significant

source or whether it contributes to air quality violations.

Pekin

is in

a non—attainment area

for particulates.

The

nearest air quality monitoring station is at 531 Court Street in

Pekin.

It is not clear from data presented by the Agency whether

the primary ambient

air

quality

standards

for

total

suspended

partic-

ulates

are

met

(Rec.

3)

On

February

5,

1980

the

Agency

conducted

an

informal

survey

of residents

in the vicinity of Petitioner’s

facility.

Although

four residents had no objection to this variance,

two reported

breathing difficulty and eye irritation when exposed to dust which

they believed came from Petitioner’s facility

(Rec.

5).

The Agency complains that Petitioner has offered no air quality

data or modeling

in its petition

(Rec.

3).

However, the Agency cites

no regulations which require numerical air quality data or modeling.

The recently adopted Procedural Rule 401(d) was not intended to in-

crease the burden of proof on variance petitioners

(R79-9,

35 PCB 433,

September 20,

1979;

36 PCB 209, November 29,

1979).

Petitioner

states that the emissions have no adverse effect and that there

is

no need to submit the variance to the United States Environmental

Protection Agency

as

a revision to the Illinois State Implementation

Plan

(Pet.

3;

Amended Pet.).

Even though,

as the Agency points out,

these are unsubstantiated conclusions,

they are entitled to some

weight

in a decision on the pleadings.

Against Petitioner’s asser-

tion the Agency has offered an equally unsubstantiated conclusion

that the Administrator could not approve the variance as

an amendment

to the State Implementation plan and has not stated unequivocally

whether or not the variance will prevent attainment.

The Board finds

that Petitioner has met its burden of proof.

Petitioner states that due to the unique,

custom design of

its barge loadout system it has contacted the engineering firm of

G.E.M.

in Rotterdam.

It is formulating a spout design which may be

better than those which have been installed in other facilities

in

---

—3—

Pekin

(Pet.

1)

.

Petitioner expects to he able to submit a permit

application

by

July

15,

1980

(Rec.

3)

.

Petitioner has a compliance

i

1)

wli

I cli

Hie

Aqency

1ia~-~

exprnssed

no

objection.

The

Board

I

ii

I

r’’(

in

i r

ii’

mme( Ii aLe

comp

I

1

ance

WOU

1(1 impose an arbitrary

arid

UIi

rO~UOnabiC’

hard~h

ij)

Ori

P0t

LtOflOr.

Petitioner

has

requested

a

variance

from

Rule

103(b)

of

Chapter

2.

The

Board

does

not

favor

grant

of

variances

from

the

permit requirement itself.

Petitioner will be required as

a condi-

tion of this variance to make a new application for an operating

permit for the facility following grant of this variance.

As

a condition of this variance the Board will require that

Petitioner with its existing equipment take all reasonable steps

to minimize its particulate emissions during the term of this

variance, including not remixing dust with grain.

This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and

conclusions of law in this matter.

ORDER

I

i

~nn

r

~‘1

i

i

pp

i

B

I

V(’

r

Gra

i

Bi

(‘Va

I or,

T

nc.

i

~

qran

ed

a

variance

for

I. Ln

wnLercraii

qr;ii.n

ioahnq

Inc

i

1

i l:y

in

Pekin

from

Rules

203(d)

(8)

(B)

(ii)

and

203(d)

(8)

(B)

(iv)

of

Chapter

2;

Air

Pollution

Control

Regulations,

subject to the following conditions:

1.

This

variance

will

expire

on

January

15,

1981.

2.

Petitioner

shall

take

all

reasonable measures with its

existing equipment to minimize its particulate emissions.

Petitioner shall not remix grain dust with grain.

3.

Within thirty-five days of the date of this Order Peti-

tioner shall apply to the Environmental Protection Agency

for an operating permit for the facility.

4.

On or before July

15, 1980 Petitioner

shall apply to the

Environmental Protection Agency

for a construction permit

for emission control equipment for its truck dump area

and watercraft loading spout.

5.

Within forty-five days of the date of this Order, Peti-

tioner shall execute and forward to the Illinois Environ—

mental Protection Agency, Variance Section, 2200 Churchill

Road,

Springfield, Illinois

62706, a Certificate of

Acceptance and Agreement to be bound to all terms and

conditions

of this variance.

This

forty—five day period

shall

be held in abeyance for any period this matter is

being apuealed.

The form of the certificate shall be as

follows:

---

—4—

CERTIFICATION

I,

(We),

_____________________,

having read

and fully understanding the Order in PCB 80-19, hereby

accept that Order and agree to be hound by all of its

terms and conditions.

IT

IS

SO

ORDERED

SIGNED

TITLE

DATE

I,

Christan

L.

Moffett,

Clerk

of

the

Illinois

Control Board,

hereby certify the above Ooinion and

~opted

on the

J~

day of

______________,

1980 by

‘0

Pollution

Order were

a vote of

Christan

L. Moff~

Clerk

Illinois

Pollutio

ontrol

Board