ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

September

16,

1971

CENTRAL SOYA COMPANY,

INC.

V.

)

#

PCB 71—163

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Walter

H.

Small

for Central Soya Company,

Inc.

John

S.

McCreery for

the Environmental Protection Agency

Opinion and Order of the Board

(by Mr.

Currie):

Central Soya Company,

Inc.

(“Petitioner”)

owns and operated

an agricultural processing

plant near Gibson City,

Illinois annually

processing millions

of

bushels

of soybeans,

and manufacturing

thousands

of

tons of livestock and poultry

feed, and edible proteins.

In

its variance petition of June

25,

1971, Petitioner stated that

its

facilities were presently being served by three coal fired

steam generating boiler units rated at 550 h.p.,

390 h.p.

and

200

h.p.

respectively;

that it had embarked on

a project to re-

place

the smallest boiler with

a new oil-fired boiler at

a total

cost of $367,500.00; that

if there had been

a violation of

applicable

air pollution regulations

at the facility, which Petitioner

later admitted

(R.

2),

it was

attributable

to the excessive demand

en the stream generating capacities

of the three boilers and the

age of the smallest boiler;

that Petitioner had recognized this

fact when it began

to “increase the capacity

of its manufacturing

facilities”

in

1970;

and that installation

of the new boiler would

be completed by October

15,

1971, but that Petitioner was requesting

a variance from Section 9(a)

of the Environmental Protection Act

and Rule 2~-2.53of the

Rules

and Regulations Governing the Control

of Air Pollution until November

1,

1971

to cover unforeseen delays.

The Agency brought out

the fact that although Petitioner had

submitted

a Letter of Intent

as early

as October

30,

1967,

and al—

though Petitioner had been requested on several occasions to submit

an Air Contaminant Emission Reduction Program

(“ACERP”)

,

as re—

quired by

law,

it had never done

so.

The company admitted that it

had no ACERP

(R.

2),

Furthermore,

the Agency

stated in

its

recommendation that

the pollution problems

at Petitioner~s

plant were not merely confined to the smallest boiler but were also

attributable

to Petitioner~swaste treatment lagoons

as

well as to

the other two boilers,~that there were,

in addition, dust

and odor

problems

and apparent Ringelmann violations on

numerous

occasions;

that,

in general, Petitioner had delayed almost three years

in

taking any steps whatsoever to begin controlling particulate emissions

2

—

473

---

from its stacks

and was,

even now, only attempting

to correct the

problems related to its smallest stack.

The Agency recommended

that the petition for Variance be denied or,

in the alternative,

that if granted,

it be subject to certain conditions enumerated

in the Recommendation.

Prior

to the hearing on the merits, Petitioner

and

the Agency stipulated

to and

agreed upon most of

the conditions

recommended by

the Agency

(B.

12),

including the submission of

programs

to control other pollution sources at the plant.

Such

programs should take

the form of variance petitions,

and additional

hearings will be scheduled

as necessary upon their receipt.

As

a result of the stipulation no witnesses were called,

and little

evidence was adduced

at the hearing.

Our order herein substantially

approves

the stipulation of the parties but contains additional

measures deemed appropriate by the Board in light of the facts

of this

case.

A denial of

the requested variance might result in

a severe

disruption to Petitioner~s operations

and might cause

the layoff

of some or all of the Petitioner~s 250 employees.

We do not believe

the

facts

of this case warrant such drastic action,

However,

the

Petitioner~s admitted and unexcused failure to file the required

ACERP and its long and unexplained delay

in beginning

its cleanup

operation cannot be overlooked.

As

in similar past cases we

condition the variance on payment of

a penalty in the amount of

$5000.

See,

e.g., M~rquetteCement

Co.

v.

EPA,

#

70—23

(Jan.

6,

1971)

.

Because less than one month remains until expiration of the

variance, we think it likely no bond could be filed in time

to do

any good and therefore will not require security.

ORDER

It

is

the order of the Pollution Control Board that:

Petitioner~s request for

a variance from Section

9(a)

of the

Environmental Protection Act and

Rules 2~-2.53and 3~-3.l22

of the Rules and Regulations Governing the Control of Air

Pollution

to operate the 200

h.p.

boiler presently in use

at

Petitioner~s Gibson City facilities

is hereby granted until

October 15,

1971 under the following

terms

and conditions.

1.

Petitioner shall pay to the State of Illinois, within

35 days

of the receipt of this order,

a monetary penalty of $5,000.00;

2.

Petitioner shall perform stack tests

on the two larger boilers

under

full load conditions when the

new oil~firedboiler

is

in

operation but

in no event later

than November

1,

1971,

and

if the stack tests reveal that emissions from said boilers

are in violation of law, Petitioner shall,

by

no later than

December

1,

1971 submit to the Pollution Control Board and

the Environmental Protection Agency, detailed plans

to control

particulate emissions

and to bring emissions from such boilers

into compliance with

law;

---

3.

On or before February

1,

1972, Petitioner

shall submit to

the Pollution Control Board

and the Environmental Protection

Agency

a program for

the control of sulfur dioxide including

a detailed explanation of the program and timetables for the

completion

of the program which shall be implemented by

no

later than June

1,

1974;

4.

Within thirty

(30)

days

of the receipt of this order,

Petitioner

shall submit to the Pollution Control Board and

the Environmental Protection Agency plans

for the control of

odors from its waste treatment plant,

including

a detailed

description and timetable

for

the installation of

any aerating

equipment

it proposes

to use

and control of hydrogen sulfide

emissions from the waste treatment lagoons,

all of said plans

to be implemented and completed by Petitioner within six

(6)

months after

the receipt of this order.

5.

Petitioner

shall submit to the Pollution Control Board

and

the Environmental Protection Agency

a detailed report

concerning the levels of emissions and plans

for the control

of excessive emissions from the following processes:

a)

Ingredient Hammermill Grinding.

b)

Calflac Equipment Aspiration.

Said reports and plans,

including specifications,

shall be

submitted within thirty

(30)

days of the receipt of this order

and shall be implemented and completed within six months

of the date hereof,

I, Regina

E.

Ryan, Clerk

of the Pollution Control Board,

certify

that the Board adopted the above Opinion

and Order this~

day of September

,

1971.