ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
December
6,
1984
tLLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Complainant,
PCB 84—21
~JARDCROP SERVICE, INC.,
)
an Illinois corporation,
Respondent.
hR.
JAMES
L. MORGAN,
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY
GENERAL,
APPEARED ON
13E~IALF OF
THE COMPLAINANT.
MARTIN, CRAIG, CHESTER & SONNENSCHEIN
(MR. NEIL
F.
FLYNN, OF
COUNSEL) APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by W.
J.
Nega):
This matter comes before the Board on a February 16,
1984
Complaint filed by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency).
Count
I of the Complaint alleged that the Respondent caused
or allowed air pollution by causing the emission of particulate
matter during
its corncob loading and storage operations
in
sur~h
quantities
so as to unreasonably interfere with the use of
property adjacent to its facility in violation of Rule 102 of
Chapter
2: Air Pollution Regulations
(35 Ill. Adm. Code 201.141)
and Section 9(a)
of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act
(Act).
Count II alleged that the Respondent caused noise pollution
by allowing its corncob loading device to emit sounds beyond the
boundaries of
its facility which unreasonably interfered with the
enjoymen.t of property adjacent to the facility in violation of
Rule 102 of Chapter
8: Noise Pollution
(35 Ill. Mm.
Code 900.102)
and Section 24 of the Act.
Count
III
alleged that the Respondent caused or allowed the
emission
of
sound during daytime hours from its property—line—
noise—source located on Class
C
(agriculture—related)
land to
receiving Class A (residential)
land which exceeded allowable
~1qA1
—2--
octave hand sound pressure levels
in violation of Rile 202 of
Chapter 8~Noise Pollution
(35
111. Mm.
Code 901.102(a))
and
Section 24 of the Act.
A hearing
was
held on September 25,
1984.
The parties filed
a Stipulation and Proposal
for Settlement on October
18,
1984.
The proposed settlement agreement resolved
all
issues
in
t~hiscase except with regard to the issue of
an appropriate
penalty to be imposed by the Board.
The Agency has asserted that
a penalty of at least $3,500.00 is warranted in this case,
while
the Respondent has stated that it believes that no penalty is
appropriate
in light of the unique circumstances involved here.
(R.
8—12).
Thus,
the penalty issue was left open for Board
determination.
The Respondent, Ward Crop Services,
Inc.
(WCS),
is
art
Illinois corporation run by its President and Chief Executive
Officer, Mr. Everett L. Ward.
From 1975 until
1983,
the
Respondent operated a corncob storage and loading facility
(facility)
in Blandinsville, McDonough County,
Illinois,
The
ViJlage
of Blandineville has an approximate population of 900
people.
Operations at WCS’s corncob facility were discontinued
in November,
1983.
(Stip,
10).
WCS’s facility, which
is along and adjacent to the only
railroad siding
in Blandinsville,
is located
on
an
irregularly
shaped,
.34 acre
of land which is leased from the Atchison,
Topeka
& Santa Fe Railway Company and was previously leased from
the Toledo,
Peoria
& Western Railroad Company.
(Stip.
2).
There are various other businesses located in the immediate
vicinity of the Respondent’s facility (i.e., within about one
mile along the railroad track adjacent to the facility) including
a lumber
yard, three
grain elevators,
two fertilizer storage
facilities,
a bulk fuel
storage plant,
a construction company,
a
propane plant,
a hog buying station,
and an automobile salvage
operation.
(Stip,
2;
see: Exhibit 1).
Additionally, there are
four residential properties located
in the area,
including three
frame houses (which are located across the railroad tracks about
100 feet from the WCS facility)
and
a mobile home which is located
on
a piece
of property immediately next to the Respondent’s
facility.
(Stip.
2—3;
see: Exhibit 2).
These various land uses
exist contemporaneously because
of the nature of the comtminity
and the fact that both the Village of Blandinsville and Mcoonough
County have no zoning ordinances.
(Stip.
2),
The
Respondent began its corncob operations at its
Blandinsville facility in 1975.
Local
farmers and seed corn
producers
who
had surplus corrtcobs to sell
first brought these
cobs to the WCS facility via truck
for storage.
These corncobs
61-342
—3—
were stored
in open piles on the site,
The corncobs were then
loaded on railroad cars by WCS employees and subsequently trans-
ported to the Chemicals Division of the Quaker Oats Company which
uttlized the cobs in the production of Furfural.
(Stip.
3—5;
see: Exhibit 3),
WCS’s operations were primarily seasonal
in
nature because its facility was usually operated only during the
summer and fall months of the year when corncobs were available.
(Stip.
3),
Loading methods and procedures at the facility varied some-
what over the years.
Between 1975 and 1977, WCS loaded the
corncohs into specially designed “open top” railroad cars
commonly known as
“gondola cars”.
Corncobs were loaded into the
open top of the gondola cars by means of a conveyor belt device
which was driven by a five horsepower gas engine
(Stip.
3).
These specially built gondola cars were designed and provided by
the carrier
(i.e., the Illinois Central
& Gulf Railroad Company).
The Illinois Central
& Gulf Railroad Company terminated its use
of gondola cars sometime in 1977 and WCS was therefore unable to
load its corncobs into the no longer available “open top” rail-
road cars.
Instead, between 1977 and October,
1981,
the
Respondent loaded its corncobs into railroad cars with “side
doors” by means of a blower driven by a tractor engine.
(Stip.
3—4).
This corncob blower was not enclosed,
The corncobs
were blown through a one—eighth inch thick steel pipe which was
about twelve inches in diameter,
The corncobs were dumped into
an open hole at the base of the steel pipe just before they were
loaded
(i.e., blown)
into the railroad cars through the open side
doors,
(Stip,
4),
The Respondent made various changes and engaged in efforts
to reduce the noise levels and adverse effects of its loading
operations in response to requests by neighboring property owners
and local officials in October of 1981.
(Stip.
4).
To eliminate
the use of the tractor engine,
the Respondent began to use an
electric blower system.
Additionally, the Respondent placed the
corncob blower in an insulated enclosure and in a ten foot by
twelve foot wood frame.
Furthermore, between October,
1981 and
November,
1983, the corncobs were loaded into the railroad cars
via
a specially designed airstream device,
These corncobs, which
have first been loaded into a hopper, are then fed
(by means of a
hydraulic auger)
into a 12,000 cubic foot per minute airstream
which propelled the corncobs through the one—eighth inch thick
steel pipe about twelve. inches in diameter into the railroad
boxcars,
(Stip.
4).
To help eliminate noise problems, a one—
fourth inch solid steel padded and insulated deflector at the end
of the steel pipe directed the corncobs away from the open doors
of the railroad boxcars.
Before October,
1981, the steel deflector
was not padded or insulated,
Corrugated cardboard and metal
grain doors, which are about five feet high, were used to block
off the lower portion of the open boxcar doors, while wire mesh
screens covered the upper portion of the boxcar doors.
The
special airstream corncob loading device had an average loading
rate of 30,000 pounds of corncobs per hour and a maximum loading
rate of 50,000 pounds of corncobs per hour,
(Stip.
4—5).
In the Stipulation, the parties indicated the gross receipts
from the sale of corncobs during the years between 1980 and 1983,
but failed
to specify the applicable net income figures.
In
1983,
the Respondent shipped 988 tons of corncobs in 41 railroad
cars and had gross receipts of $15,539.00.
(Stip,
5;
R.
129—131).
It is stipulated that the Agency notified the Respondent in
a letter dated October
13,
1981 that WCS was improperly operating
its facility with respect to fugitive particulate matter from the
open storage of corncobs and its loading operations.
(Stip.
5—6;
see: Exhibit 4),
Particulate matter,
such as dirt,
dust, bits of
corncobs,
and other materials, would sometimes blow onto adjacent
properties on windy days and would interfere with the adjacent
residents’
use of their property.
Counsel
for the Respondent
agreed to meet and discuss this matter with Agency personnel in a
letter dated October 26,
1981 and they requested that the proper
permit applications for the facility be forwarded to
WCS.
(Stip.
6;
see: Exhibit
5).
On December 9,
1981,
representatives
of the Respondent and the Agency held
a meeting at the facility
and the parties agreed to various procedures and changes
in
equipment which were to be included as special conditions in a
12 month Operating Permit.
(Stip.
6;
see: Exhibit 6).
On
July 27,
1982, the Agency conducted an additional inspection of
the Respondent’s site in response to further complaints from
private citizens which had been received,
On July
29,
1982, the
Respondent submitted an application for an Operating Permit for
its corncob transfer blower.
(Stip.
6;
see: Exhibit 7).
On August
16,
1982, the Agency conducted a Noise Survey to
ascertain if WCS’s corncob processing operations were in
violation of applicable noise standards.
After these tests were
made,
the Agency, in a letter dated August 26,
1982,
alleged that
the Respondent’s operations were in violation of the applicable
noise regulations.
(Stip.
6;
see: Exhibit 8).
Accordingly, on
September
2,
1982,
the Agency denied the Respondent’s July 29,
1982 application for an Operating Permit for a corncob transfer
blower on the basis that the applicable air pollution and noise
regulations might be violated.
(Stip.
6;
see: Exhibit 9).
In response to the Agency’s Noise Survey of August 16, 1982
and the Agency’s permit denial
letter of September
2,
1982, the
Respondent took further measures in an attempt to rectify the
situation.
The Respondent constructed and installed a special
device to control
fugitive particulate matter which consisted of
a wood screen and metal
frame covered with two layers of wire
screen which was about twenty feet by six feet in size.
61-344
—5—
(Stip.
7).
The heavy wire screen layer consisted of relatively
large one—half inch openings, while the fine layer was made of
20 mesh wire.
The screen was placed tightly against the railroad
boxcar opening and was secured in place with rubber straps and
wire cables, while the corncob loading pipe extended through the
middle of this
screen and was surrounded by rubber flaps which
were intended to minimize any air leakage around the steel pipe.
(Stip.
7;
see:
Exhibits
10 and 11; Exhibit A
& B).
To help
eliminate noise problems, the Respondent constructed and
installed a special noise control device which was lined with
four inch fiberglass insulation and two inch styrofoam open cell
insulation.
This noise control apparatus was attached to the
intake side of the ten foot by twelve foot wood frame structure
which enclosed the
mot.::r and air blower.
Additionally,
two inch
thick open cell foam rubber insulation was also installed on the
outlet pipe
in the railroad car to help reduce noise.
(Stip.
7;
see: Exhibits
C,
F), and E),
The Respondent has indicated that it spent approximately
$1,500.00 on the previously mentioned equipment and materials to
reduce noise levels and control fugitive particulate emissions.
After the construction and installation of this corrective
equipment,
the Respondent reapplied to the Agency for an
Operating Permit for its corncob transfer blower on October 29,
1982.
(Stip.
7-~8;see:
Exhibit
12).
However, the Agency
notified the Respondent in a letter dated December
20,
1982 that
this matter had been referred to the Agency’s legal staff for
preparation
o1
an enforcement case,
(Stip.
8;
see: Exhibit 13).
To ascertain if the noise problems had been alleviated,
the
Agency
again conducted a Noise Survey of the Respondent’s
facility on January
11,
1983.
(Stip.
8).
In a letter dated
January 24,
1983, the Agency notified the Respondent that the
operation of its corncob blower was still not in compliance with
the requisite noise regulations and suggested that the Respondent
construct a sixteen foot high,
fiberglass—lined barrier enclosing
the WCS facility on its north, east, and west boundaries.
(Stip.
8;
see: Exhibit 14).
Thus, on January 27,
1983, the
Agency denied the Respondent’s October
29,
1982 application for
an Operating Permit for its blower.
(Stip,
8;
see: Exhibit 15).
On February
2,
1983, the parties conducted another compliance
meeting
in an effort to resolve matters and discussed the cost
and feasibility of the construction of a sixteen foot high,
fiberglass—lined
sound barrier to eliminate any future noise
problems at the site.
(Stip.
8).
On February 16,
1983,
as
a
result of the previously mentioned discussion, the Respondent had
prepared a proposal and a sketch which estimated the cost of
construction and installation of a sixteen foot high sound
barrier to be $5~176.97.
(Stip.
9;
see: Exhibit 16;
R.
128—129).
—6—
However,
the
sound
barrier
was
never
constructed
and
the
Respondent
discontinued
all
corncob
operations
at
its
facility
in
November,
1983.
(Stip.
9).
The
proposed
settlement
agreement
provides
that
the
Respondents
(1)
admits
that
it
violated
35
Ill.
Mm.
Code
201.141
and
Section
9(a)
of
the
Act
&ntermittently
between
1975
and
November,
1983
by
causing
the
emission
of
particulate
matter
during
its
corncob
loading
operations
in
such
quantities
so
as
to
unreasonably
interfere
with
the
use
of
property
adjacent
to
its
facility;
(2) admits that
it
violated
35
Ill.
Mm.
Code
900.102
and
Section
24
of the
Act
intermittently between 1975 and November, 1983 by its
use
of
the
corncob
load
device
which
emitted
sounds
beyond
the
boundaries
of
its
facility
which
unreasonably
interfered
with
the
enjoyment
of
property
adjacent
to
its
facility;
(3)
agrees
to
cease and desist from
further
violations;
(4) agrees to continue
the cessation of operations at the site (i.e., the Respondent
discontinued the storage and loading of corncobs at property in
November, 1983)
and to
relove
all remaining corncobs from the
facility within thirty days of the Board’s Order in this case;
and
(5) agrees to apply to the Board for a variance and to the
Agency for any applicable permits if, in the future, operations
at the site will be renewed.
(Stip. 10—12).
The parties have left the
amount
of the penalty, if any, for
Board determination and testimony at the hearing revolved around
the penalty issue.
At the hearing, Mr.
Lee
Ward, the
son
of the
president of WCS, testified
that
all the cob
moving
equipment
has
been removed from the site and indicated that the company
has no
intention of resuming this operation.
(R. 109—113; R.
120;
H. 121—131;
see: Joint Exhibits OG,
HI!,
II, and JJ; Stip.
10—11).
At the hearing, three neighbors
(Mrs. Patsy Ulrich; Mrs.
Laura
Melvin; and Mrs.
Debra
Starbuck) testified
that,
especially
after
the
summer
of
1981
(when the Respondent’s corncob operations
increased
in
scope),
the
operations
at
the
WCS
facility
resulted
in
sporadic
irritating
noises
and
dust
which
interfered
with
their
families’
use
and
enjoyment of
their
property.
(R.
27—44;
R.
44—66;
R
67—74;
see:
Joint
Exhibits 1 &
2;
Joint
Exhibit
6;
Complainant’s
Exhibits A, B,
C,
and
D).
Mrs.
Laura
Melvin,
who
lives
with
her
husband
in
a
mobile
home about
75
feet
away
from
the
Respondent’s
site,
appeared
to
be
the
most
adversely
affected.
Mr. Brian P. Holland, the Village Attorney, testified
that
the Village Board basically
did
not wish to be involved in this
dispute
once
the
Respondent and the
Agency
had
entered
into
an
interim
agreement
to
adopt
corrective
measures.
(B.
79-85;
see:
Joint
Exhibit
19).
Mr.
Eric
Burling,
executive
vice—president
of
the
First
National
Bank
in
Blandinsville,
testified
that
this
whole
matter
was
basically
a
misunderstanding
among
neighbors
and
stated
that
the
Respondent
had
exerted
good
faith
efforts
and
expended
substantial
sums
of
money
in
an
attempt
to
solve
the
problem.
Mr.
Burling
expressed
his
opinion
that
the
Agency
should
not
have
initially
become
involved
in
this
dispute
and
indicated that he believed the matter would have been satis-
factorily resolved without the Agency’s participation
(R. 86—89).
Mr. Joseph
F. Mall, an Agency employee, testified that the Wards
had been “very cooperative” in attempting to rectify matters and
had exerted good faith efforts
including the placement of
“insulation put around
the
fan enclosure,,.a muffler installed
with this fan and motor...a screen designed to cover the boxcar
opening to prevent the particulate matter from escaping during
the boxcar loading”,
etc.
(R.
102—104),
See:
Joint Exhibits
4
and 6;
R.
93—105.
Mr. Phil McCleary, President of the King Feed
Company, testified that now “the residents of the community are
happy... the Wards are satisfied, they have given up their business
at that site,
and I don’t feel at this time that a penalty to be
imposed would
serve any purpose”.
(R.
151).
Mr. Lee Ward, the
son of Mr. Everett L. Ward,
testified as to the Company’s good
faith efforts to rectify all problems and indicated that they
tried to cooperate with the Agency and solve the
problems.
(R.
109—131).
Citizen’s
Statements
by Mr. Charles Ulrich and Mr. and
Mrs.
Garett were introduced into evidence to show the disruptive
effects of the WCS
facility.
(See:
Citizen’s Statements
I and
2;
R.
108).
In evaluating this enforcement action and proposed settlement
agreement,
the Board has taken into consideration all
the
facts
and circumstances in light of the specific criteria delineated
in
Section 33(c) of the
Illinois
Environmental Protection Act and
finds
the settlement agreement acceptable under 35
Ill,
Adm. Code
103.180.
In
reference
to
the
penalty
issue,
the Board
notes
that
the
Agency
has
suggested
a
penalty
of at least
$3,500.00,
while
the
Respondent
has
indicated
that
it believes that no penalty is
warranted
under
the
unique
circumstances
of this
case.
The
Board has carefully
considered
and
evaluated
all
the
testimony, exhibits, and citizen statements
in
this
case.
The
Board has concluded that the neighboring residents were unduly
disturbed
in their enjoyment and use of their property by the
activities of the Respondent’s corncob operations, especially
after the summer of 1981, and therefore concludes that a penalty
is appropriate.
In reference to the proper amount of the penalty, the Board
notes the existence of various mitigating factors:
(1)
the
Respondent operated its facility to provide hauling and economic
benefits to the railroad and for the convenience of the Quaker
Oats Company in its Furfural production activities;
(2) the good
faith efforts of the Respondent to correct the problem, including
various meetings with Agency personnel and substantial expendi-
tures of time and money in installing specially designed equipment
to minimize the disruptive influence of its activities;
(3)
the
benefits to the neighboring farmers derived from the existence of
the Respondent’s facility;
(4) the seasonal nature of the activities
and sporadic nature of the disturbances;
(5)
the fact that this
corncob facility is unique in nature whereby there
is no established
standard or technology which is generally accepted to govern the
—8—
operation of corncob blowers;
and
(6) the location of the facility
was adjacent to the only railroad siding
in
Blandinsville,
along
with
other
businesses
such
as
three
grain
elevators,
a
propane
plant,
a
lumber
yard,
two
fertilizer
storage
facilities,
a
con-
struction
company,
a
hog
buying
station,
and
an auto salvage
operation.
Accordingly,
the
Board
believes
that
a
penalty
of
$1,000.00
is
appropriate
in
light
of
the
good
faith
efforts
of
the
Respondent
and
the
previously
mentioned
mitigating
factors.
The
Board
notes
that
the
Respondent
has
indicated
that
it
has
no
further
intentions
of
conducting
corncob
operations
at
the
site,
and
if
there
is
a
change
of
plans
in
the future, the Stipulation provides that the
Respondent
shall
apply
to
the
Board
for
a
variance
from
the
Order
in
this
action;
take all
steps
necessary
to
prevent
any
violations
of~
the
applicable
regulations
and
the
Act;
and
apply
to
the
~gency
for
the
requisite
permits.
(Stip.
11),
The
Respondent
is
hereby
found
to have violated
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
201.141,
35 Ill. Adm. Code 900.102, and
Section
9(a)
and
24
of
the
Act
and will
be
ordered
to cease and desist from
further
violations, comply
with
the
terms
and conditions of the proposed
settlement agreement,
and pay a penalty of $1,000.00.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
It is the Order of the Illinois Pollution
Control
Board
that:
1.
The Respondent, Ward Crop Service,
Inc.,
has violated
35
111. Adm. Code 201.141,
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
900.102,
arid Sections 9(a) and 24 of the Illinois Environmental
Protection
Act.
2.
The Respondent shall cease and desist from further
violations,
3.
Within 45 days of the date of this Order, the Respondent
shall by certified check or money order payable to the
State of Illinois, pay a penalty of $1,000.00 which is
to be sent to:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Fiscal Services Division
2600 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois 62706
61-348
—9—
4,
The Respondent shall comply with all the terms
arid
conditions
of
the
Stipulation
and
Proposal
for
Settlement
filed
on
October
18,
1984,
which is
incorporated
by
reference
as
if
fully
set
forth
herein.
IT
IS
SO
ORDERED.
I,
Dorothy
N.
Gurin, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board,
hereby
certify that the ab~veOpinion and Order was
adopted
on
the
~
day
of
~
,
1984
by
a
vote
of
_________*
~
2L ~
Dorothy N.
Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
