rLr4INoIs
Por4LuTIoN CONTROL ROARD
March
24,
1983
ILLINOIS
FNVIR0NMENT~L
PROTECTION AGE~1CY,
Complainant,
v.
)
PCE
78—2~l3
RALSTON PuRINA COMPANY,
a
)
Missouri corporation,
Respondent.
MR. WILLIAM 3. BARZANO, JR., ASSISTANT ATTORNEY
CENERAL, APPF~PF~~
PERALF
OF
TTE
COMPLAINANT.
YODER,
YODER,
ZM’TONI,
FLYNN,
PRALL
&
WILLARD
(MR.
JAMES
VOD1~P.,
or
COUNSEL)
AND
MR.
FRANK
HACKMANN
O~’ THE
RALSTON
PURINA
COMPANY
APPEARED
ON
BEHALF
OF
THE
RESPONDENT.
OPINION
AND
ORDER
OF
TPE
~OAPD
(by
W.J.
Neqa)~
This
matter
comes
before the Board
on
the
November
28,
l’)7~
Complaint brought
by
the
Illinois
Environmental
Drotection
Agency
(“Agency”).
Count
I of the Complaint alleged
that,
from April
1,
1J)7~
until November 28,
1978 (including,
hut not
limited
to,
7\pril
1,
1~75,July 24, 1975,
April
5,
1976, July
3,
1976,
J~1y
2’),
~77~
Auqust
4,
1977,
~nd July 11,
1978),
the Respondent’s soybean
processing and
animal
feed
plants
located
in
Bloomington,
McLear~
County,
Illinois
(“facility”) caused noise
pollution by er~ittin~
sounds beyond the boundaries of the property which ~rnre~sonahl”
interfered with the enloyment
of
life
and
activities
of
nearby
residents
in violation of Rule 102 of
Chapter
8
Noise
Requlatin~
(“Chapter 8”) and Section 24 of the Illinois Environmental
Prot:~c~
Act (“Act”).
Count II alleged that,
from April
1,
.1975 until
November
‘~.
197~(including, hut not limited
to,
Aorii
1, l~75, April
5,
1976, July
3,
1976,
July
29,
1977,
August
4,
1977,
and
July
11,
1978), the Respo.~dentallowed the emission of sound during
da”t~i,~
hours
from
a
proerty—line.—noise—source
located
on
its
Class
C
land
to receivthg Class
A land
(i.e.,
nearby rosiden~ialprop~’r~
which exceeded allowable octave hand sound
pressure levels
in vi~-
olation
of
Rule
~fl2
of
Chapter
8
and
Fection
24
of
the
Act.
;i_~i
I
—2—
Count
III
alleged
that,
from
April
1,
1975
until
November
28,
1978
(including,
but
not
limited
to,
April
1,
1975
and August
4,
1977),
Ralston
Purina
Company
(the”Company”)
allowed
the
emission
of prominent discrete tones from a property—line--noise—source
located on its Class C land to receiving Class A
residential
land in violation of Rule 207 of Chapter
8 and Section 24 of the
Act.
A hearing was held on July 24,
1979.
The parties filed a
Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement on September 10,
1979.
On
November
15, 1979, the Board entered an Interim Order which relected
the settlement agreement because of a proposed contingent suspended
penalty provision.
After discovery and further extensive settlement
negotiations between the parties occurred, the Board entered an
Order on October 14,
1982 which was designed to expedite proceedings.
The parties filed a second Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement
on November 17,
1982 and a second hearing was held on January
27,
1983.
The Company’s soybean processing and animal feed facility is
bordered on the south,
southeast,
and east by residential areas
and is near the G.M.
& 0. Railroad tracks which curve diagonally
to the northeast and southwest.
(Ex.
A; Stip.
2).
While some
of the older homes east of the plant were built before the Company
built its facility,
a large number of nearby homes were constructed
after the plant was already in operation.
(Stip.
4).
Noise sources at the Company’s facility include equipment such
as fans, pumps, conveyor belts, dryers, and rollers which are
utilized during the process of storing and preparing
soybeans,
extracting soybean oil, and producing animal
feed.
(Stip.
2).
While the soybean processing plant ordinarily operates
24 hours
a day,
7 days a week;
the animal feed plant usually operates
only
5½
days per week.
(Stip.
2—3).
Complaints at~outs~cessive
noise from the Respondent’s operations initially came from nearby
residents and noise surveys conducted by the Agency confirmed
that the Company failed to comply with applicable noise regu-
lations.
The proposed settlement agreement provides that the Respondent
has already undertaken various noise abatement measures pertaining
to equipment modifications to reduce noise
levels; specifies
certain further noise abatement measures which shall he accomplishedj
and provides for a stipulated penalty of $5,000.00.
(Stip. 4—13).
Noise abatement measures which have already been implemented
include:
(1) the installation of a partial acoustic enclosure
around the cooling tower pump and motor;
(2) the placement of
silencers on dust collectors and fans;
(3)
the modification of
the pressure blowers;
(4)
the discontinuation of the use of a
vacuum system to clean spills at the animal
feed plant;
(5)
the installation of a more quiet corn grinding system; and
(6)
~1
_)I
4)
—3—
the minimization of incoming truck traffic during night—time
hours.
(Stip.
4-9).
The
Company
has
agreed
to
expeditiously.
install
a specia
silencer on a specified negative transfer
fan and to place an acoustic enclosure around the dump section
of the bucket elevators near the grain dryer.
(Stip.
7).
Additionally, the Company has agreed to properly maintain its
silencers and other noise control equipment and to submit a final
progress report to the Agency when all required steps have been
taken to minimize noise.
(Stip.
7—10)
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 Act and finds the second settlement
agreement acceptable under Procedural Rule 331.
The Board notes
that condition N of the second Stipulation could possibly lead
to an extended period before compliance.
Condition N is
unacceptable
in that it provides for the “granting” of a varianc.~
solely by agreement among the parties.
The Board therefore
proposes a modification of this condition by striking the language
in condition N,
lines 3—4, reading “or by any other circum—
stances agreed to by the parties”.
The
Company shall execute
a Certificate of Acceptance if it should agree
to this modification.
The Board finds that the Respondent, Ralston Purina Company,
has
violated Rules 102,202, and~207of Chapter
8 and Section 24 of
the Act.
The Respondent will be ordered to follow the specified
compliance plan and schedule set forth
in the second Stipulation
and to pay the stipulated penalty of $5,000.00.
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,
Ralston Purina Company,
has violated Rules
102,
202, and 207 of Chapter
8:
Noise Regulations and Section 24
of the Illinois
Environmental Protection Act.
2.
Within 30 days of the date of this Order, the Respondent
shall, by certified check or money order payable to the State of
Illinois, pay the stipulated penalty of $5.000.00 which is to be
sent to:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Fiscal Services Division
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield,
Illinois
62706
ci
Qi
q
—4—
3.
The Respondent shall comply with all the terms and
conditions of the second Stipulation
and Proposal
for Settlement
(including condition N as modified by deletion of the language
in lines
3 and 4 reading “or by any other circumstances agreed
to by the parties”) filed on November 17,
1982, which is
incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
4.
Within 45 days of the date of this Order, Ralston
Purina Company shall execute and forward to the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Road, Springfield.
Illinois
62706, a Certificate of Acceptance and Agreement to be
bound to all terms and conditions of this Order.
This forty—five
day period shall be held in abeyance for any period this matter Ia
being appealed.
The form of the certificate shall be as follows’
CERTIFICATE
I,
(We),
—~
,
having
read the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board in
PCB 78-293, dated__________________ understand and accept the
said Order1 realizing that such acceptance renders all terms and
conditions thereto binding and enforceable.
Petitioner
By:
Authorized Agent
Title
Date
IT IS SO ORDERED
I, Christan L.
Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, Iiereby,çertify that the1above Opinion and Order
was g~optedon the~~~~day
of
l)~)a4t.k~
,
1983 by a vote
of S.~O
Christan
L.
Mof~~J,
Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
51.~14