ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
June
6,
1975
ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND
COMPANY,
a
corporation,
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 74—350
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,)
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Dr. Odell)
On September 24,
1974, Archer—Daniels-Midland Company
ADM)
filed
a Petition For Variance with the Illinois Pollution
Control Board
(Board).
Petitioner sought a variance from Rules
133,
202, and
203
of the Air Pollution Regulations
(Chapter Two)
icr
90 days for
its
truck
pits
and truck meal load-out area and
~ane
months for its cooling tower.
During that period Petitioner
clanned
to
install new pollution control equipment to control the
:~xcessivc
amounts of air~bornepollution.
ADM,
located at 3833 Faries Parkway, Decatur,
Illinois
~crries
cut
varied activities including the operation of a soybean.
solvent
extraction
plant,
a
corn
germ
solvent
extraction
plant, and
a
vegetable
oil
refining
operation.
The facilities
produce
refined
soybean
and
corn
cii
and
soybean
and
corn
germ
meal,
The
facility
processes
100,000
bushels
of
soybeans
per
day
and
240
tons of
corn
germ
:per
day,
An
additional
150
tons
of
soybeans
all
used
daily
in
a
soybean
expeller
operation.
Petitioner stated that the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
(Agency) had advised it that its cooling tower located at
the south end of the facilities was discharging a water-vegetable
oil emulsion.
ADM had also been notified that grain dust
or
re-
lated products were being emitted from two truck dump pits on the
west end of the facilities.
Petitioner had no knowledge “of any
exact quantity of any discharge.” ADM noted that the Agency had
received complaints about its plant.
ADM planned to control its cooling tower discharge by in-
stalling a new tower costing $265,000.
Petitioner planned to
equip the two truck dumps with negative air systems to prevent the
escape of fugitive particles.
The system was expected to cost
$11,400.
Petitioner believed that it would be an unreasonable hard-
ship to deny the variance.
The plant has been in operation for
over
30
years.
Approximately $25,000,000 has been spent in
in—
proving
the facility over the last ten years.
Four per cent of
this money has been used for pollution control equipment.
Two
17
—
243
—2—
hundred employees received wages totaling $2,600,000 annually.
ADM is a major processor in centraL Illinois and annually purchases
materials totalling more than $250,000,000.
On September 27,
1974, the Board requested that the
petitioner state precisely the provisions of the rules from which
the variance was sought.
On October
7,
1974,
the Agency filed
its objection to the grant of a variance and requested a hearing
pursuant to Section 37 of the Illinois Environmental Protection
Act
(Act).
ADM filed an Amended Petition on October 24.
Variance was
sought from Rules 202(b) and 203(f) (1) and
(2)
of Chapter Two,
Petitioner also stated that a Marley Series 15, cross-flow cooling
tower
(Model 454-204) had been ordered at
a cost of $430,000.
The Agency filed its Recommendation of denial on December
11, 1974.
First,
the Agency believed that a variance was also
needed from Rules 102 and 203(a)
of Chapter Two and Section 9(b)
of the Act because “several poss±bleen~iissionsources at ADM west
plant do not have operating permits.
In addition, Petitioner may
be in violation of process weight rates for several possible
emissions sources.”
Second, the Agency stated that the proposed
compliance plan would not solve the pollution problem at the cool-
ing tower or the truck load-out area.
Third, several emissions
sources “contribute to a 9(a)
problem, but Petitioner has suggest-
ed no control scheme for these sources.” Fourth, other possible
areas of pollution problems exist
at:
“(a)
The bulk meal truck load—out and storage bin vents
which have no control equipment presently.
Required control
efficiency could be met with a baghouse of 99
efficiency.
“(b)
The bulk meal rail load-out, which has no control
equipment despite
a process through-put of about 100 tons per
hour.
This unit also would require a baghouse.
“(c)
The steam jet knock-out tank, which is used for
product recovery during soybean oil hydrogenation.
The amount of
emissions from this unit is unknown, but potentially includes
spent nickel catalyst, vegetable oil particulates, and unidentified
filter
aid.
“(d)
The
transfer
housing
between
elevators
A
and
B,
which has no control equipment presently.
“
Ce)
The corn germ rail receiving pit,
which
has
no
control
presently.
“(f)
The screen houses on grain dryers which have twenty—
four
mesh
screen
of
no
control
value.
Screen
houses
on
grain
dryers
should
have
at
least
fifty
mesh
screens,
“(g)
The
feed
mill
truck
load-out
spout,
which
has
no
control
equipment
presently.
However,
A.DM
has
promised
to
remove
the
source.
17
—
244
—3—
“(h)
A
temporary
vacuum
cleanup
unit
with
a
cyclone
collector
of
estimated
efficiency
of
6~,5
ar~ording
to
AP—~2.
This unit should have a control efficiency of 99
to eliminat
the possible nuisance problem.
“(i)
The elevator B transfer points at the north and
south ends of the grain belts and the two wet grain storage bin
vents, which have no effective control presently.”
Fifth, during an Agency inspection on October 2,
1974,
the follow~
ing housekeeping deficiencies were observed:
“(a)
At the north end of elevator B transfer housing,
piles of grain dust on the floor were~~s ~ee~s
4~~ivein~~ig~,
Dust also coated the window sills and frames,
Although no grain
was being transferred at the time, emissions from the dust piles
were observed.
“(b)
A baghouse on the east side of the elevator B transfer
housing had apparently been clogged with dust and emptied on the
roof,
At the time of observation, the dust was caked and not likely
to be blown into the atmosphere.
However,
it appears that sub-
stantial emissions from this collected dust occiurred before rain
caked
the
remainder.
“(c)
On the west side of elevator B transfer housing,
stacks of caked beans and dust on the top of each elevator storage
bin were stacked as deep as sixteen inches,
“(d)
Emissions raised by trucks on ADM west plant’s yards
and roadways were substantial.”
Sixth, during August,
1974, several of Petitioner’s emission sources
were in excess of the opacity limitations of Rule 202(b)
of Chapter
Two:
“(19)
On August 5,
1974, Agency personnel observed emissions
of 39
average opacity emanating from a small storage bin next~:to
the food mill at ADM west plant.
“(20)
On August 13,
1974, Agency personnel observed e~issiocc
of 44.5
average opacity emanating from a soybean storage bin vent
at the first bin at the north end of the plant.
“(21)
On August 15, 1974, Agency personnel observed emissions
of 42
average opacity from a bin being loaded pneumatically irom a
truck and also observed emissions of 31
average opacity from a
doorway in the transfer housing
area,”
Seventh, the Agency stated that “scores of complaints” had been
received against ADM.
These were attached to the Recorcendation
(Ex.
C) and were first received by the Agency on Ociober 26, 1973,
Also included in Ex.
C
(page
1)
is an Agency letter dated October
30,
1973, acknowledging receipt of
a complaint from a local citizen.
Information on the national ambient am
~1
tT~
standards
for particulates was included in the R~co:~re!’
n~ T~a
Agency
stated that:
17
—
245
—4—
“(25)
Repeated
samplings
of
air
quality
in
the
Decatur
region at the Agency’s two sampling stations indicate that ambient
air quality in this area
is consistently worse than the primary
ambient air quality standard for particulates of 75 micrograms
per
cubic
meter
of
air.
The
1972
annual
average
was
81
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
for
the
station
at
22nd
Street
and
Division
Street
in
Decatur;
the
1972
annual
average
was
83
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
of
air
for
the
station
at
300
East
Garfield
Street
in
Decatur.
The
1973
annual
averages
for
these
two
stations
were
112
and
65
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
of
air,
respectively.”
A
hearing
was
held
on
April
2,
1975,
in
the
Macon
County
Courthouse,
Decatur,
Illinois.
A
Stipulation
(Ex.
1)
and
Additional
Stipulation
of
Fact
(Ex.
2) were entered into evidence.
They
provided:
1.
A program of compliance at the cooling tower
to be com-
pleted by August
1,
1975,
(Ex.
1, pages
2,
3)
at an approximate
cost of $450,000
(Ex,
2, page
7)
2,
A program of compliance for the truck dump pits and bulk
meal
load-out to be completed by March
1,
1975
(Ex,
I, page
5) and
March
15, 1975
(Ex,
1,
page
6)
respectively,
at
an
approximate
cost
of
$15,000
(Ex.
2, page
8).
3.
A
program
of
compliance
for
the bulk meal rail load-out
area to be
completed
by
September
1,
1975
(Ex,
1, page 7)
at an
approximate cost of $85,000
(Ex,
2, page 8).
4.
Questions raised by the Agency regarding the steam jet
knock~outtank used for the hydrogenation process have been satis-
fied.
No control equipment is necessary
(Ex,
1, page 7).
5.
A program of compliance for the transfer housing (over-
head bridge between Elevator
“A” and Elevator
“B”)
to be completed
by October
1,
1975
(Ex.
1, page
8)
at an approximate cost of
$50,000
(Ex.
2, page
8).
6,
Questions raised by the Agency regarding the corn germ
rail receiving pit have been satisfied,
No control equipment is
necessary
(Ex,
1, page 9).
7.
Petitioner
agreed
to
modify the screen houses on the
grain dryers “to comply with the Board’s new grain—handling re-
gulations within the time specified in such regulations when the
same go into effect”
(Ex,
1, page 9).
Cost was estimated at
$128,000
(Ex,
2, page
8).
8,
Discontinuance
of
use
of
the
feed
mill
truck
load—out
spout
(E:
~,
page 9).
9,
~
of use of the temporary vacuum cleanup
unit
unless
i~f
~nected ;o an adequate dust collection system
(Ex.
1, ~ ~‘n
l1~,
A
pro
~amof
compliance for the Elevator “B” transfer
17
—
246
—5—
points by installation of a fabric filter dust collection system
to be completed by March
1,
1975
(Ex.
1, page 10) at an approximate
cost of $20,000
(Ex.
2, page 8)
11.
The compliance program shall also include instaL.ation
of atmospheric fabric bin vents on the two west grain storage
tanks
to be completed by April
1,
1975
(Ex.
1, page 10)
at an appr;ximate
cost
of $2,000
(Ex.
2, page 9).
The total estimated cost of tne
stipulated control program is $750,000.
ADM agreed to apply for
all construction and operation permits and to observe good house-
keeping practices on odors and emissions.
Citizens were present, but none testified against the com-
pliance program.
The parties indicated that most of the work that
was scheduled prior to this hearing has already been completed
(R. 19,
20).
ADM
is
undertaking
a
substantial program of compliance,
which favors the grant of the variance.
However, Petitioner has
not established reasons why att~mptsat compliance were delayed
until recently.
Petitioner had knowledge in the fall of 1973
that
its
neighbors
were
complaining about its activities but
approximately
one
year
passed
before ADM prepared its
compliance
plan.
Petitioner’s delay means that it
is
not
entitled
to
pro-
tection from an enforcement action before it filed for its variance.
In addition, the recent United States Supreme Court de-
cision in Train v. Natural Resources Defense Council,
Inc.
43 LW
4467
(April 15, 1975)
limits our ability to grant~ADMthe relief
requested.
In Train the court held that states can grant variances
after
July
31,
1975,
from their Implementation Programs provided
the national ambient air quality standards are not violated.
The
Agency’s Recommendation stated that at the two monitoring stations
in Decatur the ambient air quality has been “consistently worse
than the primary ambient air quality standard for particulates of
75
micrograms
per cubic meter of air.”
Therefore,
no variance can
be granted after July 31,
1975.
In conclusion, ADM’s recent good faith efforts convince us
that a variance is warranted.
However, the unexcused delay and
the Train decision limit the period for which the variance can be
granted.
This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions
of law of the Board.
ORDER
Archer-Daniels-Midland Company is hereby granted a variance
from Rules 103,
202(b)
,
and 203(f) (1) and
(2)
of Chapter Two from
September 24, 1974,
until July
31, 1975,
in order to carry out the
compliance
plan
as
indicated
in
our
Opinion
and as set out in full
in the Stipulation and Additional Stipulation of Fact entered into
evidence during the April
2,
1975, hearing.
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
17 —247
—6—
Mr. Dumelle dissents.
I, Christan L. Môffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order was adopted
on the
L~”
day of June,
1975, by a vote of__________________
Christan L. Moffe
,
erk
Illinois Pollution
trol Board