ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

October 4, 1973

CONSUMERS’ GRAIN AND SUPPLY COMPANY,)

Petitioner,

vs.

)

PCB 73—289

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Dr. Odell)

On July 10, 1973, Consumers’ Grain and Supply Company,

Galesburg, Illinois, filed a variance petition requesting relief

from Section 9(a) of the Environmental Protection Act for a

period of one year.

The Petitioner is engaged in handling and drying grain,

principally corn, oats, and soybeans. During the last crop year,

the Petitioner received, dried, processed, and loaded out approxi-

mately 3,000,000 bushels of grain. Contaminants from these

operations include dust and chaff which could contribute to a

violation of Section 9(a) of the Environmental Protection Act.

During the requested one—year variance from provisions in

Section 9(a) of the Environmental Protection Act, the Petitioner

proposes to take the following steps to reduce contaminants in the

air:

a. Modify screen size on the Sanders drier by September,

1973, if equipment can be secured.

b. Use screen cleaners and vacuums connected to cyclone

type dust collectors on the Clipper-Randolph driers;

completion date scheduled for September 1, 1974.

c. Petitioner tempers the above proposed modifications

by any findings of the Joint Task Force on Grain

Regulations.

On September 25, 1973, the Pollution Control Board received

a report and recommendation from EPA concerning this case. On

9—

407

—2—

August 19, 1972, and on July 19, 20, and 23, 1973, and on

various other occasions, EPA personnel had visited Petitioner’s

facility to observe e’~is~iionsources and proposed control

programs and to discuss with nearby citizens the extent of

interference which Petitioner’s facility causes them. It was

found that on the effective date of Part II of the Air Pollution

Regulations, Petitioner was in violation of Rule 203(b) and,

therefore, must, by May 30, 1975, comply with Rule 203(a). EPA

seriously questions the effectiveness of the proposed abatement

programs of the Petitioner, and does not feel that a variance

is required to allow Petitioner to participate on the Task F~’rce.

Petitoner has not shown that it spent $73,000 for and EPA is

of the opinion that the nuisance still exists. “The Agency has

received many adverse comments from the neighbors of Petitioner~

facility. These people complained of dust emissions which un-

reasonably interfere with their enjoyment of their property,

health and life.” Further details would be necessary to sub-

stantiate this if enforcement was involved.

On August 9, 1973 the Illinois Pollution Control Board

adopted R72-18, concerning grain handling regulations. The last

paragraph of this document states that “Although grain handlers

are relieved of their Rule 203 Standards for a while longer, we

hasten to point out that this is no license to pollute. The

Environmental Protection Act section 9 (a) states: ‘No

person shall cause or threaten to allow the discharge or emission

any contaminantinto the environment in any state so as to

cause or tend to cause’ air pollution in Illinois, either alone or

in combination with contaminants from other sources.

During this interim period grain handling operations which cause

air pollution as defined in the Statute will be subject to

prosecution.” Air pollution is defined as follows:

‘Air Pollution’ is the presence in the atmosphere

of one or more contaminants in sufficent quantities

and of such characteristics and duration as to be

injurious to human, plant, or animal life, to health,

or to property, or to unreasonably interfere with the

enjoyment of life and property.”

This variance request by the Petitioner is for relief

from nuisance provisions of the Statute, rather than from any

specific regulation concerning particulate emissions. The EPA

recommended that the Variance be denied and the Board concurs.

To rule otherwise would place all of the hardship on the public

for one year, by the very nature of the Variance sought. Even

though specific grain handling regulations are not yet in effect,

air pollution, as defined in the Statute, is subject to prosecution.

9— 408

—3—

ORDER

It is the order of the Pollution Control Board that the

request of Consumers’ Grain and Supply Company for a Variance

be and is hereby denied.

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order was adopted

this 

Y~’~

day of 

cnd_~j.~&..)

1973 by a vote of $‘ to

Christan L. Moffe~4t~lerk

Illinois Po1lutiorf’~?~ntrol

Board

9— 409