ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
September
2, 1976
CERRO
GORDO
CO-OPERATIVE
GRAIN
CO.,
)
)
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 76—111
)
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Respondent.
Mr. Garry Davis appeared on behalf of the Petitioner.
Mr. James N. Bumgarner appeared on behalf of Respondent.
OPINION
AND
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Dr. Satchell):
This matter comes before the Board on a Petition for
Variance filed April 23,
1976 by Cerro Gordo Co-Operative
Grain Co., an Illinois Corporation, organized under Ch.
32,
Sec. 305 et seq., Co—Operative Grain Act, Ill.
Rev.
Stat.,
1975.
Participating farmers share in the profits by stock
and patronage refunds and benefit in the close proximity
of the elevator to the rural communities of Oakley, Macon
County and Cerro Gordo, Piatt County.
The elevator
is
located in the unincorporated Village of Oakley which has
about 130 to 135 residents
(R.
3).
Petitioner states that
its investment including equipment is about $366,000 which
includes substantial improvements made in 1975 at an approx-
imate cost of $300,000.
From September 1, 1975 through
March 18, 1976 the following number of bushels of grain was
processed, handled and stored:
corn
—
774,640; soybeans
—
177,742; wheat
-
14,255;
and oats
—
3,202.
At May quotes,
this represents a value of $2,977,415.
On an annualized
basis from these figures, the elevator would expect a
throughput of 1,294,452 bushels
(Pet.
4) which compares well
with the production calculated using Macon County 1975 average
yields
(1,350,000 bushels) from the 21,120 acres farmed by the
Co-Op’s tenants and owners.
The storage capacity of 298,800
bushels is from both flat and silo storage.
The elevator normally operates on a single daytime
shift; however, during harvest season late hours are worked
as demanded by the urgency of the farmers’ needs
(in 1975
this occurred three to five times) (Pet.
3).
23
—
379
—2—
The elevator is sited adjacent and south of the rail-
road tracks with residential areas on both the north and
south sides of the facility.
Mrs. William Hall, who resides
just south of the elevator, complained in a letter dated
June 17,
1975 that the three elevator legs which rise 90,
110, and 120 feet above grade level were being constructed
50 to 60 feet from the Street and that the Street was
60’
wide and that the homes are not more than 10’ from the
streets
(Agency Rec. Ex.
5).
Mr. Yantis testified that
his bedroom window was
70’ from the corn dryer
(R.
24).
It
is assumed that “the dryer”
is the nearer of the two
Butler
(Kan-Sun)
dryers.
Petitioner has retained Beling Engineering Consultants
to advise,
direct and design efforts to attenuate noise
levels.
A sound-barrier wall has been constructed at an
estimated cost of $11,411.55
to shield transmission of noise
from the dryers to residents south of the elevator
(Pet.
at
6 and Ex. G).
In addition the drawing made by Agency personnel
in connection with a sound survey shows most aeration fans with
mufflers
(Pet. Ex. Fl, F2).
In spite of the near proximity of
Petitioner’s facility to residences, except for the grain
chutes and portable augers Petitioner believes and the Agency
concurs that they should be within the numerical limits of
Rule 202 of the Board’s Noise Regulations.
Petitioner has two portable auger type conveyors which
are powered by
(1)
a gasoline motor and
(2)
a tractor.
The
augers are normally used inside the flat storage buildings,
but must be used outside to open up these storage units.
Total use is stated by Petitioner
(Pet.
5,
6,
12)
to be
about
9 hours on the exterior and 27 hours in the interior
of the buildings per year.
The exterior use would extend
over about a 3-day period.
Petitioner states that conversion
to electrically driven augers would be expensive:
Initial cost
Retrofit Cost
Gasoline motor driven
$
8,211.00
$
12,430.00*
Tractor driven
9,208.50
18,126.95*
~stimates
not bids
(Pet.
Ex.
J)
In addition Petitioner understands from their consultants
that such modifications would create unstable, dangerous units
that would be difficult to maintain and that such units would
require additional wiring estimated to cost $9,200
(Pet.
Ex. K).
The Agency knows of no economically reasonable means of reducing
the emissions except to impose conditions of use and require
muffling of the gasoline engines
(for a cost not exceeding
$200 per muffler) (Agency Rec.
4).
—
~Rfl
—3—
The Agency states that lagging the grain chutes would
be a suitable solution to the noise violation so caused
but the postponement of the application until after the
harvest season is reasonable
(Agency Rec.
7).
The Agency
does not agree with Petitioner that such attenuation is
still highly experimental and cites the Mayr Grain facility
in Beaver
Darn, Wisconsin where such technique has been used
for three years with about a 20 dB(A) reduction in noise
emission
(Agency Rec. at
4 and Ex.
17).
The Agency recom-
mends and the Board concurs that Petitioner should not be
granted the requested variance for three years to permit
monitoring of Atwood’s
(PCB 76-62)
recently installed atten-
uated chutes.
The additional cost of re-installing the chutes
after attenuation is self-imposed; in that, Petitioner should
have been aware of the necessity for noise abatement in 1975
when the elevator legs and chutes were first constructed.
Additionally, Petitioner was aware, at least after September 30,
1975,
that the grain chutes were a major contributor to a noise
violation
(Pet.
Ex. F2, F3).
Petitioner’s estimate of cost of
$25,338.50 is believed excessive and the Agency estimates that
$16,000 would be closer
(Agency Rec.
at
4 and Ex.
17).
Prior to the hearing held in Decatur, Illinois on July
17,
1976,
the Agency had outlined steps recommended to achieve
compliance.
Petitioner has styled this in the record as an
“Understanding and agreement”
(R.
8), “Summary of the settle-
ment agreement”
(R.
43)
and entered a typed copy entitled
“Agreement”
as Petitioner’s exhibit “M”.
At this time,
Mr.
Bumgarner,
appearing for the Agency,
properly points out
“.
that the agreement reached between the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency and the Petitioner of course is subject to approval
by the Board”
(R. 43).
The aforementioned Document does con-
tain a needed change in the Agency’s Recommendation with respect
to the use of the portable augers.
The Agency recommends grant-
ing the Instant Petition under the following conditions:
(as
amended above)
(1)
that sounds emitted from Petitioner’s facility,
with the exception of the portable augers and grain chutes,
shall
not exceed the numerical limits of Rule 202;
(2)
the afore-
mentioned barrier wall will be completed by July 15,
1976
(date
extended because of material shortages and labor problems):
(3)
the portable augers will not be used outside more than
27 hours per year and only to be used adjacent to the door
locations in the storage buildings;
(4) acoustical mufflers to
be installed to the auger power units by September
1,
1976
and that variance be granted for the augers to April
1,
1981;
(5)
that variance for grain chuting be granted up to
July 31,
1977; and
(6)
that Petitioner execute a certificate
of acceptance and agreement as set forth by the Agency
(Agency
Rec.
8,
9).
23
—
381
—4—
The Agency’s Recommendation references the exterior
use of the augers to Paragraph
9 of the Petition which
states
in pertinent part
“.
.
.
Their use to the exterior
of
the three respective buildings is minimal to the point
of an approximate 9 hour operation over a three day period
on a ~er annum basis to the exterior of the building.”
In
addition, the
“B” part of Paragraph
8 of the Petition states
“The Petitioner uses two portable auger type conveyors on
an infrequent basis
(an exterior working time of
9 hours
per year
.
.
.).“
(Emphasis added).
The plain meaning of
these references
is that the total time needed for the augers
to the exterior of the buildings per year is nine hours.
Since
there is no plan to bring the augers into compliance,
the Board
is compelled to keep their use to a minimum and shall therefore,
modify the Agency’s Recommendation from 27 hours to
9 hours
allowed for exterior use of the augers. Several citizen com-
plaints
(Rec.
Ex.
4,
5,
6,
7,
8)
including a petition signed
by 25 residents of Oakley were received by the Agency.
The
Agency states that the grain chute noise
is sufficiently
irksome as to be predictable by ISO standards to bring about,
even in the daytime,
a very strong public response in the
form of vigorous community action.
The ~
is calculated at
71 dB;whereas,
an
Ldfl of 55 dB or less is prescribed by the
U.
S. EPA for outdoors in residential areas to protect the
public from adverse effects
(Rec. at 6 and Ex.
18).
During
the times the grain chutes and portable augers are in opera-
tion, nearby residents will experience noise interference
with normal activities both outside and inside their homes
so that during these periods they will experience irritability
and anxiety
(Rec.
at
7 and Ex.
18).
Approximately nine
residences will be within this impact zone.
It is unfortunate to have to ask these residents to bear
the annoyance through another season, but to do otherwise
would impose an arbitrary and unreasonable burden on the
Petitioner.
In mitigation, the construction of the barrier
wall and installation of acoustical mufflers should make
significant contributions to noise abatement compared to
1975.
The Board shall grant the requested variance subject
to all conditions set forth in the Order.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact
and conclusions of law.
23
—
382
—5—
ORDER
The Board grants Cerro Gordo Co-Operative Grain Co.
a variance from Rule 202 of Ch.
8: Noise Pollution Control
Regulations for the following components of its Oakley
facility, the grain chutes up to and including July 31,
1977,
and the portable auger-type conveyors
(2) up to and
including April
1, 1981--all upon the following conditions:
(A) That except for sounds emitted by said grain chutes
and said portable augers, sound emitted by Peti-
tioner shall at no time exceed the numerical limits
of Rule 202.
(B) That Petitioner shall accomplish,
not later than
August
1,
1976, the installation of the sound
barrier described in Paragraph
6 of the Petition.
(C) That Petitioner shall restrict the outside use of
the portable augers to the nine hours per year as
outlined in Paragraph
9 of the Petition and shall
limit said outside operations
to the sides of the
storage facilities having doors.
(D) That Petitioner shall, on or before September 15,
1976, install on the gasoline engine driven portable
augers, acoustical mufflers, equal
to or better
than those described in Exhibit 17 of the Agency’s
Recommendation.
(E) That Petitioner shall execute and forward to the
Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Noise
Pollution Control, Enforcement Section, 2200 Churchill
Road,
Springfield, Illinois 62706,
and to the Pollution
Control Board within twenty-eight days after the date
of the Board Order herein a Certificate of Acceptance
and Agreement to be bound to all the terms and con-
ditions of the Variance, the form of said Certificate
to be as follows:
23
—
383
—6—
CERTIFICATION
CERRO
GORDO
CO-OPERATIVE GRAIN CO., an Illinois
corporation,
is aware of and understands the
Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board
in
PCB 76-111 and hereby accepts said Order and agrees
to be bound by all of the terms and conditions
thereof.
CERRO
GORDO CO-OPERATIVE GRAIN CO.
By _________________________________
Title or Company Position
IT
IS SO
ORDERED.
I, Christan
L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby cert~fythe above 0 inon and Order
were adopted on the
G2,s~~
day of
________________,
1976
by a vote of
___________
~EHsa~L.
Moff
eI~7~Ik~
Illinois Pollution Control Board