BEFORE
THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
OF THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS
April
28,
197
STANDARD BRANDS,
INCORPORATED
#71-3
V.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OPINION OF THE
BOARD
(BY MR. LAWTON):
Standard Brands, Incorporated,
Petitioner herein,
a national
conglomerate with gross annual sales in excess of One Billion Dollars
operates
a grain—processing plant in Pekin, Illinois.
It
seeks
a var-
iance of the Rules and Regulations governing the control of air pollu-
tion until September 1,
19?2,
in order to replace its present coal—
fired boilers with gas and oil-fired boilers, pursuant to
a time schedule
previously set forth
in an Air Contaminant Emission Reduction Program
(Acerp)
(Pet. Ex.l-T,
U.,
V)
approved by
the Air Pollution Control
Board on July
31,
1969
(Pet.
Ex.
l-S).
The present operation causes
emissionsin excess of those prescribed in Rules 2—2.11,
2—2.12 and
3-3.112 of the Rules and Regulations governing the control of air pollu-
tion issued by the Illinois Air Pollution Control Board remaining
in
force and effect pursuant to Section 49(c)
of the Environmental Protec-
tion Act.
Specifically, Petitioner’s emissions
are at
a computed rate
of 1.48 pounds of particulates per million BTU input, compared with an
allowable limit of
.6 pounds of particulates per million BTU input.
The emissions subject to the original Acerp and
this variance request
relate solely to the fuel burning operation.
Emissions
from food
orocessing operations
do not appear to exceed the allowable
limits.
Odors emanating from Petitioner’s
sewage disposal
facility, while
not the subject of
the variance request, present
a serious problem and
will be considered below.
Hearing was held
on the petition in Pekin
on March
16, 1971.
We grant the variance until April
27,
1972 subject to the terms
and conditions set forth in the decretal portion of this Opinion.
In doing so, we take note of the inordinate amount of time consumed
by petitioner
in arriving at a definitive program of air pollution
control.
We
also require that Petitioner cease polluting the air as
a consequence of other elements
of its operation not the subject matter
of this variance request.
All of these matters will be considered
in
more detail below.
I
—
505
As noted above, Standard Brands, Incorporated,
is
a nationwide
corporation with world—wide
sales grossing 1.2 billion dollars per
year and net annual profit of
37 Million Dollars.
The Pekin plant
is one of many Standard Brand facilities
in the United States.
The
Pekin complex is located in the unincorporated portion of Tazewell
County, approximately 1/4 mile south of the Pekin city limits on the
east bank of the Illinois River.
In the general area of petitioner’s
operation are
a Commonwealth Edison Power Plant and The Quaker Oats
and American Distilling Company facilities.
Residences are located
approximately
1/2 mile
to the southeast.
The Standard Brands plant
manufactures
yeast, malt and grain extracts for~use in the baking
industry by
the processing of molasses,
corn and malt sprouts.
So
far as appears from the record.,
the food processing operations in them-
selves do not constitute
a significaht source of air pollution,
Peti-
tioner’s difficulty has arisen from the use of coal-fired boilers
and from the operation of
its sewage treatment plant.
230 persons are employed by petitioner, with an annual payroll of
2.2
million dollars.
A review of the events and circumstances leading up to the present
variance request is in oraer.
On July 14,
1967, Petitioner sent to the Illinois Air Pollution
Control Board a Letter of Intent, together with supporting documentation
as required by the Regulations of the Board
(Pet.
Ex.
l-TTT through
Ex. l-TTTT),
In addition to the grain processing operations
the letter
specified the use of three 612 horse pbwer boilers built in 1926 and
one
708 horse power boiler built
in
1936;
all boilers were coal-fired
with qhain grate stokers.
The report stated that
a test of emissions
would be conducted to determine what steps would be necessary to bring
the operation into compliance.
Subsequent computation confirmed that
the operation of these boilers constituted
a violation of the relevant
air pollution control regulations,
The report also noted the
use of an
anaerobic sewage treatment plant utilizing an after-burner to ignite
the methane gas produced by digestion and the use of
“ozene”
as an
odor-reducing agent for the sludge lagoons.
The report indicated that
in excess of 51,000 tons of coal were burned annually at the plant.
The Letter of Intent stated that an Acerp would be filed before
April
15,
1968
(Pet.
Ex,
l-YYY),
On April
18,
1968, Petitioner wrote ~to the Air Pollution Control
Board
(APCB)
stating that
a report on progress being made toward com-
pliance with the APCB regulations would be forwarded
as soon as
completed.
On May 27,
1968,
a further letter
(Ex.
l-PPP)
was sent
to the APCB describing the nature and operation of the four coal-fired
boilers and concluding that it was not possible to improve their
operations
to meet existing emission standards, although certain
improvements were contemplated that would lessen the extent of
the
violation.
Sp~ifically, an over-fire
air system was under consideration
~which would utilize high velocity air
jets which would increase com~
bustion and lessen particulate emissions.
The letter again referred
to site testing to ascertain what would be necessary to bring the
1
—
506
operation into compliance.
The letter stated that
“in the near
future”,
Petitioner would have sufficient information on which to base
a
decision as
to whether the necessary testing could be done by
Peti-
tioner or by an outside consulting staff,
On July
23,
1968,
a tele-
gram was sent to the APCB requesting extension to November
1,
1968
for the filing of an Acerp.
A letter of
the
same date confirmed this
request.
(Ex.
1-000,
l-NNN.)
On July
19,
1968,
the Technical Secre-
tary of the APCB wrote Petitioner stating that he would recommend to
the Board that no further extension of time be granted for the filing
of an Acerp.
(l-MMM).
On July
31,
1968,
the
Teclinical Secretary
advised Petitioner that the request for extension to November
1,
1968
had been granted.
(l-LLL),
On September
3,
1968,
Petitioner wrote the APCB indicating that testing
was contemplated in the near future and that installation of over—fire
air blowers was being made in the coal—fired boilers that would reduce
particulate emissions.
(Ex.
l-JJJ).
On October
1,
1968,
Petitioner advised the APCB that boiler-testing had taken place and
submitted a progress report for completion of the over-fire air facilities
on the four boilers
(l-GGG).
However, Petitioner indicated that because
of the time involved in co~pletionof this program,
full evaluation could
not be
made
until 1969,
and accordingly, Petitioner could not submit
its Acerp in compliance with
the November
30, 1968 deadline. The letter
requested
a further extension to November,
1969, indicating
for the
first time that consideration was being given to the gas-oil fired
boilers and that the availability of alternative fuels was being
investigated.
This request was held
in abeyance by
the APCB, pending
receipt of further information,
(Pet.
Ex.
l-FFF),
A further letter was written on January
7,
1969 stating that contact
iiad been made with Central Illinois Light Company
(CilcoX with the view
of determining the possibility of purchasing additional power which
would enable reduction of Petitioner’s own power generation.
On February
5,
1969,
a similar letter was written to~the APCB adding that discussions
were being held with Cilco to determine the availability
of natural gas
to enable conversion of Petitioner’s boilers
(Ex.
l-GG).
On March
12,
1969, Petitioner wrote to the APCB requesting
an extension to July
1,
1969 for submission of the
Acerp
and detailing the improvements made
by the over-fire air facilities.
The letter reiterated Petitioner’s
“studies” to determine whether Cilco could supply gasenabling elimina-
tion of the
coal burning boilers.
The letter stated that the utility
did not presently have sufficient
gas available
in the area to satisfy
Petitioner’s anticipated requirements
,
assuming the installation
of gas-fired boilers.
((l-EE),
On April
4,
1969, the Technical Secretary rejected the March 12,
1969 letter as
a proposed Acerp asserting that no definite method for
controls of the various emissions nor date for implementing controls
1
—
507
had been received
(Ex.
l-DD).
On April 21,
1969, Petitioner wrote the
APCB stating that
it would install gas-fired boilers or replace
its
present coal-fired boilers with new coal-fired boilers with electro-
static precipitators
and that the installation would be completed
by September of 1973,
The Technical Secretary acknowledged this proposal
as
an Acerp and indicated that it was being recommended for approval
to the APCB.
However,
at its next meeting, action was deferred pending
clarification of certain points, apparently based on statements made
to the APCB by Cilco relative
to gas availability.
On May 29,
1969,
action was again deferred pending
a definitive decision by Petitioner
as to whether it would install gas-fired boilers or install control
equipment in its present coal-fired boilers.
On July
24,
1969, Petitioner submitted a proposal that would en-
tail
the elimination of existing coal-fired boilers and the substitution
of gas-oil fired boilers of alternatively, new coal-fired units, either
of which would meet the emission standards.
No commitment on gas avail-
ability had
been
received from Cilco.
An installation schedule was ap-
pended
(Pet.
Ex,
l-V)
providing for complete installation and operation
of the new units by September of
1972,
The program called for çonstruc-
tion of a new building to house
the boilers, removal and relocation of
existing water tanks,
roadway relocation, new stack des±ghand installa-
tion,
and
demolition
of existing boilers.
(Pet,
Ex.
1-T).
On July
31,
1969,
the Acerp was approved by the APCB subject
to periodic reporting
on progress toward completion of
the program.
A report was submitted on December
30,
1969 indicating the re-
ceipt of cost data on
the alternative installations but stating that
the availability of gas had not been determined,
A further report was
submitted on June
25,
1970, which stated that the replacement of
existing coal-fired boilers with gas-oil fired units would be recommended
to the management.
This suggestion was premised on the anticipated
sulphur dioxide and particulate problems resulting from the unavailability
of low sulphur coal
(Ex.
1-P).
On December
4,
1970,
a report was submitted to the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA)which included a boiler emission reduction program
again contemplating completion by September,
1972,
This report proposed
installation of three gas-oil fired boilers with 80,000 pounds per hour
steam generated capacity.
The report noted the elimination of self—
generated AC electric power resulting in a 10
reduction of particulate
emissions.
On December
16, 1970,
the EPA advised Petitioner that as
a
consequence of the enactment of the Environmental Protection Act and
the expiration of one year since the approval of the original Acerp,
a new request for variance should be
filed.
1
—
508
Standard Brands’ petition for variance was received by the Pollu-
tion Control Board on January
18,
1971,
incorporating by reference the
previously submitted boiler reduction program.
The petition asked
for the right to continue with
its present emissions pending compliance
with the original Acerp Program, providing for installation of new
gas—oil fired boilers by September,
1972, at which time Petitioner
would be in compliance with the relevant regulations.
The Petitioner
notes
the factual matters previously set forth in this Opinion including
the emission rate
of 1.4~poundsof particulates per million BTU input,
as opposed to the allowable limit of
.6 pounds per million ETU input,
as prescribed by Rules
2-2.11,
2-2.12
and 3-3.112 of the Rules
and
Regulations Governing the Control of Air Pollution.
The Petitioner,
in graphical form,
sets out the project schedule
to September,
1972,
orignally appended to the July
24,
1969 Acerp,
as approved.
Boiler
fabrication has presumably
started,
steel erection and preliminary
piping will start in June and July of this year, boiler setting will
take place in December and
final piping, instrumentation and shakedown
would consume the first eight months of 1972 with start-up in September
of 1972.
Section VI attached to the variance request emphasizes the need
for steam in the heating and process operation of Petitioner’s manufac-
turing facilities
and that the failure
to obtain
a variance as requested
would necessitate
a shut-down of the plant resulting in the unemployment
of 230 employees,
the
loss of
a 2,2 million dollar payroll
and. the unavail-
ability
of yeast
and diamalt necessary for the baking industry.
Pursuant to the statute,
the Environmental Protection Agency filed
its recommendation,
recommending
that the Petition be denied and that
Petitioner be “enjoined”
to mask or eliminate all odors emanating from
the plant by April
16,
1971,
convert all coal—fired boilers
to gas-fired
boilers no later than March
16,
1972,
limit its coal purchases
to 1.4
sulphur coal
and keep its SO2 emissions at not more than
2.5 pounds per
million BTU,
and that Petitioner not be allowed to shut down its opera-
tion
and thereby subvert and evade the Environmental Protection Act.
A $200,000 bond to assure compliance with the timetables
set forth in
the recommendation was proposed.
The recommendation notes the receipt
of 37 communications from persons residing in the vicinity of the plant
all opposing the granting of
the variance.
From the testimony of the witnesses introduced by
the Agency and
from the multiplicity of letters received,
it is evident that the opera-
tion of Petitioner’s
plant constitutes
a major source of nuisance to the
people of the community.
Dramatically illustrative of the impact of
Petitioner’s coal-burning operation on the community is
the testimony
of Don Cranwill who operates
an A&W drive-in stand within 300 yards
of
the Standard Brands plant.
He testified that the particulate emissions
from the plant were one-quarter inch deep on his stand
(R.l5l).
Ray
Riek testified that stack emissions from the plant were
“all ful~of
1
—
509
little chunks of coal, anything from the size
of a pinhead to, Oh,
I’d say,
one half
the size of
a matchhead.
.
.if they hit your glasses
they’ll bounce in your eye.. .if you go out there bareheaded, your com-
ing in like
this, you’re lousy.”
(R.l43),
Mr. Rick also testified~that
on one occasion stack emissions were
“so heavy that within one hour
the top
of my van at
the little gutters on the side had filled to the gills...
the smoke from the stack was coming directly over.”
(R.l85).
Other
testimony supported the conclusion that particulate emissions from the
plant were pervasive in the neighborhood, preventing outdoor activities,
the hanging of wash.
T.he continual presence of fly
ash, and
black smoke was manifest.
Although not the subject of the variance petition,
testimony of
witnesses disclosed that odors emanating from Petitioner’s sewage dis-
posal plant constitute
a severe burden on
the adjacent area.
Specifical-
ly, the gaseous emissions from the anaerobic digestion occurring
in
Petitioner’s
sewage disposal plant are not adequately burned off and
result in
a severe odor problem in the vicinity of Petitioner’s
plant.
Previously,
the plant had used effluent lagoons which in them-
selves were
a major source of odor.
Replacement by anaerobic digesters
constituted a desirable su~stituteas long as they operated, properly.
The ai~aerobi~
treatment generates methane
gas which is burned off by
a
gas burner
(R.l76 through
178)
.
However,
it appears that on occasions when
sewage digestion and resulting methane gas generation
~~‘erediminished.
or when strong winds blow,
the flame igniting the methane gas blows
out causing the unburned emissions of methane gas
to permeate the neigh-
borhood,
Some efforts at shielding,
improved burning and automatic
re—lighting have been under consideration to preclude the ~blow—out,
but
it does not appear that Petitioner has
aggressiveJ,.y addressed it-
self to this problem.
The flame continues
to be blown out, particularly on
week—ends, when the digestion and gas generation are
at a minimum,
at the
same time when most people are hoireand become the unwilling victims of
this condition,
Again, the testimony of Don Cranwill,
the A&W operator
is illuminating.
According to him,
the customers inhis
establishment
are obliged to cancel their orders when the
flame blows
out.
Asked if
this hurt his business,~he answered,
(R,l50)
“Did you ever try doing
business in
a cesspool?”
Witness Rick stated that
the odors
“remind you
of an outdoor toilet in a hogpen.”
(R.l38).
While the juxtaposition of
these uses intrigues the imagination,
and might conceivably produce
a
synergistic effect,
either alone would be sufficient ~o convey the
impact of Petitioner’s operation.
According to the witness,
this condition
has maintained for
six to eight years
(R~l42).
There is no question
that the odors emanating from the sewage plant operation by
a combination
of the digester, gas emission and flame—out, have created
a substantial
and inexcusable burden on the community and must be abated as
a condition
to any variance
allowance,
1—510
The Environmental Protection Agency challenges the time schedule
proposed by Petitioner for installation of the new equipment.
It
contends that
a substantial amount of the work proposed to be done sub-
sequent to the initial
54 week period for boiler construction, which
work is primarily the installation of piping and electrical equipment
could be done simultaneously with the other phases of construction and
installation and accordingly, what
is proposed as
a total 81 week
job
could be reduced to
55 weeks,
(See testimony of
Reddy,
R.l09).
This
contention
is challenged by Petitioner.
(See testimony of Valkert,
R.159).
According to this witness,
the proposed time schedule
and sequence of
events are necessary
and reasonable.
Any departure would be impracticable.
In his words,
it is necessary to proceed on
a “step—by—step system in
order to accomplish the finished product”.
(R.l59).
Specifically,
the boilers must be
in place before the structures
in which they
are
housed
are erected. Likewise, the piping and electrical installation
could only be
iriade after the boilers are located.
He states
(R.l60)
“If
you have ever been
in a boiler plant and taken
a
look
at the complexity of the piping, you will understand
what
I mean.
That you just can’t prefabricate
all this
stuff and then expect to~slip an eighty-ton monster in
between this,. ,There will be three of these boilers and
there will be some
time in between in order to set these
on their foundation.
This sequence here indicates that we
install our boilers and then we proceed to install the rest
of the structural
steel in the building.
We put the
roof
on it and we put some siding up and then,
only then can you
proceed to hang up your piping,
You’ve got to have steel
to hang your mains up.
.
,But the particular piping around the
boilers has to be done when the boilers are up.
I can’t
pipe
a boiler without
a boiler being there,”
(R.l62~.
Piping includes steam piping, water piping and blow-down piping,
The
complexity of the required electrical installations was adequately
described
(R.l63-l67)
to aq~iinindicate that the time and sequence
proposed by Petitioner are not unreasonable. While some time—saving may
be effected,
the Board is not pursuaded that
a major re—programming
is indicated
as suggested by the EPA witness,
Likewise, the Agency’s insistence on the utilization of low-sulphur
coal
and the curtailment of sulphur dioxide emissions as conditions
to
the variance allowance,
does not
find adequate support in the record,
The 3
sulphur content in Illinois coal being ‘utilized by Petitioner
und~ubtedlyhas
fly ash
and sulphur dioxide characteristics that
a lower
sulphur coal would not possess.
However,
the availability of such coal
for Petitioner’s operation and the SO2 impact from the use of its
present coal are not adequately demonstrated
in the record to enable us
to direct Petitioner to limit its burning to
1,4 sulphur content coal
as proposed by the Agency,
This
is not to say that such a provision
might not be
a proper condition to
a variance
in a proper case notwith-
standing the absence of a sulphur regulation,
However,
this is not the
case nor the record to insist on such condition.
In time, we undoubted-
ly will issue both sulphur and SO2 regulations which will require
Petitioner’s compliance.
Until such regulations
are promulgated, how-
ever,
we will not require such limitation in the absence of demon-
strated adverse consequences.
In granting this variation, we do not concede that Petitioner
has acted with
the speed and determination we would have preferred to
see.
Indeed,
if it had acted in
a determined manner at the outset,
and if the former Air Pollution Control Board had shown the same sense
of urgency now being demonstrated by the Agency’, it is likely the
coal—fired boilers would have already been replaced.
However,
the
approval of the previous Acerp has sanctioned the delay and Petitioner
is now seeking to adhere to its previously approved program.
Were
this
an original proceeding before us,
our attitude might well be very
different, particularly in view of
the demonstrated burdens being
placed upon the community by Petitioner’s operation.
The law prohibits the granting of
a variance in excess of one year.
(Environmental Protection Act, Sec.
36(b)).
However,
we can approve
Petitioner’s proposed 8l;week schedule and grant the variance for
a
one—year period before the expiration of which Petitioner must
come
back
to the Board with
a status report indicating the state of the
installation and
a time schedule and program for what remains to be done~
If
a proper showing is made,
the variance may be extended
to
accommo-
date the time needed for completion.
Periodic reports should
be made
in the interim, particularly on the availability of natural gas.
At
the
present time,
it appears that non—interruptible
gas is not available
but that interruptible
gas is, thereby enabling the ,replacement of the
coal—fired boilers on
a gas-oil fuel basis
(See Hearing Officer’s
Ex.
1, Letter dated March
10,
1971 from Standard Brands Incorporated
to Hearing Officer.)
The record supports Petitioner’s allegations
that denial of
the variance as proposed would constitute
a hardship on
Petitioner disproportionate with the harm imposed on the community by
its continued operation.
Insistence
on immediate cessation of coal-
burning would require shutting of the plant with
the unemployment of
220 workers,
and resulting loss
of payroll.
Insistence on
installa-
tion of abatement equipment would constitute
an unreasonable expenditure
at
a
time when Petitioner is in the process of making
a complete sub-
stitution of its boilers with those that will meet emission limits and
pursuant to a previously approved Acerp presently
in the process of
implementation,
and it is likely that
it would take nearly as long to
install control equipment as to replace the boilers.
If the company
takes the steps required by
the following paragraph to control odors
from its sewage digester, we think the continued nuisance will not be
serious enough to justify these hardships.
1
—
512
However, we cannot continue
to be patient
with the inexcusable
indifference Petitioner has
shown in the proper functioning of its
sewage digester and its failure
to abate the gaseous emissions emanating
therefrom.
This sloppy operation has constituted
a burden on the
community, equal to the coal burning for which Petitioner seeks
this
variance.
We will keep this proceeding open and direct Petitioner to
submit within
30
days an abatement program relative to its sewage
treatment plant,
and the elimination of all odors created by it.
This
plan must be implemented within
sixty days from this date so that the
obnoxious emissions
from’ the digester will cease.
Petitioner shall
fife
a bond to be forfeited
to the State
if
the odorous conditions
persist beyond that date.
We have previously imposed conditions
for
a variance beyond the scope of the subject matter of the variance
renuest.
(See Greenlee Foundries,
Inc.
v.
EPA, #70-33, dated March
17,
1971)
.
If the odors were to continue, we should be obliged to re-
consider whether the burdens of Petitioner’s operations on the commun-
ity are so great as to require
a denial of the variance,
Neighbors in
the vicinity of Petitioner’s
plant should
not be compelled
to apologize
to their guests,
to see their customers leave holding their noses or
feel that they are living within odor range of an industrial privy.
If it becomes necessary to have personnel at the sewage plant on
a
24—
hour,
7 day
a week basis
to preclude flame—out, this should be done.
This opinion constitutes the finding of fact and conclusions of
law
of the Pollution Control Board.
ORDER
The Pollution Control Board, having considered the petition,
recommendation,
transcript of testimony and all exhibits filed
in
this proceeding, hereby grants unto Standard Brands, Incorporated,
a
variance permitting said corporation to operate its coal—fired boilers
in
a manner whereby emissions therefrom exceed the limits set forth
in Rules
and Regulations governing the Control of Air Pollution,
until
April
27,
1972,
subject to the following terms
and conditions:
1.
Petitioner
shall
pursue
with
diligence
its
program
of
replacement of its present coal—fired boilers with gas—
oil fired boilers
as set forth and approved in the original
Air
Contaminant
Emission Reduction Program dated July
24,
1969, approved by
the
Air
Pollution
Control Board on
July
31,
1969
and restated in
its present petition for
variance.
Petitioner shall make reports every two months to
the Board and
to
the
Agency of its progress
in
implementation
of its program,
the first of such report to be made no later
than June
28,
1971,
During the period that this variance
is in,effect, Standard Brands,
Incorporated,
shall not
increase
the pollutional nature of its emissions, either in
strength
or in volume.
1
—
513
2.
Prior to January
27,
1972,
Petitioner shall petition
the Board for
an extension of this variance
to enable
such additional
time not extending beyond September
1,
1972
in which
to complete
its installation aforesaid,
and demonstrate that it has made satisfactory progress
toward completion of its program.
3.
Petitioner
shall post with the Environmental Protection
Agency on or before May 15,
1971,
a personal bond or other
adequate security in such form as the Agency may find
satisfactory
in the amount of $l50,000,00, which sum
shall be forfeited to the State
of Illinois
in the event
Petitioner’s plant
is operated after September
1,
1972
in
violation of the relevant statutory and regulatory pro-
visions relative to the control of air pollution.
The
conditions of this bond shall survive the termination of
this variance.
4.
Petitioner shall submit to the Board and to the Agency
within
30 days from the date hereof
a plan and program
for abatement of odorous emissions from its sewage plant
which said plan”shall provide for complete abatement of such
odors
not later than
60
days from this
date,
Petitioner
shall submit
a bond or other security in
the form set forth
in Paragraph
3
above in the amount of $50,000
to be for-
feited upon failure
to comply with the terms and conditions
of this paragraph,
5,
The failure of Petitioner
to adhere
to any of the conditions
of this Order shall be grounds for revocati’on of this
variance.
I, Regina E. Ryan,
do hereby certify that the above Opinion and
Order was adopted by the Board on the
28thday of
__________
1971.
~NAE,RyAN:
Cterk of the Board
1
—
514
