ILLINOIS
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
February 24,
1983
IE~LINOISENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY,
Complainant,
v.
)
PCB 78~247
CONTINENTAL GRAIN COMPANY, a
Delawar~Corporation,
Respondent.
CONTINENTAL GRAIN COMPANY, a
Delaware Corporation,
)
Petitioner,
V.
)
PCB 79~111 (Consolidated)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
)
AGENCY,
Respondent.
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
)
AGENCY,
Complainant,
v.
)
PCB
79~114
CONTINENTAL GRAIN COMPANY, a
Delaware Corporation, and the
)
CHICAGO REGIONAL PORT DISTRICT
)
an Illinois municipal corporation,)
Respondents.
MR. WILLIAM
J~
BARZANO, JR., ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED
ON
T3EHALI? OF THE COMPLAINANT.
MR.
PETER ORLINSKY,
ATTORNEY AT LAW, ALSO APPEARED ON BEHALF
OF
THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.
MARTIN, CRAIG, CHESTER & SONNENSCHEIN
(MR.
ROY
M~ HARSCH,
OF
COUNSEL) APPEARED
ON
BEHALF
OF RESPONDENT CONTINENTAL GRAIN
COMPANY.
MR. WILLIAM
F.
DART, ATTORNEY AT LAW, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF
RESPONDENT CHICAGO REGIONAL PORT DISTRICT.
51~177
—2—
OPINION AND ORDER OF TEE BOARD (by N.E. Werner):
This
matter
comes before
the
Board
on
the
September
11,
197$
Complaint brought by the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency (“Agency”) in
PCB
78—247.
Count I of
the
Complaint in PCB 78—247 alleged
that,
from
March
1, 1976 until September 11, 1978, continental Grain company
(“continental”) operated the watercraft loading spouts at
Elevator B of its chicago grain elevator terminal facility
(“facility”) without a permit from the Agency in violation
of Rule 103(b) (2) of chapter 2:
Air
Pollution Control Regulations
(“Chapter 2”)
and
therefore in violation of Sections 9(a)
and 9(b) of the Illinois Environmental Protection
Act (“Act”).
Count
II alleged
that,
from March 1, 1976 until
September
11,
1978, Continental operated its barge loading spouts at Elevator B
so as to allow the emission of particulate matter in excess of 30
opacity in violation of Rule 202(b) of Chapter 2 and Section 9(a)
of the
Act.
Count III alleged
that,
from April 30, 1977 until September 11,
1978 (including, but not limited to, May 18, 1977 and June 29,
1978), Continental operated its watercraft loading spouts at
Elevator B without pollution control equipment capable of
particulate removal at the required efficiency in violation of
Rule 203(d)(9)(B)(iv)(c)(2) of Chapter 2 (“Watercraft Loading Rule”)
and Section 9(a) of the
Act.
On
May
21, 1979, Continental filed a Petition for Variance
in PCB 79—111 which requested a variance from the Watercraft
Loading Rule until
December
31, 1982 for
both
Elevator B and
!levator C to allow the Respondent
time
to develop a technically
feasible
and
economically reasonable emission control system.
On
May
25, 1979, the Agency filed a Complaint in PCB 79-114.
Count
I of the Complaint in PCB 79—114 alleged that, from April 30,
1977 until May 25, 1979 (excluding the
time
period from September
1,
1977 until June 11,
1978), Continental
and
the Chicago Regional
Port District
(“Port”) improperly operated Elevator C (which is
owned by the Port and operated by Continental) by failing to
utilize air pollution control equipment at the watercraft
loading spouts at Elevator C that has a particulate removal
efficiency of not less than 98
by weight prior to release into
the atmosphere in violation of the Watercraft Loading Rule and
Section 9(a) of the
Act.
Count II of enforcement action PCB 79—114 alleged that,
from
April 30,
1977 until May 25, 1979 (excluding the period of
September 1, 1977 to June 11, 1978), Continental and Port allowed
the operatipn of Elevator C’s watercraft loading spouts without
the requisite Operating Permit from the Agency in violation of
Rule 103(b)(2) of Chapter 2 and Section 9(b) of the
Act.
51-178
—3—
After these 3 cases
were
consolidated and various preliminary
legal
matters
were
disposed
of,
hearings
were
held
on
September
15,
1982 and January 25, 1983.
The
parties filed a Stipulation and
Proposal for Settlement on January 25, 1983 which purports to settle
all three actions herein.
Such a settlement agreement is proper
in
an
enforcement
action
pursuant
to
Section
103.180
of
the
Board’s
Procedural Rules.
However,
the
Board has
previously stated
that is does not favor the use of a settlement agreement with
respect to a variance proceeding.
For the purposes of the variance
petition ir~PCB 79-itt, the Board shall therefore construe the
proposed settlement agreement as merely an agreement as to the
facts
of
the
case.
Continental operates 2 large grain elevators (i.e., Elevators
B and C) in Chicago, Cook County, Illinois which handle corn,
wheat
and soybeans.
Elevator B, which loads approximately 21 million bushels of
grain per year through 5 loading spouts, is
owneA
and operated
by Continental and located at 11700 S. Torrence Avenue in Chicago.
This atevator, which was built in 1954 and purchased by Continental
in 1962, has a present replacement cost of about $16 million dollars.
The 5 watercraft loading spouts of Elevator B have a total replacement
cost of $500,000.
Elevator B usually operates with a work force
of up to 50 people on one shift, 5 days per week.
(Stip.
2).
Elevator C, which loads about 10 million bushels of grain
per year through 7 loading spouts, is owned by the Chicago Regional
Port
District and operated by Continental at 12700 Lake Calumet
Harbor Drive in Chicago.
This elevator, which was built in
1957, has a current replacement cost of approximately $13 million
dollars.
The 7 loading spouts, which were constructed in 1958,
have a total replacement cost of about $700,000.
Elevator C
normally operates with a work force of up to 40 people on one
shift, 5 days per week.
(Stip. 2—3).
Because the grain storage business is seasonal in nature,
the
grain handling activities at each elevator are subject to seasonal
fluctuations.
The peak receiving and shipping periods for grain•
naturally follow the period of time that the grain is harvested
and sold by farmers.
The parties have indicated that
this peak
begins
to build in September and lasts into December when shipping
closes
down
on
the
Great
Lakes
due to ice build—up and the closing
of
the
St.
Lawrence
Seaway.
(Stip.
2).
No watercraft are loaded
from that
time
until
the
beginning
of
the
next
shipping
season.
After harvested grain from Illinois and nearby states is
delivered via truck, train, and watercraft to Continental’s
grain elevators,
the grain is stored in Elevators B and C until
it is subsequently sold and transported to market.
tnside the
grain elevators,
the grain is:
(1) moved about by conveyor belt,
screw elevator,
or bucket elevator;
(2) lifted, weighed, and dumped
into a conveyor belt which carries the grain to loading spouts;
and
(3) allowed to flow by gravity through the loading spouts
into
the
hulls
of
various
watercraft.
(Stip. 3—4).
51-179
—4—
These specially designed waterspouts are telescoping steel
sleeves which are supported by steel cables attached to winches
which are mounted on the sides of the elevators.
The mechanical
system
of
cables
and winches allows each loading spout to be moved
about so that
grain
can
flow
into
all
areas
of
the
watercraft’
a
hull
(thereby
assuring
the
proper
and
safe
loading of the grain into
various
types
of
ships
and
barges).
(Stip.
3—4).
TO capture dust that is contained in the grain, suction is
applied to most transfer points.
However,
some emissions of
grain dust nevertheless occur at the point where:
(1) grain is
dumped from storage bins to the conyeyor belt;
(2) grain is conveyed
into the loading spout during the loading of ships and barges;
and
(3) “the grain stream impinges on the bottom of the ship or
mound of grain under the loading spout”
(or within the grain
stream itself).
(Stip.
4).
Although Continental had a grain dust collection hood at
the entry point to the loading spout connected to ductwork
leading to a fabric filter baghouse, it did not have a grain dust
capture system at the exit point of the shipping spout for the
watercraft loading operations.
(Ex.
C).
Accordingly, Continental continuously evaluated a number of
pilot
model
grain
dust
capture
systems
in
an
attempt to
find
a techAically feasible and economically reasonable solution to
dust emission problems at the spout’s discharge point.
However,
the pilot model systems that were initially studied proved
inadequate and usually encountered grain plugging.
Initially, the most potentially promising dust collection
system was a choke feed control apparatus for inclined loading
spouts
which
was
developed
by
the
Buhler-Miag
Company
and ex-
tensively
investigated and tested by Continental during 1979.
However, the installation of pilot systems and prototype testing
indicated that the estimated cost of installing the efficient
Buhler—Miag spouts (which would be in excess of $1,250,000 at
Elevator B alone), when combined with a weight problem which would
necessitate expensive structural modifications to existing loading
spouts, severely limited the new system4s practicalipy and
potential applicability to Continental’s operations.
(Stip. 7—9).
Further research and testing led Continental (in conjunction
with Van’s Industrial of thicago) to develop an entirely new,
lightweight loading spout which inhibits the release of grain
dust into the atmonsphere.
The Agency agrees that this newly—
developed spout, known as the Alum—a—Lite Dust Suppressor,
“effectively meets the requirements of the Watercraft Loading
Rule when used with aspiration at the top of the spout”.
(Stip.
11).
Because the parties are in fundamental agreement as to the
merits of this newly developed dust suppressor spout, they have
requested that the Hoard enter an Order which includes a formal
detenination that the spout has the requisite efficiency to
comply with the Watercraft Loading Rule.
(R. 14).
51-180
The Board declines to give an engineering opinion on the ability
of these suppressors to function for the purpose intended.
Nevertheless, the Board recognizes the
time, effort, and
money
that Continental has spent in developing
a grain dust
capture
system,
and will approve the
parties’
compliance plan
based on
the representation of the parties
that the necessary Board
rules
and regulations will be complied with.
The proposed settlement agreement
provides
that Continental
and the Port shall:
(1) expeditiously
install, according to a
specified compliance schedule, the
Alum~~a~Lite
(or its
equivalent)
Dust Suppressor at Elevator B and C at an
approximate
cost of
$50,000 for Elevator B and $70,000
for
Elevator C
in order
to
comply with the Watercraft Loading Rule and
(2)
properly
maintain
and operate the dust suppressors according to
specifically
developed
and delineated procedures during watercraft
loading.
(Stip,
10—16).
The Agency has agreed that
(1) the
Alum-a~LiteDust
Suppressor
Spout “effectively meets the requirements of
the Watercraft
Loading
Rule when used with aspiration at
the top of the spout”;
(2)
its
Variance Recommendation filed on July 27,
1979 in PCB 79~-111
(which recommended denial of Continental’s
requested
variance) be
appropriately modified to constitute a
recommendation “that
Continental should be granted a variance from
the
Watercraft
Loading Rule for its operation of Elevators B
and C”
and that
“this variance should be granted for a five
(5) year
period,
starting with the effective date of the
Watercraft Loading
Rule,
April
30,
1977,
and extending until April
30,
1982”;
and
(3)
due
to Continental’s diligent efforts to achieve compliance via the
development of new control technology,
no penalty is warranted.
(Stip. 12—14).
Construction permits
for the special dust suppressors
for
Elevators B and C were applied for
on July 15,
1980;
issued
by
the Agency on August
4,
1980;
and
construction was
successfully
completed in June of 1981 after
settlement of “an eight
month
labor dispute which prevented access of tradesmen to
complete
construction”.
(Stip.
12;
Ex.
A and B).
On
May 14,
1982,
Continental applied for an operating
permit
for
Elevator
B which
was issued on May 19,
1982 and subsequently reapplied for an
operating permit on September 2,
1982
which was issued by
the
Agency on September
29,
1983.
On March
11,
1982,
Continental
applied for an operating permit for Elevator C
and
the Agency issued
this operating permit on April
7,
1982.
(R.
31),
At the hearing of January 25,
1983,
Mr. Seymour
Levine,
the Regional Manager of the Field Operations
Section of
the Agency’s
Division of Air Pollution Control
in
Region
1,
testified
that
emission levels from the grain elevators
were substantially
reduced
after the installation of the special
dust suppressors and
were
“relatively small” when compared
with the emissions
of
particulate
matter from three steel mills in the
immediate vicinity.
(R.
46—47;
R.
62).
On February 17,
1983, Continental
filed a
Supplemental
Statement which requested that the Board
disregard Mr.
Levine’s
testimony pertaining to the Agency’s
utilization of the
AP-42
air pollutant emission factors with respect to watercraft loading.
51-181
Additionally, the written testimony of Mr.
James A~
Crombie,
Continental’s Midwest Regional
Operation Manager
(who was
on medical
leave), was incorporated into
the hearing record pursuant
to the
Board’s Procedural Rule 321
(and the Agency’s waiver
of that
portion of the rule which required
Crombievs physical
presence
for cross—examination),
(R.
64;
R.
69—72),
Mr. Crombie,
who was
primarily responsible for the
efforts of Continental
to
control
dust emissions from Elevators B
and C, explained why it
was
technically infeasible and economically
unreasonable
for
Continental
to comply with the Watercraft
Loading Rule until its
breakthrough
in
technology (i.e.,
the development
of the Alum—a-~Lite
dust
suppressors).
(R.
76),
Moreover,
Mr. Crombie
indicated that,
although “the standard practice
in the grain industry is
to add
dust back into the grain”,
Continental has helped minimize
particulate emission by not adding
“this
grain dust
back into the
grain stream prior to loading watercraft”,
(R.
77—78),
In evaluating these consolidated enforcement actions and the
proposed settlement agreement,
the Board
has taken into
considera-
tion all the facts and circumstances in
light of the
specific
criteria delineated in Section 33(c)
of the Act~
Emissions
generated during watercraft loading
appear to have
a negligible
impact on ambient air quality.
Moreover, the two grain elevators
do not load watercraft on a continuous
basis,
but instead
conduct
loading operations on an intermittent,
infrequent
schedule only
during daylight hours during the shipping
season.
The social and
economic value of these elevators
(which have a combined
replacement
cost in excess of $30 million dollars)
is significant,
Additionally,
the new emission control device developed
after efforts
to achieve
the requisite compliance appears to the parties to be a tech-
nically practical
and economically reasonable
solution to prior
environmental problems.
Accordingly,
the Board
finds the
settle-
ment agreement acceptable under
Procedural Rule 331 and
Section
33(c) of the Act.
The Board
finds that Continental
Grain Company and
the
Chicago Regional Port District violated
Rule 103(b)
(2) of
Chapter
2;
the Watercraft Loading
Rule, and Sections
9(a) and
9(b)
of
the Act at Elevator C.
Continental,
at Elevator
B,
violated Rule 103(b) (2) of Chapter 2;
Rule 202(b)
of
Chapter
2;
the Watercraft Loading Rule;
and Sections
9(a)
and
9(b) of the
Act.
The Respondents will
be granted a variance from the Watercraft
Loading Rule for Elevators B and C from April
30,
1977
until
April
30,
1982 and will be ordered to
follow the specified
compliance plan and schedule delineated in
the settlement
agreement.
No penalty shall
be assessed
against either
Respondent.
This Opinion constitutes
the Board~sfindings of fact
and
conclusions of law in this
matter.
51-182
—7—
ORDER
It
is the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board
that:
1.
Respondents Continental Grain Company and the Chicago
Regional Port District violated Rule 103(b)(2) and Rule 203(d)
(9)(B)(iv) (c) (2) of Chapter
2:
Air Pollution Control Regulations
and Section 9(a) and Section 9(b)
of the Illinois Environmental
Protection Act at Elevator
C.
2.
Respondent
Continental Grain Company, at Elevator
B,
violated Rule 103(b)(2);
Rule 202(b);
and Rule 203(d)(9)(B)(iv)
(c)(2) of Chapter
2 and Section
9(a) and
9(h) of the Act.
3.
The Respondents shall comply with all the terms and
conditions of the Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement
filed
on
January 25, 1983, which is incorporated by reference as if
fully set forth herein.
4.
Respondents Continental Grain Company and the Chicago
Re~iionalPort District are granted a Variance from the Watercraft
Loading Rule
(Rule 203(d)(9)(B)(iv)(c)(2)
of Chapter
2:
Air
Pollution Control Regulations) from April
30,
1977 until
April
30,
1982 subject to the conditions that the requisite dust suppressors
shall be appropriately installed,
maintained,
and operated on
Elevators B and C in accordance with all applicable permit
conditons and all agreed—upon conditions delineated in the
Stipulation of January 25,
1983, which is incorporated by reference
as
if fully set forth herein,
5.
Within 45 days of the date of this Order,
Continental
Grain Company and the Chicago Regional Port District 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~fiveday period
shall be held in abeyance for any period this matter is 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—247,
PCB 79-111, and PCB 79—114 Consolidated, dated____
_____
understand and accept the said Order, realizing that such accept—
ance renders all terms and conditions thereto binding and
enforceable.
Continental Grain Company
Chicago Regional Port District
By:
Authorized Agent
By:
Authorized Agent
Title
Title
Date
Date
51-183
—8—
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I,
Christan L,
Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby ~rtify
that th~above Opinion and Order
was
adopted
on
the
~
day ~
,
1983
by
a
vote
of~_
_______
~~1!T~
i~~_
Christan L. Moffet~~k
Illinois Pollution Control
Board
51-184