ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
March
3,
1977
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
)
and the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY,
)
Complainants,
v.
)
PCB 74—452
GARVEY GRAIN,
INC.,
)
a Kansas Corporation,
)
)
Respondent.
Mr. James K. Jenks,
Jr. and Mr. Jeffrey S. Herden, Assistant
Attorneys General, appeared on behalf of the Complainants.
Mr. Victor F. Ciardelli appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
OPINION
AND
ORDER
OF THE BOARD
(by Dr. Satchell):
This matter comes before the Board upon a complaint filed
December 3, 1974 by the People of Illinois, ex rel William J.
Scott, Attorney General of the State of Illinois.
An amended
complaint was filed January 9, 1975 adding as additional com-
plainants the Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency).
This
amended complaint alleges that Respondent at all times perti-
nent to this complaint has operated a grain storage facility
known as the Rock Island Elevator, located at 93rd and Harbour
Streets
in Chicago, Cook County, Illinois; that this facility
consists of three annexes which are used for storage, receiving,
shipping and handling o~fgrain and the manufacture of feed pel-
lets; that the processing and handling of the above materials
result in the release of particulate emissions at various points
during the production processes;
that the above indicated emis-
sions constitute contaminants and have such characteristics and
are of such duration that they constitute air pollution as de-
fined by Section 3(b) of the Environmental Protection Act
(Act)
in that they cause injury to the health of persons living and
working in the vicinity~iofthe contaminants or unreasonably
interfere with the en~ymentof life or property of such persons
by causing particulate accumulations upon and within their auto-
mobiles and upon nearby realty, as well as by interfering with
25
—
1
—2—
their respiration and vision; that on or about July 1,
1970
and continuing everyday of operation of its facility
to the
filing of this complaint, Respondent violated Section 9(a) of
the Act by causing or allowing the aforesaid air pollution;
and that the emissions and violations alleged will continue
on each day of operation hereafter unless abated.
The first hearing in this matter was held October
3, 1975.
Due to a cross—up in communications Respondents did not appear
at the first hearing and there was no cross—examination of
witnesses or response made by Respondents.
This was corrected
in additional hearings held October 25,
26 and 27 of 1976.
At the first hearing two employees of Nalco Chemical
Company testified.
Nalco is located on the Calumet River
north of the Garvey Grain facility
(R.
9,
24).
Both witnesses
reported heavy grain dust settling in the Nalco parking lot;
causing irritation, inconvenience and extra auto maintenance.
Rosemary Hillebold stated that in order to drive home she must
turn on her windshield wipers, that the grain dust sticks to
her clothes, blows out of her air conditioner and gets
in her
eyes while driving
(R.
9,
10).
She further testified that she
and other employees could not use outdoor tables for lunch in
the summer because of the dust
(R.
15).
The problem exists
predominantly from springtime until fall although it does
occur in winter
(R.
14).
If it is snowing or raining the dust
becomes “like oatmeal” and must be cleaned off with
a scraper
(R.
18).
Leroy Tenner reinforced Ms. Hillebold’s testimony
and further stated that he had to change his oil filters more
frequently on the car he drove to work than he did on his wife’s
car
(R.
43).
During wet weather the grain makes the parking
lot slick,
a driving hazard
(R.
33).
Mr. Tenner stated that as
the boats Respondent fills with grain were loaded they became
heavier,
sinking further into the water, leaving
a gap between
the feed hose and the top of the boat or ship
(R.
27).
The
problem appears
to be most predominant during the loading of
ships with grain and with south or southwest prevailing winds
(R.
10,
25,
26, 33).
An engineer from the Agency, Laxmi Kesari, stated that
Nalco,
U.S. Steel and a City of Chicago pumping station are
all north of Respondent’s facility
(R.
51).
He observed dust
in both the parking 1~tof Nalço Chemical and the City of
Chicago pumping station
(R.
54).
Mr. Kesari testified that
when unloading grain by rail Respondents unload in an area
covered by a shed open at both ends
(R.
58).
Grain is also
transferred internally from silo to silo
(R.
58).
Both these
25
—
2
—3—
activities emit dust
(R.
58).
The Main House and the South
Annex are controlled by baghouses but the North Annex has
only
a cyclone
(R.
58,
59).
Mr. Kesari stated the cyclone
is not considered a very efficient system
(R.
59).
Mr.
Kesari could see the dust coming out of the cyclone
(R.
59).
Mr. Kesari made an inspection in June 1972 after which
a
warning letter was sent by the Agency to Respondent to inform
Garvey Grain of the situation
(R.
66, 67).
Mr. Kesari stated
that the basic source of emissions was the loading operation
followed by emissions from the unloading of grain
(R. 67).
Mr. Kesari based on his background and experience stated
that the loading emission problem could be controlled to a
certain extent if not a hundred percent
CR.
69).
This has
been done at several other facilities by use of a baghouse
and running air in a counter-current to the grain flow
CR. 70).
An estimate of price was between ninety and one hundred thou-
sand dollars
(R.
71).
A baghouse for the North Annex was
estimated to cost sixty to seventy thousand dollars
(R.
77).
The next set of hearings was more than a year later,
October 24,
25,
and 26,
1976.
At this hearing all witnesses
from the previous hearing were cross—examined and Respondent’s
case was presented.
It was pointed out that there are two
other grain companies within one to one and a half miles from
Garvey Grain; however, Mr. Kesari has not seen emissions at
either of these facilities and both are too far away to be
seen from Respondent’s site
(R.
142,
143).
Mr. Walter Pearson, project manager at Garvey Grain,
Division of Garvey International testified.
Garvey receives
by rail gluten feed, hominy feed, malt sprouts and
a multitude
of other grain by-products
CR.
174).
After weighing and stor-
ing the by-products are pelletized and stored again awaiting
shipping.
At shipping the pellets are weighed and loaded on
vessels
(R.
174).
Ninety percent of the shippinq is by barge
or ship
(IL
175).
Occasionally some material will go out by
hopper car
(R.
175).
Title to the grain transfers to the
customer after the grain leaves the scale and the weight
is
recorded
(R.
182).
Garvey employees do not do the loading
(R.
184).
Loading arrangements are made by the customer;
frequently they use the Chicago Grain Trimmers Local or any
of a number of other companies to do the loading
(R.
184).
The fact that Garvey equipment is used to load is undisputed.
The
spout the grain comes out is a telescopic spout that has
three-way articulation which can be sleeved in or out, as a
trombone would be
CR.
183).
25
—
3
—4—
Since
the first hearing some of the emission control
equipment has been changed.
Because of the dust blowing
at the unloading of the railroad cars the end of the area
was enclosed to prevent dust blowing
(IL
219).
The North
Annex emissions were previously only controlled by cyclones
(IL
58,
59).
The installation of a baghouse for the North
Annex was completed during the summer of 1976
(IL
200,
201).
This leaves the loading of the vessels as the main emission
source.
Since Garvey purchased the facility in 1969 it has spent
$724,512 on pollution control equipment
CR.
200).
Respondent
has indicated that $150,000 has been committed to resolve
the emission problem cOncerning the loading of barges and
ships
(R.
217,
268).
The Board finds the facts ~inthis case show that Respon-
dents are in violation of Section 9(a)
of the Act.
Respon-
dent’s particulate emission is an unreasonable interference
concerning the life and property of employees at neighboring
facilities.
Prior to determining what remedy
is necessary in
this case the Board must consider the factors of Section 33(c)
of the Act.
The Board must consider the character and degree
of
injury or interference with the health, welfare and physical
property of the people.
The interference with the lives of
employees of Respondent’s neighbors is great.
The particulate
emission causes discomfort, cleaning problems concerning clothes
and automobiles, additional maintenance to automobiles, inter-
ference with vision while driving and during wet weather slick
parking lots.
Nalco Chemical Company uses
a small industrial
vacuum cleaner to clean out their drainage area and its parking
lot that would be unnecessary but for the particulate emissions
from Respondent’s facility
(R.
30).
This interference is both
a nuisance and an economic injury to the neighboring facilities.
A grain facility sudh as Respondent’s clearly has an im-
portant social and economic function.
The value is diminished
by the injury caused to neighboring facilities.
The site of
Respondent’s facility
is not in issue.
The area is industrial
in
nature
CR.
51).
The facility was pre-existing to Garvey’s pur-
chase
of it in 1969
(R.
193).
The technical practicability and economic reasonableness
of eliminating these emissions is a more difficult question.
As previously noted, Respondent has indicated it would spend
$150,000 to eliminate this problem.
The simplest method of
elimination is
a cloth-like umbrella or tarpaulin covering
(R.
72,
209).
However, the Trimmers’ Union has refused to
25
—
4
—5—
operate in the Chicago area with that type of operation
because of the need for some kind of self—contained
breathing apparatus
(R.
209).
Mr. Pearson has observed
some other facilities with grain loading operations but
does not feel they are feasible for Garvey
(R.
208,
209).
Garvey has received four different estimates for a shuttle
belt system of loading
CR.
215).
The estimates run from
$1,200,000
to $1,800,000
CR.
215,
216).
Only the latter
figure pertains to a system that would load both barge and
ships as
is necessary in Respondent’s facility
(R.
216).
In
contrast, Mr. Kesari, the Agency’s witness, has also visited
several facilities, Continental Grain, Northwest Malt Company,
and Rail-to-Water Corporation, all in the Chicago area
CR. 69).
Mr. Kesari states that Respondent could control its emissions
with a baghouse and running air in a counter—current to grain
flow
(R.
70).
This estimate from the 1975 hearing with in-
flation would still be under $150,000.
Respondent declined
to spend $50,000 for an engineering study of the feasibility
of controlling the emissions
(R.
207).
There was no guarantee
of a result
CR.
208).
Garvey did receive a six month grace
period for compliance with the Chicago Municipal Code, until
January 18, 1977
(Resp. Ex.
1).
This was basically to allow
another similar facility time to work on
a resolution.
Mr.
William Swaby, President of Garvey Grain,
stated that the
Chicago facility in fiscal 1976 made a profit of $682,000
from its merchandising operation and lost $233,000 on grain
loading, making a total profit of $449,000
CR.
262,
263).
While Garvey has eliminated most of its emissions since
purchasing the plant; the record is not clear whether this
was done to abate pollution or to recover products.
Mr. Pearson
testified
(R.
175)
that:
(1)
the facility received milled by-
products of grain which are put through an extruder to increase
product densi~y,and
(2)
the particle size of the gluten feed
which
is
70 to
80 percent of the total business is very, very
fine
CR.
178).
The chronology of Garvey’s abatement plan
(Resp.
Ex.
2)
shows five phases extending from 1970 through 1975 with an
average annual expenditure of over $100,000.
Phase
4 was
completed in April,
1976 and $150,000 has been committed
(R.
268)
to complete Phase
5, abatement of emissions during
vessel loading.
Because of Garvey’s abatement efforts the
Board
finds that a penalty is not necessary to aid in the
enforcement of the Act.
The record in this case does not provide a clear answer
to the question of whether it is economically and technically
practicable for Garvey to attain compliance.
Because of this
situation the Board will require Garvey to meet with the Agency
25
—
5
—6—
and within 90 days of this order determine what steps can
be taken to achieve compliance.
Respondent will be required
to make two quarterly reports to the Agency thereafter.
At
the end of a period of one year both the Agency and Respondent
shall report back to the Board for final determination of this
matter.
If at any time during the year Respondent comes into
compliance the final reports will be submitted to the Board at
that time.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact
and conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
It
is the order of the Pollution Control Board that:
1.
Garvey Grain,
Inc.
is found to be in violation of
Section 9(a) of the Environmental Protection Act.
2.
Respondent shall meet with the Agency and submit
reports in compliance with the above opinion.
I, Christan
L. Noffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby c~tifythe above Op4~nionand Order
were adopted on the
3~
day of
___________
,
1977
by
a
vote of
________________
erk
Illinois
Pollut
I
‘oiiLrol
Board
25
—
6