ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

September

5,

1974

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Complainant,

RAIL~TO~WATERTRANSFER COMPANY,

Respondent

Mr.

Michael

A. Benedetto,

Jr.

and Mr.

Stephen Weiss,

attorneys

for Complainant.

Mr.

Edward M.

White and Mr.

Edmund

P.

Boland,

attorneys

for

Respondent

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by

Dr.

Odell)

On December

1,

1972,

the Environmental

Protection Agency

(Agency)

filed

a Complaint alleging

that Rail-to~WaterTransfer

Company

(RTW) violated Section

9(a)

of the Environmental Protection

Act (Act)

and Rule 3~3,lllof the Rules and Regulations Governing

the Control of Air Pollution

(Rules and Regulations).

Violations

were alleged to have begun on November 4,

1971, and to have con—

tinued until the time of the filing of the Complaint.

No specific

dates were alleged,

Complainant charged that Respondent violated

9(a) by causing or allowing the discharge of particulates into the

environment in sufficient quantities and duration as to be injurious

to human, plant or animal life,

to health, or to property;

or to un—

reasonably interfere with the enjoyment of life or property.

The

Agency further charged that Respondent in unloading grain and coal

from rail cars,

conveying, and loading grain and coal aboard ships

exceeded the emission standards of Rule 3—3.lll of the Rules and

Regulations.

RTW owns and operates a facility which primarily transfers

grain meal

(corn gluten and soybean),

coal,

clay

(bentonite) and

coke

from rail cars to

ships at a Calumet River

site.

on East

101st

street in Chicago, Illinois.

Most operations occur from April to

December

each

year

(R-376),

The transfer operations occur

on a 24-

hour basis seven days

a week

(R-396),

Approximately

48 employees

work at the facility during the peak summer season

(R-542),

The

corporation grosses approximately $3,000,000 yearly.

The facility

is located in an industrial area with a Commonwealth Edison peaking

station to its north, American Shipbuilding directly east,

and

Chicago Block, Marblehead Lime, General Mills, and Dixie Portland

south of the RTW facility.

RTW has two loading docks.

Each

is

serviced by a movable

gantry.

The north dock receives coa1,~ clays and meal while the

south one only handles coal and coke

(R-374,

5).

In transporting

the product from rail car to ship,

there are three areas of

~3—483

---

j

4

—

I

V

•

I

C.

~0

C

•

7

V

F

I

C

-

-‘

I

ci

-

£

-

c

v

-

4

ad

—

J

a

£

*

-‘

-

-I

‘I

r

—

•

e

•

t

t~t

r

it

-.

tc,a

r

•

£

a

LoLl

~

—

~c’

i

I

-

.L.r5

0

Jo

c

t

t

to

•

r

U ct

IC.

old

iLt

•

tI

i.)

r

It

stz-sei

g

oaOisgt~acr

.a

‘f’r..ac

£

ales

t

r

-

~

t.naer

all

aoqcj

•t1

j

•jya

t.-

1

r

to

ar

a’

e~es

k-i

or

tie

n~et

t

~hs

I

Cct

tro

‘

pa

r

cc

cn

p

i,

~

r

it

‘U..

‘it

•

‘tic.

ra

itl

fbi

y

jra’

y

-

DU

1

C1

~

rcc1

cc.

o

oL’c

~trp

•ccerce

bv~3Okgramovcbi.

Is

a

c

I

-

_~

,-

cr

.

c

er

•

‘~

i

a..ao

~

I5a

,o

•

1

(3_3

‘rf

~ngt~lc

uru

tsctb

total

~

3

a.

-....e..~

T_t

table _t

~“

Ax

_lLa’.~

a

Ya°

a2

.

II,

19

1

192

1913

—

~nc~

)

P

tx~r)~

jn~Jrear)

Ltor

a

year

Cot

6

93,133

.‘

.n36,353

~

24

995

4,4)~,524

Coke

a8,313

284,flG

38

,8i6

317,837

Sba

.i

61°

2o6,C’3

~‘,139

1a2,8,’

flay

234.915

s75

212

0,135

86,125

*

Data

for

1.973

only

through

Occooer

31,

.973.

13-S

---

en

heaxing~

crc

he~

ii

Januar

l~’7

Grove

and

Chicago,

Illjnoir-

Respondent

raised

sereraJ

~ur~

tional

objections

(i~—43

all

of

whicn

we

re~ect

flV~

sufficient

standards

under

the

Act

separatio

of

powe

power

of

the

Pollution

Conthol

Board

(Board

to

irroo~e

~

penatties

have

all

neen

recently

affrrmativey

decided

i

~kn~B

(57

111,2

170),

The

appellate

court

na~ r

Ia

Jir

the

right

to

jury

trial

does

not

apj~ly in

procee3

ru

af

r

c

Board

(see

Ford

v.

PCI

9

l~i

App

~

711’

.

~aiLre

t

r

specific

tates

in

the

Compla

t

does

not

violate

due

orcc

Complaint

should

be

coos

rued

as

a

violation

Oc

each

art

Furtnerrnore,

because

of

tIe

oncoing

rature

of

ResporJ

failure

of

witnesses

to

mention

specific

dates

o~

r

Jere

c~

~

r

Respondent

a

operation

goe~ morE

towa~d~t

e

wo~

evidence

tlar

tu

Ith

ace

ssi

I

y.

Li~ ecidence

establishes

a

violation

of

Secticr

3

the

Act

Witresses

for

the

Complainant

establisre~

tar.

o’-emm

r~

meal

dust

on

avenue

N.

This

location

is

approximate~

1)’

east

of

tIe

RTW

facility

(R~l3l6).

A

witness

testifre

~a r

bothered

b

~grain

dust

(R—ll5

in

her

house

ano

on

her

u~o

She

traced

it

to

RTW

R—1J

.

Emissions

are

worsa

a

(R—118

The

material

caused

her

to

cough

a

ease

aa

~

eyes

burn

R~l2l).

The

particulate

~s

white

i~

c~i

i~

appears

gray

and

yellow

at

other

trees

(R-~J2’

~t

a

L

at

corronorated

by

another

witness

are

noticed

tt~

cust

s~ ~La~

a

wee

ir

the

sumner

of

l97~

R—l48

and

tta~e~

ic

I

The

yellow

du~t was

noticed

ofter

in

~

summer

reaiden~r o

that

same

neighborhood

(-c~

an~

jr

amo

I

This

meal

dust

was

observed

by

anotner

~itre~s

~‘orring

R—336

and

covering

the

area

R—341j

Coat

us~ was

al

by

this

resident

another

citizer

also

noticet

mo

d

i~t

4

319

Re~ponde’~-adiritt~d

trollerat

w

mm’

o~

Cr.

a~~Cew:etLe:

s

r~s aee~

~a:e~

at

on~y that

there

has

been

irterfererce

nut

a

-

I a

c

fe~ence has

been

unreasonable

To

determine

ra~sonablc~”s

‘~

a

to

the

standards

i

Sect

at

33

c)

of

the

Ad

iiS,

I

and

decree

of

in~ury

hmm

beer

substantial

It

Jo

bee

Lo

c-l

‘rg

persisten~

and

has

clean

impInged

unon

th~

~virp

oat

area

residents.

Smmond

rJiil

the

pollution

source

cc

economic

alue

t

toe

commmm

ty

at

large

tnis

facco~

aatre

enough

to

jusb~fy

the

k~na

at’

interference

here

ox~mmrer

~

citizens

bird

the

iocat’on

of

tie

oollutior

a

u~ce

~

mm

balanced

by

citrzer

pnior~tv

in

inhabiting

r.a~e armm

of

prmmnity

&-oula

mot

be

overstraa~mm,

because

aumm

mm

i~

who

moves

into

an

industrial

area

can

still

~rinu

a

caumm

c

for

private

nuisarce

under

tne

common

laa.

Four~I,

i~

t

at

the

interference

control

technology

was

avarlamme

a

reaso

costs.

The

availability

of

nethods

of

poIu~io.

co

-mm-

important

factor

in

establishing

a

violation

Inc

jOc~~

ti-mm

nas

instalJed

available

equipment

within

the

last

f’-w

year

limit

pollution

indicates

that

ahatomont

could

amm

~on

aJar

---

taken before 1972 for several emission sources.

The Phase I un--

loading structure with its two baghouses was completed in June

1972

R—563

.

A dust

collection

system

was

installed

in

Phase

II

by

June

l9’3

R—564)

coke

piles

were

covered

sometime

during

this

period

A

cover

for

the

~pan~

is

now

being

prepared

(R—915),

A

sleeve

arrangement

for

the

telescopic

loading

spout

for

Phase

III

1-567

913

is

now

being

investigated.

This

technology

is

not

sophisticated~

most

of

it

was

available

in

1970,

although

Respondent

mar

not

have

considered

its

utility

or

importance

at

that

time.

Respondent offered much testrmony in defense.

First

al-

though delayed, Respondent has made considerable effort to reduce

emissions

in

the

last

several

years

Testimony

as

to

cost

indicates

a

good

faith

attempt

to

control

pollution.

Respondent

spent

$70,000

on

a

water

spray

system

for

Phase

I

in

1970

(R—554,

560).

This

systeir

was

later

abandoned.

In

1971,

over

~190,000

was

spent

CR-

567

‘

in

1972

in

excess

of

$186

000

was

invested

in

pollution

cor—

trol

~R-n66

7

through

the

end

of

October,

1973

an

additional

$35

000

was

soent

on

equipment

(R—560).

Most

of

these

amounts

were

used

to

control

enissions

mm

Phases

I

and

II

~R—567

Efforts

to

achieve

greater

dust

control

in

Phase

III

were

shown

Respondent

hopes

to

use

a

sleeve

made

of

nylon—reinforced

butyl

rubber

ir

1974

R—°13)

for

use

on

self—trimming

shrps

(R—Sll

2)

which

con—

pnisc

all

but

19

of

the

over

500

ships

loaded

in

1973

(R—407

However

these

19

tween

(double)

deck

ships

all

carry

meal,

the

chief

pollution

probler

S cond

the Respondent dttempted

to show that much of the

poLlution

affecting

the

witnesses

was

from

other

pollution

sources

ir

the

area

~R—l028

to

1040

However,

these

pollutants

appear

to

be

different

from

the

meal

dust

reaching

the

citizens.

Also,

it

seems

doubtful

that

most

of

the

other

pollutants

can

in

fact,

reach

the

neighborhood

(R—llO9

to

1122’

l332~

1341;

1353)

Third,

wind

conditions

at

Midway

airport

for

the

summer

of

1972

were

introduced

to

show

that

on

only

a

few

dates

were

winds

blowing

mm

an

easterly

direction

towards

tne

homes

of

the

citizens

(Resp

Ex.

14

15,

16

and

17

This

information

is

not

very

probative

in

tIaL

toe

data

indicates

wind

direction

on

a

daily

interval

onli,

at

a

point

13

miles

away

from

RTW

a

facility

iocated

near

Lake

~4ichigan

However

the

presence

of

other

pollution

sources

in

the

locality

would

not

preclude

RTW~s being

held

in

violation.

Toe

Act

makes

clear

that

any

person

who

causes

or

allows

pollution

is

liable

without

regard

t’

the

contribution

from

other

nearby

pol-

lution

sources

Rule

3—3.111

Toe

testimony

fails

to

establish

a

violation

of

Rule

3—3.111,

because

no

tests

were

conducted

at

this

facility

to

see

how

mucn

dust

was

actually

emitted

(R—456

to

466).

An

attorney

for

the

Agency

argued

that

a

showing

of

potential

pollution

establishes

a

prima

fade

case.

“The

Agency

attempted

to

introduce

emission

factors

taken

from

AP—42,

the

“Compilation

of

Air

Pollution

Emission

Factors”,

.

.

.

Agency Exhibit l9A

.

.

to show that the process of

unloading

conveying,

and loading meal at the RTW facility was in

violation of Rule 3-3.111 limits but such evidence was not allowed

13—486

---

into the record by the hearing officer~ (A~enctbrief, page

27

Testimony was offered by

boti-

sides regarding this

issue

We

believe that the hearing officer ruled correctly.

Although early

Board rulings held that such data alone were sufficient

to estan-

lish a violation, this position has been overruled in several recent

Illinois appellate court cases

~Hoffman v.

PCB

16

III. App.3 325~

~

L17

Ill. App

3 699~

RTW has been engaged in extensive pollution control efforts

for over two years.

Much of the testimony in the record went to the

issue of what type of control

is feasible at the facility

Parts

of this testimony deserve mention; our Order will be better under-

stood if certain facts

in the record are made clear regarding the

three areas of emission sources.

Phase

I

We are generally satisfied that Respondent has made

alt

reasonable efforts to control emissions at Phase

I

(Resp.

Ex.

l8c

d, and e, EPA Ex. 17K and N

.

However, as

Resp.

Ex.

12

(pages

1

and

4)

indicates,

fugitive dust is

still escaping into the atmos-

phere when the hopper doors of the railroad cars are initially

opened and during the shaker operation.

Respondent offered other

testimony refuting these findings

(Resp.

Lx.

l8c,

d, and e).

Respondent s Ex

12

(page

1

suggests repositioning of the intake

nozzles to handle these emissions, A dust problem also ex~stsat

the front

and

rear doorway of the Phase

I structure when these

doorways are not being plugged by a railroad car (R-7ll to 715

EPA Ex.

171),

Fugitive dust moves

freely into the atmosphere

Some type of covering or flap needs to be used to bloca these open

doorways

Phase II

Operatrons at Phase II contair three distinct sources

of

emissions.

First, where the product drops free the inclined Phase

1 conveyor on to the highline belt

(“product line,” R--l077

an

enclosed structure evacuated by a baghouse has been built

(EPA Ex,

2J,

K; R-754

to 756,

1072 to 1079’

Resp.

Lx,

18KLl

On

October

2,

1973,

dust emissions were noted coming from this structure

(R—998)

Respondent argued that these emissions resulted

from

the

clogging

of

the

baghouse

(R—998)

,

and that since that time no dust emissions

have occurred (R-l075

.

EPA Lx

27E tends to impeach that point

of view, although Respondent was unsure when that slide

was

taken

Phase II was not completed until June

1973

(R-564),

Toe Agency

introduced evidence thit the dusty condition is caused by eddl

currents

(R—l306)

,

which are created when the collected dust is re--

cycled on the conveyor system.

The Agency recommended eliminating

these emissions by using an “enclosed” system

(R-l273,

4,

5’ EPA

Ex.

29E and

F) which would remove the collected particulate frorr

the

baghouse

and place

it

on

an enclosed section of the highline

conveyor

(R—l277),

thus avoiding pollutant emissions.

Some

evidence of how such

a system might work was introduced

(EPA Ex,

29E and F).

The second emission source

in Phase II occurs where the

material is conveyed from the highline conveyor through the tripper

13

—

487

---

aL do~

I

anotoer conveyor belt whic

transports toe product up

tr c

i

o ‘a

c cantry rot

toe pan

tEPA

La

2H

and

F

EPA

Lv

l7r

snomm tab movabie gantry with the highline belt or

tie left

~1?

area be ow tIe tripper

r’

I cc covered to reduce emismmons

~l-

ti-c

gi-

the testimomm doer ~ot state how soon this work would b

done

P-76~

The md

red conveyor bela whmmi- feeds the par wll

a~mmhe

mm

I

‘U,

r.

1r6

ate

the pan

,EPA Lx

2~~X

,

wnere mater_al

trans err d

rem the conveyor into the top of the discharge spcu

will cc covered

R-915

R’~sp. Lx.

13

TIc Agency introduced

testimon

hat covering aomm would rot elimirate emissions unles~

evammmmec bj a baai-ou’

-

Ll

4

~

Ettissiors from the oper

pat

“

car

s

mm

Li-

~nu a.~1smmo~

u

occurs

wuen

Lhe

producL

~

the

i-old of t1e vessel, creating dust

Two types of vessels an

loaded at

l’t’

“Bulkers or self-trimmers are vessels with

hor~eontaldividers

‘~

:

hold

although there are severam vertical

separat~or

or the varo

s holds of the same ship

Tween—dedlee

or

tr

othe

oand,

lava

i

adamtion to the vertical divider

oonircnta

dmviaer whic,

is

in effect

a dccx betweer

tIe main de

ano shio b ~toe~

tResp. brmmf

page L

responden

S

Ex

13-

is

a

VuV

I

caine doen in o a tween--deckat

The Acemmy irtroco

a

evadercu to-

e~r1issioI’ £rolr sethabnimmers coulc be contmm Ji d

trrougl

th

mm

mm

a doucle tuced loading spot

Inser e~

3

C

ii

‘nes

ru

toe proauct pijat

R—mm

‘

RAP Lx

t)

mm

‘ci

as cc

s

isub

a’-

the Cargiti Gra’n “ermmnal, Seattle, Washmnot

r

Or

ube

car

mes

grain

to

~-

re

hol

-

of

tub

selu—trimme

w

ir

i

e

othe

tub

operatmic

mtoa reverse amm

IIc

—

moe

s

up

t

c d

that

mm traveling wlt

t

e cram

art cabrmes

it

bamo

‘oward I,

a

baghousc

l-22~, 5

~‘PACx

and

8

live

mmcl-

spouth aru use

r

C

—~

1

t

a

tat

c—”-

of app~oxiiratev

S200,(0

—

lea coder t

rJetgad

t

sui tacilitv mm

mme doubt e

t”lse

deem~

i

connedtmo’

with

i

a own facility

First

wi-the the

e

vice nay

b

effective for enair

it

would not wont

mm. RT

di-’

‘

mac

rather thar

grair

is loaded

(R-372

.

Meal

mm more dr.u

thor

grair

1-245)

Pa’-trc_es

ub

meal

woulc

be

consta~ ~mm car

‘a

up the dust collectmnu spou

,

oluggmn’~up the cevmm

Resooroe

introduced

cvi

mmcc

si- oring

that

tub

cc

cc

icr

spo

-

used

b

Care II

to Jo~ c’ramn Jecuently pacrs

up

unptugginci

ti-c ~p

cmmates abs

P-117~’Reso

Lv

191

Lve

when

re Cargill de

i’~

mm

tjn’hm nrnJ pmmoe

Jy

das’- is created

Pe~

Cx

I

I

C

a

f~ll7l cc

ran’

u

evide cc in reduced o

t a Agency.

RT

haves

that the

beat’

metrod. of dus

contro

on ~e.f-tr mmers

t

parthaLy cover the oath

and attacr~

rubber siee

a to tmm motto

ub

ncr

smmr.t to

hoke load toe meat

R—ll9r

3

.

P sleeve

c

mat

similar

to t

e omo to be tested at RTW ir

1974

is

pic mmcc

-

Ex

2BB

CC

ard DD

Lu

Agency v’itnesu testified tiat the

US

‘at

the sleeve ircreased dumm cr~issions

mmlO4

Lua this testimory

was

imoeached

R 106

910

912,

913; EPA Ex.

2W

RH

JJ

however

photographs indicate tnub some fuse orcblem’

st-’li

exist with

ti-c

s~”evedevic

F°!

20

X

\

mmd

Liable e idenca of methoas ol dust control

Ior tweet—

---

c.,.~

~

b

-w

5)

‘-sa

-

JTo:

e

J

e

£~.

c

4’

.3

v

e

‘

-

C

..

—

e

•.

~.

If

ti.

1

I

4.

—

-a

‘1

-e

r

....~t ‘t

0’J

V.

c.

-

-

l.a rant

y

~a

flf

red’-

tee-

-t~

‘...

er

c

teht

)

t

t

‘T~.a~

:

c

-t

0

I

-c

ec

4

‘Pc

4

‘4-

V

r

-

33f_

1

—o

—

tt

1.

TF~~

R

£

ti.

~

i-ic.

(‘o

‘rc

I-

a

Os

•

zc

c 4e’i’.

g.oli

c

...~

t-

‘(a)

cl

•-fa

A t

;

r

~l-t

aC

~l

zeaa

nwe. ~

o

i.

t”

fa’iJ.

ty

-

-

L

-

y-g

o tel

‘s

£

II

Cs.

TT

r

a

1

‘t

(Ta

q

I

2

Re

pondent

all

p

-

o

renai’y

i.

,‘QC

i’

n

vtolations

of

the

Act

establ..s.

ed

in

this

)p~.nioi’i.

Peveenr

-.

a.1.

be

by certiried caeck a:

mone~order irade payabZe

o tre J’ate ot

Illinois

1”scal Services Div.sion,

Environmental

Protection Age’tcy

2 ‘0 Churchill Road, Springfieic.

Illinois 6~736.

Paynen:

s.ial.

‘e

ade

ithin 35 days of ‘be adoption of

th4s

Order

•

I

i

co’nectaon with Pi-ase I, Pespondent snail Leposi-40n

or

install

additional intake nozzles on to its presen~system to

capture all practical emissions of fagiti-ze dust,

if such

corrections or additions have not already been

made.

Responoent

shall

also

build

an apparatus or develoD a

method

to prevent dust

from

escaping

from

the

front

and

rear

doorways

when

raiL

cars

are

not

blocking

the

doorways.

All

Phase

1

changes

shall

be

completed

by

the

1975

operating

season

and

in

no

case

later

than

April

1

1975.

4

In

connection

with

Phase

II,

Respondent

and

the

Agency

shall

conduct

tests

to

determine

whether

the

Phase

II

baghouse

prevents all appreciable emissions at the transfer point.

If the

Agency

concludes that substantial emissions routinely occur, the

Agency and Respondent shall investigate the practicability of

in-

stalling

an emission control systen similar

to

r~ecne

enntye4

eke

s

‘u.

1.tt’/

43

1-C..

~).4Ie~

co

‘ve~

~°

t’t

r

ol:a-

-St

—

1

1.

1

3

,

a

V

——

I.

C

y

Ce

~

£1.

‘C.

-t

L

-

.

1.

r ~

-

C.

a

Ii

a

r~r’

f

.~.

t~e

~

it

‘5

t

00

a

ct

it Mt~

i:s

ii’

e.

C.

*

U..

-

£

•0

t~

n

I

*

S

1’

L.a

r

‘.1

ORE

13—

as

---

as C rqmlt

a onctared

n EPA

~x

23L aid

This

is not meant

to ~oreJ

mm

she oarties

iron mn~-astiaatmngother amnds of control

ae

imm~s ncr

she transfe~coint

The tespondent shall 5a~ecomplete—

L

i

stnl~

‘overs around

-he

ripper

conveyor nelt leadmng to the

pai

an

t

e gan

hi

the

1975 operating seas n and in no case later

ban

ysri0

US

ci

onnection with Phase

1.11

Respondent shall report to

tie

rgaocy

‘rrthmn

60 days of the adoption of this Order, its

‘

cccss

d’ ring the summer of 1974 with the rubber sleeve and hatch

ccatmm

rices

ated for loading of smmf—trmmmers, The Agency may

enter cc premises at reasonable tmmes to verify such results.

Ipparatus

to control dust emissions from loading of tweem-deckers

shall be installed as

it

becomes

available,

If adequate dust

amissncn control

is not achieved by April

1,

1975,

the Respondent

shall submit a report to the Board on efforts to achieve satisfactory

dust control for tween—decker loading and, within

30 days thereafter,

the Agency shall send their comments on Respondent~sreport to the

Board.

Thereafter,

the reports and comments shall be filed every

six months until the problem at the facility is alleviated,

6.

lespondent shall apply for all necessary permits from

the Agency by January

1

1975.

7.

Respondent shall submit written reports to the Agency

on dctober

1,

1974,

and January

1 and April

1,

1975, on its progress

in implementing this Order.

I, Christan C

Mcffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, he~enycertify that

time above Opinion and Order w~.sadopted

on the

‘~

day of

,

1974, by a vote of

~

to

0

Christan L.

Mo

t

13