Complaint ID 67933 — Public Copy

At approx. 1045 hrs I called David Proctor and asked him what developments had occurred since we had last spoke on 17Apr12.  He told me that they first had placed a tarp on the fence along the ally to help stop any product from leaving the property.  He had also taken Ms. Canandy's suggestion and placed a new tarp at the entrances to the loading buildings.  However, high winds over the weekend tore the new tarps to shreds.  As a result, he decided to change buildings where the product would be loaded.  Now, instead of loading out of or into the eastern building parallel to Bay Street he is using the building parallel and on the west side of that building.  In this way the two buildings act as blocking aids keeping any fugitive emissions on the property.  In addition he also added a sprinkler system to the conveyor system being used, which is located at the hopper.   Proctor stated that during high winds he ceases operations, even with all the above procedures in place.  Proctor stated he continues to spray water at the truck entrance to keep visible emissions down when trucks are operating in the area.  At this time it is recommended that we close this complaint and allow time for the above actions to take effect in the neighborhood and see if they are sufficient.

The complainant has now opened a form of dialog with Logistec and Mr. Proctor has encouraged input from the neighborhood.  This office has not seen any fugitive emissions other than that at the entrance caused by trucks stirring up dust.  this has been handled through continuous wetting down of the area.  Logistec is spending $5 million  on improvements to this site to modernize it.  With these improvements and the new communications that have been established between the industry and public sector, it is suggested that the situation be allowed to go into a ""self monitoring"" mode.  As I stated earlier, I will be doing an AQ inspection on this facility in the near future. I will be making this issue part of that inspection. 

Today this office received the CD showing the pictures taken by the complainant.  She also sent another small sample with a note was attached stating that I was calling this "pollen".    

On Tuesday, 10Apr12 this office received a call from Mr. Daniel Parsley, Brunswick Environmental Coalition.  He had also been called by the complainant about the suspect fugitive emissions coming from Logistec. He asked what I had found and done and I told him.  He stated he would speak to the complainant about the findings.     Wednesday 11Apr12 at 1400 hrs both Bruce Foisy, Acting District Manager and I visited the site.  We noticed an uncovered, stationary style, loading conveyor that was currently not in operation, however, there were two eighteen wheeler live bottom trucks waiting to be filled with product in the area.  The entire area around the storage houses appeared clean and no visible emissions were apparent.   It was about this time that Mr. Parsley appeared and told us what he had  tried to foster between the neighborhood and Logistec Management.  He also showed us what he felt was not a natural occurring  substance on the street along the curb.  The complainant appeared at this time and was introduced and appeared to be happy with the outcome of the meeting with Mr. David Proctor.  She was happy to see that water was being sprayed at the entrance to the yard to keep the dust levels down, and that all loading operations had ceased outside the buildings while the wind was blowing.  Loading operations continued inside the building.  She stated she hopes to keep an open dialog with Mr. Proctor and feels more confident now after her meeting. Mr. Proctor arrived and stated that he needed the neighbors input because he could not be everywhere and see everything at all times but with their help he could stop a lot of the fugitive emissions from happening.  In an effort to help stimulate a relationship between Logistec and the local neighbors I suggested to Mr. Proctor that he might offer tours to the public.  In this way he could show what was being done to help keep bulk products from becoming  ""fugitive emissions"" while being handle and loaded on ships.  He stated that he already made that offer.  I have placed Logistec on a short list for an AQ inspection in the near future. 

On 9Apr12 at 0915 hours I met with Mr. David Proctor, Terminal Manager and Doug Wheeler.  I explained the situation and showed them the freezer bag of product the complainant had collected from in front of her house before the street sweeper could remove it. After close examination he stated that he could not see anything in the collected product that resembled any of the materials they handled at the dock.  I specifically asked if he could see any peanut or wood pellet pieces in the bag and he said no.  He also stated that they had not been off-loading any of that product.  On 2Apr12 perlite (white color) was off-loaded and on 4Apr12 urea (yellow color) was off-loaded. We then discussed the entrance the trucks used and the fugitive emissions leaving the property.  I noticed that the area had been wetted down.  I told him what I had observed on the previous Thursday, 5Apr12 and that according to his permit he needed to keep fugitive emissions on his property.  Proctor stated that money had been set aside under the new modernization project to add water lines.  They had submitted the plans to the railroad and were waiting for approval.  They would then be paving the entire front area putting water lines underground.  Railroad approval was slow and that was what was holding up the process. I said that in order to be a good neighbor he should keep the area wetted down continually.  This would go a long way in showing that he cared about the residents in the area.  Proctor agreed.   

At 1500 hours I met with the complainant at her house.  We spoke about the problem and she gave me a freezer bag filled with what she had collected off the street curb in front of her home.  After looking at the brown/dark brown product I noticed that it was basically  broken up ""oak worms"", crushed leaves, whole leaves, stems, and general particulate matter found along a street curb.  I mentioned this to her and also told her that this was the season for the oak trees to release their seeds. I told her that all the products that Logistec dealt with were either white or yellow in color, not brown.  She insisted that it was coming from Logistec.  As we were standing there talking several trucks left the Logistec site, about 300' south, and visible emissions were leaving the property.  She pointed this out stating that this happened all the time and when the wind was blowing in the right direction the emissions would cover the cars and furniture in the area.  I told her I would speak to Mr. Proctor about this situation.  I did mention to her that she had to realize she was living next to an industrial area and some emissions are to be expected. She told me she had pictures and now that she had my card and e-mail address she would send them to me.  I encourage her to do so.  She also stated that she would wait until after the oak trees stopped dropping their seeds before viewing what was collecting on the street. I told her I would be speaking to Mr. Proctor on Monday 9Apr12 about the visible emissions leaving the property.  By this time several other neighbors had gathered and they seemed satisfied.  I left at approx. 1545 hours.  

At approx. 1330 hours I called David Proctor, Terminal Manager, for Logistec.  I found out that at the time of the complaint they were off-loading ""perlite"".  This is a white product and not a ""fertilizer"".  Proctor stated that during the off-loading it was very windy and they used water to keep the fugitive emissions down along the conveyor system.  He also stated that the conveyors used were new and had new covers.  None had missing cover or missing panels.  He said that because of the wind they watered down the area that the equipment traveled on and disturbed. I reminded Proctor that his permit requires him to keep fugitive emissions down during windy days on all parts of the site. I then told him that the complainant had collected some of the fugitive dust in a bag and that I was going to get some of it to show him and compare with his product.  He agreed.  At 1400 hours I called the complainant and she told me she was one of fifteen people in the area who are tired of all the dust coming from the yards.  She said she put some of it in a bag before the rain or street sweeper could remove it.  I told her what I had found out, that it was perlite, not fertilizer and a white not black product being off-loaded on 2Apr12.  She then stated it may have been the 3rd!  I told her this changed things because I did not ask about any off-loading on 3Apr12.  (A shipment of ""urea"" arrived on 4Apr12 was supposed to have arrived on 3Apr12) I set up a 1500 hr. on 5Apr12 appointment time to come by the complainant's house to pick up some of the ""suspect dust"" to look at and have Proctor look at.