ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
February
14, 1973
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
)
)
V.
)
#72—62,
262
)
RELIANCE
QUARRY,
INC.
)
LARRY
R.
EATON,
ASST.
ATTORNEY
GENERAL,
ON BEHALF OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
BENJAMIN
B.
ALLEN,
OF
SMITH
& ALLEN, ON BEHALF
OF
RESPONDENT
AND
COUNTER
PETITIONER
OPINION
AND
ORDER
OF
THE BOARD
(
BY
SAMUEL
T.
LAWTON,
JR.
):
Complaint
was
filed
by
the
Agency
against
respondent
Reliance
Quarry,
Inc.
(“Reliance”)
on
February
17,
1972,
alleging that since July
1,
1970,
continuing
through the date of complaint and particularly on
or about August 24,
1971, and
August
26,
1971,
Reliance had operated its facilities
so as to
“cause,
threaten or
allow the discharge or emission of dust and other contaminants into the environ-
ment
so
as
to cause or
tend
to cause air pollution” in violation of Section
9
(a)
of the Environmental Protection Act and Rule 2—2.11 of
the Rules and Regulations
governing the control of
air pollution, effective pursuant to Section 49(c)
of the
Act.
Ill.
Rev.
Stats.,
Chapter 111 1/2, Sections 1001 et~1.
Subsequently,
on
June
26,
1972, Reliance requested a variance to allow reasonable time in which
to correct the alleged violation.
Respondent—petitioner waived disposition within
90 days
(R.
290).
Reliance is the owner and operator of a limestone quarry that has been
in
continuous operation since 1904
(R.
50,
259).
The quarry and related equipment are
located within
the municipal limits of the City
of Alton and Madison County.
Test-
imony indicates that
the operation is carried on with blasting,
followed by crushing
and screening the limestone
(R.
150).
Trucks and heavy equipment are used by Reliance
to transport the limestone from one operation to the next and ultimately for sale
and distribution
(R.
151,
260 ~
Dust emitted during these operations
is
the
subject of the complaint.
The area surrounding
the
quarry
was
not
as highly residential at the outset
of
the
operation
as
it is presently
(R.
262).
The site is now substantially surrounded
by
homes.
There
is
evidence
that
respondent
has
expanded
its
operation
recently
by eliminating the wooded areas
on
its property which separated the quarry operation
from some residential
areas
(R.
46,
51,
94,
236).
The woods acted as a natural
barrier, preventing the spread of limestone dust, which
is the subject of
this complaint.
Testimony establishes violation of
the Act.
Witnesses identified the emission sources
as
the crushing machines,
limestone storage piles and trucking operations. (R.i~50, 163,
323).
7
—
73
More citizens seemed
to be affected by the trucking operation when respondent
increased the number of entrances
to
the site
(R.
16,
17,
28,
36,
103,
195).
A
lesser number believe
that they were affected primarily by the rock
crushing procedure
(R.
61,
63,
125).
Citizens testified that Reliance was
lax in wetting down the limestone dust which accumulated on
the
roads and
was emitted from the trucks as they were operating.
Simetimes the emissions
were heavy enough
to be quite noticeable and reduced visibility “like fog”
(R.
20,
65,
81,
102,
105,
114).
This
was
the source
of continuing citizen
concern.
Testimony indicated that in certain cases citizens experience
difficulty breathing because of the emissions
or that
the emissions aggravated
an already existing respiratory ailment
(R.
18,
109).
However,
the primary
impact of
the emission was on enjoyment of property.
Many testified that
the limestone dust destroyed vegetation
(R.
17,
25,
35,
38,
80)
gardens or
crops
(R.
64,
191), while
others indicated that the limestone caused damage
to their automobiles’
finish
(R.
17,
90,
108)
or
to their laundry
(R.
88,
105,
108).
The continued presence of
the dust necessitated inordinately
frequent cleaning both inside and outside their residences
(R.
80—1,
93,
107,
191).
The emissions
prevented the enjoyment of yards
and outdoor furniture
because the accumulation of presence of dust during the times
of leisure
activity
(R.
16,
35,
108).
By Agency calculation,
respondent’s emissions appear not to comply with
Rule 2—2.11.
For a process
rate of 150
tons per hour
(R.
168)
the Agency
calculates emissions for an uncontrolled plant of
230 pounds per hour
(Com—
plaintant Exhibit
4)
compared to an allowable emission of 55.4 pounds per
hour according
to
the Rule.
Certain factors make the judgement on compliance
only an estimation.
The first
is that the emission factors used are from
Table 8—19
of AP—42 (Exhibit
5) and are given only an average rating in
terms
of accuracy.
Secondly, calculations are based on uncontrolled processes
whereas the Agency knew spray nozzles or water was applied to trucks before
dumping into the primary crusher
(R.
252),
to the hammermill
(R.
229), and
to
the transfer point (R~255).
In regard
to the efficiency
of the water sprays
in reducing dust we do not have specific figures.
But
if we assume a 40
efficiency,
as was done by respondent’s counsel, we would still arrive
at
emissions of 144 pounds per hour (Complaintant Exhibit
6) versus the allowable
55 pounds per hour.
In addition,
an outside consultant hired by respondent
stated
that based on
dust he observed emitting from the hammermill,
if the
water spray were 10
efficient,
it
would be “damned good.”
(R.
342).
Respondent—petitioner admitted that it had no idea
as
to the level
of emissions
that
~.t
was “putting out.”
(R.
183).
Testimony of Reliance indicated that
they
were
aware
of
citizens
complaints
but
had
undertaken
no
program
unitl
the
filing
of
this
complaint.
Reliance
then
requested
a
variance
in
order
to
allow them time
to bring their operation into compliance without having to
shut down.
The company subsequently attempted to formulate
a system that
would
control limestone dust emissions.
At the first hearing they suggested
a water scrubber,
cyclone system
to be installed
to their hammermill and
several months later changed
this proposal to a bag house system.
They have
stated that
the project can be completed within 90
days.
(R.
274,314).
—2—
7
—
74
The program as outlined will have a high probability
of compliance, particularly
if all options
for dust removal are taken.
The basic program involves entrain-
ment (using a hood)
of particles smaller than 1/32 of an inch from the
hammermill discharge conveyor
(R.
324).
After being captured
the particles
are removed from the air in a bag house
that has
an efficiency of removal of
99
(R.
318).
The basic system has enough reserve in terms of blower capa-
city to also entrain dust, using separate duct systems,
from the transfer
point
(R.
333)
and perhaps even from the primary crusher.
There is also reserve
capacity if the hood system as designed does not entrain
the desirable quantity
of dust and must be expanded.
The basic system will cost
in
the range of $20,000.00
t
$25,000.00 and take
three months
to install
(R.
368).
For this system to operate at its best
efficiency the water sprays on the primary crusher, hammermill and transfer
point would not be used.
Simply having the dust collector on
the hammermill
exit conveyor would
eliminate
dust
emissions
from
the
hammermill
and
screening
plus
recrushing
and
rescreening
processes,
and
thus
it
is
estimated
that
more
than
90
of
the emissions would be collected by
the filter system.
The
resulting emissions according
to the AP—42 emission factors would then be
reduced
to 23 pounds per hour compared
to
an allowable 55 pounds per hour.
The company was aware of
the
dust
emissions
far
in advance of
the time that
the complaint was filed
(R.
61—74,
112,
230—1,
234,
246,
273).
They had
instituted some procedures for wetting down the areas,
including roadways and
storage piles, where emissions were a particular problem, but testimony shows
that
they did not follow this procedure conscientious~y(R.
68,
154).
This
was a question of whether the situation had improved during the period in
question;
most witnesses believed
it had not
(R.
19,,
36,
60,
78,
135).
We find that the company violated the Act and Regulations by causing and
threatening to cause air pollution.
We find it inexcusable that the company
made no attempt prior
to the filing of
the complaint to assess its emissions
problems and bring them into compliance.
The company also has been lax in
following its own operation procedures
(R.
63,
68,
156,
159, 242—43).
Their
method of operation has resulted in significant emissions of limestone dust
which have been not only discomforting but somewhat destructive.
We find that
the respondent’s violations are mitigated only by its localized
Mfect
and
present desire to bring the quarry into compliance.
For the violations we
assess a penalty in
the amount
of $3,000.
Reliance has stated that it plans
to implement abatement procedures
at all
points of its process where emissions problems
do exist including the storage
piles,
transfer operations, primary crusher and hammermill
(R.
253,
304).
Reliance has indicated its willingness
to post
a performance bond
(R.
267).
Respondent—petitioner shall submit,
for approval,
a program of abatement
to
the Agency and the Board within 35 days from date of this order.
Reliance will
post
a bond in the amount
of $20,000.00
to insure the completion of
the program.
The program shall be completed within 120 days from its approval by the Agency.
—3—
7
—
75
IT
IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that:
1.
Respondent is found to be
in violation of Section
9
(a)
of
the Act and Rule 2—2.11 of
the Rules and Regulations.
Penalty
in the amount of
$3,000
is assessed for the aforesaid violation.
Payment shall be made within
35
days of
the date of
this Order,
by check or money order payable
to Fiscal Services Division,
Environmental Protection Agency,
2200 Churchill Drive, Springfield,
Illinois
62706;
2.
Within
35 days from the date hereof, Reliance shall submit to
the Board and the Agency,
a program for the abatement
of air
pollution and
nuisance
as
demonstrated by the record in
this
proceeding.
This
program
shall
be
completed
within
120
days
from
the
date
of
approval
by
the
Agency.
3.
Respondent
shall
post
with the Environmental Protection Agency
within
35
days
from
the
date
of
this
Order
a
bond
or
other
security
in
the
amount
of
$20,000.00,
in
form
satisfactory
to
the Agency, which shall be forfeited in the event the completion
deadline
provided
in
paragraph
2
of
this
Order
is
not
met.
The bond shall be mailed to Fiscal Services Division, Environ-
mental Protection Agency,
2200 Churchill Drive, Springfield, Illi-
nois
62706.
I~Christan ?Ioffett,
Clerk of
the Illinois Pollution Coq~rolBoard, certify
that
the above Opinion and Order was adopted on the
Jq”day
of February,
1973,
byavoteof
~
toO
aLL~P~~~
‘—4—
7
—
76