ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    September 18,
    1975
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    Complainant,
    vs.
    )
    PCB 72—79
    SANGAMO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,
    Respondent.
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by Mr.
    Heriss):
    On October
    31,
    1972 the Pollution Control Board found that
    Sangamo Construction Company had caused air pollution in
    violation of SectEon 9(a) of the Environmental Protection Act;
    had violated Section 3-2.110 of the Rules and Regulations of
    the Air Pollution Control Board by failing to secure
    a permit
    for its concrete plant; had also operated its asphalt plant
    without a permit.
    A $5,000 penalty wa~imposed for these
    three violations.
    The Appellate Court,
    4th Judicial District of
    Illinois,
    found that Sangamo admitted its permit violation in the oper-
    ation of the concrete plant, and further found that there was
    sufficient evidence that Sangarno had violated Section 9(a)
    of
    the Act.
    However,
    the Appellate Court found that there was no
    permit violation in the operation of the asphalt plant.
    There-
    fore, the Appellate Court reversed that part of the Pollution
    Control Board Order which had imposed the $5,000 penalty and
    remanded
    the
    case to the Board for reimposition of penalties
    on the Section
    9(a) violation and the concrete planL permit
    violation.
    The elements of the violations have already been established
    in the written Opinions previously issued by the Board and by
    the Appellate Court.
    We will not repeat the evidence at length.
    We find from our consideration of the evidence that the
    permit violation was for an unusually long time period.
    It
    appears that Sangarno paid little attention to its environmental
    obligation
    for some
    2 1/2 years.
    The permit system is the
    cornerstone of environmental control and must be enforced.
    For
    long standing violations of this type a penalty of $1500 is
    appropriate.
    18—494
    —2—
    The Section
    9(a) violation is assessed at a higher level
    than the permit violation,
    since there is direct evidence of
    the actual impact on people in the community.
    Sanqamo’s
    emissions brought complaints from employees of nearby businesses,
    and adversely and unreasonably affected those business operations
    in addition to unreasonably interfering with the health and the
    enjoyment of life of individuals.
    The concrete plant had obvious
    social and economic value, but according to the evidence, is no
    longer operating.
    Its location did not affect residences.
    The
    pollution control devices which were installed by Sangamo did
    reduce emissions but there was delay
    in the installation and use
    of such devices.
    It was technically feasible to reduce the
    emissions at an earlier date.
    For the Section
    9(a) violation we
    assess
    a penalty of $2500.
    This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions
    of law of the Illinois Pollution Control Board.
    ORDER
    It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board
    that:
    Respondent Sangamo Construction Company shall pay to the
    State of
    Illinois by November 1,
    1975 the sum of~$4,000 as
    a penalty for the violations found in this proceeding.
    Penalty payment by certified check or money order payable
    to the State of Illinois shall be made to:
    Fiscal Services
    Division, Illinois EPA, 2200 Churchill Rc~c, Springfield,
    Illinois 62706.
    I,
    Christan
    L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, he~ebycertify the ab ye
    pinion and Order was adop ed
    the ___________day
    of
    ,
    1975 by a vote of
    —~
    c~JJ
    Christan L.
    Moffett,(
    r
    Illinois Pollution
    rol Board
    18
    —
    495

    Back to top