ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARI)
    December 13,
    1973
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    V.
    )
    PCB 73—270
    J.
    C.
    ~R1M~ER
    ~,
    d/b/a TRI-COUNTY
    STONE COMPANY
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by Dr. Odell)
    The Environmental Protection Agency
    (hereinafter called
    EPA)
    filed a Complaint against J.C. Bremer, doing business as
    Tn-County Stone Company on July 2,
    1973.
    Respondent owns and
    operates certain facilities and conducts operations including,
    but not limited to, blasting,
    conveying,
    crushing, screening
    and storage of crushed limestone at
    a location two miles north
    of Nokomis, Illinois,
    on the Nokomis-Taylorville road.
    The EPA alleged that Respondent operated its facilities
    on or before July
    6,
    1972 and continuing to the filing of the
    Complaint so as to allow or cause the discharge or emission of
    limestone dust and other contaminants
    into the atmosphere
    in
    violation of Rule 3-3.111 of the Rules and Regulations Govern-
    ing the Control of Air Pollution,
    continued effective pursuant
    to Section 49(c)
    of the Environmental Protection
    Zct.
    Under
    Chapter Two of
    the Air Pollution Regulations of
    the Pollution
    Control Board
    (hereinafter called Chapter Two),
    Rule
    203(i) (2)
    indicates that
    if Respondent
    is found to be violating existing
    regulations so that the installation of new equipment is necessary,
    Respondent must comply with Rule 203(a)
    of Chapter
    Two
    entitled
    Particulate Emission Standards and Limitations for New Process
    Emission Sources.
    Respondent must comply with Rule 203(a)
    of
    Chapter
    Two
    by December 31,
    1973 because he does not satisfy the
    test of Rule 203(i) (5) (B) of Chapter Two in that he is not now
    in compliance with Rule 3-3.111.
    On September 26,
    1973,
    a hearing was held in Hillsboro,
    10
    —
    321
    —2—
    Illinois.
    Respondent was represented by counsel, Mr. Vandiver.
    Written and oral Stipulations of Facts were made part of the
    record.
    The written Stipulation of Facts shows that:
    (1)
    Respondent was emitting 62.5 pounds per hour
    from
    the primary crusher;
    250 pounds per hour from screening,
    conveying,
    and handling;
    and 180 pounds per hour from the
    secondary crusher.
    (2)
    Allowable rates under Rule 3-3.111 are 53.5 pounds
    per hour from each of these three
    sources.
    (3)
    Respondent violated Rule 3—3.111 and must install new
    equipment that satisfies Rule
    203(a) of Chapter Two.
    Allowable
    emissions under
    Rule 203(a)
    are 33.5 pounds per hour from the
    primary crusher; 33.5 pounds per hour from screening, conveying,
    and hauling;
    and 32,8 pounds per hour from the secondary crusher.
    The Stipulations of Facts indicate that Respondent applied
    for a Construction and Operating Permit from the EPA and was
    granted a Construction Permit on July
    2,
    1973.
    At the time of
    the hearing, Respondent had already completed installation of
    the spray bar dust suppression system.
    This enabled him to comply
    with Rule 203(a)
    of Chapter Two.
    At the time of the hearing, this
    precipitator had been in operation for one week.
    The proposed order by the parties included installation of
    control equipment and payment of
    a $750.00 penalty.
    That equip-
    ment has already been installed.
    The parties stipulated and
    agreed that in the event this pr’oposed order was not approved by
    the Board,
    this case was to be returned to the Hearing Officer
    for the taking of further evidence.
    We hold that the settlement agreed to by the parties should
    be carried out.
    Recently in EPA v. Central
    Illinois Stone
    Company, #73—243,
    9 PCB
    ;
    October 18,
    1973,
    we penalized
    a neighbor of Mr,Bremer’s
    $1000 for violations
    of the Act and
    Rules
    for carrying out his business in a manner quite similar to
    this present action.
    The
    factors calling for a heavier penalty
    in
    that
    case were that the pollution emission amounts were some~
    what greater and Respondent, Central Illinois Stone Company, could
    not comply as quickly as the Respondent
    in
    this case,
    Furthermore,
    where
    the
    parties have agreed to the disposition of
    the
    case,
    and
    the
    proposal is reasonable resulting in abatement of future
    pollution
    problems,
    we
    are
    incl:Lned
    to
    accept
    the
    Stipulation
    and
    enter
    our
    Order
    accordingly.
    See
    EPA
    v.
    Texaco,
    #72—98,
    4 PCS
    551,
    —3—
    This Opinion constitutes the finding of fact and con-
    clusions of law of the Board.
    ORDER
    It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that:
    (1)
    Respondent cease and desist from violating the Rules
    and Regulations as established under this Opinion.
    (2)
    Respondent pay a penalty of $750.00 for the violations
    of the Rules and Regulations as described in this Opinion.
    Pay-
    ment shall be by certified check or money order made payable to the
    State of Illinois, Fiscal Services Division, Environmental Pro-
    tection Agency,
    2200 Churchill Road,
    Springfield, Illinois 62706.
    Payment shall be tendered within
    30 days of the adoption of this
    Order.
    I, Chnistan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, certify that the above Opinio
    and 0 der was adopted by
    the Board on the
    /~3”~’.’
    day of
    ___________,
    1973,
    by a vote
    of
    ,.~
    to
    c~
    C
    Illinois Pollution
    trol
    Board

    Back to top