ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
June 14, 1973
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Complainant,
vs.
)
PCB 72—413
OCOYA STONE COMPANY,
Respondent.
Prescott E. Bloom, Assistant Attorney General on behalf of the EPA
Alonzo Clay, Attorney for Ocoya Stone Company
OPINION
AND
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr. Henss)
Ocoya Stone operates a limestone quarry and rock crushing plant
located approximately
5 miles south of Pontiac and 3 miles east of
Ocoya,
in Livingston County.
The Ocoya facility is known as the
Kridner Pit and is one of
9 limestone quarries located in the Ocoya—
Pontiac area.
The Environmental Protection Agency has charged Respondent
with the following violations:
1)
Excessive emission of limestone dust from July
1,
1970,
specifically June 16 and 17,
1971, August 16, 1971 and
February 3,
1972,
causing air pollution in violation of
Section
9 (a)
of
the
Environmental
Protection
Act
and
Section
3-3.111
of
the
Rules
and
Regulations
Governing
the Control of Air Pollution,
2)
The installation of equipment capable of emitting air
contaminants
in March 1970 without permit,
in violation
of Section 3—2.110 of the Rules,
3)
Emission of fugitive particulate matter since October 14,
1972 in violation of Rule 203(f) of the Air Pollution
Control
Regulations
and,
4)
The
failure
to
file
a
Letter
of
Intent
and
Air
Contaminant
Emission Reduction Program
(ACERP)
since April
15, 1967
in violation of Section 2-2.3
and 2—2.4 of the Rules.
Respondent admitted installing
a crusher without permit,
the
failure to file a Letter of Intent and the failure to file an ACERP
(R.
184-185), but denied that it caused air pcllution.
8—261
—2-
During
four
days
of
public
hearings,
the
Agency
relied
upon
the
testimony
of
two
persons
residing
near
the
quarry,
an
agronomist
and
a
State
Police
officer
to
prove
the
air
pollution
charge.
Ronald
Schultz
testified
that
dust
from
the
quarry
operation
forced
him
to
move
out
of
a
home
in
which
he
had
resided
for
40
years.
Schultz
continues
to
use
the
land
for
livestock
and
farming
operations.
He
stated
that
he
had
observed
dust
blowing
from the
Ocoya
plant
when
it
was
in
operation.
The
dust
conditions
were
worse
when
the
wind
was
from
the
southwest,
which
is
about
half
the
time
during
simimer
CR.
104).
His car, yard and
house
had
been
“covered white with
lime
dust”
CR.
105)
and
because
of
the
dust
conditions,
he
was
prohibited
from
cooking
outdoors
when
the
wind
was
from
the
south-
west
CR. 106).
Schultz testified that he moved away from the
quarry area because he couldn’t keep the dust out of his
home
and
because a doctor
had
advised the move to alleviate his wife’s
asthma
problem.
CR.
106)
He
stated
that
his
wife’s
health
was
“about
100
different”
since
the
move
CR.
107).
Schultz testified
that
he
had
complained
about
the
dust
to
Ocoya
representatives
on
several occasions.
He said there
is
no
dust
problem
from
the
stock
pile area after a rain or during
low
wind
velocity,
and
emissions
from
the
equipment
occur
only
during
plant
working
hours.
Trooper
Jerry
Burton
testified
that
his
official
duties
took
him
by
the
plant
from
2
to
5
times
per
week.
Burton
expressed
concern
that
dust
from
the
plant
formed
a
residue
on
a
nearby
blacktop
road
which
created
a
slick
condition
during
periods
of
moisture
CR.
150).
Although
he
could
not
remember
exact
dates,
Burton
said
he
observed
a
limestone
residue
on
the
blacktop
“several
times”
CR.
153).
Burton
admitted on cross examination that some of
the dust could have been deposited by
trucks
hauling
limestone
from
other nearby quarries.
Kenneth
Kelson has resided about 40 rods east of the crushing
plant since 1950.
He farms land which borders the Ocoya plant.
He
testified that the emissions from the Ocoya facility have “been
pretty bad at
times”
and that “there are not too many days that
some part of our place doesn’t get the dust”
CR. 106).
He identified
the main plant as the major
source
of
emissions
but
added
that
the
emissions from the stockpile on several occasions had been so dense
that
he wouldn’t know whether the plant was shut
down
CR. 117).
Kelson stated that his air conditioned home is “a
mess”
and he nust
leave his storm windows in place year
around
in order to keep the
dust out of his home
CR. 119).
He~escribeddust conditions as “so
bad that you can’t open your eyes walking around the buildings up
there”
CR. 119).
Kelson added that there had been days when he was
forced to leave the field bordering the Ocoya plant and go to other
fields because he couldn’t stand the dust while corn picking or
shucking
CR.
123).
Sometimes
he had to wait for rain to wash the
8—282
—3—
dust
from
plant
leaves
before
he
could
shuck
corn
or pick beans.
Ocoya Stone paid $300 to Kelson in
1971
for
damage
done
to
soy
beans.
Kelson testified that soil tests performed on samples
taken from land near the plant indicated
a higher pH
(alkaline)
than was evident in samples taken away from the plant area.
John Bossingham,
an agronomist, testified that the Kelson
soil samples were analyzed by Edwards Soil Service.
Bossingham
used the analysis as a basis
for his recommendation that no
lime be applied in this farm field.
The normal soil pH in the
area of Kelson~sfarm ranges from 5.9 to 6,4, but two of the
K~lsonsamples taken near the crushing plant exhibited
pH
values
of 7.6 and
7.9.
Bossingham classified these pH values as
“sweet”
which
he
felt
would
be
‘probably more harmful than being too acidy...
CR.
136)
He classified the high pH values as
“more than ordinary”
and stated that it was rare to have soil pH values that high.
However,
the agronomist believed that
the
dust deposited in the
area presented more of a problem
than
a
high
soil
pH, because
the dust causes shading which has a “deleterious affect on crop
yield”
(R.
140).
He estimated the increase in pH value from the
normal range to pH 7.6 would cut soy bean yield approximately 13.
Agency photographs of the crushing plant in operation show
a
white cloud of dust trailing away from the facility.
The evidence
proves that Ocoya has emitted particulates which unreasonably
interfere with the enjoyment of life and property and do damage
to plant life.
The Agency introduced calculations by Agency engineer, John
Shum in an attempt to show that particulate emissions were in
violation of Rules.
The following emissions were calculated:
(Exhibit 10)
June 1971
August 1971
Allowable
Actual
Allowable
Actual
lbs./hr.
lbs/hr.
lbs./hr.
lbs/hr.
Primary Crusher
53.0
58.8
52.4
53.6
Secondary Crushing
and Screening
52.1
158.7
51.0
144.9
Tertiary Screening
50.2
179.8
49.4
164.2
Storage Pile Losses
53.0
1176.0
52.4
1073.0
Respondent stipulated
to the process weight figures used by
the Agency in calculating the emissions, but objected to the Agency’s
use of emission factors in arriving at the estimate.
Respondent
made no attempt to show that its facility
was
in
compliance.
Rather,
8—
263
—4—
its
defense
was
an
attack
on
the
use
of
emission
factors.
In
the past we
have
held
that
emission
factors
may
be
used
to
prove
a
violation
although
actual
test
data
are
more
desirable
in
situations
which
allow
testing.
(EPA
vs.
Lindren
Foundry
Company,
PCB
70-1
and
EPA
vs.
Commonwealth
Edison
Company,
PCB
70-4)
In
the
Ocoya
operation,
part
of
the
rock
is
passed
through
a
separate and distinct screening process after being crushed.
An
Agency
investigator
testified
that
this
was
a
third
screening
operation
“downstream
from
the
secondary”
(R.
201)
and
Complainant’s
Exhibit
No.
11
shows
that
there
was
a
third
screening
operation
after
two
prior
screening
operations.
The
Agency calculated additional
emissions
from
this
source
under
the
title
“Tertiary
Screening”.
Ocoya
objected
strongly
to
this
calculation,
saying
that
screening
was
a part of the crushing process.
We feel that in the Ocoya
operation
this
additional
screening
was
a
separate
emission
source
and
that
the
total
emissions
could
not
be
learned
without
including
the
calculations
of
emissions
from
this
tertiary
screening.
Respondent’s
General
Manager,
Albert
Markgraf,
testified
that
he
had
been
aware
of
the
need
for
air
pollution
control
equipment
since
Agency
investigator
Henricks
visited
the
plant
in
June
1971
(R.
362).
Markgraf
said
the
Johnson-March
Corporation
had
done
a
study
of
Ocoya’s
operation
in
1971
and
proposed
the
installation
of
a
Chem—Jet
System,
which
Johnson—March
guaranteed
would
meet
Federal
and
State
air
pollution
requirements
for
particulate
emissions.
Ocoya ordered this system on January
12,
1973
(Respondent Exhibit 2B).
The cost of equipment for the Chem-Jet System is $14,187 and
Markgraf
estimated
installation
charges
could
run
another
$14,000.
Markgraf
testified
that
he
would
have
ordered
the
equipment
sooner
except
that
the
Illinois
Aggregate
Association
had
told
him
he
could
not
install
the
equipment
even
if
he
did
get
it
CR.
367).
When asked if the Association had given this advice at an annual
or quarterly meeting, Markgraf answered “Right,
and word of mouth
among
ourselves”
CR.
367-368),
Markgraf
added
“I
mean
that
all
of
these
Regulations
have
been
so
vague
with
all
of
us,
that
we
just
never
got
a
direct
ruling
as
to
what
you
should
do
or
what
you
could
do.”
(R.
367).
This
is
a
weak
excuse
for
18
months
delay
and
indicates
that
Respondent
simply
did
not
bother
to
become
informed
of
requirements.
The
control
equipment
recommended
by
Johnson-March
in
1971
has
now
been
delivered
to
the
plant
and
Ocoya
has
applied
for
an
EPA
permit
for
its
installation.
We find Ocoya Stone Company guilty of causing air pollution in
violation
of
Section
9(a)
of
the
Environmental
Protection
Act
and
8— 264
—5--
Section 3-3.111 of the Rules and Regulations Governing the Control
of Air Pollution.
We further find, as agreed by Ocoya, that the
Company has installed equipment capable of emitting air contaminants
without a permit, has failed to file
a Letter of Intent and has
failed to file an ACERP.
We find Ocoya not guilty on the charge that
it emitted fugitive particulate matter in violation of Rule 203(f)
of the Air Pollution Control Regulations.
Rule 203(f) (3)
specifies
that the Regulation
is inapplicable when the wind speed exceeds 25
mph.
Therefore,
it is essential, with regard to that charge, that
there be evidence of wind speed
as well as evidence of emissions.
Nowhere in the record do we find any reference to wind speeds on
the dates alleged for fugitive particulate violations.
The record
is
clear
that
Ocoya
could
have
reduced
emissions
in
1971 with the installation of a control system which the Company is
now willing to adopt.
Ocoya chose to continue its violation of the
law and disruption of the lives of neighbors for an additional
18
months.
For this a monetary penalty of $2500
is appropriate.
In
addition, we shall order Respondent to proceed with the installation
of equipment and any procedural modifications necessary to bring its
operation into compliance with the law.
ORDER
It is ordered that:
1.
Respondent shall pay to the State of Illinois by
July 27, 1973 the
sum
of $2S00
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
Drive,
Springfield, Illinois 62706.
2.
Respondent shall proceed with the installation of
equipment and any alteration of procedures necessary
to bring its operation into compliance with the
Statute and the Regulations governing particulate
emissions.
This compliance shall be achieved 90
days after the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency issues the necessary permit for installation
of pollution control equipment but not later than
November 15,
1973.
I, Christan L.
Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control P~oard,
hereby certify the above Opinion and Order was adopted this
/‘4’~’~
day of June,
1973 by a vote of
3
to
~
Qk~~Lth~*
8
—
265