ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
October
31,
1972
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
v.
#
72—79
SANGAI4O
CONSTRUCTION
CC.
Mr.
Frederick
C.
Hopper,
for
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Mr.
James
T,
Mohar~, for
Sanqamo
Construction
Oo~
Opinion
of
the
Board.
(by
Mr.
Currie)
This
case
concerned
both
an
asphalt
plant
and
a
concrete
plant
owned
and operated
by
Sangamo
Construction
Company
and
located
on
Toronto
Road
on
the
south
side
of
Springfield,
Illinois.
The complaint filed by the EPA March
2,
1972 and
amended May 11. l97~charges Sangamo wita vaolating
Section
9 (a)
of
the
Act
by
discharging
contaminants
into
the
air
so
as
to
cause
air
pollution;
with
failure
to
secure
a
permit
for
new
equipment
capable
of
emitting
contaminants as
required
by
Section
3-2~llO
of
the
Rules
and Regulations Governing the Control
of Air Pollution;
and with operatine
its asphalt
plant
at
a
higher
process
weight
rate
than
indicated
in
the
application
for
a
con~
struction
permit.
Two
days
of
hearings
were
held
at
which
the
following
facts
were
revealed.
The amended complaint filed
by
the
EPA
charges, in
paragraph
4,
~that Respondent has operated
its asphalt
plant
in
violation
of
its
installation
and
operation
permit;
i.e.
by
operating
said
plant
at
a
significantly
higher
process
weisht
rate
than
the
weight
rate
used
in
making
application
for
said
permit.”
The
record
showed
that the Sangamo application
for
an installation and opera-
tion permit approved by the Air Pollution Control Board,
January 23,
1969
(EPA Ex.
5)
,
specified
a process weight
rate of 200 ton/hr.
Testimony by Sangamo
(Record
6,’l4,
pg.
108)
indicated an average production rate in 1971
of 247 tons/hr with peaks of 300-320
tons/hr.
Actual
6
—
83
—2—
production data supplied by Sangamo
(Resp.
Ex.
18)
for
certain days
in 1971 indicated an average hourly production
rate of
235 tons per hour.
Thus it
is obvious that
at
certain periods of time
a process weight rate of 200
tons per
hour
was exceeded.
The
reason for specifying
a process weight rate in
the installation and operation permit was to help
the APCB assess the environmental impact of the installation.
For this reason the process rate identified should have
been
the
maximum
rate expected rather than
a rate less than
the average actual
rate
(200 tons/hr vs. 235-247
tons/hr,
according to the Record)
In terms of environmental
jim-
pact,
this additional process rate
is the same as if another
asphalt plant, having a process weight rate of up
to
127
tons/hr (see data for 8/13/71 Resp.
Ex.
18)
had been built
without
a
permit
adjacent to the plant in question.
The
record also showed that in applying for the installation
permit, Barber—Greene Co.,
acting in behalf of Sangamo,
used a fines
(material that will pass through #200 mesh)
concentration of
3
in calculating the expected emission
(Record 7/12,
pg.
75)
.
The
main product
of
the
asphalt
plant, however, was base asphalt mix
(BAN)
which by State
standards must have fines of
8 ÷4
(EPA Ex.
1)
.
The
record showed that there was a proportioning engineer,
employed by the State, assigned to
the
asphalt plant whose
duties included checking the asplalt mix to see
if
it met
the
specifications
(Record 6/14, pg.
5)
.
Sangamo also
testified that it is impossible
to order material with
less than 4-5
fines from a quarry
(Record 7/12,
pg.
75)
Again
we
have the situation of the facts
on the installation
and operation permit not reflecting reality.
The integrity of the permit system, which
is the heart
of the program for preventing pollution before it occurs,
requires scrupulous adherence to the representations made
in the permit application.
Sangamo’s permit authorized
it
to do only what it applied for permission to do, and no
more:
not to build
a plant in Peoria, not to build two
plants, and not to build
a plant of more than 200 tons/hr
capacity.
In building what the permit did not authorize
the
company acted without an applicable permit,
in violation
of Rule 3-2,110 of
the
Rules and Regulations Governing
the Control of Air Pollution.
Much time was spent on the subject of particulate
emissions from the asphalt plant.
The Amended Complaint
filed by the EPA contains no allegation
as
to a specific
violation of the particulate emission limitation for the
plant
(which would be Rule 3-3.111).
However, the EPA
6
—
84
—3--
presented calculations
(EPA Ex.
4)
it said shows
a vio-
lation of the emission standard
(Rule 3-3.111).
The method used by the EPA to calculate the Sangamo
asphalt plant emissions
(EPA Ex.
3) was developed
in 1966
by the Barber-Greene Co., manufacturers of Sangam&s as-
phalt plant,
in order
to
estimate particulate emissions
from its
own
equipment,
primarily the rotary dryer.
This method indicates a strong relation
between the
air
velocity
in
the
rotary dryer,
the
size
distribution
of
aggregate
in
the
dryer,
in
particular
the
fraction
of
fines,
and
the
amount
of
material
entrained
in
the
dryer
exhaust.
Included
in
this
method
are
efficiency
factors
for
particulate
collection
equipment
such
as
cyclones
and
wet
scrubbers.
The Sangamo
method
for calculating asphalt plant
emissions used particulate emission factors for asphalt
batch plants
(Respondent Ex.
18)
developed by Duprey from
tests
of
operating plants.
The emission factor
to
use de-
pends only on the type of pollution control equipment in-
stalled and not explicitly on other variables such
as
particulate size distribution or dryer air velocity.
We find that the Barber-Greene method for calculating
emissions is more applicable to
the
asphalt plant in question
than the use of the Duprey emission factor.
Respondentts
own expert witness testified that the gas velocity would
affect the amount of dust entering the collection equipment
(Record 7/12,
pg.
105).
We find the credibility of this
witness to be in issue because he
denied that
the quantity
of
fines would affect significantly
the
emissions
and
also
denied that a change
in
collection efficiency from
99
to
96
meant a fourfold increase
in
emissions.
Since the
Duprey emission factor depends only on
the
type of collection
equipment,
one would have to investigate the types of as-
phalt plants and materials used in establishing the factor
in order to determine its suitability to the present case.
Use of
the
Barber-Greene method
(EPA Ex.
3) results in an
emission of
82 lb/hr using the particulate size distribution
requirements
for the aggregate, EPA Ex.
1,
the average
process weight rate for
1971, Respondent Ex.
18, and the
dryer airflow rate, EPA Ex.
5.
The allowable emission for
these conditions
is
60
lb/hr.
On October 30,
1972 the Board
received a memorandum from Sangamo Construction Co. comment-
ing on Use of the Barber—Greene Formula.
The memorandum
states that a stack test recently performed on equipment
similar to that in the present case confirms Sangam&s re-
liance on the Duprey
formula,
We cannot consider this in-
formation because it is factual material not properly in
the record.
In any event,
as this opinion makes clear,
we do not penalize the company for
a violation of the
6
—
85
—4—
particulate
emission
standard
because
no
such
violation
was
alleged
in
the
complaint.
Because
a
specific
process
emission
violation
was
not. alleged
in
the
amended
complaint
filed
by
the
EPA,
its
use
in
attempting
to
show
a
violation
of
Section
9(a)
of
the Act does not
give
fair
warning
to
the
Respondent.
The Board has held
in
other
cases
(EPA v. Commonwealth
Edison,
#70—4,
Feb.
17,
1971)
that “there is no excuse
for
:Lack
of
specificity
in
filing
a
complaint
except
the
de-
sire
to
obtain
an
unfair
advantage
by
surprise”
and
further
that
“the
statute
itself,
in
Section
31(a),
requires
that
the
complaint
not
only
specify
the
provision
allegedly
violated
but
also
contain
~a
statement
of
the
manner
in,
and
the
extent
to
which
such
person
is
said
to
violate
this
law
or
such
rule
or
regulation’”.
Thus
even
though
the
asphalt
plant
appears
to
have
been
in
violation
of
the
process emission
limit,
a
penalty
based
on
this
violation
is not ap~roDriate.
The record showed that
the asphalt plant in question
is
not
currently
operating
and
has
not
operated
since
1971
(Record
‘7/12,
pg.
37)
.
Counsel for
the Respondent
also
said
that
there
was
no
plan
for
further
operation
of
the
asphalt
plant
at
its
present
location.
We
will
require
proof,
preferably
based
on
test
data,
that
the
plant
will
operate
in
compliance
with
all
applicable
regulations
before
allowing
its
production
operation
at
its
present
location
or
at
any
other
location
within
the
State.
paragraph
3
of
the
amended
complaint
charges
Sangamo
with
operating
new
equipment
capable
of
emitting
air
con-
taminants
without
a
permit.
The
question
of a permit for
the
asphalt
plant
is
discussed
above.
The
record
shows
that
the
concrete
plant
began
operation
at
the
site
in
the
fall
of
1969
without
a
permit
(Record
7/12,
pg.
51,
52).
During
the
course
of
these
proceedings
Sangamo
applied
for
and
received
a
permit
for
operation
of
the
concrete
plant
(EPA
Ex.
6).
The
President
of
Sangano
claimed
that
prior
to
this
proceeding
he
had
no
knowledge
that
a
“permit
would
or
might
be
required
for
the
operation
of
a
con-
crete
plant.”
The
concrete
plant
therefore
operated
about
2
1/2
years
without
a
permit.
The
permit
as
approved
by
the
Agency
this
summer
is
for a concrete plant having additional emission controls
compared to the same plant when it began operating in the
fall of 1969.
The record showed that a sleeve and receiving
hopper were installed in
the
Spring of 1970 and a water
spray installed in the Spring of 1971
(Record 7/12,
pg.
6,
7)
to reduce fugitive dust emissions from one of the
stacking conveyors.
In addition a bag filter was installed
6
*
86
—
on the exhaust vent of the concrete plant in the Spring
of 1972
(Record 7/12,
pg.
13).
While this indicates
commendable
action by Sangamo to reduce emissions,
it also
indicates the importance of a timely application for per-
mit in order to assume that emissions are adequately con-
trolled at the
outset.
The failure of the company to
secure a permit for the concrete plant as installed in
1969, whether through lack of knowledge of the require-
ments for a permit or for other reasons,
is
a serious
matter and deserves the imposition of
a penalty.
In the matter of remedy for the concrete plant,
since it
is not currently in operation according to counsel
for Sangamo,
an immediate cease and desist order is appro-
priate.
As for future operation of the plant, we will
require that it operate in compliance
with
all rules and
regulations under the jurisdiction of the Board.
Another charge in the amended complaint is that
the asphalt and concrete plants are causing air pollution
in violation of Section 9(a)
of the Act.
Testimony revealed that white dust and odor attributable
to Sangamo
(Record 6/14,
pg.
45,
66,
87) were a nuisance at
other industrial facilities in the neighborhood of Sangamo.
The dust coated cars,
equipment,
and materials
(including
stored household goods)
causing a nuisance to these industries.
It was observed originating from a conveyor and from unloading
operations on Sangamo’s property.
Onewitness also testified
that,
at times, the entire plant
(Sangamo) was obsured from
view by dust
(Record 6/14,
pg.
69).
The odor was identified
as asphalt odor which was sometimes
so discomforting that
office workers were excused from work
(Record 6/14,
pg.
68)
Sangamo’s response to these complaints was that there
is much farming in the area, many unimproved parking lots,
and roads with truck traffic kicking up dust
(Record
6/14,
pg.
91)
.
In addition testimony revealed that at least two of
the industries burned waste in incinerators with one company
incinerating waste polyurethane
(foam rubber)
and mattress
ticking
(Record 6/14,
pg. 95)
We find that
a definite nuisance attributable to Sangamo
did exist.
The seriousness
of the nuisance must be judged
taking into account the industrial and agricultural character
of the area.
It
is undoubtedly true that the farming operations,
traffic over unpaved parking lots and roads,
and waste material
incineration also contributed
to
the general dustiness of the
area.
The odors
testified to can however be more unilaterally
blamed on Sangamo.
The exposure to the nuisance is on an
occupational
(8 hour/day,
5
day/week)
basis with no testimony
regarding residential nuisance.
Based on the record
it
is
impossible
to
decide
the
relative
levels
of
nuisance
caused
6
87
—6—
by the concrete and asphalt plants.
For these reasons,
a
small penalty seems appropriate.
We find that the amount of penalty assessed should,
according to the record, be based on
a)
the operation of
the asphalt plant at process weight rates up to 127
tons/hr greater than specified on the permit application;
b)
the operation of the concrete plant for
2
1/2 years with-
out a permit; and
c)
the nuisance caused by both the plants.
In a prior case involving asphalt plants
(EPA v. Southern
Illinois Asphalt Co.,
#71—31,
PCB
(June
9,
1971),
a
penalty of $5000 was assessed for operating without a permit
and causing a considerable nuisance
in
the area.
In the
case EPA v.
Iowa—Illinois Gas
& Electric Co., #72-216
(July 25,
1972)
a penalty of $1000 was assessed for installation
and operation of turbine generators without a permit where
emissions were not an issue.
We assess a penalty of $5000
for two violations concerning permits and for causing a
nuisance in the area.
ORDER
1.
Sangamo shall immediately cease and desist from operating
its asphalt and concrete plants, located on Toronto Road
in Springfield at the time of this hearing,
in violation
of law, regulations,
or permits.
2.
Prior
to operating the asphalt plant or concrete plant
in question at their present locations or at any other
locations in the State, Sangamo shall submit satisfactory
proof
to the Agency that the plants will operate in com-
pliance
with
all applicable rules and regulations.
3.
Within 35 days after the receipt of this Order Sangamo
shall pay the sum of
$5,000 in penalty for the vio-
lations
found in
the
Board’s opinion.
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.
I, Christan Moffett, Clerk of the Pollution Control Board,
certify
that. the Board adopted the above Opinion this~?/~
day of
~
..~,
-,
1972, by a vote of—~.
~~1J
~
J~,
d~L~
6
—
88