ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
May 15, 1975
BUEHNE QUARRY COMPANY, INC.,
Petitioner,
vs.
)
PCB 75—71
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Henss):
Buehne Quarry Company, Inc. filed its Petition for
Variance seeking relief from Rules 103(b) (operating permits),
202(b) (visual emission standards) and 203(a) or 203(b) (par-
ticulate emission standards) of the Air Pollution Control
Regulations. Petitioner seeks variance for a period of one
year in order to install a dust control system.
Buehne operates a limestone quarry and crushing facility
near Breese, Clinton County, Illinois. The quarry operation
consists of primary, secondary and tertiary crushing of lime-
stone rock. The quarry and crushing plant produce a maximum of
125 tons per hour of stone with the main products being agri-
cultural limestone, CA 6 and CA 16. Normal production consists
of one eight-hour shift per day of operation.
Although the parties are not in agreement as to the amount
of particulate matter being emitted from the operation, Petitioner
plans to install a liquid spray dust suppression system to reduce
particulate emissions. A construction permit for the spray system
was granted by the Agency in May 1974. Buehne states that the
system has not been installed to date due in part to the limited
progress made by an engineer retained to design the system. In
December 1974 Buehne terminated the services of its engineer and
retained a firm of consulting engineers located in Decatur.
Petitioner does not have an operating permit. In October
1973 and December 1974 the Agency sent letters to Petitioner
warning of the possibility of enforcement proceedings due to
the failure to obtain the required operating permits. Petitioner
states that it received a letter from the Agency on January 16,
1975 advising Buehne to give serious consideration to the filing
of variance.
17 —29
—2—
On April 16, 1975, after this matter had been submitted
to the Board for decision, the U. S. Supreme Court handed down
its opinion in Train, Administrator, Environmental Protection
Agency, et al vs. Natural Resources Defense Counsel, Inc. et
al (No, 73-1742). In brief, the U. S. Supreme court
ruied that
the Clean Air Act authorizes States to grant variances from
implementation plan requirements if such variances do not inter-
fere with the attainment or maintenance of national ambient air
quality standards.
Illinois is required ~to attain the ambient air standards
by July 31, 1975 but the Illinois Implementation Plan provides
for the grant of variances in accordance with the provisions of
the Illinois Environmental Protection Act, Therefore, this
Board can grant individual variances beyond July 31, 1975 if the
variances do not interfere with the attainment and subsequent
maintenance of national ambient air quality standards. (See:
Opinion and Order of the Board in Texaco, Inc. vs, EPA, PCB 75~59,
May 8, l975)~
The record in the instant case is not sufficient for the
allowance of Buehne~s variance petition~ There is no statement,
testimony or data in the record from which we could determine
whether the grant of this variance would interfere with the
attainment or maintenance of national ambient air quality standards,
Therefore, the Board must dismiss the petition without prejudice~
If Buehne chooses to submit a new petition for variance,
such petition must address the air quality issue as the Board
must determine whether the variance is allowable under the
recent U. S. Supreme Court decision.
This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions
of law of the Illinois Pollution Control Board.
ORDER
It is ordered that the variance petition of Buehne Quarry
Company, Inc. be dismissed without prejudice.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hecep certify the above Opinion and Order we~ adopted
on the ~j~day
of May, 1975 by a vote of
_______
________