ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL

BOARD

October 9,

1975

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Complainant,

v,

)

PCB 75—186

H.D.

PARK,

R.P.

WIGGERS, NORMA

P. MUCK, NORMAN

H. MUCK, d/b/a

ROCKY FORD LIMESTONE COMPANY,

Respondents.

MR. HOWARD

V. THOMAS, Assistant Attorney General,

appeared

on

behalf of the

Complainant;

MR. WILLIAM

C. BATES, appeared

on

behalf of the Respondents.

OPINION AND ORDER

OF THE BOARD (by

Mr. Dumelle):

The Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) filed

a complaint

against H,D, Park, R,P, Wiggers, Norma P.

Muck,

and

Norman H,

Muck, d/b/a Rocky Ford Limestone

Company (Respondents),

on May 1,

1975,

The Agency alleged that Respondent, prior to June 1, 1973,

and subsequently to the date of the Complaint, operated

three rock crushing

machines

at its .iaduty without an

Agency operating permit, in violation of Section 9(b) of

the Illinois Environmental Protection Act (Act)

,

and Rule

103(b)

(2)

of the Board~s Air Pollution Control Reçulations (Air Rules).

The Agency filed a Request fo: Admission of Facts on

June

19, 1975. Respondents filed an affirmative answer to the Request

on July 10, 1975, admitting ownership of the quarry,

operation

of the crushing

machine, and

lack of an operating permit. A

hearing was held

on July 15,

1975.

At the hearing a Stipulation of Facts was presented

by the

parties.

No

other

testimony

was introduced

and there were no

citizen comments. The stipulated facts are as follows.

Respondents

owns and operate

a quarry facility at

Lincoln,

in Logan

County, Illinois,

Respondents own and

operate

a quarry facility

which involves

open pit quarrying of

limestone

rock (H.

5). As

a part of the operation, three

rock crushing

machines

were installed prior

to April 14, 1972,

Operation of these

19—19

---

machines results in

the emission of particulate matter

(R. 6).

These machines were in operation prior to March

1, 1973, and

subsequently to the date of

the Complaint (H.

6). At

no time

before or since June 1, 1973

have

Respondents possessed an

Agency operating permit for

these three

machines (R.

6).

On December 11,

1972, Respondents

applied for an operating

permit, and a construction permit to install a dust supression

spray system to abate particulate emissions (R, 6-7). The

con-

struction

permit

was granted by the Agency

on February

7, 1973

(H.

7). However,

the operating permit was

denied

on February 23,

1973 as Respondent~s

facility was not

yet in compliance with

particulate emissions

standards (H. 7).

Respondents

subsequently failed

to resubmit an

operating

permit application until

May 22, 1975 (H.

8~9). Respondent~s

stipulate

that

the delay in

resubmitting an application arose

from a

delay in installation

of the

dust supression

system due to

a labor shortage,

inability to employ

an electrician,

and

parts

delivery time

(R. 8), Respondents also

stipulate that a

progress report

was submitted to the Agency

on January 20,

1975

stating the reasons for the delay CR.

8);

that on May

22,

1975

after installation

of the abatement equipment a new permit

application

was submitted to the Agency;

ar~d that on July

11,

1975, they resubmitted

the application

on Form APC 200 as requested

by the Agency (H. 10).

An Agency on~site investigation

on February 20, 1974 indicated

that no dust supression system had been installed

(H. 8—9).

Furthermore,

the Agency stipulates

that it was advised by

Respondent at that time, that although

all

of the necessary

abatement equipment was on

hand,

Respondent wisled.to delay in-

stallation

until after a planned faillity

move.

This move was

to occur approximately

one year

from the date of the Agency~s

on~site inspection

(H.

9).

The record fails

to

state wiothe~L t his move has occurred

or is still contemplated.

The

Agency

states

that

it

was advised

that the reason for the desired delay was ho avoid expenses

associated

with installation

of

the system

prior to the contemplated

move

(B.

9). The Agency

stipulates

that on June 5, 1975,

Respondents

May 22, 1975 permit

application

was denied due to the

omission

of certain factual

data (H. 9,

10).

19 —

20

---

—3—

The record then, clearly shows a violation

of the Section

9(b) of the

Act, and Rule 103(b) (2) of the Air Rules for failure

to have an Agency

operating permit, Respondent operated

the

machines in question for

over two years beyond

the permit compliance

date of March 1,

1973. From at least December

11, 1972

onward,

Respondent was aware

of the necessity for a

permit. From

February, 1974 on,

Respondents had the abatement equipment on

hand.

Yet Respondents did

not complete

the installation

of

this equipment, a prerequisite

to applying for a

permit, until

May, 1975. Respondents permit reapplication occurred on May 22,

1975, over 2 years after the original permit denial, and nearly

a

month

after the

May

1,

1975

filing of

the Complaint.

Furthermore,

Respondents’ action after the

filing

of the Complaint

raises the inference that

Respondent acted out of fear

of a

lawsuit and the

imposition of a penalty

rather than a desire

to

achieve

compliance with the Act and Air

Rules.

The Board

finds that Respondents,

H.D. Park,

R,?, Wiggers,

Norma P. Muck, and

Norman

H.

Muck,

d/b/a

Rocky Ford Limestone

Company violated

Section

9(b)

of the

Act, and Rule 103(b)

(2)

of the Air

Rules by its failure to secure an Agency operating

permit.

The Board is required in making a decision,

to consider

the criteria

of Section 33(c).

The Board has considered the

record in the light of the section~s criteria,

i.e., degree

of injury, social and

economic value

of the facility,

suitability

of location, and technical practicability~economic

reasonableness

of abatement.

The

record does not

permit An evaluation of

the

effects upon health of

the quarry

emissions.

We

can conclude

that they exceeded the Board’s Regulations because of the

necessity for a dust suppression system.

A cruarry is a necessary

operation in order to produce limestone for agricultueal

use

and for construction

purposes.

The record is silent as to

the

priority of location of this quarry in its area and its

suitability

for that area. The

technical

practicability

and

economic

reasonableness

of purchase

and

iniociiot.cn of the dust

suppression

equipment is shown by its actual purc~.Se and delivery to the

site.

Based on these

factors and

considering the. fact that

Respondents reapplication

for a permit came

only after

a Complaint had

been

filed

by

the Agency, the Board finds that

the imposition of a

$2500 penalty

is justified as an

enforcement

tool to secure

full compliance

with operating permit

reqi~irements

of

the Act and requirement

of

the Air Rules.

This Opinion

constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and

conclusions of law.

19—21

---

—4—

ORDER

It

is the Order of the Pollution Control Board

that:

I. Respondents, H,D. Park, R. P. Wiggers, Norma P.

Much,

and

Norman P. Muck, d/b/a Rocky Ford Limestone Company,

violated

Section 9(b) of the Act and Rule 103(b) (2) of the

Air

Pollution Control Regulations.

2, That Respondents cease and

desist

operation

of

the

aforementioned crushing machines unless an operating permit

is applied for from the Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency within the

ten (10) days of the Board

Order, and obtained

within ninety

(90) days from the date of

the

Board Order.

3.

Respondent is assessed a penaLty of $2,500 for the

aforesaid

violations. Penalty payment shall be by certified

check or

money order made payable to the State of Illinois,

Fiscal Services

Division, 2200 Churchill Road, Springfield,

Illinois 62706.

Payment shall be tendered

within

35 days of the

adoption of

this Order.

.7, Christen

L. Moffett,

Cleric

ci inc Illinois

Pollution Control

Board,

hereby certify the above Opinion

and

Order were adopted on

the

~iday

of October, 1975

by a

vote

of ~

Chrtstan L. Moftet

erk

Illinois Pollution trol Board

19

—