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
—
22