ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    June
    9
    1977
    PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
    )
    Complainant,
    v.
    )
    PCB 76—261
    CHESTER BURKS
    & HAROLD G. QUICK,
    SR., d/b/a BURKS
    AND
    QUICK SAND,
    Respondents.
    Mr. Patrick
    J, Chesley, Assistant Attorney General, appeared
    for the Complainant;
    Mr. Harold J.
    Pennock,
    Jr.
    appeared for
    the Respondents.
    OPINION
    AND
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by Dr. Satchell):
    The Attorney General of
    Illinois filed this complaint for
    the People
    of Illinois on October
    20,
    1976.
    The complaint
    alleges that Respondents operate
    a sand and gravel pit in
    Clinton County approximately one and one half miles west of
    Sandoval,
    Illinois, north of U.S. Route 50; that these Respon-
    dents have conducted
    a mining operation without a permit from
    the Environmental Protection Agency
    (Agency)
    in violation of
    Rule 201 of Chapter 4: Mine Related Pollution (Chapter 4); and
    that Respondents have excavated
    a portion of an unnamed trjb-
    utary of Lost Creek which constitutes
    a contact or interference
    with waters of Illinois which can reasonably be expected to
    cause or allow pollution of the waters in violation of Rule
    301(a)
    of Chapter
    4.
    A hearing was held
    on
    April
    25,
    1977 at which time a
    Statement of Stipulated Settlement was
    presented
    for the
    Board’s approval.
    No testimony was
    given,
    The agreement states that Respondents operate a sand
    and gravel pit in Clinton County;
    however, only sand has been
    produced from the pit.
    The mechanical operation of the site
    began on May
    5, 1976
    and
    continued on a regular basis until
    the filing of the complaint in this case, October
    20, 1976
    (Stip. #3).
    This operation occurred without an operating per-
    mit issued by the Agency
    (Stip.
    ~4).
    Respondents were informed
    in mid-August 1976 of the need for the permit and on August 31,
    1976 they applied for the appropriate permit
    (Stips.
    #5 and #6).
    25
    —
    589
    —2—
    After receiving additional information from Respondents the
    Agency issued a permit to open and operate the mine site in
    question
    (Stip.
    #9).
    Respondents had pushed dirt into the
    stream of the unnamed
    tributary to Lost Creek to make a
    cross-over
    for equipment.
    Upon notice by the Agency that
    such action was prohibited Respondents returned the stream
    to its former level and erected a barrier between
    the trib-
    utary and the excavation to prevent further seepage or
    overflow (#10).
    This activity took place during a ten day
    period in August,
    1976
    (#10).
    Respondents have agreed not to fill or conduct any
    mining around the stream because of the possibility of environ-
    mental daniacje.
    Because of Respondents’ actions and promises
    concerning the use of the unnamed tributary to Lost Creek, the
    Complainant moves to dismiss Count II of the complaint alleging
    violations of Rule 301(a)
    of Chapter 4.
    The parties stipulated that the sand and gravel pit has
    some social and economic value to the community.
    The agree-
    ment states that suitability of the site is not in issue as
    a permit has been issued.
    The parties agree that considering
    the nature of the conditions
    at the subject site, Respon-
    dents’
    efforts to implement environmental safeguards and the
    size of Respondents’ operation that
    a $200 penalty is appro-
    priate to maintain the integrity of the permit system.
    The Board finds the conditions
    of settlement acceptable
    under Procedural Rule 331.
    The allegation of violation of
    Rule 301(a)
    is dismissed.
    The Board does find a violation
    of Rule 201 of Chapter
    4.
    The Board in considering the fac-
    tors of Section
    33(c)
    of the Environmental Protection Act
    agrees with the parties that the site does have social and
    economic value.
    The issuance of
    a permit removes the
    location and the economic and technological feasibility
    problems from issue.
    No permanent darnaqe has been shown.
    However,
    the permit system is the key
    Lo
    the
    protection of
    the public.
    The Board finds the $200 penalty as sufficient
    to aid in the enforcement of the Act.
    This opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact
    and conclusions of law in this matter.
    25
    —
    690
    ORDER
    It
    is
    the
    Order
    of
    the
    Pollution
    Control
    Board
    that:
    1.
    Chester Burks
    and
    HaroLd
    C,
    Quick,
    Sr., d/b/a Burks
    and Quick Sand are
    found
    t:c
    ba~’e been
    in
    violation
    of
    Rule 201
    of
    Chapter
    4:
    Mine
    Related
    Pollut~.on
    Regulations.
    2.
    The
    allegation
    of
    v:Loiai:ion of
    Rule
    301(a)
    of
    Chap-
    ter
    4
    is
    dismissed.
    3.
    Respondents shall pay a penalty of
    $200 within
    45
    days of this order.
    Payment shall
    he
    by
    certified
    check or
    money order payable to:
    State
    of
    Illinois
    Fiscal
    Services
    Division
    Environmental
    Protection
    Agency
    2200 Churchill Road
    Springfield,
    Illinois
    62706
    I,
    Christan
    L.
    Noffett,
    Clerk of
    the
    Illinois Pollution
    Control Board, hereby
    certify
    the
    above Opinion and Order
    were adopt~don
    the
    ~
    day
    of
    ~
    1977 by a
    voteof
    ~_3
    Illinois
    Pollution
    trol Board
    25
    —
    691

    Back to top