ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
November 13,
1975
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Complainant,
v.
)
PCB 74—214
HILLSIDE STONE CORPORATION,
an Illinois corporation,
)
Respondent.
Mr. Jeffrey
S.
Herden, Assistant Attorney General, appeared
on behalf of Complainant;
Mr. Henry McGurren, Attorney at
Law,
appeared on behalf
of Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr. Goodman):
This matter comes before the Pollution Control Board,
(Board), upon the June
7,
1974,
Complaint of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency,
(Agency),
charging Hillside Stone
Corporation,
(Hillside), with violating Section 9(a)
of the
Environmental Protection Act,
(Act), and Rule
102 of the Air
Regulations.
Four hearings were held at which there was
considerable public testimony.
Hillside owns and operates
a limestone quarry located
at Mannheim Road and the Eisenhower Expressway,
Hillside,
Cook County,
Illinois.
The Agency produced eleven citizen
witnesses from the area around Hillside.
Each one testified
under oath that when the wind was from the west and the
weather is dry,
there is an acute dust problem.
Each one
stated that they knew that the dust came from Respondent
because they could see it.
(Ri.
6,
11,
39,
65,
79,
93; R.2
4,
38,
49,
75,
91.)
The problem is so bad that many of the witnesses stated
that they had to remain indoors,
clean more often than at
other residences,
and that the dust dried their mucus
membranes.
(Rl.
16,
40,
52,
66,
84,
97; R2.
8,
92.)
Several
witnesses testified
to the fact that they noticed excessive
dust on shrubbery and grass and property.
(Rl.
25-6,
80,
98,
103,
106;
R2.
93.)
More particularly,
Mr.
Romadka, who lives one—half
block from the quarry testified that in order to keep his
car clean he had to wash it three
times
a week
CR1.
12).
The dust makes his eyes smart
(Rl.
9) and in referring to
19—282
—2—
the dust’s effects on his children he stated:
“...their
mouths would be permeated or be infiltrated by this dust.”
(Rl.
16)
Mr. Charek, whose residence
is one block east of the
quarry,
testified
that when he walked across his lawn “...my
shoes turned white with the same type of dust.
.
.“
The dust
caused him to have dry nasal passages and dry eyes
(Ri.
40).
He also testified that,
as a result of the quarry dust,
he
must clean his auto’s carburetor once
a month and change his
car’s air filter monthly
(Ri.
47), and clean his gutters
three times a year
(Ri.
52).
Some of his window screens
must be cleaned bi-weekly
CR1.
53).
Francis Mansfield testified that sometimes, when he is
outside,
he can taste the dust,
and that
it is “always on
the sidewalks,
the roof, on the shrubbery,
the grass.”
(Ri.
66)
Mr. Harrison testified that when his daughter was
christened in 1974, he had to move his yard party into the
house because of the dust
(Ri.
84).
He also stated that due
to the dust he has installed new storm windows and doors,
new gutters and air conditioning.
CR1.
84).
When his
daughter
is outside:
“...she keeps rubbing her eyes,
and
the eyes are all red on the eyelids.
You can’t put her in
the grass because the grass is all dusty.
We had a little
swimming pool for her.
You would put the water in there a
little ahead of time to try to warm it up for her to swim in
the swimming pool;
the water would be all dusty on the top.”
(Ri.
87)
Mrs. Susan Harrison testified that on July 31, 1974,
after talking to a neighbor for five minutes outside:
We had so much dust in our eyes, we were
tearing.
We had to go into the house.
Every-
thing was shut up.
We couldn’t even go outside.
(R2.
8)
Respondent contends that the bulk of the dust comes
from the limestone gravel
in the alleys behind the citizens
homes.
To support this argument Respondent has taken pic-
tures of cars raising dust in the alleys
(Res. Ex 21-4).
However,
the Board finds
it hard to believe that the quan-
tity of dust complained of would result solely from the
alleys,
and Respondent’s own exhibits do not support their
contention.
Respondent raises the defense that the controls it has
installed are all that are technologically available.
Hillside uses
a Johnson-March system to control the dust.
This system sprays water treated with a surfactant to reduce
surface tension,
(Rl.
207).
Dust is also collected from
19
—
283
—3—
drills with
a large fan and blown into the atmosphere,
(Ri.
138,
143).
Hillside had
a water suppressant which
would have avoided this excess emission, but it was not in
use,
(Ri.
138).
Hillside General Superintendent, Jim Durr,
states that 75
of the particulate results from vehicular
traffic,
(R2.
148).
However,
he could not support this
figure from his own personal knowledge,
CR2.
165).
Complainant’s witness, Martin Sheahan, an Agency
engineer,
testified that he observed Hillside’s quarry in
operation
in October of
1973,
(Ri.
124-5).
He testified
that dust emanated from the drilling operation whose pol-
lution control device was in operation only part of the
time,
CR1.
138).
In addition,
a surfactant pump in the
Johnson—March system was broken and at least one nozzle was
plugged,
(Ri.
148).
Also, a door was missing on the secon-
dary crusher,
and dust was being produced when the gravel
was dropped to stock piles,
(Ri.
150).
Mr. Sheahan also
stated that besides using properly operated,
existing
control devices,
the particulate could be further reduced by
use of spray towers,
(Rl.
150), and drop chutes
to contain
dust when the conveyors drop the limestone onto the surge
pile,
CR1.
152).
In addition,
the surge pile could be kept
below grade.
Dr. Walter McCrone,
an expert in the field of air pol-
lution products and the analysis of particulate
(R.254),
testified that he made a survey of the area
for particulate
in October of 1974 for the Respondent
(R.255).
Dr. McCrone
used dust fall pans and sampling to measure the dust fall
from the quarry.
His conclusion was that very little of the
dust “gets over into the residential area.”
(R.260)
He also
determined
that the wind velocity toward the residential
area was about 56
of the time
(R.260).
Dr. McCrone found
that the dust samples he took contained an average of 20
limestone,
and that normal samples would only contain 5
limestone
(R.264).
Dr. McCrone, however, did not take any
samples
of dust on residential property in the area
(R.272).
Nor did Dr. McCrone use the more modern methods of measure-
ment which are available today
(R.256).
Mr. William
J.
Stanley testified for Respondent that he
prepared the Respondent’s current pollution control program
(R.227)
and that the program was the highest state of the
arts
(R.230).
He also testified that he has seen dust
leaving the quarry
(R.232)
and that the residential nature
of the area was not considered when developing the program
(R.23i).
Stanley did not take any tests or samples of air
adjacent to the quarry property
(R,236).
19
—
284
On the basis of the foregoing,
the Board holds that
Hillside has caused or allowed the emission of limestone
dust so as
to cause air pollution in Illinois.
It is clear
that Hillside’s emissions unreasonably interfere with the
enjoyment of life or property in the Hillside area.
The
Board finds that these emissions could be controlled by
properly using existing control devices
at the quarry
together with spray towers and drop chutes.
The Board finds
that Hillside has violated Rule 102 of the Air Regulations
and Section 9(a)
of the Act.
Section 33(c)
of the Act requires the Board to take
into consideration all facts bearing upon the reasonableness
of the emissions,
including the character and degree of
injury to or interference with the health, general welfare
and physicai property of the people,
the social and economic
value of the source,
the suitability of the area to the
source,
and the technical practicability and economic
reasonableness of reducing or eliminating the emissions.
Hillside has operated its quarry since
1970.
It pro-
duces up to 4,500 tons
a day of various sized limestone.
It
has apparently obtained all necessary operating permits,
CR2.
136-8).
Dust is controiled by a Johnson-March dust
suppressant system during crushing,
screening,
and conveying
of limestone,
(R.133—5); conveyor enclosures,
(R.l54); and a
street sweeper and water wagon;
as well as black topping of
the frontage road and quarry entrance
(R.l60); and a traffic
control program,
(149).
The total amount expended on pollu-
tion control was $600,000.00
(R.28i),
However, many of the
control devices utilized were ordered pursuant to a per-
manent injunction
(R.
310-12).
The Board has found that Respondent’s activities unrea-
sonably interfere with the enjoyment of property and the
health of citizens
in the area.
The Board notes that
Respondent has refused to provide information with respect
to the economic value of its quarry.
The area involved,
although zoned commercial,
is primarily residential in
nature.
The Board,
in consideration of the size of the opera-
tion involved,
finds that it is reasonable
to expect Respon-
dent to properly use the pollution control devices it has
and to install a chute over its surge pile and spray towers.
For its violation the Board assesses a penalty of
$10,000.00.
ORDER
IT IS THE ORDER OF THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
THAT:
1)
Hillside Stone Corporation is found to have
violated Section 9(a)
of the Environmental Protection
Act and Rule 102 of the Air Regulations;
and
19— 285
—5—
2)
For said violations, Hillside Stone Corpora-
tion shall pay the sum of $10,000.00, within 45 days of
this Order, payment to be made by certified check or
money order payable
to:
State of Illinois
Fiscal Services Division
Environmental Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois
62706;
and
3)
Hillside Stone shall cease and desist, within
60 days of this Order,
from operating existing equip-
ment without properly maintained pollution control
devices.
4)
Hillside Stone shall file with the Board and
the Agency, within
60 days of this Order,
a corporate
approved plan whereby compliance with Section 9(a)
of
the Environmental Protection Act and Rule 102 of the
Air Regulations shall be effected.
I,
Christan
L. Moffett,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order
were adopted on the
I2~~
day of
~
1975 by a vote
of4~
Christan L. Moffety
erk
Illinois Pollution
trol Board
19
—
286