ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL

BOARD

December

4,

1975

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

)

Complainant,

)

)

v.

)

PCB 75—187

)

GRAY QUARRIES, INC.,

)

)

Respondent.

Mr. Howard V. Thomas, Assistant Attorney General, appeared

for the Complainant;

Mr. Charles T.

Bell and Mr.

Stanley

L. Tucker, Attorneys,

appeared for the Respondent.

OPINION

AND

ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Mr.

Zeitlin):

The Complaint in this matter was filed by the Attorney

General for the Environmental Protection Agency

(Agency) on

May 1,

1975, charging Respondent Gray Quarries,

Inc.,

(Gray),

with violation of

5 9(b) of the Environmental Protection Act

(Act)

and Rule 103(b) (2) of Chapter 2: Air Pollution, of the

Pollution Control Board

(Board) Rules and Regulations.

Ill.

Rev.

Stat.

Ch.

111—1/2,

S

9(b) (1975); PCB Regs.,

Ch.

2,

Rule 103 (b) (2).

Following discovery and various Admissions

of Fact by Gray,

a hearing was held in Carthage, Hancock

County, on August 15,

1975.

Gray owns and operates a quarrying facility near

Hamilton,

in Hancock County at which

it carries on, among

other processes,

a rock crushing process utilizing various

pieces of equipment.

The Complaint alleges that Gray operated

the facility and its attendant equipment without an operating

permit from the Agency, as required by

S9(b)

of the Act and

Rule 103 (b) (2).

The operating permit requirement became

effective against Gray on June

1, 1973.

Gray admitted violation of the Act and our Rules, and

concentrated at hearing on the introduction of testimony and

exhibits for purposes of mitigation.

The important facts

introduced there,

(and unrebutted), are as follows:

1.

Gray now has the required Operating

Permit from the Agency.

19316

---

—2—

2.

Gray has obtained construction permits

for and constructed a dust suppression system

for its quarrying and processing equipment.

3.

Gray’s rock crushing equipment is located

inside of its quarry pit, which is unusual for such

quarries, limiting any emissions of dust from the

quarry.

4.

According to the only witness testifying

on the subject,

(Respondent’s Vice President), no

dust emissions from the quarry pit have ever been

seen,

and no collection of dust has ever been

observed on any nearby property.

In light of Gray’s admission of violation, we need not

examine the factors listed in

5 33(c) of the Act in reaching our

finding of violation.

We do not feel that any penalty or other remedy is warranted.

Respondent’s violation of the permit requirement was purely technical,

and has since been remedied.

The uncontroverted evidence presented

by Respondent indicates that the quarry in question has not been a

significant source of air pollution, and indicates that Respondent

has acted in good faith to properly control any emissions which may

have resulted from its operations. Since Respondent has remedied its

violation, no cease and desist order

is

warranted here.

The Board

may not impose a penalty for purely punitive purposes; where,

as

is

the case here, the imposition of a penalty would not aid in achieving

the purposes of the Act and our Rules and Regulations, no such penalty

will be imposed.

Southern Illinois Asphalt Co.

v. Pollution Control

Board,

60 Ill.2d 204, 326 N.E.2d 406

(1975).

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions

of law of the Board in this matter.

ORDER

IT IS THE ORDER OF THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD that Respondent

is found to have violated

S 9(b) of the Environmental Protection

Act and Rule 103(b) (2)

of Chapter

2: Air Pollution, of the Pollution

Control Board Rules and Regulations.

I, Christan L.

Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, hereby certif

the above Opinion and Order were

adopted on the

4~’

day of

__________

1975 by a vote of

______

Illinois Pollution

rd

Board

19-