ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
January 14,
1976
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Complainant,
v.
)
PCB 75—152
CHENOA STONE COMPANY,
)
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr.
Dumelle):
This matter comes before the Pollution Control Board
(Board)
on a Complaint filed by the Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency)
on April
9,
1975 against Respondent Chenoa Stone Company
(Chenoa
Stone),
located in Eppards Point Township in Livingston County,
Illinois.
The Complaint alleges that Chenoa Stone owns and operates
a rock crushing operation which includes a primary crusher, two
hammermills, and a number of
screens and conveyors.
It is further
alleged that Chenoa Stone has violated Section 9(b)
of the Environ-
mental Protection Act
(Act) and Rule l03(b)(2)
of the Air Pollution
Control Regulations by having operated without an operating permit
issued by the Agency.
A hearing was held on November
4,
1975 at which
a Stipulation of Fact and a Proposed Settlement between the parties
were read into the record accompanied by six joint evidentiary exhibits.
No further testimony was given by either party or anyone else pre-
sent.
Stipulations 1—4
(R.
5)
admit to. the Complaint’s allegations
as
to ownership and the nature of the operation.
Stipulation
5
admits that Chenoa Stone’s equipment constitute “emission sources”
as defined in Rule 101 of the Air Regulations.
Stipulation
6 admits
to failure to obtain operating permits.
Stipulations 7—15 provide
a history of the contacts between the two parties, beginning approxi-
mately August
9,
1972.
After having been informed of the necessity
of an operating permit, Cherioa Stone applied for construction and
operating permits on June 25,
1973.
The construction permit was
granted, but the Agency denied an operating permit due to the fact
that Chenoa Stone had “not shown that significant emission sources
are in compliance with presently applicable standards”
(Joint
Exhibit #1, Agency letter of July
5,
1973).
The Agency letter
denying the operating permit further stated:
“We are pleased to
note that your operating permit application included a construction
permit application for control equipment which may bring this opera-
tion into compliance”.
19—659
—2—
On April
11,
1975 Chenoa Stone again applied for an operating
permit.
This application was also denied as Chenoa Stone had not
completed the work called for
in its construction permit.
In the
Stipulation and Joint Exhibits, Chenoa Stone has admitted essentially
all of the allegations contained in the Complaint.
The Proposed
Settlement states:
It
is further stipulated and agreed that in view .of
the foregoing that an order should be entered by the
Board in the following respect:
Number
I,
that
a violation of the Act as alleged be found
and that a Three Thousand Dollar fine be impOsed.
Said
fine to be payable within
35 days of the entry of the
Order by the Board;
Number
2, that the construction permit heretofore issued
be complied with and the work therein set forth with some
possible variation,
if needed, be completed, and that
an operating permit be applied for within a hundred days
of the entry of the Order of the Board
(R.
9,
10).
The record clearly indicates numerous warnings from the
Agency to Chenoa Stone regarding the necessity of obtaining operating
permits.
However, after the fjrst application was denied,
it
was almost 2—1/2 years since the issuance of the construction permit.
The terms of that permit have not yet been fulfilled even though
completion
is necessary to avoid further violations of Air Regulations
(emissions standards)
and qualify for an operating permit.
It should
be emphasized here that the failure to obtain an operating permit
in the present case is no mere “technical violation”.
It
is a
violation which goes
to the heart of the enforcement program.
Chenoa Stone was denied an operating permit because of probable
violations of emission standards
(Joint Exhibit #1).
Chenoa
Stone was issued a construction permit to allow it to come into
compliance,
but after almost two years Chenoa Stone had not
complied with the terms of the construction permit.
During
that time it has been allowed to operate in probable violation
of emission standards.
Chenoa Stone was given every opportunity
to comply.
The Board therefore finds that a substantial penalty is
appropriate in this case.
A penalty of $3,000 would act to protect
the integrity of the permit program, which is an integral part of
the Act’s environmental program.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law.
19—660
—3—
ORDER
1.
The Board hereby finds Respondent Chenoa Stone Company
to have violated Rule 103(b) (2)
of the Air Pollution Control Regula-
tions and Section 9(b)
of the Environmental Protection Act.
2.
Respondent Chenoa Stone Company shall pay for the aforesaid
violation a civil penalty of $3,000, payment to be made within
35
days
of
the date of this Order by certified check or money order to:
State of Illinois
Fiscal Services Division
Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois
62706
3.
Respondent Chenoa Stone shall complete the work required
in its construction permit, with any modifications necessary for
compliance with emission standards, and apply for an operating
permit within 100 days of the date of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Boa d, hereby certify the above Opinion an~Order were adopted on the
______day of January, 1976 by a vote of
4,-~
~
Illinois Pollution
rol Board
19—661