ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    March
    6,
    1975
    FAIRBURY STONE
    CO.
    )
    Petitioner
    )
    v.
    )
    PCB 74—463
    )
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    )
    )
    Respondent
    )
    INTERIM
    ORDER
    of
    the
    Board
    (by
    Mr.
    Zeitlin)
    On
    December
    11,
    1974
    Petitioner
    filed
    a
    Variance
    Petition
    from
    Rules
    103(b),
    202(b)
    and
    203(b)
    of
    the
    Air
    Pollution
    Regulations.
    No
    hearing
    was
    held in
    this matter.
    Petitioner,
    Fairbury Stone Company (Fairbury),
    operates certain fac-
    ilities
    for the mining and processing of limestone
    in Livingston County.
    The
    individual processes include
    (a)
    primary crushing,
    secondary crushing by means
    of
    a
    hammer
    mill
    or
    a
    cone
    crusher,
    conveying,
    screening
    and
    handling,
    and
    (b)
    a Stedman milling process.
    The maximum rate of processing limestone
    is approx-
    imately 225
    tons per hour.
    Fairbury proposed to begin the installation
    of a
    particulate
    emissions
    program
    in
    the
    form
    of
    a
    liquid
    spray
    dust
    suppression
    system.
    It would complete this program by August
    15,
    1975.
    The Agency
    on February
    7,
    1975 filed
    a Recommendation
    to deny the vari-
    ance.
    It pointed out that Petitioner must comply with Rule 203(a),
    not Rule
    203(b).
    The Agency felt that
    a 90
    efficiency would put all
    the sources at
    Fairbury
    in compliance with Rule 203(a) except for the Stedman load—out
    area.
    This
    is
    the area where trucks are loaded with limestone pulverized by the Stedman
    milling
    process, which account
    for approximately 30
    tons per hour of the
    225
    tons
    per
    hour
    processed.
    The
    Agency
    objected
    on
    the
    grounds
    that
    additional
    measures
    •be
    undertaken
    to
    control
    Stedman
    load—out
    emissions.
    It
    pointed
    out
    that other quarries have utilized either a three—sided wind screen
    to shield
    the truck load—out area or an auger type conveyor.
    In addition,
    the Agency felt
    the liquid spray dust suppression system could be completed by July
    1,
    1975,
    instead of August
    15,
    1975.
    In
    a
    communication
    to
    the
    Board
    filed
    February
    28,
    1975,
    Petitioner
    stated
    that
    it now agrees to install the liquid spray dust suppression system by July
    1,
    1975.
    Further,
    Petitioner
    now
    states
    that
    it
    is
    engaged
    in
    discussions
    with
    the
    Agency
    regarding
    possible
    control
    systems
    for
    the
    Stedman
    load—out
    area.
    Peti-
    tioner
    also
    states
    that
    it
    expects
    to
    file
    an
    Amended
    Petition
    in
    the
    matter,
    covering
    those
    points,
    and
    has
    waived
    the
    90
    day
    rule.
    16—39
    2-
    The Board elects to treat this latter communication as
    a Mcci
    Leave to File an Ameoded Petition, correcting possible deficiencie
    r
    Petition originally filed~
    The Board will grant such a motion, bu~
    impose
    a 45 day
    limit on the time to be allowed for such filing.
    ~
    iod
    should provide ample tine for petitioner to file a comprehensi~T~
    IT
    IS SO
    ORDERED,
    I,
    Christan U
    Moff~tl~,Clerk of the
    Illinois
    Pollution
    Control
    Board
    hereby certify that the ab~vLInterim Order
    was adopted on
    the
    _____________
    day ~
    1975 by
    a vote
    of
    44
    to p
    Christan
    L.
    Noffett,
    rk
    Illinois
    Pollution Con rol Board
    16—40

    Back to top