ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

January

3,

1974

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

v.

)

PCB 73—241

NOKOMIS QUARRY COMPANY OF ILLINOIS

OPINION AND ORDER

OF

THE BOARD

(by Dr.

Odell)

The

Environmental

Protection Agency

(hereinafter called EP~

filed

a

Complaint

against Nokomis Quarry Company of

Illinois on

June

12, l973~

Respondent owns

and operates certain facilities

and conducts operations including, but not limited

to, blasting,

conveying,

crushing,

screening

and

storage

of crushed limestone

a location

2.8 miles north

of Nokomis,

Illinois,

on County Road

645.

The EPA alleged

that Respondent operated

its

facilities

on or before July

6,

1972 and continuing

to the filing

of

the

Complaint

so

as to allow or cause the discharge or emission of

limestone dust and other contaminants

into

the

atmosphere

in

violation

of Rule 3-3ll1

of the

Rules and Regulations Govern-

ing the Control of Air Pollution, continued effective pursuant

to

Section

49(c)

of

the

Environmental

Protection

Act.

Under

Chapter Two of

the Air Pollution Regulations

of the Pollution

Control Board

(hereinafter called Chapter

Two)

,

Rule

203 (i) (2)

indicates that

if

Respondent

is found

to he violating existing

regulations so that the installation of new equipment is necessa

Respondent must comply with Rule 203(a)

of Chapter Two entitled

Particulate

Emission

Standards

and

Limitations

for

New

Process

Emission Sources.

Respondent must comply with Rule

203(a)

of

Chapter

Two

by

December 31, 1973 because he does not satisfy the

test

of

Rule

2Ql~1’)

(5~~

of

ChaDter

Two in that he

is not

now

in

compliance

with

Rule

3-3,111.

On September

13,

1973,

a hearing was held

in Hillsboro,

---

—2—

Illinois.

Respondent was represented by counsel, Mr.

Bliss. A

written Stipulation of Facts was made part of the record.

The

written Stipulation of Facts shows that:

(1)

Respondent was emitting 87.5 pounds per hour from the

primary crusher;

350 pounds per hour from screening,

conveying,

and

handling; and 255 pounds per hour from the secondary crusher.

(2)

Allowable rates under Rule 3-3.111 are 57.1 pounds per

hour from the primary crusher;

57.1 pounds per hour from screening,

conveying,

and handling.

Allowable emissions from the secondary

crusher are 56.8 pounds per hour.

(3)

Respondent may have violated Rule 3—3.111 but in any case

agrees to install new equipment that satisfies Rule 203(a)

of Chapter

Two.

Allowable emissions under Rule 203(a) are 40.1 pounds per hour

from the primary crusher; 40.1 pounds per hour from screening, con-

veying, and hauling; and 39.4 pounds per hour from the secondary

crusher.

The Stipulation of Facts indicate that Respondent applied for

a Construction and Operating Permit from the EPA on April

16,

1973

and was granted a Construction Permit on July 13,

1973.

At the time

of the hearing, Respondent had already completed installation of the

spray bar dust suppression system.

This enabled him to comply with

Rule 203(a)

of Chapter Two by the time of the hearing.

The proposed order by the parties included installation of

control equipment and payment of

a $500.00 penalty.

That equipment

has already been installed.

The parties stipulated and agreed

that in the event this proposed order was not approved by the Board,

this case was to be returned to the Hearing Officer for

the

taking

of further evidence.

We hold that the settlement agreed to by the parties should be

carried out.

I~cent1y~

in EPA v. Central Illinois Stone Company,

#73-

243,

9 PCB

;

October 18,

1973, we penalized a neighbor

$1000

for violations of the Act and Rules for carrying out his business

in

a manner quite similar to this present action. Following that case,

we penalized another neighbor, Mr. Bremer, $750.00 for similar

violation of the Act and Rules.

See EPA v.

J.C. Bremer, #73-241,

9 PCB,

(December 13, 1973).

We believe that mitigation

is

in order here in

that Respondent took action to have the dust control equipment installed

following its receipt on August 10,

1972, of the communication from the

EPA indicating possible excessive emissions.

Furthermore, where

the

parties have agreed to

the disposition of the case,

and the proposal is

reasonable resulting in abatement of future pollution problems, we are

inclined to accept the Stipulation and enter our Order accordingly.

See EPA v.

Texaco,

#72—98,

4 PCB 551,

553

(May 23, 1972).

10

—

514

---

—3--

This Opinion constitutes the finding of fact and conclusions

of law of the Board.

ORDER

It is the Order of

the Pollution Control Board that:

(1)

Respondent

cease

and desist from violating the Rules

and Regulations as established under this Opinion.

(2)

Respondent pay a penalty of $500.00 for the violations

of the Rules and Regulations as described in this Opinion and

agreed to pursuant to Stipulation.

Payment shall be by certified

check or money order made payable to the State of Illinois, Fiscal

Services Division, Environmental Protection Agency,

2200 Churchill

Road,

Springfield, Illinois 62706.

Payment shall be tendered

within

30 days of the adoption of this Order.

Mr. Henss was not present.

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of

the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, certify that ~he

above 0 inion and Order was adopted by

the Board on the

~

day of

______________,

1974

by a vote

Christan L. Moffe~~/)Clerk

Illinois Pollution control Board

10— 515