ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

October 25, 1973

ENVIRONMENTAL

P

CTION 

AGENCY

COMPLAINANT

PCB

73-242

STOTZ

QUARRY, INC.

RESPONDENT

MR.

GAL:;

TURNER,

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY

GENERAL,

behalf of the

L’NVI ROIAIENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY

NA.

JOHN GUNN.

ATTORNEY 

LAW, on behalf

of

STOTZ QUAPRY,

INC.

OPIUIOP

AND

ORDER

CF ThE BOARD (by Dr. Nether)

This

is an

enforcement action filed against. Stotz Quarry,

Inc.

by the Environmental

Protection Agency.

The Environment-~

a:~Protection Agency

alleges that Stotz violated Rule

3-3.ll:L

of tie Rule2 and Regulations Governing the

Control 

of Air Poll~

ution

Stotz owns and operates a limestone quarry located near

Prairie Jo. RocAer Townehep in Randolph County, Illinois,

Pro-~

sass equinment chased to contribute to air pollution includes

but is not, limited cc, primary and secondary crushers and screen-

lap dects.~ A storage pile is also in puestion,

The Agency complaint was filed on June 11, 1973

A prehear—

~“

~c “arerce

ala as va’

st~ru1~rLcu 03

zacts ~s

~

n~

c~’e castLes

ce~a-mr ~:s 1~eTh a

ember 14, 1973.

At. this time said Stipulation

of lacts was re~

a

Er~.

ic O”~ oDL~t

is

005

fl~O~ ~dE

~net~ ~

t5fl~~:.;7

should be imoosef on Ressondent:

inlt..ial Aqenov

aspect.. on cr9 Stcez a quarry was undertaA~

cc: cc. 

December 13

1971.

Son:.etN.rce before Aucuet

1972

Rca ond

or,.’    

—

a

r

—2—

a? Protection Agency, at which time data on Respondent’s facili-

ties were collected. This inspection occurred on August 9, 1972.

The Agency, using said data and standard emission factors, found

Stotz to be in violation of Rule 3-3.111 as follows’;

Calculated Emissions 

—

144.2 lbs/hr.

Allowable Emissions 

—

47.8 lbs/hr.

On September 5, 1972, Respondent, through its consultant,

disputed the fact that they were in violation, and on December 4,

1972, filed for an operating permit with the Environmental Pro-

tection Agency. A response from the Agency was received by Re-

spondent on January 2, 1973, requesting that Respondent comply

with applicable rules. On February 15, 1973, Respondent’s con-

sultant informed the Environmental Protection Agency of its com-

pliance program. A complaint was filed by the Environmental Pro-

tection Agency on June 11, 1973. On August 22, 1973, the Stotz

Quarry was found by the Agency to be in compliance with all appli-

cable rules and regulations.

This rather lengthy chronology is a necessary part of this

opinion in that it indicates a number of major points:

A) The length of time of this action, from

the initial Agency inspection to the fil-

ing of a complaint, was almost two years.

That Stotz Quarry has tended to work with

the Agency to comply. Indeed, the second

Agency inspection was at Respondent’s re-

quest.

C) That a compliance plan was initiated prior

to the Agency complaint.

The Board feels that the stipulation of facts show that equip-

ment installed has abated the alleged violation. The issue to be

decided, as was mentioned above, is that of a money penalty, if

any. Written arguments have been filed by both parties. The Agency

urges that an appropriate money penalty be levied

for past viola-

tions.

Stotz argues

tact

no money penalty should be levied.

Taking the Stipulation of Facts, the Hearing Officer’s Report,

and the arguments of the parties as a whole, it is evident that

there was a violation of the Rules and Regulations Governing the

Control of Air Pollution. The Hearing Officer’s Report states at

page 2 thereof: “There appears to be no disagreement concerning the

alleged violation....” Stotz’s Argument filed herein states at page

1 thereof: “...the essential facts are not in dispute. The only i5

—

028

—3—

sue presented is the issue of whether or not any penalty ought to

be imposed in this cause.”

Stotz argues that most of the compliance program was complet-

ed prior to the filing of the Complaint herein and that a money

penalty should not be levied because of the timing of the compliance

program. Stotz cites cases in which no money penalty has been im-

posed by the Board (PCB 72—6, 71—25, 71—225, 71-51, etc.). Howev-

er, this case does not warrant such a holding. The fact that Stotz

is in compliance by the date of the enforcement action is not the

only criteria for assessing a money penalty. The violation did oc-

cur, 

and the violator should be punished.

Stotz should not be

placed in the same or better position than the operator whc achieved

compliance under the Rules and Regulations as soon as required. To

permit this would only encourage others to await sufficient warning

an irn~endingenforcement action before installing necessary cpn-

trol equipment. It is the opinion of the Board that $250.00 is a

just money penalty for the violation of the Rules and Regulations

Governing the Control of Air Pollution. The money penalty would be

greater were it not for the diligent compliance with the Rules and

Regulations once the Agency’s inspections had pointed out the vio-

lations. Had this not been the case, a penalty in the range of

$1006 tc $1500, which is typical in such cases, would have been war-

ranted.

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions

of law of the Board.

IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that:

1. Stotz shall operate its dust suppression and control

equipment ~rtheneverthe equipment for crushing, screen-

ing and conveying are operated.

2. Stotz shall cease

and desist from using its blower ev-

acuating the enclosure around its secondary crusher.

3. Roadways appurtenant to Stotz’s operations will be

treated as necessary to prevent fugitive dust emiss-

ions.

4. Respondent shall pay to the State of Illinois the sum

of $250.00 within 35 days from the date of this Order.

Penalty payment by certified check or money order pay-

able to the State of Illinois shall be made to: Fiscal

Services Division, Illinois 

Environr~e:tcl Proto~s:cn

Agency, 2200 Churchill Road, Springfield, Illinois

62706.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9—

629

—4—

I, Ghristan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, certify that t~eabove Opinior~and Order 

was adopt-

ed by the Board on the 

day of 

-“ ‘r~•r.

1973,

byavoteof 

~‘

to ô

,j ‘~

. ~,.

9— 630