ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    November
    1,
    1973
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
    Complainant,
    v.
    )
    PCB 71—385
    LADD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,
    INC.
    Respondent.
    George Wolff, Assistant Attorney General for the EPA
    Louis
    J.
    Perona, Attorney for Respondent
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by Mr~.Henss)
    Respondent Ladd Construction Company is engaged in the
    manufacture and sale of asphalt paving near Dixon,
    Illinois.
    The
    Environmental Protection Agency alleges that from July
    1,
    1970
    to the date of the filing of the Complaint on December 17,
    1971,
    Ladd operated its batch asDhalt plant in such manner as to cause
    air pollution in violation of Section
    9(a)
    of the Environmental
    Protection Act.
    The Comnlaint also charges that Respondent failed
    to submit a Letter of Intent in violation of Rules 2-2.22 and 2-2.23
    of the Rules and Regulations Governing the Control of Air Pollution
    and failed to file an Air Contaminant Emission Reduction Program
    (ACERP)
    in violation of Rule 2-2.31(f)
    and 2—2.4 of the Air Rules,
    and that Respondent caused excessive emissions of particulates
    in
    violation of Rule 3-3.111 of
    the Air Rules.
    On the date scheduled for public hearing,
    the parties submitted
    a Stipulation of Facts in lieu of testimony.
    Respondent admitted
    that it had owned and operated the batch asphalt plant since it was
    constructed in 1962;
    that neither
    a Letter of Intent nor an ACERP
    had been submitted as required by the Air Rules;
    that from July
    1,
    1970
    to November
    1,
    1971 the plant was operated in such manner as
    to allow excessive emissions of particulates,
    i.e.
    approximately
    650 lbs./hr.;
    that the allowable emissions under Table
    1 of Chapter
    III
    of the Air Rules were
    53 lbs./hr.
    It was further stipulated that on June
    9,
    1971 an Agency
    investigator inspected the asphalt plant and notified the plant
    manager that operation of the asphalt plant without control equip-
    ment was
    a violation of the Statute.
    Ladd Construction was formally
    notified of the apparent violation by an Agency leJ-.ter dated
    9—
    679
    —2—
    October
    5,
    1971.
    Less than one month later on November
    1,
    1971
    Ladd closed the asphalt plant for the season and did not resume
    operations until it had completed the installation of
    a multi-
    cyclone and Venturi scrubber with a combined estimated efficiency
    of 99.8.
    Respondent applied for and was granted permits for the
    control equipment.
    Using the control equipment Respondent’s
    emissions would be 15 lbs./hr., well under the 35.8 lbs/hr.
    allowed by Rule 203(a)
    of the Air Pollution Control Regulations.
    Finally,
    the Stipulation stated that no towns or subdivisions
    were located east of the plant
    ‘within a sufficient proximity to
    be significantly affected by emissions from the plant”.
    Prevailing
    winds
    in the area are from the west.
    Some isolated farm houses are
    east of the plant, hut the nearest
    is over 2500 ft.
    away.
    Photo-~
    graphs taken by the Lee County Health Department in November l~‘~i
    and
    by
    the Agency
    in
    June 1971 show dense gray emissions coming
    from the short stack which serves the rotary kiln drier.
    These
    emissions darkened the sky for a considerable distance from the
    point of emission.
    Since the plant was located in a sparsely populated area and
    there was no evidence of the effect of these emissions on people
    we must find that the Section 9(a)
    violation was not proved.
    No
    evidc:.ice was submitted that the emissions caused a nuisance.
    Therefore,
    that part of the Complaint which charges
    a violation of
    Section
    9(a)
    of the Environmental Protection Act is dismissed.
    All
    other violations which have been charged by the Agency have
    been
    admitted
    by
    Ladd Construction Company and we find Respondent guilty
    on the remaining charges.
    Since Respondent has installed control
    equipment capable
    of
    assuring operations within the law,
    it will not
    now he necessary
    to submit a Letter of Intent and an ACERP.
    Only
    the issue of penalty remains.
    The Stipulation made no reference
    to monetary penalty but in view of the heaviness of the emissions
    for a period in excess of one year we believe one should be imposed.
    There
    is
    no evidence that the emissions did or did not cause actual
    damage in the surrounding area and for
    that
    reason a routine penalty
    in the amount of $1,000 will he assessed.
    ORDER
    It
    is the order of the Board that Ladd Construction Company,
    Inc. pay a penalty of $1,000 by December
    15,
    1973 for violations
    found in this proceeding.
    Penalty payment by certified check or
    money order payable to the State of Illinois shall be made to:
    Fiscal Services Division,
    Illinois EPA,
    2200 Churchill Road,
    Springfield,
    Illinois 62706.
    I,
    Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Boa~d,
    hereby certify
    the above Opinion
    and
    Order was adopted
    this
    4,
    ~
    day of ~
    1973 by
    a
    vote of
    ~~to_~

    Back to top