ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONI Rul
BoLP~D
July
19,
1973
ENVIRONMENTAL PRO~LCTION
AGENCY,
Co~rlainant,
vs.
)
PCB
72—483
COLUJ~BIAQUARRY COMPANY,
Resnondent.
John N. Leskera, Assistant Attorney General for the EPA
Floyd
E. Crowder, Attorney for Columbia Quarry
OPINION
ANI)
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr.
Henss)
The Environmental Protection Agency alleges that Respondent
Columbia Quarry Company violated Section
9(a)
of the Environmental
Protection Act
(air pollution)
and Rule 3—3.111 of the Rules and
Regulations
Governing
the Control of Air Pollution
(excessive
Darticulate emission)
from April
2,
1971 until the filing of the
EPA
Comelaint on December 11, 1972.
Respondent~s~9 quarry is located in a bluff area between
State Route
3 and the
Irnbs Station Road,
less than
a mile from
the Dupo village limits in
St. Clair County.
Plant flow diagrams
show that the facility consists of
a primary crusher,
2 secondary
crushers,
4 additional crushers following the secondary crushers
and other associated quarry equipment.
The
plant operates two
and sometimes three shifts, but the blasting occurs only during
daylight hours.
During the four public hearings,
16 local residents related
their complaints about the quarry operations.
These citizens were
disturbed principally by dust, blasting noise and vibration,
and
equipment and truck noise.
According to this testimony limestone dust accumulated on
household furnishings, windowsills,
porches, trees, grass,
shrubs
and automobiles.
Quarry operations reduced values of nearby
propefty, saturated air condition filters with limestone dust,
increased utility expenses for air conditioner operation,
led to
more frequent cleaning in residences, curtailed outside leisure
and entertaining activities.
An increase in respiratory problems
—2—
was blamed on dust from Respondent~squarry.
Prosecution
witnesses said blasting was a major source of
their
dust problems.
The
evidence indicates that Respondent
generally detonates
small charges which are accepta:ole
in
the
community.
Occasionally,
however,
an exceedingly large detonation occurs.
These super
blasts were said to have caused
the
loss
of
water
in
two
nearby
wells,
broken dishes and
windows,
frightened
children,
damage
to
residential foundations,
cracked
ceilings and
walls in nearby
houses
and
even
deposited rocks on adjoining property.
Public hearings held on
our Proposed Noise Control Regulations,
R.
72—2,
have
provided
important
testimony
relating
to
the
occurrence
of
such
super
blasts.
We
do
not,
at
present,
have
regulatice~s
for
the control of such noise
although it
may
be considered
a noise
nuisance under the
Environmental
Protection Act.
The Complaint
here did
not
allege
excessive noise,
but air pollution resuiting
from excessive emission of earticulates,
A smaller blast
causes
less dust.
Expert testimony indicates
that the
extra
charge
does
not
substantially
increase
the
yield
hut
costs
the
quarry
extra
money for
wasted
energy.
As we have
seen here,
a primary effect
is the creation of
animosity
between
the
cuarry
and
its
neighbors.
Cot
lainant
s witnesses
also
ten
litied
that
truck
traffic
in
and
out
of
the
quarry
was
a
source
of oust
omissions
and
noose.
The
quarry
operations
have
been
of
concern
to
some
Dupo
resi~
dents
for
several
years.
In
1969
a
groun
known
as
the
Citizens
for
a
Better
Environment
organized
under
the
direction
of
Ray
Fitznatrick,
a
Dupo
resident
who
resides
about
1/2
mile
south
of
Respondent
s
quarry.
The
organization
i~mediat
ely
began
eresenting
quarry
officials
with
a
list of
grievances.
Fitzpatrick
said
comnany
officials
had
been
cordial
in
meetings
with
the
organization,
but
the
meetings
were
not
uroductive
and
problems
continued
to
get
worse
every
year
(B.
242).
Fitzpatrick
observed
a
water
truck
at
the
quarry
but
felt
that
the
single
water
truck
could
not
efficiently
con.trol
the
dust
from
the
loading
area
of
tne
quarry.
Several
witnesses
testified
that
they
had
informed,
quarry
officials
of
the
problems
without
result.
(B.
26,
71,
134,
230,
283).
in
rebuttal,
Resnondent
called
34
Citizen
witnesses
nato
unani~
mously
testified
that
they
had
no
dust
iroblems
attributable
to
the
quarry.
These
witnesses
included
the
Mayor.
Supeninte.ndent
Utilities,
President
of
Board
of
~anagers
for
Supar
Loaf
Township,
—3—
Superintendent
of
Dupo
Schools, a
member
of
the
School
Board,
a
Dupo policeman, quarry employees, former employees
and
others
who
lived
near
prosecution
witnesses
or
the
quarry.
The
few
defense
witnes!es
who
acknowledged
the
presence
of
some
dust
said
it
came
from
the
railroad
or
local
rock
covered
roads.
Mayor
Metz
testified
that
he
had
experienced
no
dust
problems
on
his
own
property
or
on
ccmmunity
property
that
he
could
attribute
to
emissions
from
the
quarry.
He
felt
that
Dupo
had
no
air
pollution
problem
CR.
765)
and
that
those
residents
of
Dupo
who
had
testified
against the quarry had done so purely for personal reasons
CR.
767).
Mayor
Mets
questioned
whether
the
expense
incurred
by
the
quarry
for
dust
suppression
equipment
was justified to solve doubtful.
claims
of
a
minority
of
his
constituents
CR. 768).
His
opinion
was
that
the
dust
problem
was
not
severe
enough
to
warrant
con-
sideration
by
this
Board
CR.
721—722).
The
Mayor’s statements
were echoed by
many
of Respondent’s witnesses.
An employee of the
quarry
testified that the rock crushers at
the quarry
emit
no dust particulates while in operation CR. 920)
and
that
there was relatively little dust in the quarry vicinity
most of the time
(R.
921).
A rock hauler testified
that
he had
never observed any dust leave the premises of
the
quarry.
El
added
that
dust
conditions
at
the
quarry
were just
about
the same
as
could
be
found
in
Dupo
CR.
927—928).
Affidavits of 281 persons residing in or near Dupo
stated
that they
had
not
experienced
any
dust
problenis
caused
by
Re-
spondent’ s
quarry
and
that
the
operation
had
not
discharged
dust
into the atmosphere so as to cause air pollution.
The affidavits
were
prepared
by
Respondent’s
attorney
and circulated by several
village officials and others.
Robert
Burpo,
President
of
Board
of
Managers
for
Sugar
Loaf
Township,
testified
that
he
asked
Respondent’s attorney to
prepare
the affidavits because he felt
the
quarry
was a big asset to Dupo and that “they are being
harrassed”
CR.
796).
Several of Respondent’s witnesses testified that Columbia
Quarry
had been an asset to the coimuunity in its performanbe of
civic obligations.
The Superintendent of Schools testified that
Columbia Quarry had
made
a donation toward
the
purchase
of
lights
for a gymnasiuu and had
donated
rock
for
parking
lots
at
the
Dupo schools
CR.
809).
Another witness testified that he knew of
no organization that had been refused in their request for
donations of
rock.
He
added
that
the
quarry
President
had
oftered
the
use
of
any
quarry
vehicle
during
any
emergency
situation
CR.
818).
Photographs
taken
by EPA surveillance personnel, while showing
some visible dust emissions, do not reveal the vast clouds of
8—831
—4—
limestone dust that have been evident in photographs of other
quarry sites.
Some of the photographs even show roadways in
the quarry area that appear to have been wetted down.
We would be hard pressed to draw a conclusion from such
conflicting testimony, but fortunately technical data is avail-
able and is
of some assistance in deciding these issues.
Columbia Quarry processes
a maximum of 500 tons of limestone
per hour through its primary crusher
CR.
547) and about 350 tons
per hour through its secondary crushers
CR.
574).
Using emission
factors for uncontrolled process eauipment,
the Agency calculated
Respondent’s
emissions
to be
in
excess
of 700
lbs.
per
hour
(R.
576).
Respondent’s allowable emissions based on process weight
rate are 133.9
lbs.
per hour.
Respondent disputed the EPA calculation of the allowable
emission rate as being inconsistent with two Agency inter—office
memoranda.
The first of these documents,
Respondent’s Exhibit #1,
was a memorandum which calculated allowable and actual emissions
from process weight data supplied by Columbia Quarry Company.
The
data contained in the thernorandum silowee:
Primary Crusher
379 ton/hr.
average
626 ton/hr. high
Secondary Crusher
306 ton/hr. average
398 ton/hr. high
Tertiary Crusher
175 ton/hr. average
175 ton/hr. high
Using these figures,
the quarry’s allowable emissions based on the
average and high rates were listed as:
Crushing
65.8 lb/hr.
Screening
65.8 lb/hr.
Conveying
65.8
lb/hr.
Total Emissions Allowed 197.4 lb/hr.
(Average quarry rate)
and,
Crushing
71.8 lb/hr.
Screening
71.8 lb/hr.
Conveying
71.8 lb/hr.
Total Allowed Emissions 215.4 lb/hr.
(maximum quarry rate)
According to this Exhibit, suspended particulate emissions from
the quarry would be 851.4
lbs/hr.
(based on the average process rate)
or 931.6 lbs/hr.
(based on the high process rate).
This memorandum was apparently written to correct inaccurate
figures
contained
in
an
earlier
EPA
memorandum,
tR~spondent
8—532
—5—
Exhibit ~2).
The previously written memorandwn showed Re—
spondent’s emissions based on the average process rate
to be about
1340 lbs/hr.
as comoared to an allowable rate of 185.9
lbs/hr.
It appears tberefore~ thai: the EPA using process weight
figures has calculated Resoondent’s allowable and actual emission
on three occasions and has come up
with
three different answers.
We
are
not
hap~y
with
this but note that each calculation has shown
a gross vIolation,
with
actual emissions
far exceeding those
allowed
under
the
Regulation.
~\dditional technical data came from two high volume particulate
samplers
which
were placed near Respondent’s quarry in 1971.
They
were placed on opposite sides of the guarry and in location to
utilize
the
prevailing
winds
in the area to provide useful
emission
data.
TesLimony
indicates
that
the
samplers
were
operated
inter-
mittently
from
about
March
7,
1971
to August 24,
1971.
Data from
the
sar~lers
was
used
with
weather
data
from
a
cobile
weather
trailer
located
at
Cahokia
Moun~::s State
Park.
The
Agency’s
calcu—
lations
indicated
probable
process
weight
rate
violations
on
July 13,
and
July 16,
1971.
The July 13 dsta showed
a concentration
of 412 micrograms per cubic meter
dowrwind
of the quarry and 146
ug/m3 upwind while
the
July
16,data
showed
a
concentration
of
220 up/n3
downwind
and
91
ug/m~
upwinci.
Agency
calcelations
using
these
figures
revealed
emissions
of from 152 to 376 lbs/hr. on July 13,
1971 and 177 lbs/hr. on
July 16, 1971
(Complainant’s
Exhibit #66).
Therefore,
this method
of calculation also revealed, a violation but of a less serious
nature.
The area upwind of the quarry iret the U.
S. Primary Standard
of
75 ug/m3 on only 2 of
10 days with
the average reading being
about 104 ug/n3 (Comn1ainant~sExhibits #12-16).
The dow9ind
concentrations for the same period averaged about 170 ug/m
and
on every date for which data
was
available,
the
downwind
concen-
tration
exceeded the upwind concentration.
Respondent oroduced two expert witnesses to respond to the
EPA
evidence.
Benjamin
Abell,
an Assistant Professor at Parks
College of Aeronautical Technology,
testified that he would he
unable to reliably project the weather data from the Cahokia
Mounds Weather Station
to the quarry site,
a distance of about
13 miles
(R.
672,
698).
He testified that the terrain surrounding
the weather trailer was relatively smooth while the quarry was
situated in
a bluff area of very rough terrain
CR.
672).
Abell
testified tm~tthere were thunder storms
in
the
general vicinity
of Metropolitan St.
Louis on July 13,
1971,
the presence of which
8
—
533
—6—
could have affected the wind pattern in an area
13 miles distant.
He attacked the reliability of the Cahokia Mounds Trailer Weather
data by
corn: aring it to data from the U.
S. Weather Bureau Station
at Lambert Field in St. Louis, Missouri.
Abell found
a variation
of
2 miles per hour on July 13, 1971 and 1.9 miles per hour on
July 16,
1971.
He did not specify which of the two stations had
the higher readi;igs.
Our comparison of data for July 13,
1971
using
ti-ic time period from 9:00 a.m.
to 3:00 p.m.
for the Cahokia
Mounds Station and 8:54 a.m.
to 4:55
p.m.
for the weather station
at
Lambert
Field, indicates the Lambert Field average reading
exceeded
the
Cahokia
average
reading
by
0.850
mph.
The
July
16,
1971 comparison for comparable time periods indicates the Lanthert
Field readings were 1.257
mph
hiqher on the average.
These time
periods were chosen since they most nearly reflect the operating
time periods shown for the two high volume samplers.
Respondent’s other expert witness testified that under the
Agency equation,
reducing the
wind
speed will result in
a calcu-
latiori of reduced emissions.
Ironically then,
it would appear
that the Agency’s data used to calculate Respondent’s emissions
resulted in a finaing of lower actual e~nissionsthan would have
been the case if Respondent’s data
had
beer: used.
Professor Abell did acknowledge that the weather data recorded
at
the
Cahokia
Mounds Station could have been representative of
existing weather conditions near Dupo
(R.
699),
and we believe
it is sufficiently reliable for our use
in
the absence of sound
rebutting testimony.
Respondent also implied that
the
Agency calculations were
not strictly proper in that one ecruation used to estimate the
emissions was ~‘hackcalcu1ated~’.
However, Respondents second
expert witness stated that such practice would not represent a
fallacy unless some of
the basic assumptions of the equation were
violated in the process.
Respondent’s expert testified that one
of the factors contained in the questioned equation could have
caused a variability in the answer on the order of
3 to
1
(R.
718).
He did not show that such an error did occur.
Finally,
the claim
that the high volume sampler data was affected by “dirt throwing”
is not supported by evidence.
Although this
is not an easy case to decide, we believe the
weight of the evidence is with the Complainant.
The combination
of Hi Vol data, process weight calculations and a substantial
number of citizen complaints convinces us that the dust emissions
were in violation of the Regulation and constituted
a nuisance at
times near the quarry.
In spite of this,
we believe that Columbia Quarry is basically
a good neighbor.
The Company has now purchased and installed a
8— 534
—7—
liquid
spray
dust
suppression
system
for
its
Dupo
operation.
This
system
consists
of
a
piping
network
which
strategically
locates
spray
valves
at
dust
emission
poll-its
in
the
crushing
process.
Water,
treated
with
a
chemical
wetting
agent,
is
pumped
through
the
piping
network
and
sprayed
over
the
emission
points.
An
engineer
with
the
Johnson-March
Company
testified
that
he
had
first
been
contacted
by
Columbia
officials
about
July
19,
1971.
The
system
was
ordered
in
November
of
1971
and
installation
was
completed
in
late
Fall
of
1972,
shortly
before
the
filing
of
this
action.
The record indicates that the quarry has been a civic asset
to
some
of
its
neighbors
and
we
believe
these
improvements
will
cause
the
quarry
to
be
considered
an
asset
by
more
of
them.
The
equipment is installed,
ready to operate, and should resolve part
of the problem which led
to
this
prosecution.
We
believe
that
a diligent program of wetting quarry roads and other traffic areas
will
also
be
required.
Since
the
record
indicated
that
a
watering
truck
is
already
at the quarry site,
it
only
remains
to
have
the
truck
in
operation
as
conditions
warrant.
The
wetting
of
the
rock
surface
before
blasting
is
another
possible
abatement
procedure,
perhaps
of
a
more
experimental
nature.
The
elimination
of
the
super
blast
would
benefit
both
Columbia
and
its
neighbors.
In
addition
to
abatement
procedures
listed
above,
the
evidence
justifies
a
monetary
penalty
of
$1,000
and
it
will
be
so
ordered.
ORDER
It
is
the
order
of
the
Board
that:
1.
Columbia
Quarry
shall
pay
to
the
State
of
Illinois
within
35
days
the
sum
of
$1,000
as
a
penalty
for
its
violations
of
Section
9(a)
of
the
Environmental
Protection
Act
and
Rule
3-3.111
of
the
Rules
and
Regulations
Governing
the
Control
of
Air
Pollution.
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.
2.
Respondent
shall
on
each
day
of
operation
at
its
Dupo
quarry
site,
cause
its
dust
suppression
equipment
as
described
in
the
record
to
be
in
full
operation
and
shall
continuously
and
diligently
water
its roadways and
adjacent
areas
for
suppression
of
traffic—created dust as conditions warrant.
3.
Respondent shall endeavor to use the smallest
practicable charge required for blasting and
—
535
—8—
shall make every reasonable effort to conduct
its blasting operations under such wind and
atmospheric conditions as will minimize the
nuisance in the surrounding areas.
4.
Respondent shall immediately initiate an
experimental program as part of the blasting
procedure,
to consist of the wetting of the
rock face prior to blasting.
Agency personnel
shall be allowed to observe this experimental
procedure.
I,
Chr±stanL. Hoffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order were adopted
this- /~‘~1
day of July,
1973 by a vote of
‘/
to
O
/
~‘-
~4,~j~r’/~
~
3
—
536