ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
January 30,
1973
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
Complainant,
vs.
)
PCB 72—61
DENNY
&
SIMPSON,
INC.
Respondent.
)
Frederick Hopper, Assistant Attorney General for the EPA
Joseph R.
Hale, Attorney
for Respondent
OPINION
~NI)
ORDER OF
THE
BOARD
(by Mr. Henss)
Th~~
Respondent
,
Denny
&
Simpson Stone Company, operates a
limestone quarry about
1 mile north of Cave-In Rock,
Hardin
County,
Illinois.
The Environmental Protection Agency has alleged
that
the Company,
in violation of Section
9(a)
of the Environ—
~ontal Protection Act,
emitted rock dust or other particulate
matter from
the
quarry in such quantities and for such duration
as
to cause injury to human, plant or animal lifeor unreasonable
interference with
the
enjoyment of life and property.
Facilities
at the quarry site include
a primary crusher,
two secondary
crushers
(hammer mills)
,
screen towers, bins and associated
equipment.
During the first of two public hearings,
EPA witnesses,
mostly persons residing near the quarry, testified that they:
were forced inside their home by dust and grit
CR.
33,
65); could
not hang laundry outside because of dust soiling
(R.
57); had the
interior of homes soiled by dust
(R.
35,
57,
60,
65,
70); had to
wash windows frequently because of dust
(R.
60); were frightened
or bothered by the blasting
CR.
57,
62,
68); were bothered by
blasting powder odors
(R.
65,
70);and, had driving visibility
impaired by rock dust
(R.
77).
An Agency investigator testified that his first visit to
the site in 1970 revealed an essentially uncontrolled operation
in that emissions
from equipment were released to the atmosphere
without passing through any control devices
(R.
10).
He also
testified that he had observed emissions from roadways throughout
the plant.
The investigator further testified that visits late
in 1972 revealed that the secondary crushers,
screening towers
and bins had been enclosed,
a spray wetting system had been in-
stalled on the primary crusher and surge pile,
and a watering truck
was
being employed to control roadway dust throughout the plant
(R.
12,
13).
Since his first visit,
the investigator testified
6
—
629
—2—
that the owners had been generally cooperative and had imple-
mented most of his control suggestions resulting in greatly
improved control of emissions
CR.
12)
.
The investigator recom-
mended that the Company continue to dampen the roadway and also
wet down the face of the rock prior to blasting.
He further
said that the area around the truck dump should be wetted,
additional
spray nozzles placed around the primary crusher and
antifreeze added to the spray solution when appropriate
CR.
16).
During the second hearing, Respondent witnesses, mostly
employees or persons indirectly connected with the quarry
(such
as rock haulers) who resided nearby, testified that they:
were
not irritated or frightened by the blasting
CR.
127,
139,
145,
153);
were not bothered by dust from the quarry
CR.
128,
134,
140,
144,
153,
159); were not prevented from hanging clothes outside because of
dust soiling
(R.
128,
140);
and, did not notice any blowing dust
(R.
135,
146,
150,
154).
Testimony from the plant superintendent,
a consulting
engineer and a blasting powder salesman indicates that Respondent
is careful in limiting the size of the blast in order to control
sound and vibrations within limits recommended by the Bureau of
Mines.
The idea of using a blasting mat to control blasting dust
was soundly rejected by experts and company officials from safety
and practical viewpoints.
It was stated that the mats,
heavy
cables woven together, might interfere with the wires
leading to
the explosive charge and in any event were not effective to control
dust.
Even prior to the filing of the Complaint the Respondent
had been very cooperative in following Agency directions
to control
dust emissions.
The Company entered voluntarily into
a program
resulting in:
1) enclosures on the secondary crushers, screening
tower and bins,
2)
installation of a spray system consisting of
a
1500 gallon tank, wetting chemicals, piping and spray nozzles
for
wetting the limestone at the outlets of the primary crusher and
on the conveying belts carrying limestone back to the secondary
crusher,
3) an 8,000 gallon water truck for wetting the surface
area around the plant,
4) the oiling and chipping of the plant area
adjacent to the highway, and
5)
an experimental program to reduce
dust from the drillholes during blasting.
The only remaining controls that appear to be called for
are:
installation of additional spray nozzles
to cover
the surge bin
located on top of the primary crusher, addition of antifreeze
chemicals to the spray system during freezing weather, and possible
wetting of the rock face before blasting.
We find from the evidence that Respondent’s employees
occasionally failed to follow directions in wetting the road twice
a day and that on those occasions the Company did cause excessive
emissions of rock dust in violation of Section 9(a) of the Environ-
mental Protection Act.
The Complainant has not suggested what more
6—
630
—3—
the Respondent should do in order to control the emissions.
We
approve of steps taken by the Respondent thus far and will require
that the additional spraying be included in the blasting operation.
No monetary penalty will be imposed.
ORDER
It is ordered that:
1.
Respondent Denny
& Simpson Stone Co.,
Inc. cease
and desist from the violations found in this
Opinion.
2.
That Respondent within
35 days install additional
spray nozzles to cover the surge bin located on
top of the primary crusher and immediately include
as a part of the blasting procedure wetting of the
rock face prior to blasting and addition of anti-
freeze chemicals
to the spray system during freezing
weather.
3.
Respondent 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.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, ~ereby certify the above Opinion and Order was adopted
this
~3O
‘~dayof
~
,
1973 by
a vote of
‘3
to
o
—.
GJ~
6—631