ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

January 30, 1973

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Complainant,

vs.

)

PCB 72—123

LIVINGSTON STONE COMPANY, an   

)

Illinois corporation,

Respondent.

Prescott E. Bloom, Assistant Attorney General for the EPA

John A. Taylor and Taylor F. Johnson, Attorneys for Respondent

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Henss)

Respondent Livingston Stone Company operates a limestone

processing plant about five miles south of Pontiac, Illinois.

The Environmental Protection Agency alleges that the company has

allowed the emission of particulate matter into the atmosphere

so as to cause or tend to cause air pollution in violation of

Section 9(a) Environmental Protection Act and Rule 3-3.111 of

the Rules and Regulations governing the control of air pollution.

It is also alleged that the Livingston Stone Company has failed

to file an Air Contaminant Emission Reduction Program.

The Complaint alleges that the violations occurred “since

July 1, 1970 and continuing to the date of the close of the

record herein~. Respondent moved to limit the proof of violations

to dates prior to the filing of the Complaint. That Motion is

allowed. We do not approve of the type of allegation used in this

Complaint since it does not give a fair opportunity to the Respondent

to prepare a defense.

There was, in fact, no evidence offered of violations occurring

after the date the Complaint had been filed.

Respondent also filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for

failure of the Attorney General to answer interrogatories in

accordance with the order of the Hearing Officer. It appears

that the answers to interrogatories were filed two days late. We

favor compliance with deadlines but the two day delay does not

justify dismissal of the Complaint. The Attorney General’s office

gave the Respondent’s counsel an opportunity to go through the

Complainant file without the need for interrogatories. There was

no prejudice. The Motion to Dismiss is denied.

—

637

—2—

The evidence shows that the Livingston Stone Company is located

in a farming area and that only four or five households are located

within a mile of the plant. The Company processes limestone, using

crushers, screening, mills and a drier and produces a product which

may be used for agricultural limestone, highway building materials,

asphalt tile floor, livestock feed, plant nutrients and in the

manufacture of glass. The Company employs 25 persons and has been

located in the area since 1944.

The processing of the limestone causes emissions of limestone

dust (calcium carbonate). This is basically an inert material but

the evidence indicates that it can irritate the nasal passages and,

by coating the leaves of plants cause crop damage in the area. A

State Police officer testified that the dust and emissions from the

plant were sometimes blown across a nearby blacktop road making

driving conditions hazardous. A drizzling rain would then make the

road extremely slick and on one occasion this condition did result

in an accident.

The Respondent claimed that it spent $240,000 over the years in

an attempt to control the emissions. The action taken was to:

enclose the processing equipment within a building, install a cyclone

to separate out some of the dust, construct sheds to contain the

piles of fine limestone and put oil on the company road. We compli-

ment the Respondent on these devices but feel that it is fair to

point out that the Company thereby increased its, profits. It kept

its fine limestone dry, reduced loss from the wind and recovered

limestone fines for sale to its customers. Respondents pollution

abatement program in the early years therefore had a two—fold

purpose——the reduction of pollution and the production of income.

A.n EPA surveillance engineer visited the limestone plant in June

1971. The surveillance engineer, using emission factors published

by the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare in

its document “Air Pollutants Emission Factors”, calculated that

Respondent was emitting 305 lbs. per hour from all of its processes.

The allowable emissions are 57 lbs. per hour.

The EPA engineer further estimated that 195.9 lbs. per hour of

suspended particulate matter were being emitted from the processing

equipment.

Respondent challenges this opinion as an “estimate” but did not

put any evidence into the record to dispute the figures which had

been computed by the EPA. We accept the EPA calculation and find

that Respondent did allow emissions of particulate matter sufficient

to cause air pollution during June 1971.

Following the EPA investigation Respondent acted to install a

wet scrubber and a baghouse pursuant to EPA installation permits.

This new equipment was observed to be in working order in April 1972.

The Company also placed heavy rubberized sheets in the doorways of

the buildings to contain the fine limestone.

—

638

—3--

The parties and all witnesses have agreed that these installations

brought the Respondent into full compliance with our Regulations. A

stack test conducted on July 12, 1972 was witnessed by an EPA employee.

The test revealed that the Company was not violating the emission

standards following the installation of the scrubber and baghouse.

The cost of the installation and testing exceeded $46,000. The State

Trooper who had observed the slick highways in 1971 testified that

this condition had been alleviated after the installation of the new

equipment and that the Company should be commended for taking care of

it. Two citizens who had been complaining witnesses declined to

testify since the Company had installed pollution abatement equipment.

The EPA Surveillance Engineer testified that “at present” the operation

of the Respondent’s plant is “pretty darn good”. The Attorney General

stipulated that Respondent had cooperated with the EPA in attemmting

to control the emissions and the Attorney General recommended a minimal

fine.

This high praise coming from the complaining witnesses and the

prosecutor is persuasive. We believe that serious efforts to clean

up the environment should be recognized and in doing so we will limit

the financial penalty in this matter toSl000. We shall also order

that Respondent cease and desist from the violations found in this

proceeding.

The Complainant did not prove that flespon~ent 

hod.

failed to file

an Air Contaminant Emission Reduction Proc~ran’ and we find Re~ondent

not guilty on that charge.

ORDER

It is ordered that:

1. Respondent shall pay to the State of Illinois by

March 9, 1973 the sum of $1000 as a nenaltv for

the violations found in this proceeding. Penalty

payment by certified check or money order payable

to the State of Illinois shall he 

made

to: Fiscal

Services Division, Illinois EPA, 2200 Churchill

Drive, Springfield, Illinois 62706.

2. Respondent shall cease and desist from the violations

found in this proceeding.

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order was adopted this

day of~  

1973 by a vote of 

to

~‘

—

639