ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    September
    30,
    1971
    WESTCLOX DIVISION, GENERAL TIME
    )
    CORP.
    v.
    )
    #
    71—145
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    Thomas
    D. Burlage and Samuel W.
    Witwer, Jr.,
    for Westclox Division,
    General Time Corp.
    John McCreery,
    for the Environmental P~otectionAgency
    Opinion of the Board
    (by Mr.
    Currie)
    Westclox makes timepieces
    and time fuses
    at Peru,
    Illinois.
    Its Air Contaminant Emission Reduction Program
    (Acerp), approved
    in 1969, provided
    for replacement of coal—fired with gas-fired
    boilers by September,
    1971,
    As
    in
    A.
    E.
    Staley Mfg.
    Co.
    v.
    EPA,
    #
    71-174,
    decided today,
    a gas shortage intervened.
    Through no
    fault of its own the company lost its expected gas
    supply.
    When
    the
    loss was discovered, Westclox embarked upon
    a
    new program
    contemplating the purchase of electricity from an outside source
    and the installation of new gas—oil boilers to handle
    the smaller
    process and heating requirements.
    These arrangements will be
    completed by January
    1,
    1972.
    These
    facts, alleged
    in the petition,
    have been stipulated to by
    the Agency
    (R.
    20).
    See also
    R.
    29-31,
    33,
    36.
    As
    in
    the Staley case, we
    find the request for this limited
    extension entirely reasonable and,
    as the Agency recommends, we
    grant the extension on appropriate conditions.
    A supplementary petition requests until September
    27,
    1971
    and until January
    1,
    1972 to eliminate by incineration all re-
    maining discharges
    of cyanide and of metals,
    respectively,
    to the
    Illinois and Michigan Canal
    just above
    its confluence with the
    Illinois River
    (R.
    40-45)
    .
    The Agency suggests
    that Westclox
    should have taken this action earlier
    in view
    of the zero-cyanide
    discharge requirement
    of regulation SWB—5.
    Perhaps
    it should have;
    but
    the company
    in
    :L969 was informed that
    it was required to meet
    the more lenient restrictrictions
    of other regulations
    (R.
    37)
    ,
    and
    we think in light of reliance on
    this official communication no
    penalty
    is in order.
    With respect to the filing of reports, re-
    quired by
    SWB—6
    CR.
    69)
    ,
    we think also that no penalty
    is necessary
    on the present proof
    in this variance proceeding.
    The present
    correction schedule is rapid;
    delays have been beyond
    the company’s
    control;
    the pollution
    in the meantime is not so serious as to call
    for the extreme remedy of
    a shutdown
    (R.
    38)
    .
    The extension as
    to
    metals will be granted on appropriate conditions;
    there
    is
    no need for
    an extension regarding cyanide since
    the projected compliance date
    has passed and the issue
    is moot.
    We appreciate
    the parties1
    having stipulated to the facts,
    as their
    doing so has saved us and themselves
    a great deal
    of time and money.
    2—
    517
    This opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact
    and
    conclusions
    of law.
    ORDER
    1.
    Westclox is hereby granted
    a variance
    to permit particulate
    emissions from its boilers
    in excess of regulation
    limits
    until January
    1,
    1972, during completion of the control
    program described in the Board’s opinion.
    2.
    Westclox
    is hereby granted
    a variance
    to permit discharges
    of metals at the levels specified in the record until
    January
    1,
    1972, during completion of the control program
    described in the Board’s opinion.
    3.
    Discharges shall not be increased either in volume
    or
    in
    concentration above those for comparable periods
    in 1970
    during
    the period
    of this variance.
    4.
    Within 35 days after receipt of this order,
    the company shall
    post with the Agency
    a bond or other adequate security
    in
    the amount of $20,000
    to assure compliance with this
    order.
    5.
    A report of compliance shall be filed with
    the Agency and
    the Board by January
    lSr
    1972.
    6.
    Failure to adhere
    to the compliance program or to
    the
    condid~ns
    of
    this order will be grounds
    for revocation of these variances.
    I.
    Regina
    E.
    Ryan,
    Clerk
    of
    the
    Pollution Control Board, cert!~y
    that
    the
    Board
    adopted
    the
    above
    Opinion
    an&Qr~er
    of
    the
    Board
    this
    30
    day
    of
    September
    ,
    1971,
    -T
    /

    Back to top