ILLINOIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

November

21,

1972

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY

)

)

)

#72—170

v.

)

)

BRADLEY

DIVISION

-

ROPER

CORPORATION

)

LARRY

R.

EATON,

ASST.

ATTORNEY

GENERAL,

APPEARED

ON

BEHALF

OF

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY

BRUCE

E.

PASHLEY,

APPEARED

ON

BEHALF

OF

RESPONDENT

OPINION

AND

ORDER

OF

THE

BOARD

(BY

SAMUEL

T.

LAWTON,

JR.)

Complaint

was

filed

against

Bradley

Division

of

Roper

Corporation

alleging

that

between

December

1,

1971

and

October

3,

1972,

the

date

of

the

hearing

in

this

matter,

Respondent

discharged

particulate

matter,

smoke

and

other

contaminants

from

its

Bradley ,Illinois

plant

so as to

cause

air pollution and violated Rule 2-2.53 of the Rules

and Regulations Governing the Control of Air Pollution.

A cease

and desist order and penalties

in

the

maximum

statutory

amount

were

sought.

Petitioner

manufactures

lawn

and

garden

tractors,

chain

saws,

dinette

furniture

and

other

lawn

care

and

gardening

devices

and

equip-

ment

(R.29).

The payroll

varies

between

800

and

1,500

persons

(R.29).

At

the

hearing,

an

oral

stipulation

was

entered

into

between

the

Environmental

Protection

Agency

and

the

Respondent,

which

does

not

appear

to

have

been

reduced

to

writing,

but

which

has

been

incorporated

in

full

in

the

transcript

of

proceedings.

The

stipulation

provides

in

substance,

as

follows:

That

on

or

prior

to

December

1,

1971,

Respondent

utilized

an

Erie City boiler with capacity of 6,000 pounds of steam

per

hour

and

a Lasker boiler with a capacity of 60,000 pounds of steam per hour.

(R.5)

Both

boilers

were

uzed

for

heating

and

the prevention of pipe freezing

and

not

in

the

manufacturing

process.

(R.24).

Subsequent

to

December 1,

1971, the Lasker boiler was the only boiler burning coal.

In October

of 1970, Respondent requested availability of natural gas from Northern

Illinois

Gas

Company

in

order

to

completely

eliminate

coal

burning

at

its

plant.

Verbal

approval

was

given of this request on March 1,

1972 and by writing on July 1, 1972.

Accordingly, the required gas

supply is available

and

will

enable

a

termination

of

coal

burning

at both boilers.

6—

275

---

On April 17,

1972,

Respondent increased the natural

gas capa-

city of the Erie City steam boiler so that

it would fulfill

the

heating needs

of the plant until gas conversion of

the

Lasker boiler

was achieved.

No coal

has been burned in either boiler since Aoril

17,

1972,

gas having been burned in the Erie City boiler and the Lasher

boiler having been shut down.

Conversion of the Lasker boiler to

gas

is to be completed by December 31,

1972.

The stipulation further

provides that the unavailability of gas precluded the ability of the

Respondent to comply with its ~vpollutioncontrol program” and the

relevant statutory and rule provisions with respect to air pollution.

Exhibit F,

introduced

in evidence,

(R,ll)

indicates that when

coal was burned in the Lasker boiler, emissions averaged between 3.46

and 3.77 pounds per million btu against a permissible particulate

emission limit of

.8 pounds per million btu.

Nothing is said in the stipulation about the intensity of Respon-

dent’s efforts to obtain gas or alternative fuels to bring its facility

into compliance.

While reference is made to a pollution control pro-

gram,

we do not know whether this was an Air Contaminant Emission Re-

duction Program

(Acerp)

as required by the now repealed Air Pollution

Control Act and Regulations promulgated thereunder, and if no Acerp

was filed, why such was not done.

We are not informed to what extent,

if any,

the community has

suffered as

a consequence of Respondent’s uncontrolled emissions.

Colloquy between counsel indicates that the plant structure is made

of wood and would not support pollution abatement equipment necessary

to control emissions from the coal—fired boilers, although we find

no details with respect to this matter,

While the Company appears to

be presently in compliance and is embarking upon a program which will

cause it to remain so, we do not feel that we have been given suffi-

cient information to adequately dispose of the matter.

The case

is not comparable to A.

E. Staley Mfg. Co.

v.

Environmental Protection

Agency,

#71-174,

2 PCB 521 (September

30, 1971 where the evidence

adequately demonstrated petitioner1s efforts to obtain a gas supply,

the absence of which precluded its compliance with an abatement program.

While we look with favor upon disposing of matters

of this sort

by agreement when adequate facts are presented on which the Board

may

base

its

decision,

we

feel

that

the

record

in

the

present

case

is inadequate

to enable the Board to arrive at

a judgement.

We

direct

that Respondent, within 14

days from the date of this

Order,

submit

to

the

Board and Agency,

further information concerning its efforts

to obtain gas or alternative fuels to bring

its

operation into com-

pliance,

what

abatement

measures

were

considered

and

why

they

were

not

implemented,

whether

in

fact

an

Acerp

was

submitted

and

if

not,

why not, and what nuisance,

if

any,

has

been

imposed

on

the

community

as

a consequence of

Respondent’s

emissions.

The

Environmental Pro-

tection Agency

is directed to file with

the

Board

within

10

days

of

---

Los

rs~r~ct of

o~s foreqo

iraq

i:rfo~—mation from

Rosraora~nt

its

corn-

~

;:i~i

r~s~-~cc~

to

sans

:~a~tt~r$,iflCiJ~:ri~ S~ic~rcco:~c~i~J~ion

for

~i-~’,

~x,

:~ :~ :~L~

ro~rL~i~.

r.

r:a:~

~

:::~

:~~s

Pollution

Control

Bo~rd,

~

ado~ted

on

~e

~J~t~av

of

~

—

a

~

to

~

~—

~

r1

6

—

277

---