ILLINOIS

POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

September

2,

1971

EFFINGHAM EQUITY

V.

)

#

71—150

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Paul Goldstein,

Pro

Se,

Delbert Haschemeyer,

of Springfield,

for the Environmental Protection Agency

Opinion and Order

of the Board

(by Mr.

Currie):

Effingham Equity manufactures fertilizers at its small plant

in Effingham

(R~ 4)

Par-ticulate matter is emitted, especially

during drying operations

(H.

7)

Pursuant to regulations adopted

by the Air Pollution Control Board

in 1967,

Effingham submitted an

Air Contaminant Emission Reduction Program,

approved February

25,

1970,

that promised the installation of control equipment beyond

the existing cyclones

(R.

8)

by April

30,

1971

(See EPA Recommendation

and Ex.

A thereto).

That date has come and

gone.

Effingham asks

until September

1,

1972 to do what

it promised to do by April of

1971.

It has yet

to purchase

the necessary control equipment, much

less

to install

it,

and it asks

to be allowed to wait until after

the next busy season

(January

to June

1972)

before doing

so, citing

the desirability of running additional emission tests because of

a change

in product formulation.

No satisfactory reason

is given for the failure

to meet the

previous deadline,

The only change

in circumstances alleged

to

justify the delay

is that

the product formulation was changed.

We

cannot agree

that the necessity

for complying with

an agreed control

deadline

is

obviated by

a change

in product formulation, but

in

any event

the change took place

in July

1970

(R,

30), and any

additional tests required by

the change could and should have been

conducted

long ago.

Had they been,

any revision of the program could

have been accomplished with no significant delay,

since the change

occurred immediately after receipt of the initial test results

(R.

30).

The company also suggests that

its work has been post-

poned because of the desire to wait

and see how successful others

are

in controlling similar plants elsewhere

(H.

5).

But this

is

no excuse;

there is no doubt

in the record that scrubbers are

and have been available to do

the

job at

a cost of only $12,000—

$14,000

(H.

11),

and no reanon

is suggested why the “little work”

that must be done to adapt

a scrubber to the plant

(H.

17)

is any-

thing more

than the ordinary debugging process; others have employed

scrubbers already

(H.

20).

Moreover,

by agreeing to control its

emissions

by April of 1971

the company conceded that the technology

2

—

365

---

was available;

it has shown no technological reverses in the interim

that could justify its refusal to live up to its commitment.

And

the fact that other companies may not have complied is no help;

one cannot excuse default of one’s own obligations by pointing the

finger at others who may have sinned too.

The short of the matter seems to be that the company has sought

to buy additional time because it is seriously considering going

out of the business of fertilizer manufacture, which it finds

unprofitable quite apart from the question of the cost of pollution

controls

(H. 27—28, 36,38,

40,

43).

But the time has passed for

the company to make up its mind.

it has had four years to bring

itself into compliance,

and that is long ~enough.

To deny

the variance will not result

in unreasonable or arbitrary

hardship.

First

if

as the company expects emission tests show the

product change has brought the company into compliance

(H,

30),

no new control equipment -will be required at all.

Moreover,

the-

business is highly seasonal;

there

is very little work to be done

between now and January

(R~ 9)

,

and therefore no significant

loss

of production would occur

if the plant did not operate during that

time.

As for installation time,

the company said it wanted

to begin

the

job in mid-June

and be done by September

1

(H.

10); with reason-

ably prompt delivery the installation might be completed before

much production time

is lost at all.

And the company’s own testimony

is that the manufacture of fertilizer

is so unprofitable that

it

may soon be abandoned voluntarily;

it cannot be

a great hardship

to keep it closed

for

a time

if that becomes necessary.

,

Any

hardship that may be suffered as

a result of the denial was brought

on by the company’s own inexcusable failure to do what

it promised.

The petition

for variance

is denied,

This opinion constitutes

the Board~ findings of fact,

conclusions of

law, and order,

I. Regina

E.

Ryan,

Clerk of

the Pollution Control Board,

certify

that the Board adopted the above Opinion and Order

this

2nd

day of

September

,

1971.

—

/

2—38~