ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

February

27,

1973

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

#72—170

v.

BRADLEY DIVISION

-

ROPER CORPORATION

LARRY R.

EATON, ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

BRUCE

H.

PASHLEY, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

OPINION AND ORDER OF

THE

BOARD

(BY SAMUEL T.

LAWTON,

JR.):

On November 2?,

1972, we entered an Order as follows:

‘EWe

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 compliance, 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~semissions.

The Environmental

Protection Agency

is directed to file with the Board within

10 days of

the receipt of the foregoing information from

Respondent its comments with respect to the same matters, in-

cluding such recommendation for penalty,

if any, as

it feels

appropriate.

On December 5,

1972,

we granted Respondent

to December

29,

1972,

to furnish the required information.

The information submitted

indicates that petitioner has made a conscientious effort to

secure natural gas prior

to its present availability, and has

investigated the possibility of utilizing alternate fuels

that

would bring its operation into compliance with the Regulations.

Considerations of availability and safety precluded the use of

fuel oil and propane either alone or in combination with natural

gas.

As pointed out in the earlier opinion,

the wooden structure

of Respondentts plant precluded the installation of adequate abate-

ment equipment that would enable compliance with the Regulations.

Neither the Agency nor the Respondent appear to have any information

7

—

137

---

with respect to the filing of an Acerp.

Nothing has been furnished

by either party indicating the magnitude of Respondent’s emissions

or the extent to which the emissions constituted a nuisance in the

neighborhood.

On the state of the record, we do not believe the

imposition of a penalty

is warranted.

We will direct Respondent

to cease and desist from any further violations

of

the statute and

regulations.

While it

is evident that no Acerp was filed,

the

failure to do so has not been asserted as a violation of

the Regu-

lations and as a result, no penalty can be imposed in this respect.

If the time schedule set forth in our original Opinion has been

pursued, Respondent shall be in compliance by this date.

This opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of

law of the Board.

IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board

that Respondent,

Bradley Division

—

Roper Corporation, cease and desist from any

violations of the Regulations with respect to the Rules and Regula-

tions

Governing

the

Control

of

Air

Pollution

and

the

Environmental

Protection

Act.

I, Christan Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board,

certify that the above Opinion and Order was adopted on the

______

day of February,

1973,

by a vote of

3

to

~

~

~7Li~~

—2—

7

—