ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

December

21,

1971

AGRICO CHEMICALS

CO.

v.

)

~f

71—211

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Frederick

C.

Hopper for the Environmental Protection Agency

Brainerd

W.

LaTourette,

Jr.

for Agrico Chemicals

Co.

Opinion of the Board

‘~byMr. Currie):

Agrico manufactur~s fertilizeç in East

St.

Louis.

Its

Air Contaminant Emission Reduction~Program (ACERP), approved

by the Air Pollution Control Board,

committed the company

to

curing its particulate problems by

the

fall

of 1970.

Letter

of Plant Manager Matthiesen to C.

W.

Klassen,

Dec.

18,

1969.

~i.

i.~now nearly 1972,

and th~com~nny asks

for :~o~ctime.

It plans to install

a scrubber and

a baghouse, both

of which

the Agency tells us will do the job, by July of

1972.

We have no great difficulty

in agreeing that the~nuisance

does not seem so severe as to justify

a plant shutdown while

the installation

takes place, with

its attendant hardships to

employees and to the community as well

as to the company.

In that sense we

are prepared to grant

a partial variance.

But we cannot give

the company immunity from money penalties

for its delay.

It was

the company that promised

it would

be

in compliance by

fall 1970,

and

it has offered no satisfactory

justification for missing its

own deadline

by over

a year and

a half.

Our variance therefore must he conditioned upon

the

payment of $10,000 as

a penalty,

in order that

the statutory

policy of prompt compliance not be undermined.

Our alternative would be to deny the variance altogether

on the ground the hardship to the company

is self-inflicted,

and

to leave Agrico open to

a possible complaint,

with the

likelihood of

a similar result.

As in prior cases, however,

we believe the public ~interest is better served by resolving

the entire matter in

a single proceeding,

approving the new

program on condition of

a penalty for failure to comply with

the old

one.

The penalty is necessary if similar delays

are

to be deterred in future cases

and if the company

is not to

profit by

its own wrong.

The amount is if anything rather small

as compared with

the length of the delay

and

the large

size

of this nationwide corporation.

Cf.

Marquette Cement Co.

v.

EPA,

#

71—23

(Jan.

6,

1971);

GAF Corp.

v.

EPA,

# 71—11

(April

19,

1971).

—

31q

---

This opinion constitutes

the Board’s findings of fact

and conclusions

of

law.

ORDER

Agrico Chemicals

Co.

is hereby granted

a variance

to emit

particulate

air contaminants from facilities at its East

St.

Louis plant covered by the program in this case in excess of the

Rules

and Regulations Governing the Control of Air Pollution

until July

1,

1972, but only

if

the following conditions are

met.

1.

Agrico shall diligently pursue its program of scrubber

and baghouse installation

as described in the record;

and

2.

Agrico

shall, within~35 days after receipt of this order,

post with

the Environmental Protection Agency

a bond

or other adequate security in the amount of $100,000

to assure timely and satisfactory completion

of the

above progiam;

and

3.

Agrico shall, within 35 days after receipt of this

order, pay to the Agency

a penalty in the amount of

$10,000

for its delays

in implementing

its control

program;

and

4.

Agrico shall file progress reports with the Agency

by March

1 and July

15,

1972.

I, Christan Moffett, Acting Clerk

of the Pollution Control Board,

certify that the Board adopted the above Opinion this

21st

day of

December

,

1971 by

a vote of 4-0.