ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
February
14,
1975
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, and
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
Complainants,
vs.
)
PCB 74—204
TRANSFORMER MANUFACTURERS,
INC.,
Respondent.
Jeffrey Herden and Marvin Benn, Assistant Attorneys General for
Complainants
Kenneth Prince, Attorney for Respondent
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by
Mr.
Henss):
In this enforcement action Respondents are charged with
operating an emission source without an Agency permit in violation
of Rule 103(b) (2) (D)
of the Air Pollution Control Regulations from
June
1, 1973 to June 19,
1974,
the date an Amended Complaint was
filed.
Count II of the Complaint charges Respondent with causing
or allowing the discharge of foul odors, noxious vapors and com-
pounds into the atmosphere in such concentrations
as
to cause air
pollution in violation of Section 9(a) of the Environmental Pro-
tection Act.
A stipulation of
facts reveals that Respondent has operated
a transformer manufacturing facility in Village of Norridge,
Illinois
since 1962.
In the manufacturing process Respondent uses
22 dip
pot soldering stations,
two tanks containing styrene monomer, two
tanks containing varnish,
two tanks containing wax and four curing
ovens.
Respondent admits that the equipment was a source of odorous
emissions and that such odors emanated from its plant at various
times so as to unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment of life
of citizens in the immediate vicinity of the plant.
Odors from Respondent’s plant were substantially reduced by
the installation of a $13,000 afterburner which controls the exhaust
emissions from the four ovens.
This afterburner was installed in
September
1973.
Permits for the installation and operation were
obtained,
some prior and some subsequent to installation.
15— 471
—2—
It is further stipulated that Respondent has shown cooperation
and diligence in solving the remaining odor problem by the
following actions:
a)
installed an interlock system in August
1973 which prevents the ovens from operating until the afterburner
has reached an efficient operating temperature,
b) agreed to
construct equipment to exhaust emissions from the varnish and
styrene monomer tanks to the afterburner,
c)
agreed to install a
temperature recording device capable of continually recording
the afterburner temperature,
d) has obtained an operating permit
for the entire facility,
e) agreed to keep doors and windows of
the impregnation and baking room closed in order to reduce the
amount of odorous emissions escaping through these outlets,
f)
agreed to obtain required permits for the installation
of any
additional pollution control equipment,
and g)
agreed to undertake,
within
90 days of any Board Order,
any of the above measures which
have not yet been implemented.
Although two public hearings were conducted,
no members of the
public were in attendance.
Respondent was granted 20 days to file
its final brief and the Agency was allowed ten days to reply.
The
record shows that Respondent was the only party to file a post-
hearing brief.
According to Respondent’s brief, It
was
during an inspection
by Agency employees that Respondent first learned that the plant
was an “emission source” and was causing air pollution.
After the
inspection Respondent promptly hired
a qualified, independent
environmental control equipment firm to conduct a study and make
recommendations “as to the alleged violations”.
Six months later
the firm proposed to install an afterburner to abate the odor
problem.
The following month Respondent ordered the afterburner from
this firm.
The contract called for the firm to deliver the after-
burner and auxiliary equipment as soon as possible and to prepare
and submit all drawings and applications necessary to obtain all
“city, county and State permits for the operation of same”.
Due
to an equipment order backlog the firm did not deliver the equipment
until May 1973.
In the interim, Respondent installed gas lines
and electrical equipment and obtained construction permits from the
Village of Norridge in which Respondent’s plant is
located.
After receiving the equipment Respondent found it necessary to
hire an experienced installer to connect the afterburner equipment.
An order backlog delayed installation until September 1973.
Prior to receiving the original complaint, Respondent believed
the equipment firm had applied for all permits as specified in the
contract.
When this prosecution was commenced Respondent discovered
that no Agency permits had been applied for and at that time
—3—
contacted the equipment firm.
A permit application was filed
immediately and the Agency granted a permit for the afterburner
42 days after the original complaint had been filed in this
suit.
Believing it was now in total compliance, Respondent showed
the permit to counsel for Complainants but was informed that
Complainants recommended additional steps
to insure that the
plant would no longer be
a source of odor and would be in
compliance with all Statues, Rules and Regulations.
Respondent
then engaged the services of another consulting
firm.
This firm
reported that its investigation showed the plant to be
in compliance.
It was recommended that Respondent apply for an operating permit.
An operating permit application was filed on November 12, 1974 and
approved on December
2,
1974.
Respondent submits that the operating permit indicates
Respondent’s total compliance and that further evidence of its
diligence and good faith efforts
is
shown by the agreement to
undertake additional precautionary and remedial measures as
~uggested
by Complainants.
During the hearing Respondent contended that the plant met
all criteria necessary for issuance of a permit by September
1,
1973 and that “the ultimate ministerial act of issuing those
permits was perfunctory”
CR.
4).
The Board has previously said that the permit system is
necessary “both to aid in obtaining emission information necessary
for an evaluation
of the control program and. as an effective
enforcement mechanism”
(Opinion of the Board in the matter of
Emission Standards,
R7l-23, April 13, 1972).
Respondent’s mis-
understanding of the importance of permits is evident.
A permit
under the Environmental Protection Act and Board Regulations is
more than a mere “ministerial act”.
Each permit application is
scrutinized to insure that the operation will not cause the
citizens of Illinois to be unreasonably exposed to pollutants
which are injurious
or which unreasonably interfere with their
enjoyment of life or property.
This careful scrutiny also serves
to protect the economic interest of the permit applicant in that
the Agency can advise the applicant of any shortcomings
in proposed
control equipment.
This scrutiny and the benefits thereby derived are
not to be considered “perfunctory”.
We have reviewed the record in light of the requirements of
Section 33(ç)
of the Environmental Protection Act.
We find that
Respondent caused air pollution in violation of Section 9(a)
of
the Act.
However, the Board finds that the delay in installing the
afterburner was not the fault of Respondent.
15
—
473
T~eparties agree that Respondent’s corrective action and
the agreement to take additional
steps make the imposition of
monetary penalty unwarranted~ The fact that no members of the
public appeared to testify against Respondent would indicate that
the aggrieved have been satisfied.
With that understanding and
in view of Respondent’s good faith efforts no penalty will be
imposed.
A cease and desist order
is required, however, and
it shall be so ordered.
This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions
of law of the Pollution Control Board.
ORDER
It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that:
1.
Transformer Manufacturers,
Inc. cease and desist
from further violations of Section
9(a)
of the
Environmental Protection Act and Rule 103(b) (2)
(D)
of the Air Pollution Control Regulations.
2.
Respondent shall, within 90 days of the date of
this Order, implement and perform all actions as
outlined in the Stipulation of Facts.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order was ad,opted
this
./i/~”
day ~
,
1975 by
a vote of
~/
to 0
041
h1-~s4~~
~
15
—
474