ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

January 6, 1972

MOLEX, INC.

)

71—200

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

)

Opinion of the Board (by Mr. Currie):

Molex’s petition, filed in June 1971, asked a year’s

variance from the particulate air contaminant emission

regulations to permit operation during installation of

scrubbers to control organic emissions from its plastics

plant in Brookfield. We grant the request subject to several

conditions for reasons indicated below.

Molex received letter—of—intent forms from the old

Air Pollution Control Board in 1967, specifically nOtifying

the company of its obligation to submit process emission data

and to file a program for bringing its operations into com-

pliance. By its own admission the company did nothing about

it until 1970, when it began looking for a solution. The

present petition, filed four years after the letter of intent

was required, was the first attempt to establish a control

program.

The plan envisions installation of two scrubbers that

will allegedly reduce emissions by 95. The Agency has issued

permits for the equipment, finding it adequate to meet the

emission standards. Construction cannot begin until Cook

County also gives a permit, and the County had at the time

of the hearing refused to do so because it wanted assurance

that excessive odors would not continue after the scrubbers

were in operation.

The company at the hearing November 22 said that nine

months would be required to complete the installation. As

the Agency demonstrated through company witnesses, however,

this schedule is based upon installation of the scrubbers

one at a time. By putting both in at once Molex acknowledged

that it could cut eight weeks from the timetable, and we

think it should do so. The added costs are those of hiring

three men for several weekends of work, or in the alternative,

of employing an independent contractor to do the installing.

These costs are relatively small in comparison with the

serious nature of the pollution the company is asking permission

3 —341

to continue during the installation. The record is full of

citizen testimony detailing how unpleasant it is to live near

this factory, and we think Molex should pay the extra money

in order to terminate this untenable situation as quickly

as is practicable. We therefore shorten the company’s time

from its requested nine months to seven from the date of the

hearing, requiring the controls to be in operation by May

22, 1972.

The problem with the County must not be permitted

further to hold up correction of this acute particulate problem.

It is Molex’s obligation to control odors as well as particulates,

and it should commit itself to whatever additional controls

may be required to deal with the odor problem in order that

it may get on with its present program. We will not permit

the company’s odor problems to stand as an excuse for failure

to take prompt action to abate the particulate problem.

Molex must meet the particulate standards by May 22, 1972,

or face appropriate enforcement sanctions.

We have considered the possibility of denying the

variance altogether, since these emissions of coal—tar

derivatives impose asevere hardship on the neighbors and sixice

any hardship suffered by the company, even if it were required

to shut down until the controls are in, would be self-inflicted

due to the four—year delay in submitting and commenc~inga

control program. In light of the hardship that a shutdown

would impose upon innocent emeloyees, however, we do not

believe this step necessary at this time, since the company

now committed to a reasonably brief correction schedule.

On the other hand, we cannot give Molex a free pass for its

inexcusable and lengthy delay. Had the company done what it

was required to do, this pollution would have ceased two or

three years ago. Instead it has saved the interest on its

investment for the period of inaction, and it must not be

permitted to profit from its own wrong, unless we are to

encourage others similarly to ignore their obligations. Not

only was the failure to file the required intent letter and

compliance program a double violation of the old Air Pollution

Control Act, which the company argues we have no jurisdiction

to enforce. We disagree with that contention, but the company

has been emitting contaminants in excess of those permitted

by the regulations ever since the new statute came into effect

in July, 1970. This unexcused violation clearly is within

our authority to penalize.

We could achieve the appropriate goal of approving

the present program while imposing penalties for past violations

by denying the variance request and entertainimg a subsequent

complaint. In similar cases in the past, however, we have

3

—

342

reached the same result without the unnecessary time and cost

of a second hearing by granting a variance in the sense of

protection from future prosecution on the condition of payment

of a money penalty for past delays. See, e.g., Marquette

Cement Co. 

EPA, # 70-23 (Jan. 6, 1971); Agrico Chemicals

Co., # 71-211 (December 21, 1971). We think the same course

is appropriate here, ~ $10,000 penalty condition is therefore

imposed.

In addition, the statute requires us in cases of this

kind to impose the condition of a bond or other security in

an amount sufficient to deter any failure to adhere to the

program. The cost of the program is estimated at $45,000,

and we shall require security in that amount, in accord with the

guidelines set forth in earlier Board decisions.

This opinion constitutes the Board~s findings of fact

and conclusions of law,

ORDER

Molex, Inc. is hereby granted a variance to emit particulate

air contaminants in exesss of those permitted by the Rules and

Regulations Governing the Control of Air Pollution, until May

22,

1972, provided the following conditions are met:

1. Molex shall diligently pursue the program of scrubber

installation as described in the record; and

2. Molex shall file monthly progress reports with the

Agency, commencing on February 1, 1972; and

3. Molex shall not increase its discharge of contaminants

during the period of this variance; and

4. Within 35 days after receipt of this order, Molex shall

pay to the Agency the sum of $10,000 as a penalty for

past delays in controlling particulate emissions; and

5. Within 35 days after receipt of this order, Molex

shall post with the Agency a bond of other adequate

security in the amount of $45,000 to assure adherence

to the control program.

Breach of any of the conditions of this order shall be grounds for

revocation of this variance.

I, Christan Moffett,    

Clerk of the Pollution Control Board,

certify that the above Opinion was adopted by ~he Board this

‘~

day of January, 1972, by a vote of 

‘7

to 0

~43