ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

October 28, 1976

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

Complainant,

v.

)

PCB 75—365

JAYAR-HOAG CHEMICAL COMPANY, INC.,

Respondent.

Miss Dorothy J. Howell, Assistant Attorney General, Attorney

for Complainant

Mr. Clifford L. Weaver, Ross, Hardies, O’Keefe, Babcock and

Parsons, Attorney for Respondent

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Young):

This n3atter comes before the Board on a Complaint filed

by the People of the State of Illinois on September 11, 1975

charging the Jayar—Hoag Company with certain violations of

the Board’s Air Rules and of the Environmental Protection Act.

An Amended Complaint was filed on September 23, 1975 and again

on April 22, 1976. Four hearings were held in this matter

with the first on January 19, 1976 and with the last on July

8, 1976, at which time a Stipulation and Proposal for Settle-

ment was entered into the record.

Count I alleged that on June 24, 1975 Respondent caused

or allowed the emission of certain contaminants into the en-

vironment and that the presence in the atmosphere of the con-

taminants was of sufficient quantity and of such characteristics

and duration as to require the evacuation of a number of factories

in the immediate area of the facility, thus unreasonably inter-

fering with the enjoyment of life and property, and therefore

causing air pollution as that term is defined in Section 3(b) of

the Act, and in violation of Section 9(a) of the Act.

Count II alleged that since June 24, 1975 and continuing

through the filing of the Complaint, Respondent has operated its

facility in such a manner as to constitute a continuing threat

of air pollution in violation of Section 9(a) of the Act.

—

129

—2—

Count III alleged that since January 1, 1973 and continuing

through the filing of the Complaint, Respondent has operated a

baghouse without first obtaining the necessary operating permit

from the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency in violation

of Rule 103(b) (2) of Chapter 2 of the Board’s Air Rules and

Section 9(b) of the Act.

Jayar—Hoag leases certain property at 8620 Ferris Avenue

in the Village of Morton Grove and operates thereon a facility

for the warehousing and contract blending, packaging and distri-

bution of industrial chemicals, Included in Respondent’s equip-

ment are two ribbon blenders and one baghouse, all of which were

installed in 1970 and an additional baghouse which was installed

in 1975. Respondent has operated this equipment without the

requisite operating permits, although Respondent submits that

it was unaware of the permit requirement until so notified by

Complainant in connection with an industrial accident on June

24, 1975 (Stip. p4, par. 3). The Respondent received permits

for this equipment on January 1, 1976 (Stip. p4, par. 2).

The emission of contaminants on June 24, 1975 resulted from

an error in the mixing sequence in the preparation of a detergent

formula. As a result thereof, quantities of carbon dioxide,

nitrogen, c~anogen, cyanogen chloride, hydrogen chloride, and

chlorine were allegedly emitted into the atmosphere. The parties

do not agree as to the quantities of these contaminants that were

emitted as no actual sampling was performed. Although some people

in the picnic area of a nearby forest preserve moved away from

Respondent’s facility at the direction of a police officer, neither

party knows of any other persons affected by the evolving gas.

Respondent further contends that persons in the area where warnings

were given did not evacuate the area dad lid not suffer any ill

effects (Stip. p9, par. 11). Fire Department personnel believe

that the steady prevailing wind of June 24, 1975 served to miti-

gate the incident by directing the evolving gases in the direction

in which there was the greatest distance between Respondent’s

facility and the nearest congregation of people (Stip. p9, par. 12)

The parties do not agree whether the emissions of June 24,

1975 constituted

air pollution.

Respondent submits that the

incident was of

insufficient duration and impact to constitute

air pollution

(Stip. p11, par. 15)

Complainant submits that

emission of gases from industrial

processes into the atmosphere

represents a violation of the Act, and that the emissions and

effect here were sufficient to constitute an interference with

the enjoyment of life and property (Stip. p11, par. 16),

Because the pleadings do not conform to the proof, however,

the Board will not render a decision on this issue. Complainant

alleged that the emission of June 24, 1975 was of such a nature

as to unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment of life and

property by requiring the evacuation of a number of factories in

24—130

—3—

the area. Other than some people in a picnic area, the Stipu-

lation specifically provides that neither Complainant nor

Respondent knows of any person who was otherwise affected by

the evolving gases (Stip. p9, par. 11). Because Complainant

failed to prove the element of this violation relating to the

unreasonable interference which the emissions allegedly caused,

this Count will be dismissed.

The Settlement Stipulation provides that Respondent shall

remit $2,500.00 to the State of Illinois in the acknowledgment

of the lack of the requisite operating permit. In consideration

of the Settlement Stipulation and because Complainant is unaware

of any violations of the Act or regulations presently existing

at the facility, Complainant requests the Board to dismiss Count

II without prejudice.

In consideration of the foregoing and the Stipulation in

this matter, the Board finds that Respondent did operate its

baghouse from January 1, 1973 until January 1, 1976 without the

required operating permit in violation of Rule 103(b) (2) of the

Board’s Air Rules and in further violation of Section 9(b) of

the Act. In consideration of the Settlement Stipulation and

because Complainant is unaware that any violations presently

exist at the facility, the Board will dismiss Count II without

prejudice.

The Board finds the Settlement Stipulation adequate and will

assess a penalty of $2,500.00 for the violations found herein.

Respondent will also be required to adhere to all other Settle-

ment provisions.

This Opinion constitutes the BoarJ findings of fact and

conclusions of law in this matter.

ORDER

1. Respondent, Jayar-Hoag, has violated Rule 103(b) (2)

of the Board’s Air Rules and Section 9(h) oF the Act and shall

pay a penalty of $2,500.00 for these violations. Penalty pay-

ment by certified check or money order payable to the State of

Illinois shall be made within 35 days of the date of this Order

to: Fiscal Services Division, Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency, 2200 Churchill Road, Springfield, Illinois, 62706.

2. Respondent shall adhere to all provisions of the Settle-

ment, said Settlement being included herewith by reference as if

more fully set forth herein.

—

131

—4—

3. Counts I and II of the Complaint are hereby dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, hereby certify the ab ye Opinion and Order were

adopted on the 

c~8’~”

day of 

__________________,

1976 by a

vote of 

____

Christan L. Moffett,  rk

Illinois Pollution C n rol Board

—

132