ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

September 18, 1975

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

Complainant,

v.

)

PCB 74—203

MARSCO MANUFACTURING COMPANY,

an Illinois corporation,

Respondent.

Mr. Marvin N.

Benn,

Assistant Attorney General, appeared for

the Complainant;

Mr. Joel

H. Fenchel, Attorney, appeared for the Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Mr.

Zeitlin):

This case comes before us on a formal Complaint filed

by the Attorney General for the people of the State of

Illinois on May 29,

1974.

That Complaint alleges violations

by Marsco Manufacturing Company

(Marsco) of Sections

9(a)

and

9(b)

of the Environmental Protection Act and Rule 103(b) (2)

of Chapter

2: Air Pollution,

of the Pollution Control Board

(Board)

Rules and Regulations.

An Amended Complaint filed

by the Attorney General on January 16,

1975,

adds an allegation

of violation of Rule 202(b)

of Chapter

2.

A hearing was

held

in Chicago on June

11,

1975,

at which time the parties

submitted

a Stipulation of Fact and Agreed Settlement,

which

forms

the basis for our decision here.

Marsco operates a glass p~roductsfacility at 2901 South

Halsted in Chicago.

At that facility Marsco utilizes a

patented process

to apply protective coating to glass, which

retards or prevents heat transfer through the glass.

That

process enables the glass to meet safety standards for use

in oven doors.

The glass is also used in other applications,

where its heat retardant and other special properties are of

use.

After production at the Haisted Street facility commenced

in

1973,

area residents complained

to both Marsco

arid the

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

(Agency).

Those

complaints concerned odors and particulate emissions originating

at the Marsco facility.

In response, Marsco installed a

“packed tower” wet-scrubber, with other ancillary control

devices,

at

a cost of $35,863.51.

After the control equipment

was put into operation, odor complaints still continued.

18

—

505

---

—2—

Marsco thereafter employed consulting engineers,

and

tried various other control techniques, which also failed.

Finally, on March

27, 1975,

Marsco installed spray

booths at a cost of over

$13,000, on the advice of new

consultants.

Tests of that control system showed that

particulate emissions rated from the Haisted Street facility

amounted to 1.57 pounds per hour, which

is allowable under

Board regulations for a process weight of 997 lbs. per hour.

The new control methods also reduced odor units from approximately

2,000

to an average of

700.

(The consulting engineers for

Marsco estimated that problems might continue to arise from

any discharge in excess of 500 odor units.)

At an inspection by the Attorney General’s office on

May 29,

1975,

the At’~:orneyGeneral suggested further treat-

ment of Respondent’s discharge by activated charcoal filters,

installed into the air flow immediately prior to discharge

into the atmosphere.

As a result of the new treatment

method,

the filters did not clog up with particulates, as

was the problem with prior control strategies.

The representatives

of the Attorney General’s office did not notice any odors or

visible plume at Lhe discharge stack of the pollution control

system.

Commencing

in April,

1973, Marsco and

the Environmental

Protection Agency engaged in a series of permit applications,

rejections,

and grants.

Marsco’s initial permit applications,

which in some cases resulted in the grant of the permits

requested, did not L’ention the heat barrier process for

glass treatment,

as described above.

Construction and

operating permits with respect to the heat barrier process

were eventually granted by the Agency on June

25,

1974.

The May 29, l~74Complaint filed by the Attorney General,

in addition to alleging ‘that the heat barrier process failed

to have the proper permits

(Section 9(b)

of the Act and

Rule 103(b) (2)),

alleged serious odor violations at the

Marsco facility

(Section

9 ~a) of the Act)

.

The parties

stipulated that at least 22 residents of ~Lhe area would have

testified regarding those odors,

and the resultant interference

with their enjoyment of life and property.

It was further

stipulated that these citizens would have testified to

burning

throats, headaches, nausea,

coughing and irritated eyes and

noses caused by Marsco’s emissions.

The Amended Complaint of January 16, 1975 extended to

that date the alleged violations described above,

and added

an allegation that on October

18,

1973, Marsco violated

Rule 202 (b)

by allowing emissions of smoke and other particulate

matter with an opacity of greater than 30.

18

—

506

---

—3—

Based on the above facts,

the parties agreed to the

following settlement

(Stipulation of Facts and Agreed Settlement,

para.

38):

“38.

Now,

therefore, the parties hereby stipulate

and agree that the settlement of the above—entitled

enforcement action shall be as follows:

“a.

Respondent admits to violating Rule 103(b) (2)

of Chapter

2, Part

I of the Air Rules and hence

admits violating Section 9(b)

of the Act in the

manner specified above;

“b.

Respondent admits to violating Section 9(a)

of the Act in the manner specified above;

“c.

Respondent admits to violating Rule 202(b)

of Chapter

2, Part II of the Air Rules in the manner

specified above;

“d.

Marsco will use the air pollution control

system as shown in the attached Exhibit

“E”

comprisL~gthe wet-wash spray booth and activated

charcoal equipment.

Marsco agrees to maintain

said equipment such that the particultate emission

rate will not exceed the allowable emissions

specified

in the Regulations.

Marsco further agrees

to provide a valve sampling port downstream of the

charcoal filters to allow a set schedule of sampling

of the gas stream to determine the effectiveness

of the charcoal.

Records

shall be kept and maintained

of this monitoring program.

Should any odor be

detected by said sampling program, appropriate

steps will be taken by Marsco to reduce said odor;

“e.

Marsco agrees to allow any duly authorized

representative of the Attorney General’s Office to

inspect the premises and specifically the Heat

Barrier air pollution control sy~stemand any

documents relating thereto;

“f.

Narsco will initiate the steps described

in paragraph 37, supra

odor

panel tests should

complaints persist, with corrective action subject

to approval of Attorney General to reduce such

odors.

I

“g.

Marsco must obtain from the Environmental

Protection Agency within a reasonable time,

an

operating permit for the pollution control system

as presently used;

and

18—

507

---

—4—

‘n.

Marsco will pay to the State of Illinois

a fine of One Thousand Dollars

($1,000.00)

in full

settlement of all enforcement proceedings against

Marsco for alleged violations occurring prior to

the date hereof.

Payment of that penalty shall be

upon the immediate receipt of the order, subsequent

to the decision of the Pollution Control Board.

Respondent shall pay the penalty of

$1,000.00

to the Treasurer, State of Illinois.

Said payment

should be sent

to:

Attorney General’s Office

Environmental Control Division

188 West Randolph Street,

Suite 2315

Chicago,

Illinois

60601’

The Board finds that this agreed settlement

is acceptable.

While we do have reservations regarding the acceptability of

emissions totaling

700

odor units, we feel that Marsco’s

commitment to take any necessary corrective actions will

alleviate this problem.

Further, Respondent’s good faith

has been shown

in the past,

by both its expenditure of over

$111,000

in its attempts

to achieve compliance,

and

in the

continuous nature of those attempts after repeated, expensive

failures.

Should the odor problem not be solved,

Marsco

i.s committed

to whatever further actions are necessary.

Were

it not for

Narsco’s prior attem7ts at compliance,

and its commitment

to such further attempts as may be necessary,

a penalty of

$1,000 would not be acceptable

in light of the continuing,

long-term nature of the violations admitted by Marsco.

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and

conclusions of law of tL~Board in this matter.

ORDER

IT IS THE ORDER OF THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD THAT:

1)

Respondent Narsco Manufacturing Company is found

to have violated Sections

9(a)

and

9(b)

of the Environmental

Protection Act,

and Rule 103(b) (2)

of Chapter

2: Air Pollution

from March

1,

1973 until May 29,

1974,

and Rule 202(b)

of

Chapter

2: Air Pollution,

on October 18,

1973.

18— 508

---

—5—

2)

Respondent Marsco Manufacturing Company shall,

for

the above violations, pay a penalty of $1,000 to the Treasurer

of the State of Illinois, payment to be made to:

Attorney General’s Office

Environmental Control Division

188 West Randolph Street, Suite 2315

Chicago,

Illinois 60601

3)

Respondent Marsco Manufacturing Company shall

in

all respects

comply with subparagraphs

d,

e,

f and g of the

Stipulation of Facts and Agreed Settlement subffiitted by

the parties to this matter on July 11,

1975, as set out in

the accompanying Opinion.

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

Control Board, hereby ce~tifythe abov

0

mi

n and Order

were adopted on the

/3

‘

day of

,

1975 by

a vote of

3—b

L.

Mo.

Illinois Polluti.

1 Board

18

—

509