View report page

19.
Nuisance - Effluvia Caused by Manufacturing Processes.
During the year under review a considerable amount of time and
energy was expended by officers of the Department in relation to the
emission of effluvia from a factory in the Borough. The emissions were
such as to be considered by the Public Health Committee a nuisance to the
inhabitants of the neighbourhood and formal notice was served on the
Company to abate the nuisance under Section 93 of the Public Health Act,
1936.
The factory premises from which the effluvia emanated were used
for the manufacture of a patent constructional unit, either in steel or
in alloy, and in the case of the former material protection by painting
became necessary in order to prevent oxidization. This protection was
achieved by submitting the material to three initial processes following
which the slotted angle or shelving was dipped in paint which contained a
high proportion of driers. The subsequent processes involved the drying
and stoving of the finished product.
The proprietors of the factory unsuccessfully made many efforts
to abate the nuisance and in addition they stated that new factory
premises outside the area of the Borough had been acquired and that
ultimately the offending processes would be removed entirely. At the end
of the year 1951 the Council was satisfied that the nuisance still continued
and authority was given to institute proceedings. At this stage the
Council called in the services of a Consultant Chemist and after investigation
of the processes and analysis of the jaint he reported that this
had a methyl-methacrylate thermoplastic base. When heated this paint
base would give off a considerable amount of acrolein which has a most
penetrating and disagreeable odour. In addition there was also the
possible discharge into the atmosphere of xylene, trichlorethylene and
other substances.
The case came before the local Magistrates in January, 1952 when
Defending Counsel informed the Bench they had called in the services of
a firm of noted Chemical Engineers and that they were at that time
experimenting with one of three processes which had been recommended.
By agreement between the two parties and with the approval of the
Magistrates the hearing was adjourned for three months.
Before the case came up for hearing again, however, the firm had
removed the painting processes to a factory outside the Borough boundary,
the painting tanks were dismantled and the nuisance thereby abated in
the best possible way to the Council and to those residents who had
found cause to complain.