ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

March

6,

1975

MORTELL COMPANY,

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB 74—416

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

Respondent.

Mr. Patrick J. Phillips, attorney for Petitioner.

Mr. Peter E. Orlinsky, attorney for Respondent.

OPINION

AND

ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Dr. Odell)

On November 8,

1974,

the Mortell Company filed its

Petition for Variance with the Pollution Control Board

(Board).

Petitioner sought a variance from Rules 102,

622,

651,

and 652

of the Air Pollution Regulations (Chapter Two)

for its asbestos-

emitting ribbon and caulk mixers at its Kankakee, Illinois plant.

The variance was requested until November

1,

1975,

to enable it

to install

13 bag houses to limit the asbestos emissions

to

levels set out in Chapter Two.

Rule 102 prohibits air pollution;

Rule

622 requires

an operating permit from the Environmental

Protection Agency

(Agency); Rule 652 and 651 of Chapter Two

require pollution control equipment for asbestos exhausts and

limit

emissions of asbestos fibers to

2 fibers per cubic centi-

meter of air and prohibits visual emissions of asbestos.

Rule

651 of Chapter Two became effective on June 30, 1972.

The Mortell facility manufactures sealants and coatings

through the operation of ten

(10) ribbon mixers and seven

(7)

caulk mixers.

The coatings, blended in the ten ribbon mixers,

are used for sound insulation and in automobile undercoating.

If all mixers are operated simultaneously,

16,676 pounds of

coatings per hour containing 2.93

asbestos fibers are processed.

The sealants, blended in the double—arm caulk mixers, are used

by the automobile industry and for general household repairs.

If all mixers are operated simultaneously,

3,167 pounds of

sealants per hour containing 47.14

asbestos fibers can be pro-

cessed.

Petitioner alleged that the ten ribbon mixers emit 3.57

pounds/hour of particulate matter and that the seven caulk mixers

emit 0.0274 pound of particulate matter per hour.

Petitioner

also alleged that

it did not become aware until July

5,

1974,

that it was violating the limitations set out in Rule 651 of

Chapter Two.

Stack tests on June 13 and 14, 1974, revealed

emission rates ranging from 56.29 fibers per cc to 285.4 fibers

per cc.

Visual emissions were also observed.

16—25

---

—2—

The Environmental Protection Agency

(Agency)

filed an

objection to the grant of the variance on November 26, 1974;

it moved that a hearing be held purusant to Section 37 of the

Environmental Protection Act.

On December 5,

1974,

the Board

decided that a hearing should be held for this case.

On January

7,

1975,

several we~ksbefore the scheduled

hearing,

the Agency filed its Recommendation stating that it

opposed the variance because,

in light of the potential harm

from asbestos emissions,

the timetable of achieving compliance

by November

1975 was inordinately long.

The Agency believed

that the 13 bag houses to be installed by Petitioner to control

emissions would bring the facility into compliance.

The Agency

stated that were Petitioner to hire outside contractors and

shut down more than one line at

a time,

the. entire project could

be completed by the end of May 1975.

Agency visits during 1974

noted housekeeping deficiencies in possible violation of Rule

621 (b),

(c), and

(d).

Improvement in housekeeping practices

during the last few months of 1974 was noted.

On February

5,

1975, Petitioner waived the 90-day decision

requirement until 30 days after the transcript of the hearing was

filed with the Board.

The transcript was filed on February

5,

1975.

The hearing was held on January

21,

1975,

in Kankakee,

Illinois.

No citizens came forward to testify concerning the

variance.

The evidence at the hearing went primarily to the

issue of whether Mortell

is also in violation of Rule 621(b),

Cc), and

(d) of Chapter Two as alleged by the Agency in its

Recommendation.

Near the close of the hearing, the Agency

admitted that Mortell has a valid program for compliance with

Rule 621(b),

(c),

and

Cd)

(R.55).

WhilePetitioner’s testimony

was helpful to show its efforts to comply with Rule 621, such

testimony did not answer the main issue of whether Petitioner’s

program of compliance

is excessively long.

Some evidence was offered on the issue of the reasonable-

ness of the November 1,

1975, deadline.

A construction permit

to install the 13 bag houses to achieve compliance was received

from the Agency on November 21,

1974.

The total cost of the

project is approximately $60,000

(R.

26).

The first installment

of bag houses, scheduled to arrive by January

1,

1975, has been

delayed

(R.

38).

At the present time the bag houses are to be

delivered according to the following schedule

(Pet.

Ex.

20):

Number of Bag Houses

Expected Delivery Date

First 4 units

February 1,

1975

Next 4 units

April 30, 1975

Final

5 units

July 31, 1975

Petitioner estimated that using its own personnel,

it would take

until the end of 1975 to have all the bag houses installed and

properly operating

CR.

42).

On cross examination,

the witness

16—26

---

—3—

stated that

90 days from the date of delivery was sufficient

time to complete installation

(R.

43).

While Petitioner’s claim

of actual notice of violations was not refuted, the evidence in-

dicates that the Agency noted possible violations

in its transmittal

letter of April

26,

1974,

(Pet. Ex.

1).

We grant the variance according to the time schedule set

out in our Order.

While Petitioner has made good faith efforts

to comply since it became aware of the violations, the potential

harm from the asbestos emissions mandates a tighter compliance

schedule than that suggested by the Petitioner.

Mortell has had

constructive notice of its violations since the June 30,

1972,

date requiring compliance.

The delay

is partially self-imposed.

While the ordered schedule of compliance may necessitate hiring

outside help to install the bag houses, Petitioner’s reluctance

to fulfill its legal obligations means that additional expenses

result from its own past inaction.

Although the record discloses

that Mortell’s facility is located in

a primarily industrial area,

there are also nearby residents who deserve protection as soon as

possible because of the hazardous nature of the asbestos emissions.

We are giving Petitioner

75 days to install each of the three

groups of bag houses after their projected delivery dates.

This

is sufficient time under the circumstances of this

case.

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and con-

clusions of law of the Board.

ORDER

IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that

Petitioner is hereby granted a Variance from Rules

102,

622,

651,

and 652 of Chapter Two from November

8,

1974,

to October

15, 1975,

except to the extent and subject to the conditions set out below:

1.

Petitioner shall install and have operational by April

15,

1975,

the bag houses scheduled for delivery on February 1,

1975.

2.

Petitioner shall install and have operational by July

15, 1975,

the bag houses scheduled for delivery on April

30,

1975.

3.

Petitioner shall install and have operational by

October 15,

1975,

the bag houses scheduled for delivery on July

31,

1975.

4.

During the installation of the first eight bag houses,

Petitioner shall utilize mixers which have been equipped

with

bag

houses before using mixers without bag houses.

5.

Upon the completion of the first eight bag houses,

Petitioner shall operate only those mixers which are equipped

with bag houses.

16—27

---

—4—

6.

Petitioner shall require every employee associated

with asbestos handling to vacuum clothing before leaving

Petitioner’s facility.

7.

Commencing

30 days after the Order herein, and on

or before the 15th of each month ther~after,Petitioner shall

submit reports to the Agency detailing all progress made toward

compliance.

Said reports shall include delivery dates, in-

stallation dates, and reports of mixers used during the report-

ing period.

Reports shall be sent to:

Environmental Protection

Agency, Control Program Coordinator,

2200 Churchill Road,

Springfield, Illinois

62706.

8.

Within

30 days of the Order herein, Petitioner shall

execute a performance bond in the amount of $30,000 in a form

acceptable to the Agency.

The purpose of said bond is to assure

compliance.

Bond should be sent to:

Environmental Protection

Agency, Fiscal Services,

2200 Churchill Road, Springfield,

Illinois 62706.

9.

Within

30 days of the installation of the final bag

house, Petitioner shall have stack tests performed by an inde-

pendent testing company.

The Agency shall be notified at least

five

(5)

days prior to the tests and shall have the right to

witness all tests.

Test results shall be sent to the Agency at

its paragraph 7 address as soon as they become available.

10.

Petitioner shall obtain all necessary Agency permits.

Mr. Dumelle dissents.

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

Board, hereby certify that the ab ye Opinion and Order was

adopted on the

Q~

day of

“fl~

,

1975, by a vote of

3

to

__.

Christan L. Mo

ett