ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
March
13,
1975
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
)
)
Complainant
)
)
v.
)
PCB 73—490
)
KENTILE
FLOORS,
INC.,
a New York
)
corporation
)
)
Respondent
)
OPINION
& ORDER of the Board
(by Mr.
Zeitlin)
The Complaint in this matter was filed by the Attorney General for
the Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency)
on November
16,
1973.
The
Complaint alleged that Kentile Floors,
Inc.
(Kentile)
operated its Chicago
flooring materials plant
in violation
of Section 9(b)
of
the Environmental
Protection Act (Act),
and Rules
621(b),
622, 651(a),
and 652 of
the Air Pol-
lution Rules and Regulations
of
the Pollution Control Board
(Board).
Section 9(b)
of the Act,
as applicable herein, forbids the operation
of any equipment or facility capable of causing or contributing to air pol-
lution without a permit
granted by
the Agency;
Rule
622 contains a permit—
for—manufacturing requirement for asbestos processing operations,
and became
effective after June 30,
1972; Rule
621(d) sets out various housekeeping re-
quirements for operations involving the use of asbestos, or which generate
asbestos—containing waste; Rule
651(a),
as applicable herein, requires
that
any factory or plant engaging in the processing or manufacturing of any
asbestos—containing product discharge no visible emissions
of particulate
matter,
and emit no concentrations of asbestos fiber into the ambient air in
excess of
two fibers per
cc of
air; and Rule
652 requires that all exhaust
air from asbestos processing or manufacturing operations be ducted for proper
pollution control and sampling measures.
An Order was entered by
the Board on June 20,
1974 directing that the
Hearing Officer
in
this matter set a hearing within 60 days after that Order
was adopted.
A hearing was subsequently held on November
8,
1974,
at which
time a joint motion for continuance was entered orally by the Agency.
The
motion was granted on
the understanding that parties were nearing the end
of
negotiation,
and would soon enter
a stipulated
settlement.
At a further hearing on February
13,
1975
a Stipulation and Settlement
was submitted.
The only testimony taken at that hearing was
a statement by the
Agency to the effect
that should the Board accept the stipulated settlement,
no
further relief would be necessary
in this matter.
The Agency stated that all
violations alleged in the complaint had been remedied in arriving at
the stipu-
lated settlement,
and
that Respondent had cooperated completely in achieving com-
pliance with all applicable asbestos regulations.
16
—
95
—2—
BACKGROIJND
Kentile operates a manufacturing facility
at
4501 W.
46th Street,
Chicago,
at which
it manufactures asbestos—containing floor tile for resi-
dential,
commercial and industrial use.
The plant employes between 300 and
700 people at different
times, depending on production requirements.
The
plant
is located in the Crawford Industrial District,
and does not abut
any
residential areas.
Asbestos constitutes
17
of
the final product manufactured at Kentile’s
Chicago plant.
‘Asbestos enters
the plant by freight
car,
in palletized bags,
and
is stored in the plant while awaiting use
in
the manufacturing process.
(Since January,
1974,
all asbestos has entered Kentile plant
in plastic bags;
prior to that time asbestos was received
in both plastic and paper bags.)
When ready for use the asbestos
is transported
to weigh scales,
and
is then
placed in a hopper for movement
to
a Banbury mixer,
of which there are
five
in
the plant.
At
the mixers,
asbestos
is mixed with other raw materials,
including a liquid plasticizer.
The asbestos
is
at this point bound
in with
other materials, and cannot thereafter be found in a free state during
the
remainder of the manufacturing process.
After mixing,
the product
has a dough—like consistency,
and is conveyed
through a series
of rolling mill
lines.
After milling,
the
sheets
of tile are
waxed,
buffed
and
forced—air cooled.
Finally, they are dye—cut
in
a press to
the desired
size.
Broken
chips
of tile from one line are added
to the sheets
in process on the other lines to achieve
the
proper appearance.
Emissions from the weigh scales and hoppers,
as well
as
the
Banbury
mixers,
are ducted through
a cyclone and baghouse.
Waste materials collected
in
the cyclone are recycled to the Banbury mixers,
and baghouse collections
are deposited directly into plastic bags.
(Prior
to November,
1973, collections
from the baghouse were routed first
into bins, and
then into plastic bags for
disposal.) The rolling mill lines are serviced by
hoods,
fans, and ducting
to
collect
the exhaust air and control particulate emissions.
Hand and power vacuums
are available throughout
the process.
Kentile’s plant was inspected on March
13,
1973
‘by
an Agency engineer.
As a result of that inspection the Agency informed Kentile
on August
1,
1973
that
it might be
in violation
of several of the Board’s asbestos regulations.
Fol-
lowing Kentile’s September
5,
1973 response
to the Agency, the plant was re—invest-
igated
on October 22,
1973.
Further inspections of Kentile’s plant were made
during the period following the filing of the complaint
in this matter.
During the initial inspection,
on March
13,
1973,
it was noted by the
Agency inspector that Kentile’s baghouse emptying procedure allowed asbestos—
containing dust
to spill out
in areas near the base
of
the baghouse.
An October,
1973 inspection noted that asbestos—containing waste was not being vacuumed im-
mediately;
further,
the portable dust collection bin
in use with the baghouse
was not properly labled,
as containing asbestos.
(These deficiencies had been
corrected by the time of
a January 28,
1974,
inspection.)
The October,
1973 in-
spection also disclosed that the scavenger service bin used to dispose of asbestos
waste was not enclosed or covered.
(This problem was resolved by
April,
1974.)
The Agency does not contend that Kentile’s housekeeping was deficient
as to vac—
uuniing or proper disposal except at the time of the inspections.
16—96
—3—
At
the time of the March
and
October,
1973, inspections,
tile in chip
form,
intended for recycling,
was stored
in piles near the weigh scale area
and outside the plant enclosure.
Scrap tile,
not intended for recycling,
was dumped
unenclosed into the scavenger bin.
Although Kentile does not ac-
cept the Agency contention that these practices constituted violations of
Rule 621(d),
because the asbestos was
at this point bound into the product—as
opposed to being in a free form—it has nonetheless followed Agency recommenda-
tions and now stores reusable tile chips
in stainless steel containers,
and
disposes of all scrap tile in plastic lined drums for sanitary landfill dis-
posal.
Exhaust air from certain of the rolling mill operations
is not routed
through
either
the
baghouse
or
the cyclone.
Based on observation during the
Agency inspections noted above,
the complaint charged that these operations,
i.e., the exhaust from which
is vented directly into the atmosphere, were a
violation of Rule 651(a).
Sampling of these emissions, however,
in February,
1974,
disclosed that no asbestos fibers
at all were emitted from these operations.
On November 26,
1973,
ten days after the complaint in
this matter had
been filed, Kentile applied
for
a Rule 622 asbestos permit.
The Agency permit
engineer and the Agency permit reviewing engineer, being unaware
of the inspec-
tions forming the basis for the Agency’s complaint in
this matter,
or of
the
complaint itself,
issued such a permit
to Kentile by a letter dated December
7,
1973.
Shortly thereafter, however, Kentile’s
application for
an operating permit
pursuant to Rule
103 of
the Board’s air pollution regulations was rejected on
the basis
of
the inspections discussed above.
The letter rejecting this second
permit application from Kentile was sent by the Agency’s permit section on Janu-
ary 21,
1974.
STIPULATION and SETTLEMENT
The stipulation entered by the parties
to
this action indicates that Ken—
tile’s Chicago plant
is
currently in full compliance with the Board’s asbestos
regulations.
This
fact,
coupled with the adequate settlement of the charges
alleged in the complaint,
render the Stipulation of Fact and Proposal for Settle-
meat acceptable as a resolution of this matter.
Kentile has stipulated to
the fact that
it did not possess the required
operating permits during the period June
30,
1972
to November
16,
1973 (the date
of filing of
the complaint).
Such an admission operates
to prove the Agency’s
allegations
as to Section 9(b)
of
the Act and Rule 622.
Violations
of the permit
requirements in those sections are clearly present.
The Agency,
in
the stipulation and settlement,
dropped all allegations of
housekeeping dificiencies as to
the vacuuming and disposal
of asbestos—containing
wastes,
except insofar as such violations may have been present when the various
inspections were made.
While the violations on those occasions may have been
minor,
they were considered
as violations of Rule 621(d).
As a result of stack tests made during the course of this proceeding,
the
Agency dropped those allegations
in the complaint as
to Rule 651(a).
There is
apparently no emission problem with the Kentile plant.
16
—
97
—4—
As
to the complaint’s allegation of
a violation of Rule 652, which
requires proper exhaust air ducting,
the stipulation and settlement does
not contain sufficient facts
to find the violation.
Although Kentile has
made one minor change in its exhaust system for a portion of the milling
operations,
that change was in response
to an Agency suggestion, and cannot
provide the basis for a finding of violation.
The change simply album
the exhaust air
from’ the “mottle addition station” to be ducted so that stack
samples,
if necessary,
can be
taken.
All asbestos being processed at that
point has been bound into
the final product and
is not of the free variety.
The exhaust air from that process has simply been vented through a stack into
the ambient
atmosphere,
as opposed to the prior practice which involved no
venting or collection of such air at all.
The Stipulation of Fact and
Proposal
of
Settlement indicates clearly
that Kentile has complied
with
all
Agency
recommendations
as
to
asbestos—
containing
material
handling,
whether
or
not
compliance
with
such
recommenda-
tions might have been strictly necessary
to
achieve compliance with the Board’s
asbestos regulations.
This
fact,
together with the Agency’s statements
in the
stipulation itself,
and at the hearing,
operate to
make
the stipulated penalty
of $3,000 acceptable
to the Board.
The
purposes
of
the Act and the Regulations,
as regards the control of asbestos emissions, have undoubtably been achieved
through Kentile’s cooperation
in achieving compliance and
in arriving at the
settlement in this matter.
Further,
the Board will accept the Agency’s stipulation
that relief
in the form of a cease and desist order is rendered unnecessary by Kent~le’s
good faith in this matter,
and that,
should the Board approve the settlement,
an
operating permit will be issued to Kentile forthwith.
This
Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of
law of
the Board in this matter.
IT IS THE ORDER of
the Pollution Control Board
that:
1.
Respondent Kentile Floors,
Inc.,
is found
to have operated its Chicago
floor tile manufacturing facility
in violation of Section 9(b)
of the Environ-
mental Protection Act and Rule 622
of the Board’s Air Pollution Rules and Regula-
tions,
in that
it did not, during the period June 30,
1972 to November
16,
1973
possess the required permit
for manufacturing from the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency.
Kentile
is further found to have violated the provisions of
Rules 621(d)
of the Board’s Air Pollution Rules and Regulations by virtue of
the
housekeeping
deficiencies detailed in the accompaning Opinion.
2.
Those portions of the complaint
in this matter alleging violations
of
Rules
651(a)
and
652
are dismissed.
16—98
—5—
3.
Respondent Kentile Floors,
Inc., shall pay
as a penalty for the above
cited violations the sum of
$3,000.
Payment shall be made within
35 days of
the adoption of
this Order, payment to be ‘made by
a certified check or money
order
to:
State of Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency
Fiscal Services Division
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois
62706
I,
Ghristan
L.
Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board,
hereby ce tify the above Opinion & Order were ;dopted on
the
/
~
day
of
if)
,
1975 by
a vote of
£4
to
~
Christan
L. Moffett,,4ñrk
Illinois Pollution C6~frolBoard
16—99