ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
September 27,
1974
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Complainant,
v.
)
PCB 73—491
PALMER ASBESTOS
AND
RUBBER COMPANY,
Respondent.
Mr. Lee A. Campbell, attorney for Complainant.
Mr. Michael M. Fleishman, attorney for
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Dr. Odell)
On November 16,
1973, the Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency) filed a Complaint against Palmer Asbestos and Rubber
Company
(Palmer)
alleging violations of the Environmental
Protection Act
(Act)
and various regulations resulting from the
manner in which Palmer used asbestos materials in the production
of brake linings and brake blocks.
Brake linings are produced
from 355—pound rolls of asbestos and brass wire coated with
rubber.
The rubber—coated asbestos is cut into long, narrow
strips which are cured and pressed in a gas—fired oven at 350°F.
Brake blocks are created from batches consisting of
125 pounds of
asbestos fibers,
85 pounds of binding resin,
10 pounds of fine
brass chips, and small amounts of other materials.
The mixture
is shoveled into individual steam—heated molds.
Following removal
from the molds, each brake block is uniformly ground and sanded on
two belt—driven machines, both equipped with cyclones for emission
control.
The plant employs 10 to 20 persons and generates annual
sales of $250,000.
Offenses were purported to have occurred each and every
day from June
30,
1972,
until November 16, 1973,
at Respondent’s
facility located at 2741 North Clybourn Avenue, Chicago, Illinois.
Specifically, the Complaint charged that:
1.
Respondent carried on its manufacturing procedures
without a permit from the Agency in violation of Section
9(b)
of
the Act and Rule 622 of Chapter
Two:
Air Pollution Regulations
(Chapter Two).
Violations occurred from June
30,
1972, until
November 16,
1973.
2.
Respondent carried on its manufacturing procedures with-
out designating anyone to exercise full-time supervisory authority
over those aspects of the operation releasing asbestos fiber into
the environment,disobeying Rule 621(a)
of Chapter Two.
Violations
occurred from January 31,
1973,
until November 16,
1973.
13—615
—2—
3.
Respondent failed to instruct its employees, who worked
with asbestos fiber, about the potential hazards from exposure
to such materials,contrary to Rule 621(b)
of Chapter Two.
Violations
took place from January
31,
1973, until November 16,
1973.
4.
Respondent failed to provide facilities and procedures
for the removal of asbestos-containing material from the clothing
of employees
in contravention of Rule 621(c)
of Chapter Two.
Violations came about from January
31,
1973,
until November 16, 1973.
5.
Respondent permitted asbestos—containing products to be
discharged into the atmosphere by failing to collect and contain
asbestos-containing wastes, offending Rule 621(d)
of Chapter Two.
Violations were found from January
31,
1973,
until November 16,
1973.
6.
Respondent failed to properly duct and control exhausting
air carrying asbestos-containing wastes in conflict with Rule 652 of
Chapter Two,
Violations occurred from June
30,
1972,
until November
16, 1973.
7.
Respondent threatened or caused the discharge of excessive
particulate emissions in violation of Rule 3—3,111 of the Rules and
Regulations Governing the Control of Air Pollution
(Rules and
Regulations).
The amount of particulate matter released into the
atmosphere was estimated to be approximately 2.0 pounds/hour in excess
of the standard under Rule 3-3.111.
Violations went on from January
31,
1973,
until November 16,
1973,
A hearing took place in Chicago, Illinois, on August 28,
1974.
At that time a Stipulation and Proposal For Settlement was made a
part of the record.
Palmer admitted violating the Act and regulations
in the manner and throughout the period set out in the Complaint.
The evidence, consisting of the Stipulation and Proposal For Settle-
ment as well as Stipulated Exhibits 3 and 4 convince us that such
violations did occur.
The Stipulation indicated that Respondent
planned to close down its facility and move its operations to the
company headquarters
in Louisville, Kentucky.
The premises were
sold, effective March 31,
1974, and demolition of the plant took
place under Agency supervision in June,
1974
(R.3,
4).
No citizen
offered any testimony during the hearing.
Several steps
towards compliance with the regulations were
reported in the Stipulation and Proposal For Settlement.
First,
supervision was provided during work periods when asbestos is
released into the ambient air,
Second, employees were issued
respirators and signs were posted on the hazards of asbestos.
Third,
employees were encouraged to change clothes before going home at the
end of the day; coveralls
to be worn during work were provided by
the Respondent.
Fourth,
a dumpster to permit proper disposal of
asbestos—containing materials was acquired.
All of these changes
occurred after the filing of the Complaint and before the end of
January, 1974.
No mention was made in the Stipulation of any
efforts to control particulate emissions into the atmosphere or of
13 —676
—3—
any attempt to get a permit before the facility finally closed
down at the end of March,
1974.
Asbestos
is potentially an extremely dangerous contaminant
(see our Opinion in the ASBESTOS REGULATIONS,
Rl7—l6;
3 PCB 347
January
6,
1972),
Not only
is the harm caused by the pollutant
irreversible, but exposure to asbestos—contaminated work clothing
taken home can carry these dangers to other members of the family.
Stipulated Exhibit
6 indicates that Respondent clearly had know-
ledge by early.August,
1973 of possible asbestos violations.
Respondent failed to take corrective action until after the Complaint
was filed.
The protective equipment recommended for employees under
Rule 621 of Chapter Two is inexpensive and readily available.
It
is
difficult to understand Palmer’s delay in supplying respirators and
coveralls for its men and to instruct them on the hazards of asbestos.
We accept the Stipulation and Proposal For Settlement entered
into between the parties.
Although the penalty
is low,
the fact
that all emissions have ceased is an important factor in accepting
the Stipulation and the $3,500 penalty.
Second, where parties have
reached an agreement at arms length and no members of the public
have raised any opposition to the Stipulation and Proposal For
Settlement, we are inclined to accept the penalty unless the amount
is unreasonably low.
This constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of law
of the Board.
ORDER
IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that Respondent
pay a penalty of $3,500 for its violations
of the Act and regulations
established in this Opinion. Payment shall be by certified check or
money order payable to the State of Illinois, Fiscal Services
Division, Environmental Protection Agency,
2200 Churchill Road,
Springfield, Illinois 62706.
Payment shall be made within
35 days
of the adoption of this Order.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify
t at
he above Opinion and Order was adopted
on the
~~“
day of
___________,
1974, by a vote of
~
to
p
@~pty1
JJ1!L
Christan L. Mol~
13 —677