ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
January
3,
1975
ENVIRONMENTAL P
ROTE CTI
ON AGENCY
COMPLAINANT
v.
)
PCB 74—179
GEORGIA-PACIFIC
CORPORATION,
a Georgia Corporation,
RESPONDENT
MR.
MARVIN
N. BENN, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL,
in behalf of the
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
MR.
BRUCE
A,
HUBBARD,
ATTORNEY, KIRNLAND
& ELLIS,
in behalf of the
GEORGIA-PACIFIC
CORPORATION
OPINION
AND
ORDER
OF
THE BOARD
(by
Mr.
Marder)
On May 13,
1974, the Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency)
filed a complaint charging Georgia-Pacific
(Respondent)
with
viola-
tion of various rules
and
regulations of Chapter
2 of
the
Board~s
Air Pollution Regulations.
Hearings were held on
July
9,
1974,
and
August 13,
1974,
at which time a Stipulation
of
Facts and Proposal
for Settlement was entered into evidence.
After careful review of the Stipulation entered into
by
both par-
ties,
the Board finds that
the
terms contained therein will result
in
an equitable disposition of the case and will accept it. Said
Stipulation
is
a long and detailed review of
the facts
leading up
to the filing of
the instant
Complaint,
as well as
facts which will
allow us to better determine guilt or innocence as regards certain
alleged infractions of the Board’s
Rules.
The reader is referred to
the original Stipulation for an in-depth discussion of the facts,
as
we will just summarize said Stipulation
in
this
Opinion.
Georgia-Pacific owns and operates at 1581
E.
98th Street, Chicago,
Illinois,
a facility for the manufacture of various products used in
dry-wall construction.
Four main product lines are manufactured.
Among the various raw materials utilized is asbestos
(both chrysotile
and caledria asbestos)
,
which accounts for approximately 5
of the
final products.
Another major raw material is limestone which is re-
ceived by the plant via rail cars and then transferred to
a 200-ton
storage bin.
The Agency has charged violations
as follows:
1.
Manufacture or
processing
of
asbestos—containing products
without first obtaining a
permit
-
alleged violation
of
9(b)
of the Act and
Rule
622
of the Air Rules.
2.
Failure to designate a full-time employee to supervise as-
15
—
57
asbestos~handlingactivities
alleged violation of Rule
621
(a)
of the Air Rules.
3,
Failure to adequately notify employees of dangers of expos-
ure to asbestos
-
alleged violation of Rule 621
(b)
of the
Air Rules.
4.
Failure to provide means
to remove visible asbestos from the
clothing of employees
alleged
violation
of Rule 621
(c)
of
the Air Rules.
5.
Failure to immediately vacuum wastes or otherwise collect
and
seal
asbestos
wastes
alleged
violation
of
Rule
621
(d)
of the Air Rules.
6.
Failure to control exhaust air
(asbestos—bearing)
so
as to
duct such air through
a pollution control device
-
alleged
violation of Rule 652 of the Air Rules.
7.
Failure to adequately package asbestos wastes for transport
—
alleged violation of Rule 657 of the Air Rules.
8.
Operation of limestone storage areas in such manner as
to
allow fugitive particulate matter to escape
—
alleged viola-
tion of Rule
203
(f) (I) of the Air Rules.
9.
Failure to obtain an operating permit for certain bins, hop-
pers,
and blenders,
etc.
-
alleged violation of Rule 103
(b) (2)
of the Air Rules and Section
9
(b)
of the Act.
10.
Failure to obtain a construction permit for the above
(#9)
equipment
-
alleged violation of Rule 103
(a) (1)
of the Air
Rules.
Contact between the Agency and Respondent was first established on
July 27,
1973,
at which time Inspector N. Thomas
(Agency) noted white
powder emissions from a limestone unloading operation.
At this time
Respondent was not notified of said inspection.
In a later inspection
(August
2,
1973)
Inspector Thomas learned from Respondent that an un-
loading system was to be installed at a cost of $58,000.
At this vis-
it Respondent
was
notified
of
the
need
for
asbestos, operating,
and
construction
permits. Also at this meeting internal housekeeping pro-
cedures were noted to be poor.
Respondent then engaged a consultant
to prepare the required appli-
cation forms.
On
August 27,
1973,
Respondent was notified, by letter,
of possible violation conditions,
at which time Respondent initiated
steps to determine if indeed violations did exist.
In a
letter
filed
October 22,
1973, Respondent answered the Agency~sletter relating its
feelings that: Fugitive emissions would be controlled by the new un-
loading system; permit applications would be submitted within two weeks;
and
that
Respondent
felt
that
it
was
in
conformance with Rules
621
(b)
(c)
,
and
(d)
15—58
—3—
On November 1,
1973,
Respondent filed its permit application, which
was
rejected
by
the
Agency
as
being
insufficient
on
November
8,
1973.
Respondent
then
retained
a
consultant
to
further
study
their
asbestos—
related
activities.
Such
study
resulted
in
a
report
which allegedly
was sent
to
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
For
some
unknown
reas-
on this report was never received by the Agency.
Although the presence
of such report would have bearing on the good faith efforts of Respond-
ent,
it would in no way bear upon actual violations which did or did
not
exist.
A further inspection on February 16,
1974, by Agency
and
Attorney
General personnel noted further evidence of possible violations,
and
air samples taken at this visit showed the presence of asbestos-like
fibers,
As mentioned above, the instant Complaint was filed on May
13,
1974.
After
negotiations
between
the
Agency and
Respondent
the following
information
on
each
count
was
stipulated
to:
1.
Rule
621
(a).
The
Environmental
Protection Agency has withdrawn
this
charge
in
that
Mr.
N.
Palmowski
was
at
all times responsible
for
asbestos
activities
within
the plant. Charge dismissed.
2.
Rule
621
(b).
Facts
were
presented
to
the
Board
so
as
to
allow
us
to
render
an
equitable
decision.
Respondent
alleges
that
each
employee
is
given
pre-and
post-hiring
instructions
as
to
the potential hazards
of
asbestos.
In
addition,
it
is alleged
that
monthly
safety
meetings
are
held,
at
which
time
the
im-
portance of personal safety is reaffirmed,
Employees are instructed to
wear protective masks, promptly clean up asbestos spills, and dispose
of such spills properly.
The
Agency
alleges
that
if
instructions
were
given,
they
are
not
be-
ing
followed
properly.
Workers
were
noted
in
exposed
areas
without
proper
masks,
and
housekeeping
was
generally
poor.
Rule
621
(b)
states that each employee
“shall complete a course
of
instructions on the potential
hazards of exposure to asbestos fibers, including the pre-
cautions that must be observed to prevent or restrict the
dispersion of asbestos into the environment.”
The rule does not detail what such a course shall consist of, nor
does this rule make it a violation not to comply with such instructions.
It is the obvious intent of such rule to encourage compliance, which
may not have been done in this instance.
The proposal for settlement
significantly tightens up on the compliance with such instructions and
will be accepted by the Board.
However, the Board finds that the let-
ter of the law
(621
b)
was complied with in this particular instance,
and the Board will
dismiss
such charges.
The outcome of this charge
could have been different, had more evidence been generated
as to the
actual conduct of such
training.
Charge
dismissed,
15
—
59
—4—
3.
Rule
621
Cc).
Facts
were
presented
to
the
Board
so
as
to
allow
us
to
render
an
equitable
decision.
Respondent
alleges
that
lockers
are
provided
for
employees
in
which
to
place
their
clothes.
Such
operators
are
instructed
to
change
clothes
upon
arrival
and
departure
from
work.
Respondent
further
alleges
that
no
employee
was
ever
noted
leaving
the
plant
with
visible
asbestos
fib-
ers
on
his
clothing.
The
Agency
alleges
that
the
lockers
were
located
in
the
same
room
as
the
mixer
(asbestos),
which
would
allow
airborne
fibers
to
reach
em-
ployees’
clothing,
and
that
supervision
was
not
adequate.
Rule
621
Cc)
specifically
mentions
that
“Facilities
shall
be
pro-
vided
and
procedures
instituted
and
supervised...”
(emphasis
added).
It
is
the
finding
of
the
Board
that
the
facilities
provided
(lingle
lockers)
and
the
supervision
given
were
totally
inadequate
to
prevent
the
removal
from
the
site
of
asbestos
fibers
•
The
proposal
for
settle-
ment
will
solve
this
problem;
however,
the
violation
will
be
affirmed.
4
•
Rule
621
Cd).
Respondent
admits
to
this
charge
on
both
Septem-
ber
7,
1973,
and
February
19,
1974.
These
are
two
Agency
in-
spection
dates
•
The
Board
feels
that
this
was
a
continuing
viol-
ation
and
finds
the
charge
valid.
5.
Rule
652.
The
Agency
withdraws
this
charge.
6.
Rule
203
(f) (1).
Respondent
admits
this
charge,
at
least
on
February
14,
1974,
but
states
it
was
due
to
mechanical
failure
which
led
to
a spill.
This
violation
should
have
ceased
because
the
new
unloading
facility
is
now
operable.
Charge
affirmed.
7.
Rules
103
(a)(l),
103
(b)(2),
622,
and
Section
9
(b).
The
above
rules
were
violated
by
Respondent
by
its
own
admission,
and
such
charges
shall
be
affirmed.
Respondent
and
the
Agency,
in
an
attempt
to
settle
the
instant
case,
have
suggested
a
compliance
plan
which
will
resolve
all
violations.
These
items
(A
1-12
and
B)
can
be
found
in
detail
on
pages
23-25
of
the
Stipulation.
Basically,
Respondent
agrees
to
better
housekeeping,
ordering
and
installing
protective
coverings,
intensifying
its
employee
training
and
supervision,
installation
of
separate
lockers,
submission
of
reports,
and
notifying
the
Agency
of
delays.
Respondent
also
agrees
to
pay
a
penalty
of
$6,000
for
violations
found.
The
only
part
of
the
above
plan
which will
not
be
completed
by
the
date
of
this
Order
is
the
construction
of
a
new
change
room,
which
is
anticipated
for
completion
by
February
1,
1975.
The
Board
finds
the
agreed-to
settlement
to
be
equitable
in
the
in-
stant
case,
and
the
penalty
to
be
reasonable
in
light
of
the
violations,
and
will
accept
it
in
full.
This
Opinion
constitutes
the
findings
of
fact
and
conclusions
of
law
of
the
Board.
15—. 50
ORDER
IT
IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that:
I.
Respondent, Georgia—Pacific,
is
found to have been in
violation
of Rules
621
(c)
,
621
(d)
,
203
(f) (I)
,
103
(a) (I)
,
103
(b) (2)
,
and 622 of the Air Rules,
as well as Section
9
(b)
of the En-
vironmental Protection Act.
2.
Respondent is found not guilty of violating Rule 621
(b)
of
the Air Rules.
3.
Alleged violations of Rules
621
(a)
and 652 of the Air Rules
are dismissed.
4.
Respondent shall pay to the State of Illinois the sum of
$6,000 within
30
days from the date of this Order.
Penalty
payment by certified check or money order payable to the
State of Illinois shall be made to:
Fiscal
Services
Division,
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,
2200 Churchill
Road,
Springfield, Illinois,
62706,
5.
Respondent shall
carry out in full Items
1 through 12 listed
in
Paragraph
45
(A)
of
the
agreed-upon
Stipulation
for
set-
tlement.
I,
Christan
L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, certify that the above Opinion and Order was adopted by the
Board on
the
3~
day
oft,
1974,
by
a vote of
____
15
—