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