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~