ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

August 23, 1973

BORG-WARNER CORPORATION,

Petitioner,

vs.

)

PCB 73—220

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

Frederick E. McLendon, Attorney for Borg—Warner

Fredric J. Entin, Assistant Attorney General for the EPA

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Henss)

Borg-Warner operates a large plant at 700 South 25th

Avenue, Beliwood, Cook County, Illinois which manufactures

metal stampings and friction plates used in automatic trans-

missions of automobiles. Part of the manufacturing effort

involves the processing and waste disposal of over two million

lbs. per year of asbestos impregnated paper. Petitioner claims

to be in compliance with applicable Standards except for. Rules

621(d) and 634 (asbestos and fibre waste), Chapter 2, Pthit VI,

Illinois Air Pollution Control Regulations. This opinion deals

with Borg-Warner’s Petition for Variance from Rules 621(d) and

634 which require use of sealed containers to bury asbestos waste

at a landfill.

Petitioner’s manufacturing plant produces face plates and

flex bands for automatic transmissions, both of which require

the use of asbestos paper. The asbestos paper contains from

five to thirty percent asbestos by weight with the average being

about seventeen percent. A latex material is used to bind the

constituents of the paper. The asbestos paper is processed

from large rolls through a press that cuts the paper into the

desired shape. An estimated 30 of the paper goes into product

with the remaining 70 being considered scrap. From thirty to

forty cubic yards of paper waste are produced daily. This costs

Petitioner about $156 per day for disposal. Petitioner estimated

that approximately 356,000 lbs. of asbestos are disposed of

annually (i.e. 2,990,609 lbs. of paper processed X 70 scrap

factor X 17 asbestos content).

9

—

79

—2—

Formerly, the asbestos scrap paper was dumped, spread,

compacted and then covered. Several disposal methods have

been considered by Petitioner. One year ago, the asbestos paper

supplier told Borg-Warner that about 40 of the scrap could be

recycled. Petitioner investigated recycling and again contacted

the supplier only to discover that new restrictions had been im-

posed which would limit the recycling effort to only 12 of the

total volume of paper being used (R. 16). Also, it was learned

that recycling would be limited to paper containing a maximum of

10 asbestos fibre. This method was rejected because engineers

determined that the binders would build up on the paper causing

a “deteriorating effect”, the supplier would not guarantee the

quality of the recycled paper, and the cost of recycling and

handling would not be offset by a gain in revenue (R. 17).

The possibility of using an incinerator (cost $250,000) to

burn the waste was also considered. Although incineration would

reduce the waste volume to about 10 of that presently being

disposed of, the basic problem of disposing of the asbestos

fibres would not be solved since the fibres would be essentially

unaffected by the incineration process. Availability of natural

gas for the incinerator was also questioned.

The current method of disposal is to wet and compact the

asbestos paper waste prior to delivery to a landfill. The scrap

is conveyed pneumatically to a combination dust collector-baghouse

system and thence to a compactor unit. An automatic water spray

system located at the compactor sprays water over the scrap in an

attempt to wet the material sufficiently to reduce asbestos

emissions. Petitioner admitted that the physical properties of

the scrap paper impedes thorough saturation by the water spray

system. Once full, the compactor container is closed, placed on

a truck belonging to a contractual waste disposal service and

hauled to the Sexton Landfill in Hinsdale. Sexton describes the

landfill operation as follows:

“In an effort to minimize the potential hazard in

disposing of your asbestos waste, we will ins~tute

a new procedure for the burial of this material.

The compactor-box will be dumped at the toe of the

slope and the material dozed into the toe of the

slope. We will not carry the material up the face

as our normal procedure does. Our handling of the

material will be kept to a minimum and other

materials for disposal will be spread over yours

promptly. We also would like the material in the

load moistened in the event any fine material was

to get into the box. The combination of these

procedures should be a truly safe and practical

disposal operation.

9—80

—3—

If Borg—Warner were to use the closed container for burial at

the landfill as is required by the Regulation, the Company

would use about 150 fifty-five gallon drums per day. Cost of

drums would total almost $3,000 per week (R. 12). In addition,

a substantial change in Petitioner’s waste handling system would

have to take place since the present system could not use the

small drums. Petitioner states that a full—time operator would

be required after the change whereas the system is essentially

automatic now. Compliance would also mean a tripling in rate

at the landfill and an increase in the number of trips made to

the landfill.

Borg—Warner testified that it is not in “technical compliance”

with the asbestos regulations but contends that it is “complying

with the spirit of the law” (R. 42). Petitioner obtained the

services of National Loss Control Service Corporation to estimate

the fibre emissions at the landfill. The calculation (Petitioner’s

Exhibit #1) is that for 30 minutes in each work shift the

breathing zone at the edge of the dump contains 4.2 fibres per

cubic centimeter. For the remaining 7.5 hours of the shift this

area contains 0.2 fibres per cc. The 8 hour average is 0.45

fibres per cc. From this data, National Loss Control Service

concluded that under the worst possible conditions at the landfill

site, fibre emissions from the dumping of Petitioner’s asbestos

waste paper were only 8 of the present OSHA threshold limit

value (i.e. only 5 fibres/cc longer than 5 microns). The study

qualified the use of the word “fibre” stating that no attempt

had been made to discriminate between asbestos and other fibres

since the standard was for fibres only.

Borg-Warner did not refer to our Rule 651 which limits

discharge of asbestos fibre to 2 fibres per cc of air.

Petitioner testified that, if granted the variance, the

company would “undoubtedly”, apply the following year for an

additional variance (R. 38), while continuing to investigate

possible ways of “controlling the potential emissions of the

asbestos waste” (R. 26).

The Agency recommended denial of this variance on the ground

that Borg—Warner had failed to show unreasonable or arbitrary

hardship and had failed to propose any method by which compliance

would be achieved during the variance time period. The Agency

also expressed a belief that Borg-Warner had not attempted to

recycle the amount of waste paper its supplier said it would take.

The Agency commented that there was no assurance that the methods

proposed to be used at the landfill would in fact be utilized, since

the landfill operator was not a party to the instant proceeding and

would not be bound by any Board Order.

9—81

—4—

An Agency investigator followed one of the disposal trucks

to the landfill site on June 11, 1973 in order to observe the

disposal method. There were visible emissions when the waste

paper was dumped from the truck and again when the material was

compacted, but the investigator was not close enough to determine

if the visible material contained asbestos fibres.

At the plant site, the Agency investigator observed that the

wetting cycle was apparently insufficient to properly 

moisten 

the

waste paper, a deficiency which was pointed out to Borg—Warner

officials. The Company now plans to increase the flow of water

onto the asbestos paper. The investigator testified that this

probably would solve the wetting deficiency (R. 49). The Company

should also investigate the use of chemicals to aid in the wetting

process.

Borg-Warner has not presented a strong case for a variance.

Petitioner tells us that the variance “will not materially affect

the general public nor will it materially affect any portion of

the local community” and provides test results which purportedly

show compliance with OSHA Regulations. However, these 

tests 

did

not prove that Petitioner is in compliance with our Regulations or

can be in the future. Petitioner admits that it has been unable

to identify methods that are technically feasible and economically

reasonable. Therefore, Borg—Warner would probably come before us

year after year to ask for extensions of the variance until a

satisfactory method is discovered.

We are told that denial of this variance will cost Borg—

Warner “several hundred dollars daily” for suitable containers

in addition to the cost for equipment modification and possible

landfill rate increase. Petitioner advises that in excess of

$50,000 has already been spent on emission control equipment

designed to “substantially eliminate exposure of Petitioner’s

employees and the general public to asbestos containing materials”.

These claims are not persuasive.

We find that Petitioner has not carried the burden of proof

for the grant of a full one year variance. There is little or

no information regarding a proposed method for achieving com-

pliance. Petitioner merely claims, without documentation, that

one method available for achieving compliance will cost r~ore unan

the benefits derived. The inherent dangers of ingesting asbestos

fibres have been thoroughly described in the Board O~inionissued

upon adoption of the asbestos regulations. These dangers call for

nothing short of the best possible control system available to

insure minimal exposure to asbestos.

We shall grant Petitioner a variance for 4 months only. We

allow this time for Petitioner to investigate and adopt a method,

9 —82

—5—

by which compliance with the Regulations will be achieved in the

shortest possible time period. We ask the Agency to cooperate

fully with Borg—Warner officials in their search for an acceptable

disposal method during this 4 month period. Subsequent proceedings

should include the landfill operator, and any extension of the

variance should be based upon satisfactory progress toward compliance

with the Regulation.

ORDER

It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that Borg—

Warner is granted a variance until December 31, 1973 from Rules

621(d) and 634 Chapter 2, Part VI Air Pollution Control Regulations

in order to formulate and adopt a method whereby compliance with

Rules 621(d) and 634 can be achieved.

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order was adopted

this 

day of August, 1973 by a vote of ~ to ~

9

—