ILLINOIS POLLUTIO~ICONTROL BOARD
    July
    1,
    1982
    TRADE WASTE INCINERATION, INC.,
    )
    Petitioner,
    PCB 82—68
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    Respondent.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by
    3.
    Anderson):
    In its permit appeal of May
    28,
    1982 and again in its
    June
    16,
    1982 emergency motion
    for stay,
    Trade Waste Incineration,
    Inc.
    (TWI) has requested the Board to stay all of the contested
    conditions of its April 28,
    1982 operating permit.
    The conditions
    contested are:
    No. 1(d—e) relating to maximum ash content, No.
    7
    relating to maintenance of minimum incinerator temperatures,
    No.
    9
    relating to operation of control equipment during preheating,
    Nos.
    10 and 11 relating to supplemental permits and manifest discrepancy
    tests,
    No.
    12 relating to sampling procedures,
    and No.
    13 relating
    to monthly reports.
    The basis for the motion, essentially,
    is
    a)
    that these conditions were ruled invalid by the Board in its
    decision in Album
    v.
    IEPA,
    PCB 80—189,
    190, February 17, 1980
    and b) that the Agency has been denying supplemental permits
    in
    reliance on these conditions and advising
    TWI
    customers
    “that
    the Album
    ruling was not in effect”, with the result that
    ‘IWI
    is
    suffering irreparable economic harm as a result of these “improper”
    permit conditions.
    In its Motion in Opposition of June 24,
    1982 the Agency
    requests that the motion be denied in its entirety.
    First,
    it
    suggests that the motion is moot if the Board should find, con-
    sistent with its decision in Album
    May
    1,
    1981, that
    TWI’s
    prior
    operating permit issued March 24,
    1982 continues in effect during
    the pendency of this appeal of the April
    28,
    1982 operating permit.
    The March permit,
    which was not appealed, contains essentially
    the same provisions as the April permit.
    The only apparent
    substantive differences between the two are that the latter permit
    is more permissive, additionally allowing for the burning of Type
    O waste
    1(a)
    and wastes which are hazardous only due to
    ignitability 1(e).
    As procedural rules concerning Chapter
    2
    permits were in place prior to the effective date of the Illinois
    Administrative Procedures Act,
    the Board is not mandated to hold
    that the March permit continues in effect.
    The Board holds that
    47-329
    2
    the latter more permissive permit
    shall continue in effect during
    the pendency of its appeal,
    given that the two permits’ operating
    requirements are nearly identical.
    As
    ‘IWI’s
    motion is accordingly
    found not to be moot, the Board will proceed to consider the
    Agency’s other arguments.
    The Agency notes that of the contested conditions, only
    Conditions
    10,
    11 and tangentially 12 were the subject of Board
    consideration in Album,
    As no other grounds for stay were argued,
    the Agency believes a stay should be denied.
    As to the Album—related conditions,
    the Agency essentially
    argues that the facts of this case distinguish it from Album
    suf-
    ficiently so as to preclude an immediate finding that the Album
    case controls, and therefore invalidates the challenged conditions.
    The Agency further alleges that a stay of the contested
    conditions could result in environmental harm,
    The instant permit
    does not require monitoring of hyrdocarbon emissions,
    and
    it is
    alleged that
    TWI
    has no hydrocarbon monitoming capability,
    so that
    control of materials entering the incinerator is necessary to
    prevent emission of toxic materials
    from
    the incinerator stack.
    The Agency notes that
    TWI
    has
    in fact applied for (and been denied)
    permits to incinerate toxic and carcinogenic substances which,
    if
    a stay were granted, could then be incinerated.
    The Board finds that
    TWI
    has failed to make a persuasive
    showing of a need for a stay.
    No showing at all was made as to
    the non—Album
    conditions.
    As
    to Conditions 10,
    11,
    and 12,
    TWI
    has not even argued why and how its situation is similar to that
    in Album, whereas the Agency has suggested several reasons why
    the situations are distinguishable.
    Th light of these
    deficiencies,
    TWI’s allegations
    of irreparable harm are more than
    overbalanced by the Agency’s allegations of potential irreparable
    environmental harm.
    The motion for stay is therefore denied in
    its entirety.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I,
    Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Control Board,
    hereby certify that the above Order was adopted
    on the
    ~
    day of
    ~t~J
    ,
    1982 by a vote of
    ~Scj
    a
    Christan L. Moffet~
    Illinois Pollution
    trol Board
    47-330

    Back to top