ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

Novembur 23, 1971

Environmental Protection Agency

)

)

)

V.

)

PCB

71—324

)

)

Incinerator, Inc.

)

Mr. James I. Rubin

and

Mr. Melvin A. Ret! f, Assistant Attorneys

General, on behalf of the

.

Environmental Protection Agency

Mr. Richard V. Noupt

and

Mr. Dennis 3. Eslick, on behalf of

Incinerator, Inc.

Opinion of the Board (by Mr. Rissel):

Originally, this action was brought by the Environmental Pro-

tection Agency (“Agency”) against Incinerator, Inc. asking for a

cease and desist order and penalties to be assessed against .uncinera—

tor for the operation of a refuse incinerator in Cicero, Illinois,

in violation of the Environmental Protection Act and

the Rules

and

Regulations promulgated thereunder. After hearings, this Board

entered an order

on September 30, 1971

which provided, in substance

that

.

Incinerator not operate its facility in Cicero until it had

installed an intetim control system to abate the nuisance which it.

had been causing in the neighborhood, until it repaired the thermo-

couple devices in the operation of the incinerator, and until it

had filed a petition for variance which would contain a fin program

for the installation of equipment to bring the facility into com-

pliance with existing Illinois standards. Incinerator appeared

before the Board on October 12 (pursuant to a motion filed on October 6)

and asked for a stay of the original order entered by the Board and

for a rehearing because of the hardship imposed by the order. After

consideration of the arguments, the Board entered an order on October 14,

1971, staying the original order in respect to the cease and desist

order, and the penalty to be paid. This order did, however, require

operation of the incinerator at a maximum capacity of 250 tons of

refuse per day at a certain moisture content, and

also required thc..t

a hearing be held on November 1, at which time Incinerator was to

prove that restricted operation of its facility abated, or “substan-

tially alleviated” the nuisance conditions found by the Board. Pur-

suant to that order the last hearing was held before George P; Sullivan,

Bearing Officer.

3— 167

---

As required by the last order entered by the Board, the first

issue which we must decide at this tine is whether Incinerator

is

still causing a nuisance even at

the

reduced operbtion of the plant

between October 12 and November 1. A review of the November 1

record indicates some dispute on the severity of

the

emissions from

the Incinerator facility. On the one hand, witnesses testified that

there was~“still soot in the~air” (4)

,

there was fly ash on the

ground (25—6), and that there was heavy smoke coming from the plant

on two days in Octoh~r (the 15th and the 18th). Other witnesses

sthted~that the fly~ash caused no particular problem. In fact,

Incinerator-cir~ul~ted~apetition which was to that effect and the

petition was signed by a number of people Above all the d~spute,

however, we can find agreement on one thing: Since the limitation

of operation, repair of the spray syst~mby Incinerator and repair

of the thermocouples (all of which was accomplished by Incinerator

in compliance with the last order of the Board), the facility has

caused less of a problem than it had before Octohe~ ±2 One wit-

ness said that the emissiOns “weren~tas heavy as normal”, but of

course admitted that they were “still there” (10). From the testi-

mon~t, including that di an expert who conducted a “windblown

particles” test around the plht~t, it is quite clear that the reduced

operation with the improved sprays and repaired thermocouples has

had a beneficial effect on the emissions from the plant and in the

opinion of the

Board no lor1uex xisLitu~cs a xiuiaanre ar Lha~des~

cribed in the original hea~ing and opinion of the Board,

Yes, the

neighbors are still affected by the emissions, hut the effect on

them is not so great as to require a compl~te shutdown of the

facility which was the Board~s original order. In effect, by the

operation as it is presently done, Incinerator has met the Board’s

original order for redi~cingthe nuisance. For it was the Board’s

original intent to keep the facility closed only until the nuisance

could be abated. It was not the intent of the Board to close the

facility until complete installation and operation of the ultimate

control equipment.

Having decided that Incinerator can operate its facility,

there will be a requirement that it be operated only within the

confines of the previous order of the Board. It is anparent that

the limitation

on the tonnage consumed by the incinerator each

day, the properly operating thermocouples and the new spray equip-

ment are the reasons that the present nuisance has been abated.

We will require that Incinerator operate its facility consuming

not more than 250 tons of refuse per day, that the sprays be kept

in operating order, that the refuse not contain more than a 20

moisture content, and that the thermocouples be kept operational.

3

—

168

---

In addition, we will impose the general conditions that the incin-

erator generally be kept in good operating condition, and that it

be well operated during the period of the variance.

If the sole question before the Board was whether to grant

a variance without limit on the conditions that have been previously

discussed, it would not be granted. One of the principle reasons

for granting the variance here is that Incinerator has agreed to

install control equipment within the next year which will bring

the entire facility into compliance with the law. Without that plan,

there would be no basis for granting the variance. Incinerator’s

new plan

--

namely, the installation of a high energy Venturi scrub-

ber on one of the incinerators

--

will, according to the undisputed

testimony, allow the incinerator to meet a standard of 0.1 grains

per standard cubic foot, dry. This standard is in fact less than

the Illinois standard which would require an emission of not more

than 02 grains per standard cubic foot. Between the time of the

first hearing and the last one, Incinerator has modified its program

for t~hebetter. Certainly the cost will be higher (the cost of the

present plan will be $1 million) for the planned emission control

equipment, but the time will be longer as well. The uncontradicted

testimony was that it will take nine months from the time of award-

ing contracts to install the facility. Before awarding of the con-

tracts, at least two months will be needed to prepare the bids,

get the permit and generally make ready for the construction. For

what is ~o be gained we do not think this is an unreasonable amount

oftime. We will therefore grant the variance for a period of

eleven months from this date upon the conditions recited above and

others imoosed in the order.

While the operation of the incinerator has lessened the particu-

late emission during the period beginning with October 12, the evidence

did show that the incinerator was operated at a tonnage input of less

than 250 tOns ~perday. ~ We do allow Incinerator by this order to

operate its facility atan input of up to 250 tons per day and we are

not convinced that operation of the facility at the 250 ton per day

level will not cause a nuisance to the neighbors. We feel, therefore,

that the Agency, after consultation with the neighbors, should be able

to open up these proceedings after six months of operation (May 23, l972~

if necessary, because of a possible nuisance condition created in the

neighborhood. If petitioned by the Agency~the Board will, if the Agency

petition is adequate to so demonstrate, hold a hearing on whether the

facility should be controlled or even shut down again. The importance

of a six-month period is that it will allo~ireview after a significant

period of operation and will allow us to look at the matter before the

lii An Agency investigator testified that the incinerator burned

between 77 and 226 tons per day during the month of October.

3

—

169

---

suimner

period

of 1972. In addition to the possible re-review of

the case, we also believe that Incinerator should look at the

feasibility of control equipment to catch some of the large particu-

late matter being

emitted from

the stack. Incinerator should con-

sider the installation of screening of some kind. The report will

be required in thirty days.

This

opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions

ORDER

Upon

consideration of the evidence

and

the exhibits, the Board

hereby grants to Inciaerator, Inc. a variance from the existing laws

and regulations to operate an incinerator in Cicero, Illinois, under

the following conditions:

1.

Incinerator bhall dutifully

and

diligently operate

only one incinerator

unit

at its plant

and

that

unit

shall not be operated at a capacity in excess

of 250 tons of refuse

per

day at a moisture content

2.

Incinerator shall properly maintain the operating

incinerator, including the thermocouples and the

spray devices. Particularly, the mentione4 de-

vices

shall be operational whenever the incinera-

3.

The period of this variance shall be eleven (11)

months from the date herein.

However, if te

Agency shall so petition after May 23, 1972, the

Board shall hold a public hearinq on whether the

operation of the incinerator has caused a nuisance,

at various levels of tonnage input, to the neigh-

bors. The Agency shall, if

it petitions the Board,

set forth the alternatives to be consider~dby

the

Board

for abating the nuisance

•

“The

Board,

then, shall

make

such further’ order at that.

time

as the Board deems necessary under the circum-

4.

Incinerator shall post a bond guar&nteeing the

installation of the control devices ordered herein

and other conditions stated,herein in a form

approved by the Agency in the

amount

of $300,000.

3—170

---

5. By the end of the variance herein granted, Incin-

erator shall have installed and operating a high

energy Venturi scrubber of the type described in

the transcript of proceedings so as to limit the

emissions from the Incinerator facility to 0.1

grains per standard cubic foot, dry.

6. Incinerator, shall within thirty (30) days submit

a written report to the Board and the Agency on

the feasibility of installing interim devices,

i.e., mesh screening in the stacks, for capturing

the large particulate matter being emitted from

the stacks. The Agency shall file comments on

the report with the Board within ten (10) days

after Incinerator has filed its report. The Board,

after receiving both reports, shall make such

further orders as it shall deem necessary under

the circumstances.

I, Christan Moffett, Acting Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, certify that the Board asooted the above Opinion

and Order on this

.~ .~

day of November, 1971

Christaii

,//7

Môfiett,

~

Acting Clerk

3

—

171