ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

September 13, 1973

ROCKFORD PUBLIC SCHOOLS

 (BOARD

OF EDUCATION SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE

)

CITY OF ROCKFORD, NO.

 205,

)

WINNEBAGO COUNTY)

v.

)

 *72-475

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

DALE

E.

 CONDE OF PEDDERSON, MENZIMER, CONDE, STONER, FEROLIE AND

SPELMAN, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

STEVEN C. BONAGUIDI, ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON BEHALF

OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

 (by Mr. Henss)

The Board of Education, Rockford Public Schools, requests

a variance from the emission standards applicable to incinerators

until December 31,

 1975, with respect to

 73 buildings operated

by petitioner

 in the City of Rockford.

 The regulation presently

applicable is Rule 3-3.232 of the Rules and Regulations Governing

the Control of Air Pollution.

 The standards which will be effective

December 31, 1973 are found in Regulations of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, Air Pollution,

 Chapter

 2, Part II, Rule 203(e) (3) (4).

Petitioner proposes

 to update and modify 37 existing incinerators

located in 35 schools, to install new incinerators in

 29 schools and

to install new compactors

 to replace inadequate existing incinerators,

or provide compaction where no previous service existed in

 9 schools.

(Petitioner’s Exs.

1,

2,

R.

15,

 16).

 The six remaining schools in

the district appear to have adequate compaction facilities.

Petitioner represents that its schedule for completion of en-

gineering,

 letting of bids, budgeting of

 funds, contracting and

installation,

 together with difficulties inherent in the financing

of the program, necessitate a delay until December 31, 1975 before

the program can be completed and operational,

 Attached to the

•variance petition are two books, designated

 ~A” and “B”,

 (later

introduced

 as Petitioner’s Exhibits 1 and

2,

 respectively) containing

the applications filed with the Agency and supporting data with

reference to petitioner~’srenovation and installation program.

9

—

245

—2—

Trash burned in school incinerators is Type “0” and Type “I”.

Refuse, Type

 3 classification, (garbage)

 is now and will continue

to be hauled by scavengers

 to landfills.

 The presently operating

incinerators are not in compliance, principally because of the

absence of primary and secondary gas burners necessary to reduce

emissions.

(R.

 19, Amended Variance Petition Par.

7).

 Petitioner

proposes

 to initiate its control program January 31, 1974 and

 complete it by December 31,

 1975.

 The School District contends

that cmpliance with the present and prospective regulations will

constitute

 an arbitrary and unreason•ible hardship for the following

reasons

 (Amended variance petition, par.

 10):

“A.

 Lack of sufficient time from date of receipt of official

Environmental Protection Act and the numerous forms from

the Environmental Protection Agency to formulate the ex-

tensive plans and budgeting to bring Petitioner’s buildings

into compliance.

B.

 Unrealistic paperwork buiden placed upon limited staff

of petitioner in research of field conditions and

preparation of specifications:

 (1) not only to purchase

or modify incin~ratorsto meet Environmental Protection

Agency standards

 (2) but also to provide gas, electricity,

a~Lequatespace, adequate stacks for the incinerators and

controls.

C.

 Preliminary work must be completed before entering into

binding agreements to purchase or modify incinerators

and controls.

 Work includes writing specifications

for each of

 the 66 incinerators and

 9 compactors, plus

preparation of necessary contract documents and bidding

time

 (10 days minimum required by law).

D.

 Unreasonable initial cost of compliance placed on general

public and residents of School District 205, due to

minimal operation time of equipment.

 Compliance costs

 range from a $3,000 minimum to a $7,000 ma~cmum,or an

average of $5,000 per equipment.

 Average operation time

is

 3 hours per day,

 5 days a week,

 4~4weeks per year, or

a total of

 660 hrs./yr.

 Normal operation time

is

 8 hours

per day,

 5 days

 a week,

 5~.weeks per year,

 or a total of

2080 hrs./hr.

 Initial cost of compliance for normal

operation is ~2.’10/hr.5000

 but District 205 initial

(2080)

cost

 over triple that amount at $7.58/hr.

 (5000)

660

9

—

246

—3—

E.

 Unreasonable financial hardship placed on general

public and residents of School District 205, because

the District has not budgeted for, and does not have

the immediate financial means to make major capital

outlays at this time.

 The Petitioner needs time to

determine the best financial methods and to reassign

other priorities in order to obtain the necessary

funds and budget them in time for payment during

the period from its budget year of July 1,

1975

June

 30, 1976.”

Lastly, petitioner contends that the present emissions produce

no visible particulates and that there have been no complaints from

the persons residing in the area.

The Agency recommends denial of the petition.

 In essence, the

Agency contends that the petition has failed to adequately demon-

strate the financial inability of the School District to meet the

relevant

Regulations;

that

the

contentions

with

respect

time

and

personnel

necessary

meet

Agency

Regulations

are

unpersuasive;

and that petitioner has failed to analyze feasible alternatives,

(namely, hauling of refuse), that would be possible in lieu of the

modification and installation program proposed.

Petitioner

 filed a reply alleging the absence of available

funds for waste disposal, the existence of a deficit for 1973—74

attributable to loss of personal property tax revenues and pro-

jected increases in teachers’

 salaries,

 and alleging that it has

given consideration to hauling and that such procedure does not

represent

 a suitable alternative.

 Petitioner further asserts that

insistence by the Environmental Protection Agency on compliance

will constitute arbitrary action necessitating the closing of the

schools or severe curtailment of educational services.

 Hearing

was held on the petition on April

23,

 1973.

We grant the petition for variance for a period of one year

subject to completion

 of the program in its entirety by August 30,

1975,

 in compliance with the terms and conditions hereinafter set

forth.

In granting the foregoing petition, we are constrained to

observe that several contentions advanced by the petitioner are

unpersuasive.

 The contention made that the District lacks the

time, personnel and money to apply for and obtain permits, we

believe wholly lacking in merit.

 The School District, being

a

governmental body and subject to the provisions of the Environmental

Protection Act, should take affirmative steps to comply with the

relevant regulations and statutes of the State.

 We believe that

the administrative difficulties are not of such character or degree

as

 to justify

 a variance,

9

—

247

—4—

Nor do we accept the recurring suggestion that waste disposal is

not an appropriate function of

 a School District.

 Pollution

control is an inherent obligation of all governmental units

in

addition to their principal functions and a school district is

no exception.

With respect to the financial plight of the Petitioner,

we

do not believe that the District has made a showing of the breadth

and magnitude necessary in a proceeding of this character.

 It may

be that the School District would have a financial hardship in

achieving compliance with the Regulations.

 However, the record

does not support this contention.

 Conclusionary statements are

made with respect to deficits, decrease in assessed valuation,

loss of revenue,

 and increase in expenditures for teachers’

salaries.

 Counsel for Petitioner,

 in his closing remarks

(R.

 114)

has stated that there is

 a $5,000,000 deficit in the building fund,

but nothing appears in the record specifically in support of this

statement.

Robert Salisbury, District Superintendent of Schools, testified

regarding the financial condition of the District

(H.

 27-48).

He

stated that

 as of July 1,

 1972,

 a $205,000 balance existed in the

Building Fund which was ‘~woefullyshort” and that the financial

picture at the present time was extremely critical.

 Loss of the

personal property tax and reduction in total assessed valuation

resulted in an anticipated revenue loss for 1972-73 of $1,193,056

(R.

 39).

 Cost of operation has increased,

 and it

 is anticipated

that this will continue during the fiscal year 1973—74 because of

an increase in teachers’ salaries and built-in escalation provisions.

The present budget does not include any allocation for upgrading of

the incinerator program or other means of disposal of waste

(R.

 42).

An effort to obtain

 a revision of the school aid formula is being

made with the State Legislature

(H.

 40).

 The City of Rockford has

agreed to either assist in the hauling of refuse or to distribute

a part of the funds it receives from revenue sharing or income tax

allocation.

The foregoing constitutes the substance of the District’s

testimony with respect to its finances.

 Much remains unsaid.

 Little

is said about the bonded indebtedness or existing Bond funds of the

District and what

 is or could be available from this source for

capital improvements.

 The possibility of a bond issue

 for capital

improvements

 is alluded

 to but nothing is brought out as

 to the

District’s past or future program in this respect.

 Details as to

the building fund rate and levy are not set forth.

We

do not know

if the District is utilizing this source of revenue to its maximum

potential.

We

are not advised specifically as to funds which

might

—

248

—5—

be forthcoming from the City or the State as income tax allocation,

revenue sharing or state equalization.

In summary, the District might be in bad plight, but we have

not been presented with

 a full picture of its financial situation.

We grant

the

variance because we believe the program proposed is

a

good one and recognize that time will be needed for its implemen-

tation.

 We do not believe that the various alternatives considered,

i.e.

 the hauling of refuse and use of landfills;

 increased com-

paction;

 or the purchase of trucks and use of district personnel,

represent suitable long-term programs superior to that proposed by

the District in this proceeding.

 The costs of increased compaction

or the purchase of the District’s own facilities would approximate

the $945,000 Petitioner contemplates spending for the incinerator

modification and installation program.

 The District’s

 reluctance

to commit to a single refuse disposal service is understandable and

would use up available landfills faster than necessary.

However, we do not feel that the time frame proposed by

Petitioner

 is necessary.

 Exhibits 1 and 2 set forth virtually the

same dates for all installations.

 We expect all agreements to be

completed by January

1,

 1974 and all equipment to be fully opera-

tional by August

30,

 1975,

 rather than the December 31,

 1975 date

requested by the School Board.

 We believe this can be accomplished.

Notwithstanding what we feel

 is an inadequate showing of finan-

cial hardship on the present state of the record, we will grant

Petitioner’s variance for a one—year period in contemplation of

Petitioner’s execution of binding agreements for purchase or modifi-

 cation of the various items of equipment by January

1,

 1974, and

completion of program by August 30,

 1975.

While this variance is limited to a one-year period, which is

the

 :aximum time we are permitted to allow variation pursuant to

Sta~te, the possibility of extension exists upon the filing of a

ne~~etition and a demonstration that the compliance program is

he~:~implemented pursuant to this Order.

This opinion constitutes the findings of

 fact and conclusions

of law of the Board.

IT

IS

THE

ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that Petitioner,

Rockford Public Schools

 (Board of Education School District of the

City of Rockford, No.

 205 Winnebago County)

 be granted the variance

from the provisions of Rule 3—3.232 of the Rules and Regulations

Governing the Control of Air Pollution and from Rules 203 (e) (3) and

(4), Chapter

 2, Part II, Pollution Control Board Regulations, until

September 13,

 1974,

 subject to the following terms and conditions:

—

249

—6—

This

variance

granted

petitioner

enable

make conversion of

 37 existing incinerators, replacement

of

 29 existing incinerators with new incinerators,

 and.

the installation of nine new trash compactors as re-

quested in its amended petition for variance and pursuant

to installation program as set forth in its amended

petition and accompanying exhibits, Book A (Petitioner’s

Exhibit

Book

(Petitioner’s

Exhibit

2)

 as to each

location as therein specified.

2.

 The allowance of this petition is in contemplation of

petitioner comnleting its entire modification and in-

stallation program, as proposed, on or before August 30,

1975.

 Petition for extension of variance beyond

September 13,

 1974 will be considered by the Board pursuant

to petition for extension filed by

the

 School District

and a demonstration that petitioner is implementing its

program for completion of all modifications and installa-

tions by August 30,

 1975.

\ithin

days

from

the

date

hereof,

petitioner

shall

submit to the Environmental Protection Agency and

the

Pollution

Control

Board

its

revised

program

compliance,

consistent with this Opinion and Order.

I, Christan

 L. Moffett, Clerk of the Pollution Control Board,

certify

that

the

above

Opinion

and

Order

was

opted

the

day

________________,

1973

vote

______to

9

—

250