ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

May 10, 1979

PEOPLE

OF THE

STATE OF

ILLINOIS,

Complainant,

v.

)

PCB 77—341

ORDMAN~S

PARK

& SHOP,

INC.,

)

Respondent.

OPINION AND

ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Mr.

Goodman):

The

People of the State

of Illinois

(People) filed an

amended Complaint against Ordman~sPark

& Shop,

Inc.,

(Ordman’s)

on January

30,

1978.

The Board struck all counts

of the

amended complaint except for Count

I,

which alleged that

Ordman~scaused or allowed the emission of contaminants from

an incinerator so as to cause air pollution in Illinois,

in

violation of Section 9(a) of the Act.

A hearing was held in

this matter on February 15,

1979,

in Chicago.

No citizen

witnesses testified.

At the hearing the parties submitted a

Stipulation and Proposal

for Settlement

(Stipulation).

Ordman~sowns and operates

a supermarket on or near

Wolf Road in the town of Mokena, Will County,

Illinois.

Ordman~suses an incinerator at its facility to dispose of

paper waste and small amounts of wood from crates.

The in-

cinerator, which has a rated capacity of 600 pounds per

hour,

is

a vertical multichamber incInerator

with

an

auxiliary

burner located in the secondary chamber.

It has been used

to incinerate approximately 2,500 pounds of waste per week.

The People contend that on certain specified dates

Ordman~soperated its incinerator while the auxiliary burner

failed to function properly.

The People

furthermore contend

that on certain dates Ordman?s caused or allowed the emission

of smoke, particulate matter,

fly ash, sparks and odors into

the atmosphere from its incinerator so as to cause air

pollution by unreasonably interfering with the enjoyment of

life and property of the residents in the vicinity of the

emission source.

Ordman~sdetermined that it was possible to terminate

usage of the incinerator and to install

a baler or compactor

for the paper waste generated by the supermarket’s operation

and to have the paper waste hauled by a scavenger.

Because

33—43

1

---

—2—

in the past Ordman’s was unable to install

a baler at the

supermarket,

it

spent $3,000 to upgrade the incinerator.

Recently, however, Ordrnan’s learned of a new and smaller

baler which could be installed at the supermarket,

Ordman’s

agreed in the Proposal for Settlement contained in the Stip-

ulation to cease operation of its incinerator by September

1,

1978,

to not operate the incinerator at any time in the

future,

and to surrender its operating permit to the Agency

by September 1, 1978.

The parties stipulate that installing

the baler and dismantling the incinerator would cost $5,850.00

plus an estimated electrical and wiring cost of $400.00.

Although the parties to this proceeding agree upon the

Proposal for Settlement,

they generally disagree about

whether indeed a violation occurred.

For instance,

in the

Stipulation Ordman’s denies having operated its incinerator

on all

of the dates on which a violation was alleged to have

occurred and alleges that during the specified periods of

time the incinerator was operating properly.

The parties also

disagree as to whether it was technically feasible to reduce

the emissions.

The People contend that certain modifications

to the incinerator could have reduced the emissions involved

in this case; Ordman’s contends, however,

that there was no

rational method of improving the incinerator as

it was consti-

tuted on the premises.

The Board finds that

it cannot weigh contradicting

facts presented solely in a Stipulation.

Without actual

proof in the form of testimony and cross—examination, the

Board has no basis for determining which set of facts and

which allegations are more accurate.

The Board, therefore,

cannot determine in this case whether a violation occurred

and must dismiss the Complaint.

However, because the parties have agreed to a compliance

plan,

the Board will construe the Stipulation as

a settlement

agreement.

The Board finds that the Proposal for Settlement

in the Stipulation will ensure that the public

is protected.

Furthermore, Ordman~shas agreed in the Proposal

for Settle-

ment to pay $100.00, which the Board construes

as payment in

settlement of this action rather than as

a penalty.

The

Board will base its dismissal of the Complaint upon the Pro-

posal for Settlement and will order Ordman’s to comply with

it.

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and con-

clusions of

law of the

Board

in this matter.

ORDER

It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that:

33—432

---

—3—

1.

Ordman’s Park

& Shop,

Inc.,

shall comply with all

the provisions of the Proposal for Settlement con-

tained in the Stipulation submitted by the parties

herein,

which is incorporated by reference as

if

fully set forth herein.

2.

Ordman’s shall, within

35 days of the date of this

Order,

pay $100.00

in settlement of this matter by

certified check or money order made payable to the

State of Illinois

to:

Mr. Thomas Pigati,

Fiscal

Officer, Attorney General of Illinois,

500 South

Second Street,

Springfield, Illinois

62706.

3.

Based upon the Stipulation and Proposal for Settle-

ment, the Board hereby dismisses the Complaint

filed herein.

I, Christan L.

Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board,

hereby ce~tifythe above Opinion and Order

were adopte~/onthe

~

day of

fY?cL,~

,

1979 by

avoteof

~

Christan

.

~ffett,

Illinois Pollution Co~ol Board

33—433