ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

November

7,

1985

CONTROL,

INC.,

Petitioner,

)

PCI3 85-155

v.

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY,

Respondents.

ORDER

OF THE

BOARD

(by

J. Anderson):

Interstate Pollution Control,

Inc.

(IPC)

operates

an on—

premises oil/water separation facility as well as

a

licensed

waste hauling facility

in Rockford.

On October

18,

1985, IPC

filed an appeal from the Agency’s denial,

in a

single letter,

of

two operating

permits

for

this facility.

Contemporaneously,

IPC

filed

a

motion for

stay of the denial

of

these permits.

The

Agency has

filed no response to

this motion.

On November

1,

1985, however, the Agency filed

a motion

to

“sever”

the permit

denials into two cases,

to which IPC

filed

objections

on November

4.

The petition asserts that IPC’s operation

is not

a waste

disposal facility, but strictly an

oil/water

separator.

IPC

picks up cooling and

cutting

oils

in its own

trucks, and

receiveG

shipments of these and other organic compounds

in water,

for

separation

in an Abcon, organic membrane,

ultrafiltration

device.

Concentrated

oils are

stored before

trucking

to an oil

reclamation plant, and the water

is then

discharged

to the sewer

system tributary to the Rockford sewage treatment

plant.

The petition also asserts

that IPC’s facility has three

types of operating permits:

one issued by the

Agency’s Land

Division

for

a “solid waste management site

..,

to

process and

recover waste

oil”

(Exh,

1), one issue by the

Water Division for

an

“industrial pretreatment

facility”

to

remove oil from water

before discharge of the water

to

a sanitary

sewer tributary to

the Rockford sewage treatment plant

(Exh.

2),

and one issued by

the Air Division

for the “oil—water separator

and storage tanks”

(Exh.

5).

This action involves denial

of

a renewal

of

the

air permit

and of

the water permit

(Exh,

16)

for asserted informational

deficiencies

in each permit application.

As to

the

air

permit

application,

IPC

notes

that it had completed

the

Agency’s form

application stating that “if your operation

is unchanged,

you may

renew your

permit

by signing

in the space provided”

(Exh.

6).

As

66~327

---

—2—

to the water permit, the Agency was also stated that the land

permit had been violated, inasmuch as unpermitted waste oils

containing solvent had been received for. treatment.

PC

acknowledges that solvents materials apparently were received in

incoming waste, which solvents passed through the filtration

equipment and into the Rockford sewer system and treatment plant,

but also provided exhibits detailing its efforts to insure that

no wastes containing solvents were sent to, or received by, IPC

for treatment.

These compliance activities were the subject of

negotiation with the land division, which has not filed an

enforcement action.

The Agency’s motion to sever

is denied.

As the Agency has

obviously given a consolidated review to the two permits in

question,

it makes little sense for

the Board,

in its review,

to

attempt to ‘de—consolidate’ the Agency’s decision.

In support of its motion for stay of the effect of these

denials, IPC asserts that it ‘will suffer almost complete

devastation of it’s)

business

if not permitted to remain in

operating pending the outcome of the proceedings’,

and that there

will be ‘severe inconvenience to customers who have made no

alternative provisions for waste removal’.

IPC’s petition

contains various exhibits, but especially Exh. 15,

indicating

that concentrations of solvents in its recent water discharge are

below 19.2 parts

per

million.

The Board finds that the severe

economic

harm

to

PC

and its customers greatly outweighs any

apparent

harm to the environment, and accordingly grants the

stay.

Pending resolution of these appeals,

IPC

shall comply with

the conditions of the expired air and water permits.

In so ruling, the Board has accepted the accuracy of IPC’s

exhibits only for this limited purpose, given lack of Agency

objection;

as to IPC’s likelihood of prevailing on the merits,

the Board finds only that a sufficient showing

has

been made

given its findings concerning the relative economic and

environmental harms here asserted.

IT IS SO

ORDERED.

I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certift that the above Order was adopted on

the

7tZ

day of

flrtcan4.a.”

,

1985, by a vote

of

—i-c

•

Dorothy K. dunn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board