ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL

BOARD

May 13, 1982

SCA CHEMICAL SERVICES, INC.,

)

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB 82—39

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

Respondent.

ORDER OF THE BOARD (by I. Goodman):

SCA Chemical Services, Inc. (SCA), a Delaware corporation

qualified to do business in Illinois, petitioned for variance

from Rules 202 and 210 of the Boards Chapter 7: Solid Wastes on

April 8, 1982. SCA is currently involve~ia in two—phase program

to reconstruct a hazardous waste incinerator and to construct a

rotary kiln incinerator at its 11700 South Stoney Island Avenue,

Chicago, Illinois location. SCA seeks variance for six months

to facilitate trial burns in

the reconstructed incinerator.

SCA

has interim status in accordance with Section 3005 of the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 USC 6925(e), and on

April 26, 1982 was granted 120 days by the United States Environ-

mental Protection Agency (USEPA) to conduct trial burns at this

facility. For that reason on May 5, 1982, SCA moved for expedited

consideration of its variance petition. That motion is hereby

granted. The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency)

filed its Recommendation on May 7, 1982.

Presently SCA has two permits from the Agency along with

those issued by the USEPA and the City of Chicago. The Agency’s

Division of Air Pollution Control issued SCA a Construction Permit

for reconstruction of the existing incinerator on August 10, 1981.

This permit provided 180 days for SCA to conduct trial burns after

reconstruction was completed and test burn procedures were sub-

mitted and approved by the Agency. (Pet., Attachment 13). On the

same day, the Agency’s Division of Land/Noise Pollution Control

issued SCA a Development Permit. This permit contains the two

special conditions which create SCA’s need for variance. Special

Condition 1 states that this permit is for development only and

that no waste may be received or processed at the facility until

an Operating Permit is issued by the Land Division, Special Con-

dition 7 states that special waste can only be received under the

Agency’s supplemental permit and mainfest systems and that each

waste stream accepted will require individual supplemental permits

(Pet., Attachment C).

47-27

---

2

Pursuant to

the Construction Permit, SCA must conduct trial

burns before

it can be issued an Operating Permit by the Agency’s

Air Division.

Yet, the Development Permit does not provide

for

testing operations

and, when taken in conjunction with the

Special

Condition 1,

trial burns are prohibited until SCA obtains an

Operating Permit,

Rule 202(a) does provide an exception allowing

testing operations

if authorized by the Development Permit.

However, this

exception is not available to SCA since it is

the

Operating Permit

issued by the Air Division, and not the

Develop-

ment Permit,

which authorizes trial burns. Thus, SCA requires

a variance from

Rule 202(a) to be able to conduct the trial

burns

required in its

Construction Permit. The special conditions

con-

tained in the

Development Permit also bar SCA from receiving the

wastes necessary

to conduct a trial burn. Special Condition

1

allows SCA to only

receive wastes after an Operating Permit is

issued by the Land

Division, Even if relieved of this requirement,

Special Condition

7 allows SCA to only accept each waste stream

under individual

supplemental permits. SCA contends that the

wastes for

the trial burn are sufficiently detailed in the trial

burns procedure

to alleviate the need for these individual sup-

plemental permits. Rule 210 would allow SCA to circumvent

both

difficulties

if the Development Permit was modified by supplemental

permits. Due

to the time strictures of the USEPA and Agency Air

Construction

Permit, SCA seeks variance from Rules 202(a) and

210.

If relieved of

the permitting requirements contained in these

rules, during

the next 6 months SCA can obtain the materials

necessary and

conduct the trial burns pursuant to the Air

Divisionts

Construction Permit~

Apart from

the problems posed by the conflicting permits,

SCA requests relief

from Rule 202(a) as it applies to the

operation of another

facility. The SCA facility does not have

sufficient capacity to

store and blend the amounts of waste and

fuel required to

conduct the trial burns~ SCA proposes that

the necessary

wastes be received in accordance with the Agency’s

manifest system

at another facility, and then transported as

needed to the SCA

facility, again under the manifest system.

After surveying

hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal

facilities within

50 miles, SCA found that Bulk Terminals

Company (Bulk

Terminals), is the only facility with sufficient

excess storage

capacity and within feasible proximity to satisfy

SCA’s temporary

storage needs. Therefore, SCA seeks to utilize

Bulk Terminals

Company~s facility without obtaining the Operating

Permit required

by Rule 202(a),

SCA represents

that not only is this the only feasible

alternative storage

site, but that no environmental harm should

result with its use,

The facility is permitted by the City of

Chicago to store

Class IA flammable hazardous materials, the

tanks to be used are

equipped with individual foam fire protec-

tion,

conservation

vents and mixing systems, and since Bulk

Terminals is

located on the same street within 4000 feet of SCA,

47-28

---

3

the

same

roads will be used. The only additionally required

operation will be truck loading and unloading, for which Bulk

Terminals is equipped with a spill containment area.

If allowed to forego the permitting requirements, SCA will

be able to properly conduct trial burns already authorized by

the Operating Permit now issued. The testing procedure approved

by the USEPA and committed to by the Agency should insure that

the trial burns and shakedown will be conducted in an environ-

mentally sound manner. SCA contends that granting variance is

ultimately environmentally beneficial. Such relief will expedite

fully permitting this facility in accordance with federal and

state standards which will in turn provide an environmentally

safe alternative to landfilling hazardous wastes.

SCA argues that denial of its variance petition will impose

arbitrary and unreasonable hardship. If denied, SCA would

have

to request the Agency to modify the existing Development Permit.

The delays in this process are unnecessary since Rule 202(a)

contains a “testing exception” and the trial burns are already

authorized in its Construction Permit. The alternative to

obtaining an Operating Permit for offsite storage is for SCA

to reduce the scope of its trial burn, which may result in

inconclusive data. The supplemental permits now required for

each waste stream serve only to delay and duplicate the plan

already devised under the trial burn procedure.

In its Recommendation, the Agency noted that the USEPA has

authorized off—site storage at Bulk Terminals and the trial burn

procedure. The Agency agreed that granting variance would not

cause environmental harm, and if denied SCA would suffer arbitrary

and unreasonable hardship.

The

Agency also recommended variance

from Rule 201 be granted so that SCA would obtain full relief

from Special Condition 1 and Rule 202(a) and Special Condition 7

and Rule 210. Rule 201 requires that a Development Permit be

obtained before development of a new solid waste management site

or modification of an existing solid waste management site. SCA

has such a Development Permit and by its variance petition is

only requesting that it not be required to seek modification of

it or supplemental permits. SCA is not asking that the require-

ment for a Development Permit be expunged. Therefore, variance

from Rule 201 is unnecessary.

The Board construes the relief petitioned, except the request

for off—site storage without an Operating Permit, as a request to

resolve the inconsistencies between the two permits issued by the

Agency so that the Petitioner may proceed to develop an environ-

mental alternative to hazardous waste disposal. As the parties

have not questioned the applicability of Chapter 7 to SCA’s

operation, the Board will not question this assumption.

47-29

---

4

The plan, including off-site storage at Bulk Terminals,

proposed by SCA appears environmentally harmless, especially since

it has already been subjected to careful review by the Petitioner,

the Agency, and USEPA. Routing SCA’s trial burn procedure through

Chapter 7’s permitting process instead of relieving these require-

ments by variance serves no environmental purpose. In fact,

should the Development Permit have to be modified to correspond

with the Operating Permit, the delays incurred would be arbitrary

and unreasonable. The Board finds that expeditious development

of an environmentally sound hazardous waste incinerator facility

is environmentally beneficial since it proposes to dispose of

hazardous wastes by destruction rather than storage in a landfill.

Accordingly, SCA is granted variance from the permitting

a) Rule 202(a) as it requires Petitioner to obtain an

Operating Permit prior to conducting trial burns

approved by the Operating Permit issued by the

b) Rule 202(a) as it requires Petitioner to obtain an

Operating Permit to store and blend wastes and fuels

c) Rules 202(a) and 210, as it requires Petitioner to

obtain supplemental permits for each waste stream

accepted at either Bulk Terminals Company or its

1. Petitioner shall comply with Conditions A—J as set

out in the agency Recommendation, filed May 7, 1982,

which Recommendation is incorporated by reference as

2. Within forty—five days of the date of this Order,

Petitioner shall execute and forward to the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency, 2200 Churchill Road,

Springfield, Illinois 62706, a Certificate of

Acceptance and Agreement to be bound to all terms and

conditions of this variance. This forty-five day

period shall be held in abeyance for any period this

matter is being appealed. The form of the certificate

shall be as follows:

47-30

---

CERTIFICATE

I, (We),

,

having read

the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board in PeR 82-39,

dated _______________________________, understand and accept the

said Order, realizing that such acceptance renders all terms and

Petitioner

By: Authorized

Agent

Title

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control ~oard,

certify that the above Order was adopted on

the

l~

day of

1982 by a vote of ‘tS~_ö

Q4~c~n~ q~Qj~

_

christan L. Mof

,

Clei~t