ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL

BOARD

December

17,

1981

CHICAGO HOSPITAL COUNCIL,

)

Petitioner,

PCB 81—160

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

Respondentr.

ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by J,~ Anderson):

There continue to be problems with this

amended petition,

filed December

4, 198L

First, hearing

is

neither waived nor

requested as required by Procedural Rule

401(b)0

If it were the

Council~sintent to waive hearing, the petition

would still be

deficient and could not be submitted to the

Agency for a Recom-

mendation,

as the information contained in the

petition

is not

accompanied by affidavits from each hospital

attesting to the

truth of the facts alleged~

In addition, much of the information

contained in the

affidavit

is supplied in the form of answers

to a questionnaire

prepared by the CounciL

While the questionaire

(and accompanying

~guidelines for completing question 3~)should

have elicited the

information required by the Board, many of the

hospitals

have

responded incompletely,

if at all.

As

to such

hospitals, the Board

has received little or no information concerning

the hospital’s

efforts towards achieving full compliance during

the past year,

details concerning the costs and other hardship

immediate

com-

pliance would

impose,

a description of how

the hospital has been

disposing of

its

~hazardous hospital waste~for

the past year, or

the hospital~sproposed method for disposing

of that waste during

the course of the variance period,

More specifically,

even viewing this

petition with a

~‘charitable~eye,

of the 31 hospitals responding,

only 15 have

provided sufficient information to allow the

Agency to deve~op a

Recommendation:

Burg, Grant, Highland Part,

Reese, Northwestern,

Rush, Swedish Covenant, Weiss,

Good Samaritan,

Marionjoy,

Norwegian—American, Oak Park,

St. Ann&s,

University of Chicago,

and Martha Washington.

(While not all

of

the latter

7 have

provided information as detailed as the

first

8, based on these

hospitals own declared beliefs and/or the

substance of their

answers,

an Agency determination could possibly

be made that

variance

is unnecessary because compliance has

been achieved.)

44—247

---

While the

Boc~rc

c

in

~

i~ur~of

ntis

matter

by

requiring

the filing

o

yen ,in~t~c:~~nhed

petition,

the Board

declines

to

do so~

Cr

~e~:7ni’~~cn o~. it

~cfici.encies

in this

petition,

the nee~to:

n

a

pi~n

decisson in this

matter, as

well

as the public ai~i ~egi~’i~ r~

in the proper

disposal

of

“hazardous

~infecticus) o5p~ca.~asta~’,pursuant to

Section

37(a)

of the Act,

nIe Bo~:1~r ~

:~:e1isr concludes

that

a

hearing

would be ea’~::~-’~.

At hearing, ~

~‘:

‘~‘

ocn~cinto the

record

information

in support

of its ~ia:ianoexeouest, £ncluding

hut not

limited to the information suggosned as necessaty in this

Order.

In

its final Order, the Board wil)

arant or deny variance

to each

individual hospital, and impose any

n. cc~~saryindividual

conditions,

based

on the information conta~,~nd

:

th~

petition,

the

hearing

record,

and the Agency RLcoemendntl n.

Decision in this inanten ~

1r~n ~rnn

~,

l9b,

13 of

the

90

days

for decision having elae~ei

7~c~nrdinj1~

hearing

shall

be

scheduled

in 15 days and held wi~b~’/~5da’~~f the date

of

this

Order.

The Board remind~pet’~:nni :ha:

purenant to

Procedural

Rule

412,

it is petiticre~’s oh ~gaL~oc, at ,~tsown cost,

to

furnish

the

Board

with

hearlur

n~n~1pts

“ithin

15

days

after

completion

of hearing, and the’

d~ls;. in f:!ing of

transcripts

constitutes

a

waiver

of

the 9~~aydecision ~o~iod

IT

IS

SO OPdBR

I,

Christen

,‘~

:

n~

r

a

Pollution

Control

Bo~Ld

h~.

.

‘~

‘t

~ias

adopted

on

the

fl

K

day

ot

I

I

y

one

of

~-O

j

f’~

~

~7~’g2~L____

I

f~~~iO

Clerk

~ncn

Control