ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

May

6,

1976

SANITARY DISTRICT OF ROCKFORD,

Petitioner,

V.

)

PCB 75-32

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

Richard Kissel

and James Russell,

of the

firm

Martin, Craig,

Chester

and Sonnenschein, appeared on behalf of Petitioner.

Roger Zehntner and Ernie Nielsen appeared on behalf of Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Mr. Goodman):

This matter comes before the Pollution Control Board

(Board)

upon the Amended Petition for Variance filed by the Sanitary

District of Rockford

(District)

on July

29,

1975.

On October

14,

1975,

the Environmental Protection Agency

(Agency)

submitted

its

Amended Recommendation,

recommending denial of the Variance.

A

hearing was held on February

12,

1976,

in Rockford,

Illinois.

Peti-

tioner has filed a waiver of the 90-day rule until April 23,

1976.

The District provides sewage disposal

service for a population

of approximately 200,000

in Winnebago County.

The Petition for

Variance concerns particulate emissions from three wastewater solids

incinerators at the District7s sewage disposal plant.

The District

requests the Board either to determine that no variance

is necessary

because the District need only comply with Rule 203(e) (3) of the

Air Pollution Regulations

(Chapter

2)

or, alternatively,

to grant

the District a Variance from Rules 103(b),

202(b),

203(e) (2), and

502 of Chapter

2.

The Variance is sought to allow operation of

the incinerators until certain incinerator exhaust system modifi-

cations are completed.

On January

2,

1973,

the District submitted its original appli-

cation for an operating permit for its incinerators and an applica-

tion for a construction permit to make modifications on the incinera-

tors so as to achieve compliance.

On April

2,

1973,

both applications

21

—

291

---

—2—

were denied.

The District subsequently reapplied,

and both applica-

tions were again denied on June

20,

1973.

On April

11,

1973, the

Agency received from the District an application for an experimental

permit to conduct emissions tests on the incinerators.

On May

25,

1973,

this experimental incinerator permit was granted,

subject

to

certain conditions.

This permit expired on May 25,

1974.

On July

18,

1974,

the District applied for a renewal of this permit, but its appli-

cation was denied by the Agency on August

18,

1974, due

to a failure

by the District to conform to the conditions of the prior experimental

permit.

The District is currently operating its incinerators without

a permit.

Rule 203(e)(3)

requires any incinerator burning more than 2,000

pounds of refuse per hour to meet

a particulate emission standard

of 0.08 grains per standard cubic feet of effluent gases corrected

to 12

CO2.

Rule 203(e)(3)

provides a 0.2 grains/scf particulate

standard for incinerators burning 2,000 pounds or less of

refuse per

hour.

The District incinerates sludge filter cake,

grit and screen-

ings,

produced in its sewage treatment process,

in the incinerators

in question.

Approximately 9500 pounds of sludge cake are incinerated

per hour

(R.29).

In addition,

9,000

to 10,000 pounds of grit and

screenings are incinerated per day

(R.l03).

The District’s

incinerator exhaust systems have been equipped

with wet impingement scrubbers since their inception.

Stack tests

were conducted in August,

1973

(Petitioner’s Exhibit

B)

and March,

1974

(Petitioner’s Exhibit

A)

.

Of the

14 tests conducted in 1973,

six indicated particulate levels greater than 0.2 grains/scf

corrected to 12

CO2.

The March,

1974 test indicated an actual

measured value of 0.13 grains/scf,

corrected to 12

CO2.

The District regularly conducts moisture tests on the sludge

cake incinerated

(R.27).

Determinations on the moisture content of

the grit and screenings are a1~operformed,

but on a more irregular

basis

(P.62).

Testimony presented at the hearing indicated that the

moisture content of the sludge cake averages on an annual basis to

80,

ranging from 75

as the minimum to 85

as

the maximum

(R.46)

The moisture content of the grit and screenings,

tested over

a several

day rather than annual basis,

averages

to

51

(R.5l).

The average

combined moisture of all materials incinerated in a one—year period

is

79

(R.52).

21—292

---

—3—

The District argues that,

although

it incinerates

9,500 pounds

of sludge cake per hour,

it

incinerates under 2,000 pounds of

material per hour and should, therefore,

be held to the lower

standard of Rule

203(e)(3).

We reject this argument.

Section 3(K)

of the Act,

prior to September,

1975, defined “refuse”

as “any

garbage or other discarded solid materials.”

In September,

1975,

a

legislative amendment deleting the word “solid”

became effective

(I-hR.

2101,

signed into law September

4,

1975)

.

The total sludge

cake incinerated by the District,

rather than merely its dry portion,

is clearly within the Act’s definition of “refuse”,

both prior and

subsequent

to the legislative amendment.

The testimony indicates

that the sludge cake,

in its physical characteristics,

is

a

solid,

thereby meeting even the prior definition of refuse.

It

is coherent

and is transported by a conveyor belt

(R.lOl).

Photographs of the

sludge cake submitted by the Agency further support the conclusion

that the sludge cake

is indeed solid in nature.

Furthermore,

the

sludge cake clearly

fits the amended definition of refuse

as “other

discarded material,” regardless of

its solid or nonsolid nature.

Therefore,

the District’s incinerators are subject

to Rule

203(e) (2)

in that they burn over 2,000 pounds of refuse per hour.

It should be noted that the Board rejects the District’s argu-

ment that Subpart 0 of the Federal New Source Standards

(40C.F.R.60.

150)

should be the guideline

in this case.

Although the Board

in

R71—23,

adopting Rule 203(e) (2),

stated that Rule 203(e) (2)

“tracks

the Federal New Source Standards”, Subpart 0 was not in effect un-

til March

8,

1974,

and could not,

therefore, have been within the

Board’s contemplation at the time of adoption of Rule 203(e) (2)

Furthermore, although the Subpart 0 standard applies

to dry sludge,

it

is

a stricter standard than Rule

203(e) (2) and makes

no distinc-

tion between incinerators burning more and burning less than 2,000

pounds of sludge.

In the alternative,

the District seeks variance from Rules

103(b),

202 (b)

,

203(e) (2)

and 502 of Chapter

2.

As to Rules

202

(b) and 502,

no showing

is made by the District

as to why variance

from these rules

is necessary or the degree to which noncompliance

exists.

As to the request for variance from Rules

103(b)

and 203

(e) (2),

the District has proposed

a compliance plan for meeting

these rules.

That plan consists of modification of the existing wet

impingement scrubbers

to provide venturi—type

scrubbers with

a calcu-

lated overall particulate collection efficiency of 96.61 percent,

which will provide an overall system calculated collection efficiency

of 98.15 percent.

The modifications will result in an exhaust con-

taining not more than

0.020 grains/scf at average load conditions

and 0.073 grains/scf of particulate matter at maximum load condi-

tions, corrected to 12

CO2

(Amended Variance Petition,

p.7)

.

The

District on May 28,

1975,

obtained a permit to construct these modi-

fications,

and

it intends

to obtain an operating permit upon comple-

tion.

The Board notes,

however, that although the District has out-

lined

a method of compliance,

it has not committed itself to

a timely

21—293

---

—4—

schedule for achieving compliance with Rule 203(e) (2)

.

The District

has been on notice since its stack tests

in August,

1973, and again

in March,

1974,

that its incinerators were not in compliance with Rule

203(e) (2).

The District has had two applications for an operating

permit denied,

and, although it was granted an experimental permit

until May 25,

1974,

it operated its incinerators without any permit

since that date.

The Board agrees with the Agency’s position stated

in its Amended Recommendation that the District has been dilatory

in

bringing its incinerators into compliance and that,

therefore,

the

District’s hardship

is self-imposed.

The request for variance from

Rules 103(b)

and 203(e) (2),

as well

as from 202(b)

and 502,

is hereby

denied.

The Board notes that denial of the variance does not amount

to

a shut down order.

ABC Great States,

Inc.

v.

EPA,

4 PCB 471.

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions

of

law of the Board in this matter.

ORDER

It

is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that the

Petition for Variance from Rules 103(b),

202(b),

203(e) (2), and

502 of Chapter

2,

submitted by The Sanitary District of Rockford,

be

and is hereby denied.

I, Christan

L.

Noffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board,

hereby certify the above Opinion and Order were

adop ed on the

(~t’~~day

of

,

1976 by a vote

of

.~

Chrtstan

L. Moffett,

k

Illinois Pollution Co

ci Board