LL
    1
    .3
    MERCK
    flD
    .
    v
    MANN
    FARMS
    .Z.
    Pc.ti
    o
    V
    N
    IRONCI
    ta’
    I
    ;~
    IN”TflM
    OPLLF
    Os
    “il
    aiD
    7
    0 elI
    On
    eib
    6,
    -
    4,
    crc’
    and Company
    cit
    filed
    t
    p. itio
    o
    Varier
    a
    ~,
    -
    the Poliuti n Con
    c,t
    a d (Board
    Men,ka
    ~ta
    ay--nriayeftom
    hepa’culaccio,oi
    at
    ida
    .~
    3
    c’t3)
    ct
    the
    lir loll’
    son R
    jil
    t.
    S
    C
    aptev
    l.a
    atcl,
    Ot.
    -o
    eni
    1
    C
    casscs
    e
    ats
    cu.
    e~peran4tal
    drua°
    r’
    Max
    ‘r
    u~:oce
    ec
    Lii
    rur
    area
    rear
    Ttdlula
    iCcnt
    -
    ‘unty
    1L
    (,r
    Feb.uor’i
    6,
    1)15
    U
    nvtconn”c
    al
    °rotcct.u n
    £gency
    (Agt
    rcconime
    dad
    that
    tfl
    variance,
    be
    denied
    Tte
    ?ge
    ~y
    too’
    i,,0
    e
    with
    sever’l
    ccnclmaons
    of
    the
    Petutioter
    as
    .-et
    ait
    in
    ts
    Dcc.ember
    16
    1974,
    Petition
    pie
    order
    that
    a
    hearing
    be
    Feld
    to
    pro~erly reso.ve
    the.
    issues
    in
    tz.i-
    case.
    In
    addition
    V
    information
    deemed
    materrl
    by
    the
    partuco,
    it
    is
    requested
    t1
    t
    evidence
    be
    sw,mitted
    on
    the
    following
    issues:
    1.
    the feasibility of up—grading
    the
    preser.t
    incinerator,
    including
    costs
    and
    resale value.
    2.
    The
    efficiency
    of
    Merc&’s present
    methods
    of
    incineration,
    including possible health effects frau incomplete burning.
    3.
    The size of Petitioner a operations including number of
    employees, annual payroll, and book value of the facilities.
    4.
    The date by which Petitioner will bring its facility into
    compliance,
    or alternatively, the date Petitioner plans to com-
    pletely close
    down
    its incinerator.
    Since the 90-day requirement for final Board action under
    Section 38 of
    the
    Environmental Protection Act will run in approx-
    imately seven days, the Board requests that Merck waive this re-
    quirement until 45 days after the conclusion of hearings.
    Failure
    16—41

    —2—
    to waive the 90-day requirement by March 12,
    1975, will make
    the Petition for Variance subject to dismissal for lack of
    information.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, he4eby certify tha
    the above Opinion and Order was adopted
    on the
    (,
    ~
    day of
    fl~
    ,
    1975,
    by a vote of
    &J
    to p
    ~&danL.
    ‘?2~j~
    16—42

    Back to top