ILLINOIS

POLi~GTION

CONTROL BOARD

Marcth

7

1974

HYON WASTE

MANAGEMENT SERVICES,

INC.,

?

Petitioner,

)

vs.

)

PCI3 73—530

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY,

Respondent.

Mr. George E. Buliwinkel, Attorney, on behalf of Petitioner;

Mr. John Bernbom, Attorney, on behalf of Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Seaman):

On December 13, 1973, Hyon Waste Management Services,

Inc., filed its Appeal From Specified Permit Conditions,

wherein Hyon contests the inclusion of certain terms and

conditions in operating permits issued by the Environmental

Protection Agency to Hyon. On February 5, 1974, a public

hearing was held in this matter.

The subject permits relate to the operation of Hyon’s

plant at 11700 South Stony Island ~Avenue in Chicago, Illinois.

This site is in a remote location on the east shore of Lake

Calumet.

The plant consists of twodistinct systems. The first

is the pickle liquor treatment system in which pickle

liquor (composed principally of sulfuric acid and iron

sulfate) is neutralized with lime, resulting in calcium

sulfate and iron oxide, a non—leaching impervious material

which is then used for landfill purposes.

The second portion of the system accepts burnable and

biologically active materials. Those which are directly

burnable are sent to Hyonts incinerator. Those having a

requirement for biological treatment are sent through a

variety of processes depending upon the nature of the waste

and the degree of treatment required. The waste comes into

the plant in tank trucks and is immediately sent to a

receiving station where it is tested to be sure that it

conforms to contract specifications. It is thea given

pretreatment (usually pH aUjustment) and distributed on a

series of ten blo-chemical beds which are maintained in a

semi—dry condition and biologically break down the degradable

material. Leachate from these beds is drawn off and directed

to an activated sludge treatment plant and thereafter to

stabilization basins.

11

—

483

---

Clear supernatant liquid is drawn off

to be

used

as scrubber iiquid~for the incinerator exhaust and is

directed to or from an auxiliary waste water basin

for storage as required.

There are no liquid emissions or

discharges from

Hyon~s plant in its present mode of operation.

Air emissions consist

solely

of carbon

dioxide,

water vapor, and other minor emissions, all

of

which are

allegedly within the applicable Regulations.

This appeal is the second to be filed by Hyon in

connection with the permits for its waste

treatment plant.

The first appeal was filed because of

the denial

of operating permits. This was satisfactorily

resolved

in a stipulation or, more accurately, the

permits were

issued and it was stipul.ated that the appeal could be

dismissed but with leave to file a new appeal of specified

permit conditions if there were conditions which Hyon

found unacceptable.

There were conditions in those permits

which Hyon

found to be inappro~riate and i~n. some cases unacceptable

and

those permit conditions

are the subject

of the

present

appeal.

In the instant petition,

Hyon alleges a total of

thirteen points in its citation of errors.

A Stipulation was entered into between the parties

and

submitted

at the hearing. Said Stipulation

purports

to resolve each of the thirteen points and is the result

of considerable

work and compromise by the

parties. It

clarifies the language and intent of

the

permit conditions

at

issue and represents a

fair resolution

thereof.

The Stipulation contains thirteen numbered paragraphs

which correspond to the thirteen points contained in Hyon~s

citation of errors and the partIcular operating permits

to

which such

items pertain. The applicable

language of the

Stipulation shall be incorporated in each of the operating

permits to which it pertains. This Stipulation relates

solely

to

the

permits and permit conditions

at issue in

the instant appeal, and shall therefore be

null and void

upon

the common

expiration

of such

permits

on September

18,

1974,

This Opinion constitutes the findings

of fact and

conclusions of law of the Board.

---

IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution

Control Board that

the applicable

language of the Stipulation

dated January

31, 1974, and entered into evidence at the February 5, 1974

hearinq in the matter shall be

incoroorated

in each of

the

operating permits to

which it pertains.

The Stipulation is hereby accepted by this Board in

the form appearing below:

STIPULAT ION

Petitioner and Respondent, by their attorneys, hereby

agree to compromise and settle the issues raised in this

appeal according to the following stipi.~lation. Each of the

following numbered paragraphs 1-13 corresponds to Petitioner’s

Citation of Errors IteiTts 1-13 and the particular operating

permits to which such items pertain. Upon approval of this

stipulation by the Board, the applicable language of this

stipulation shall be deemed incorporated in each of the

operating permits to which it pertains. This stipulation

relates solely to the permits and permit conditions at issue

in the present appeal, and shall therefore be null and void

upon the common expiration of such permits on September 18, 1974.

1. Permit OB-0172020, Special Condition No. 2b.

This permit condition is to be interpreted so as

to allow review and change only pursuant to the limitations

of the procedures set forth in the Environmental Protection

Act and the Regulations.

11

—485

---

2. Permit OB-0172020, Special Condition Nos. 2e, 2f

Ilyon

may

applications for operating permit or permits. Tests shall be

performed

pursuant to the test procedures previously approved by

the Agency. Test data

and

results shall be promptly submitted to

the Agency. At such

time

as the test data is sufficient to support

a request for

an operating

pernit,

an applicat5ott for such

permit

by.Permit Number OB-0l72020 shall in no

3. Permit l973-EB-2354-OP, Special Conditian No. 9

Permit

l973—EB-2345—0P, Special Condition No. 15

Permit l973—EB-2352-OP, Special Condition No. 11

Within seven days after executiatcj a contract to treat waste,

ilyon shall notify the Agency in writing of the volume

and

nature of

the wastes and the proposed method of

t~eatmcnt.

In the event

tion furnish the Agency with such information by telephone within

24

hours

of entering such contract.

cation. Failure of the hgency to cc act within ceven days shall

---

-~

5—

constitute

approval.

Agency approval shall not relieve 1-lyon of

its

obligation to comply with the Act, Regulations9 and all permit

conditions. In the event the Agency disapproves of a contract9 it

shall notify 1-lyon in writing

of

such disapproval indicating the

reasons thereof. Continued acceptance of wastes subsequent to

AgencyAqency disapprovaldisapproval

shallof

anyconstitutewaste treatmenta

violationcontractof

shallthese bepermitsap—

0

p~alableto the Board as a denial of an operating permit0 Notice un—

der this permit condition shall be deemed

given

by mailing, by

properly addressed first class or registered mail, to the

parties

at the

following addresses:

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

ATTENTION~

S.P.

Gambhir

2121 West Taylor Street

Chicago, Iiliiiois

60612

and

ATTNTION:

Char1~:s

Willard

Illinois

1~avai

Armory

East

Randolph and the

Lake

thicacio, illinois

60601

hyon

~uste

2lanagement

Services, Inc

~T~r~i0h:

Eth, Ackerson

11700

South

Stony Island Avenue

Chicago, Illinois

60617

:cn

consideration of

the Agency s agreement to cease requiring

that Hynn~s custoi~ors

obtain

permits c~ permission from the Agency

to shia waste to Hyon for treatment,

Hyon shall file an appropriate

~:otihn ior dismiusol of certain litigation

pending

in

the Circuit

---

—6--

Court of Cook County, Illinois styled Hyon Waste Management Ser-

vices, Inc.

v. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, 73 CH

5699.

4. Permit 1973-EB-2354-OP, Special Condition

No.

4

Permit 1973—E13—2345—OP, Special Condition

No.

9

Permit 1973-EB—2352-OP, Special Condition No. 5

Permit 1973-EA-2262-OP, Special Condition No. &~

With

regard to the freeboard requirement, the following

shall be deemed

compliance with the

permit, permit language

notwithstanding:

(a) Bio—beds

—

freeboard requirement inapplicable so

long as there is no appreciable standing liquid.

(b) Receiving stations

—

24 inch minimum.

(c) Activated sludge vessels

-

24 inch minimum.

(d) Clarifier

-

18 inch minimum.

(e) Pickle liquor solids drying area

-

inapplicable if

no appreciable standing liquid.

5. Permit 1973-EB—235l—OP, Special Condition No. 10

Permit 1973—EB--2353-OP, Special Condition No. 10

Permit l973-EB-2263--OP, Special Condition No. 10

Permit 1973-EA-2262-OP, Special Condition No. 7

With regard to the freeboard requirement, the following

shall be deemed compliance with the permit, permit language

notwithstanding:

(a) Intermediate basins

-

24 inch minimum.

(b) Retention basins 1 and 2

—

24 inch minimum

(c) Retention basin

No.

3

—

24 inch minimum.

11

—

488

---

—7—

(d) Pickle liquor treatment basins

—

36 inch minimum.

6. Permit 1973—EB--2354—OP, Special Condition

No. 6

Permit 1973—E13—2345—OP? Special Condition No. 12

Permit 1973—EB—2352—OP, Special Condition No. 8

Permit 1973—EB--2351--OP, Special Condition No. 13

Permit l973—EB—2353-OP, Special Condition No. 14

The permit conditions questioned here shall be deemed

changed to the following languages:

“Operation of this permitted facili—

ty is contingent upon the satisfactory

operability of all downstream systems

upon which the operation of this per-

mitted facility is dependent.”

7. Permit 1973—EB—2345—OP, Special Condition No. 8

Permit l973—EB--2351—OP, Special Condition No. 8

Permit 1973—l~B—2353—OP, Special Condition No. 8

Permit l973-EA-2263-OP, Special Condition No. 8

~,

Permit i9~73—E~A—2262—OP,Special Condition No. -8-s

The test well monitoring requirement of these permits

shall be reviewed by the Agency to reduce the number of con-

taminants under Rule 408 for which analysis must be made on each

sampling. A reduction of sampling frequency will also be con—

sidered. This issue shall be deemed withdrawn from the present

appeal withoL~prejudice, subject to the results of the Agency1s

study ~f the initial samples.

8. Permit 1973—EB-2354-OP, Special Condition No. S

This condition will be deemed met upon the naming by Hyon

of a backup disposal sit~efor use in the event that Ilyon’s own

f~ciTLiLies,which are intended for use at least throughout the

~ future, becomc~ unavailable. Such site shall be subject to

~ —480

---

—8—

approval by the Agency, within

the limits of its lawful authority.

9.

Permit

1973—EB—2345—OP, Speci~i Condition No. 4

This condition shall be deemed met upon the submission by

1-lyon of the list of the subject equi~rnentpresently on hand, and a

statement acceptable to the Agency of the satisfactory manner

in

which such existing equipment is capable of servicing the hio-beds.

10. Permit 1973—EE—2351—OP, Special Condition No.

3

It shall be permissible for I-lyon to use the stabilization

basins for (1) stabilization purposes and (2) handling recirculated

scrubber water from the incinerator scrubber.

11. Permit 1973-EB—2353-OP, Special Condition No. 3

It shall be permissible under this permit to use Basins

1 and 2 to temporarily accommodate overflows due to excessive storm

water or plant breakdown emergencies, but not to receive or act as

a backup

holding facility

for raw incoming waste waters.

12. Permit 1973—EB-2345-OP, Speciar Condition No. 14

Permit 1973—EB—2352-OP, Special Condition No. 10

Permit 1973-EA-2262-OP, Special Condition No. 9

This condition will be deemed met upon the naming by Hyon

of a backup disposal site for use in the event that Hyon’s own

facilities, which are intended for use at least throughout the

near future, become unavailable. Such site shall be subject to

approval by the Agency, within

the limits of its lawful authority.

13. All Permits, Expiration Date of September 18, 1974.

In view of the Agency’s present practice of reissuing

11

—490

---

operating permits without requiring

new te~hnical submittals

(except in the case of significant changes

~to equipment

or

operation)

,

this issue may be dismissed from this appeal

without prejudice.

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

Board, certify that the above pinion and Order was adopted

on this

~‘

day of

(~j

,

1974 by a

vote of