ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

November 15, 1973

DONALD McELROY, INC.

PETITIONER

v.

)

PCB 73—332

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

RESPONDENT

PATRICK 3. PHILLIPS, ATTORNEY, in behalf of DONALD McELROY, INC.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Marder)

This action involves a request for variance filed on August 9,

1973, by Donald McElroy, Petitioner. Relief is sought from Rules

202 and 203 of the Air Pollution Regulations. The Agency recommends

a denial.

Petitioner leases approximately one acre of land near Odell, Ill-

inois. At this location Petitioner burns X—ray and photographic film

for the purpose of reclaiming silver. Said burning is carried out in

steel drums; there is no pollution control equipment used.

Approximately 75,000 pounds of film are burned per week at this

location. Contaminants discharged are smoke, black soot, and ash.

No mention is made of other products of combustion (chemical gases)

which may be discharged to the atmosphere.

On August 23, 1973, an interim Order of the Board was issued,

asking for more information regarding the amount of particulates em-

itted and the proximity of residences to the burning facilities. An

amendment to petition was filed on October 1, 1973.

Petitioner alleg~sthat its discharges are 0.425 grains per cu-

bic foot (27.5 rng/ft~). This information is very vague in that no

mention is given as to a basis of volume of air used per pound of film

burned. It is, however, noted that no people reside within a one-half

mile radius ofsaid facilities, and that only seven people reside

within a one-mile radius of the facility.

Because of the sparsity of population in the area it is felt that

a short variance will have little interim, and no long—term, effect

on the environmental quality of the area.

Petitioner claims that an arbitrary and unreasonable hardship

10

—

95

—2—

would be imposed upon it if said variance were denied. It is alleged

that Petitioner owns no other facility in the state, and that the

only other facility for this purpose which Petitioner now operates

is in the state of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania facility cannot

handle the products purchased by the Petitioner, and the closing of

the Odell facility would require the closing of its Rosemont, Illin-

ois, warehouse, as well as forcing the discharge of 

five 

employees.

Petitioner requests relief only until it can install an approved

incinerator facility in North Chicago, Illinois. Said facility is

anticipated to be in operation by November 30, 1973. After this

date Petitioner intends to close down its operation at Odell, Illin-

ois. The cost of constructing the incinerator is about $100,000,

and a construction permit has been obtained from the Environmental

Protection Agency.

The Agency recommendation for denial is based on a number 

findings. The Agency is under the opinion that Petitioner may be

conducting an open burning salvage operation rather than a chemical

process. A paper entitled “Design of New Silver—Recovery Incinera-

tor’ was attached to the Agency Recommendation as “Exhibit A.” By

use of

this 

paper

the Agency calculated Petitioner’s emissions to he

between 66.6#/hr. and 106.6#/hr. The emissions generate a smell

characteristic of burning plastic.

The Agency has determined that the probability of the proposed

incinerator starting up by November 30, 1973, is remote. This is

due to the Agency’s finding that incinerator construction materials

have not been located and a baghouse has not been ordered.

The

Board, however, will grant a variance until November 30, 1973.

The Agency alleges that citizens were annoyed by

the

burning op-

eration but were unwilling to object to the grant of a variance.

If indeed the incinerator can be completed by November 30, 1973,

the Board sees no harm in granting a short variance to allow the

smooth transition between the operation at Odell to the operation at

Chicago. However, due to the sparsity of information available, any

further extension of this variance will require documentation of a

number 

of points:

1. Petitioner’s ability to store film until the new

facility is completed.

2. Petitioner’s ability to process the film at a diff-

erent approved site.

3. Reasons for delay, and completion date for its new

incinerator.

4. Clarification of Petitioner’s hardship and the ef-

fect of particulates on the environment.

10—96

—3—

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions

of law of the Board.

ORDER

IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that a variance

be granted to Donald McElroy, Inc., from Rules 202 and 

203

of the

Air Pollution Control Regulations, and that this variance shall term-

inate on November 30, 1973.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

Board, certify that the above Opinion and Order was adopted by the

Board on the ~   

day of 

~

1973, by a vote of 

4’~

_______

10

—

97