ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

October 18, 1973

INCINERATOR, INC.

PETITIONER

V.

)

PCB 73—314

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

RESPONDENT

PEDERSEN & HAUPT, ATTORNEYS, on behalf of INCINERATOR, INC.

LEE A. CAMPBELL, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, on behalf of the

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

OPINION AND ORDER OF

THE

BOARD (by

Mr.

Marder)

This action

involves a petition to extend a variance from

Rule 3-3.232 which 

expired on July 30, 1973. Said variance was

granted on April 30, 1973. An extension until January 30, 1974,

is requested.

On August 1, 1973, the Agency filed a recommendation for an

extension stating that a denial of this petition would impose an

arbitrary hardship on the Petitioner.

Incinerator, Inc., owns and operates a municipal refuse in-

cinerator near Cicero, Illinois. The plant contains two rotary

kilns capable of incinerating 500 tons of refuse per day. The

plant is now equipped with high energy Venturi type air pollution

control equipment. This equipment, however, is not functioning

up to the performance guarantee which was entered into by Petition-

er and their contractor, Zurn.

Under normal conditions this request could be handled fairly

routinely. However, in this case a long and erratic history must

be considered. The following is a step by step history of Incin-

eratorts dealings with the Environmental Protection Agency.

I. PCB 71—69

Flagrant and obnoxious discharges were proven against Incin-

erator in an enforcement action brought against Petitioner by the

Environmental Protection Agency on April 1, 1971. Very meager

attempts to control these emissions were undertaken prior to this

—

577

complaint. Citizen testimony during the hearing in this action

attested to severe infringement on their ability to enjoy normal

living conditions. As a result of this action, a large ($25,000)

penalty and a Cease and Desist Crder were entered by the Board.

The size of the penalty and the severe step of a Cease and Desist

Order attest to the magnitude of the violations. The text of the

Order in PCB 71-69 is made a part of this ooinion to reiterate the

severity of the order.

“1. Within ten days from the entry of this order, In-

cinerator shall cease and desist from the operation

of its facility in Cicero, Illinois. Operation of

the facility shall not commence until Incinerator has

installed and has ready for operation either the Det-

rick-Jens wet baffle 

system

or another comparable

control device approved by 

the

Agency, and until it

has filed the variance petition required under para-

graph 3 of this order, and until it is in compliance

with paragraph 4 of this order. The control device

installed must adequately abate 

the

nuisance pollution

as described in the opinion.

In the event that Incinerator decides to proceed with

the installation

of the equipment provided for in par-

agraph 1 of this order, it. shall post a performance

bond in the amount of

$200,000

when it seeks

approval

from the Agency for the equipment provided in para-

graph I.

This sum, in the form of a bond or other

adequate security satisfactory

to the Agency, shall

be forfeited to the State of Illinois should Inciner-

ator

operate its facility in violation of paragraph 1

of this

order. Upon completion of the installation

of the equipment referred to 

in paragraph 1, this

per-

formance bond shall be remittod~

Before Incinerator may commence operation of 

the

fac-

ility

after shutdown, it shall 

submit to the Agency

and

the Board a supplemental petition for a variance.

Such petition shall contain a firm program for bring-

ing the facility into compliance with the existing

Illinois standards. Upon the filing of such program,

the Board shall authorize a further hearing on 

the

variance petition and shall enter such further order

as

deems necessary under the circumstances,

4. Even 

after

compliance with the preceding paragraphs

of this order, Incinerator shall not operate its fac”

ility unless the thermocouple devices in 

the

gas stream

are operating adequately

and properly 

transmituing in—

formation to the recorder device.

—

570

—3—

5. Even after compliance with the preceding

par-

agraphs of this order, and until Incinerator

has installed and has in operation equipment

which will bring it into compliance with the

applicable Illinois standard, it shall not ac-

cept for incineration refuse other than dom-

estic garbage or industrial paper wastes. Nor

shall the amount of wastes incinerated ever

exceed 500 tons per day at 20 moisture content.

6. In the event that Incinerator decides to pro-

ceed with the installation of the equipment

provided for in paragraph 1 of this order, it

shall file monthly progress reports with the

Agency.

7. Incinerator shall pay a penalty to the State

of Illinois in the amount of $25,000.”

II. A motion was filed by Incinerator, Inc., for stay of ord-

er. The penalty was stayed pending appeal, with the provision

that a bond in the penalty amount be posted. The plant was al-

lowed to reopen at 50 percent capacity due to the filing of a

compliance program.

III. PCB 71—324.

A variance was granted to Incinerator until November 1, 1972,

Various conditions were imposed under this variance including:

A) A 50 percent reduction in capacity

B) An interim check (at six months) by the Agency

C) A $300,000 bond

D) A 0.1 grains per Standard Cubic Foot particulate

concentration limitation

Step (D) is noteworthy in that under Rule 3-3.232 emission

levels are 0.2 gr/scf. Incinerator, however, has been required to

meet a much tighter 0.i gr/scf limit.

IV. PCB 72—416.

An extension to the above variance was issued until January

31, 1973. This extension was granted because Petitioner had suff-

ered unexpected delay on electrical supply, and because some of its

equipment was damaged in transit.

One additional condition was imposed at that time.

The require-

ment

was that a stack test be run and the results monitored by

the Agency.

V. PCB 73-23.

A further extension was granted until April 30, 

1973. The

S

—

57~

—4—

reason for this extension was that the weather did not permit stack

testing.

An additional condition imposed

at

that time was

the

requirement

for two more bonds

in the amount of $60,000.

VI. PCB 73—204.

Yet another extension was granted until July 30, 1973. The

reason for this extension was to allow more time for its testing

company to complete laboratory work.

This tortuous path leads us to the present PCB 73-314, which re-

quests still another extension. Petitioner alleges that its now

installed scrubber has malfunctioned and is obtaining particulate

emissions of 0.156 gr/scf.

PCB 71—325 calls for a 0.1 gr/scf lim-

it. Perhaps

more relevant is that by December 31, 1973, Petition-

er will fall under Rule 203 (e) (2); at that time the effective

standard will be 0.08 gr/scf.

Steps are underway

to correct the malfunctioning scrubber, and

in Pet. Exhibit “A” a letter by 

Zurn Industries outlines the steps

being taken.

The variance extension requested will run right into the worst

weather of the year. If

this extension is granted, it 

would ocen

up the request for yet another extension on the same grounds

used

in PCB 73-2 3 (poor weather for stack tests).

The only factor in

Petitioner’s

favor is that citizen complaints have dropped off

dramatically as a result of interim steps taken.

As mentioned in PCB 72-416, the absence of a variance does not

require the incinerator to be shut down. It 

simply leaves the Pet-

itioner open to an enforcement action. The same facts demonstrating

arbitrary or unreasonable hardship in a

variance proceeding would

constitute a defense in an enforcement oroceeding, should one en-

sue.

In Zurn’s letter to Petitioner (Exhibit A), it is evident that

with a little effort complete compliance could be accomplished very

shortly after 

the

date of this order.

In PCB 71—324, a condition for a variance grant was that Incin-

erator comply with a 0.1 gn/scf loading. Upon termination of this

variance the required loading will revert to 0.2 gn/scf as required

by Rule 3-3.232. This fact may indeed render this action moot.

However, it is important for Petitioner to remember that on Decem-

ber 31, 1973, the new Rule 203 (e) (2) will be effective, which

will limit emissions to 0.8 gr/scf of effluent gas corrected to 12

percent carbon dioxide.

9— 580

—5

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclus-

ions of law of the Board.

ORDER

IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that Incinera-

tor’s petition for a variance is hereby denied.

IS SO ORDERED.

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

Control Board, certify that the above Opinion and Order was adopt-

ed by the Board on the 

f~’~

day of ‘~J~--~J 

1973, by

a vote of

~ _____to

9—581