ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

March 22, 1973

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

#72—172

v.

VAN DER MOLEN MIDWEST INCINERATOR

CO., an Illinois corporation

JAMES RUBIN, ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

ROBERT F. CASEY AND JOHN L. PARKER, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF

RESPONDENT

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (BY SAMUEL T. LAWTON, JR.):

On February 27, 1973, we entered an opinion and order in this

proceeding, rejecting a stipulation which had been submitted and

directing that hearing be held on the complaint at the earliest

possible date.

On March 2, 1973, we received an amended complaint filed by

the Environmental Protection Agency alleging that Respondent, in

the operation of its Melrose Park public refuse incinerator plant,

had, since July 1, 1970 and continuing up to the date of the filing

of the an1~ndedcomplaint, violated Section 9(a) of the Environmental

Protection Act by causing air pollution as therein defined, and

in addition, violated Rule 3-3.232 of the Rules and Regulations

Governing the Control of Air Pollution. Complainant also alleges

that the violations will continue prospectively unless abated.

The entry of a cease and desist order and penalties in the maximum

statutory amount are sought.

On March 7, 1973, we received a submission from the Respondent

captioned “Notice of Shut Down and Request for Decision” in which

Respondent outlines the various events predating our February 27, .1973

order and represents that its incinerators were shut down on March 1,

1973 for repairs and that it has voluntarily discontinued the opera-

t.ion of its incinerators as of the present time, and that if it re-

establishes its operation, it will do so in full compliance with

all relevant regulations and statutory provisions.

Respondent prays for the rendition of a final decision without

hearing. On March 9, 1973, Respondent filed an answer to the amended

complaint and motion for entry of final order. The answer recites

7

—

357

---

the shut down of the plant and admits all of the allegations of th?

amended complaint. Respondent again moves for the entry of a final

order “which does not assess a money penalty or assesses only a

small penalty without further proceedings of the Board”. Counsel

for both parties appeared at the March 15, 1973 Board meeting and

submitted a Statement of Facts stating to the Board that it was the

intention of both parties that the entire matter be resolved on the

basis of the amended complaint, the two submissions made subsequent

thereto by Respondent and the agreed Statement of Facts, which we

are willing to do, particularly in view of the shut down of the plant

already having taken place.

The Statement of Facts sets forth that Van Der Molen owns and

operates a three-cell incinerator plant in Melrose Park, providing

waste disposal services to residents of over 14 Chicago Metropolitan

communities. The facility began operations in 1959, at which time

refuse was spread across reciprocating grates, reducing the waste

material by burning it to a residue. Gaseous emissions entered a

common breach after passing a suspended arch and baffle wall. The

gaseous substance was sprayed with water to minimize particulate

emissions. In 1961, an improved gas scrubber design was developed

and multi—wash collectors were installed. This equipment proved

ineffective and was destroyed by corrosion in approximately fourteen

months. In 1963, Respondent developed and installed a high—efficiency

gas scrubber at the Melrose Park plant. Respondent’s plant engineer

was granted letters of patent for the design and construction and

other plants utilized the

same

pLocess, including one in Weber County,

Utah, which was field-tested and

which

test results have been filed

in the record herein. The StatEmeni~of

Facts further recites

that

Respondent, in the course of its incineration operation, as a con-

sequence of inadequate maintenance and repair procedures, has permitted

its facilities to emit particulate matter, in violation of the provision~

of Section 9(a) of the Environmental Protection Act and Rule 3-3.232

of the Rules and Regulations Governing the Control of Air Pollution.

The parties agree that if specified individuals were called as

witnesses in the proceeding, they would testify in the following

manner:

Mrs. Edveta L. Wolf

—

That she has observed repulsive odors and

smoke. She is located less than two blocks in a northerly direction

from Respondent. That she has observed smoke blowing from Resoondent’s

facility f:r~om her office. That when the wind is from a southerly

direction, the smoke and odor are prevalent. That due to the s~noke

from Respondent’s operation, a film forms on her car and those parked

in the company’s yard and that the company cannot keep the front of

its building clean.

Milton Leek

—

He would testify that

hiS

business operation is

located approximately two blocks north of Respondent and that he has

observed dust, dirt and obnoxious odors at his place of business;

—2—

7

—

358

---

that he has observed smoke blowing since 1970, that the smoke

blowing causes cars in his company’s lot to become dirty and the

smoke causes the front of the company’s building to become dirty.

Mr. and Mrs. J. J. Vokoun would testify that they have observed

smoke and a garbage-like odor near and at their home and smoke

emanating and they observed the smoke emanating from Respondent’s

plant and which contains odorous characteristics.

Mrs. Kurek would testify that she has observed odor and soot

at her Meirose Park home; that the odor smells like burnt garbage

and is sickening to her and that the odor and soot emanate from

Respondent’s operation. When the wind from Respondent is in her

direction, she is obliged to go inside her house and keep her

windows closed and further, that when the wind is from Respondent’s

direction, soot is found on her laundry.

Mrs. John Holte would testify that she has noticed odor, soot

and smoke at and near her home; that it smells like garbage, that

she can see smoke from Respondent’s stacks and has been subjected

to the smoke, soot and odor since 1970 from Respondent’s operation.

When the wind is from Resnondent’s direction, the soot gets into her

house and the odor makes her sick and nauseus.

Mrs. Pat Bach would testify she has noticed odors and smoke ab

and near her Meirose Park home, which smell like rotten garbage,

all of which are evident when the wind is from Respondent’s direction,

that the foregoing had been noticed since August, 1971, and that

the odor and soot prevent her from hanging clothes out to dry.

Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Annunzio would testify that they observed

smoke and odors at and near their Northiake home, both of which emanate

from Respondent’s operation and to which they have observed for many

years, and that they cannot open the windows of their home or stand

outside when the smoke and odor blow toward them from Respondent’s

operation,

The Statement of Fact concludes by stating that Van Der Molen,

in its best interests, would discontinue its incinerator operation

rather than attempt to install an operation that would meet strict

and daily compliance with the statute.

From the foregoing recital, it also appears to be to the best

interests of the adjacent neighbors that Van Der Molen discontinue

its operation. We are not unmindful of the costs of bringing an

incinerator operation into compliance with the relevant regulations.

However, we are equally cognizant of the detrimental impact that such

an operation may have upon the adjacent communities if the relevant

rules and statutory provisions are not complied with. No useful purpose

will be served by reviewing the earlier proceedings in this particular

case. The operation has been shut down. Respondent represents it

—3—

7

—

359

---

will not resume operation unless it is in compliance with all

relevant regulations

and statutory

provisions.

The nuisance

inn-

pact of

the

violation

of the relevant rules have been admitted.

We will assess a penalty in the amount of $2,500 and di,rcct~ R~on—

dent to cease and desist its oneration until it complies with all

relevant regulations

with

respect to oneration of an :incinerator.

This opinion constitutes

the

findings of fact

and conciu~ioin;

of

law of the Board.

IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that:

1. Penalty in the amount of $2,500 shall be paid to the

State of Illinois for violation of Section 9(a)

of

the

Environmental Protection Act and the causinq of

air

pollution and for the emission of particulate:; in cxcc~s

of Rule 3—3.232 of the Rules and Regulations

~mvcru~hg

the

Control of Air Pollution.

Penalty payment. by certified

check or money order shall be made to:

Fiscal

Services

Division, Illinois

Environmental Protection

Agency,

2200

Churchill Drive, Springfield, Illinois 62706 by 7~pril 27,

1973.

2. Respondent shall cease and desist the

opcrnt:icn of i s

Melrose Park incinerator unless and

until

it is in

compliance with all relevant regulations ansi statutory

provisions with regard to a public refuse incinerator.

I, Christan Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois

Pollution

Control Board,

certify

that the above Opinion and Order was adopted on the

day of March, 1973, by a vote of

_____

to

_______

7

—