ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
September 33,
1971
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
v.
)
PCB 71-69
)
INCINERATOR,
INC.
)
Mr. James
I. Rubin and Mr. Melvyn A.
Rieff, Assistant Attorneys
General,
on behalf of the Envir~ñmenta1Protection Agency
Mr.
Richard V.
Houpt
and
Mr.
Dennis
J.
Eslick,
on behalf of
Incinerator,
Inc.
Opinion of the Board
(by Mr.
Kissel):
On April
2,
1971, fhe Environmental Protection 2’~encyfiled
a complaint against Incinerator,
Inc.
(~Incinerat:r”), a privately
operated refuse incinerator plant located in Cicero.
The complaint
alleged the following violations:
1.
Violation of Section
15 of the Air Polli2tion
Control Act;
2.
Violation of Section
9(a)
of
the Environmental
Protection Act;
3.
Violation of Rule 3—3.232 of the Rules
cii~dRegu~
lations Governing
the
Control
of
Air Pollution;
4.
Failure
to
file
a
Letter
of
Intent
in
accordance
with
Rule 2-2.12 of the Rules
and
Regulations
Governing
the
Control
of
Air Pollution;
and
5,
Failure
to
file
an
Air
Contaminant
Emission
Reduction
Program
(“ACERP~’) in
violation
of
Rules
2—2.31(f)
and
2—2.41
of
the
Rules
and
Regulations
Governing
the
Control
of
Air
Pollution.
The
Agency
asks
that
the
Board
enter
a
cease
and
desist
order
and
impose
monetary
penaltien
under
the
Environmental
Pratoction
Act
and
under
the
now—repealed
Air
Pollution
Control
AcL,
In
re—
sponse
to
the
complaint,
Incinerator
admitted
the
violations
o~
Rules 2—2.12,
2—2,31(f), and 2—2,41 requiring submission of
a
Letter of Intent and an ACERP; as
an affirmative
defense,
it con-
tended
that strict and complete daily compliance with
the regu-
lations
(including preparation and filing of an ACERP) was not
technologically feasible since
the available pollution control
equipment had not yet been proven to be effectively adaptable to
its installation.
Subsequently,
the Agency amended its complaint
alleging additional
Ringelrnann violations and the failure to ob-
tain an installation permit in accordance with
Rule 2-3.110 and
Section
9(b) of
the Act.
Incinerator stipulated that no instal-
lation permit had been applied for or obtained.
On May
27,
1971, Incinerator requested a variance
for six
months from this Board.
During this period,
Incinerator prdposes
to limit the waste material it receives to residential garbage and
refuse,
to complete installation of
a wet scrubber baffle system
on one of its two units,
to institute
an intensive engineering
study to determine the most suitable control apparatus
in order
to meet applicable standards,
and to seek permit approval from
the Agency
for installafion
of this control equipment on at
least the second of its
two units.
The Agency recommended that
the variance be denied.
In the alternative,
it recommended that
any grant of the variance be conditioned upon Incinerator
1)
corn—
pleting installation of control equipment within six months which
would bring the plant into complete compliance with the Act and
applicable Rules,
2)
conducting stack tests upon completion
of
the project,
and
3)
posting
a performance bond
and paying an
appropriate monetary penalty.
The enforcement and variance hear—
ings were ordered consolidated
for hearing purposes.
(Incinerator~sOperations and Facilities
Since 1958,
Incinerator has operated
a municipal refuse in—
cinerator near Cicero.
The
500 ton per day plant was constructed
for approximately
$2.5 million and employs about
25 people.
Private
scavengers,
the City of Chicago,
the Village of Stickney,
and the
Town of Cicero dispose of refuse
of the Cicero facility.
At pres—
ent, refuse from the municipalities comprises approximately 90
of the plant capacity.
The incinerator operates seven days
a week.
Refuse received at the plant arrives in trucks and
is brought
into the tipping area.
The trucks dump the material
into
a pit
where
it is picked up by
a crane and placed in
a charging hopper.
The refuse
is then drawn across two sets of drying grates,
and then
over an ignition
grate where
air is induced under
it.
It then
passes into the rotary kiln where
it is burned.
From the rotary
kiln emissions pass through
a spray
chaitiber and out
the stack.
The
2
—
506
two rotary kiln incinerators are rated
at
a capacity of 250
tons
per day each;
this rate of tonnage is based upon
a 20
moisture
content.
No
fuel is used to supplement the burning operation
in the kilns,
The kilns share
a mutual stack, but have separate
baffle and spray scrubbing chambers,
The efficiency of the incinerator
is relative
to the tempera-
ture
achieved in the combustion chamber.
If an adequate tempera-
ture
is
not maintained, complete combustion will not occur.
Nor-
mally,
a temperature
of
1,200° to
1,400° is als~necessary to
control odor.
Incinerator
ttas installed several thermocouples in
the
gas stream
to measure temperature
and transmit this information
to
a recorder device which
measures smoke density conditions.
These
thermocouples tend to become covered with slag forms
and particulate
matter and
are not regularly serviced.
This
has necessitated the
operator maintaining a visual check of the burning operation in
order
to maintain its efficiency.
Since April
1,
1971,
Incinerator has restricted the type
of
waste
it will accept to domestic garbage and industrial paper wastes.
Contaminant
Control Methods
As of this date,
Incinerator has no adequate control devices
on its
stack.
In 1968, Incinerator designed baffle walls
for
its
gas stream and has since added more sprays to aid in the dispersion
of the water,
In its application for
a variance, Incinerator pro--
poses to reduce its emissions by installing
a Detrick-~ens
(“D-J~)
type wet scrubber system and
to perform subsequent stack tests to
determine efficiency.
This installation would be completed within
three months
time.
The
D-J control equipment could be subsequently
incorporated into
a Venturi type scrnbber or electrostatic precipi-
tator if such were shown
to be necessary.
In
a six—month period,
Incinerator would seek operational
data and test results of adapt-
able control equipment.
It would then furnish the Board with
recommendations
from its consulting engineers;
if
a permit were
granted by the Agency, Incinerator would proceed with installation
as soon as construction would permit.
In the interim, Incinerator
propOses to continue
in effect its embargo on wastes other than
domestic garbage and industrial paper refuse.
The
Issues
The issues presented in this case are
as
follows:
Whether
Incinerator~s operations violate Section
9(a)
of
the Environmental
Protection Act; whether the particulate emissions from its stack
violate Rule 3-3.232 of the Rules
and Regulations Governing the
Control of Air Pollution; whether Incinerator has violated Rule
3-3.232 by the emission of smoke denser
than Ringlemann No,
2;
2
—
507
whether Incinerator~s admitted failure to file
a Letter of Intent
and an ACERP is overcome by the alleged lack of technological
feasibility;
and
whether
Incinerator’s
request
for
a
six-month
variance
should
be
granted.
Violation
of Section 9(a)
of the Act
Section
9(a)
of
th~ Act
states
as
follows:
“No person shall cause or threaten or allow
the discharge
or emission of any contaminant into
the environment
in any state so
as
to cause or tend
to cause
air pollution in Illinois, either alone or
in combination with contaminants
from other sources,
or so as to violate regulations or standards adopted
by the Board under this Act,”
Air Pollution is defined as follows:
“Air Pollution is~the presence
in
the atmos-
phere of one or more contaminants in sufficient
quantities
and of such characteristics and duration
as to be injurious to human, plant, or animal life,
to health,
or to property,
or to unreasonably inter-
fere with
the enjoyment of life or property.”
Numerous nearby residents appeared at the hearing and testified
to the frequent inundation of particulate matter which their property,
sidewalks, homes received from Incinerator’s operations.
They also
described the
foul odor which floated their way from the plant.
Michael Longo, Chief Investigator
for Air Pollution Control
for Cicero,
cited numerous occasions when he personally viewed
excessive emissions and also recalled the various complaints which
he,
as
a municipal official,had received over the years.
On
November
2,
1967, Longo observed heavy black smoke being emitted.
Upon the receipt of several complaints
on September
20,
1968, he
called Incinerator
and was informed that the burning of several
tires
had caused heavy black emissions.
On November
8,
1970, he
saw heavy black smoke being emitted once again and identified some
as being pieces
of burnt rags.
As recently
as May
1,
1971,
he
witnessed dense black smoke being emitted.
Several nearby residents of Cicero established that the plant
definitely constitutes
a nuisance
to their neighborhood,
John
~Iarone, a Cicero police officer,
indicated that he often found
soot and burnt pieces of rubbish
in his yard
and had,
in fact, done
so on the morning of
the hearing.
Fly ash often covers the patio,
swimming pool, and lawn of the Robert Beilfusses.
This
fly ash
looks like burnt paper
in sizes ranging up to larger than
a
silver dollar.
Richard Pope,
who
lives two blocks northwest of
the plant,
finds that odors drift toward his house when
the wind
is from the southeast.
He has walked from his house to the
incinerator and watched the
fly ash
come down.
Barbara Grill
described
a sweet sickening odor which emanates from the plant.
Anthony Kovanic owns
a motel several blocks north of Incinerator.
He conducted his own investigation and isolated the source of
the emissions which were covering his motel every night
to
Incinerator.
He finds the emissions heavier at night and on week-
ends,
He must arise every morning at 5:30
a.m.
to remove the
fly
ash from the walkways of his motel;
since it
is so thick, he
has
to wash down the motel exterior at least four
times
a week.
He spends
$1,000
a month for rug cleaning supplies;
at another
motel which he owned rugs were shampooed
semi—annually, here
he must do it almost every day.
The continued operation of the
Incinerator plant with
its frequent,
almost daily,
shower of
particulate matter and
the accompanying odors, constitutes nothing
short of
a nuisance to
the neighborhood.
All
this testimony con-
clusively establishes that the emissions from the Incinerator
operation “interfere with
the enjoyment of life
or property” of
those who live near the plant.
The
sole question to be determined,
then,
is whether
such
interference
is
“unreasonable”
as required in the definition of
air pollution in the
Act.
This Board has previously held that
air contaminant emissions
are
“unreasonable” within the meaning of
the Act when there
is proof
that there is
an interference with
life or property and that economically
reasonable technolog~’exists
to control the contaminant emissions.
~
v.Flintkote,
PCB
70—36,
71-67,
and
Holmes Brothers
v, Mer~TanInc., PCB 71-39,
Both elements have been proved in this
case.
The interference
is documented in
the record,
some
of which has been detailed
in
the opinion.
In the instant case,
the testimony firmly established
that control technology
for such particulate emissions has been in
existence since
1968,
In
1966,
Incinerator first became concerned
about controlling emissions from the plant.
After re~ceivingsev-
eral complaints from the Town of Cicero in 1967,
Incinerator
in
1968 designed baffle walls
for the area of the gas stream exit.
Yet complaints about emissions have continued unabated and Incin-
erator has made no further installation
of control equipment since
1968.
bxpert witnesses
for Incinerator indicated that since
1967
control equipment has
hoer: available which would significantly
minimize,
if not total1~’eliminate,
the nuisance emissions from
the plants.
For examplo,
an incinerator
in Tampa, using a medium
energy wet scrubber inntalled in 1967 has achieved an average
emission level of
.16 grains per standard cubic
foot
(scf).
The
.riiinols stanaarci, using
the
ASME measurement method, is
.2
grains/scf.
(See Rules 3—3.232,
3—3,113).
The City of New
York
73rd Street installation has
a Venturi scrubber
—-
a control
device which has been available for many years.
With recently
installed electrostatic precipitators, the Chicago Northwest
Incinerator is presently in compliance.
Using a cyclone which
it installed in
1970, the Atlanta incinerator can presently meet
the
.2 standard.
The history of such installations across the
country
amply
illustrate
that
control
equipment,
though
possibly
insufficient to meet the
.2 Illinois standard, has long been on
the market to at least control the nuisance level.
We
find
that Incinerator has been incredibly dilatory in seeking to
correct its nuisance problem.
Even today in its variance request,
the company only re-
quests
a variance to install
a pilot unit on one of its two
units,
and that not until three months hence.
Incinerator first
became concerned with stack emissions in 1968 when it installed
baffle walls
in the gas stream.
At this
time, Incinerator con-
tacted International Incinerator,
the manufacturer of the Cicero
facility.
From 1967
to
1970, the manufacturer made no recommenda-
tion to Incinerator due to
the enormity of the problem and its
economic aspects, but rather merely “held
(Incinerator’s)
hand
and helped them look
at the thing.”
In early
1970,
the Incinera-
tor plant manager took
a trip to Dayton, Ohio to inspect the
incineration facility there.
As
a result of this
trip, Incinera-
tor hired the Dayton engineering firm to prepare an interim program
in order to eliminate
the complaints.
The firm prepared and completed
plans
for the wet baffle scrubber system in late 1970 or early
1971.
Incinerator
also awarded
a $5,000 contract to Dow Chemical
for
a feasibility study,
Dow suggested that Incinerator investi-
gate
a high energy Venturi scrubber with
a recycle system for
the water.
Dow proposed that Incinerator install
a pilot Venturi
scrubber unit costing $30-
-to$40,000.
But, since Dow could fur-
nish no warranty or guarantee on the installation,
Incinerator
was reluctant
to pursue their proposal program,
This was
now mid--
1971 and Incinerator contacted the City of Chicago to inquire
into
the operation of the Overtron unit at their facilities,
They
have since hired three consultants
to help make
the economic and
technical feasibility study; they concurred in the recommendation
for the D-J scrubber system
as
a method to abate the nuisance
problem.
Thus,
to date,
Incinerator has nothing but generalized
plans
for compliance.
Testimony established that
the D-J system
became available
in 1967,
thoogh
it has acqiired increased
sophistication over the years.
This system, when installed, will
eliminate
the nuisance, though it might not meet the new
codes.
(Ex.
32,
33).
Incinerator’s own delaying tactics have stalled the
installation of new equipment and havo therefore made
its inter-
ference with the
life
and property of its neighbors unreasonable.
A
penalty
in
the
amount
of
$20,000
shall
be
imposed
upon
Incinerator
for
the
air
pollution
which
it
has
inflicted
upon
its
neighbors
in
violation
of
the
state
statutes.
A
cease
and
desist
order
shall
be
issued
against
Incinerator
which
order
shall
require the cessation
of operations
at the Cicero plant within ten days of
the entry of
the order until
adequate
control
devices
are
installed
to
control
the nuisance violation,
A continued nuisance shall not be allowed
when adequate control equipment
is and has long been available.
Incinerator shall not be permitted to operate
its facility until
it has made adequate showing to
the Agency that
the nuisance con-
trol equipment
is installed and ready for operation and that Inciner-
ator has determined the control method which it intends to employ
to meet
the applicable Illinois standard.
We
are not unmindful of the hardship which such
a cease and
desist order may impose upon Incinerator, but this is
a self—imposed
hardship brought about by the company’s own dilatoriness,
We have
granted
a ten—day breathing period over which
the company may phase
its close-down operation and in which the municipalities presently
using
the facility may search out other means
of disposal.
We
are
not convinced by the record that
an unreasonable hardship will
be imposed upon the municipalities;
there are
at present several
land disposal
sites
and incinerators within
the Chicago metropolitan
area available
to service their needs
in the interim.
Further,
Incinerator estimates the installation
time for a unit such
as the
Detrick-Jens wet baffle system will take about three months.
Incin-
erator presently has $200,000
to $250,000 available
to make the out-
lay for control equipment.
There will also be
a hardsh~ipimposed
upon the twenty-five employees of Incinerator.
Though some may be
involved
in the installation work, others will undoubtedly be laid
off until
the facility abates its nuisance.
We
are dealing in this
case with
a virtually uncontrolled nuisance where control techniques
are available
and capable of being installed within three months,
The brevity of
this installation time with
a consequent short
lay--
of f and
the nuisance character
of the emissions convince
this
Board that any hardship imposed upon
the employees
is worth it in
this
case.
We point out again that the hardship on Incinerator
is one that it has imposed upon itself due
to its dilatoriness.
Thus,
the employees may also
look
to their management for the source
of their hardship.
Incinerator points
out that
the incinerator was
in place and in operation when all
of the complaining residents pur-
chased their homes and that the facility is located in what would
be generally described as an industrial area.
Under Section 33(c)
(iii)
of the Environmental Protection Act,
the Board
is dir~cted
to take into consideration
the “suitability or unsuitability of the
2— 511
pollution source to the area in which it is located, including
the question of priority of location in the area involved,8.
About
thirty of the homes in the area were built when the incinerator
was constructed.
Just because an
area can
be characterized as
chiefly industrial and Incinerator may have béén there before
some of the individual complainants purchased their homes, does
not entitle the facility to create a nuisance for its neighbors.
The
Particulate Regulations
--
Violation
The Agency alleged that Incinerator was in violation of
Rule 3-3,232 of the Rules
and
Regulations Governing the Control of
Air Pollution,
For the type of Incinerator at this facility the
standard allowable emission rate in the State of Illinois is
.2
grains/scf adjusted to 50
excess air.
(See Rules 3—3,232(a),
2-2.11),
Using the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency’s docu-
ment, the Compilation of
Air
Pollution Emission Factors and a
study document from the 1968 National Incinerator Conference, an
Agency Environmental Control Engineer estimated that the emissions
from the Cicero facility wou1d~be.66 grains of dust/scf collected
to 50
excess air.
This is more than three times in excess of the
Illinois standard~ This
.66 rate was computed using a 75
efficiency
rating
on
the
present
baffle
installations at Incinerator, rather
than the 30-60
rating granted them by the federal
document.
Thus,
emissions may actually be in excess of
.66 grains/scf,.
Expert
witnesses for Incinerator ~laimed
that an
emission rate cannot be
determined for incinerators using
the federal documents, but
that
a stack test must be• run,
As we have held previously in EPA v,
Lind2renFound~, PCB 70-1,
the Agency is entitled in the absence
of
stack
test
data supplied by the affected operation
to rely upon
the Compilation
of Air Pollution Emission Factors or other such
similarly accepted documents in establishing
a
fade proof
of
a violation.
Ti~opposing party
is then ent.ttled to dispute
the accuracy
e;
su.~ ~ita by reference to other more
conclusive
studies, see
EPI
v.
Noifolk
and
Western
Railwa~a~,
PCB
70—41,
or by conducting its own stack
tests.
Incinerator did neither
in
the instant cane.
The documents
whic~
irw’inerator
did
refereoce
do
not
show
Ua
basis
of
the
federal
do
;monts
ta
be
incorrect
cc
that
more
accur
determinations
ce~e
~vai
lable
in
the
I
it
aratu:
e
-
Thus,
ionic
orator
must
be
juciiad
to
have
violated
the
cpp.L cable
Illinois
atandard.
Permit,
Ringelmann, and ACERP Violationsj
Incinerator has stipulated to the fact that no permits were
obtained for any equipment installed.
In l9~68,Incinerator installed
a refractory baffle system to the spray chamber; in 1970, monitoring
equipment was installed.
We believe that the evidence established
that this equipment was installed in an attempt to reduce and moni-
tor emissions and thus fall within the classification in Rule 3-2.110
as equipment “intended for eliminating,
reducing, or controlling
emissions of air contaminants.”
The
baffle.systez~was installed in
1968 to counter air pollution complaints from Cicero,
The plant
manager for Incinerator referredato other installations where the
control method was
“a wet baffle spray
bhamber,”
like Incinerator’s.
Incinerator also has stipulated to its failure to file a
Letter
of
Intent or an Air Contaminant Emission Reduction Program.
It
raises an affirmative defense, however, that such filing was
technologically unfeasible since
the available pollution control
equipment had not yet been proven to be adaptable to this or similar
installations.
The plant manager stated that he did not think
that Incinerator had sufficiently formulated its plans
so
as
to
file with the Air Pollution Control Board or the Agency.
The plans
were
subject to change almost constantly, he indicated,
This defense
misreads the intent of the ACERP program
--
to place the violating
facility on a prospective program of compliance.
Quite often this
has involved a research and development program by the affected
company or a commitment to an industry-wide effort.
Compliance
dates were frequently far into the future
(and sometime~stoo far)
in
order
to
allow
the
technology
to
catch
up
with
the
existing
standards.
Incinerator’s failure to file has only encouraged its
lax approach toward compliance.
It apparently has made no
effort
aimed at
achieving any advanced technOlogy in the industry, nor has
it spent any sums
to the present directed toward compliance
at its
own
plant.
A
$5,000
penalty
shall
be
imposed
upon
Incinerator
for
its failure to comply with the ACERP filing requirements in the
Rules
and
Regulations
Governing
the
Control
of
Air
Pollution.
The Agency has also charged that Incinerator has violated the
Ringelmann regulation contained in Rule
3-3.232:
“No new incinerator shall emit or produce
smoke the appearance, density or shade of which is
No.
2 or darker on the Ringelmann Chart except that
during an operational breakdown or while cleaning
air pollution control equipment smoke may be emitted
of an appearance, or density of No.
2 or darker on
the Ringelmann Chart for a period or periods aggre-
gating not more than three
(3) minutes in any ob-
served sixty
(60) minute period.
7
—
513
william Zenisek,
an Agency engineer
trained to read smoke
without chart, testified that he witnessed dense smoke emissions
in excess of P.ingelmann No.
2 between
8:00 and
8:07 a.m. Septem-
ber
30, 1970.
On March
4,
1971, he observed emissions
to go from
No,
4 to No.
2 Ringelmann between
4:55 and
5:00 p.m.
After
5:00
p.m.
the emissions decreased to below No.
2.
Both violations
extended
for
a
period
in excess of
the
three
minutes
allowed
under the
Rules.
Tom
Rosenbaum,
the
Office
of
the
Attorney
General,
is
also
qualified
to
read
by
visual
observation
and
witnessed
Incinerator’s
stack
on
June
14,
1971,
between
5:45
and
6:00
p.m.;
he
observed
No.
3,5
th4
Ringelmann
for
the
fifteen-minute
period.
Though
the
Board
finds
more
acceptable
Ringelmann
readings
taken
and
simultaneously
recorded,
we
believe
that
these
two
witnesses
by
their
training
are
able
to
determine Ringelmann readings when there
is
such
an
apparent
gross
violation.
Further,
their
testimony
as
to
density
was
corroborated
by
that
of
Longo,
Cicero’s
Air
Pollution
Control
Inspector.
Thus,
Incinerator
is
found
to
have
violated
the
applicable
Ringelmann standard.
Incinerator’
s
Variance
Incinerator,
as
was
previously
indicated
in
this
opinion,
filed
a
petition
for
variance
with
the
Board.
No
date
is
given
for
final
compliance
under
this
variance.
We
then
face
the
issue
of
whether
the
variance
should
be
granted.
The
Environmental
Protection
Act
states
that
a
variance
shall
be
granted
to
a petitioner if he proves that compliance with
the Act,
the rules
and regulations promulgated thereunder,
or
an order of the Board
creates
an “arbitrary and unreasonable hardship.”
(Section
35)
We
iave previously held that in determining whether such a hardship
sxists,
we will balance
the benefits and detriments
to the public
sgainst
~the
benefits
and
detriments
to
the
petitioner.
This
is
not
sn e~ualbalance.
The Board will
look to the benefits
to the
sfforded to the public as being the strongest of factors.
After
~eview
of
the
evidence
as
presented~
we
feel
that
the
variance
in
this case should be denied.
S
Under
the
variance
petition
as
stated,
Incinerator
requests
)ermission to continue its gross violation of the
law for
at least
the next three months.
.No control unit will he installed until after
;hat time
--
and that will be
a pilot unit on one
of the .kilns.
The
letriment to the public in this case consist~of
a continuing nuisance.
this condition must cease and we believe that the public benefit
fl
this case sufficiently outweighs
any detriment that petitioner
~ould suffer
as
a result of the shutdown of its
facilities.
Instal—
ation of control equipment to abate the nuisance
can be completed
ithin three months;
funds
are available
in sufficient amounts
to
ncinerator
to complete the installation.
As
regards compliance with
the
existing
rules
and regulations,
Incinerator
in essence really has
no plan other than to conduct
a
study of its emissions and possible control methods.
We are satis~.
fied by the record that several control methods
do exist and are
presently in operation on plants meeting the Illinois standard,
Control technology is available now in the form of a high-energy
wet scrubber.
Though certain technical
and water treatment prob-
lems may await final solution, we
do not view them as
a roadblock
to the installation of proper equipment.
Delay has gone
on long
enough while
the petitioner dawdles and others
in the industry do
his work
for him.
Before Incinerator will be allowed to operate
its facility, it will be required to present to the Board and the
Agency
a variance petition designed to bring the facility
into com-
pliance with the applicable Illinois standard.
The above constitutes
the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law.
ORDER
I,
Within ten days from the entry of this order,
Incinerator
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
Detrick-’Jens
wet
baffle
system
or
another
comparable
control
device
approved by
the Agency, and until
it has filed the variance petition
required under paragraph
3 of this order, and until it
‘is in com-
pliance with paragraph
4 of this
order,
The control device installed
must adequately abate
the nuisance pollution as described in the
opinion.
S
2.
In
the
event
that
Incinerator
decides
to
proceed
with
the
installation
of
the
equipment
provided for in paragraph
I
of
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
paragraph
1,
.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 Incinerator 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
remitted.
3.
Before
Incinerator
may
commence
operation
of
the
facility
after shutdown, it shall submit to the Agency and the Board
a supple-
mental petition for
a variance.
Such
petition
shall
contain
a
firm
program for bringing 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
it
deems
necessary
under
the
circumstances.
2
515
4.
Even after compliance with the preceding paragraphs
of this order, Incinerator shall not operate its facility unless
the thermocouple devices in the gas stream are operating ade-
quately and properly transmitting information to the recorder
device,
5.
Even after compliance with the preceding paragraphs of
this order, and until Incinerator has installed and has in opera-
tion equipment which will bring it into compliance with the appli-
cable Illinois standard,
it shall not accept for incineration
refuse other than domestic 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 proceed 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.
I,
Regina E.
Ryan, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, certify that the Board adoptod~t~e
above Opinion and Order
on the
30
day of September,
J~.97l.
2—
516
