ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
Nove~iber2:,
1974
)
CITY OF GENESEO
)
)
)
v.
)
PCB
71-309
)
)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
)
)
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr. Dumelle):
This
is
a petition for a variance filed with the Environmental
Protection Agency (hereinafter Agency)
on August
20, 1974 by the
City of Geneseo (hereinafter Petitioner)
.
The petitioner seeks
relief from Rule
202(b)
of Chapter
7.
Specifically, Petitioner seeks permission to continue operation
of its sanitary landfill without
first obtaining
a permit
as re-
quired by Chapter
7 for
a period of time not to exceed 180 days.
Petitioner previously filed
a petition for variance which was
received by the Agency on ~\Iarch8,
1974.
In an Order dated
March
7,
1974,
the Pollution Control Board requested additional
information.
When that
information was not received by May 29,
1974,
the Board dismissed the petition (PCB 74-86)
Petitioner owns and operates
a sanitary landfill
of 68.13
acres
located north of the City.
Petitioner alleges
that
a private
contractor has exclusive rights to the collection
of refuse
from those residents who desire it, which approximates
two-thirds
of the population.
The refuse collected from this two-thirds
of
the population
is disposed of at
the Atkinson landfill.
The
City of Geneseo has
a population of
5,840.
Petitioner’s site,
therefore,
presently serves
a population of 1,950.
The site
has anticipated maximum life expectancy of about five years.
Equipment presently used
in operating
the site consists of one
rubber tire endloader for earth moving and compacting purposes
and also
a dragline.
A recent Agency inspection of Petitioner’s site disclosed
that
the site was operating at the time,
and that
it was operating
in general compliance with the Environmental Protection Act
(Act)
and Chapter
7.
The uploading area consisted of
a trench excavated
on the northwest
side of the site.
The trench was about
50 feet
wide
and about
30
feet
long.
Refuse was being deposited on the
one end of the trench and pushed in with the Case Endloader.
14—509
The
face
of
the
fill
consisted
of
the
entire
15-foot
depth
of
the
trench
and
was extremely
steep.
It
was suggested
that
the
angle
of
slope
he
cut
down
as
per
the
Rules
and
Regulations
and
this
would
ueriuit
more
easier
and
efficient
covering
opera~
lions
.
The
oerator
insistec
that
he
is
able
to get the
full
6 inches
of
daily
cover
over
the
entire
face
of
the
fill,
lie
also
reported
that
the
sand
sets
and
compacts
very
well,
In
testing
the
previous
Oars
operational
area
it
was
noted
that
the
areas
were
hard
and
appeared
to
be
well
compacted
and
were
relative
lv
smooth,
The
old
area
with
inadequate
cover
was
also
dis cussed,
‘‘his
area
consisted
of
approximately
I
•
500
square
feet
of
surface
area
located
about
250
Feet
south
of
the
present
unload
lag
area,
It
was
reported
by
the
Agency
a
inspectors
that
this
area
would
he
recovered
in
the
very
near
future
The
Agency
acknowledges
that
it
has
received
no
adverse
comments from
City
residents regarding
the
granting
of
the
requested
variance,
In
fact,
the
one
letter received indicated
that
the
landfill
was,
in
the
writer’s
opinion,
well
operated.
Those
persons
contacted
by
the
Agency
also
indicated
that
they
had
no
complaints
regarding
the
operations
and
no
objection
to
the
granting
of
the
variance,
Petitioner
alleges
that
700
households,
or
2,000
peocle
presently handle their
own
refuse
by
taking
it
to
the
City
landftll,
and this contributing population
will generate about
60 cubic
yards
of refuse per week,
The
Agency
believes
the site
is presently
accepting
an average of 150 cubic yards of refuse per week,
Petitioner
alleges
that all refuse accepted at the site
is
strictly residential garbage
and some landscape waste from periodic
City cleanup operations.
Petitioner alleges that under the above-proposed usage, the
present
landfill site would have
a maximum life expectancy
of less
than
five
years.
Petitioner further alleges
that because
of this
expected life expectancy
it would be economically
advantageous
:Eor the
City
to acquire
a new site rather than use the present
site until exhausted,
Petitioner
further alleges that although no exact figures
are
available at
this time, indications
are that the
ne.w landfill will
reduce the future
cost of refuse disposal to City residents
by
approximately twenty-five percent
(25),
This figure
is based
on
the bid by a contractor for hauling the refuse
to the Atkinson
landfill (some
24 miles roundtrip).
It should be pointed out
that the City owns
68,13 acres of land at
the present site which,
when sold, will greatly offset City expense
in acquiring new sites.
The Agency counters by stating that two-thirds
of the City’s
residents are presently served by
a contractor.
This contractor
is
Little’s Disposal Service, which hauls
to the Atkinson landfill where
he
is charged $1.40/cubic yard for refuse disposal,
No allegations
14—510
-3-
have been made
that the remaining one-third of
the, City residents could
not make similar arrangements for refuse collection nor that these
arrangements would impose an economic hardship, since two-thirds
of the residents presently use
this refuse collection
service,
Petitioner alleges that
it
has been diligently but unsuccessfully
working to obtain
a
new’ site which can be developed and operated
to conform with the Act and the Regulations,
Petitioner further
alleges that it has investigated nine possible sites, each proving
unsatisfactory after initial exploratory testing,
However, Petitioner
has not indicated when this search for a new site commenced and
why
it could not have been completed earlier,
Rule
202
gave existing
landfills one year
in which to obtain a permit,
The Agency has
given ample notice
to
all operators
in the State that compliance
with the permit requirement must be obtained by
July 27,
1974,
The Agency believes
that Petitioner has not adequately explained
why
compliance with Rule 202(b)
could not be achieved
by
the required
deadline.
Finally, Petitioner alleges
that the Agency ordered its
landfill
closed effective July 27,
1974.
The Agency believes Petitioner means
that the Agency notified Petitioner of the permit requirement
dead~
line and that continued operation without
a permit after that
date
would constitute
a violation of Rule 202(b)
of Chapter
3.
Petitioner
requests
an extension of 180 days for location, design and construc~
tion of
a new site,
The Agency interprets
this
to mean
a request
for
a 180 day variance from the July 27,
1974 deadline date,
or
until January 23,
1975,
for operation of
the present landfill,
The Agency believes that if
a variance should be granted,
it should
only be granted until January 23,
1975,
and should be subject
to
certain conditions.
However,
the Agency does not believe Petitioner has carried
its burden in proving the requisite hardship to justify the granting
of
a variance.
The Board feels, however,
to deny this variance would work
a
hardship on those people who rely on the present refuse disposal
site.
We will therefore grant
a variance with certain conditions.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings
of fact
and conclusions
of
law,
14 —511
-4-
IT IS
THE
ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that:
1.
The variance be granted from July 27, 1974
to
January 23,
1975
from Rule
202(b)
of Chapter
7.
2.
That during the period of the variance,
only residential
garbage and landscape waste
(and no commercial or industrial
refuse)
be accepted at the
site.
3.
That within
30
days
of the Board’s Order, Petitioner
report
to the Agency the progress made in acquiring
a new site
and
a time schedule for design and construction of
the site.
4.
That within
45 days
of the Board’s Order, Petitioner
present to the Agency
a plan for closure
and final covering of
its present
site,
I, Christan
L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify the
above Opinion and Ord9r were adopted on
the
~
day of November, 1974 by
a vote of
4f—O
Qb~s~~~rk
Illinois Pollutio
ontrol Board
14—512