ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
February
2,
1978
JACK THOMPSON d/b/a
WARREN DISPOSAL SERVICE
Petitioner,
vs.
)
PCB 76—249
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY,
Respondent.
MR. WILLIAM KELLY OF NACK,
RICHARDSON
AND
NACK, APPEARED ON
BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER.
MS.
SUSAN
SHUMWAY, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY
GENERAL,
AND
MS. JUDITH
GOODIE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by
Dr. Satchell):
This petition for variance was originally filed
October 4,
1976.
On February
3, 1977 the Board denied the
petition.
The case
has been remanded from the Second
District Appellate Court so that a
hearing could be held.
A hearing was held in this matter on October 31,
1977
concerning the second amended
petition for variance which
was filed on October 24,
1977.
The petition requests variance from Rule 313 and 316
of the Chapter
7:
Solid Waste Regulations
(Chapter
7)
until October 31,
1978.
Variance is sought for three acres
of a nineteen acre landfill site located in the north half
of the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter
of
Section
19,
Towmihip
29
NorUi
Range
5
East,
Jo
Daviess
County,
Illinois.
This site has been operated by Petitioner since 1966.
Mr.
Thompson provides waste disposal for the surrounding
communities of Warren, Apple River,
Scales
Mound, Nora
and
Waddams Grove and Apple Canyon State Park.
The original variance petition requested an eight month
period to
obtain a new site and an additional
4 months to
develop the new site and close the old landfill.
The dates
requested were March
1,
1977
and June 30,
1977.
The second
amended petition has the same compliance plan only the dates
have been delayed to June
1,
1978 and October 31,
1978.
The Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency)
recommends
denial of
the request.
The Agency also notes
that
what
Petitioner really requires ~s variance from the permit require-
ments of
RtJ~202(b)
of Chapter
7
and Section
21(e)
of the
Environmental Protection Act.
29
—
129
—2—
Petitlone:
~
ai~1~ed
for a per~it;however a2cordinq
to
Petitiorler!s
cur.,:
~ir~
engineer thejaineteen
a:;r~-~site was
“very marginal” for l~r~c~i1i
ourpose~(R.
102).
~:
best
a
one to three
~cre
site
northwest
section of
:he
landfill
would be used
!~
60,
LU3)
~uch
necessary
information was
not presented with
the permit apolication
(R.
liL-112).
No
permeability tests were done ~R.
112).
No land
use
or popu-
lation density information was
proviaed
(R.
109).
No
informa-
tion concerning ion exchange
properLies
of subsurface materials
was submitted
(R.
113).
No analysis of the subsurface grain
size distribution was submitted
(R~
113).
No information
concerning soil classification or
qcound
water
was
submitted
(R.
113—1150)
The Agency denied Petitioner’s permit application on the
basis that there is
a lack of impermeable material covering
the bedrock at the site
(Resp.
Ex.
G.).
Joseph Petrilli,
an
Agency engineer, stated that if limestone was fissured or
cracked anywhere in the surface that there was the possibility
of leachate from the landfill working its way through the
limestone and polluting the ground water supply
(R.
193).
Leachate could also probably move along to an area where
limestone is an outcropping along
a
river,
or a creek, or
stream and may result in surface
water
pollution
(R.
193).
Also Mr. Petrilli noted that ob~iningenough cover material
at the site might be a problem
‘~.
194).
Petitioner’s claim of hardship is that he will go out of
business and several communities will be without waste dis-
posal service if the variance is denied.
Petitioner inquired
at several of the area landfills and was told his use of the
site would not be allowed, except at one site, where Peti-
tioner
finds it
is not economically feasible to use the site
(R.
20-27).
However, Petitioner did not inquire whether the
neighboring services would cover his area if he closed his
business.
Petitioner has obtained several of his jobs
through bids which would indicate that someone would service
the communities
(R.
8).
However,
there is some indication
that in recent years Petitioner may have been the only bidder
in some cases
(R.
35,
36)
.
Petitioner does not indicate
financial hardship for himself;
he does have another source
of
income in a construction business
(R.. 82).
While Petitioner
has been deemphasizing his construction business to operate
the landfill,
the opportunity to expand remains
(R.
82).
The
Board has noted in previous cases that denial of
a variance
is not a shut down order;
it is
a refusal by the Board to pro-
vide the Petitioner with the defense of a variance to a sub-
sequent enforcement action, Caterpillar Tractor Company v.
E.P.A.,
PCB 75—499,
21 PCB 105,
10)
(1976).
Petitioner has indicated he nas had difficulties in ob-
taining a new site; however Petitioner has shown no progress
at all over the year.
Since the dates originally requested
are long past this gives the Board no indication that Peti-
tioner will comply with the presently suggested compliance plan.
29
—130
With the
information presented
to
the
Bourci tnere
is no
alternative but to
deny the
requested variances
Petitioner
has not proven any
har2:Iiio will
exist by denial
of the
variance and the record
is Derett
of evidence
that
will show
the environment will not
hc
ur
~ly
harmed by
the
grant of
this variance.
If anything~.
t~e~’e
is an indication of great
potential for pollution.
The
r~itionfor variance
is denied.
This opinion constitutes r~eBoard’s findings of fact
and conclusions of law in this m~tter.
ORDER
The Pollution Control Board hereby denies Jack Thompson
variance from Rules
202(b),
313, and 316 of the Chapter
7:
Solid Waste Regulations and Section 21(e)
of the Environmental
Protection Act.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Mr. Werner concurred.
I,
Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby certf
the above Opinion was adopted
~
day of
_______________,
1978
by
a vote
Christan L. Moffd
lerk
Illinois
Pollutio
ontrol
Board
29—131