ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

March 15, 1973

CITY OF DANVILLE,

Petitioner,

vs.

)

PCB 72—335

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

Larry Lessen, Attorney for Petitioner

Delbert Haschemeyer, Assistant Attorney General for the EPA

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Henss)

Petitioner City of Danville makes several requests for

variance in the operation of its landfill. The principal

request is for extension of a variance we granted in PCB 71—282

allowing Petitioner a six month period ending June 9, 1972 to

apply final cover to a portion of its landfill known as the

~old site”. The entire tract consists of 56 acres. Thirty—one

acres previously used as a landfill (the old site), have been

closed since April 23, 1971. Fifteen acres not previously used

(the new site) have been developed for landfill operations more

recently under a contract the City obtained with H & L Disposal

Company.

In 1971 the City of Danville represented that immediate

close out and covering of the old 31 acre site would cost $89,000

whereas the program contemplated by them for the application of

cover within a period of six months would be accomplished without

any additional cost to the City. The record in 1971 indicated

that leachate emanating from the old landfill area ultimately

entered the Vermilion River but under all of the circumstances

we felt the six month time schedule for the application of final

cover was reasonable.

In August 1972, one month after the variance had expired,

the City of Danville filed its petition requesting extension.

Subsequently, the Petitioner filed an amended petition and waived

the requirement that ruling be made by the Board within 90 days.

7

—

7

2—

Petitioner contends that the failure tc meet the original

June 9, 1972 deadline was due to exceptionally wet weather, a

breakdown in “internal communications” and a 25 day strike by

municipal employees in May 1972.

Our conclusion from a review of the record.. however, is

that Danville simply did not make a serious effort to meet the

six month deadline. Rainfall during May 1972 was 2.36 inches

less than normal.

During that month H & L Disooaal Company

did not apply final cover at the old site recaure

it was allo

cating all of its efforts to

the

oneration of the

new

acre

landfill

site.

The toLal rainfall

for May, dune, July and

August 1972 actually war slightly

less than normal.

The

~internal

communieati~nn” problem of the riunicinafity

and a

day

strike by municipal employees woo

were 

not involred in

the landfill

oneration could hardly constitute

~uatification

for

a one year delay in meeting the Standard,

The City

o:

Danvillo has applied f~na1

co or 

tr~

‘uch 

().~

the

area 

hut should take immediate

steps 

to coepl:

te tn  

ore ject.

Petitioner contends that denial of the variance

eaLensien 

would

impose

ar

unreasonable

and arbLtrar\’ hards~ir, unon the Cit,

because of the estimated $9,000 cost of

cc’rinc into corel 

lance

immediately.

We regard this as a self~ir o~od ha~dm1:: nince

the municipality

has failed to oursue that coui:e

ehich 

earlier represented would bring it into cc

lianee dun ine 

1972.

According to the record the necessary additional

Tranpc) or and

esuioment was not made available until September

1972. 

(P.

16, 68)

We

deny the request to extend the variance.

Other requests by the Petitioner,

however, ,v 1

Li a

Loed.

The EPA recommends that Petitioner

and

the

D~sposa~ Coopan’~

be nermitted

to

take those steps outlined in a ;uppielTlentai

permit granted by the Agency on October 2L1,

1972 which modify the

planned use of the 56 acre tract.

This modification

i.~ partly

due

to

earlier error in mapping the site.

The Petitioner

and

the

Acency have reached agreement on specific chan’os

regarding 

trenching

and the

filling of low areas and ravines, and these agreements

will he incorporated in the Order.

ORDER

It is ordered that:

1. Petitioner’s request for a variance extension of

one year for the murpose of applying final cover

to the “old site~ 31 acre tract is denied.

Petitioner’s request for a variance is allowed

to the following extent:

—

288

o) ‘lime ~P/\

supplemental permit of October 24, 1972

is aeprovee 

and the au~horizations incorporated

therein are included as a part of the variance.

PetItioner 

shall he permitted to excavate a

drainage ditch through the southwest corner

of the otd landfill

site.

Upon completion of

water drainage, Petitioner

will fill the

drainage to grade level only with proper landfill

co~cr material.

Petitioner will be permitted to

fill in low spots at the old landfill

site with

an accumulation of burned and exposed refuse

materia.l which is then to receive proper final

cover. 

The area presently containing the burned

and

exoosed refuse is to be properly graded and

is not to be used for refuse disposal.

Petitioner

will be permitted to fill in a ravine located at

the old landfill site but only with proper final

cover material.

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

Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order was adopted

this 

/4~

dayof March, 1973 by a vote of _____to 

—

289