ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
January
11,
1972
IN
THE
MATTER
OF
#R71—24
BEVERAGE
CONTAINER
REGULATIONS
OPINION
AND
ORDER
OF
THE
BOARD
(BY
MR.
LAWTON):
A
citizens’ petition was filed with the Board by
the “Concerned
Group
of
Citizens
and
Students
in
Champaign
County,
Illinois”
proposing
that
the sale of carbonated and fermented beverages in non—returnable
bottles and cans be banned in the State
of Illinois,
The statement
of reasons supporting the proposal was attached in accordance with
Section
203 of the Procedural Rules
of the Board.
The matter was
docketed as #R7l-7.
On March
3,
1971,
the Board entered
an Opinion and Order dis-
missing the petItion, n~tingthat our authority
to consider regulations
relating to solid waste disposal
and the recycling and reuse of solid
waste materials was premised on receiving from the Solid Waste Manage-
ment Task Force
to be established by the Institute
for Environmental
Quality recommendations
in this respect, pursuant to Section
6 of the
Act,
Since
at the time of the order, no such recommendations
had
been received, we held that we were without authority
to adopt the
proposed regulation and,
accordingly,
no hearing need be held.
On November
15,
1971,
the Institute transmitted to the Board the
recommendations
of
the
Illinois
Solid
Waste
Management
Task
Force
on beverage containers, Document #TF-l
IIEQ,
together with
a suggested
form of regulation requiring
a 5~deposit on the sale of beverages
in
beverage containers
as defined in the proposed Regulation.
In Board Newsletter #37 dated December
5,
1971,
the proposed
regulation was published and notice given that hearings would be held
on
a state—wide basis, which have since been scheduled for Chicago,
Champaign, Springfield and Alton.
On January
7,
1972,
the Board received
a letter from the law firm
of Arvey, Hodes
& Mantynband,
on behalf of “certain parties who would
be affected by
the proposed beverage container regulations” requesting
that the hearings scheduled be cancelled on the grounds that the Board
does
not
have
jurisdiction
to consider the proposed regulation.
We
construe this letter as
a petition for cancellation of hearings, which
petition we
deny.
The petition is based on the assumption that because
an early draft of the Environmental Protection Act contained
a provision
authorizing the Board to adopt the regulations specifically relating
to
3
—
471
the sale and use
of
containers
and
bottles,
which
was
subsequently
deleted,
the
legislature
has
expressed
an
intention
that
the
Board
should not possess this power.
However,
as the March
3,
1971 OpinIon
in #R71—7 notes,
this section was deleted and Section
6,
in its present
form,
substituted
in lieu thereof.
As stated in the Opinion:
“The General Assembly
in deleting specific power to ban
such items substituted in its place
a carefully drawn alter-
native that clearly represents
a compromise between the bill’s
proponencs, who desired the Board to have unrestricted author-
ity in this
field,
and those who opposed such authority alto-
gether.
That provision,
found in Section
6 of the Act, specifical-
ly directs the Institute for Environmental Quality to establish
a
Solid
Waste
Management
Task
Force
to
study
the
entire
waste
problem
and
to
report
to
the
Board,
among
other
things,
recom-
mendations
‘to expedite development of systems
for the re-cycling
and re—use of refuse’
and
‘to assure compliance with
the
purposes of this Act.’
Upon receiving such reports
‘the Board
shall make rules
and regulations
on these subjects based on such
recommendations.
In our view,
Section
6
is
a clear statement of legislative
intention
to
forbid
the
Board
to
ban
nonreturnables
until
it
has
received
the
recommendations
of
the
Solid
Waste
Management
Task
Force.
Otherwise,
the
specific
direction
in
Section
6
that
the
Board
adopt
regulations
after
receiving
such
recommendations
would
be
wholly,
unnecessary.
We
view
Section
6
as
a
deliberate
limitation on the general authority conveyed by Section
22 to
issue solid—waste regulations.
This interpretation is confirmed
by the testimony of the administration’s spokesman for the bill,
who in explaining
the compromise amendments to
a Senate sub-
committee on the eve of the bill’s passage said the Administration
had accepted
a
‘narrowing of the proposed novel power to adopt
regulations proposing the recycling of solid wastes.’
Testimony
of David P. Currie before Subcommittee of Senate Executive Com-
mittee on 3788, May,
1970.
The same point was made even more
explicitly in the administration’s press release immediately upon
passage of the bill:
‘The proposed power to bar or limit the sale of non—returnable
bottles.. .was eliminated.
We.. .accepted an amendment allowing
limited regulation after
a research study of waste recycling...’
Ill. News,
#966—70
(May
29,
1970)
.“
Since
the recommendation of the Solid Waste Task Force has been
received,
the condition precedent
to considering regulations in this
area has been satisfied.
Furthermore, Section
6, detailing the role
of the Solid Waste Task Force
is completely compatible with Section
22
of the Act relating to the Board’s
authority to adopt regulations
relating to land pollution and refuse disposal, Section
6 requiring the
3
—
472
Task Force recommendation before the consideration of regulations
in the specific area of recycling, reuse and solid waste disposal.
Nor
is Section
6 in any way an invalid delegation of
authority to the
institute or the
Task Force created by it.
The statutory organization
and structure contemplates
the Institute to furnish research
and ex~
pertise upon which the Board may intelligently structure its regulations.
Both entities
are pursuing this legislative mandate.
By this opinion, we express
no view on the propriety or wisdom
of the regulations under consideration, but merely confirm our un-
questioned authority
and jurisdiction to consider them.
Our order,
likewise, does not foreclose petitioner from filing such further and
additional petition or legal authorities
as relates to jurisdiction
which matters
the Board will
take. with
the case and consider
in its
ultimate decision on
the proposed regulations.
IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that the petition
for cancellation of hearings be and the same
is hereby denied.
I, Christan Moffett,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board,
certify that the above Opinion was adopted on
the
/1
day
of
January,
1972.
3
—
473
.
.