ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL

BOARI)

March

15,

1973

CARL INC

BREWING

CO1~~PANY,

Petitioner,

vs.

)

PCB

72—408

ICNVIRONMENTAL

PROTUCTION

AGENCY,

Respondent.

August

J.

Criesedieck,

Attorney for Canine

Brewing Company

Thomas

3.

Immel, Assistant Attorney General for

the EPA

OPINION

AND

ORDER

OF

TIlE

BOARD

(by

Mr.

Henss)

Petitioner

Carling

Brewing

Comuany

requests

a

variance

from

Section

21(h)

of

the

Environmental

Protection

Act

and

from

Rules

5.07 and

5.07(a)

of

the

Rules

and

Regulations

for

Refuse

rii~posal

Sites

and

Facilities

so

that

it

may

continue

current

~socedures

at

its urivate landfill.

The

landfill,

located

at

Cctitioner’s

Bel1evi~lle

brewery,

was

opened

around

1935

and

is

)resontlv

operated

as

an

open

dump.

Glass

cullet,

wastepaper,

cardboard,

metal

drums,

beer

cans,

and

other

refuse

from

Petitioner’s

oneration,

including

beer,

is

deposited

at

the

site.

The

recvcline

of

aluminum

beer

cans,

however,

has

recently

reduced

the

quantity

of

material

being

dumped.

Petitioner’s

general

manager

testified

that

the

refuse

is

covered

with

granular

ash

material,

from

the

Company’s

coal

fired

boilers

at

intervals

from

“a

week

to

a

week

and

a

half,

depending

upon

how

much debris and when

we feel

it needs

to

be

controlled”.

(R.

8,9)

Rule 5.07 provides:

‘Cover material

shall

be

of such

nualit...which

will

permit

only

minimal

percolation

of

surface

water

when

properly compacted.”

Under Rule 5.07(a)

six inches

o~

cover

material

is

to he applied

to all exoosed refuse

at

the

end

of

each

wurPing

dat’.

Petitioner

reciuests

a variance

so that

it

ma”

continue

to

use

ashes

for

cover

material

and

may

continue

Ic

cover

once

a

week

instead

of

on

a

daily

basis.

T1~e EP~

has

recommended

that

the

variance

be

denied

since

Petl

tinner

has

not.

demonstrated

that

it

would

be

an

unreasonable

finencial

burden

to:

a)

obtain earth cover

to be

applied

on

a

daily

h~sis

a~ the

private

site,

or

b)

transport

the

wastes

to

another

landfill

s ite.

7

—

295

---

—2—

The record includes conflicting estir~atesof these costs.

Petitioner contends that a denial of the variance would mean

an additional cost of $19,850 per year

for dirt or $24,500 for

contract refuse disposal.

The Agency contends thdt Petitioner

bases the estimate on just one bid contrary to normal business

practice and that the e~timateis not reasonable.

Agency figure:;

based on contacts with two such services, ran•je~ifrom $3,660 per

year to $4,260 per year for the hauling of such wa;tes.

The Agency further contends that the ash ntater iat currently

being used to

cover

the

refuse,

permits

more

percolation

of

U.

surface

water than necessary and is not an inert material

appropriate for the covering of refuse.

The Agency witness

testified that the cover material being uaed by Petitioner wars

similar

in

composition

to

fly

ash

containiiig

caLcium,

sodium,

potassiuu,

chlorides,

sulfates,

cadmium,

copper,

iron,

lead,

manganese, mercury, nickle

and

zinc

and

that

the

po~sibi1ity

existed that these salts could be leached into underground waters

in the area.

Petitioneres response to this testimony is that

these materials occur naturally in nature and there is no evidence

that they are injurious to drinking water for humans.

We do not feel that Petitioner has proved that compliance

with the Regulation imposes an arbitrary or unre.~sonablehnrdship.

The ashes are not an aopropriate cover mater!al for th4tt cormunity.

We believe that Petitioner will be able to disnose of its

..

astes

properly for much less than the cost claimed and,

in weigaing

the

costs of such disposal against the possible damage to the public

from water pollution we are compelled to deny the variance.

ORDER

It is ordered that Carling Brewing Company’s petition tor

variance is hereby denied.

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

Board,

h1reby certify the

above Opinion and Order was adoated

this

ii

‘~

day of March, 1973 by a vote of jto

fl

7—296