ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

February

7,

1980

ARTHUR LIGHT,

Petitioner,

PCB 79—172

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

Respondent

OPINION OF THE BOARD

(by Mr. Dumelle):

On April 12,

1979 the Board entered an Order

in EPA,

v.

Arthur Li~it, PCB 78—30,

33 PCB 341 which found Petitioner

in violation~ofthe Solid Waste Rules and the Act, ordered

Petitioner to apply cover to his solid waste disposal site

and obtain an operating permit within 120 days,

and assessed

a penalty of $200.

On August

9,

1979 Petitioner requested a

90 day extension of time to obtain his operating permit.

This request was construed as a petition for variance

(35

PCB 189,

August

23,

1979).

The Agency recommended that a

variance be granted subject to conditions.

No

hearing was

held.

On January 24,

1980 the Board granted Petitioner a

variance from the

120 day

requirement in PCB 78—30 provided

that cover be applied and an operating permit he obtained by

March 31,

1980,

If the March

31, 1980 deadline is missed,

Petitioner shall cease operations.

This Opinion supports

the Board~sJanuary 24, 1980 Order.

The

nature of Petitoner’s operations were discussed in

PCB 78-30

and

need not be repeated here,

Petitioner

did not

state

any reason, why

he could not comply with the original

August 10,

1979 deadline.

In its Recommendation the Agency stated that the

filling required in PCB 78~30had not been completed by

December

14, 1979 and that Petitioner’s project engineer had

requested an additional

90 days to complete this work,

The

Agency felt that granting a variance until

March 31,

1980

would not result in

additional environmental damage hut that

an extension beyond

that date might allow melting snow to

cause washing or leaching of contaminants.

As

insurance to

force timely

compliance, the Agency requested that a $5,000

performance bond be posted.

37—317

---

The Board concludes that denial of a variance would

constitute arbitrary or unreasonable hardship.

Since

Petitioner is not presently allowed to conduct any refuse

disposal operations and the ground will probably remain

frozen

during

the

term

of

this

variance,

the

chance

for

environmental

harm

seems

slight.

By

requiring the fifing

to

be

done

and

an

operating

permit

to

be

obtained

by

March

31,

1980, problems from leaching and runoff should be

avoided.

While the Board has not seen fit to require a

performance bond, Petitioner should understand that he must

properly close his site if he chooses not to resume

operation.

This

Opinion

constitutes

the

Board’s

findings

of

fact

and

conclusions

of

law in this matter.

Mr.

Werner

dissents.

I,

thristan

L.

Moffett,

Clerk

of

the Illinois Pollution

Control4~:rd~herebYcW~thatthe

above

Opinion

was

a

Chr

stan

L.

Mo

e

erk

Illinois

Pollution

trol Board