ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
February
19,
1981
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
PROPOSED BEVERAGE CONTAINER
)
R71—24, 75~14
REGULATIONS
)
(Consolidated)
NOTICE
OF
DISMISSAL
OPINION’
OF
THE
BOARD
tby J.D.
Duinelle):
This
Opinion Supplements the Board~sOrder of dismissal
of
J~tnuary22, 1981.
A citizens petition was filed with the Board on February
22,
1971
by the ~ConcernedGroup of Citizens and Students
in
Champaign
County, Illinois~proposing a ban on non—returnable
heverage
containers.
On
March
3,
1971 the Board dismissed that
pr
~ceeding
on
the
basis that Its authority to consider regulations
relating
to solid waste disposal and the recycling and
reuse
of
solid
waste materials was premised upon prior receipt of
recommendations from the Solid Waste Management Task
Force of
the
Illinois
Institute for Environmental Quality
(now
Institute of
Natural Resources),
and
no
such recommendation had
been received.
Such a recommendation was, however, received on November 15,
1971,
as was
a draft regulation proposing a mandatory
5~
deposit
on beverage containers.
That
proposal was
docketed as P~71~24,and
published in the Board~sNewsletter *37
(December
5,
1971).
A motion to cancel hearings on that proposal was filed
by the law firm of Arvey, Hodes and Mantynband
on behalf of
~certain
parties who
would be affected
by
the
proposed beverage
container regulations.~ That motion alleged
that
the
Pollution
Control
Board lacked jurisdiction to consider such
a
regulation.
The
~oard entered an Opinion and Order on January 11,
1972,
denying
the motion and maintaining
that
the Board does
in fact have
jurisdiction to regulate in this
area.
However,
an injunction preventing
the
holding of hearings
was entered
in the Circuit Court of Cook County on
January
13,
1972, and remained in effect until July 31, 1~72,when
it was set
aside and vacated by
the
Appellate Court.
Thereafter, eleven days of hearings were held around
the
state between December
6,
1972,
and February
23,
1973.
On May
23,
1973, the Board continued the consideration of
the proposed regulation to enable
the
Board to
receive
the
benefit of a report on Oregons first year~sexperience with
a
mandatory deposit
law,
Hearings were next held on December
3 and
4~
19~74.
40—539
—2—
ii
I
—
I
rntrr;
I
£1,111
I
sic
S
~
‘1
‘
)
I
t
iii
‘1
‘
t
1
a
Ai
‘ii,
.
I
t..~
;n. ~
i.tI(’.
J.~
.
tan
w ~I
“a
~
stil.
.3
‘
£
f
fl3)I’
Ig
t
thi
Ta u’J
1’
gus,tn dc
s.’
.dI
tEst
I’).’
r
4C(.
Li
!,“
..
tisi
I
I
t
‘
I’
ft
b.
U ~ Loath ordered that the proceeding be
“.
n. ‘r.ttt te for Environmental Quality to
.s c
o’~o:omicimpact
of
the
proposed
I:
~
four
years
since
the
proceeding
ra
felt
to
be
necessary,
especially
in
C
‘P
~ii
embargo
and
subsequent
increases
in
1t
re
proposals
concerning
mandatory
-1rs
have
been
filed
with
the
Board.
One
a
i
Carbonda~
on
October
17,
1975,
• F
a
‘posal
wat
published in the
u
comber
3.
J975j.
That
was later
‘
~
roposal.
S.
resent
proposal
was
“nnntal
Cou
2
on
July
9,
1980,
and
t
c. cc’nsolida
proceeding.
1.tdy was completed by the Illinois
•
‘tin and
filed with the Board on July
v
eq
scheduled
and
held to consider
s
c
tiation
affecting the proceeding.
I
•.‘d
below:
~O
3
OakPark
~
s
Des Planes
91
‘~
Pioria
h~,
ii
Streator
.1960
i’i
Champaign
11
(,.
In
C’hicaqo
LV
in Chicago
Oti
J)t
—e
~
st”~:’
•._t
C
as,
hctd
,“..
a
,.
—
jtc,..
C
e~,r~
4.
~
a
S
(,1
a
‘~
Ew
Ta
•~‘1.
1.
L
1~s~
•
“
A
.
‘a
f•
U
t
-lie,
I
4
a’
‘losi
ng
at
hearings
numerous
public
comments
aon’~ incis
veto
submitted on
behalf of
the
I
C
tu.l
and
collectively
on
behalf
of
the
t
i~
t~Glass
Packaging
Institute,
the
ia
or,
and
the
Vnite4 8tat.s
firewers
£
ecoid
includes
several
thousand
pages
•
J
busts.
r
‘c-u
red
during
the
course
of
the
t
set
Thete arc th. availability of an
r’
t
4flS
.m
tnt
the
desirability
of
Board
a,
•
-
wiqntng
heavily
in
the
Board’s
reluctirto.
J,
t
hat
beverage
container
regulations
would
ot
landfill
usage
and
energy
tradeoffs,
z?~L
..ttal
impact in
other
areas
(e.g.
I
r
. i
)
The
question
of
whether
to
establish
~s
in is
a
major one of public
policy.
t
c
j
ast,
and will
certainly
in
the
future
•
•.‘~a
have
axpended
ramifications,
but
in
this
•
t r
tt
theso
public policy
considerations
‘
1,
•
s
the
environmental
ones
and,
therefore,
$
b
should
best
be made by the legislature.
40540
—3—
In addition,
of the eight states which have imposed a
mandatory deposit on beverage containers,
all, except Delaware,
have done so initially through specific legislation that assigneti
administrative responsibility to agencies
that were
riot necessarily
focused on environmental protection.
Indeed, by letter
in
the
record, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency strongly
opposed assuming responsibility for enforcement of such a
program.
This pattern,
as well
as the inadequate record before
the Board concerning such administrative questions,
led to
the Board’s determination that the legislature should define
and allocate enforcement responsibility and funding for the
administration of such a program.
Nevertheless, one proposed area more easily adaptable
to Board regulation alone concerns
a ban on detachable pull—tabs.
The Board has considered the enactment of such a regulation.
Unlike the other areas of beverage container regulation, the
injury to the public
is direct
However, testimony at the
hearing clearly
indic:ates that the industry as a whole is moving
away from detachable pull—tabs.
For these reasons the Board is dismissing
the proceedings
in R71—24,
75-14
(Consolidated).
The Board does note, however,
that an extensive record has been developed by the Board during
the course of this proceeding and that the record is available
to the public and the legislature should this question come up
Eor determination before the legislature.
N.E. Werner concurs.
I, Christan
L.
Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Bo~rd,hereby~certifythat the above Opinion was adopted
on the
~
day of
____________,
by a vote of
_____
~
Illinois Pollutio
ontrol Board
40—541