ILLINOIS POLLUTION eONTROL BOARD
    March16, 1978
    RONALD F.
    CAPLSON,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    )
    PCB 77—211
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
    )
    AGENCY,
    Respondent.
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by Mr.
    Dumelle);
    Petitioner has requested a variance from the requirements
    of Rule 202(b) (1)
    of the Board’s Solid Waste Regulations and
    Section 21(e) of the Act.
    Essentially Petitioner wants to
    continue to operate a solid waste management site near Oquawka
    without an Agency permit.
    Petitioner claims that
    if he is
    not allowed to operate without a permit,
    he must close down
    his refuse collection business and Henderson County would be
    deprived of its only landfill. A hearing was held on
    December 29, 1977 at the Henderson County Courthouse in Oquawka.
    Petitioner and his landfill were the subject of a prior
    enforcement proceeding before the Board.
    In
    EPA
    V.
    Ronald F.
    Carlson,
    PCB 76-29,
    24PCB29
    (October 14,
    1976)
    the board noted
    Petitioner’s unsuccessful attempts
    to obtain a permit and his
    difficulties in locating a new site.
    As
    a part of its Order,
    the Board ordered the site closed and final cover applied within
    60 days.
    More than 14 months have passed and Petitioner has still
    not been able
    to find a site.
    The high cost of farm land
    ($3,000 per acre)
    is cited in the Petition as the primary factor
    in Petitioner’s delay.
    In its prior Opinion the Board found that Petitioner’s site
    was not suitable for landfill use because of the sandy
    soils
    and the potential for water pollution.
    No evidence was in-
    troduced at the hearing to refute this finding.
    A number
    of citizens testified as to the need for this landfill, but
    no one stated how much additional cost would be incurred if
    an outside hauler serviced the area.
    Petitioner pointed out that
    there were a number of other landfills that would not accept
    his waste, but no evidence was introduced to show his additional
    costs,
    if he had to use another site further away.
    29
    —
    363
    —2—
    Essentially nothing has changed since the Board’s prior
    determination.
    Petitioner’s hardship
    is still the same as
    that which was before the Board when
    it
    ruled that the site
    should be closed within
    60 days.
    The Board recognized the
    fact that “...it could possibly be that the site would never
    receive a permit.”
    Since the cost of farm land is not likely
    to decrease in the near future,
    it
    is apparent that Petitioner
    is simply trying to hang on to his refuse collection and disposal
    business.
    While Petitioner~sproblems may be serious,
    they have been
    weighed before, and there
    is no new evidence here to change
    the Board’s prior determination,
    Consequently, the subject
    Petition for variance is denied,
    This Opinion constitutes
    the
    Board’s findings of fact
    and conclusions of Law in this matter.
    ORDER
    It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that~
    Petitioner’s request for a variance
    from
    Rule 202(b) (1)
    of the Board’s Solid Waste Regulations and Section 21(e)
    of
    the Act be denied.
    Mr.
    Nels Werner dissents.
    I,
    Christan L.
    Moffett,
    Clerk
    of
    the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board,
    he ep~certify the abov
    Opinion and Order were adopted
    on the
    /~
    ~
    day of
    ~
    l97Lby
    a vote of
    ~
    Illinois pollution Control Board
    29
    —
    364

    Back to top