ILLINOIS
    POLLUTION
    CONTROL
    BCARD
    March
    3,
    1971
    In
    the
    Matter
    of
    )
    )
    )
    #R
    71—7
    NON—RETURNABLE
    CANS
    &
    BOTTLES
    )
    Opinion
    and
    Order
    of
    the
    Board
    (by
    Mr.
    Currie):
    This is a citizen petItion asking that we ban the sale
    of beverages in nonreturnable cans and bottles.
    The petition
    is accompanied by an eloquent statement of reasons detailing
    the enormous waste both of metal and glass and of land that the
    throwing away of such containers entai:s, and it is signed by
    at least 200 persons.
    We have held no hearing on this subject
    before.
    Therefore, unless the petitIon is “plainly devoid of
    merit,”
    we
    are required by sect!on
    28 of the Environmental Pro-
    tection Act to hold a hearIng.
    We certainly cannot say that as a matter of policy the pro—
    posed regulatIon is unthinkable.
    But In the technical sense the
    proposal is without “merit” in the sense that, whatever our
    vIews on the desirability of adopting it, we have no authority
    at this time to do so.
    It is true that we are given power by
    section 22 to adopt regulaticns
    tc promote the purposes of Title
    V of the Act, which specIfically refers to the desirability of
    recycling and to the problems created by excessive quantities
    of refuse.
    It
    is also true that the mere omission of a specific
    grant of authority to ban nonreturnables, whIch was contained
    in the original bill, does not necessarily impair our authority
    to act under more general grants in the Act.
    See In the Matter
    ol’ Procedural Rules,
    I R70~L,decided Oct.
    8,
    1970, where we
    held the omissicn of statutory authorIzation for such matters as
    intervention to have been intended to leave the issue to the
    Board’s discretIon.
    But In the case of nonreturnable contaIners we have more
    than a mere omission.
    The General Assembly in deleting specIfic
    power to ban such items substituted in its place a carefully
    drawn alternative that clearly represents a cor~romisebetween
    the bill’s proponents, who desired the Board to have unrestricted
    authority in thIs field, and those who opposed such authority
    altogether.
    That provisicn, found in section 6 of the Act,
    specifically 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
    1-306
    things, recommendations “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 Boaxd
    shall make rules and regulations on these subjects based on such
    recommendations.”
    In our view section 6 is a clear statement of legislative
    intention of 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 açter 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. Currrie before Subcommittee of Senate Executive Committee
    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).
    Accordingly, we hold that until
    the recommendations of the
    Task Force are received we are without authority to adopt the pro-
    posed regulation, and no hearing therefore need be held.
    We shall
    refer a copy of the petition to the Institute for the benefit of
    the Task Force in its deliberations, and we shall invite the petitioners
    to testify in any hearings on the subject held after receipt of
    the Task Force reports.
    The petition is dismissed.
    I, Regina E. Ryan, Clerk of the Pollution Control Board, c~’tify
    that tlie).5oard adopted the above
    Opinion
    and
    Order
    this
    .)it#
    day
    of
    J/A”A-
    -,
    1971.
    :~
    ~
    1-306

    Back to top