ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

September 18,

1975

VILLAGE OF ROCKTON,

)

Pr~titioner,

vs.

)

PCB 75—210

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Mr.

Henss):

Village of P~cktonseeks

a variance from Rule 202(b) (1)

(permits) of the Illinois Solid Waste Rules and Regulations.

Relief

is sought in order that the Village might operate its

landfill site

8 hours per week from April through October of

each year “without the necessity of obtaining an operating

permit”, or might obtain a permit”without the necessity of

filling out all the information requested in the application

for an operating permit”.

The municipally owned disposal site is located east of

Rockton

in Winnebago County,

Illinois.

According to records

of the Illinois Sthte Geological Survey,

the site is in an

area of abandoned gravel pits and was apparently a gravel pit

at one time.

Both the glacial drift and the underlying bedroc.’~

in the area consist predominately of permeable materials and

are used as sources of ground water.

Five producing water wells

are located within 1/2 mile of this disposal site.

The Illinois

State Geological Survey states thatground water movement would

be downward

a4ld to the South into the Rock River.

Petitioner submitted an incomplete permit application to

the Agency

in April

1974.

Materials to be disposed of included

about 1,000 lbs. per week of residential cans,

brush, grass,

papers and old furniture and oil cans, belts and paper from gas

stations.

This permit application was denied April

26, 1974.

In

addition to minor omissions, Petitioner was advised that Parts

III

(Site Characteristics),

IV

(Construction Plans and Specifications)

and V

(Operating Plan)

would have to be completed before the

application could be adequately reviewed.

A second permit appli-

cation was submitted in July 1974 with the only substantial change

being the signature cf an engineer.

This application was denied

18—556

---

—2—

on August 19,

1974.

No additional permit applications have

been submitted.

A-i enforcement case involving this facility

is pending before the Board

(See:

PCB 75-158).

The only reason given for failure

to complete the permit

application

is that Petitioner believes the cost of obtaining

the required informaLion is an “unncessary expense”.

Village

Engineer Richard

iohnson estimates that the cost of obtaining

the permit will ke about $4,000.

Petitioner states

that it

will achieve compliance

“as soon as

a practical method of

completing the permit application can be worked out which would

not cost such an

exorbitant amount”.

According to the Village

of Rockton,

an Agency employee visited the site in December 1973

at which time

he

determined that the site was in general

compliance.

The Engineer noted that there was no permit and

there were no sanitary facilities or emergency communications

for personnel operating the landfill.

Petitioner states that

the landfill will be operated in compliance with other Regu-

lations and that its only problem is failure

to have an

operating permit.

The Agency b2lieves Petitioner’s cost estimate is excessive

considering that Petitioner now seeks

to dispose of landscape

waste only.

Since landscape wastes have a lower potential for

pollution,

a permit application for disposal of such wastes

“does not require as

riluch detailed information and site planning

as that required for the review of a permit for

a site disposing

of general

refuse or hazardous wastes”.

In the past,

the site

has not been limited solely to disposal of landscape waste.

Neither permit application sought to limit acceptance to land-

scape waste.

Pending the outcome of the variance and enforcement cases

Petitioner has ceased using the disposal site.

According to the

Agency this indicates that alternative means for disposal are

available.

Since Petitioner has not shown why landscape waste

could not be collected and disposed of along with other Village

refuse and since Petitioner has never sought a permit limited

to disposal of landsc~.pewaste,

the Agency claims that arbitrary

or unreasonable hardship has not been demonstrated.

The Agency

recommends denial of this variance.

It is obvious

that Petitioner seeks

to operate the disposal

site as

a convenience to the Villagers.

However, the fact that

refuse other than landscape wastes has been deposited at

a site

underlaid by permeable materials could jeopardize the health,

welfare and physical property of persons near this site.

The Board finds that the suitability of this site has not

been established.

Also,

the record does not contain any sub—

stantiatjon of the cost estimate for completing the permit

application.

In addition, Petitioner has not shown why these

18—557

---

—3—

wastes could not be properly disposed of at the site now

accepting other Village refuse or at other nearby Agency

approved sites.

Our review of the two permit applications confirms

the

Agency claim that Petitioner has never submitted

a permit

application limited solely to the disposal of landscape waste.

It

is entirely possible that a meeting between Village officials

and the Agency could simplify or reduce the amount of detailed

information requirc~dfor issuance of an operating permit.

Petitioner has apparently not made such an effort since the

last permit application was denied.

The overwhelming concern, however,

is the potential for

contamination of ground water supplies

in this area.

Permit

requirements for detailed information about this potential

cannot be disposed of simply because the site is

a convenience

to the people of Rockton or because of an unproven cost

estimate.

Petitioner’s plan to wait until it doesntt cost so

much is not an acceptable compliance plan.

Accordingly,

this

Petition for Variance must be denied without prejudice.

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and

conclusions of law of the Illinois Pollution Control Board.

ORDER

It

is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that the

Variance Petition submitted by Village of Rockton be dismissed

without prejudice.

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

Board, her~bycertify the aba e 0 inion and Order was ado~ted

the

j~ç”~\

day of

_________

1975 by a vote of

~1—p