ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    December
    21, 1971
    EVERETT
    McCLELLAN
    #PCB71-315
    v.
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    MR. EVERETT McCLELLAN,
    PRO SE
    MR.
    PRESCOTT BLOOM, SPECIAL ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL AND
    MR.
    TIMOTHY ELDER, ON BEHALF OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    MR. RODNEY HALLBERG, ASST. STATE’S ATTORNEY,
    ON BEHALF OF
    COUNTY OF TAZEWELL
    OPINION OF
    THE
    BOARD
    (BY MR. LAWTON):
    Petitioner, EVERETT McCLELLAN,
    operator of
    a refuse disposal
    site in the unincorporated area of Tazewell County,
    filed a peti-
    tion for variance from Section
    20
    of the Environmental Protection
    Act.
    This section, however,
    is
    a statement of policy
    and not an
    appropriate provision
    for variance.
    We construe
    the request for
    variation as one seeking relief from the provisions
    of the Rules
    and Regulations Governing Refuse Disposal Sites
    and Facilities,
    Rule 5.07,
    requiring a daily cover of six inches over exposed
    refuse.
    Petitioner asks that in lieu of compliance with the fore-
    going regulation,
    he be required to cover
    only twice
    a month.
    Petitioner has entered into a contract with the authorities of
    Tazewell County by which Petitioner would make available
    a portion
    of his ninety-acre site
    for the disposal of bulk refuse items,
    (excluding
    garbage,)
    principally
    appliances and furniture.
    The
    site would be available for this purpose from 9:00
    A.
    M.
    to E:0O P.M.
    on Saturdays and from Noon to 6:00
    P.
    M. on Sundays.
    It
    is antici-
    pated that approximately 150
    car and truck hauls would be made
    to
    the
    site each week—end.
    The petitioner has equipment to compact the material so deposited,
    but contends
    that the requirement of dai1y~cover would impose
    an
    unduly burdensome cost and would dep1ete~thecàver material available.
    The Environmental Protection
    ~ncyreçcmrnends
    that
    the variance
    be denied
    We
    find the evidence in the\record insufficient
    to sub-
    stantiate
    a showing of hardship
    to jus~fy the allowance
    of variance.
    The petitioner
    is lessee of
    a ninety—acre tract.
    It is difficult
    to understand why, with
    this large
    a site,
    sufficient cover would not
    be. available to comply with
    the sections of the Regulation, particular-
    3—3m

    ly,
    since the petition states that only thirty cubic yards
    of
    refuse per week would be involved and this,
    of course, would be
    prior to compacting.
    Likewise, although petitioner contends
    that
    the covering would cost him $28.50 per hour for seven hours
    a
    week against an income of $10.00 an hour
    for fifteen hours
    •a week,
    the cost figures
    are nowhere substantiated
    in the record and even
    if
    true, do not constitute
    a hardship of sufficient magnitude to
    justify relief from the provisions
    of the Rules.
    Accordingly,
    it
    will be our Order that the variation be denied.
    Cf.
    Environ-
    mental Protection Agency
    v.
    Bath,
    Inc.
    and John
    L. Walker, #PCB71-
    52; Bath,
    Inc., John L. Walker and John H. Walker v.
    Environmental
    Protection Agency,
    #PCB71-244, Consolidated.
    The
    entire
    subject
    of
    solid
    waste
    disposal
    and
    operation
    of
    refuse disposal sites
    is being reviewed by the Institute
    for
    Environmental Quality and the Environmental Protection Agency with
    the view of promulgating new and detailed regulations
    on this
    important subject.
    It may well be that after hearings and further
    study,
    we may adopt
    a new regulation modifying the cover requirements
    for non-garbage refuse,
    particularly of
    a sort and under conditions
    where leaching will not be
    a consequence.
    However, we
    are not,
    at the present
    time, prepared to permit variation of the cover re-
    quirements, particularly under circumstances where the record is
    inadequate to justify such departure.
    This Opinion constitutes
    the findings of fact and conclusions
    of law of the Board.
    IT
    IS
    THE
    ORDER of the
    Pollution
    Control
    Board
    that
    the
    variation
    be
    denied.
    I,
    Christan
    Moffett,
    Acting
    Clerk
    of
    the
    Illinois
    Pollution
    Control
    Board, certify that the above Opinion was adopted on the
    21st day
    of December,
    1971
    by
    a vote of 4-0.
    3—316

    Back to top