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