ILLINOIS
    POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    February
    3,
    1972
    WHETZEL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
    v.
    )
    PCB
    71—302
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    Stuart M.
    Mamer, Attorney for Whetzel Construction Company
    Thomas
    3.
    Immel, Attorney for the Environmental Protection Agency
    Opinion of the Board
    (by Mr. Aldrich):
    Whetzel Construction Company
    (“Whetzel”)
    requests
    a variance
    to permit
    the dumping of nonputrescible refuse in a borrow pit
    in Champaign
    County,
    Illinois.
    Petitioner
    seeks
    a variance from Rule 5.12(c)
    of
    the Rules and Regulations ~for Refuse Disposal Sites and Facilities
    (“Land Rules”), which rule prohibits
    the deposition of refuse
    in
    standing water.
    We grant the variance for reasons given below.
    The record indicates that the pit in question resulted from the
    removal of dirt
    for the construction of Interstate Highway
    74.
    Whetzel, which leases the property on which the pit
    is situated,
    has disposed of refuse in the pit since early in
    1970.
    The Company,
    under different ownership,
    has used the pit for the same. purpose
    since 1962.
    From 10,000
    to 15,000 cubic yards of material have been
    placed in the pit yearly since that time.
    William 3. Auterman,
    Executive Vice President of Whetzel, testified that
    the materials are
    limited to broken concrete, broken asphalt,
    dirt,
    gravel,
    stone
    and broken brick
    (R.7).
    Any putrescible or combustible materials
    are removed before dumping into the pit, then hauled to the city
    dump for disposal
    (R.8).
    Mr. Auterman estimated that the borrow pit contains
    20 million
    gallons of water
    (R.1l).
    Removal of this water by pumping it out
    of the pit is alleged not
    to be feasible because of
    lack, of a
    suitable discharge
    area
    (R.ll,
    21).
    Otis
    B. Michels,
    a consulting
    engineer, testified that studies
    of soil conditions
    and of the
    geology of the area do not indicate any ground water aquifer within
    the influence of the pit
    (R.l9).
    Surface water from areas surrounding
    the pit is bypassed naturally and does not enter
    the pit.
    Mr. Michels
    asserted that there
    is no significant flow of water from the pit
    and that the materials which petitioner places
    in the pit will not
    leave the site
    (R.21).
    At
    the hearing,
    counsel for the Agency stated
    that the Department of Public Health examined water samples from
    both
    the pit and from a nearby well during
    1970
    (R.24).
    No appreciable
    pol’lution characteristics were
    found.
    3
    ‘—
    585
    Petitioner contends
    that denial of
    a variance to continue dumping
    materials
    into the pit would impose
    a financial hardship on the
    Company as these materials would then have to be disposed of at
    the
    city dump,
    for which
    a fee
    is charged
    (R.12).
    Whetzel further
    argues that
    the pit poses
    a threat to human
    safety,
    particularly
    that of children,
    and that the filling of
    the pit is
    in the best
    interests of the public.
    The latter contention is supported by
    the Agency, which does not object to the granting of
    a variance.
    The Agency further notes that if Whetzel is permitted
    to continue
    dumping materials
    into
    the pit,
    the latter will eventually be filled
    and
    the site restored
    to
    a potentially useful piece of property
    (R,25).
    Mr. Auterman indicated that the pit would probably he filled
    within
    a period of five years
    (R,l2).
    We
    agree that in the absence
    of
    any real potential
    for pollution the filling of the pit
    is in
    the public
    interest.
    We will therefore grant to petitioner
    a
    variance from Rule 5.12(c)
    of the Land Rules for
    a period of one
    year,
    the statutory limit.
    Petitioner
    is free to request an
    extension of the variance at
    a later time.
    In granting
    a variance
    we impose only the condition that materials
    disposed of in the pit
    continue to be of
    a noncombustible and nonputrescible nature.
    In
    view of
    this condition, we do not feel that periodic reports from
    petitioner
    as to the nature of materials disposed of would serve
    a
    useful purpose and hence will not require such reports.
    A variance
    is hereby granted until February
    3,
    1973.
    I, Christan
    L.
    Moffet,
    Clerk of the Pollution Control Boar~certify
    that the Board adopted the above opinion this
    ,j’
    day of-I
    ,
    1972,
    by
    a vote of
    ..?~
    u
    .
    (
    ~
    3
    —
    588

    Back to top