ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    November 19, 1981
    REYNOLDS METALS COMPANY,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    )
    PCB
    79~81
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
    AGENCY,
    )
    Respondent.
    ORDER OF TEE BOARD (by JLD, Dumelle):
    On August 21, 1981 the Board adopted an Opinion and Order
    dismissing Reynolds Metals Company’s petition for variance
    fron Rules 303, 305(a) and ~05(b) of Chapter 7: Solid Waste.
    On September 25, 1981 Reynolds filed a petition for rehearing
    to which the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency)
    responded on October 15, 1981. That motion is hereby denied.
    However,
    the Board will reconsider that Opinion and Order
    and delete the first two paragraphs of page 4 of the Opinion.
    The record is insufficient with respect to Reynolds’ rights
    and obligations under its lease agreement to clearly establish
    the lack of an ongoing, extended responsibility for the subject
    site. Secondly, these paragraphs were unnecessary to the
    dcc
    L3
    ion.
    The Board further offers the following observations
    in
    a~firmance of its August 20, 1981 Order.
    First,
    in
    addition to the cases cited which limited the
    Section 21(d) exemption which Reynolds argues applies to its
    site,
    in
    People
    V.
    Commonwealth_Edison, PCB 75~368, 24 PCB
    2)0 (November 10, 1976) the Board
    has
    previously held that
    a ‘uarry landfill
    “is a proper subject for a permit evaluation
    by the Agency charged with the duty to prevent the pollution
    and misuse of land,” The site was, as here, found not to be
    one
    where only minor amounts of refuse were being disposed
    o1~
    without environmental harm.
    Second, Chapter
    7
    operating conditions arguably do
    not
    apply to the site
    in the absence of a permit requirement. If
    that is the case, the State would he left with no mechanism
    for preventive maintenance
    of
    such sites other
    than
    enforcement
    actions alleging threatened pollution. Such a course of action
    runs counter to the overall thrust of
    the
    Act which is to attempt
    44—55
    —2—
    to insure through the permitting system that landfills are
    properly designed, constructed, maintained and operated so as to
    avoid potential pollution problems.
    Third, the Board reiterates that a permit is needed for
    a facility such as Reynolds where, without conditions for at
    least final cover, good maintenance, and post closure oversight,
    the potential for environmental harm is great. Because of
    unknown past practices, the possiblity that the site contains
    hazardous wastes, the high permeability of the site which
    is above the area aquifer, and the great amounts of material
    that have been disposed of there without cover, a permit is
    necessary. Though the materials presently being deposited
    at the site are not particularly worrisome, the fact remains
    that Reynolds should have had a permit. If it had, the Board,
    as well as Reynolds and the Agency, would now be in a much
    better position to assess the potential dangers of the site
    and would be better able to determine what degree oE care should
    he taken to prevent those dangers. By requiring a permit now,
    these problems should at least be kept from becoming any worse.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    Board
    Member 0. Anderson dissented,
    I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Control Board, hereby cert.ify that the above Opinion and Order
    was a,dopted on the
    /~
    day of
    ______
    1981 by a vote
    of
    ~i~L•
    ~
    __
    Christan L. Moff t/Clerk
    Illinois Pol1uti~n~ontrolBoard
    44—56

    Back to top