ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

April

19,

1971

UNIVERSAL LAND RECLAMATION AND

DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,

an

Illinois corporation

#PCB71—71

v.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

OPINION OF THE BOARD

(BY MR. LAWTON):

Universal Land Reclamation and Development Corporation,

an

Illinois corporation, Petitioner,

filed a document captioned

“Variance Petition” asserting that by virtue of

a lease entered

into between it and the Department of Public Works and Buildings

of the State of Illinois, on October

22,

1969,

for

a two-year term

beginning November 1,

1969, Petitioner had leased a portion of the

Illinois and Michigan Canal

1 mile

in length and

270 feet wide,

which

lease permits Petitioner to

“use and occupy said premises

for industrial

land fill operation” subject to various terms and

conditions.

The use of the premises

for the burning of refuse, junkyard,

deposition of garbage or sewage

or from any other unsanitary,

unsavory, unhealthful purposes of any kind or nature,

j~expressly

prohibited.

Provision is made requiring transfer of drainage from

the

I.

&

M. Canal

to the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal prior to

the placing of any fill in the

I.

&

N.

Canal.

The petition sets

out Rule

5.11 of the Rules and R~gulationsof the State of Illinois

relative to refuse disposal sites and facilities which provide that

cer~inmaterials may be deposited in a sanitary landfill by open

dumping, subject to provision for leveling, spread and cover.

Petitioner further states that it will deposit upon the property

only non-combustible, non-putrescible materials resulting from

demolition operations and that no garbage or sewage or other “un-

sanitary, unsavory or putrescible material will be deposited on

the leased premises”.

Petitioner, in

a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency

dated December

9, 1970,

asked the Agency to certify that “water

quality standards will not be violated if the discharge contemplated

is permitted”

as a consequence of the transfer of drainage from the

1

—

499

---

I.

&,

N. Canal to the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal pursuant to

plans submitted,

to which the Environmental Protection Agency

responded “discharge of the above—described flows

to the canal

would not

be in violation of current water quality standards,” and

that if Petitioner was to use the site for an “industrial landfill

operation”

a permit for such operation must be procured from the

Agency.

Petitioner next states that it will not use the site as a

“landfill operation”, that only demolition materials will be dumped

on the site and that Petitioner ha~adopted a procedure for pumping

water from the dump site thereby assuring that the dumping will be

in a dry hole and water seepage wil~ not pollute. surrounding

areas,

Petitioner concludes that its operation will not contaminate

the land,

air or waters of the State and that compliance with the

Environmental Protection Act and Rules and Regulations of the State

for landfill operation should not be required

“in view of Rule 5,11

of said Rules and Regulations”.

Petitioner prays that the Environ-

mental Protection Agency investigate the petition and make a recornmenda-

tion to the Pollution Control Board that the variance should be

granted.

We dismiss the petition for variance, principally because it is

not clear from the petition precisely what Petitioner is seeking.

A reading of the petition suggests that Petitioner may be seeking

a landfill permit or, alternatively,

a declaratory ruling that it

does not need a landfill permit.

If Petitioner is seeking a variance,

it is not clear what provisions

of the landfill regulations it

is

incapable of meeting, and why such provisions cannot be met,

Denial

of this petition is without prejudice to the Petitioner’s right to

file a new petition,

setting forth precisely what it seeks, what pro-

visions of the regulations it proposed to be relieved from and the

reasons why such variance is needed.

If,

in fact, Petitioner

is seeking the issuance of a permit,

the granting of a permit is within the jurisdiction of the Environ-

mental Protection Agency and petitioner’s efforts should be addressed

to the Agency in the first instance.

IT

IS THE ORDER of the Board that the variancepetition be

dismissed.

This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of

fact, conclu-

sions of law and Order,

I, Regina E.

Ryan, Clerk of the Pollution Control Board, certify

that the Board adopted the abov~-

on and Or9~r~Eis 19th day

of April, 1971.

1

—

500