ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

November 8, 1972

KNOX COUNTY LANDFILL

v.

)

#

72—359

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Opinion & Order of the Board (by Mr. Currie)

This variance petition sought permission to continue

certain violations with respect to landfill operations un-

til acquisition and approval of a new site. Following a

full hearing the County moved to withdraw its petition,

de-

claring that the request to deposit additional liquid wastes

at the old site had been “improvident”; that the County has

ceased such deposits and has no plans to allow such deposits

in the future; and that professional engineering studies

are underway to the end that other alleged violations will

be “immediately stopped.” The initial petition was filed

by the Landfill Committee, without the~d of counsel; the

withdrawal request came from the State’s Attorney, who had

not had notice of the earlier proceedings.

Intervening citizens opposing the variance ask that we

require the hearing transcript to be submitted prior to

passing on the withdrawal motion, and the Agency concurs.

We do not agree. The only request for relief before us is

the County’s request for a variance; if the County no longer

wants a variance, there is nothing for us to decide and

therefore no reason for the case to proceed further. If

anyone wishes to pursue the question of alleged infractions

of the regulations, a complaint may be filed.

The Agency orally asked us to require the transcript

to be produced in case it is needed in subsequent proceedings.

Any party may have the transcript typed and put it to such

use as the rules of evidence allow, but we do not think the

possibility of future use justifies us in placing the cost

of producing the transcript on a party no longer wishing

any relief from the Board. We will require the county as

a condition of dismissal to see to it that the reporter’s

notes remain available to all parties for the next six

months.

—

785

---

—2—

Some concern was also expressed lest the County attempt

to file a new petition and proceed without presumably un-

favorable evidence disclosed in the first hearing. We see

no suggestion of any such intention to abuse the variance

procedure in the motion to withdraw, which sets forth a

straightforward change of position and intention to comply

without seeking such relief as before. We think adequate

protection will be afforded by requiring the transcript of the

earlier hearing to be produced by the County if and when a

new variance petition is filed with respect to the same land-

fill site.

On the conditions indicated above, the motion to

withdraw is granted and the petition hereby dismissed.

I, Christan Moffett, Clerk of the Pollution Control Board,

certif that the Board adopted the above Opinion & Order

this

day of

‘c\~)~L&_..

,

1972, by a vote

of

4-o

6

—