ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

August

10, 1989

WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS,

INC.,

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB 89—28

VILLAGE OF BENSENVILLE,

Respondent.

MR. DONALD J. MORAN,

APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER; AND

MR.

LARRY

M. CLARK,

APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT.

DISSENTING OPINION (by

J. Anderson, 3.

C. Marlin and

J.

T.

Meyer):

We dissent from the Board majority’s decision of July

13,

1989, which affirmed Bensenville’s denial of local siting

approval.

We dissent also from the majority’s Opinion of August

10, 1989, which affirms Bensenville’s finding that WMI had not

met

its burden of proof as

to Criterion

#1, regarding need.

One of the troubling aspects of the majority opinion

is its

selective reliance upon the testimony of WMI’s witness,

Mr.

Edward Evanhouse,

in finding that the Village could reasonably

have found that WMI had failed to meet

its burden of proof on

Criterion #1

(Need).

The majority first asserts

as support the fact

that the

witness “admits

that the application does not discuss the service

area”

(Opinion, pg.

11).

Any lack of specific delineation of the Garden City service

area in the siting application was certainly cured by Mr.

Evanhouse’s quoted testimony

in the hearing which

is, after all,

an integral part of the information gathering process.

The

majority’s suggestion

that such

a lacking supplied a basis

for

upholding the Village on Criterion

#1 disregards

the fact that a

hearing was held and

a reply was given at that hearing to that

question.

The law does not require a perfect application;

the

law requires

a hearing at which such questions may be answered.

That was clearly done with respect

to the service area.

102—4 1

---

—2—

The majority then points to Mr. Evanhouse’s uncertainty as

to the quantity of waste Garden City takes to a landfill owned by

WMI at Northbrook or

to the Congress Development Company Hillside

Landfill.

The majority chooses to give great weight to what we

believe is not an important point in demonstrating

need for

a

transfer station.

The important point

is that the Hillside

landfill quota will not allow Garden City to increase its

reliance on Hillside as other landfills close or

restrict

access.

The majority also ignores Mr Evanhouse’s testimony

regarding the greater distance

to the Northbrook landfill and its

limited remaining life.

Most important,

the majority appears

to blur the distinction

between landfills and transfer stations

in determinin~need.

If

the yardstick for measuring need is strictly waste volumes

generated and landfill capacity,

it would appear

to be impossible

to ever demonstrate a “need”

for a transfer station prior

to an

acute crisis.

A transfer station siting adds not one cubic foot

of capacity.

It

is not

a disposal site.

Yet

a transfer station

can, by performing compaction and waste minimization as WMI here

proposes, prolong the life of existing landfills, divert usable

materials from the wastestream,

and thus promote the public

policy expressed by the General Assembly

in Section

2 of

the

Illinois Solid Waste Management Act

(Ill.

Rev. Stat.

1987,

ch.

111

~,

par.

7052).

The record demonstrates amply

that WMI justified the

proposed transfer station on the basis of the

“efficiencies”

associated with waste reduction, waste transport reduction and

conservation of landfill space

(R.

130—131,

138—142).

There

is

nothing in the record to suggest that the proposed transfer

station would not improve efficiencies or

to challenge WMI’s

assertions

in this regard.

What constitutes

a “transfer station”

is not defined

in the

Act or Board

regulations.

At the very least,

it connotes

a

stopping off point where

the contents of garbage

trucks are re-

loaded onto other,

larger vehicles capable of carrying the

contents

to one or more destinations.

The rationale for

a

transfer station

is inherently

to achieve efficiencies.

Salvaging activities

that allow some of the waste to be diverted

to a destination for

reuse,

and compaction activities that

further increase the efficiencies of

the larger vehicles, are

activities

that also accommodate waste

needs.

The question becomes,

then,

did Mr. Evanhouse demonstrate

need sufficiently for this Board to reverse the Village.

~e

believe he

did.

Mr.

Evanhouses

testimony that was imprecise or

lackinc~in

knowledge under

cross-examination, was not

in areas essential to,

or

in some instances even relevant to, WMI’s demonstration oE

102—42

---

—3—

need.

That WMI used its own knowledge and field experience to

demonstrate that there are waste disposal problems

in the area

now in terms of accessibility and distance is arguably more

acceptable and more current than an outside analytical “numbers”

study.

Given the dynamics of, and the restrictions on,

the

movements of the waste streams in the urban setting

in which WMI

finds

itself,

its explanation as to why it believes

it

is

necessary to pursue its proposed course of action at this time as

opposed to trying to continue “as

is” was credible,

on point, and

unrebutted.

We believe that the majority’s rationale for affirming the

Village has placed almost insurmountable hurdles

in siting

transfer stations anywhere in this State; neither th&statute nor

the evidence as viewed under

the manifest weight standard

supports this result.

For these reasons we respectfully dissent.

~

3.FMarlin17~

J.~. Meyer

I,

Dorothy M.

Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify

that the ab~pveDissenting Opinion was

submitted on the

~‘/~

day of

_____________

,

1989.

Dorothy

M. Grin, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

102—43

---

.

.