ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

October 14,

1971

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

v.

)

#

71—172

ARTHUR GERDES

Dissenting Opinion

(by

Mr.

Currie and Mr.

Kissel):

I agreewith

the Board~s opinion in all respects but one.

The majority ruled against requiring

a permit for reopening the

landfill on the ground

that “proper operation of the landfill

can be ensured by ordering that any further operation of

the landfill

be in strict accordance with

the rules.”

But

it is not

for us to

decide

in

a particular case whether or not the purpose of the

regulation requiring permits

can be served

in another way;

if

permits are required, we should require them.

The regulation

is

unclear,

for it simply

says that prior approval shall be obtained

for

“any new refuse disposal

site or facility,”

Land Rules,

Rule

1.03.

The question is one of interpretation,

not of original

policy~ the issue is whether

a site closed down by municipal order

is

a “new” one within this rule requiring permits.

I believe

it is.

The proper analogy,

I think,

is not to

a manufacturing process that has been shut down

for maintenance

but to one that has been dismantled

and is to be rebuilt.

Because

this operation has terminated,

and because it does not involve

the proposed resumption of use of old equipment that cannot be

easily brought into compliance,

there is no chance

of interference

with

an existing operation.

There

is

no better time than now for

reevaluation of whether or not the site is suitable for

a landfill

at

all.

I would hold that

a landfill that has been shut down

is

a

“new” site

for permit purposes

if permission

is sought to

reopen

it.

In short

the fact that

a piece of property has once

before

~en

used

for this purpose does

not make

a new operation

an old one.

I, Regina

E.

Ryan, Clerk

of the Pollution Control Board, certify

that Mr. Currie and Mr.

Kissel submitted the above dissenting

Opinion this

14

day of

Octob’tr

,

1971.

2

—

643