ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BORD
    November
    17,
    1988
    CITY OF ROCKFORD,
    )
    Petitioner,
    )
    v.
    )
    PCB 88—107
    )
    WINNEBAGO COUNTY BOARD,
    )
    )
    Respondent.
    )
    SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT (by B.
    Forcade,
    J.D. Dumelle
    &
    R.
    Flemal):
    The majority opinion expresses the views of
    a majority of
    the Board.
    In addition, we have reached
    an agreement as
    to what
    would constitute an appropriate outcome for the “need” criterion.
    The Act provides
    in significant part
    as follows:
    The
    county
    board
    of
    the
    county
    ...
    shall
    approve the site location suitability of
    a
    new
    regional
    pollution
    control
    facility
    only
    if
    the facility meets
    the following criteria:
    1.
    the
    facility
    is necessary
    to accommodate
    the
    waste
    needs
    of
    the
    area
    it
    is
    intended
    to serve
    Ill. Rev. Stat.
    ch.
    1039.2(a)
    (1988)
    P. facility
    is
    “necessary”
    if
    it is “reasonably required by the
    waste needs of
    the area intended to be served,
    taking into
    consideration the waste production of the area and the waste
    disposal capabilities,
    along with any other relevant factors.”
    Waste Management of Illinois,
    Inc.
    v.
    PCB, 122 Ill. App. 3d 639,
    645,
    461 N.E.2d
    542, 546
    (3d Dist.
    1984);
    see Waste Management of
    Illinois, 123
    Ill.
    App.
    3d at
    1084,
    463 N.E.2d at 976;
    E
    &
    E
    Hauling,
    Inc.
    v.
    PCB,
    116 Ill.
    App.
    3d
    586,
    609,
    451 N.E.2d 555,
    573
    (2d Dist.
    1983), aff~d, 107 Ill.
    2d
    33,
    481 N.E.2d
    664
    (1985).
    “Need”
    is largely contingent on the remaining life of
    existing landfill capacity
    in relation to the time necessary to
    develop new capacity.
    We cannot substitute our judgment
    as
    to which existing
    landfill life and additional capacity deve1o~menttimes
    are most
    reasonable;
    the sole
    issue
    is whether
    Rockford has shown that the
    Winnebago County Board’s determination that existing capacity
    is
    sufficient
    to meet local need
    is not supported by the “clearly
    evident, plain and indisputable weight of
    the evidence”
    in the
    93—443
    —2—
    Winnebago County record.
    We conclude that the Winnebago County
    record could reasonably support
    a range
    of conclusions with
    regard
    to the existing landfill life available to receive
    Winnebago County wastes and the time necessary to open additional
    capacity to receive those wastes.
    The county record could support
    a conclusion that anywhere
    from about six to twelve years of life remain for existing
    landfills
    in the area.
    One Rockford witness, Clarence D. Beatty,
    of Camp, Dresser
    & McKee, concluded that
    10 to
    12 years
    of
    landfill capacity existed
    in four landfills as of February
    1983.
    Rockford Ex.
    2,
    p.
    1—5; County
    R.
    50—51.
    Another Rockford
    witness, William A. McCann,
    a real—estate appraiser,
    concluded
    that the sole operating landfill
    in Winnebago County,* Pagel Pit,
    had
    art estimated remaining life of only one to three years
    as of
    January,
    1986,
    but two landfills located outside the county had
    remaining lives
    of up to
    10 years.
    The Browning—Ferris
    Industries
    (“SF1”) landfill
    in Ogle County had
    a remaining life
    of
    10 years,
    and the AM Disposal Landfill
    (i.e., the Bonus Land-
    fill)
    in Boone County had
    a remaining life
    of two years and
    an
    available expansion area that could extend
    its life by
    10
    years.
    Rockford Ex.
    38,
    p.
    14; County R.
    499—500.
    In Mr.
    McCann’s estimation,
    this
    10 year capacity was
    insufficient.
    Rockford Ex.
    38,
    p.
    15; County
    R.
    501—02.
    Another Rockford
    witness,
    Robert M. Robinson of Burns
    & McDonnell,
    testified that
    about six to eight years of capacity existed
    in the Pagel Pit,
    the SF1, and Bonus landfills
    for disposal of area wastes.
    County
    R.
    202—03.
    Lower
    or higher estimates of remaining capacity are
    possible.
    The record indicates that Pagel Pit could continue
    in
    operation for anywhere from one
    to five years.
    Rockford
    Ex.
    3
    (five years); Rockford Ex.
    16,
    p.
    1—3
    (five years); Rockford Ex.
    38,
    p.
    13
    (one
    to three years);
    County R.
    30
    &
    203
    (five years);
    County
    R.
    964 (three
    to five years
    if extended, otherwise until
    1987);
    R.
    1088—89
    &
    93
    (four
    to five years with
    a newly—opened
    cell,
    for an estimated closure time of Summer,
    1991).
    Rockford
    wastes currently go to Pagel Pit.
    County R.
    81
    & 1092.
    In the
    absence
    of
    a new landfill, Rockford and Winnebago County wastes
    would necessarily go to existing landfills outside the county.
    The estimates
    for the continued life of the BFI
    landfill
    in Ogle
    County vary like those for Pagel Pit, between six and 15
    years.
    Rockford Ex.
    3
    (15 plus years,
    or 12 years
    if accepting all
    Winnebago County wastes); Rockford Ex.
    16,
    p.
    1—2
    (12 years at
    *
    Two landfills exist
    in Winnebago County,
    but one,
    the South
    Main landfill
    in Rockford,
    accepts only non—putrescible,
    dry
    wastes,
    such
    as construction rubble,
    debris,
    etc.
    Rockford Ex.
    38,
    p.
    11; County
    R.
    30
    &
    962.
    This
    landfill is not considered
    as existing capacity
    for
    the purposes of this proceeding.
    93—444
    —3—
    current rate of fill);
    Rockford Ex.
    38
    (10 years);
    Rockford Ex.
    75,
    pp. W—ll
    & R—l8
    (19 years from 1981); County R.
    963—64
    (10
    to
    15 years
    at current rate of
    fill, but
    6 years
    if accepting all
    area wastes).
    The estimated remaining life of the Bonus Landfill
    ranges up
    to about
    15 years with
    a permitted expansion.
    Rockford
    Ex.
    3; County R./ 31
    & 34;
    see Rockford Ex.
    16,
    p.
    1—2
    (two
    years,
    with an available area
    for expansion by
    10 years); County
    R. 963 & 965—66
    (a vertical expansion adds one or two years).
    The estimates did not consider the County Farm Landfill
    in Boone
    County, which had an anticipated
    life of over six years,
    because
    it accepts only about 25 percent of its wastes from outside Boone
    County, only a portion of which is from Winnebago County.
    County
    R.
    1151
    & 1154;
    see Rockford Ex.
    77; County
    R.
    54.
    Need
    is also largely contingent on the time necessary to
    bring additional capacity into existence.
    Mr. McCann testified
    that
    10 years
    is
    a short time for landfill planning,
    but the
    record
    is unclear what activities he considered
    in this
    estimate.
    County
    R.
    499—500
    &
    502.
    He testified that
    it takes
    two to three years
    to begin operations after siting and
    permitting activities are complete.*
    County R.
    502—03.
    Other
    estimates indicate that the time necessary to
    site,
    design,
    permit,
    and commence operations is between four and six years.
    Rockford Ex.
    77 (five years); County
    R.
    203
    (four
    to six years);
    County R.
    282
    (five to six years).
    Thus,
    the time necessary to
    develop new landfill capacity could
    lie between four and six
    years based on this record
    We conclude that although the low—end estimates
    of existing
    capacity are very close to the high—end estimates of the time
    necessary to add capacity,
    Rockford has failed
    to prove
    these are
    the necessary conclusions from the county record.
    The Winnebago
    *
    The Section 39.2 county board site approval process requires
    a
    minimum 14—day pre—request public notice and provides
    for
    a 180—
    day deadline for
    a final county board determination.
    Ill. Rev.
    Stat.
    ch.
    ill
    1/2, par.
    1039.2(b)
    &
    (e)
    (1988).
    The Section 39.3
    permitting process requires
    a preliminary Agency determination
    within
    90 days,
    a public hearing within
    180 days
    of the
    preliminary determination,
    and a final determination within 60
    days
    of completion of the public hearing.
    Section l039.3(c)(l),
    (e)
    &
    (fl.
    The administrative siting
    and permitting process
    could therefore reasonably require about one and
    a half years.
    The maximum time for this process
    is about
    three and
    a half years
    if no appeals occur.
    See Section 1039.2(f).
    Appeals of county
    board decisions to this Board add about four to five months.
    See
    Section 1040.1(a).
    Similar appeals of Agency permit decisions
    require
    a similar
    time.
    See Section 1040(a)
    &
    (c).
    There
    is
    no
    similar
    time limitation on subsequent appeals
    to the appellate
    courts.
    See Section 1041(a).
    93—445
    —4—
    County record could also support
    a conclusion that existing
    capacity
    is sufficient for
    12 years and only four years are
    necessary
    to bring additional capacity into operation.
    It is
    immaterial whether
    or not we would adopt low—end estimates
    of
    capacity and high—end estimates of the time needed
    for adding
    capacity.
    The Winnebago County decision as
    to need
    is not
    against the manifest weight of the evidence.
    Further, prior
    cases have held that
    an existing landfill capacity of ten years
    supports a conclusion that a determination that there is no need
    is not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
    See Waste
    Management of Illinois,
    123 Ill. App.
    3d at 1086—88,
    463 N.E.2d
    at 977—979; Waste Management of Illinois,
    122 Ill.
    App.
    3d at
    644—45
    & 461 N.E.2d at 544—45;
    E
    &
    E HaiQing,
    116 Il1~~P.pp.3d at
    608—09; 451 N,E.2d at 572—73.
    r
    ~
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certif~ythat the above Supplemental Statement was
    submitted on the
    J’~-”
    day
    of ________________________,
    1988.
    ~
    ~7.
    ,~,,J
    Dorothy M/Gunn,
    Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
    93—446

    Back to top