ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    October 25,
    1990
    CENTRALIA
    ENVIRONMENTAL
    )
    SERVICES,
    INC.,
    )
    )
    Petitioner,
    )
    V.
    )
    PCB 89—170
    )
    (Permit Appeal)
    ILLINOIS
    ENVIRONMENTAL
    )
    PROTECTION
    AGENCY,
    )
    )
    Respondent.
    CONCURRING OPINION
    (by B.
    Forcade and J.D. Dumelle):
    We agree with the majority that this permit denial must be
    affirmed.
    We disagree, however, with the limiting nature of the
    majority holding.
    The majority holds that most of the Agency reasons for
    denial must be stricken as an improper attempt to enforce the
    provisions of the Act by permit denial.
    In short, the majority
    holds that a permit can never be denied because the facility has
    violated the Act
    (either in the past or at the present time).
    We
    disagree with that concept generally and feel the present factual
    situation shows the error of such a holding.
    There is no question that this facility has been very poorly
    operated in the past.
    Material was previously disposed of
    in
    unpermitted areas and below grade.
    Further, some of the
    materials disposed of
    (organic solvents) were specifically
    prohibited from disposal at this landfill.
    These improprieties
    were of such magnitude that the Agency would require remedial
    action to correct the situation.
    The Agency’s concern was
    undoubtedly influenced by the presence of nearby private drinking
    water wells that might be adversely affected.
    The Agency
    concluded that,
    “no operating permits for additional areas of
    this landfill
    would
    be issued by the Agency until an Agency
    approved remedial action is satisfactorily implemented...”(R.
    at
    981).
    CESI did not challenge this permit condition.
    While no operating permits were to be allowed until
    completion of the remediation plan,
    CESI was granted a
    development permit for Area IV.
    CESI deposited fill material
    into Area IV without a permit.
    To us, this is a continuing
    pattern of intentional disregard for compliance with the Act and
    regulations involving the very area for which a permit
    is sought.
    The Agency’s October
    6,
    1989 permit denial letter lists the
    integrated nature of the facility as a rationale for permit
    denial:
    115—409
    2
    Since
    Area
    IV
    is
    an
    integral
    part
    of
    this
    facility, an operating permit for it cannot be
    issued until the existing problems of Areas
    I,
    II
    and
    III
    have
    been
    remediated.
    These
    problems include the increased potential for
    erosion,
    run—off,
    leachate
    migration
    and
    groundwater
    contamination
    caused
    by
    overfilling and over-steepening the slopes of
    Areas
    I,
    II and III...
    We find the integrated nature of the facility and the continuing
    pattern of improper disposal practices by the applicant more than
    adequate as a reason to deny the permit.
    The majority holds this
    to be “enforcement by improper means”.
    For this reason we
    disagree with the majority and concur on the outcome.
    L
    /
    J~I D.
    ybard Member
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board,
    hereby certify that ~he above Concurring Opinion was filed
    on the
    ~
    day of
    __________________,
    1990.
    ~7~L
    Dorothy ~7Gunn,
    Clerk
    Illinois L~ollutionControl Board
    Board Member
    115—410

    Back to top