ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

December 30,

1982

JESSIE

 ABBOTT,

 et al.,

Petitioners,

v.

)

 PCB 82—124

)

WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.,

AND THE CITY OF EAST ST. LOUIS,

Respondents.

I)ISSENTING OPINION

 (by J.D.

 Dumelle):

My dissent follows from considerations of burden of proof

and fundamental fairness.

The burden of proof

 in meeting the statutory criteria

rests with Waste Management of Illinois,

 Inc. and with the

City of East St. Louis.

 In this proceeding

 a landfill is proposed

om 230 acres which will be 120 ft. higher than street level

 (R.161).

A permanent land form of these dimensions

 is bound to affect

the scenic view of many homes.

 But how many homes and to what

degree?

 The record does not tell us.

A major consideration in another Waste Management case

decided today (PCB 82—119) was the effect of the landfill

expansion upon property values in the Village of Antioch and

environs.

 The entire Pollution Control Board seemed to agree

that any property value depression caused by the

~

landfill would not be a reason by itself to allow an ~ansion.

Or,

 in other words,

 “bootstrapping” was not to be allowed.

I agreed with that holding.

 Here, the 230 acres was used as an

 industrial site in the past.

 The proposed landfill would rectify

the unsightly appearance created by that former use.

 But that

does not itself make the new landfill needed.

 Property value

considerations should assume the proper closure of the former

industrial site if bootstrapping is not to be used.

There are other aspects of this landfill that are troubling.

The contract entered into by the City of East

St.

 Louis on

May 20,

 1981 provides for operation from “1:00 a.m,

 to 12:59 p.m.”

(Exhibit #2).

 The “12:59 p.m.” should undoubtedly be p12:59 a.m.”

to indicate 24—hour operation.

 If this

 is indeed to be 24—hour

construction for 15 years of a 120

 ft. high “mountain”, what

then will be its effect upon nearby residents?

 There will be

noise

 from bulldozers, and trucks and perhaps dust and odors

at all hours of day and night.

 The record

 is silent on the

effect of these deleterious influences upon quality of life and

upon property values.

50-211

2

A key piece of testimony seems greatly in error,

 On August

17,

1982 the testimony from city officials was to the effect that the

present haul to Millstadt was

22

miles one

~

(R.

 21-2 and

R.35),

 But scaling off the distance

on

an Illinois highway map,

shows only about 11 miles from Milistadt to the center of East

St.

 Louis.

 How could city officials

he

in

error

by

100

 on such

a simple fact?

 And does

this

 error change the cost

savings

estimates?

The August

17,

 1982 hearing raised some doubts as to

fundamental

 fairness to the public.

 While

the ending time of

the hearing is not given,

 the transcript size would indicate a

hearing of perhaps four hours.

 But the public did not have an

opportunity to speak until

 104 pages

 of a 174 page transcript

had been recorded

 (60),

Or,

 in other words, the public portion

was only 40

 of four hours or about 1½ hours on a subject of

great importance to them.

 And the record is replete with statements

indicating a desire to cut off the hearing.

 Mrs.

 Abbott was

limited to “one more minute”

(R,

 117).

 At page 167

 it was

“Three more people at the most”.

 How many

were

cut off from

testifying by that tenor?

 A counter

argument to this is

that no

protest was indicated on the record.

 But we

must remember that

 these residents had no counsel

 at the August 17 hearing and may

have just been too frightened

 to protest

 further.

Two other issues deserve mention,

 Is this

really

 a proper

proceeding before the Pollution Control Board given the recorded

objections by the Southwest Regional Post District and Formula-

Research and Development,

 Inc.?

 Does

 title to both

the

land and

the

“red

mud’’

really

 rest with the

City

of

East

St.

Louis?

does

not,

then

this

not

properly

before

us.

Lastly, why did the East St.

Louis

City

Council

narrowly

approve this landfill by an 8—7 vote?

 What were the

dissenters’

reasons?

 And how could the Council vote knowingly upon the issue

on September 8 when the transcript

of the August

committee

hearing was not prepared until October 29?

Since the burden of proof was not carried and since fundamental

fairness seems not to have been

followed,

 I dissent.

I,

 Christan

L.

 Moffett, clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, hereb~certify that

~he

 above Dissenting Opinion

was

 filed on the

 ~_day

~

 1983.

/

2

Christari L.

 Moffe t, Clerk

Illinois Pollutiondontrol Board

a

rm an

50-212