ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

January

8,

1981

DONALD J.

HAMMAN,

)

Petitioner,

V.

)

PCB 80—153

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY,

Respondent.

DISSENTING OPINION

(by

I.

Goodman):

The majority of the Board today

held that the

Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) cannot use the existence

of admittedly inadequate access roads

to a proposed landfill

site

as

a reason to

deny

a

development

permit pursuant to Rule 316(a)(4)

of Chapter

7:

Solid Waste of the Board~sregulations.

Rule

316

requires the applicant to prove

to the Agency that the development

of the sanitary landfill will not

cause or tend to cause water or

air pollution,

will not violate applicable air or water quality

standards,

and will not violate any rule or regulation adopted by

the Board.

Rule 316 lists

a number of parameters designed to

inform the Agency as fully as possible with respect to the total

environmental impact of a proposed landfill upon

an area.

Under Rule 316(a)(4), the application

shall include land use

and population density of

the proposed sanitary landfill site and

of the area surrounding the site within one

mile of the site~s

boundaries.

The majority today

found that this provision does not

include the condition of access roads within

one

mile

of the site~s

boundaries.

However, given an otherwise

permittable landfill

site

which is operated in compliance

with all of the Boardvs and the

Agency~srules and regulations, the major

impact upon the surrounding

area will be caused by the

vehicular traffic to and from the sitn,

If Rule 316(a) (4) cannot be read

to address the effect of such

vehic-

ular traffic upon the land

use and the population density within the

area, then the rule has little meaning.

In the majority opinion

the

Board states “Operation of trucks

over inadequate roads could violate

the

Board~s

regulations,

espe-

cially with the respect

to emission

of particulate

matter,”

This

finding in and of itself mandates the Agency to deny the permit

since it may tend to

cause violation of Board regulations.

Al-

though

it

is apparent

from the record herein that Mr.

Hamman has

acted

in good

faith in this matter, his remedy appears to lie

in

the

courts as an action against those who refuse to allow him to

repair the roads.

Most

certainly the remedy is not to forbid

40—259

---

—2—

Agency consideration of the effect of vehicular traffic on the sur-

rounding area when it considers

a development permit application.

I would have upheld the Agency denial.

IrvinG.

Goo

an,

Board Member

I,

Christan L. Moffett,

Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, do hereby certify that the above Dissenting Opinion

was filed on the

~‘

‘‘day of

______,

1981.

/

_________

Christan

L.

Moffett,

Illinois Pollution Control Boar~1