ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

July 7,

1995

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

)

)

Complainant,

)

)

v.

)

PCB 93—248

)

(Enforcement-Land)

JOHN PRIOR AND INDUSTRIAL

)

SALVAGE,

INC.,

)

Respondents.

DISSENTING OPINION

(by E.

Dunham):

I dissent in this

case

because I believe that the development

permit should not be revoked.

Though this is one of the best

cases

presented to

the Board for revocation of the development permit,

I

believe that there are mitigating factors which were not adequately

considered by the majority.

All of the operating permits for the facility have lapsed, and

John Prior has been denied prior conduct certification to obtain

new or renewed permits.

That denial has been affirmed

by

the

Board.

John Prior is not able to operate these landfills; except

for the limited purpose of completing closure.

Mr. Prior and Industrial Salvage are in bankruptcy.

Revoking

the development permit deprives the bankruptcy estate of an asset;

perhaps its major asset.

If the bankrupt is able to sell the site,

having an intact development permit would save any purchaser the

expense and trouble of obtaining local siting.

Since

Mr.

Prior

and

Industrial

Salvage

are

not

able

to

operate,

and

are

in

bankruptcy,

the

cost

of

closure

and

post

closure care could default to the State unless an operator can be

found

that

has

experience,

capital

and

desire

to

operate

the

available portions

of the landfill while

closing the completed

portions of the landfill.

Revoking the development permit will

make the site less desirable to such a purchaser or operator.

The argument has been made that Mr. Prior’s past experience in

selecting operators for his landfill has been poor.

I would note

for the record to the Examiner

in this bankruptcy case that the

selection of the

former operators by Mr.

Prior may rise to the

level

of

incompetence

or mismanagement that would

call

for the

appointment

of

a

Trustee

in

Bankruptcy;

or

should

lead

to

the

involvement

of the Examiner in any future selection process.

I

also have

faith that the Agency would sufficiently examine and

monitor any potential operator as to prevent further problems.

---

2

For these reasons,

I respectfully dissent.

haqc~7

Z7

Emmett

E. Dunham II

Board Member

I,

Dorothy M.

Gunn,

Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control

Board,

hereby certify

hat the above dissenting opinion

was

filed

on the

/6-ct day of

__________•

1995.

A

Dorothy N.fpunn, Clerk

Illinois Djllution Control Board