ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    June
    4,
    1992
    LAND AND LAKES
    COMPANY,
    )
    JMC OPERATIONS,
    INC., AND
    )
    NBD TRUST COMPANY OF ILLINOIS
    )
    AS TRUSTEE
    UNDER
    TRUST NO. 2624EG,
    )
    )
    Petitioners,
    )‘~
    )
    V.
    )
    PCB 92—25
    )
    (Landfill Siting)
    VILLAGE OF ROMEOVILLE,
    )
    )
    Respondent,
    )
    COUNTY OF WILL,
    AND PEOPLE
    )
    OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
    )
    )
    Intervenors.
    DISSENTING OPINION
    (by
    J.
    Anderson):
    I would have concluded that the Village’s decision that
    found against Land and Lakes on Criterion #1 was against the
    manifest weight of the evidence.
    A review of the record does not
    support the notion that the Village could have reasonably reached
    its conclusion that Land and Lakes failed to meet its burden of
    establishing that the facility is necessary to accommodate the
    waste needs of the service area.
    The sole basis of support in the record for the Village’s
    decision was an analysis of need confined only to Will County
    provided by the solid waste director for the county.
    Because
    it
    utilized Will County alone as the proposed service area, Will
    County’s analysis of need is not indicative of whether Land and
    Lakes’
    facility is needed.
    The applicant proposed a larger area.
    Apart from the problem of other flaws in that analysis, an
    assessment of need based on a totally different service area than
    that proposed by the applicant is not a useful indicator of need.
    The Board cautioned in its December 6,
    1991 Opinion
    remanding this case back to the Village that
    it
    cannot redefine
    the service area; rather,
    it is the area defined by the applicant
    that the decisionmaker must consider.
    (Metropolitan Waste
    134—73
    2
    Systems.
    Inc.
    V.
    IPCB
    (3d Dist.
    1990).
    558 N.E.2d at 787).’
    Here, the record after remand does not indicate that the Village
    attempted directly to redefine the service area.
    However, the
    decisionmaker should not t~able to by indirection redefine the
    service area by relying on evidence that ignored part of the
    applicant’s service area.
    I believe that, overall, Will County’s evidence rebutting
    Land and Lakes’ evidence addressing Criterion #1 is so seriously
    flawed that the Village could not have reasonably relied on it in
    determining that Land and Lakes failed to meet its burden on
    Criterion 1.
    In the absence of credible rebuttal evidence on the
    issue of need or
    a showing that Land and Lakes’ assessment of
    need is materially flawed, the Village’s finding that the
    applicant failed to meet its burden of establishing need is
    against the manifest weight of the evidence.
    (Industrial Fuels
    &
    Resources/Illinois Inc.
    v. IPCB (1st Dist. March 19,
    1992P, No.
    1—91—0144 slip op.
    at 19.)
    It is for these reasons that I respectfully dissent.
    ~oan
    G. Anderson, Board Member
    I, Dorothy N.
    Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board,
    hereby cerify that the above dissenting opinion was
    submitted on the
    ~
    day of
    ________________,
    1992.
    ~
    While
    the Village’s decision prior to remand was unclear,
    what was clear
    -
    and a cause of concern
    -
    in the transcribed record
    of
    negotiations
    before
    that
    first
    decision
    was
    the
    Village’s
    insistence that Land and Lakes confine its service area solely to
    Will County, which Land and Lakes declined to commit to.
    Also of
    interest: see Fort Gratiot Sanitary Landfill Inc.
    v. MichicTan
    DNR,
    US
    SupCt.
    No.
    91-636,
    6/1/92.,
    where the Supreme Court recently
    found that a Michigan law that allows each county in the state to
    prohibit landfills
    from receiving solid waste
    from outside the
    county violates the U.S. Constitution.
    134—74
    ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
    BOARD
    June 4,
    1992
    DYNAMIC HYDRA-BLASTING,
    INC.,
    )
    )
    Petitioner,
    )
    V.
    )
    PCB 92—30
    )
    (Permit Appeal)
    ILLINOIS
    ENVIRONMENTAL
    )
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    )
    Respondent.
    ORDER
    OF
    THE BOARD
    (by B. Forcade):
    On May 26,
    1992 Dynamic Hydra-Blasting,
    Inc.,
    filed a motion
    to dismiss.
    The motion is granted and this matter is dismissed.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Dorothy N.
    Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Boa,r~,
    hereby cert
    that the above order was adopted on the
    i~Li~-
    day of
    _______________,
    1992,
    by a vote of
    Control Board
    134—75

    Back to top