ILLINOIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

September

15,

1982

MILO

2~ND/ORBRADEN

N.

L3~MBERT,

d/b/a

LANBERT

CONSTRUCTION

CO.,

Petitioners,

v.

)

PCB

82—47

SALINE

COUNTY

ARD,

)

)

Respondent.

DISSENTING OPINION

(by D. Anderson):

Section 39.2(a)

of the Act reads as follows:

The county board. ..shal.

approve the site

location..only in accordance with the

following criteria:

1.

the facility is necessary to accommodate

the waste needs of the area it is intended

to serve;

2.

the facility is so designed, located and

proposed to be operated that the public

health,

safety and welfare will be protected;

3.

the facility is located so as to minimize

incompatibility with the character of the

surrounding area and to minimize the effect

on the value of the surrounding property;

4.

the facility is located outside the boundary

of the 100 year flood plain as determined by

the Illinois Department of Transportation,

or

the site is flood-proofed to meet the standards

and requirements of the Illinois Department of

Transportation and is approved by that Department;

5.

the plan of operations for the facility is

designed to minimize the danger to the surrounding

area from fire,

spills, or other operational

accidents; and

6.

the

traffic patterns to or from the facility are

so designed as to

minimize

the impact on existing

traffic flows.

In its letter of denial to the Environmental Protection

Agency, dated March 19,

1982, the Saline County Board stated:

48-173

---

—2—

“The

Board

of

Commissioners

at

a

regular

meeting

dated March. 18th.,

1982

voted

not

to

accept

the

proposed

site

due

to

it

not

being

centerally

located

to meet the needs of all the people of Saline County.

“The Saline County Board

feels

Lambert

has

met

all

other

required

EPA

standards

and

have

no

other

objections

except

the

afore

mentioned

location.”

On page 21 of the testimony before

the

Pollution

Control

Board,

Mr. Bill Endsley,

Jr., Chairman of the Saline County

Board was asked and answered a question,

as follows:

“Q....May I assume from your testimony since you had

knowledge of the six criteria that you had no

objection to his landfill site based on any of

these criteria; that your sole objection as you

stated in your letter was because it wasnJt in a

central part of the county?

“A.

As the letter stated~yes,

I

stand

by what the

letter stated.”

Locating a facility centrally in a county, while it might

be convenient for the people of that county,

is not of sufficient

importance to merit denial of the site.

Nowhere in the six

criteria that are to be considered is mention made that a site

must be centrally located.

Furthermore, it was noted in Petitioner~ssummation that

a sanitary dump site that has been used by the County recently

is two-tenths of a mile further from Harrisburg than the

proposed site.

The Saline County Board has found that the facility meets

the criteria of Section 39.2(a),

Ordering them to reconsider

at this point defeats the purpose of the time limitations on

action by the County Board, and by this Board.

What happens

if the County Board again objects on grounds not contained

in Section 39.2(a)?

Will this result in another appeal and

remand?

Donald B. Anderson, 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~\

daçy of

~

,

1982.

Illinois Polluti

48-174