ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
October 14,
1982
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.,
Petitioner,
)
v.
)
PCB 82—119
LAKE COUNTY BOARD,
Respondent.
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by J.
Anderson):
On October 1,
1982 Waste Management moved the Board to order
a) that Lake County clarify its September
14,
1982 decision and
b) that hearing be held within 21 days.
Lake County filed
its
response October 13.
On October 12,
1982 the Board also received
what purports to be the “intervenor Village of Antioch’s response”.
No petition for leave to intervene has been filed with the Board
pursuant to Procedural Rule 310.
As the existing landfill
(expansion of which into unincorporated Lake County is the subject
of this appeal)
is located in Antioch,
the Board will waive
this
procedural defect,
will grant Antioch
intervenor’s
status, and
will consider the October 12 filing.
Waste Management has,
in effect,
asked the Board either to
direct Lake County to reconsider its decision,
or alternatively
to grant a “summary judgment” prior to hearing.
A request for
reconsideration should have been made directly
to Lake County.
Once
a county’s final action has been submitted to the Board for
review,
Section 40.1 clearly provides that the Board and the
parties are bound by the county record,
including its written
decision:
the Board’s review of the county’s action on the merits
is to take place only after the mandatory public hearing.
There
is no statutory provision for a “summary judgment”.
Waste
Management’s motion is denied.
In their filings, the parties have presented arguments
concerning the applicability of Lambert v. Saline County,
PCB 82—47,
September 15,
1982 to the County Board’s September
14,
49-179
2
1982 decision.*
These arguments should be presented at hearing
or
in post—hearing briefs for the Board’s consideration with the
case.
Waste Management wishes to have hearing expedited because
the site, which allegedly receives one—third of Lake County’s
waste, has only about eight months of remaining capacity.
Lake
County has requested sixty days to prepare for hearing,
in part
because it is obliged to prepare and certify a “voluminous”
record, which petitioner has stated consists of 2410 pages of
transcript and 39 exhibits.
Waste Management’s motion to expedite
is granted
in part.
To insure both that the parties are well prepared for hearing and
that the Board receives ample time to review a lengthy record,
hearing shall be scheduled within 15 and held within
45 days of
the date of this Order.
(Thus, hearing
is then to be held
no
later than approximately the 60th day of the
90 day decision
period.)
Petitioner is reminded that, pursuant to Procedural
Rule 504, transcripts are to be filed within 14 days of the
completion of hearing;
delay constitutes
a
~~to
waiver.
*Waste Management’s quotation from Lambert, p.
5 reveals a
typographical error
in the certified copy of that Opinion:
a
misplaced quotation mark.
The relevant portions of the sentence
in question should read
“(T)he Board wishes to emphasize that Section 39.2(e)
requires the local officials
to specify the
‘reasons for
the decision,
such reasons
to be in conformance with the
six criteria’,
each of which should be separately listed
and discussed.”
The “listed and discussed”
language incorrectly appeared within
the quotation mark.
The Clerk is directed to have this error
corrected.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Christan L.
Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Boa~rd,hereby 9ertify that the above Order was adopted
on the
J~’
day of O-~j~-~~
,
1982 by a vote of
,~ ~
Christan
L. Moffet~,~)Jerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
49-180