County of Will v. Pollution Control Board

Summary

The Illinois Supreme Court reviewed the Illinois Pollution Control Board’s decision not to require groundwater monitoring at clean construction and demolition debris and uncontaminated soil fill operations. The court held that the Board’s decision was not arbitrary or capricious, affirmed the appellate court’s judgment, and affirmed the Board’s decision.

Holdings

1. The Board did not act arbitrarily or capriciously by considering the statutory status of clean construction or demolition debris and uncontaminated soil as non-waste materials. That distinction was relevant to determining what regulations were necessary to protect groundwater from those materials at fill sites.
2. The Board did not act arbitrarily or capriciously by failing to consider monitoring costs. The Board discussed the costs in its first and second orders, considered their economic effects, and incorporated the prior record into its final order.
3. The Board did not act arbitrarily or capriciously by focusing on evidence concerning fill sites operating within regulatory guidelines rather than older or noncompliant materials.
4. The Board did not act arbitrarily or capriciously by concluding that front-end certification and screening requirements sufficiently protected groundwater and that back-end monitoring was unnecessary.
5. A court reviewing the Board's quasi-legislative rulemaking decision must determine whether the decision was arbitrary and capricious, rather than substitute its judgment concerning the wisdom or weight of the Board's regulatory choices.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Pollution Control Board's decision not to adopt proposed groundwater-monitoring requirements for clean construction or demolition debris and uncontaminated-soil fill operations was arbitrary and capricious.
2. Whether the Board relied on an impermissible factor by considering whether clean construction or demolition debris and uncontaminated soil constitute waste.
3. Whether the Board failed to consider important aspects of the groundwater-protection problem, including monitoring costs and risks from older or noncompliant fill.
4. Whether the Board's explanation for omitting groundwater monitoring was contrary to the evidence or implausible.

Disposition

affirmed