BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
cRK .S
OFF;CE
JUN242005
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF
)
STATE
OF
ILLINOI
ILLINOIS,
PollUtion
Controj Boa~d
INC.,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
PCB 04-186
V.
)
(Pollution Control Facifity
)
SitingAppeal)
COUNTY BOARD OF KANKAKEE
)
COUNTY,
)
Respondent.
NOTICE OF FILING DUAL MOTIONS AN)
RATIONALE
Please take notice that on June 22’~.,
2005, Keith L Runyon, an interested party in
the above captioned matter, submitted motions requesting that the PCB grant said
party ,intervener status, and that the PCB bar the County ofKankakee and it’s
Attorney from further participation in the above captioned matter. Section
101.110(c), and in accordance with Section 101.628(c).
35111.
Adin.
Code 101.110(c);
35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.628©
KEITH L. RUNYON
-
-~
Keith L. Runyon
1165
Plum Creek Drive
Unit D. Bourbonnais, 1160914
815 937 9838
techsourcel2@comcast, net.
RECE~V~D
BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
CLERK’S OFFICE
JUN 2’~
2005
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF
)
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS, INC.
)
Pollution Control Board
)
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
PCBO4-186
V.
)
(Pollution Control Facility
)
Siting Appeal)
COUNTY BOARD OF KANKAKEE
)
COUNTY,
)
Respondent.
Keith Runyon
An interested Party
Leave to file a motion to intervene in the above captioned proceeding.
Having been
earlier denied this status based upon the County ofKankakee’s promise, through its
Attorney,
to uphold the County’s denial of Waste Management’s Expansion Siting
And to protect the rights and interests ofthe objecting parties and the citizens of
Kankakee
County.
Now having demonstrated that the County’s Attorney has
abandoned his defense ofthe County’s
denial, there is no one defending the
County’s denial and the rights and interests of the objectors and the citizens of the
County.
Further I respectfully request that this Board bar the County of Kankakee
and it’s Attorney from further participation in this matter.
I pray foryour
affirmative ruling in this matter.
keith L. Runy~ii
,/
Keith L. Runyon
1165 Plum Creek Drive, Unit D.
Bourbonnais, IL 60914
815 937 9838
techsource12@Comcast.net
RATIONAL AND MOTIONS
1)Applicant has filed a Joint Stipulation of Remand in the above captioned case,
with
this Board based upon a faulty premise.
Applicant contends that unfair communication
occurred which prejudiced the Board against Waste Management.
This assertion is
clearly not in evidence from the testimony given on April
6th1.
and
7th
2005,
at the PCB
hearing in the Kankakee County Board Room. Not one Board member conceded that any
communications or actions on the part ofthe citizens in
any way affected his or her vote
during the March 17, 2004 siting meeting and that they in fact made their decisions based
on the evidence.
Forthis reason alone, there is
no basis for the PCB to remand
jurisdiction back to the Kankakee
County Board.
This appraisal of the situation
apparently reflects the views of the PCB in denying the Remand.
Further, this
proceeding seems to be mirror image of the LAND AND LAKES
v.RANDOLPH COUNTY case PCB 99-69 in which the board ruled Members of the
Randoph County Board were subjected to numerous contacts outside the record,
however, these contacts did not affect the ultimate decision and
did not prejudice Land
and Lakes.
Therefore pursuant to Waste Management v. PCB
and E&E Haulings,
the
proceedings were not fundamentally unfair.
P-6 Runyon
Brief. PCB file 47882
1)The only unfairness in this process has been the Applicant’s unfair practices
documented in
Runyon’s Amicus Curiae Briefsubmitted to the PCB on May 20,
2005.
File 47882
a)The applicant unfairly and secretly met with a small group of County Board members
for three years before the amendmentto the County’s Solid Waste Management Plan was
brought before the board for amendment to allow out of county garbage. P-2 Runyon
Brief
b)The applicant committed numerous violations of the ex
parte rule through written
correspondence to the County Board and by having its agents and suspected agents
communicate directly with County Board members prior to the Board March
17th,
2005
vote. P-3 Runyon Brief
c) Applicants own attorney sent a letter to County Board Chairman Karl Kruse during the
ex parte period.
P-3 Runyon’s Brief
d)Applicant stationed pickets outside the County Building the day of the vote.P-4
Runyon’s Brief.
e) Applicant unfairly jammed the County
Board room with its employees so that citizens
could not witness
the vote on March
17th~
2004. P-S Runyon’s Brief
f)Applicant intimidated
an outspoken opponent ofthe landfill.
He was so intimidated
that he feared for his life and left town.
Pg 4-5
Runyons Brief
Because ofthe applicant’s unfair tactics the Pollution
Control Board should disallow the
stipulation for remand and uphold the County Board’s decision to deny siting as per the
March
17. 2004 vote.
2)Applicant persuaded the board to vote for this remand based
upon a totally new
proposal which has never been the subject of a siting hearing.
Applicant is presumably
asking the County to reconsider its vote on the application
that was denied so that they
can present a new application.
On the face of it, this appears to be a bait and switch
maneuver designed to trick the County into approving the original
application on the
basis that Waste Management will
substitute the new proposal instead.
How farcical.
The County cannot approve the old application and be given a new proposal which has
never been subject to a 172 hearing.
Despite assurances from the County’s Attorney that he
would vigorously uphold the
County’s decision to deny siting he has totally abandoned the County’s decision, the
interests of the objectors and the people of Kankakee County
and now appears to be
openly representing Waste Management.
This is what the objectors feared from the
beginning of the appeal process when objectors Watson, Karlock and Runyon petitioned
this Board to be interveners in
the Appeal
As of May 9, 2005 the County’s Attorney had
been paid $1,
148, 000 and change.
The vast majority of this money was pass through
funding from Waste Management.
As a consequence, County’s attorney is financially
biased in Waste Management’s favor.
County’s
attorney made the following statements in filing his motion objecting to
Watson’ motion to intervene in this matter:
“27.
Because it is clear that the County Board will adequately represent itself and
vigorously defend its denial of the site location approval, Mr. Watson’s
intervention is
neither necessary or appropriate. “P-8, PCB File 43320-1
County’s attorney goes on to make the most unabashedly biased statement in favor of
Waste Management imaginable.
39.
“Additionally, Mr. Watson’s Motion for leave to file an Amicus Curiae brief should
be
denied because, through his brief, Mr. Watson will not simply be advising this Board
regarding the law, but will be advocating a point of view and ur~ing
this board to find in
favor of the County Board and against WMII. “Pg-b,
PCB File 43320-1
County’s Attorney represented County Staff during the siting hearings in a siting
advocacy role.
Further, he argued for Waste Management’s approval of Waste
Management’s first application in an appeal to the Third District Appellate Court.
That
case was rejected by the Court and Waste filed with the Supreme Court which, in turn,
refused to hear the case.
Objectors Karlock, Watson and Runyon
all filed motions to be interveners in the PCB
appeal process because all, who had been objectors to both application hearings, were
greatly concerned that County’s attorney would not vigorously defend the County’s
decision.
Unfortunately the objectors worst fears have been substantiated by the conduct
of the County’s Attorney.
He has so absolutely abandoned his defense ofthe County’s
denial that he even wrote a letter to Waste Management’s Attorney advising him
on how
to file the Stipulation.
See attached letter.
Under these extraordinary circumstances, this objector requests that the PCB now allow
objectors, Runyon and Karlock, Watson should they file motions to intervene, be granted
said status.
And further, since the County and its
Attorney are now ostensibly
advocating in favor of Waste Management and is not upholding the County’s denial, this
party respectfully requests the Board to bar the County Attorney and the County of
Kankakee from further participation in this matter and in lieu ofthose parties, allow the
Attorney General’s Office to defend the County’s denial ofthe siting application.
It is hoped that the Illinois Pollution Control Board will rule in the affinnative ton these
vital requests.
~/,P
~
~
Keith L.
Runyon
June 22.
2005
HINSHAW
&
CU
LB
ER
ISO
N
LLP
May 27, 2005
ATIORNEYS AT
LAW
100
Park Avenue
Mr. Donald J. Moran
P.O.
Box
1389
Pederson & Houpt
Rockford,
IL 61105-1389
161 N. Clark Street, Suite 3100
Chicago, IL 60601-3242
815-490-4900
815-490-4901
(fax)
www.hinshawlaw.com
Re:
Waste Management II Siting Appeal (PCB No. 04-186)
Dear Mr. Moran:
Please find enclosed herewith a copy of a Resolution passed by the Kankakee County Board on
May
25,
2005,
authorizing
the
County
to join
a
Stipulation
which
requests
this
matter
be
remanded by the Pollution Control Board to the Kankakee County Board for further deliberation.
Please prepare such a stipulation formy review and approval.
In my
opinion,
the
Stipulation need only refer to
the fact that
the
Kankakee County
Board
is
agreeing
to
this
matter
being
remanded
back
to
the
County
Board
for
further
deliberation;
nothing more, nothing less.
Again,
please
note
that
the
Resolution
that
was
passed provides
that
the
remand request
is
without prejudice to
and does not in any way waive the position presently taken by the Kankakee
County
Board
in
this matter
on
appeal.
As
I have
also
indicated to
you,
in
my
opinion, the
procedural request for remand alone does not
in
anyway obviate or negate the County
Board’s
prior
denial
of the
application
for
site
location
approval
in
question,
and
unless
that
prior
determination is rescinded and/ormodified,
that prior detennination stands.
I am providing a copy ofthis correspondence and the Resolution to amicus parties as well.
Should you have any questions concerning this matter, feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
~~RON
Charles~.~Isteff
Direct
f~
15-490-4906
chelste~i@hinshawlaw.
com
CFH:jml
Arizona
California
Florida
Illinois
Indiana
Minnesota
Missouri
New York
Oregon
Wisconsin
70452317v1 842014
Mr. Donald J. Moran
May27, 2005
Page 2
Enclosures
cc:
Jennifer Sackett Pohlenz
George Mueller
KeithRunyon
Ed Smith
Karl Kruse
70452317v1 842014
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
The undersigned, pursuant to the provisions of
Section 1-109 of the Illinois Code of
Civil Procedure, hereby under penalty perjury under the laws of the United States of
America, certifies that on June
22Dd•
2005 the Pollution Control Board
was
served an
original and five
copies
of the foregoing enclosed dual motions to requested intervener
status and asking the PCB to bar the County and It’s Attorney from further participation
in the captioned action by depositing an original and five copies thereof, enclosed in an
envelope in the United States Mail at Bourbonnais,
Illinois, proper postage prepaid,
and postmarked before 5:00 P.M. on June 22”.2005. and to all other parties so listed
and addressed as below.
Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
100 West Randolph Street, Suite 11-500
Chicago,
Il 60601-3218
Attorney George
Mueller
501
State
Street
Ottawa, II 61350
815433
4705
Fax 815 4224913
Donald
J.
Moran
Perterson &
Houpt
161
North Clark Street, Suite 3100
Chicago, Ii 60601-3242
312261 2149
Fax312261 1149
Elizabeth Harvey, Esq.
Swanson, Martin, & Bell
OneIBM Plaza,
Suite 2900
330 NorthWabash
Chicago, Ii 60611
312321 9100
Fax312 321 0990
Jennifer J. Sackett Pohlenz
175 W. Jackson Boulevard
Suite 1600
Chicago, Il 60604
312
540
7540
Fax 312 540 0578
Mr. Bradley Halloran
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 West Randolph,
11th
Floor
Chicago, Il.
60601
3128148917
Fax814 3669
Richard S. Porter
Charles F. Helsten
Hinshaw & Culbertson
100 Park Avenue,
P.O. Box 1389
Rockford, Ii. 61 105-1389
Christopher Bohlen
Barmann, Kramer, and Bohlen,
P.C.
300
EastCourt
Street
Suite502
P.O.Box
1787
Kankakee, II 60901
Karl
Kruse
Kankakee County Board
189 E. Court Street
Kankakee,
Ii
60901
Kankakee County States Attorney
Ed Smith Kankakee County State’s Attorney
Bremda Gorski
450
E.
Court Street.
Kankakee, II 60901
By depositing a copies (copy) thereof, enclosed in
an envelope in the United States Mail
at Bourbonnais,
Illinois, proper postage prepaid, before the hour of noon, on May
20d~•••2005•
addressed as above.
~~thL.Runyon4~
Keith Runyon
1165 Plum
Creek Dr. Unit D.
Bourbonnais, IL 60914
815 9379838
Fax 815 937 9164
