June 3, 2005
    100 Westwood Oaks, #108
    Kankakee, IL 60901
    815—928—8002
    DorothyJ.R.
    ThompsonGunn, Bldg.,.Clerk
    ofSuitethe
    11-500IPCB
    i~~7
    100 W Randolph
    Chicago, IL 60601
    .
    RE: Waste Management
    and
    County Board of Kankakee
    County, Illinois
    ~
    Dear Ms. Gunn,
    r
    About a month ago I wrote to you concerning the problems with
    Waste Management in this county. I’m writing again as certain
    things have taken place in the special meeting called for
    Wednesday May 25th as opposed to their regular meeting day of
    the second Tuesday of each month. Several members of OUTRAGE
    and POWER groups were in a,ttendance as were several supporters
    of Ann Bernard, Board member opposed to Waste Mangement. We
    carried placards and signs voicing our disapproval of the plan
    to allow Waste Management to increase the size of their garbage
    dump. Several people spoke at the meeting stating their
    opposition to the plan. Then in a closed session, the county
    Board voted to come to your agency asking that the previous
    two negative votes on this issue be set aside as an intervening
    election had changed the membership of the board and therefore
    they now had a vote of 19 ayes to 6 nays. I am no expert On
    Robert’s Rules of Order nor of legal proceedures pertaining
    to the issue of changing a vote once it has been
    passed by the board. I have talked with many others who are
    better informed than I on such matters. They all said they
    thought it was illegel at least could not be accepted as a
    legitimate vote and thereby cancel previous votes on the same
    issue.
    This new proposal differs considerably from the application
    now on appeal with IPCB. The County’s special attorney, Charles
    Heston, advised the County to vote to file a stipulation of
    remand to the County Board for a re-vote of the present
    application which is now on appeal with:WCB. Since no fundamental
    unfairness was discovered during the hearing, it makes the
    stipulation unfounded. Testifying Board Memebers admitted they
    made their decision “on the record” and were not influenced
    by communication with the public.
    Waste Mangement consistently and persistently refuses to give
    consideration to re-~locatingthe dump site. As it is now, the
    site is periously close to the Kankakee River and virtually
    on top of a stream feeding into the river. Thus the water ‘supply
    for thousands of people is being jeopardized. Though the Medical
    Profession has not come forth publicly to voice their negative
    position on the dump, one docter has given me permsision to
    use his name in this letter, Mehemet Sipahi, M.D., as being
    totally against Waste Management’s proposition, as are many
    of the medical people in this area. The present site allows
    seepage to run into a stream that then empties into the river.
    Another location would eliminate this problem. But they do
    not even consider it. The dump is thoroughly disliked in the
    entire county. Especially by those persons living close to
    it. Yet the County Board persists in it’s backing of the
    proposed extended site.
    Also, I have learned that there is Mercury found in the river
    water. This information was given to a member of the POWER group
    by a Biologist of the water company. While it is not yet of
    highly dangerous amount, it is a clear indication that something
    is wrong with Waste Management’s handling of contamij~ients. Taking
    this into consideration, it appears that Waste Management is
    not the company Kankakee County wants to handle their water
    supply. It has also come to my attention that the County Board,
    sometime in the 19860s’. gave permission for Waste Management
    to dump unspecified amounts of Mercury into the river,
    We would respectfully request that you deny the County’s
    stipulations. We also respectfully request IPCB to continue
    the appeal process which has been on—going for nearly a year,
    and that you deny Waste Management’s appeal and uphold the
    County’s denial. Additionally, we request that you stipulate
    to Waste Management that any new proposal for a landfill
    application must follow 39.2 legislation and such requires a
    whole new hearing process.
    Sincerely yours,
    cc1 ~
    Olivia waggoner~’
    /

    Back to top