BEFORE

THE

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL

BOARIF~ECE~VED

ER~ S

OFFICE

APR 292004

VILLAGE OF SOUTH ELGIN,

)

STATE OF

ILLINOIS

)

~OllUt1On

Control Board

Complainant,

)

No. PCB

03-106

)

vs.

)

(Enforcement)

)

WASTE MANAGEMENT OF

ILL1NOIS, INC.,

)

)

Respondent.

)

NOTICE OF FILING

TO:

See Attached Service List

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on April 29, 2004,

we filed with the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, the attached RESPONDENT WASTE

MANAGEMENT

OF ILLINOIS,

INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

in the above

entitled matter.

W

TE MANAGEMENT OF ILLiNOIS, INC.

B3~~

/

(~

One ofIts

ttorneys

Donald J. Moran

Lauren Blair

PEDERSEN & HOUPT

161

North Clark Street, Suite 3100

Chicago, Illinois

60601

(312) 641-6888

Attorney Registration No.

1953923

---

RECE~VED

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

CLERK’S

OFFICE

APR

292004

VILLAGE OF SOUTH ELGIN,

)

STATE OF ILLINOIS

a municipal corporation,

)

Pollution Control Board

)

Complainant,

)

)

v.

)

No. PCB 03-106

)

(Enforcement)

WASTE MANAGEMENT OF

)

ILLINOIS, INC.,

)

)

Respondent.

)

RESPONDENT WASTE MANAGEMENT

OF ILLINOIS,

INC.’S

MOTION

FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Respondent Waste Management of Illinois, Inc.

(“WMII”) by its attorneys, Pedersen &

Houpt, moves the Illinois Pollution

Control Board (“IPCB”) to

enter summary judgment in

its

favor and against Petitioner Village of South Elgin (“Village”) because there is no genuine issue

of material fact as to

the meaning of Condition 4 in Kane

County Resolution

8

8-155

dated

September

13,

1988 (“Resolution

88-155”).

In support of this motion, WMII states the

following:

INTRODUCTION

On January 16,

2003, the Village filed a complaint against WMII seeking to enforce two

special conditions of a site location approval granted by the Kane

County Board for the

expansion of the Woodland Sanitary Landfill

(“Woodland Landfill”).

(~

Resolution No. 88-

155,

pp. 3-5).

Condition

4 of that

approval provides that the Woodland Landfill site “shall not be

expanded further.”

The Village claims that Condition

4 prohibits any further development at the Woodland

Landfill site other than as a passive recreational use.

According to the Village, this

would

388759

---

include any proposal to develop a waste transfer station on any portion of the Woodland Landfill

site.

However, the plain

language of Condition

4

states that

there shall be no further expansions

of the Woodland Landfill

site.

There is no language in

Condition

4 that prohibits the

development of a waste transfer station, nor is there any intent or understanding behind the plain

language of Condition

4 that it was meant to prohibit the development of a waste transfer station

on

the Woodland Landfill site.

There is no reference or suggestion in

any of the conditions

contained in Resolution

8 8-155 that a waste transfer station would be prohibited

on the

Woodland Landfill

site.

Hence, a proposal to develop a waste transfer station is not proscribed.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The

Woodland

Landfill

was

established

by

WMII

in

1976

and

was

subsequently

expanded in

1982

and

1988.

(Complaint, ¶2.)

The entire

Woodland Landfill

is

located on

213

acres of

property

and

is

owned

by

WMII

(“Woodland

Landfill

Site”).

(Complaint,

¶2).

The

Woodland

Landfill

waste

footprint

was

initially

permitted

for

55

acres

by

the

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency

(“IEPA”)

in

1976

(“Woodland

I”).

(Complaint,

¶2).

The

waste

footprint

was

expanded

in

1982

and

permitted for an

additional

48

acres

by

the IEPA

(“Woodland II”).

(Complaint, ¶2).

On

April

7,

1988,

WMII

filed

an

Application

for Site Location

Approval

for

a Non-

Hazardous

Solid

Waste

Management Site

with

the Kane

County

Board to

expand Woodland I

and

II.

(“Woodland

III Application”).

In

April,

1988,

the total

permitted

waste

footprint of

Woodland I and II was

103

acres.

(~

Woodland III Application, Executive Summary).

The

expansion proposed by the Woodland III Application included a vertical expansion of 20 acres of

Woodland II, and a 28-acre horizontal footprint expansion between Woodland I and Woodland II

(“Woodland

III”).

(~

Woodland

III

Application,

Executive

Summary).

The

total

waste

388759.1

2

---

footprint

of the Woodland Landfill,

with

the approval of Woodland III,

was

121

acres

on

the

213-acre site.

~

Woodland III Application, Executive Summary).

Prior to the local

siting hearing for Woodland III, WMII sent a letter to

the Village dated

July

8,

1988

(“July

8

letter”).

(Complaint, Ex.

1).

In

the July

8

letter, WMII stated that

in

the

event

that

Kane

County

granted

siting

approval

and

the

JEPA

issued

an

operating

permit

for

Woodland III, Woodland III would

be

the last expansion of the Woodland Landfill

that

WMII

would

attempt

to get approved.

(Complaint, Ex.

1).

At

the

public

hearing

held

on

July

26,

1988,

WMII

made

certain

representations,

including the statements contained in the July

8

letter, which

were read into the record by WMII

attorney Donald

Moran.

(Complaint, ¶8).

However, the

July

8

letter contained no

statements,

representations or references to any end use for the Woodland Landfill Site.

On September

13,

1988, Kane County granted site location approval for the Woodland III

expansion,

subject

to

certain

conditions.

The

Approval

and

conditions

were

contained

in

Resolution 88-155, which provided, in part:

1.

For

purposes

of

these

conditions,

Waste

Management

means

Waste

Management

of

Illinois,

Inc.

and

any

successor

thereto or assignee thereof.

“Woodland”

or “the Woodland Site”

means

the area

comprised of the Woodland

I,

II,

and

III landfill

sites.

“Village” means the Village of South Elgin, Illinois.

2.

That the site

will

be

developed

and

operated

in

a

manner

consistent

with

the

representations

made at

the public

hearing in

this

matter

held

on

July

26,

1988

and

to

all

applicable

laws,

statutes,

rules

and

regulations

of

the

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency,

and

the

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board,

or

their successors,

as

may

be

now or hereafter

in

effect

and

which

are applicable to this

site.

***

***

***

388759.1

3

---

4.

The site, commonly known

as the Woodland site, shall not

be

expanded further.

(Complaint, Ex.

1).

The statement

in

the July

8

letter,

and

made on

the record at the

July

26,

1988

public

hearing,

that

the

proposed

expansion

of Woodland

III

would

be

the

last

expansion

of

the

Woodland Landfill, was the basis for the inclusion of Condition

4

in Resolution

8

8-155.

On

June

14,

2002,

WMII

filed

with

Kane

County

a

Site

Location

Application

for

Woodland Transfer

Facility (“Transfer Facility Application”).

(Complaint, ¶4).

The Transfer

Facility

Application

requested

site

location

approval

for

a

waste

transfer

facility

on

an

approximate

9-acre

portion

at

the

southern

end

of

the

Woodland

Landfill

Site

(“Woodland

Transfer Facility”).

(Complaint, ¶4).

The Transfer Facility Application did not

seek

to

expand

the Woodland Landfill, i.e., Woodland I, II or III.

An expansion

of a

landfill involves the increase

of disposal

capacity through

a

vertical

and/or horizontal extension of the waste footprint in order to extend the period the landfill

would

continue to receive and dispose of waste.

An expansion may also involve the lateral extension of

the

landfill property

boundaries.

Because the Transfer Facility

Application did

not

request

an

increase in

the size, capacity or waste footprint of Woodland I, II, or III, it

was not

a request to

further expand the Woodland Landfill.

The Transfer Facility Application was ultimately denied by

Kane

County

on

December

10,

2002

for reasons

unrelated

to

any

of the

conditions

contained

in

Resolution

88-155.

On

January 14, 2003, WMII filed a Petition for Review

with the IPCB pursuant to

Section 40.1(a) of

the Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Act (“Act”).

On June

19,

2003,

the IPCB

affirmed

Kane

County’s

denial in

a written decision in

Waste Management of Illinois,

Inc.

v.

County Board of

388759.1

4

---

i(ane County, Illinois, No. PCB 03-104, slip op.

(June 19, 2003).

No appeal of that decision was

filed.

Condition

4 of Resolution

8 8-155 was

based on the statement in

the July

8 letter, which

was represented at the July 26,

1988 public hearing, that “the Woodland site would not be

expanded further.”

Hence, the meaning ofthat

statement in the July

8

letter established the

meaning of Condition 4.

In March 2004,

in

connection with this

enforcement action, the sender and recipient of

the July

8 letter testified at depositions concerning the meaning of the statement that “the

Woodland site would not be expanded further.”

On March

16, 2004,

Mr. Donald Price, the

WMII vice president who signed the July 8th

letter, stated that the waste footprint of Woodland

III was configured to

allow for the possible future

development of a transfer station on a portion

ofthe Woodland Site.

(Price Tr. at 19-24)’.

By excluding an area on the southern portion of the

Woodland Site from the expanded waste footprint of Woodland III, WMII intended to permit the

development of a transfer station.

(Price Tr.

at 21-24).

Thus, Mr. Price did not intend or state in

the July

8

letter that the agreement not to expand the Woodland Landfill Site a third time was an

agreement not to develop a waste transfer station.

The testimony of Mr. Thomas Rolando, who was the mayor of the Village of South Elgin

in

1988, at his March

19, 2004 deposition confirmed that meaning.

His discussion with the

Village Board established that the understanding of WMIJ’s

statement was that WMII would not

ask again to operate

a

landfill at the Woodland site.

(“Rolando Tr. at

27~)2.

He acknowledged

The deposition

transcript of Donald Price

will

be cited

to

herein

as

“(Price Tr.

at

).“

The

Price Deposition Transcript is attached as Exhibit A.

2

The deposition transcript of Thomas S. Rolando will be cited to herein as “(Rolando Tr.

at

_).“

The Rolando Deposition Transcript is attached as Exhibit B.

388759.1

5

---

that the plain language of the July

8

letter stated that WMII would agree

to no more expansions

of the Woodland Landfill

site.

(Rolando Tr. at 39-40).

There was no reference in

the July

8

letter to

any agreement not to develop a transfer station

on

the Woodland site.

(Rolando Tr.

at

3 8-39).

Indeed, as the matter was never raised, neither Mr. Rolando nor the Village Council

understood that WMII’s agreeing not to further expand the Woodland landfill included an

agreement not to develop a waste transfer station.

(Rolando Tr. at 40-41,

59-60).

In accordance with Condition 4, WMJI has not sought a further expansion of the

Woodland Landfill site.

(Rolando Tr.

at 44-45).

Condition 4

does not prohibit WMII from

seeking to develop a waste transfer station on the Woodland Site.

Thus, a request for site

location approval of a

waste transfer station on the Woodland Site does not violate Condition 4.

UNDISPUTED

FACTS

1.

Woodland Sanitary Landfill was initially permitted for a 55-acre waste footprint

on

a

213-acre site by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency in

1976

(“Woodland I”).

(Complaint, ¶2).

2.

The waste

footprint was permitted for an additional

48 acres within the 213-acre

site by the Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency in

1982 (“Woodland II”).

(Complaint, ¶2).

3.

On April 7,

1988, WMII filed an Application for Site Location Approval for a

Non-Hazardous Solid Waste Management Site with the Kane County Board to expand

Woodland I and II (“Woodland III”).

4.

Woodland III included a vertical expansion of 20 acres of Woodland II, and

a 28-

acre horizontal expansion of the waste footprint between Woodland I and Woodland II, within

the 213-acre site.

388759.1

6

---

5.

The total

waste footprint of the Woodland Sanitary Landfill, with

the approval of

Woodland III, was

121

acres on

the 213-acre site.

6.

WMII had communications with the Village of South Elgin

in

1987

and 1988

concerning Woodland III.

(Price Tr. at

16; Rolando Tr.

at 23-29).

7.

The principal concern expressed by the Village of South Elgin

concerning

Woodland III related to the possible danger to

the Village water supply and the potential threat of

groundwater contamination.

(Rolando Tr.

at 24-25).

8.

Based upon its discussions with the Village of South Elgin

in

1987 and 1988,

WMII sent a letter to the Village dated July 8,

1988.

(Complaint, Ex.

1; Rolando Tr.

at 43).

9.

The July 8

letter stated a number ofconditions that WIV11I would

agree to in the

event the Kane County Board granted site location approval and the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency issued an operating permit for Woodland III.

(Complaint, Ex.

1)

10.

The July

8 letter included conditions that would obligate WMII to

(1) advance

remediation costs in

the event the two closest municipal wells were

contaminated, (2) extend the

existing groundwater monitoring program to include quarterly sampling and analysis for 31

volatile organic parameters,

and (3) allow the Village to obtain groundwater samples from any

monitoring well at any time and inspect any phase of landfill construction.

(Complaint, Ex.

1).

11.

The July

8 letter included

a condition that Woodland III “will be

the last

expansion that we will attempt

to do on this site which is commonly known as the Woodland

Landfill site.”

(Complaint, Ex.

1).

12.

The public

hearing on the site location approval application for Woodland III was

held by the Kane County Board on July 26,

1988.

(Complaint, ¶8).

388759.1

7

---

13.

The July

8

letter was read into the record by WMII at the July 26 public

hearing.

(Complaint, ¶8).

14.

Paragraph three of the July

8 letter was presented at the public hearing as follows:

“Waste Management of Illinois, Inc.,

agrees and stipulates that this

expansion will

be the last

expansion

that we will attempt

to do on this site which is commonly known as the Woodland

Landfill site.”

(Complaint, Ex. 5).

15.

On September

13,

1988 the Kane

County Board granted site location approval for

Woodland III in

its Findings

and Order, Kane County Resolution No. 88-155.

(“September 13

Order”).

(Complaint, Ex.

1).

16.

In the September

13 Order, the Kane County Board incorporated conditions based

upon the statements presented in the July

8 letter.

(Complaint, Ex.

1).

17.

Condition

4 of the September

13 Order provided that “(t)he site, commonly

known as the Woodland site, shall not be expanded further.”

(Complaint, Ex.

1).

18.

The September

13

Order defined the “Woodland Site”

as

“the area comprised of

the Woodland I, II and III landfill sites.”

(Complaint, Ex.

1).

19.

Condition 4 of the September

13 Order provides that the Woodland I, II and III

landfill

sites shall not be expanded further.

(Complaint, Ex.

1).

20.

Condition 4

of the September 13 Order contains no

language or provisions that

refer to the development of a waste transfer station on the Woodland site.

21.

Condition

4

of the September

13 Order contains no language or provisions that

prohibit the development of a waste transfer station on

the Woodland site.

22.

A sanitary landfill

is defined in the Illinois Environmental Protection Act.

415 ILCS 5/3.445

(2000).

388759.1

8

---

23.

A waste transfer station is defined in the Illinois Environmental Protection Act.

415 ILCS 5/3.500

(2000).

24.

A sanitary landfill is not

the same activity as a

waste transfer station.

415 ILCS

5/3.445, 3.500 (2000).

25.

The expansion of a landfill is not equivalent to the development of a waste

transfer station.

26.

The prohibition of any further Woodland landfill expansion in Condition

4 of the

September 13 Order is not a prohibition of the development of a waste transfer station on the

Woodland site.

ARGUMENT

Summaryjudgment is

appropriate when the pleadings, depositions, affidavits and other

items

in the record disclose no genuine issue

ofmaterial fact and the moving party is entitled

to

judgment as

a matter of law.

Dowd & Dowd, Ltd. v.

Gleason,

181

III. 2d 460, 483,

693 N.E.2d

358, 370 (1998); People

v. Jersey Sanitation Corporation, No. PCB 97-2, 2002 III. Env. LEXIS

197 (April 4, 2002).

There are no disputed issues of fact regarding the meaning ofCondition

4

of Resolution

88-155.

Based on the clear and unambiguous language of Condition 4, WMII is

prohibited only from seeking further expansion of the Woodland Landfill, not from seeking to

develop a waste transfer station.

The parties to the July

8 letter confirmed that they did not

intend the prohibition of further expansions of the Woodland Landfill to

apply in

any way to the

development of a waste transfer station on the Woodland Landfill Site.

Moreover, pursuant to

the Act, developing a waste transfer station is

a separate and distinct activity from expanding a

sanitary landfill.

Therefore, WMII’s attempt

to site a waste

transfer station

does not constitute a

388759.1

9

---

violation ofCondition 4, or any other condition contained in Resolution

88-155.

Based on the

undisputed facts ofthis case, Wivill is

entitled to summaryjudgment as a matter oflaw.

I.

The Clear and Unambiguous Language ofCondition 4 Prohibits Only the Further

Expansion ofWoodland Landfill, not the Development ofa Waste Transfer

Station

The language in

Condition

4

should

be reviewed so as to

determine and

give effect to

the intentions of the parties.

See ~

In re Marriage ofHasabnis, 322 Ill. App. 3d 582,

594-95,

749

N.E.2d

448,

458

(1st

Dist.

2001)

(the

rules

of statutory

construction

require

that

the

legislature’s

intent

be

given

effect).

The

most

reliable

indicator

of intent

is

the

plain

and

ordinary meaning of the language to be interpreted.

Id.

Therefore,

every word in Condition

4

should

be

given

a

reasonable

meaning

within

the

context of the

other

related conditions

in

Resolution

88-155.

Id.

Condition

4

states:

“The

site,

commonly

known

as

the

Woodland

site,

shall

not

be

expanded further.”

Condition

1

defines the term “Woodland site” as “the area comprised ofthe

Woodland I, II, and III landfill sites.”

Thus, the plain and unambiguous language ofCondition

1

and 4 of Resolution 88-155 clearly states that the only limitation placed on WMII with respect to

the Woodland Landfill concerns the furtherexpansion ofthe sanitary landfill.

Mr. Price and Mr. Rolando testified that the plain language used therein, and later made

into Condition 4, was a true indicator oftheir intent.

In stating that WIvIII was prohibited from

seeking further expansions ofthe Woodland Landfill, Mr. Price and Mr. Rolando did not intend

for that prohibition to apply in any way to the development ofa waste transfer station.

In light ofthe plain language ofCondition 4, in conjunction with the testimony ofMr.

Price and Mr. Rolando, there are no disputed issues offact regarding the meaning ofCondition

388759.1

10

---

4.

The facts show that Condition

4 prohibits any further expansion ofthe Woodland Landfill,

but does not contain any prohibitions with respect to the development of a waste transfer station.

II.

A Landfill Expansion is Distinct from the Development of a Waste Transfer

Station as a Matter ofLaw

The Village

erroneously contends in this action that WMII’s attempt to

site the Woodland

Transfer Facility equates to

an expansion ofthe Woodland Landfill.

However, a waste transfer

station

and

a

sanitary landfill

are not

treated synonymously

under the Act.

Rather,

a transfer

station

is

a

fundamentally

different

activity

than

a

landfill.

See

415

ILCS

5/3.445

(sanitary

landfill) and

5/3.500

(transfer station).

Likewise, the development of a waste transfer station does not constitute an expansion of

an

existing

landfill.

The Act

defines

an

“expansion”

as

the

area

“beyond the

boundary

of a

currently

permitted”

sanitary

landfill.

415

ILCS

5/3.330(b)(2).

As

such,

an

expansion

of a

landfill involves the increase of disposal capacity through a vertical

and/or horizontal extension

of the waste

footprint

in order

to

extend the period the

landfill would

continue to

receive

and

dispose

of waste.

An expansion may

also

involve

the lateral extension of the landfill property

boundaries.

In other words,

an expansion

is

an increase

in the

size or disposal

capacity of an

existing landfill facility.

M.I.G.

Investments, Inc.

v. EPA,

122 Ill. 2d

392,

523

N.E.2d

1

(1988)

(expansion

not

limited

to

lateral

expansion,

but

includes

vertical

expansion,

of

currently

permitted facility).

WJvIII

attempted to

site a waste transfer station

on an approximate 9-acre portion of the

Woodland Landfill Site that is

separate and apart from the

121-acre waste footprint on which the

landfill was operated.

While Condition

4 of Resolution

88-155

prohibits the further expansion of

the

Woodland

Landfill,

it

does

not

prohibit

the

development

of

a

transfer

station

on

the

Woodland Landfill Site.

Because the Transfer Facility Application did not request an increase in

388759.1

11

---

the

size, capacity

or waste

footprint of Woodland

I, II,

or III, it was not

a

request to

further

expand the Woodland Landfill.

Therefore,

WMII’s attempt to

site a waste transfer station on a

parcel ofland apart from the actual Woodland Landfill cannot constitute a violation of Condition

4 ofResolution

88-155.

CONCLUSION

For all ofthe foregoing reasons, Respondent Waste Management ofIllinois, Inc. requests

the entry of summaryjudgment in its favor and against Petitioner Village of South Elgin,

and for

any further relief in its favor that this IPCB deems fair and equitable.

Respectfully submitted,

By:

Donald J. Moran

LaurenBlair

Pedersen & Houpt, P.C.

161 N. Clark Street

Suite 3100

Chicago, Illinois 60601

(312) 641-6888

OF ILLINOIS, INC.

One ofIts A

orneys

388759.1

12

---

---

Multi-PageTM

Village of S.

Elgin

v.

Waste Mgmt. of IL.

1

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS

POLLUTION CoNT1~5~

2

VILLAGE OF SOUT)H ELGIN,

)

3

Complainant,

~

)

4

vs.

‘)No.

PCB 03-106

5

~STE

MANAGErVIE~4T

OF ILLINOIS,)

Respondent.

)

)

9

The

deposition ofDONALD

PRICE,

10 taken before

Maryann Cherry,

Certified Shorthand

11 Reporter, Registered

Professional Reporter, and

12 Notary Public, pursuant to the provisions of the

13

Rules ofCivil Procedure ofthe

State ofIllinois

14 and the Rules ofthe Supreme

Court thereof

15

pertaining to the taking of depositions for the

16 purpose of discovery at 215 Fulton Street,

17

Geneva, Illinois,

commencing

at the hour of 11:26

18 o’clock a.m.

on

the

16th day of March,

A.D. 2004.

APPEARANCES:

MORAN

60601-32244

-FAX

On behalfof the Plaintiff;

G~NK,

DIAMOND,

~RKE

J

PRICE

earDorn Street

60603

-FAX

On

behalf ofthe Defendant.

Page 2

BUSH,

DiCIANNI

Donald Price 03/16/2004

Page

3

EXAMINATION

04

-

34

MARKED FOR

ID

Deposition

Exhibit

8

DONALD PRICE,

11

14

16

17

25

27

28

24

30

30

Page 4

3

called

as a witness

herein, having

been first

4

duly sworn,

was

examined and testified as

5

follows:

EXAMINATION

7

BY MR.

PRICE:

8

Q.

Let the record reflect this is

the

9

deposition ofDon Price pursuant to

agreement of

10

counsel in the Pollution Control Board

11

Proceedings 03-106,

Village ofSouth

Elgin,

12

Complainant,

versus Waste Management of Illinois,

13

the Respondent.

14

Mr.

Price,

my name is Derke Price.

15

I am the attorney for the Village

of South

Elgin.

16

I don’t have too

many questions,

but I

17

have some

questions related to the

1988

Woodland

18

III

Expansion and

about the transfer

station.

19

BY MR. PRICE:

20

Q.

First,

would you state your name and

21

give me your current

address?

22

A.

Donald Price, Three Camelot Drive,

23

Oak

Brook,

Illinois.

are you currently employed?

Page

1

-

Page

4

8

~DARD

INDEX

2

WITNESS

3

DONALD

PRICE

4

By Mr.

Moran

5

6

7

8

9

EXHIBITS

19

20

21

22

23

24

10

NUMBER

13

Donald Price

14

No.1

15

No.2

16

No.3

17

No.4

18

No.5

19

No.6

20

No.7

21

No.8

22

No.9

23

No.

10

24

No.

11

1

WHEREUPON:

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

DS Reporting Service

(312)454-6141

~‘

niDli

---

Village of S. Elgin v.

Waste Mgmt. of IL.

TM

Multi-Page

Donald Price 03/16/2004

I

A.

Retired.

2

Q.

You’re retired most recently from whom?

3

A.

Waste Management.

4

Q.

Of Illinois,

Inc.?

5

A.

Yes.

Q.

Briefly, I want to just review your

background.

When did

you retire froip Waste

Management?

A.

1993.

Q.

And from what position did you retire?

A.

I was

Management.

Q.

To whom did you

report before your

retirement?

A.

I’m trying to think.

A lot ofthings

were going on at that date, Phil Rooney.

Q.

And

since your retirement, have you done

any consulting

work for

Waste Management?

A.

No.

Q.

What’s the highest level of education

you’ve achieved;

do you have

a master’s or

doctorate or anything?

A.

No, three-and-a-half years, University

1

of Illinois.

2

Q.

Do you have

a degree of any

kind from

3

them?

4

A.

No.

5

Q.

Would you

trace for

me

your

career with

waste deposal,

waste management industry?

A.

I joined Waste Management in

1970 in

division they had

in

Milwaukee.

It was prior to

the company going public.

When

we went public in

1972.

And

in

acquisitions,

development of businesses

through the 70s.

13

Through the 80s, worked

14

consolidating the industry itselfby whom we

15

bought divisions.

We put them

together and

16

coached and directed how to

run the businesses.

17

Through the 90s became more closely

18

associated to the midwest region

here as a

19

district manager.

And more specific to

this

20

situation here, I became district manager in 1987

21

ofthe Northern Illinois District which included

22

all ofthe businesses in the Chicago Metropolitan

23

area.

24

1

President with the responsibility for seven

2

states.

3

Q.

And

when was the first time you

were

4

ever involved

in

an application

for siting

5

approval ofa pollution

control facility?

6

A.

I can’t remember.

I don’t recall.

7

Q.

I

take it

you’ve done several

before

8

Woodland ifi,

as we

know it?

9

A.

I’m

not sure what your question

is,

10

though.

11

Q.

Well,

I don’t want

to

waste your time

or

12

Don’s time.

13

A.

I understand.

14

Q.

Part of the issue is

the application

15

that Waste Management

submitted

--

strike

that.

16

The

issue

is over

the terms and

17

conditions of

the approval of the Woodland m

Expansion.

When

I refer to Woodland

III,

do

you know

what I’m

referring to?

A.

Q.

That’s the Woodland Landfill

Site

located east of South

Elgin;

would

you agree?

A.

Yes.

1

Q.

And

Woodland

ifi,

is

the

1988

--

or

2

thereabouts

--

expansion of the site?

3

A.

Yes.

4

Q.

And you were involved

in the

application

5

process to the Kane County Board and the Illinois

6

Environmental

Protection Agency for the

7

Woodland

HI

application?

8

A.

I was senior manager ofthe area at the

9

time.

In terms of directly involved,

no.

10

Q.

Let

me backtrack then.

11

1976,

when the Woodland Landfill

12

first opened,

did you have

any responsibilities

13

for

the

Woodland Landfill?

14

A.

No.

15

Q.

In

1982

when what was

commonly referred

16

to as the

Woodland

II

Expansion took place, did

17

you have

any responsibilities for the Woodland

18

Landfill

site?

19

A.

No.

20

Q.

So

1987

was the first time your

area of

21

responsibility included the area that we know as

22

the Woodland Landfill?

23

A.

Yes.

24

Q.

With

regards

to the Woodland

Hi

Page

5

Page 7

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Page 6

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Page

8

DS

Reporting Service (312)454-6141

Page

5

-

Page

8

---

Village of S.

Elgin

v.

Waste Mgmt. of IL.

Multi-Page1M

Donald

Price 03/16/2004

-

Expansion,

let me

mark this as Price Exhibit

1.

It

was produced by Waste Management.

It’s a

three-ring binder called the proposed Woodland

III

Sanitary Landfill.

Have you

seen this

before, the

application?

A.

Idon’trecall.

Q.

Did

you have any role winitsoever in

approving the contents of the application to the

Kane

County Board

for

the Woodland

Ill

Sanitary

Landfill?

A.

In improving the contents?

Q.

Yes.

A.

Of

this

document here?

Q.

Yes.

A.

Well,

I’m trying to fashion it in

that

--

the time, I’m

sure I had knowledge of it,

the focus ofthe goal was.

Q.

Okay.

Did you have

any

final approval

of the engineering designs

and plans contained in

the application?

A.

Again, as a senior

guy,

I

understand

what the concept was.

Q.

Before it was

submitted to Kane County,

did

you read

all of it?

A.

No.

Q.

I

don’t want to be tricky about it.

For example,

there’s a cover letter

in here

dated April 7th,

1988,

that purports to

be from you.

A.

Uh-huh.

Q.

Let me

ask you first of all,

do you

recognize the cover letter dated April

7,

1988,

to Mr.

Frank Miller, Chairman of the Kane

County

Board?

14

A.

It’s

a long time ago.

15

Q.

I grant you that,

sir.

16

4.

I don’t recall specifically.

17

Q.

Do you recognize your

signature

on the

18

document?

19

A.

Yes, uh-huh.

20

Q.

Did you dictate

the letter

or was

that

21

something that was

prepared

for

you by other

22

people at Waste Management

for

your

signature?

23

A.

It was prepared for me.

24

Q.

Do you recall who

prepared it

for you?

Page

11

1

A.

2

Q.

I believe you

said your

position at

the

3

time was senior

manager?

4

A.

Vice

President of the Midwest Region.

5

Q.

As the Vice President of the Midwest

6

Region, what did you do to satisfy yourself

7

before you submitted this application to the Kane

8

County

Board that the contents were fair and

9

accurate and

as the company wanted

themto be?

10

A.

We have

a system of delegation where you

11

presume your people know what the direction

is.

12

And when a document like this comes before you,

13

you presume that it’s as

was discussed.

14

Q.

Mr.

Price,

I’m

going to show

you what’s

15

been

marked for identification as Exhibit

2.

It

16

purports to be

a

November

12th,

1986,

letter on

17

Waste Management letterhead to you from

18

Mr.

Dan Nelson.

I’ll tell you all

the documents

19

I’m going to hand you today

have been

produced

by

20

Waste Management.

Okay?

21

A.

Okay.

22

Q.

In

connection with

this case.

23

First of all,

I know it’s been a

24

long

time, do you

recall seeing

this document

prior to today?

A.

I don’t recall.

Q.

Do you recall who Dan Nelson is?

A.

I think Dan Nelson was an

engineer in

the engineering group at the time.

Q.

In

the letter it states that

he’s

setting forth a schedule for firming

up the

siting application and he says,

quote, the

schedule reflects the

reality ofplanning site

end use with

input from the Kane

County Forest

Preserve District and from the Village ofSouth

Elgin;

do

you

see that?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Do you have a

recollection why you seek

input from the Village ofSouth Elgin

in

1986

about the end use plan?

A.

the time, so certainly I was interested in what

the City has to say.

Q.

When you say the governing body,

you

don’t mean the one

with siting

authority?

This

is a

site located

in the county, correct?

A.

Yes.

Q.So

when you say they

were the governing

Page

12

Page 9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Page

10

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

DS Reporting Service

(312)454-6141

Page

9

-

Page

12

---

Village of S.

Elgin v.

Waste Mgmt. of IL.

Multi-Page1M

Donald Price 03/16/2004

authority,

you mean the neighboring governing

authority?

Page

13

A.

The neighboring

right.

Q.

Why

also

then were

you interested in

input

from

the Kane County

Forest Preserve

on

the

end use plan?

A.

I would think

--

speculate.

what my thoughts were at the time.

to a

Q.

Did you attend any meetings with the

Village of South

Elgin or the Kane

County

Forest

Preserve

where you

asked for their ideas on the

A.

No.

Q.

If you

refer to page

2 ofthe letter,

Mr.

Nelson states in

that

first full

paragraph

there under the dates in

the second sentence the

schedule

reflects

a

middle-of-the-road estimate

of the time this may take.

I’m sorry.

The

The

first ofthese

is the

Page

14

give-and-take which we can expect to happen

in

the end use planning process.

I know I’m asking

youto think back to

‘86.

Do you have

a

recollection of what

the give-and-take that

Mr.

Nelson is

referring to

there

is?

A.

No.

Q.

In the second

full paragraph on page 2

he says the end use ideas currently under

discussion generally involve donating

the

property to

a public

and,

slash,

or environmental

organization upon completion of the landfill,

period.

14

Do you recall

any discussions from

15

the ‘86-’87 time frame about donation of the

16

property to

a public or environmental

17

organization?

18

A.

No.

19

Q.

Is that something that

might have gone

20

to the Kane County Forest Preserve?

21

A.

I have no idea.

22

Q.

Mr. Price,

let me hand you what’s been

23

marked for identification as Exhibit

3.

It

24

purports to be

a September 23,

1987, letter to

Page

15

1

the Honorable

Thomas Rolando,

Mayor of South

2

Elgin,

from John Rohr.

And you’re not shown as a

3

carbon copy recipient or anything.

4

My

first question

is, do you recall

5

ever seeing this document prior

to

today?

6

A.

No.

7

Q.

Did you have

any direct conversations

8

9

application for Woodland

ifi?

10

A.

No.

ii

Q.

Who is

Al

Stob?

12

A.

Al

Stob worked for me with

specific

13

responsibilities for aiding in site development,

14

particularly in the

Chicago suburban area,

15

searching for sites, site expansion, contact with

16

local municipalities,

he

was my conduit.

17

Q.

Did he

report immediately to you?

18

A.

Yes.

19

Q.

Who

is

Bill

Shubert?

20

A.

Bill Shubert is the

region engineering

21

manager.

22

Q.

Did he

have

a

direct reporting

23

relationship to you as

well?

24

A.

Yes.

Page

16

I

Q.

Do you recall

--

you can set the

2

document aside.

Do you recall

any

discussions

3

back

in

‘86-’87 about getting the Village of

4

South

Elgin’s

input

on engineering concerns for

5

the Woodland

ifi

expansion?

6

A.

Well, it just begs the question that we

7

would do that.

So in terms ofa discussion,

I’m

8

sure there was

a discussion

somewhere about it.

9

But

I don’t remember specifically where.

10

Q.

And

for those of us who don’t

do this

11

everyday,

why would Waste Management certainly

12

have a discussion

with South Elgin about

13

engineering ofthe Woodland Landfill?

14

A.

To

get approval on any

site anywhere you

15

have

to get input from the community you’re

16

working with,

so you understand what you’re

17

doing.

18

Q.

Let

me show you

what’s been

marked for

19

identification as Exhibit

4 which purports to

be

20

an October

20th,

‘87, letter again to

21

Mayor Rolando from Mr.

Rohr.

Again,

you’re not

22

shown as

a carbon copy

recipient.

23

The first question is:

Do you

24

recall ever seeing this document prior to today?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

DS

Reporting Service

(312)454-6141

Page

13

-

Page

16

---

Multi-Page1M

Donald Price 03/16/2004

Page

17

1

A.No.

2

Q.

You

can

set it aside

then.

3

Do you recall

any discussion about

4

reimbursing the Village ofSouth

Elgin for

5

engineering costs that

were incurred during the

6

Woodland

ifi

application for engineering

7

purposes?

8

A.

No.

9

Q.

I’m

going

to show you what’s been

marked

10

for identification as Exhibit

5.

11

It purports to be a March

1,

1988,

12

letter to the Woodland

ifi

correspondence file

13

from Bill

Shubert.

14

My first question is this:

Is the

15

Woodland

ifi

correspondence file something that

16

you maintained,

that you reviewed,

as the Vice

17

President?

18

A.

No, I

did

not maintain the file.

19

Q.

Did you ever review the file?

20

A.

No.

We can set that aside then, too.

21

Q.

Do you recall

receiving

any

reports

22

about the substance of the discussions between

23

Waste Management staff and the Village of South

24

Elgin’s engineering firm and its officials

Page

18

1

concerning how Woodland m should be designed?

2

A.

No.

3

Q.

Do you remember

any

discussion prior to

4

the formal filing of the application about a

5

commitment from the Waste Management to do no

6

more expansions of Woodland?

7

A.

No.

8

Q.

In

1988 did Mr.

Stob have authority

on

9

behalf ofWaste Management to agree to

a

10

condition

like

no more expansions of the Woodland

11

Landfill

with

a municipality like

South

Elgin?

12

A.

He would.

13

Q.

Did you attend the public hearing that

14

Kane County Board

held on the Woodland

iii

15

application?

16

A.

No.

17

Q.

When you submitted

the application under

18

your cover letter and signed it,

was

it the

19

intent of Waste Management that the Kane County

20

Board could rely on the representations made in

21

the application?

22

A.

Yes.

23

Q.

Do you have any

recollection of Mr.

Stob

24

discussing with you

the fact that he would be

Page 19

1

sending a letter to Mayor Rolando stipulating

2

that the Woodland

m

Landfill Expansion

would be

3

the last expansion at the site?

4

A.

I don’t recall.

5

Q.

In Price Exhibit

1

let me take you to

--

6

under tab

3 which was in the application for

7

compatibility,

that’s the criterion and take you

8

specifically to the end use plan.

Ifyou want to

9

review

anything else, feel

free to do so.

10

I have

a specific

question which

11

is:

Do

you recall seeing back in the

‘87-’88

12

time frame the end use plan that’s contained in

13

the Exhibit

1

including the diagram on

Page

10?

14

A.

This

is

from ‘88 now, you’re talking

15

about then

or recently?

16

Q.

This is from ‘88.

17

A.

From

‘88?

18

Q.

Yes,

sir.

19

A.

The

only thing I

would have

--

had input

20

on was in terms of the footprint, that we had

21

talked about, was to conserve an

area.

And we

22

talked about it a lot

between

Stob, Shubert,

and

23

myself.

An area

for someday having

a transfer

24

Page 20

And in fact when yOu look at the

2

footprint, if the intent was

to have just a

3

landfill, we wouldn’t incorporate all the way up

4

to the road because then you could

see everywhere

5

we went we incorporated square footage of space

6

for development ofa site to take advantage

of

7

the airspace.

8

Whether that was communicated or

9

not, obviously it wasn’t.

But I

know what the

10

intent was from a region’s

perspective.

11

Q.

What in

the diagram

that you traced with

12

your

finger

indicates

an area that’s being

13

reserved for a transfer station?

14

A.

We kept

--

this

is the entrance area.

15

We thought the logical spot would be

right

in the

16

this area here (indicating).

17

Q.

The area where

there is indicated to be

18

a walking path, would be the

--

19

A.

Well, right now,

is

that a walking path,

20

is

that what that is?

21

Q.

Yeah.

22

A.

Yeah,

this area (indicating).

23

Q.

And so the fact that

there’s a walking

24

path there is an indication

that that was being

DS

Reporting Service

(312)454-6141

Page

17

-

Page 20

---

Page 21

reserved for a transfer station?

A.

All I can tell you is my

direction

and

our

intent was to

--

area where we could

develop a transfer

station in

the

future.

When was the future?

Today

is the

future, I guess.

Q.

Well,

now you

say that that was the

intent ofthe

company,

Waste Management?

A.

Yes.

Q.

that to Mr.

and Mr.

Shubert?

A.

Yes.

Q.

How did you communicate that to

them?

A.

Sitting on the site itself.

specifically

that Bussema was with me, who was

the site manager at the time, Mr.

Stob was there.

have some space down the road

on the site,

this

piece of property, should it become a

get followed through in terms ofthe design and

layout, that’s another matter.

1

Q.

Did

these meetings take place before

2

Woodland

Hi

or after?

3

A.

Before.

4

Q.

And so sometime

between your arrival in

5

‘86 and the

discussions about the end use plan in

6

late

‘86, early ‘87,

you had this discussion

7

where we needed

to keep

a transfer station?

Yes.

Did you document that

in any way?

Page

22

A.

Q.

A.

No.

Q.

Did

anybody

document it to your

knowledge?

A.

I obviously did not, but it doesn’t

appear that way, no.

Q.

And

how many

--

and how

many times did

this discussion

about a transfer station occur?

A.

The only time that I

recall

--

I mean,

clearly

at the site and when we talked

big

really save in

terms of space.

And that was

down the road,

the site will get filled,

there’s

Donald Price 03/16/2004

Page

23

1

a

need for transfer stations in the future.

2

Let’s

save a piece for development ofa transfer

3

site.

4

Q.

And

after that one

meeting, you

5

personally took no steps to

monitor whether

the

6

plan was to

save that space?

7

A.

Right, yes.

8

Now, it doesn’t say

--

I

don’t

9

recall that this thing came before me and

10

somebody laid this out and said,

oh, okay, we’ve

11

got this,

this is virgin here,

right

guys,

we

can

12

do something there, not

taking

into consideration

13

what the path, if that is

a path, whatever

it is.

14

I’mjust sharing with you.

I don’t

15

recall that portion,

but I’m sure we looked

at it

16

to make sure.

17

Q.

Do you recall any conversations

about

18

the role of the Kane

County

Forest Preserve after

19

the landfill was

full?

20

A.

No.

21

Q.

Now, you traced the entire

boundary of

22

the

site

to take

advantage ofthe airspace?

23

A.

Uh-huh.

24

Q.

Exactly how does that

work, how does

Page 24

that relate to airspace?

A.

You can

see the sloped contours, it

goes

right into

the

corner, the contour lane, we

pick

up every foot that came right up to the

borderline to

capture all

Q.

Why is

that important?

A.

That’s revenue,

that’s airspace for future disposal, for current

disposal.

Q.

And

the black boundary

that goes all

around the site

boundary,

what does that

mean?

A.

You can’t go

beyond that boundary to

bury

refuse.

Q.

And the end use plan refers

to the site,

was defined by

the site boundary,

true?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Let me show

you what’s been

marked for

identification

as Price Exhibit 9

and

let

me ask

you if it’s directed to Mr.

Shubert from

Mr.

Bauer with

a copy to Tom Rolando.

And then

it

says, from Waste Management files,

Al

Stob and

Gerard Hamblin.

Have you ever seen this

document

prior to today?

Village

of S.

Elgin v.

Waste

Mgmt.

of IL.

Multi-PageTM

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

r

DS Reporting Service

(312)454-6141

Page 21

-

Page 24

---

Page 25

A.

No.

Q.

Did

Mr. Stob ever discuss with you the

fact that his negotiations with Baxter,

Woodman,

and Tom Rolando included sending

a letter stating

that the Woodland m landfill space would be the

last expansion of this site and remaining

contiguous lands

owned by Waste Management would

not be used for

future

expansions?

A.No.

10

MR.

PRICE:

What

did I mark that,

9?

11

THE

WITNESS:

9.

12

BY

MR. PRICE:

13

Q.

This is marked as Exhibit 6,

the

14

July 8th,

1988,

letter from you to Mr.

Rolando.

Uh-huh.

Did you write this or was it prepared

A.

It

was prepared for me.

Q.

By whom?

A.

I would

think

this would

come out ofthe

engineering department.

Q.

Mr.

Stob?

A.

No.

24

Q.

Mr. Shubert?

A.

Probably Mr. Shubert.

Q.

And does it bear your signature?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Why did you sign

it?

A.

As the lead guy

in the region,

I’m the

guy

responsible.

Q.

Did you

review it before you signed

it?

A.

I’msureldid.

Q.

Did you

understand the letter was

going

to be committed to the Kane County Board?

A.

Yes.

Oh,

to the

Kane

County

Board?

Q.

Yes,

the person with siting authority

reviewing

the application.

A.

I presumed it would be, yes.

Q.

Did you consider it accurate when you

I presumed it was accurate, yeah.

Did you

think it

was misleading

A.

Did

I think it was misleading?

Q.

Yes.

Did you think

the letter

misleading

when you signed it?

A.

No.

24

Q.

Did

you think

the letter was

unclear

1

when you signed it?

2

A.NO.

3

Q.

Did you think

the letter was ambiguous

4

when you signed it?

5

A.

No.

6

Q.

Was

it your free and

voluntary act to

sign

it?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Prior to signing

it,

did you

call

Mr.

Shubert or Mr.

Stob and make any inquiries

about

any

ofthe terms

in the letter?

12

A.

No.

13

Q.

Did you discuss it with anyone?

14

A.

No.

15

Q.

Let me show you what’s been marked for

16

identification as Price Exhibit 7.

It’s the

17

July

8th,

1988, letter to Mr.

Miller,

Chairman of

18

the Kane County Board from Mayor Tom Rolando.

19

Do you recall

seeing this letter

20

prior to today?

A.

No.

Q.

You can set

it

aside if you want.

Do you recall that South Elgin

was

also going to submit

a

letter indicating to

the

1

Kane County Board pursuant to the terms of the

2

July

8 letter they were not going to oppose the

3

application for Woodland

HI?

4

A.

Could I get the question again?

5

MR. PRICE:

Would you read it back?

6

(Record read as

requested.)

THE WITNESS:

I don’t recall it

9

specifically.

10

BYMR.

PRICE:

11

Q.

Do you recall any discussions with

12

anyone about the obligation of South Elgin

to

13

reimburse Waste Management for remediation costs

14

if the contamination ofthe wells turned out

not

15

to

be the fault of the landfill or Waste

16

Management?

17

A.

No.

18

Q.

Let me

show you Price

Exhibit

8.

This

19

is how it’s

assembled in the Waste Management

20

production.

The first two pages are your letter

21

which says entered 9-18-88, page two of

22

Exhibit 2.

And then

attached to it,

Resolution

23

No.

88155,

that’s grant and approval of the

24

Woodland

In

application.

Village of S. Elgin v. Waste

Mgmt. of IL.

Multi-Page1M

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Donald Price 03/16/2004

Page 27

7

8

9

10

11

A.

Q.

for you?

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

21

22

23

24

Page

26

I

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

Page

28

7

8

16

signed

it?

17

A.

18

Q.

19

way?

20

21

22

23

DS Reporting Service

(312)454-6141

Page 25

-

Page 28

---

Village of S. Elgin v. Waste

Mgmt.

of IL.

Multi-PageTM

Donald Price 03/16/2004

Page 29

1

Have you ever seen this before

2

today?

3

A.

No,

4

Q.

Do you have an independent recollection

5

that the

siting ofthe Waste Management

6

application for Woodland

ifi

before the Kane

7

County Board was approved?

8

A.

Yes.

9

Q.

So the siting ofthe application

was

10

successful?

11

A.

Yes.

12

Q.

And

did you get

an

operating permit from

13

IEPA?

14

A.

Yes.

15

Q.

Were you aware

that Kane County approval

16

came with certain conditions?

17

A.

Was

I aware?

18

Q.

Yes.

19

A.

All siting

applications

come with

20

conditions,

so yes.

21

Q.

And particularly this approval came with

22

conditions, yes?

23

A.

All siting

applications

come with

24

conditions.

Page 31

I

Waste Management to us.

I didn’t want to change

2

that.

It was all

stapled together.

There are•

3

various minutes ofthe Village of South

Elgin.

4

The first page

is January

3,

1989; the second

5

page

is from January 4,

1988; the third page is

6

from

February

15th,

1988; the next page

IS

front

7

March

7th,

1988;

the next page is from

8

April

18th,

‘88;

the next page is May 2nd,

1988;

9

the page

following

is from June 20th,

1988;

then

10

July 5th,

1988; December

19,

‘88;

and then

ii

March

16th,

1987; October 5th,

1987.

12

Sir,

do you ever recall

looking at

13

the minutes from the Village

of South Elgin

14

during your time as the Vice President in charge

15

of the midwest region?

16

A.

No.

17

Q.

Do you

know

how it is that Waste

18

Management comes to have copies of the minutes in

19

its file?

20

A.

No, I don’t.

21

Q.

Were you aware of any procedure or

22

policy or rule or

operating procedure

at Waste

23

Management where

it was retained to get copies of

24

the minuteS from

any governmental

authority

that

Page

30

1

Q.

I’m interested in the approval, not the

2

application.

3

A.

Yeah, there were conditions under all

4

approvals, too.

5

Q.

Did

you

seek to

contest any of the

6

conditions put in place by

the Kane County Board

7

on their approval of Woodland ifi?

8

A.

No.

9

Q.

Let me

show you what’s been

marked for

10

identification as Price Exhibit ifi.

It’s a

ii

December

12th,

1988,

letter to a Mr.

William

12

Child at the

IEPA

from Chris Rubak.

Again,

13

you’re not shown as a

CC.

Butlet me ask you

if

14

you’ve ever seen this document prior to today?

15

A.

No.

16

Q.

Do you recall any

--

independent of the

17

documents, do

you recall anything happening

near

18

the

end of ‘88 where somebody wanted

a public

19

hearing on the Woodland

HI

permit application

20

before the

IEPA?

21

A.

No, I don’t.

22

Q.

Last but not least,

I want to show

you

23

Price Exhibit

11,

which is a group exhibit.

24

This is how

it was

produced by

Page 32

1

you were working with or before

on

an

2

application?

3

A.

No.

4

Q.

We saw earlier in the exhibits,

sir,

a

5

time line put together

by

Mr.

Nelson about how

6

things would

go

in getting the application ready

7

and submitting

it.

8

Was there a team that was part

of

9

this process for developing the application and

10

putting

it in that report to you at Waste

11

Management?

12

A.

Bill Shubert was the manager of

13

engineering and

Dan Nelson reported to Shubert.

14

John Rohr reported to Shubert.

Any engineers

15

involved reported back through Shubert.

16

Q.

How often did you have a meeting with

17

the people

working and reporting to you about the

18

Woodland Ill

application?

19

A.

We would have monthly operating reviews

20

for all the divisions at that time.

And

in

21

preparation for

that,

we would discuss each

22

operation and each

facility,

each site,

in terms

23

of what was going on, volumes,

business revenues.

24

Those sites where we had expansions

DS Reporting Service

(312)454-6141

Page 29

-

Page

32

---

Village

of S. Elgin v.

Waste Mgmt. ofIL.

Page 33

1

going on, we would once

a month review or add on

2

expansions,

how is it going,

permits have been

3

applied

for,

contacts going.

So we would get

4

input

every

month.

5

Q.

Were reports prepared in advance of that

6

meeting?

22

23

24

A.

No.

Q.

Was there any routine way for

Mr.

Stob

--

and we’ll start with him, for

Mr.

Stob

to share with you

his discussions,

correspondence that he was receiving

on

Woodland ifi?

A.

No.

Ours was all verbal.

He’d spend

time

with

me each month, or more than that, and

talk

about

what the progress was on each

project

he

was involved in.

I was

not a

guy

that wrote a

lot at all.

So it was just verbalized in terms

ofwhat activities he was involved in.

Q.

What about Mr.

Shubert, did he prepare

any

sort of written report to you monthly?

A.

No,

we

didn’t

have any formalized

reporting system from the engineering department

up through

--

because

our

focus continued to be

on the business side of the region.

Page 34

Q.

Who

was Gerard Hamblin?

A.

Gerard worked

for Bill Shubert.

He also

was an engineer.

Q.

Do you know where Stob

is today?

A.

He’s probably in Heaven.

Q.

Oh,

really?

A.

Yeah.

Q.

Well, I’m sorry to hear that.

A.

That’s all

right.

MR.

PRICE:

That’s

all

I have.

Thank

MR. MORAN:

I

have no

questions.

We’ll take a look at the

transcript.

You

can send it over to us.

Reserved.

Thank you.

MR. PRICE:

Before we get off the

record,

I’ll

give you

the original

Exhibits

2

through

11.

But I’m keeping No.

1

because it’s

the binder.

MR. MORAN:

Sure,

no

problem.

AND

FURTHER DEPONENT SAITH NOT...

I

BEFORE TUE

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

2

VILLAGE OF

SOUTH ELGIN,

3

Complainant,

)

4

vs.

)

No.

PCB

03-106

5

WASTE

MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS,)

INC.,

)

6

)

Respondent.

)

7

___________)

8

I, DONALD PRICE,

being

first duly

sworn,

9

on oath, say that

I am the deponent

in

the

10

aforesaid

deposition,

that

I have

read the

11

foregoing

transcript of my

deposition taken

March

12

16,

2004,

consisting of Pages

1

through 35,

13

inclusive, taken at the aforesaid

time

and

place

14

and

that

the foregoing

is a true

and

correct

15

transcript of my

testimony so

given.

16

17

DONALD

PRICE

18

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORNTO

19

before me

this

day

of

20

A.D., 2004.

21

Notary

Public

22

23

STATE OF ILLINOIS

)

SS:

24

COUNTYOFCOOK

)

I,

MARYANN CHERRY,

Certified

Shorthand Reporter, Registered

Professional

Reporter,

and

Notary Public

in and

for the County

of Will,

State of Illinois,

do hereby

certify

that

on the

16th of March, A.D., 2004,

the

deposition of the witness,

DONALD PRICE, called

by the Defendant,

was taken before me,

reported

stenographically and was thereafter reduced to

typewriting through computer-aided transcription.

The said deposition was taken at

the offices of Lannert Group,

215 Fulton Street,

Geneva,

Illinois,

and

there were present Counsel

as previously set forth.

The said

witness,

DONALD

PRICE, was

first

duly sworn to

tell the truth, the whole

truth,

and nothing

but the truth,

and was then

examined upon oral interrogatories.

I

further certify that the

foregoing is a true,

accurate and complete

record

of the questions asked ofand

answers made by

the

said witness,

at the time and place hereinabove

referred to.

The signature of the witness was

not waived by agreement.

Multi-Page1M

Donald Price 03/16/2004

Page 35

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Page 36

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

you,

Sir.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

DS Reporting Service

(312)454-6141

Page

33

-

Page

3.6

---

Village

of S.

Elgin

v.

Waste

Mgmt.

of IL.

Multi-Page1M

Donald

Price 03/1~/2G04

Page

37

1

The undersigned

is not

interested

2

in the

within case, nor of kin or coUnsel to any

3

of the parties.

4

Witness my official

signature and

5

seal as Notary Public,

in and

for Will County,

6

Illinois on this

______

day of

7

_________________,A.D.,2004.

8

9

10

11

MARYANN

CHERRY, C.S.R./RP.R.

12

License No.

084-004252

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

DS Reporting Service

(312)454-6141

Page

37

-

Page 37

---

---

Village

of South

Elgin

v. Waste

Mgmt

Mu1ti-Page~

Thomas J.

Rolando

031191Z004

Page

3

BEFORE

THE

POLLUTION CONTROL

BOARD

INDEX

VILLAGE OF SOUTH ELGIN,

WITNESS

EXAMINATION

THOMAS J.

ROLANDO

4

By Mr. Moran

04

5

6

The deposition

of THOMAS

J.

ROLANDO, taken

before

Diane

L. Stoduiski,

9

Certified Shorthand Reporter,

Registered

10

Professional Reporter, and Notary Public,

11

pursuant to the provisions of the Rules

of

12

EXHIBITS

Civil Procedure of the State of Illinois and

13

NUMBER

the Rules of the Supreme Court thereof

14

THOMAS J.

ROLANDO

Deposition Exhibit

pertaining

to the taking of depositions for

15

NO EXHIBITS

MARSED

the purpose of discovery at 29 North River

16

Street,

Batavia, Illinois,

commencing at the

hour of

10:14 o’clock AM

on the 19th day of

18

March, A.D. 2004.

19

20

21

22

23

24

WHEREUPON:

THOMAS

I.

ROLANDO,

called

as

a witness herein, having been

first

duly

sworn, was examined upon oral

interrogatories and

testified

as follows:

EXAMINATION

BY

MR. MORAN:

Q.

Let the record reflect that this is

the deposition of Mr.

Thomas Rolando.

This

deposition

is being taken pursuant to the

Illinois

Code of Civil

Procedure,

the

Illinois

Supreme Court Rules, any

appropriate and applicable local rules, and

in connection with the action

filed by

the

Village of South Elgin

against Waste

Management of Illinois

at

PCB

number 03-106.

Mr.

Rolando, good morning.

My

name

is Don Moran, and I represent Waste

Management of Illinois,

Inc.

which

is

the

respondent in the enforcement action that I

havejust referredto.

I’m going to ask you

a number

of questions that relate to

a series of

events that

occurred

quite

a while ago back

Page 1

Complainant,

—vs—

No. PCB

03-106

WASTE

MANAGEMENT

OF

ILLINOIS,

INC.,

Respondent.

1

2

3

2

3

5

6

7

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

MARRED

FOR

ID

Page

A P P E A

P. A N C E 5:

ANCEL,

CLIME,

DIAMOND,

BUSH,

DI

CIANNI

&

ROLEK,

P.C.

BY:

MR.

DERKE J.

PRICE

140 South Dearborn Street

Suite 600

Chicago,

IL

60603

(312) 782—7606

(312(782—0943

(Fax)

On

behalf

of

the

Complainant;

PEDERSEN

&

HOUPT

BY:

.

MR.

DONALD

J.

MORAN

161

North

Clark

Street

Suite

3100

Chicago,

IL

60601—3224

(312)261—2149

(312)261—1149

(Fax)

On behalf of the Respondent.

Page 4

1

2

3

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

10

19

20

21

22

23

24

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

EXHIBIT

Page

1

-

Page 4

DS

Reporting

Service

(312)629-1617

---

Village

ofSouth

Elgin

v.

Waste

Mgmt

Mu1ti-Page’~

Thomas

J. Rolando

031191Z004

in

1987,

‘88.

I will try to

make

my

questions as clear and understandable as

possible, but frequently I don’t succeed.

If there is anything unclear to

you in

a question,

I

will

just ask

that you

request clarification so that we can be sure

that your answers

correspond to the

questions I’m asking;

is that fairenough?

A.

Yes,

sir.

Q.

Could you tell us your full name.

A.

Thomas J. Rolando.

Q.

What

is your address?

A.

510

East State Streàt, South Elgin,

Illinois.

Q.

And how long have you lived there?

A.

42 years.

Q.

Was there a period when you served

as the Mayor of the Village ofSouth Elgin?

A.

Village President for 28 years,

Q.

And for what period were you

President?

A.

‘69 was the first

year

and then 28

years

after that.

MR. PRICE:

‘97?

THE

WITNESS:

Yes, that’s right,

28

years preceding

‘97.

BY MR.

MORAN:

Q.

And you said you

were Village

President?

A.

That’s the same

as

Mayor, different

type ofgovernment.

Q.

Could

you briefly describe for

me

your educational

background just starting

with high school.

A.

I graduated from Downers Grove High

School in

1954.

I graduated from the

University of Wisconsin School ofPharmacy

in

1958.

Q.

And your profession

is a

phannacist?

A.

Phannacist.

Q.

And how

long

have you been a

practicing pharmacist?

A.

Since

1958.

Q.

Now, are you familiar with the

facility that has become to be known

as the

Woodland Landfill or the Woodland Recycling

1

and Disposal Facility?

A.

Yes.

Q.

When did

you first become aware of

that facility?

A.

Well, there’s

a lot of things

involved

there.

There’s

two sites

--

one

owned

by

the Evenhouse family on

Route 25,

one owned by

Tn-County

Landfill, and we got

to

know Waste

Management as

a

result

of that

We had

a suit before the

Pollution Control Board, and they were

ordered closed, an order that was

pretty

much ignored by the landfill people; and so

then Waste Management offered to close the

landfill by capping it to try to

keep

the

leachate from getting in from the outside,

and that’s when we first became acquainted

They finished that site over a

asking if they could enlarge the area to

what is now Woodland Landfill.

Q.

Well,

is

it accurate to say

that

1

the Tn-County Landfill is

separate

and

2

distinct

from what

became

the

Woodland

3

Landfill?

4

A.

Yes.

5

Q.

And the landfill that was

operated

6

by the

Evenhouses, was that

a facility that

7

also was

separate and apart

from

what has

8

come to be known

as the Woodland Landfill?

9

A.

Yes.

10

Q.

And would it be accurateto

say

ii

that the Woodland Landfill commenced

12

operation in 1976?

13

A.

I don’t have that figure in front

14

of me.

I really don’t know when it began.

15

Q.

You

would

not

have any reason

--

16

A.

Ifyou tell me that’s when it was,

17

I believe you.

18

Q.

--

to believe it was

some

other

19

year?

20

MR.

PRICE:

You have to wait for

21

him

to finish his

question, even though you

22

know the answer two thirds of the way

23

through.

Don is being deliberate in his

24

choice of words, and Diane can’t record

two

Page

5

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

Page 7

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

15

16

17

18

19

20

yes.

21

22

23

24

Page 6

Page

8

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

DS Reporting Service (312)629-1617

Page

5

-

Page

8

---

people at once.

THEWITNESS: Thank

you.

BY MR. MORAN:

Q.

You mentioned about some of the

situations

that

arose as a result ofthe

operation ofTn-County and also the

facility that was operated by the

Evenhouses.

Did there come a time when the

Village of South Elgin filed a lawsuit in

connection with the operation of the

Woodland Landfill?

A.

The Woodland Landfill?

Q.

Yes.

The

Woodland Landfill, yes.

A.

I don’t recall filing against the

Woodland

--

well, let’s see.

I would

say we

filed opposition,

I guess, before Kane

County when

it was first proposed, yes, we

did,

not before the Pollution Control Board,

though.

Q.

There was

a Circuit Court action

filed, I believe?

A.

Yes.

That’s probably where it was.

Q.

It was filed against Waste

Management of Illinois,

Inc.; is that

correct?

A.

If that’s

what you say.

I’m going

on memory here.

Q.

And

that lawsuit related to the

operation of one of those two landfills,

either Tn-County or the Evenhouse facility?

A.

Well, there are so many different

landfills here, it is hard for me to

remember.

1970 is when the first two years

in

court

was, and after that it was pretty

much ongoing from then on with somebody

trying

to do

something

at the site.

Q.

Okay.

Did the Village of South

Elgin

prior to

1988 have

any authority or

ability to inspect

any portion

of the

pperation of the Woodland Landfill?

A.

I’m not

sure when they gave us

permission.

I think they gave

us permission

when they first got the permit to go there

because we were opposing

it, and they said

what can we do to try to make you feel

safer?

24

As a

result we got some water

1

monitoring wells installed, the ability to

2

go

there if we told them in

advance, and the

3

water monitoring wells would be monitored

4

quarterly

and the results sent to our

5

Village Engineer who then sent a letter to

6

the South Elgin Village Board.

7

Q.

So was it the Village

Engineer who

8

had the

responsibility

of

basically

9

conducting whatever inspections or

reviews

10

of the operation of the Woodland Landfill on

ii

behalf ofthe

Village?

12

A.

The Village Attorney reviewed the

13

samples that the Woodland

people sent to

14

them.

We

didn’t

have the authority to take

15

samples.

16

Q.

Who was the Village Attorney at

17

that time?

18

A.

Ken Miles.

19

Q.

Is he still the Village Attorney?

20

A.

No.

21

Q.

How long did he serve as Village

22

Attorney?

23

A.

Probably about

35

years maybe.

24

Q.

When

did he cease serving as

Village

Attorney?

A.

1998 or something like that.

Q.

Has that process or did that

process of review of sampling information

from the landfill continue through the

closure of the Woodland Landfill to your

knowledge?

A.

I

think so.

Q.

And

who would have taken over in

1998

when the Village Attorney was replaced?

A.

I wasn’t in office then.

I’m not

really sure.

Q.

Did you have any discussions or

communications with any individuals

regarding

the proposed expansion ofthe

Woodland Landfill that was proposed in

1982?

A.

Well,

there is Woodland I, Woodland

II,

and Woodland m, if I’m not

mistaken.

Which

one

are you

talking

about?

Q.

Woodland

II,

which would have

been

the first expansion that was proposed for

the Woodland Landfill, and that was in

1982.

A.

What was your question again?

Q.

My question was:

Did you have any

Village of South

Elgin

v.

Waste

Mgmt

Multi-Page~

Page 9

Thomas J. Rolando

03/19/2004

Page

11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Page

10

Page

12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

H

DS Reporting Service (312)629-1617

Page9-Pagel2

---

Village

of South

Elgin v.

Waste

Mgmt

Mu1ti-Page~

Thomas J. Rolando

03/19/2001

discussions or conversations

with any

persons regarding Woodland

II?

A.

We talked to everybody that we

could think of who would be on

our

side.

The County who had the authority to issue

the license, we talked to them.

We talked

to the State, got letters from the illinois

Geological

Survey.

So many people

I

couldn’t even begin to tell you how many

people we talked to about the landfills.

Q.

Did you have

any communications or

conversations with anyone from Waste

Management ofIllinois regarding Woodland

II?

A.

I’msurewemusthave.

Idon’t

know if Mr. Izinga was

still the attorney.

He was the attorney in

1970 representing

them.

I don’t know which attorney by name

we would have talked to.

Q.

Would you personally have talked to

anyone from Waste Management in connection

with Woodland

II?

A.

I’m sure.

We were all at meetings

together before the County and different

i

hearings.

There were several hearings held

2

about it.

3

Q.

What

were the concerns that the

4

Village had with respect to the proposal to

5

expand the

Woodland Landfill as Woodland

ii?

6

A.

Because it put

it a little bit more

7

close to the Village’s water supply, and

I

8

guess maybe for the record I should say that

9

the Village

water supply is

113

feet deep,

10

which

is

unheard of in this

part

of the

11

world; and we have drawn billions of gallons

12

out

of that well,

and it hasn’t gone down

13

one

inch.

So that is pretty

strong

concern

14

when they are putting garbage within

100

15

yards of your gravel aquifer.

16

Q.

Has there

been

any evidence or any

17

facts

that you have become aware

of

18

indicating that the

Woodland Landfill,

19

whether it was Woodland as initially built,

20

the first expansion of Woodland, or the

21

second expansion of Woodland,

that have in

22

any way caused any contamination

of the

23

groundwater which is used by

the Village for

24

its

drinking

water supply?

A.

No, not yet.

Q.

Other

than

that concern regarding

the potential or the possible

threat

to

the

groundwater, were there any otherconcerns

discussed by

the Village of South

Elgin with

Waste

Management ofillinois regarding the

proposal to expand Woodland in

Woodland II?

A.

Well, there were several

discussions with Woodland I and Woodland

II

and Woodland

ifi.

They knew that it was

within

our

comprehensive planning area, and

we

did

have some authority

there.

Q.

And were there any other concerns

expressed with respect to Woodland

ii

other

than the possible

threat

to the groundwater?

A.

Well, after our experience with the

Elgin Landfill that the Evenhouses

owned and

Tri-County that the other people owned,

there

were all kinds of concerns.

The smell

was terrible from those places.

There

was

--

the Pollution Control Board record

will tell you

that the water was

contaminated near the sites.

Trees

were

dying.

The waterin

a pond

that was there

1

was an

orangish brown.

Fish had died.

The

2

smell was bad.

The upkeep was bad.

There

3

were papers blowing all oven the highway

and

4

across

the

highway into the

farmers’

fields

5

all over the place.

Yes, we had

a lot of

6

concerns besides the water.

The water was

7

the most important one,

though.

8

Q.

Did Waste Management of Illinois

9

respond to any ofthose concerns?

10

A.

Well,

I think they tried to address

11

all of them.

12

Q.

And were those concerns addressed

13

in any written document

or agreement by

14

which Waste Management of Illinois

would

15

agrec to take certain steps?

16

A.

I

would imagine some

were in there.

17

From memory it seems

like if we could prove

18

that the

wells were polluted because there

19

were private wells around the area, too,

20

that they would pay immediately to restore

21

them;

and then if they could prove that they

22

didn’t do

it, then they would have to be

23

reimbursed.

I

don’t know of any other

24

written

agreements we had.

Page

13

Page 15

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Page

14

Page 16

DS Reporting Service (312)629-1617

Page

13

-

Page

16

---

They

said a lot of things about

2

being better housekeepers and about running

3

a landfill

the

way it should be instead of

4

the way the ones were that were completed in

5

the

Elgin Landfill and Tn-County Landfill.

6

Q.

What was

the size of the Woodland

7

Landfill when it

was initially

developed in

8

1976?

A.

The

three

--

Woodland I,

Woodland

II, and Woodland m

--

the

total

property

was about 297 acres, just from memory.

Q.

Is it

true

at the

time

that

WoodlandLandfill was initially permitted

back in 1976 thatwas the size ofthe

propertyowned by

Waste Management of

Illinois?

A.

Thatwas

--

I think itwas about

297 acres total owned, but the

Woodland I

was only for a small permit.

Q.

So that

at no point after 1976 did

Waste Management ofIllinois, Inc. acquire

any additional properties beyond that

initial site boundary in

order to operate

Woodland Landfill; is that correct?

A.

acres, even though they did not apply for

permits from the beginning.

Q.