ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    April 15, 1999
    SIERRA CLUB, MIDEWIN TALLGRASS
    PRAIRIE ALLIANCE, AUDUBON
    COUNCIL OF ILLINOIS, and ILLINOIS
    AUDUBON SOCIETY,
    Petitioners,
    v.
    WILL COUNTY BOARD and WASTE
    MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.,
    Respondents.
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    PCB 99-136
    (Pollution Control Facility
    Siting Appeal)
    ______________________________________
    LAND AND LAKES COMPANY,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    WILL COUNTY BOARD and WASTE
    MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.,
    Respondents.
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    PCB 99-139
    (Pollution Control Facility
    Siting Appeal)
    ______________________________________
    KATHLEEN KONICKI,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    WILL COUNTY BOARD and WASTE
    MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.,
    Respondents.
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    PCB 99-140
    (Pollution Control Facility
    Siting Appeal)
    (Consolidated)
    ______________________________________

    2
    WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS,
    INC.,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    WILL COUNTY BOARD,
    Respondent.
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    PCB 99-141
    (Pollution Control Facility
    Siting Appeal)
    ORDER OF THE BOARD (by C.A. Manning):
    This matter comes before the Board on four appeals filed pursuant to Section 40.1 of
    the Environmental Protection Act (Act) (40 ILCS 5/40.1 (1996)) challenging a site location
    suitability approval for a pollution control facility granted pursuant to Section 39.2 of the Act
    (415 ILCS 5/39.2 (1996)). Each of the appeals challenges the March 4, 1999 decision of Will
    County (County) to grant siting approval, subject to conditions, for the proposed Prairie View
    Recycling and Disposal Facility (Prairie View RDF). The Prairie View RDF is proposed to be
    operated by Waste Management of Illinois, Inc. (WMII) and to be located on a portion of the
    old Joliet Army Ammunition Plant (Joliet Arsenal) site located in unincorporated Will County.
    Three of these cases are third-party appeals which challenge the grant of the siting
    approval and seek remand or reversal of the siting decision. The fourth appeal is WMII’s
    challenge of one of the conditions to the approval which it seeks to have removed.
    In summary, the Board’s order today accepts each of the appeals as timely filed,
    accepts each for hearing, and consolidates the three third-party appeals for hearing. The Board
    also accepts the WMII matter for hearing and orders that it also be set for hearing. Further, in
    this order, the Board assigns a hearing officer to handle all of these matters in a coordinated
    fashion to the extent practicable.
    CONSOLIDATED THIRD-PARTY APPEALS: PCB 99-136, PCB 99-139, PCB 99-140
    Section 40.1(b) of the Act authorizes a “third party person other than the applicant” to
    appeal a siting approval within 35 days of its granting provided that the person “participated in
    the public hearing conducted by the county board” and “is so located as to be . . . affected by
    the proposed facility” (415 ILCS 4/40.1(b) (1996)). Since the County reached its decision on
    March 4, 1999, a timely appeal is one filed on or before April 8, 1999.
    PCB 99-136: Petitioners Sierra Club
    et al.
    In the first appeal, filed April 6, 1999, the petitioners are the Sierra Club, the Midewin
    Tallgrass Prairie Alliance, the Audubon Council of Illinois, and the Illinois Audubon Society

    3
    (collectively, petitioners or Sierra Club
    et al.
    ). The petition asserts that each of the petitioners
    participated in the public hearing, and that each has members who live in Will County.
    Petitioners contend that the decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence, and
    that the proceedings were fundamentally unfair. The fundamental fairness problems alleged
    include: County decision based on extra-record evidence, biased officials, County inclusion of
    approval conditions which had not been publicly reviewed, application of erroneous legal
    standards, and County reliance on improper factors when approving the application.
    PCB 99-139: Petitioner Land and Lakes
    In the second appeal, filed April 7, 1999, the petitioner is the Land and Lakes
    Company (LALC). LALC asserts that its technical director William Karpas attended multiple
    sessions of the County hearings and participated by asking questions, and that LALC and its
    affiliated companies own and operate several businesses in Will County.
    Petitioner contends, without additional detail, that the decision is against the manifest
    weight of the evidence, and that the proceedings were fundamentally unfair.
    PCB 99-140: Petitioner Kathleen Konicki
    In the third appeal, filed April 8, 1999, the petitioner is Kathleen Konicki. The
    petitioner asserts that she is an attorney who has served as a member of the Will County Board
    for over two years who is petitioning on her own behalf and not on behalf of the County
    Board. Petitioner also asserts that she participated in the public hearings as a member of the
    Board, and that she has resided in Will County for over 10 years.
    The petition raises fundamental fairness and manifest weight issues. The fundamental
    fairness issues appear to be similar to those alleged in the Sierra Club petition; the manifest
    weight challenge relates to criterion two of Section 39.2, particularly concerning evidence of
    hydrogeology and geology.
    Acceptance for Hearing and Consolidation
    The Board finds that each of these cases has been timely filed by persons
    who have met the statutory requirements to file a third-party appeal. Accordingly, each appeal
    is accepted for hearing. Additionally, as each case involves the same issues, respondents and
    burden of proof, these third party appeals are hereby consolidated on the Board’s own motion
    for reasons of administrative economy to the Board and to the parties.

    4
    APPLICANT’S APPEAL
    PCB 99-141: Petitioner Waste Management
    Section 40.1 (a) of the Act authorizes the siting applicant to appeal a denial of siting
    approval within 35 days of the County decision (415 ILCS 4/40.1 (a) 1996). In its April 8,
    1999 petition for review WMII appeals only Special Condition 6 of the approval, which
    provides:
    WMI shall close Wheatland Prairie Landfill,
    i.e
    . shall cease accepting waste and
    initiate final closure activities, no later than April 2001, or the earliest date thereafter
    in which Prairie View RDF is accepting waste for disposal.
    WMII asserts that the condition is not reasonable or necessary to accomplish the purposes of
    Section 39. 2 of the Act, is not supported by the record, and has not been demonstrated to be
    economically reasonable or technically practicable.
    Acceptance for Hearing and Coordinated Handling With Consolidated Cases
    The Board finds that WMII’s petition is timely filed, and accordingly accepts it for
    hearing. While the Board has considered consolidation of this case with the third-party
    appeals, the Board declines to do so at this time. The Board will, however, direct that the
    Clerk of the Board and the assigned hearing officer handle these cases in a coordinated fashion
    to the extent practicable, including for purposes of record maintenance and hearing.
    HEARING, BRIEFING AND DECISION DEADLINE
    The Board hearing officer assigned to all four of these cases is John Knittle, who is
    located in the Board’s Chicago office. After consultation with the parties, Hearing Officer
    Knittle will schedule hearings at a Will County site at a date and time to be announced. At the
    close of hearing, he will enter a briefing schedule for submission of the parties’ closing briefs
    and final remarks. Hearings in the consolidated third-party appeals and in the applicant’s
    appeal may be held consecutively. Hearing and briefing in all cases must be scheduled and
    proceed to allow the Board time to review the record and to render a timely decision as
    required by Section 40.1 of the Act (415 ILCS 5/40.1 (1996)). Section 40.1 requires the
    Board to make its decision within within 120 days of the date of the filing of a petition; the
    statutory decision deadline can be waived pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.105.
    Based on the April 6, 1999 filing date of the first-filed petition of the Sierra Club
    et al.
    PCB 99-136, this Board’s decision in these cases must be made on or before August 4, 1999.
    The parties are advised that the hearing officer is required to schedule hearing and briefing to
    insure that the Board has no less than a full 30 days after arrival of the transcripts and the last
    brief for drafting and deliberation of its decision in this matter.

    5
    PREPARING AND FILING COUNTY RECORD
    Pursuant to Section 40.1(a) of the Act (415 ILCS 5/40.1(a) (1996)), the hearing is to
    be based “exclusively on the record before the county board or governing body of the
    municipality.” The Board accordingly directs the Will County Clerk, to “prepare, bind and
    certify the record on appeal” (see 155 Ill. 2d R. 324) within 21 days of the date of this order,
    i.e
    ., on or before May 6, 1999.
    The record shall contain legible versions of all documents, transcripts, and exhibits
    deemed to pertain to this proceeding from initial filing of the application through and including
    final action by the local government body. The record shall also contain the originals of all
    documents and shall be sequentially numbered, placing the letter “C” before the number of
    such page. In addition to the actual documents which comprise the record, the Will County
    Clerk shall also prepare a document entitled “Certificate of Record on Appeal” which shall be
    an index of the record that lists the documents comprising the record and shows the page
    numbers upon which they start and end.
    Seven copies of the certificate, seven copies of the transcript of the county hearing, and
    three copies of any other documents in the record shall be filed with the Board; a copy of the
    certificate shall be served upon the petitioners in each of these four cases. For purposes of the
    four appeals which are the subject of this order, the County need file only one set of seven
    copies, using the case caption which appears on today’s order.
    Finally, if the record is not legible, sequentially numbered, or fails to include an
    appropriate index of record, the Clerk of the Board may refuse to accept the document for
    filing. For further guidance in preparing and filing the record on appeal, the county may
    contact the Clerk of this Board as well as refer to Illinois Supreme Court Rules 321 through
    324. See 155 Ill. 2d R. 321-324.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, hereby certify that
    the above order was adopted on the _____ day of _________ 1999 by a vote of
    ______________.
    ___________________________________
    Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board

    Back to top