CLI~~

e~fc~

MA~

BEFORE THE

BOAR)

STATE

OF

ILLINOIS

MERLIN KARLOCK,

Pollution

Control

Bc~rd

Plaintiff,

)

VS.

)

No.: PCB

03-1

~

)

COUNTY OF

KANKAKEE,

a body

)

(Pollution Control Facility Siting Appeal)

politic and Corporate;

KANKAKEE

)

COUNTY BOARD; and WASTE

)

MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

TO: See Attached Service List

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE

that

on

February 25, 2003 there caused to be filed via U.S.

Mail with the Illinois

Pollution Control Board an original and

9

copies ofthe following

document, a copy ofwhich is attached hereto:

PETITION FOR

HEARING

TO CONTEST SITE LOCATION APPROVAL

BY:

QJYL~Q

Vfln~O~~u

Attorney f~r

Merlin Karlock

* * * * * * ** * * * * ** ** ** ** * * * ** * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * ** * * ** * * * * * * * * * * **-****

* * * **~***

STATE

OF ILLINOIS

)

)SS.

COUNTY OF LASALLE

)

The undersigned, being first duly sworn, state that I served a true and correct copy of the

foregoing Notice, together with a copy ofeach document referred to therein, upon the person(s)

indicated at their address(es) indicated in the Service List by mailing the same in Ottawa, IL

before the hour of 5:00 p.m. on the

25th

day ofFebruary, 2003.

(i

/1~A)

SUBSCRIBED and SWORN TO

Before Me Tl1i~25thDay of February, 2003.

GEORGE MUELLER, P.C.

~4iLQ

rtcg

-~~ç

Attorney at Law

NOTARY PUBLIC

501 State Street

Ottawa, IL

61350

OFFICIAL SEAL

Phone: (815) 433-4705

GENIA

FOX

NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF ILLINOIS

My Commission

Expires 01-03-2004

)

)

)

---

~~Hi~H~AL

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS ~

ARIJ

STATE

OF

ILLiNOIS

Pollution

Control

Board

MERLIN KARLOCK,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

vs.

)

No.:

PCB

~

)

COUNTY OF

KANKAKEE,

a body

)

(Pollution Control Facility Siting Appeal)

politic and Corporate;

KANKAKEE

)

COUNTY BOARD;

and WASTE

)

MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

PETITION FOR HEARING TO CONTEST SITE LOCATION APPROVAL

Now comes Merlin Karlock by his attorney, George Mueller, P.C., and respectfully

requests a hearing to

contest the decision ofthe Kankakee County Board (hereinafter “County

Board”) granting site location approval for a new regional pollution control facility.

In support

ofthis Petition, Petitioner Karlock states and alleges as follows:

1.

This Petition is filed pursuant to

Section 40.1 ofthe Illinois Environmental Protection

Act, (hereinafter the “Act”) (415 ILCS

5/40.1).

2.

On August 16, 2002, Waste Management of Illinois, Inc., (hereinafter “Waste

Management”) filed an Application with the County Board for a newregional pollution control

facility immediately adjacent to its existing landfill.

3.

On January 31, 2003, following service and publication ofnotice and public hearings

conducted before the County Board, the County Board formally approved the siting request.

A

true and correct copy ofthe decision of the County Board is attached hereto and incorporated

herein as Exhibit A.

---

4.

Petitioner, Merlin Karlock, appeared and participated in the hearings held before the

County Board as an Objector to the request for siting approval.

5.

Merlin Karlock contests and objects to the County Board’s siting approval because the

siting process and procedures used by the County Board in reaching its decision were

fundamentally unfair for the following reasons:

(A)

Members ofthe County Board prejudged the siting application;

(B)

The County Board did not make available to

the public all documents filed

by Waste Management, specifically

all documents as ofthe date of the

filing of the siting application filed with the agency pertaining to

the

proposed facility as required in

Section 39.2 (c) of the Act.

(C)

Procedural irregularities rendered the hearings fundamentally unfair;

(D)

Neither Waste Management nor the County Board complied with the local

siting ordinance requirements;

(E)

There were improper prejudicial ex parte contacts

between the County

Board and

its representatives and Waste Management and its

representatives while the Application was pending;

(F)

The Application was not administratively complete;

(G)

The Application, on its face, failed to

contain sufficient details describing

the proposed facility to demonstrate compliance with the Act;

(H)

The Host Agreement between the County Board and Waste Management

had terminated by operation ofthe terms within the Agreement;

---

(I)

The Application was not properly filed, accompanied by the proper filing

fee, nor was the Application certified by the County Board as being

complete and properly filed.

6.

Petitioner, MerlinKarlock, further contests and objects to the County Board’s siting

approval because the County Board lacked jurisdiction to conduct the siting hearing due to the

failure ofWaste Management to give required statutory notice

as set forth with more

particularity in Section 39.2 (b) ofthe Act.

7.

Petitioner, Merlin Karlock, further contests

and objects to

the County Board’s siting

approval because the approval was against the manifest weight ofthe evidence as to Criteria ii,

iii,

v, and viii as set forth with more particularity in Section 39.2(a) ofthe Act.

WHEREFORE, Merlin Karlockprays that the Board enter an Order:

A.

Setting for hearing this contest of the County Board’s siting decision;

B.

Reversing the County Board’s siting decision; and

C.

For such other and further relief as this Board deems equitable and just.

Respectfully Submitted,

Merlin Karlock,

BY:

~j~jtO~

fl’i~’~QQQoA/

HisO~ttomey

GEORGE MUELLER, P. C.

Attorney at Law

501 State Street

Ottawa, IL

61350

Phone: (815) 433-4705

Fax:

(815) 433-4913

---

KANKAKEE~COUNTY

BOARD

Decision

Reaardinq the

Application

ofWaste Manapement ofillinois. Inc.

For Local

Siting

Approval

olan

Expansion of the

Existing Kankakee

Landfill

Whereas, on

August 16, 2002, Waste Management of

Illinois,

Inc. (WMII)

filed

an

application forlocal siting approval

for

an expansion of

its

existing Kankakee

Landfill;

and

Whereas

public

hearings

have

been

held

on

the

application,

before

Hearing

Officer John

McCarthy,

and

public

comments

filed

or postmarked

by

January 6;

2003

have been

received; and

Whereas

the

Kankakee

County

Regional

Planning

Commission

(KCRPC)

has,

pursuant to the

Kankakee

County Siting Ordinance for Pollution

Control

Facilities (Siting

OrdinanCe),

considered

the

application

and

the

siting

record,

and

has

made findings

and

recommendations to the Kankakee

County

Board (Board); and

Whereas

the

Board has considered the

record

of the

siting

proceeding,

including,

but not

limited

to, the testimony,

exhibits,

and

comment given at the public hearings, the

application, and

the

public comments:

and

Whereas, the

Board

has

also

received

and

considered

the

recommendations àf

the

KCRPC;

and

Whereas

the

Board

has

m~t,in

a

session

open

to

the

public,

to

discuss

and

consider WMII’s application;

Whereas,

pursuant

to

state

statute

(415

ILCS

5/39.2) and

the

Siting

Ordinance,

the

Bo;ard

is

to

determine

compliance

or

noncompliance

with

the

statutory

criteria

of

Section

39.2 of the Environmental Protection

Act:

Jurisdiction

The

Board

finds

that

all

junsdictional

requirements

have

been

satisfied.

Thus,

the

Board has

jurisdiction

to consider WMII’s

Fundamental Fairness

The

Board

finds

that the

proceedings

have

been

conducted

in

a

fundamentally~

fair manner.

EXHIBIT

-

.0

.0

---

Statutory

Criteria

Section

39.2(a)

of

the

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Act

requires

that

an

applicant for local sitIng approval demonstrate compliance with nine criteria.

Whether

the facility

is

necessar~i

to accommodate the waste needs of the area

it

)s intended to

serve.

The

Board finds

that the proposed

facility

is

necessary to

;~ccommodate

the waste needs of the area it

is intended to serve.

2.

Whether the facility is so designed,

located, and proposed to be operated that the

public

health,

safety,

and

wefl’are

will

be

protected.

The

Board

finds

that

the

proposed facility

is

so designed,

located, and proposed

to

be

operated

that the

public

health,

safety,

and

welfare

wilt

be

protected.

However,

that finding

is

based upon the imposition of thefollowing special conditions:

a.

There

shall be

no vertical expansion of the existing facility.

b.

The

lateral

expansion

must

he

considered

a

separate

unit

from

the

existing

landfill,

as

defined

in

35

IIi.Adm.Code

810.103,

and

separate

groundwater

monitoring

networks shall

be

maintained

for the

expansion

and

for the existing landfill.

~

A field verification

must

be

performed

to locate

all private wells,

currently

used

as

a

source

of

potable

water,

located

within

1,000

feet

of

all

boundaries of the property.

d.

Downgradient

monitoring

well

spacing

in

the

uppermost

aquifer

(regardless

of gradient) must

be

provided, where adjacent potable

water

supplyweilsare located in the Dolomite.

e.

The

sand deposits along

the south and

east side

of the property must be

monitored

as potential contaminant migration pathways.

f.

The distance front the waste footprint to the

east property boundary shall

not be less than

1 SQ feet.

g.

An

independent engineer shall

be

on-site to

observe

the

sand

drainage

layer and the initial lilt of waste placed

in any new cell.

The engineer shall

report

directly

to

the

County,

and

shall

have

the

authority

to

stop

placement

of

sand

or

waste

during

this

initial

operation

if

he

or

she

observes any condition that would or could damage the bottom liner.

h.

The

active

face

must

be

kept

at

a

minimum

to

reduce

litter,

vector,

and

odor impacts.

The

active

face

shall

be

a

maximum of

180

feet

by

120

teat,

excepting

the

area

allowed

for

random

inspections,

unless

an

alternative minimum size is specifically approved by the County Board.

i.

Trucks

holding waste

shall not be parked or stored overnight at the facility,

or

staged

on

Route

45/52,

or on

the

right-of-way

outsIde

of the

landfill

facility.

j.

Fencing

is

required

to

prevent

unauthorized

access.

An eight-foot

high

wooden

or

other

view-obstructing,

County

acceptable

fence

shall

be~~

constructed on the east side

of the property

to

help block the

view

of the:

site.

A fence

that

fully

encloses

the

operation

shall

be

constructed to~

2

---

prevent

access

to

the

site

before

landfill

operations

begin

on

the

expansion.

As

cells

are

developed,

the

fence

shall

be

extended

to

encompass thewaste footprint.

k.

Utter control

is an

important consideration.

The landfill

operator shaU pick

up litter on a daily basis

along

Route 45~52

between the landfill

and

the I-

57

interchange,

as well as

at

least one-quarter

mile south of the

landfill

along

Route

45152.

If allowed

by

adjacent

property owners,

the

landfill

operator

shall

remove

any

litter

attributable

to

the

landfill

on

those

adjacent properties

on a weekly basis.

Perimeter picking on site

shall

be

performed daily to

remove litterfrom

trees, fencing, and berms.

Video

recordings of all traffic entering the sitG shall be retained for a period

of

at

least

six

months.

The

County

shall

have

the right

to

review

the

recordings within twodays

of requesting to review a tape.

rn.

Leachate shall not be

recirculated for a

period of at least four years

after

the

receipt

of

the

operating

permit.

Following

this

period,

the

landfill

operator

may,

if

it

chooses,

petition

the

County

Board

to

recIrculate

leachate.

The County Board shell reviewthe operational record of the site

and obtain advice from an independent technical expert to determine if the

operator

has

demonstrated

that

leachate

recirculation

is

a

safe

and

appropriate

method

to

handle

the

leachate

at

this

facility.

Reasonable

expenses

of

the

technical

expert

shall

be

reimbursed

by

the

landfill

operator.

Leachate

may

not be recirculated without The

express

approval

of the County Board.

n.

The

minimum number of random load inspections

shall be three per week

a~

specified

in

state

regulations.

For

any

amount

of tonnage

received

above an

average of 500 tons per day, the number of inspections shall be

Increased on the following basis:

For each

50~).

ton per day average increase, the number

of

random

weekly inspections shall he increased by two.

For example, if up to

1000 tons

per day

average

is

accepted

the

previous

weep,

the

week

shall have five Inspections (three inspections for the first

500

tons, and two for the next 500).

If the weekly rate is 2000

tons per

day, the inspection rate

isthree plus two plus two plus two, to equal

nine random inspections.

After five

years of

operation,

the

landfill

operator may request a

review

and reconsideration of this

random

inspection

requirement by the County

Board.

The County

landfill inspector shall have

the right to inspect and to

be present at any random load inspection.

o.

The

landfill operator shall install

a

radiation detector

at the

scale house.

The landfill operator shall

record any alarm,

and notify the County of each

occurrence,

the level of radiation detected, and the mannerof response.

p.

The

maximum height of the

landfill,

and

the

lateral

extent of the

landfill,

shall notexceed theheight and lateral extentshown on the plans provided

in the application.

3

---

q.

The landfill operator shall build the berms on the west side of the

property

at least 1,000 feet in advance of any cell

construction, measured from the

southernmost

coordinate

of

the

cell.

For

example,

if

the

cell’s

southernmost coordinate

is S

3500,

then the bem~

shall extend

to

S

4500

or

further

south.

The

only

exception

to

this

condition

is

during

the

construction of Phase

I.

r.

The gas line that is to

be relocated shall be fully sealed from any potential

migration from

the

landfill.

If the pipeline is within 200 feet of the waste

footprint,

the trench where the

pIpeline

Is removed shall

be

sealed with

a

low

permeability

material

The

construction

shall

be

certified

by

an

independent professional engineer.

s.

Proof

of

each

equipment

operator’s

training

shall

be

provided

to

the

County prior to that operator’s work at the site.

I.

The

landfill

operator shall

not

request

the

use

of

sewage

sludge

as

a

component

of

final

cover

in

its

JEPA

permit

application

without

first

obtaining County Board approval of such use.

u.

An

automatic monitoring

system

shall

be

installed

to

monitor the

level

of

leachate

from

each

leachate

sump

area.

The

system

shall

record

the

head in the sump such that at no time will the leachate level be allowed.•to

nse above the level that corresponds to one foot of head on the liner.

The

landfill

operator shall maintain the

records

from the automatic monitoring

system, and make those records accessible to the County.

v.

The

Kankakee

County

Planning

Director

shall

be

infcrmed~ prior

to

construction, of the stormwater

control

planned fc’r each phase of landfill

development.

The operator

shall

provide

the

Planning

Director

with

a

copy of all correspondence to or from the

Illinois Environmental

Protection

Agency related to stormwater detention and runoffcontrol operations.

w.

The

landfill operator shall

implement the

complaint

procedure

outlined

in

the application, including a hot line phone

number,

to address complaints.

x.

The landfill operatorshall install and maintain a double composite liner.

y.

The

landfill

operator shall locate any

farm drainage tiles

on the property.

and

work

with

the County

and

appropriate

drainage

districts

regarding

possible removal or relocation of those tiles.

3.

Whether the faciIit~,

is located so as to

minimize incompatibility

with the character

of

the

surrounding

area

and

to

minimize

the

effect

on

the

value

of

th~

surrounding propert~The Board

finds

that the proposed facility is

located so

as

to

minimize

incompatibility

with

the

character

of the

surrounding

area

and

to

minimize

the

effect

on

the

value of

the

surroundIng

property.

However,

that

finding

is based upon the imposition of the following special conditions:

a.

The

landfill operator shall

build the

berms

on the west

side of the property

at

least 1000 feet

in advance of any cell

construction,

measured from the

southernmost

coordinate

of

the

cell.

For

example

if

the

cell’s

southernmost coordinate is S

3500, then the berm shall extend

to

S 4500

or

further

south

The

only

exception

to

this

condition

is

during

the

4

---

construction of Phase I.

b.

The area

on the west side of the

landfill

that has

no

proposed

berrning

shall

have

trees

planted

on

the

exterior

slope

of

the

access

road

to

provide a visual barrier.

c.

Any vegetation planted

on the west side

of the k~ndIillas

a visual

banler

shall

be at least ten

feet tall,

arid

at a density adequate to provide a visual

barrier.

d.

The distance from the waste

footprint to the

east property boundary shall

not be less than

150 feet.

e.

A visual barner independent of the landfill cap shall

be

placed at

least ten

feet

in

height

above grade at

or near

the

east

property line

to

Include

vegetation, undulating berrns, and fencing.

4.

Whether the facility

Is located outside_t~~oundarv

of the 100

year floodplain, or

the

site

is

floodproofed.

The

Board

finds that

the

proposed

facility

is

located

outsidethe boundary of the 100 year floodplain.

5.

Whether the plan of operations

for the facility Is desi~ined

to

minimize the dang~

to

the

surrounding

area from

fire,

spills,

or other

operational

accidents.

The

board finds that the plan of operations for the facility is designed to

minimize the

danger to

the surrounding

area

from fire,

spills,

or other operational accidents.

However,

that

finding

is

based

upon

the

imposition

of

the

following

special

condition:

a.

The

landfill

operator

shalt

install a

radiation

detector at the

scale

house.

The landfill

operator shall record any alarm,

and notifythe County of each

occurrence, the level of radiation detected, and the mannerof response.

6.

Whether

the traffic 1)attems

to or from the facility

are

designed

to

minimize the

impact on existing traffic fbws

The

Board finds that the traffic patterns to or from

the

facility

are

designed

to

minimize

the

impact

on

existing

traffic

flows.

However,

that

fInding

is

based

upon

the

imposition

of

the

following

special

conditions;

a.

All

construction

plans

for

the

facility

entrance

shall

be

provided

to

the

County Highway Engineer prior to construction.

The landfill operator shall

demonstrate

to

the

County that

sight

distance of

at

least

1,015

feet

of

visibility can be

achieved

by the final entrance

design.

All

improvements

higher

than

three

and

a

half

feet

above

the

elevation

of

the

nàarest

pavement edge shall be set back at least 50 feet from Route 45/52.

b.

The

traffic

site

improvements

identified

in

the

application

must

be

completed prior to operation of the expansion.

c.

The onsite traffic route for the customer convenience area (public drop-oft)

should

be

separate

from

the

onsite

traffic

route

designed

for

the

commercial landfill operation.

d.

The

landfill

operator shall

comply

with

all

use

and

weight

restrictions

S

---

imposed

on area

roads by

the

County

Highway Engineer and/or the

Otto

Township Road Commissioner.

a.

The

County

Highway

Engineer

shall

be

informed of the

planned turning

radius of the first onsite curve, and his approval of that

turning radius must

be obtained

prior to construction.

f.

Advance

warning

signs

would

be

beneficial

on

Route

45/52,

in

both

directions,

in

advance

of

the

proposed

entrance.

For

example,

a

‘side-

road

ahead~

symbol

sign,

or a

uTrucks Entering Roadway

sign

could

be

posted

The landfill

operator shall provide

its

opinion

about

signage

to

lbOT and to the County

Highway Engineer prior to the

operator’s

request

for~

a construction.permit

g.

The

landfill

operator

shall

notify

IDOT

of

all

concerns

noted

in

these

conditions

when

applying

for

an

Intersection

Design

Study

(IDS).

and

those

concerns shall

be

addressed

in

the oper~ito?sefforts

to

secure

a

construction permit.

The landfill operator shall provide a copy of its permit

application to the County Planning Director.

h.

Trucks

shall not

be

staged

outside the

gates

prior

to

the opening of the

facility.

The

landfill operator shall develop recommended

truck routes to and from

the facility,

using

Interstate 57 and Route

45/52,

~ndshall distribute those

recommended routes to trucks

and contractors using the facility.

7.

if

the

facilIty

will

be

treating,

storing

or

disposing

of

hazardous

waste,

an

emeJ~qencyresponse

plan

exists

for

the

facility

which

includes

notilIcation~

containment

arid

evacuation

procedures

to

be

used

in

case

of

an

accidental

release.

The Board finds that the facility will not be treating. staring, or disposing

of

hazardous

waste.

Therefore,

the

Board

finds

that

this

criterion

is

not

applicable.

8.

If the faculty is to

be located

in a county where the county board has

adopted a

solid

waste

management plan

consistent

with the planning

reguirements of

the

Local Solid Waste Disposal Act or the

Solid Waste Planning and

RecvcIin~Act

the

facility

Is

consistent

with

that

plan.

The

Board

finds

that

the

facility

is

consistent with the Kankakee County Solid Waste Management Plan.

However.

that finding is based upon the imposition of the following special

conditions:

a.

The

landfill

operator must comply

with all

obligations

and

responsibilities

of

the

December

21,

2001

F’Icst Agreement

between

the

County

and

Waste Management of Illinois, inc.

b.

The

landfill

operator

must

employ independent

appraisers

acceptable

to

the County as part of the

Property

Value Guarantee Program.

•c.

The

Property Value Guarantee Program

must be amended

to provide that

the

Program

continues

for ten

years

after the

included

Property Owners

are notified that waste is no longer being disposed of at the facility.

9.

If

the

facility

will

be

located

in

a

regulated

recharge

area~

any

applicable

6

---

requirements specific by the Board

for such

areas

have

been

met.

The

Board

finds that the facility will

not

be located in a regulated

recharge

area.

Therefore,

Ihe Board finds that this criterion is not applicable.

Conclusion

The

Board

finds

that

all

conditions

recommended

in

this

resolution

are

reasonable

and

necessary

to

accomplish

the

purposes

of

Section

39.2

of

the

Environmental Protection Ad

(415

ILCS

5/39.2.)

Because the

Board

has

found

that

all applicable

statutory

criteria

have

been

met,

local

siting

approval

for

the

proposed

expansion

is

granted, subject to the

above-stated

conditions.

This Decision made

and

entered on January

31

•

2003.

KARL

A. KRUSE, CHAIRMAN

ATTEST;

BRUCE CLARK. COUNTY CLERK

7

---

SERVICE LIST

C

~i

~

V

CLERK’S

OFFICE

FEB27

2003

STATE OF

ILLiNOIS

Po!k~t!onCor.trol Board

Karl Kruse, Charman

Kankakee County Board

189 E. Court St.

Kankakee,IL

60901

Charles F. Heisten

Attorney at Law

P.O. Box 1389

Rockford, IL

61105-1389

Attorney for Kankakee County Board

Fax:

(815) 963-9989

Edward Smith

450

East Court St.

Kankakee,IL

60901

Kankakee

County State’s Attorney

Fax:

(815)

937-3932

L. Patrick Power

Attorney at Law

956

North Fifth Avenue

Kankakee,IL

60901

Leland Milk

6903

S. Route

45-52

Chebanse, IL

60922

KeithRunyon

1165Plum Creek Dr.

Bourbonnais,

IL

60914

Donald J. Moran

Attorney at Law

161

N. Clark, Suite 3100

Chicago,IL

60601

Attorney forWaste Management of Illinois

Fax: (312) 261-1149

Bruce

Clark

Kankakee County Clerk

189 E.

Court St.

Kankakee, IL

60901

Fax:

(815)

939-8831

Jennifer

J. SackettPohlenz

Attorney at Law

275

W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1600

Chicago, IL

60604

Attorney forMike

Watson

Fax: (312) 540-0578

Kenneth A. Bleyer

Attorney at Law

923

W. Gordon Ter. #3

Chicago, IL

60613-2013

Patricia O’Dell

1242 Arrowhead Dr.

Bourbonnais, IL

60914