ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
March 6, 2003
CITY OF KANKAKEE,
Petitioner,
v.
COUNTY OF KANKAKEE, COUNTY
BOARD OF KANKAKEE, and WASTE
MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
PCB 03-125
(Third-Party Pollution Control Facility
Siting Appeal)
______________________________________
MERLIN KARLOCK,
Petitioner,
v.
COUNTY OF KANKAKEE, COUNTY
BOARD OF KANKAKEE, and WASTE
MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
PCB 03-133
(Third-Party Pollution Control Facility
Siting Appeal)
______________________________________
MICHAEL WATSON,
Petitioner,
v.
COUNTY OF KANKAKEE, COUNTY
BOARD OF KANKAKEE, and WASTE
MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
PCB 03-134
(Third-Party Pollution Control Facility
Siting Appeal)
______________________________________
2
KEITH RUNYON,
Petitioner,
v.
COUNTY OF KANKAKEE, COUNTY
BOARD OF KANKAKEE, and WASTE
MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
PCB 03-135
(Third-Party Pollution Control Facility
Siting Appeal)
ORDER OF THE BOARD (by T.E. Johnson):
On February 25, 2003, City of Kankakee (Kankakee) filed a petition asking the Board to
review a January 31, 2003, decision of the County of Kankakee (County). On March 3, Merlin
Karlock, Michael Watson, and Keith Runyon all filed separate petitions asking the Board to
review a January 31, 2003 decision of the County. The County granted Waste Management of
Illinois, Inc.’s (Waste Management) application to site a pollution control facility in Kankakee
County.
Kankakee appeals on the grounds that the County’s decision was against the manifest
weight of the evidence on four of the criteria in Section 39.2 of the Environmental Protection Act
(415 ILCS 5/39.2 (2002) and the County’s proceedings were fundamentally unfair. Merlin
Karlock appeals on the grounds that the County lacked jurisdiction, the County’s decision was
against the manifest weight of the evidence on four of the criteria in Section 39.2 of the
Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS 5/39.2 (2002), and the County’s proceedings were
fundamentally unfair. Michael Watson appeals on the grounds that the County lacked
jurisdiction, the County’s decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence on seven of
the criteria in Section 39.2 of the Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS 5/39.2 (2002), and the
County’s proceedings were fundamentally unfair. Keith Runyon appeals on the grounds that the
County’s decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence on one of the criteria in
Section 39.2 of the Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS 5/39.2 (2002). For the reasons set
forth below, the Board accepts the petitions for hearing and consolidates the proceedings on the
Board’s own motion.
THIRD-PARTY APPEAL
Section 40.1(b) of the Environmental Protection Act (Act) (415 ILCS 5/40.1(b) (2002))
allows certain third parties to appeal a local government decision granting approval to site a
pollution control facility. Third parties who participated in the local government’s public
hearing and who are so located as to be affected by the proposed facility may appeal the siting
decision to the Board. 415 ILCS 5/40.1(b) (2002); 35 Ill. Adm. Code 107.200(b). The petition
for review must, among other things, specify the grounds for appeal and include a copy of the
3
local government’s siting decision. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 107.208. The third party must file the
petition within 35 days after the local government approves siting. 415 ILCS 5/40.1(b) (2002);
35 Ill. Adm. Code 107.204. Unless the Board determines that the third party’s petition is
“duplicitous or frivolous,” the Board will hear the petition. 415 ILCS 5/40.1(b) (2002); 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 107.200(b).
Petitioners’ petitions state that petitioners participated in the County’s public hearings
and that petitioners are so located as to be affected by the proposed facility. Petitioners specify
the grounds for the appeal and include a copy of County’s siting decision. The petitions meet the
content requirements of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 107.208. Petitioners also filed the petitions within 35
days after the County approved siting.
HEARING AND DECISION DEADLINE
An action before the Board is duplicitous if it is “identical or substantially similar to one
brought before the Board or another forum.” 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.202. An action before the
Board is frivolous if it is “a request for relief that the Board does not have the authority to grant”
or “fails to state a cause of action upon which the Board can grant relief.”
Id.
No evidence
before the Board indicates that this action is duplicitous or frivolous. The Board accepts
petitioners’ petitions for hearing.
Petitioners have the burden of proof. 415 ILCS 5/40.1(b) (2002);
see also
35 Ill. Adm.
Code 107.506. Hearings will be based exclusively on the record before the County. 415 ILCS
5/40.1(b) (2002). Hearings will be scheduled and completed in a timely manner, consistent with
the decision deadline (
see
415 ILCS 5/40.1(a), (b) (2002)), which only Waste Management may
extend by waiver (35 Ill. Adm. Code 107.504;
see also
35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.308). If the Board
fails to take final action by the decision deadline, Waste Management “may deem the site
location approved.” 415 ILCS 5/40.1(a) (2002). Currently, the decision deadline is June 25,
2003 (the 120th day after February 25, 2003, the filing date of Kankakee’s petition).
See
35 Ill.
Adm. Code 107.504. The Board meeting immediately before the decision deadline is scheduled
for June 19, 2003.
COUNTY’S RECORD
The County must file the entire record of its proceedings within 21 days after the date of
this order. The record must comply with the content and certification requirements of 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 107.304, 107.308. Petitioners must pay to the County the cost of preparing and
certifying the record. 415 ILCS 5/39.2(n) (2002); 35 Ill. Adm. Code 107.306.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, certify that the Board
adopted the above order on March 6, 2003, by a vote of 6-0.
Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
