0198-001
CITY OF KANKAKEE,
Petitioner,
V.
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
COUNTYOFKANKAKEE, COUNTY
BOARD OF KANKAKEE, andWASTE
MANAGEMENT
OF ILLINOIS,
INC.
Respondents.
)
)
eLErn~’s
OFFICE
/~P~
1 4
20U3
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Pollution Control Board
PCB 03-1 25
)
PCB 03-1 33
)
PCB
03-1 34
PCB 03-135
)
PCB 03-1 44 (consolidated)
)
(Pollution
Control Facility Siting Appeals)
To:
(See attached Service List.)
NOTICE OF FILING
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on this
14th day ofApril 2003, the following Amended
Certification
of
Record
On
Appeal
and
Additional
Documents were
filed with
the
Illinois
Pollution Control Board, attached and herewith served
upon you.
Elizabeth S. Harvey
SWANSON, MARTIN & BELL
One IBM
Plaza, Suite 2900
330
North Wabash Avenue
Chicago,
Illinois
60611
Telephone:
(312) 321-9100
Firm l.D.
No. 29558
COUNTY OF
KANKAKEE and
COUNTY BOARD
OF
KANKAKEE
By:
(
EIiza~th
S.
Harvey
\~~One
of Its Attorneys
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned non-attorney, state that
I served
copies of the
described
documents to
all
counsel of record
in the above-captioned
matter on
April
14, 2003,
via
U.S. Mail.
//~~
~
(~~Aette
M.
Podlin
x
Under penalties as provided
by
law
pursuant to 735
ILCS
5/1-109,
I certify
that the statements set forth herein
are true and correct.
SERVICE LIST
KANKAKEE
COUNTY/WMII LANDFILL SITING
Bradley P. Halloran
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 West Randolph Street
Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL 60601
Charles F.
Heisten
Richard Porter
Hinshaw
&
Culbertson
100 Park Avenue
P.O. Box 1389
Rockford, IL 61105
Kenneth A. Leshen
One Dearborn
Square
Suite 550
Kankakee, IL 60901
Donald Moran
Pedersen& Houpt
161 North Clark Street
Suite 3100
Chicago,
IL
60601-3242
George Mueller
George Mueller, P.C.
501
State Street
Ottawa, IL 61350
L. Patrick Power
956 North Fifth Avenue
Kankakee, IL 60901
Jennifer J. Sackett Pohlenz
Querry &
Harrow,
Ltd.
175 West Jackson Boulevard
Suite
1600
Chicago, IL 60604
Keith Runyon
165 Plum Creek Drive
Bourbonnais,
IL 60914
Kenneth A.
Bleyer
Attorney at Law
923 West Gordon Terrace, #3
Chicago, IL 60613-2013
Leland Milk
6903 S. Route 45-52
Chebanse, IL 60922-51 53
Patricia O’Dell
1242 Arrowhead Drive
Bourbonnais, IL
60914
ILLINOIS POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD
CL~RV’~
~
CITY
OF
KANKAKEE
)
!~
1
4~~O3
PCB 03-125
Petitioner
)
PCB 03-133
STATE OF ILLINOIS
PCB 03-1 34
PollutIon
Control
Board
v.
)
PCB 03-135
PCB 03-144
(consolidated)
COUNTY OF
KANKAKEE, COUNTY
)
(Pollution Control
Facility Siting Appeals)
BOARD
OF KANKAKEE, And WASTE
MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS,
INC.
Respondents.
AMENDED
CERTIFICATION OF RECORD ON APPEAL
Pursuant to
Sections 107.304 and
107.308
of the
Board’s procedural
rules,
Bruce Clark,
County
Clerk
of Kankakee
County,
hereby certifies that
he
has
submitted
all
information
and documents
filed
with the County
Clerk regarding the application for site
approval filed
by Waste
Management of
Illinois,
Inc.,
on August
16, 2002.
The record consists of the following:
Cl
Application for Siting Approval, Volume
1
C2
Application for Siting Approval, Volume 2
C3
Site Location Application Maps
C4
WMII Operating
History
C5
WMll Operating History
C6
WMII Operating History
C7
WMII Operating
History
C8
WMII Operating
History
C9
WMII Operating
History
ClO
WMll
Operating
History
Cli
—.C18
Gregory Deck Exhibits
C19—C26
Sandburg Exhibits
C27
—
C38
Lee
Milk Exhibits
C39
—
C517
Waste
Management
Exhibits
C518
Appearance—Keith
Runyon
C519
Appearance
—
Roy Bernard
0520
—C522
Appearance
-
George Mueller on behalf of Merlin
Karlock
,~
0523
0524
—
C527
0528—0529
C530—C535
C536—C558
0559
—
0575
0576
—
0652
0653—0888
C889-C1243
01244
01245
C1246
C1247
01248
C1249
01250
C1251
01252
01253
C 1254
C1255
01256
01257
01258
C1259
C1260
01261
01262
01263
01264
01265
Appearance
—
Patricia O’Dell
Motion
to
Dismiss
—
IEPA Filings
—
George Mueller
Notice of Filing
—
Motion
in Limine
—
Donald
Moran
Motion
in Limine to
Limit Evidence
—
Waste Management
Pat Power/City of Kankakee Exhibits
Keith
Bleyer/Richard
Murray
Exhibits
Querry & Harrow, Ltd./Michael Watson
Exhibits
George Mueller/Merlin
Karlock Exhibits
Keith
Runyon/Richard Murray
Exhibits
Hearing Transcript Volume
I,
Nov.
18,
2002, Morning Session,
Pages 1-114
Hearing Transcript Volume
Il, Nov.
18,
2002, Afternoon Session,
Pages
1-86
Hearing TranscriptVolume
III,
Nov.
18,
2002, Evening Session,
Pages
1-129
Hearing TranscriptVolume
IV,
Nov.19, 2002, Morning Session,
Pages 1-107
Hearing TranscriptVolume V,
Nov.
19,
2002, Afternoon Session,
Pages
1-149
Hearing TranscriptVolume VI, Nov.
19,
2002, Evening Session,
Pages 1-87
Hearing
Transcript Volume VII,
Nov. 20,
2002, Morning Session,
Pages
1-121
Hearing TranscriptVolume VIII, Nov. 20,
2002, Afternoon Session,
Pages
1-101
Hearing Transcript Volume
IX, Nov.
20,
2002, Evening Session,
Pages
1-140
Hearing Transcript Volume X,
Nov. 21,
2002, Morning Session,
Pages 1-125
Hearing Transcript Volume Xl,
Nov. 21, 2002, Afternoon Session,
Pages 1-100
Hearing TranscriptVolume XII,
Nov.
21,
2002, Evening Session,
Pages
1-115
Hearing Transcript Volume XIII, Nov. 22,
2002,
Morning Session,
Pages
1-96
Hearing
Transcript Volume XIV, Nov. 22,
2002, Afternoon Session,
Pages
1-121
Hearing Transcript Volume XV, Nov. 22,
2002,
Evening Session,
Pages
1-110
Hearing Transcript Volume XVI, Nov. 23, 2002,
Morning Session,
Pages
1-171
Hearing TranscriptVolume XVII,
Nov. 25,
2002,
Morning Session,
Pages
1-109
Hearing TranscriptVolume XVIII, Nov.
25, 2002, Afternoon Session,
Pages 1-118
Hearing TranscriptVolume XIX, Nov. 25,
2002, Evening
Session,
Pages
1-146
Hearing Transcript Volume XX,
Nov. 26,
2002, Morning
Session,
Pages 1-108
Hearing Transcript Volume XXI, Nov. 26,
2002, Afternoon Session,
Pages
1-128
•Hearing Transcript Volume XXII, Nov. 26,
2002, Evening
Session,
Pages
1-57
C1266
—
C1267
C 1268
C1269
Cl270
Cl271
Cl272
C1273
—
C1274
C1275
C1276— C1278
C1279
C1280—C1281
C1282
C1283.-Cl285
C1286— C1292
C1293— 01316
C1317
C1318-C1319
C1320—C179l
C1792
-
C1806
C1807—Cl809
C1810—C1811
C1812-C1813
C1814 -Cl836
C 1837-C2204
C2205
-
02247
C2243
-
C2339
C2340
-
C2347
C2348 -02354
02355
C2356
Hearing Transcript Volume XXIII, Dec. 2, 2002, Afternoon Session,
Pages
1-110
Hearing TranscriptVolume XXIV,
Dec.
3,
2002, Evening Session,
Pages
1-109
Hearing Transcript Volume XXV,
Dec. 4,2002, Morning Session,
Pages
1-111
Hearing TranscriptVolume XXVI,
Dec. 4,
2002, Afternoon Session,
Pages
1-140
Hearing TranscriptVolume XXVIII
Dec. 4,
2002, Evening Session,
Pages
1-54
Hearing TranscriptVolume XXVIII,
Dec. 5, 2002, Evening Session,
Pages
1-180
Hearing Transcript Volume XXIX,
Dec. 6,2002, Morning Session,
Pages
1-156
Public Comment Participant
—
Gregory Deck
Public Comment Participant
—
Patricia O’Dell
Public Comment #1
—
Jeffery
O’Connor
Public Comment #2
—
Bruce
Harrison
Public Comment #3— Mr.
&
Mrs.
Robert Keller
Public Comment #4— Byron Sandberg
Public Comment #5
—
Lee Addleman ofWaste Management
Public Comment #6— Patricia O’Dell
Public Comment #7— George Mueller for Merlin Karlock
Public Comment #8
—
Keith
O’Dell
Public Comment #9
—
Mike
VanMill
—
Kankakee County Staff
Public Comment #10
—
Darryl
Bruck,
Jr.
Public Comment #11
—
Mike Watson
Public Comment #12 —Jana
Glenzinski
Public Comment #13
—
Judith Furia
Public Comment #14
—
Leland
&
Carol Milk
Public Comment #15
—
George Mueller for Merlin Karlock
Public Comment #16
—
Michael Watson’s Summary
‘Public Comment #~7
—
Darryl
BrUck,
Jr.
Applicant’s Proposed
Findings
—
Donald Moran
Recommendation of Kankakee County Regional
Planning
Commission
Kankakee County Board Decision
Hearing Schedule Certificate of Publication
Public Comment Certificate of
Publication
C2357
C2358
C2359
C2360
C236l-C2368
C2369-C2370
Regional Planning Commission Public Notice Certificate of Publication
Appearance
—
Jennifer J. Sackett Pohlenz representing
Mike Watson
Letter of 1/3/03 to Mr. McCarty to confirm the procedure forfiling written comments
Letter of 1/27/03 to Karl Kruse from
George Washington Jr.,
KCRPC Chairman
Kankakee County Regional Planning
Comm. Meeting Minutes of January 16, 2003
Kankakee County Regional Planning
Comm. Meeting Minutes of January 22, 2003
Respectfully submitted,
BRUCE CLARK
County
Clerk of Kankakee
County
Querrey&
Harm~
Ltd.
175
WestJackson
Blvd.
Suite
1600
Chicago, IL
60604-2827
TEL (312) ;4o7000
FAX
(312) 540-0578
ww~quene)tcom
Querrey
~
Harrow.r.
~i2DC~
29
r~’~
~
.fr
Jennifer J
Sackett Poh1e~z~
-
Direct Dial:
(312)
540-1540
CQ~
fl’
E-Mail: ~
E~.
CUUH
(
October 28, ‘2002
Siting Public Record do
Kankakee County Clerk
Kankakee County Administration Building
189 East Court Street
Kankakee,
illinois 60901
Via Federal Express
Hearing Officer
John McCarthy
Fax:
(309) 647-7482
Edward Smith
Kankakee County State’s Attorney
Fax (815) 937-3932
Charles F. Heisten
Hinshaw & Culbertson
100 Park Avenue
P.O. Box 1389
Rockford, Illinois 61105-1389
ViaFax:
(815)
963-9989
Donald J. Moran
Pedersen & Houpt
161 N. Clark St.,
Suite 3100
Chicago, illinois
6060 1-3224
Via Fax: (312) 261-1149
Dear Sirs:
Re:
Waste Mana.~’ernentof Illinois,
Inc.’s Application
to
the
County Board of lankakee
County,
illinois,
Reguestinf~rApproval
of Site
Location
for
the
Expansion
of the
Kankakee Landfill
I am writing to notify you that Querrey
& Harrow,
Ltd.
will be representing Mr.
Mike Watson
during
the
public
hearings
for
the
above
referenced
request
for
site
location
approval.
Two
of
the
attorneys
from
my
office
will
be
participating
in
the
hearings.
I res~rveMr.
Watson’s
right,
as
a
participant, to present testimony, witnesses, documentary evidence, and unswom commentary during the
public hearings.
To
the
extent there
are
any provisions
in
Kankakee
County’s
Siting
Ordinance
concerning
additional information that must be provided in this notification, or requires that this notification be sent
to additional people, please notify me and I will supplement this notification.
Additionally,
I
ask
that
Hearing
Officer
McCarthy
be
so
kind
to
fax
to
me
a
copy
of any
applicable
ordinances, resolutions,
or procedural rules
concerning the procedure,
filings, presentation of
evidence,
etcetera, at the public
hearings.
If
so
required by the
County,
I have
also
included a FOIA
request for the requested information.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
Other Officei:
Ci
Lak~
IL
Joliet, IL
Waukcgan,IL
‘Wheaton, U~.
Merrillville, IN
New Yoxk, NY
&pnn~~ntative
UK C~fflce:
London
Enclosure
C 2358
Querrey
~
Harro~’LEC.
Querrey & Harro~
Ltd.
~Gj
~.
5
U.
Other Offlees:
175
WestJacksonBlvcL
03 J~
—o
MIt
V
-.
CzysralLake,IL
Suite
1600
Joker,
IL
Chicano, IL60604-2827
Jennifer J. Sackett Pohlenz
~9
Whcaton,IL
TEL
(312) 540-7000
Direct Dial:
(312) 540-7540
~
cLERI~
Merrillvillc,IN
FAX(312) 540-0578
E-Mail
jpohlenz(~guerrey.com
tiP~’~ECOUHI?
NewYork, NY
tU.U~,
~
Representanve
UK
Office:
Www~querr~’.cOm
January 3, 2003
London
Via Facsimile (309)
647-7482
Hearing Officer
John J. McCarthy
45 East Side Square, Suite 301
Carbondale, IL 61520
Re:
Waste
Mana~’ementof Illinois,
Inc. ‘s Application
to
the
County
Board
of
Kankakee
~‘ountp,
Illinois,
Reguestin~Approval
of
Site
Location
for
the
Expansion of the Kankakee Landfill
Our File #:
64853
Dear Mr. McCarthy:
I am writing to confirm the procedure for filing written comments in the above referenced matter,
specifically that written comments will
be filed by the Kankakee County Clerk’s office
so long as
they are
postmarked on
or before
Monday, January
6th,
2003, even ifthey are received after that date.
Please
contact
me if
your
understanding
of this
procedure
is
different,
in
other
words
if the
Kankakee County Clerk has any~ntention
of not filing such comments if received after January
6th,
even
ifpostmarked
on that date.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
cc:
Via US. Mail
Siting public record/Kankakee
County Clerk
Charles F. Helston
Donald J. Moran
Edward Smith
Elizabeth S. Harvey
George Mueller
Kenneth A.
Bleyer
C2 359
County of
Kankakee
Planning Department
Michael J. Van Mill, AICP
189
East
Court Street’.
Kankakee, IL 60901.815-937-2940Fax
815-937-2974
PlanningDirector
January 27,
2003
Mr.
Karl Kruse
Chairman,
Kankakee CountyBoard
189
East
Court
Street
Kankakee,
IL 60901-3992
RE:
Recommendation of the Kankakee County Regional Planning
Commission on WMII’s Application for Local Siting Approval
Dear Mr. Kruse:
As
provided
by
the
Kankakee
County
Siting
Ordinance
for
Pollution
Control
Facilities,
the
Kankakee
County
Regional
Planning
Commission
(KCRPC)
has
considered the
application of Waste Management of
Illinois,
Inc. for
siting approval
of
an
expansion
of
its
existing
Kankakee
Landfill.
Enclosed
is
the
KCRPC’s
formal
resolution,
adopted
January
22,
2003,
containing
its
recommendations
to the
County
Board.
I
hereby
transmit
those
recommendations
to
the
County
Board,
for
its
consideration and decision on WMll’s application.
Also enclosed are the minutes of the
KCRPC’s
January
16,
2003
meeting,
at
which
it
discussed
and
voted
upon
the
recommendations.
Very truly yours,
-
/th~
George
ashington, Jr.
Chairman,
KCRPC
Enclosures
cc:
Mr.
Bruce Clark,
County Clerk
(w/enc., for inclusion in the public record)
C 2360
Minutes
Kankakee County Regional Planning Commission Meeting
January 22, 2003
4th
Floor Administration Building
10:00 a.m.
Members Present
Members Absent
Others
Dave Bergdahl
Dennis Peters
Elizabeth Harvey, Attorney
Mike Spilsbury
Dennis Millirons
Mike Finnegan
Craig Bayston
John Meyer, Jr.
Barry Jaffe
Loretto Cowhig
Mel
Blanchette
Jim Tripp
Ralph Paarlberg
Curt Saindon
George Washington, Jr.
Mr. Washington called the meeting in order at 10:10 a.m.
Roll
Call
was taken and
a quorum was present.
A motion was made by Mr. Blanchette to approve the minutes from the January 16, 2003
Kankakee County Regional Planning Commission Meeting, seconded by Mr. Meyer.
Motion carried.
Ms. Harvey informed the Commission that the document distributed to them is the
recommendations relating to
the application for the expansion ofthe existing Kankakee
Landfill, to be forwarded to the Kankakee County Board.
Ms. Harvey went over the findings one by one to make sure that the findings reflect the
Commission’s recommendation.
There was some discussion on Criteria #2, Condition
C
regarding
location of all private
wells.
The Commissionjust needed some clarification.
Also on Criteria #2 it was asked if the Commission should put a condition on the
minimum depth of the clay layer.
After some discussion it was decided that what was
in
the application was sufficient and with the double liner there is already extra safety
measures in place.
There was discussion on Criteria #2 Condition X as to whether the condition
should be
more specific.
After discussion it was decided that the condition was fine due to
the fact
MinsiI~,c
nfIh~’~
.Ianunrv
22.
2003,
RPCMeeting
Page
1
of
2
C236
I
that the Commission’s intent is to require a double liner, not the specific technology or
installation ofit.
There was a change to Criteria #2 Condition Y to
also include relocation offarm drainage
tiles.
The Commission asked if the two unnumbered criteria needed to be included in the
recommendation.
Ms. Harvey informed that they were addressed in the minutes but do not need to be in the
recommendation.
With no further discussion Mr. Jaffe made a motion to approve the recommendation with
the spelling corrections and the wording in Criteria #2 Condition Y to be:
“The landfill operator shall locate any farm drainage tiles on theproperty, and
work with the County and appropriate drainage districts regarding possible
removal and/or relocation ofthose tiles.”
Mr. Meyer seconded the motion.
Therewas a roll call vote with 10 ayes, 3 absents, and
1
nay (Mr. Paarlberg).
The motion carried.
A motion to
adjourn was made by Mr.
Saindon, seconded be Mr.
Jaffe.
Motion carried.
Meeting adjourned at 10:45 a.m.
Submitted by Michelle Sadler, Kankakee County Planning Department
Approved By KCRPC on January
28, 2003
Minutesof/he January
22
~
~
Meeting
Page
2
of
2
C 2362
Minutes
F~LD
Kankakee County Regional Planning Commission Meetmun
January
16, 2003
~fl3
JAN
2~
pIk~I 2:56
4th
Floor Administration Building
9:00 a.m.
~
COUNTy
CLERIc
Members Present
Members Absent
Others
~~KAI(EE
COUNTY
Craig Bayston
Dennis Peters
Elizabeth Harvey, Attorney
Dave Bergdahl
Dennis Millirons
Mike Spilsbury
Mike Finnegan
John Meyer, Jr.
Barry Jaffe
Loretto Cowhig
Mel Blanchette
Jim Tripp
RalphPaarlberg
Curt Saindon
George Washington, Jr.
Mr. Washington called the meeting in order at 9:10
a.m.
Roll
Call was taken and a quorum was present.
The public was informed that these
proceedings are open to the public but closed for public participation and comments.
Ms. Harvey went over the instruction and overview of what the Commission’s role in the
proceedings are.
The Commission can accept or deny the Hearing Officers
recommendation based on the application, hearing, transcripts and public comment.
The
Commission must determine if all nine (9) criteria have been met.
Each issue and criteria
should be voted On individually.
The first issue to be addressed was whether the County has jurisdiction
over
the
application.
The Commission discussed this issue and noted that the Hearing Officer denied all the
motions made on this issue.
Motion was made by Mr. Meyer to
accept the Hearing Officer ruling on the County
havingjurisdiction over the application, seconded by Mr. Jaffe.
Motion Carried.
Next is the issue ofthe proceedings being fundamentally fair.
The Commission discussed this issued and also noted that the Hearing Officer denied all
the motions made on this issue.
The Commission was disappointed in the public
participation.
Minutes of/he January 16, 2003,
RPCMeeting
Page
1
of 8
C2363
Motion was made by Mr.
Jaffe to
accept the Hearing Officer’s rulings,
and to find that
the proceedings were fundamentally fair,
seconded by Mr. Tripp.
Motion carried.
Next the Commission reviewed the nine (9) criteria:
Criteria #4: For a facility that
is a sanitary landfill or waste disposal site, the facility is
located outside the boundary ofthe 100-year floodplain.
A motion to accept that
Criteria #4 has been satisfied was made by Mr. Saindon,
seconded by Mr. Jaffe.
Motion carried.
Criteria #7: Ifthe facility will be treating, storing, or disposing of hazardous waste,
an
emergencyresponse plan exists for the facility which includes notification,
containment
and evacuation procedures to be used in case ofan accidental release.
The Commission discussed whetherthis
criteriais applicable or not, due to the fact that
the application states that they will not be handling hazardous waste.
A motion was made by Mr.
Jaffe that Criteria #7
is not applicable, seconded by Mr.
Bayston.
Motion carried.
Criteria #9: Ifthe facility will be located within a regulated recharge area, any applicable
requirements specified by the (Pollution Control) Board for such areas have been met.
The Commission discussed that this criteria is not applicable because the subject site is
not located in
a regulated recharge area.
A motion was made by Mr. Saindon that Criteria#9 is not applicable, seconded by Mr.
Spilsbury.
Motion carried.
Criteria
#6: The traffic patterns to or from the facility are so designed as to minimize the
impact on existing traffic flows.
The Commission discussed this to some length and added the following conditions:
1.
Any construction plans of the facility entrance shall be provided to the
County highway engineer prior to construction.
The applicant 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
3.5
feet above the elevation ofthe nearest pavement edge shall
be set back at least 50 feet from US
Route
45/52.
2.
The traffic site improvements identified in the application should be
completed prior to operation ofthe expansion.
Minutes of theJanuary 16,
2003,
RPCMeeting
Page 2 of
8
C 23 64
3.
Customer Convenience
Center.
A customer convenience area for public
drop-off is proposed in the application.
The onsite traffic route for this
area should be separate from the traffic route designated for the
commercial landfill operation.
4.
The County may wish to restrict or limit the use ofall local roads
maintained by the County and/or Otto Township Road Commissioner by
landfill vehicles unless their ability to handle heavy vehicles is
demonstrated.
6000
S Road is a Class C truck route with a five axle
maximum weight of32
tones, although there is a spring thaw restriction of
5
tons from February lstto May
1St~
The County staffis also
concerned
about trucks using 7500 South as a “short-cut” offofRoute 1.
The
County may wish to restrict landfill vehicles from the route during the
specified time period due to weight concerns.
Approval needs to be
sought by the County and Otto Township Road Commissioner.
5.
The County highway
engineer shall be informed ofthe planned turning
radius ofthe first curve west of the entrance ofthe facility, and his
approval must be obtained prior to construction.
6.
Advanced warning signs would be beneficial on Route
45/52
in advance
ofthe proposed entrance in both directions.
For example, a side-road
ahead symbol sign or“Trucks Entering Roadway’ sign could be posted.
The applicant shall provide its opinion about signage to IDOT and the
County highway engineer prior to its request for a construction permit.
7.
The applicant shall notif~r
IDOT ofall concerns noted in this subsection
when applying for an Intersection Design Study (IDS), and these shall be
addressed in the applicant’s efforts to
secure a construction permit.
The
applicant shall send a copy ofthe permit application to the County
Planning Director.
8.
Trucks shall not be staged outside the gateprior to the facility opening.
9.
The applicant shall develop recommended truck routes, using Interstate 57
and Route
45/52,
and provide those recommended routes to their haulers
and subcontracted haulers.
A motion was made by Mr. Saindon to accept that Criteria #6 has been satisfied with the
above conditions, seconded by Mr. Meyer.
Motion carried.
Criteria #1: The facility is necessary to accommodate the waste needs ofthe area it is
intended to serve.
There was some discussion on the service area.
Minutes of/he Januaiy 16, 2003,
RPCMeeting
Page 3 of8
C 2365
A motion was made by Mr.
Jaffe that the facility is necessary, seconded by Mr. Bayston.
Motion carried.
Criteria #2: The facility is
so designed, located
and propOsed to be operated that the
public health, safety and welfare will be protected.
There was a great deal of discussion on this criteria and several issues to consider.
The
follow conditions
were agreedupon by the Commission to place on this criteria.
1.
There shall be no vertical expansion.
2.
The lateral expansion must be considered a separate unit from the existing
landfill as defined in Title
35,
IAC
Section
8 10.103, and separate
groundwater monitoring networks shallbe maintained for the proposed
expansion and for the exiting landfill.
3.
A field verification must be performed to
locate all adjacent private wells
currently used as a source ofpotable waterwithin
1,000 feet ofthe
boundaries ofthe Waste Management property.
4.
Downgradient monitoring well spacing in the uppermost aquifer
(regardless of gradient) must be provided, where adjacent potable water
supply wells are located in the Dolomite.
5.
The sand deposits along the south and east side should be monitored as
potential contaminant migration pathways.
6.
The distance from the waste footprint to the East property boundary shall
not be less than 150 feet.
7.
An independent engineer shall be on-site to observe the sand drainage
layer and the initial lift ofwaste placed in any new cell.
The engineer
shall report directly to the County, and have authority to stop placement of
sand or waste during the operation if he/she observes any condition that
would or could damage the bottom liner.
8.
The operations plan in Criterion 2 says that the active face will be kept at a
minimum to reduce litter and vector impacts.
It should be kept to a
minimum to also reduce odor.
The face shall be a maximum of 180 feet
by
120 feet, excepting for the area allowed for random inspections, unless
an alternative maximum size is specifically approved by the County
Board.
9.
Trucks holding waste shall not be parked or stored overnight at the
facility, or staged on the roadway, or its right-of-way
outside ofthe
landfill facility.
Minutes of/he January16, 2003,
RPCMeeting
Page 4 of8
C 2366
10.
Fencing is required to preventunauthorized access.
An eight-foot high
wooden or other view-obstructing,
County acceptable fence shall be
constructed on the east side ofthe landfill property to help block the view
of the site.
A fence that fully encloses the operation shall be constructed
to prevent access to the operation ofthe site before landfill operations
begin.
As cells are developed, the fence shallbe extended to
encompass
the waste footprint.
11.
Litter control has been an important consideration at landfills with
significant transfer vehicle traffic.
The landfill operator shall pick litter on
a daily basis along US Route
45/52
between the landfill and the 1-57
interchange, as well as at least ¼
mile south on US Route
45/52,
and if
allowed by adjacent property owners, shall weekly remove any litter
attributable to the landfill on their property.
Perimeterpicking shall be
performed daily to remove litter from trees, fencing, and orberms.
12.
Video recordings ofall traffic entering the site shall be kept for a period of
at least six (6) months and the County shall have the right to review the
recordings within two days ofrequesting to review the tape.
13.
Leachate shall not be recirculated for a period ofat least four (4) years
after the receipt ofthe operating permit.
Following this period, the landfill
operator may petition the County to recirculate leachate.
The County shall
review the operational record ofthe site and
obtain advice from an
independent technical expert to determine if the operatorhas demonstrated
that leachate recirculation is a safe and appropriate method
to handle the
leachate at this site.
Reasonable expenses ofthe technical expert shall be
reimbursed by the landfill operator.
14.
Load inspections.
The minimum number ofrandom loan inspections shall
be three (3) per week as specified in the Illinois regulations.
For any
amount on tonnage above an average of500 tons per day, the number of
inspections shall be increased on the following basis:
For each 500-ton per day average rate increase, the number ofrandom
inspections shall be increased by two (2).
For example, if up to
1000 tons
per day average is accepted during the week, the week shall have
5
inspections
(3 forthe first 500, and 2 for the next 500 tons).
If the weekly
rate is 2000 tons per week, the inspection rate is 3+2+2+2=9
inspections.
After five (5) year of operation, the applicant may request a review and
reconsideration ofthis requirementby the County Board.
The County
landfill inspector shall havethe right to inspect and be present at the
random loan inspections.
Minutes of/he January
16, 2003,
J2PCMeeting
Page
5
of
8
C 236 7
15.
Install a radiation detector at the scalehouse.
Record any
alarm and notify
the County about
each occurrence, the level ofradiation detected and the
method ofresponse.
16.
The maximum height ofthe landfill and lateral extent ofthe landfill shall
not exceed those on the plans provided in the application.
17.
Build the berms on the west side ofthe landfill property at least 1,000 feet
in advance ofany cell construction measured from the southernmost
coordinate ofthe cell.
For example, if the cell’s southernmost coordinate
is northing 5 3500, then the berm shall extend to northing S 4500 or
further south.
The only exception to this is during the construction of
Phase I.
18.
The gas line that is to be relocated shall be fully sealed from any potential
migration from the landfill.
Ifthe pipeline is
within200 feet of the
landfill, 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.
19.
Proofof each equipment operator’s training shall be provided to the
County prior to any operator’s work at the site.
20.
The applicant shall not request the use of sewage sludge as a component
offinal cover in its IEPA permit application without first obtaining
County Board approval ofsuch use.
21.
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 rise
above the level that corresponds to one-foot to head on the liner.
The
applicant must maintain a log and be accessible to the County with notice.
22.
The Kankakee County Regional Planning Director shall be informed of
the storm water control planned for each phase of landfill development
prior to construction.
The operator shall provide the Regional Planning
Director with a copy ofall IEPA correspondence related to
storm water
detention and runoffcontrol operations.
23.
Waste Management shall establish a County approved complaint
procedure, such as a hot line phone number, to address complaints.
24.
The landfill operator shall install and maintain a double composite liner.
25.
The landfill operator shall locate any existing farm drainage tiles on the
property
and work with the County and the appropriate drainage district to
remove and relocate those tiles.
Minutes oftheJanuary
16, 2003,
RPCMeeting
Page
6 of 8
C 2368
A motion was made by Mr. Meyer that Criteria #2
is satisfied with the above 25
conditions seconded by Mr. Bayston.
Motion carried.
Criteria
#5:
The plan ofoperations ofthe facility is designed to minimize the danger to
the surrounding area from fire, spills, or other operational accidents.
The Commission feltthis
criteria was satisfied with the, following condition:
1.
Install
a radiation detector at the scale house.
Record any alarm and notify
the County
about each occurrence, the level ofradiation detected and the
A motion was made by Mr. Blanchette that Criteria
#5
is satisfied with the above
condition seconded by Mr. Bergdahl.
Motion carried.
Criteria #8: Ifthe facility is to be located in a county where the County Board has
adopted a Solid Waste Management Plan consistent with the planning requirements ofthe
local Solid Waste Disposal Act or the Solid Waste Planning and Recycling Act, the
facility is consistent with that plan.
The Commission had some discussion on the consistence ofthe Plan and the Host Fee
Agreement.
The Commission placed two (2)
conditions
on the criteria.
1.
The applicant must comply with those obligations and responsibilities
made incumbent upon it by the Host Agreement if previously executed,
including a confirmation by theApplicant to employ independent
appraisers acceptable to
the County as part ofits Property Value
Guarantee Program.
2.
The Property Value Guarantee Program must be amended to provide that
the Program continues for ten years afterthe facility stops accepting
waste.
A motion was made by Mr. Bergdahl that Criteria #8 was satisfied with the above
condition,
second by Mr. Spilsbury.
Motion carried.
Ms. Harvey reminded that Commission that they may also consider as evidence the
previous operating experience and post record of convictions or admissions ofviolations
ofthe applicant.
This could effect their decision on Criteria#2
and
#5.
There was discussion on what the violations were and what was done to correct the
violation.
It was determined that the Commission didn’t feel any ofthe violations were
serious enough to
change their minds on the approval of Criteria #2 and
#5.
At this time it was asked if anyonehad any comments.
Mr. Paarlberg talked
abouthis
concerns about the hearings and the landfill in general.
No one else had any comments.
The Commission moved on to the next criteria.
Minutes of/he January 16, 2003,
RPCMeeting
Page 7 of 8
C 23 69
Criteria #3: The facility is located so as to minimize incompatibility with the character
of the surrounding area and
to
minimize the effect on the value ofthe surrounding
property.
The Commission discussed this criteria and add the following conditions:
1.
The proposed berms on the west side of the landfill property should be
constructed at least 1,000 feet in advance ofany cell construction, with
such distance being measured from the southernmost coordinate ofthe
cell.
By way of example, if the cell’s southernmost coordinate is northing
S 3500, then the berm should extend to northing S 4500
or further south.
The only exception to this requirement is the constructionofPhase
1.
2.
The area on the west side of the landfill that has no proposed berming
shall havetrees planted on the exterior slope ofthe access road to provide
visual barrier.
3.
Any vegetation planted on the west side ofthe landfill, as a visual barrier
shall be at least 10
feet tall and at a density adequate to provide a visual
barrier.
4.
The distance from the waste footprint
to the east property boundary
shall
not be less than
150 feet.
5.
A visual barrier independent ofthe landfill cap shall be placed at least
10
feet in height above grade at or near the east property line to include (but
not be limited to), vegetation, undulating berms,
and fencing.
Amotion was made by Mr. Bayston that Criteria #3
is satisfied with the above
conditions, seconded by Mr. Blanchette.
Motion carried.
With that being the last criteria to review Ms. Harvey will be doing a report for the
Commission to review and vote on next week on Wednesday, January 22, 2003
at 10:00
a.m., Fourth Floor Conference Room.
The Commission will make a recommendation as
to the expansion ofthe Kankakee Landfill and forward that recommendation on to
the
Kankakee County Board, for a final recommendation.
A motion was made by Mr. Meyer to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Paarlberg.
Motion
carried.
Meeting adjourned at 2:50 p.m.
Submitted by Michelle Sadler, Kankakee County Planning Department
~0proue~c~
~Q)O3
Minutes of/he January16, 2003,
RPCMeeting
Page
8 of 8
C 23 70
