09:20P

CLERK’S

CFFICE

BEFORE

THE

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL

BOARD

~‘4~’~

1 ~ 2003

STATE OF1LLJNOIS

KEITh RUNYON

POlltgtki~

CQntro/B~rd

Petitioner,

PCBO3-.135

(Third-Party Pollution Control

Facility SitingAppeal)

COUNTY OF KANKAKEE, COUNTY

BOARD OF KANKAKEE, AND WASTE

Consolidated with PCB 03-125,03

MANAGEMENT

OF ILLINOIS

133,03-134

KEiTH RUNYON’S RESPONSE WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS

OBJECTIONS TO HIS

INTERROGATORIES.

With

the exceptionWMJI’s reply

to Interrogatory No.

Its

replies

Runyon’s lutarrogatories

numbered

(2)

two

through(9)niue

are-non-responsive.

All

Interrogatories are

appropriate to discover

the

communications, as defined In

Runyon’s

Interrogatory petition,

consistent

withhis filing

which alleges

that The

County

and

Waste Management failed to comply

with

the County’s

Solid

Waste

Management

plan

and discovery of

the complete Information

relating

the

Public

Comment statements entered

into the

Recordby

Lee

Eddlemanof Waste

Management,

January

2003

at approximately

1:54 P.M.

and

filed with the

KankakeeCounty

Clerk at the0111cc ofthe County Clerk.

A copy of said document

is attached.

Waste

Management

opened this

avenue to discovery

its filing-of saiIr~tatemcnt

in the

Public

Comment

period

at such a time as to provide

opportunity

for

discovery or cross

e~ianiination.

RESPONSE TO WASTE MANAGEMENTS GENERAL OBJECTIONS

Conclusion of Waste

Managements objection

is spurious.

“Petitioner has made no allegations of any

specific

instances of misconduct which

woxid

justify

its

broad and wide

ranging

interrogatories.

RESPONSE: Respondent

claims that

Waste Management and the County of

Kankakee and the County

Board

Kankakeeacted

collusively to circumvent the

County’s Solid WasteManagement which

calls

for a valid

(1)

Host Fee

Agrcement,(2) Public input into

the

site

selectionof a

pollution-contrul4acility,,asid

(3)prohibition of a landfill over a major aquifer.

~—-—

—.—

~....—..

.&,&.aw.a.

.as~

•.jt&At$#

relevant to the petitioner’s

argument theApplicant and the County failed to comply

with

theCounty

Solid WasteManagement Plan

which requirespublic

participation

the

site selection

processfor a

new

Pollution Control Facility.

Apr-14.-O3

09:20P

P.03

INTERROGATORY NO.

OBJECTION:

WMII incorporates is general

objections as if

fully

set forth herein.

WMII further objects to this Interrogatory

because

the phrase

“clearly demonstrate and

document”

vague and anibiguous”

RESPONSE~This response incorporates respondent’s responses

WMII’s

general

objections and the definition

of “all person related” as stated

the previous

responses.

Further, this interrogatory

could

hardly

be more

specifIc.

‘fo

make the

point blatantly

unambiguous, please

present

any

type

ofdocument including

site maps

,engineering

drawings, and hydro-geotogical surveys which indicate that

the

proposed Pollution

Control

Facility is not

in whole or in part above a major aquifer as prohibited

the

County

Solid Waste Plan.

This interrogatory is relevant to petitioners contention that

the proposed facility was sited in

contradiction to the Solid

Waste Plan

prohibiting

siting a Facility above an aquifer.

INTERROG,4TORY NO,

OBJECTION:

WMII incorporates its

general

objections as if fully set forth herein.

ViMII further objects to the Interrogatory as it

seeks information and

tangible items concerning individuals and entities other than

WMII arid not within WMJI’s possession or control.

RESPONS~LThisresponse incorporates

respondent’s responses to WMLI’s general

objections and the definition of ‘4a11

person related” as stated in the previous responses.

Waste Management is one of the parties to

this alleged agreement and

is fully aware of

any approvals

by tile County Board of any addenda to the alleged Host Fee AgreemenL

It is therefore incumbent upon both parties

to produce evidence of the allegedly valid

agreement.

This information is

sought to

demonstrate that the County does not have a

valid Host Fee

Agreement and did not have said valid agrcement at the

time of siting

approval, which is direct contradiction of the Solid Waste Plan.

INTERROGAJ.1ORY

NO.

~ OB.JECT1ON

WM1I incorporates its general

objections as

fully set

forth herein.

V/MU further objects to this

Interrogatory as it

seeks information and tangible items concerning indIviduals and

entities other than

WMII, and

not within WMII’s possession orcontrol.

RESPONSE;

This response incorporates respondent’s

responses to WMII’s general

objections and the definition of “all person related” as stated in

the previous responses.

Further, the alleged

valid Host Fee Agreement specifically states that if Waste

Management

does not file an Application by June 2002 the.County must conseritto an

extension period in writing for good cause.

Since WMII would be

the recipient of

said letter of extension it is incumbent upon WMII to produce said letter if it has

indeed received such a document from the city.

This interrogatory goes

to the proof

that the County had

no valid Host fee agreement at the

time of siting.

INTERROGATORY NQ.

(iB.WC~iON WMII incorporates its

general

objections as if fully set

forth

herein.

WMH further objects to

this Interrogatory as it

seeks information and tangible

items concerning individuals and

Cfltities other than

WMH,

and not within WM1I’s possession

or control.

Apr—14~-O3

09:21P

P.04

RESPONSE:

This interrogatory seeks information about the Host Fee Committee and

its members and

thei,r actions.

To the extent that WMII and all

persons related as

defined previously

had communication with the committee and

its members, petitioner

seeks such communication as received or delivered

to the committee

Dated:

April

13,

2003

Respectfully submitted,

Keith

L. Runyon. Kankakee County Resident

Petitioner

Keith L. Runyon

165 Plum Creek Drive, Unit D.

Bourbormais,1l. 60914

815 937 9838.

Apr-14-03

 09:21P

 P.05

AFEJJ~AV1T

OFS’RV1~~

The undersigned. pursuant

to the provisions

of Secton 1-109 of the Illinois Code of

Civil

Procedure, hereby under penalty perjury under the laws of the United States of

America, certifies that on April

14, 03 was served a copy

of the foregoing was served

upon

via Faciniile Transmission

and by letter:

Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution

Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

100 West Randolph Street, Suite.

11-500

Chicago,

11 60601-3218

Attorney fleorge Mueller

501

State Street

Ottawa, ii 61350

815433 4705

Fax 8154224913

Donald J. Moran

Perterson& Houpt

161 North Clark Street, Suite3100

Chicago, 11

60601-3242

3122612149

Fax 312261 1149

Elizabeth Harvey, Esq.

Swanson, Martin,

 Bell

One IBM Plaza, Suite 2900

330 North Wabash

Chicago, 11

60611

3123219100

Fax 3.12321 0990

Kenneth A Lesheri

()ne Dearborn

Square,

Suite 550

Kankakee,

11. 60901

815 933 3385

Fax 933

3397

L. Patrick Power

956

North Fifth Avenue

Kankakee.

60901

815 937 6937

Fax

9370056

Apr-14-03

 09~21P

 P.06

Jennifer J. Sackett Pohlenz

175W. Jackson Boulevard

SuIte

1600

Chicago, II 60604

312 540 7540

Fax3 12 540

0578

Kenneth A. Bleyer

923

 Gordon Terrace, #3

Chicago, 1 60613

773 348 4005

Fax

773

527

2873

Mr. Brad 1-Jalloran

Hearing Officer

Illinois Po1hiti~nControl Board

100

 West Randolph, 11~’floor

Chicago, Ii.

60601

3128148917

Fax814

3669

By depositing a copy

thereof, enclosed in an

 envelope

in the

 United States Mail at

Rockford,

Illinois,

proper postage prepaid, before the hour of5:00 P.M.,

addressed as

above.

Keith Runyon

1165 Plum Creek

Dr. Unit D.

Bourbonnais, IL 60914

8159379838