CLERKS
    (~F
    BYRON SANDBERG
    s~i~
    1 8
    2003
    Petitioner,,
    STh~Eø~
    P
    llutIOfl
    Control
    Boar
    V.
    NoPCB04-~3
    0
    Pollution Control Facility Siting Appeal
    THE CITY OF KANKAKEE, ILLiNOIS
    CITY COUNCIL, TOWN AND COUNTRY
    UTILITIES, INC. and KANKAKEE
    REGIONAL LANDFILL, L.L.C.,
    Respondents,
    I am respectfully requesting a hearing to contest the decision of the Kankakee City Council (“City
    Council”) granting site location approval for the proposed Kankakee Regional Landfill
    (“Facility).
    In
    support of this Petition, I state the following
    1.
    This Petition is filed pursuant to Section
    40.1 ofthe Illinois Environmental Protection Act (the
    “Act”)
    (4141LCS5/40.1)
    2.
    On March
    7, 2003, Town & CountryUtilities, Inc and Kankakee Regional Landfill L.L.C. (“Town
    and Country) submitted it request for site location approval for the Facility, located in Otto Township
    within the corporate limits of the City of Kankakee, Illinois
    (“Request”).
    The Facility is a 400 acre site
    which will receive 3,500 tons a day and provide disposal capacity for an estimated 30
    years.
    3.
    On Aug
    18,2003,
    following service and publication ofnotice and public hearings conducted before
    the City
    Council,
    said hearing having been held from Jun 24 -Jun28th, 2003.
    A
    true
    and correct copy of
    the City
    Council Ordinance approving same is attached hereto and made a part hereofa Exhibit A.
    4.
    I appeared and participated in the public hearings held before
    the-City
    Council.
    5.
    I contest and object to the City Councils decision to approve the Request because the siting process
    and procedures by the City
    Council in reach that decision were fundamentally unfair.
    6.
    I further contest the City Councils siting approval because the evidence presented by Town &
    Country failed to establish that Town & Country met the following criteria as established in 39.2(a) ofthe
    act.
    (a)
    that the Facility is so designed,
    located and proposedto be operated so that the public health
    and safety and will be protected, (Criterion 1) and.
    (b)
    that the facility is located in a flood
    plain (Criterion 4) and
    (c)
    that
    a permit has been requested or issued to build in a flood plain as required by Illinois
    Department of
    Natural
    Resources regulations.
    (d)
    The City ofKankakee allowed T&C special indulgences and consideration because fees from
    the facility would heal
    the city’s fmancial dilemma.
    The City
    Council membersare more or less bribed in
    their decision by the
    large amount offees that will be generatedby the landfill.
    They can hardly be
    expected tomake a fairand impartial
    decision when the city financialsituation and the city jobs of their
    supporters are
    so much at stake.
    The penalty for voting against the
    application was to loose the support of
    their fellow councilmen and mayor in patronage and improvements in their district for the people who
    voted them into office.
    The facility is expected to generate income to the
    city in excess of one million
    dollars
    a year. Failure to receive this income will cause budget
    cuts with fewerjobs and lesser services
    furnished to the voters and higher taxes.
    Accordingly, the city
    council did not havethe motivation to make
    a decision based on the manifest weight of the evidence.
    Nor does it have the need research ability or
    knowledge to make this decision.
    I were intheir place, I could not easily have made the decision that
    would have protected the public health and welfare except formy previous knowledge ofthe this aquifer,
    my research experience and education.
    This special indulgence and consideration is apparent in the
    leeway which the city allowed T&C to
    follow
    a strategy of submitting two applications to run the objectors out of money
    and time. This strategy
    was accomplishedby not drilling the test wells required by PCB Phase 2 and
    3 research procedures for the
    first hearing so they
    could hold that in reserve for a second hearing. This would have been successful
    except for the participation of Waste Management and the County ofKankakee.
    This strategy is also
    evident in Town and Country experts and lawyer repeatedly asking time killing nonsensical questions such
    as
    “Where is the
    Screen” and “Where is the
    Seal” for each one of many surrounding
    domestic wells
    (A
    screen is notused in dolomite bedrock wells and the location of the screen is fixed by the
    Public Health
    Rulesthat Mr. Cravenshad explained).
    They were thus able to run the objector group (CRIME) paid
    expert (Stu Cravens) fee
    up to above $13,000,
    far beyond his original estimate of $8,000.
    After this
    expense, the CRIME group of objectors were unable to raise more money
    and afford-the time required for
    another hearing.
    Fortunately, Mr. Cravens who is the top authority on
    this aquifer from his studies while
    withthe Illinois Water Survey was hired for secondhearing by Waste Management.
    This special indulgence is also apparent in that the
    city allowed T&C to submit two applications for a
    landfill without first requiring them to submitting an application to build in a flood plain.
    WHEREFORE, I respectfully request that the Board enter an order (a)
    setting for hearingthis contest
    ofthe City
    council siting approval decision, (b) reversing the City Council siting approval decision, and (c)
    providing such other and further relief as the Board desires appropriate.
    Respectfully submitted,
    Byron
    E. Sandberg
    Byron
    E. Sandberg
    109
    Raub St
    Donovan,
    IL
    60931
    Telephone
    8154867272
    E-Mail
    byronsandberg@starband.net

    Back to top