i~.
CLERK’S
E CE I
~
V
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOAR1~ D ~
~22003
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.,
))
Pollution
STATE
OF
Control
ILLINOIS
Board
Petitioner,
)
No. PCB 04-
)
)
(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.
)
NOTICE OF FILING PETITION FOR REVIEW
TO:
See Attached Service List
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on September 22, 2003, we filed with the Illinois
Pollution Control Board, the attached Waste Management ofIllinois, Inc.’s
PETITION FOR
HEARING
TO CONTEST SITE LOCATION APPROVAL.
W~~Sc~EMANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC..
By:~/
~
One ofIts A meys
Donald J. Moran
PEDERSEN & HOUPT
161 North Clark Street, Suite 3100
Chicago, Illinois 60601
(312) 641-6888
Attorney Registration No. 1953923
DJM 374679 vi September 22, 2003
PROOF OF SERVICE
Victoria L. Kennedy, a non-attorney, on oath States that she served the foregoing Waste
Management ofIllinois, Inc.’s Petition for Hearing to Contest Site Location Approval on
the following parties by depositing same in the
U.S.
mail
at
161 N.
Clark St., Chicago, Illinois
60601, at 5:00 p.m.
on this
22nd day
of September,
2003:
City of
Kankakee
do Anjanita Dumas, Clerk
385
E. Oak Street
Kankakee, IL 60901
Town and Country Utilities, Inc. and
Kankakee Regional Landfill LLC
do Mr. George Mueller
Attorney
at Law
501 State Street
Ottawa,JL
61350
Edward Smith
Kankakee County State’s Attorney
Kankakee County Administration Building
189 East Court Street
Kankakee, Illinois 60901
Mr. Charles F. Heisten
Hinshaw & Culbertson
100 ParkAvenue
P.O. Box 1389
Rockford, Illinois 61105-1389
Christopher Bohien
Barmann, Kramer and Bohien, P.C.
300 East Court Street, Suite 502
P.O. Box
1787
Kankakee,IL 60901
Victoria L. Kennedy
4~Q~
DJM 374679 vi September22, 2003
RE
FRY’S
CE
~iV
~
E D~
BEFORE
THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARñ~
‘
SEP 222003
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.,
)
STATE OF lLLLNO~S
)
P&iuttofl Control Board
Petitioners,
)
No. PCB
04- ~
)
)
(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.
)
PETITION FOR
HEARING
TO CONTEST SITE LOCATION APPROVAL
Petitioner Waste Management ofIllinois, Inc., (“WMII”), by Pedersen &
Houpt, its
attorneys, respectfully requests a hearing to contest the decision ofthe Kankakee City Council
(“City
Council”) granting site location approval forthe proposed Kankakee Regional Landfill
(“Facility”). In support of
this Petition, WMII states as follows:
1.
This Petition is filed pursuant to Section
40.1 ofthe Illinois Environmental
Protection Act (the “Act”) (415 ILCS
5/40.1).
2.
On March 7, 2003, Town & Country
Utilities,
Inc. and Kankakee Regional
Landfill, L.L.C. (“Town & Country”) submitted its request for site location approval for the
Facility, located in Otto Township within the corporate limits ofthe City ofKankakee, Illinois
(“Request”). The Facility is a 400-acre site which will receive 3,500 tons ofwaste per day, and
provide disposal capacity for a minimum of30 years.
3.
Town & Country filed
a request for the same facility on March 7, 2002.
That
request was disapproved by this Board in County of
Kankakee,
et a! v.
City ofKankakee, et a!.,
Nos. PCB 03-3 1, 03-33, 03-35 (cons.), slip op. at 27-30 (January 9, 2003).
4.
On August 18, 2003, following public hearings conducted before the City
Council, said hearings having been held from June 24 to June 28, 2003, the City Council
formally approved the Request. A
true and correct copy of the City Council Ordinance
approving same is attached hereto
and
made a
part
hereof as Exhibit A.
5.
WMII appeared and participated in the public hearings held before the City
Council.
6.
WivIll contests and objects to City Council’s siting approval because the City
Council lacked jurisdiction to consider the Request due to the failure ofTown & Country to
provide the required statutory notice pursuant to Section 3 9.2(b) ofthe Act.
7.
WMII contests and objects to the City Council’s siting approval because the City
Council lacked jurisdiction to consider a request that was substantially the same as the
application filed March 7, 2002, and disapproved by this Board on January 9, 2003, pursuant to
Section 39.2(m) ofthe Act.
8.
WMII further contests and objects to the City Council’s siting approval because
the siting process and procedures used by the City Council in reaching that decision were
fundamentally unfair.
6.
WMII further contests the City Council’s siting approval because the evidence
presented by Town & Country failed to establish that Town & Country met the following criteria
as established in Section 3 9.2(a) ofthe Act:
(a)
that the Facility is so designed, located and proposed to be operated that
the public health, safety and welfare will be protected; and
(b)
that as the 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.
10.
The Request and testimony presented at the siting hearing by Town & Country
inadequately characterized the hydrogeological conditions ofthe site, and based the design and
location ofthe Facility on such characterization.
11.
The Request and the approval by the City Council is directly contrary to the
Kankakee County Solid Waste Management Plan (as amended).
12.
The City Council’s Siting approval should be vacated because the City Council
lacked jurisdiction to review the Requestpursuant to Sections 39.2(b) and 3 9.2(m) ofthe Act. In
addition, the City Council’s siting approval should be reversed because its findings that criteria
two and eight were satisfied are against the manifest weight ofthe evidence.
WHEREFORE, WMII respectfully requests that the Board enter an order (a) setting for
hearing
this contest ofthe City Council siting approval decision, (b) vacating
or reversing the
City Council siting approval decision, and (c) providing such other and
further relief as the Board
deems appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
WA TE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.
By
One ofIts Atto
/~
eys
Donald J. Moran
PEDERSEN & HOUPT
Attorneys for Petitioner
161 N. Clark Street
Suite 3100
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 641-6888
373296.1
RECEIVED
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL
CLERK’S OFFICE
CITY OF KANKAKEE, ILLINOIS
SEP 232003
STATE OF ILLINOIS
IN RE:
)
Pollution Control Board
)
THE APPLICATION FILED ON MARCH
7,
2003
)
OF TOWN AND COUNTY UTILITIES INC.
)
and KANKAKEE REGIONAL LANDFILL, L.L.C.
)
for SITING APPROVAL
)
OF A POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY.
)
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW OF THE CITY OF KANKAKEE.
The City Council of the City of Kankakee, as the siting authority pursuant to
Section 39.2 ofthe Illinois Environmental ProtectionAct, 415 ILCS 5/39.2.(hereinafter
“The Act”) has received an application for siting approval of a Regional Pollution
Control Facility and has thereafter conducted a siting hearing pursuant to the
application and The Act.
Pursuant to the Act the City Council of Kankakee makes the following recitals:
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Kankakee being fully
advised of the premisses herein does hereby make the following findings of fact and
conclusions oflaw.
I. Preliminary Findings:
A.
The City Council of the City of Kankakee has jurisdiction to consider the
application filed herein pursuant to Section 39.2 of the Environmental
Protection Act based upon the fact that the proposed site consisting of
approximately 400 acres is located within the municipal boundaries ofthe City
of Kankakee.
B.
A public hearing was held pursuant to the Act and City of Kankakee Pollution
Control Facilities Siting Ordinance (hereinafter “the Ordinance”) and the
procedures set forth therein. The applicant filed herein an application, as
corrected, which contains all of the information required by 39.2 (C) of the Act
and the applicable ordinance.
C.
Town & County Utilities, Inc., and Kankakee Regional Landfill, L.L.C. properly
filed the required number of its application. The application consists of eight
volumes, supplemental drawings, core samples and core sample observation logs
and modeling data.
A
-Page 2-
D.
The required filing fee of $100,000.00 has been deposited with the City Clerk of
the City of Kankakee. The City Clerk has made copies of the application
available forpublic review and copying. The City further provided a copy ofsaid
application to Kankakee County at no expense.
E.
A public hearing on the application commenced on June 24, 2003 and was
concluded on June 28, 2003 in the City of Kankakee City Council Chambers,
Kankakee Illinois. The public hearing was held no sooner than 90 days but no
later than 120 days from and after the filing ofthe application with the City on
March, 7, 2003. All published and written notices for the public hearing were
duly and properly given as required by the Act and by the Ordinance. The public
hearing was presided over by Robert Boyd, a licensed attorney who was not
otherwise employed by nor connected with any of the parties herein.
F.
All notices and publications required by the Act and the Siting Ordinance were
duly and properly given and no objection has been made to the notices which
have been given nor has any party argued or offered evidence indicating any
deficiency in said notices.
G.
Said hearings were held pursuant to the applicable ordinances of the City of
Kankakee and the rules and regulations adopted pursuant and specifically
pursuant to the City of Kankakee Pollution Control Facility Siting Ordinance,
(hereinafter referred to as “Siting Ordinance”).
H.
During the hearings all persons desiring to be participants in the hearing,
including members of the public were provided an opportunity to present
testimony, offer exhibits, be represented by counsel, cross-examine witnesses
and provide public comment. Prior to the hearing individuals and entities filed
written comments and those comments are specifically included herein as a
portion ofthis record.
Persons
who appeared and partieipated as objectors were: Kankakee County,
Waste Management ofIllinois, Inc. and Byron Sandberg.
J.
During said hearings testimony was offered by the applicant and objectors. Said
testimony was under oath and subject to cross examination. Additional oral
public comment was received which was neither under oath nor subject to cross
examination.
-Page 3-
K.
Following the final day of hearings additional public comments were accepted
through July 29, 2003. In addition thereto, the applicant and objectors were
requested to submit proposed findings, briefs and argument by July 29, 2003.
L.
The City also sought input from an independent geologist, Mr. Ralph
Yarborough, PhD of Geo-Technical Associates, Inc. whose final report was
received on July 28, 2003 and is expressly incorporated herein.
M.
At the public hearing, each witness was placed under oath and was subject to
cross examination by those participating in and attending the hearing; with the
exception of individuals who chose to make unsworn public comments.
N.
A transcript ofthe hearing was made and is expressly incorporated herein.
0.
The City ofKankakee received documentary evidence including maps, drawings
and photographs from the applicant and other participants. Those exhibits are
also expressly incorporated herein. Also offered and accepted into evidence are
the written transcripts of a previous siting hearing held in connection with a
previous siting application.
P.
The record of this public hearing is sufficient to form the basis of an appeal of
any decision of this City Council in accordance with Section 40.1 of the Act.
Q..
No amendment to the application was filed during the course of these
proceedings.
R..
Written public comments and other filings were received from the applicants
and the others through July 29, 2003. Said public comments and filings are
expressly incorporated herein.
S.
Motions were filed by various objectors prior to the commencement of the
hearing. Those motions are as follows:
1. Motion to Disciualifv Alderman JoAnne Schwade filed by Waste Management
and joined by Kankakee County. Said motion was denied by the Hearing
Officer. The City Council finds that the ruling was correct and cites Section
39.2(d) in support ofthe Hearing Officer’s Ruling. The City Council further notes
that the evidence relied upon in support of the motion explicitly quotes Aid.
Schwade indicating that she intended to await the hearings to decide the issue
and desired additional evidence to determine her final position.
Ti
-Page 4-
2. Motion to Quash Siting Hearing filed by Kankakee County. Said motion was
based upon the City filing an action to protect its jurisdiction and sought a
finding that the Solid Waste Plan of Kankakee County was unconstitutional.
The City Council finds that the decision of the Hearing Officer was correct and
states that the action of challenging the legality of the County’s Solid Waste
Plan was not and is not indicative of prejudgement of the merits of the
application but a proper assertion of its obligation to protect its Home Rule
authority pursuant to the Constitution of the State of Illinois.
3. Motion To Dismiss Application filed by Waste Management of Illinois, Inc.
The basis ofthe motion was that the application was substantially the same as
a previous application which had previously been approved by the City of
Kankakee but which approval was reversed by the Illinois Pollution Control
Board. The City Council. does hereby approve the denial of the motion by the
Hearing Officer..
The City Council further finds that the prior application was not in fact
disapproved by the local siting authority. Further the City Council finds that the
current application is substantially different than the previous application in
those portions of the application which describe compliance with the criteria of
The Act.
(a) Specifically, the service area described by the applicant is
substantially smaller in the current application than the prior
application.
(b) The current application contains substantial additional hydro-
geological information, including three additional volumes notpreviously
included in the prior application. (c) The current application further
proposes alternate designs not included in the prior application including
a geo-composite liner, a double 60 mil. liner of the sumps and the v-
notches, the incorporation ofthe updated flood plain map, new studies
regardingendangered species, biology, fish andmussels and mammalogy,
an archaeological investigation, substantial amounts of groundwater
impact modeling using a two dimensional model and substantial
additional ground water monitoring data.
T.
A motion was filed by the applicant duringthe course ofthe hearing requesting
the Hearing Officer to declare the Solid Waste Management Plan ofKankakee
County to be unconstitutional. The Hearing Officer deniedsaid motion upon the
basis that he did not have the authority to rule upon said motion. The City
Council, while supportive of the motion, hereby affirms the decision of the
Hearing Officer. However, the City Councilfinds affirmativelythat it does agree
that the attempt ofKankakee County to deny the City ofKankakee the ability
to site a solid waste facility in the City ofKankakee is an improper infringement
ofits Home Rule authorityand inconsistent with intent andpurpose ofThe Act,
-Page 5-
II. FINDINGS REGARDING CRITERIA.
Now be it further resolved by the City Council of the City of Kankakee that the
following expressed findings regarding said application are hereby made.
The City Council is required to make findings regarding each of the specific
criteria provided in Section 39.2 of the Act. It is based upon these criteria that the
following findings offact are found to have been offered into evidence.
Criteria 1. The applicant has established that the facility is necessary to
accommodate the waste needs of the area it is intended to serve.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Evidence in support of this finding:
A.
The applicant has identified a service area consisting of the City of
Kankakee, Kankakee County and seven other counties located in Northeastern
Illinois and Northwestern Indiana.
B.
The designation of the service area was supported by the testimony of
Phillip Kowalski, a senior planner with Envirogen, Inc., which testimony is
described in the following findings.
C.
Based upon the needs of the service area, the facility is smaller in
disposal capacity than is necessary for the area as described.
D.
The only currently operating landfill in Kankakee County will have
reached its capacity by 2005. Allother operating landfillsin the service area are
projected to reach capacity by mid 2009. Based upon said projections the City
ofKankakee will have few options available for the disposal ofits waste in the
near future.
E.
The waste likely to be generated in the service area will increase over the
next 30 years due to the projected increases in population.
F.
Even considering the existing and anticipated levels of recycling, the
proposed facility is necessary to accommodate the waste needs ofthe area that
it is intended to serve.
-Page 6-
G.
Kankakee County argues Kowaiski failed to consider the siting of the
proposed addition to the operating Waste Management facility. The City Council
takes notice of the fact that the siting approval of the Waste Management
facilitywas expressly reversed by the Illinois Pollution Control Board on August
7, 2003 and that at the time of this decision there is no application pending for
siting of said approval.
H.
No testimony was offered to contradict the testimony ofKowaiski.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based upon the testimony, the exhibits admitted and the applicable legal
arguments and the absence ofcompetent testimony to the contrary, the City Council
determines that the applicant has satisfied Criteria Number One and this facility is
necessary to accommodate the waste needs of the area it is intended to serve.
-Page 7-
Criteria 2. The applicant has established that the facility is designed and
located and proposed to be operated so that the public health,
safety and welfare will be protected.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Evidence is support of this finding:
A.
Daniel J. Drommerhausen, a senior hydrogeologist employed by
Envirogen Inc. testified on behalf of the applicant. He testified that he is a
licensed professional geologist ofthe State ofIllinois. Drommerhausen testified
that he had conducted hydro geologic investigations ofthe site in question. He
also reviewed regional hydro geologic investigations ofthe Illinois State Geolagic
Survey, Illinois State Water Survey and the U.S. Geologic Survey.
It was his opinion that the site is located atop Silurian Dolomite bedrock.
He characterized the Dolomite as a major variable aquifer whose productivity
is affected by glacial till and Pennsylvanian deposits overlying the bedrock. He
reviewed 174 private well logs within a two mile area of the site. He testified
that the logs did not contain useful hydro geologic information because of the
absence ofinformation regarding casing and sealing and the lack of appropriate
information regarding well yield.
He did testify that the original application was based upon 19 borings
including one which penetrated 59 feet into bedrock. As a portion ofthe current
application additional borings have been completed which include an additional
24 borings two of which were angle borings. The current application includes
water level data from 36 additional monitoring wells, 81 additional permeability
tests. 37 packer tests were performed including tests in the competent bedrock.
59 slug tests were performed including 50 in the bedrock system and 10 in the
competent bedrock.
According to all of the tests which were performed, Drommerhausen
found that the upper bedrock had an average hydraulic conductivity of 5.3x10
4 centimeters per second. He found that the competent bedrock had an average
hydraulic conductivity of 1.1 x 105 centimeters per second. Drommerhausen
further opined that the potentiometric surface of the water in the bedrock was
significantly higher than the base of the proposed liner throughout the site.
Drommerhausen, applying “Darcy’s Law” determined that the groundwater
seepage velocity is 3.7 meters per year in the weathered portion of the dolomite
and .13 meters per year in the competent Dolomite
-Page 8-
He testified that the slightly downward vertical gradient in the Silurian
Dolomite between the weathered and competent zones will be reversed into an
upward gradient after landfill construction.
Drommerhausen stressed in his testimony that the Applicant had
employed a conservative approach in modeling the hydrogeologic properties of
the site, by creating a model based on Dolomite which was thinner than that
found at the site. Using a model with thinner Dolomite, according to
Drommerhausen, demonstrates a more conservative approach as thinness
decreases the opportunity for dilution of the contaminants within the landfill,
thereby tending to project higher contaminant concentrations at the point of
compliance. Consequently, even if the extremes for statistical deviations were
to occur, the landfill would, nevertheless, remain in compliance.
Drommerhausen further testified that the inward hydraulic gradient at
the site ranges between 10 and 20 feet of positive hydraulic head difference
between the potentiometric surface ofthe water in the dolomite and the base of
the landfill liner. It is significant that neither Mr. Schuh, testifying for the
County nor Mr. Cravens, testifying on behalf of Waste Management,
contradicted this basic finding.
B.
Devin Moose testified, as a professional engineer, on behalf of the
applicant. He testified regarding the design and proposed operation of the
proposed landfill. Moose’s testimony is found as stated below.
Moose testified that the design is in accordance with all State and Federal
requirements and meets and in some areas exceeds all applicable Federal and
State standards. That compliance includes the necessary setbacks for both
nearby airports. Moose further testified that there was no impact on wetlands
and is not in a fault area or unstable zone, not in a seismic impact zone and does
not impact any wild scenic rivers or historic and natural areas. Further the site
meets all minimum setback requirements from local water supply wells, roads,
highways, occupied dwellings, schools retirement homes and hospitals.
According to Moose, the design incorporates an inward hydraulic gradient
where the potentiometric surface for the uppermost aquifer will be substantially
higher than the maximum one foot of leachate allowed at the base of the liner.
-Page 9-
Moose also described the composite liner system consisting of at least 3
feet of recompacted clay and a 60 mil. high density polyethylene liner.
Moose also described an option to include a geo-composite liner and double 60
mu. HDPE liners in sensitive locations such as the sump areas and v-notches.
The design also includes a leachate management system, a gas collection
and monitoring system and a system formanagement ofstorm water. The storm
water management system includes 4 wet bottom detention basins with a
combined surface area of26 acres. This will allow storm water to be discharged
gradually into Minnie Creek. The system also assures that storm water and
leachate will be separated to assure that no leachate will be discharged into the
storm water system.
Moose also testified regarding the operational plan for the landfill
including the measures to control litter, odors, mud and other similar issues. He
described daily intermediate cover and the staffing and equipment
requirements. He established that the fire protection plan was approved by the
City of Kankakee Fire Department.
Moose’s presentation included a description of certain engineering
enhancements that exceeds minimum landfill requirements including a 12 foot
side liner, a structural fill base on top ofthe physically competent bedrock and
underneath the liner system.
Moose testified that the closure process will involve the placement of final
cover of a vegetative layer of grasses. Post closure activities will include ground
water monitoring and leachate collection for a period of 30 years or until such
time as the IEPA certifies leachate management is no longer required.
C.
Waste Management ofIllinois, Inc. called Stuart Cravens, a geologist.
It was Cravens opinion that the entire depth of the Dolomite was an
aquifer. He testified regarding the data he observed from 4 wells the penetratei
the Dolomite. He characterized the area, including the landfill, as a fractured
bedrock aquifer to a depth of at least 50 feet below the top ofthe bedrock. He was
critical ofthe applicant’s characterization of the location and the extent of the
fractures in the Dolomite.
-Page 10-
Cravens criticized the applicant’s boring logs as containing inadequate
information. He did acknowledge that the boring logs relied upon by him did not
contain geologic classifications and that his logs were rounded to the nearest foot
while those ofthe applicant were stated to .1 feet. Cravens testified regarding the
fact that he had conducted calculations based upon his borings but was lacking
missing data at the interface between the weathered bedrock and competent
bedrock.
Cravens also testified that over 300 wells exist within 2 miles ofthe site.
He concluded that more than half ofthe wells were drawing water from the lower
zone of the Silurian Dolomite.
D.
Kankakee County called Jeffery Schuh, an officer of Patrick Engineering
and a licensed professional engineer. Schuh, testified that there was insufficient
analysis to conclude that the design ofthe landfill was safe. He claimed that the
calculations conducted by the applicant failed to properly estimate the hydraulic
conductivity of the bedrock.
Schuh testified that while he supervised both Chris Burger who reviewed
an application by co-objector Waste Management for siting ofa landfill and Steve
Van Hook who had reviewed the prior application presented to the City, he had
no knowledge ofthe findings of either ofthose employees under his supervision.
Thus, he was unable to explain the findings of approval by his employee of the
Waste Management siting application with similar hydro geologic conditions as
the instant site nor could he respond to questions regarding the previous
testimony of Mr. Van HoOk that the previous design was compliant with this
criteria if the landfill was constructed as designed.
Mr. Schuh did not testify that the facility was not protective ofthe public
health safety and welfare, but only that he feltthere was insufficient information
to conclude that the issue of public safety was proven.
E.
Dr. David Daniel was called for his opinions by the applicant. Dr. Daniel
is the Dean of the College of Engineering of the University of Illinois. He has
extensive experience in research and consulting regarding pollution control
facility sites including nuclear waste sites and several federal “super fund” sites.
Dr. Daniel testified that he had conducted a peer review of the hydro
geologic investigation, the site’s proposed design and the groundwater impact
evaluation. He opined that the inward gradient design was “state ofthe art” and.
would assure the protection of the public safety, health and welfare and.
environment
.
He testified that the construction of the facility, as designed,
would be consistent with the protection ofthe public health safety and welfare.
-Page 11-
He found that the groundwater impact study was extremely conservative
and further underscored the protection which the design of the landfill would
provide. He further testified that the characterization of the bedrock as an
aquifer or an aquitard was not essential to determine the safety of the landfill.
Rather the design included the use of the inward gradient assuming and
incorporating the assumption that the bedrock was an aquifer.
Dr. Daniel further testified regarding the use of “double liners”. He
testified that the use of double liners can be counter-productive due to the
possibility of damage to the liner during the installation of the secondary liner
and further the lack ofproof of any benefit to be derived from a double liner. He
testified that the use of a double liner was of no benefit in the design of the
facility.
Addressing the concerns of the Pollution Control Board, in its decision
regarding the previous siting application, that the effectiveness ofthe inward
gradient “is compromised when the aquifer lies below the foundation of the
landfill”, Dr Daniel testified that the proper analysis required that the Dolomite
be considered in its entirety. Once that analysis is accomplished, he said, the
data resulting from that analysis discloses that the permeabilites ofthe Dolomite
are high Onough to actually increase the upward driving force of the inward
gradient. Thus, there is not issue regarding downward vertical migration and
the issues raised by the Pollution Control Board are not applicable to this site
with this design.
Questioned on the issue of downward flow in the Dolomite to which Mr.
Schuh had alluded, Professor Daniel referred to flow calculations which he had
performed for the site. Because these calculations were made to directly address
the merit of the issues raised by Schuh, they incorporated those contentions.
Relying on those calculations, Professor Daniels stated that the”gradient is
inward even in the rock, and the flow is inward in the rock.” Explaining why
that result occurred, Dr. Daniel referred back to the higher permeabilites shown
to be present when the dolomite was considered in its entirety, emphasizing that
those higher permeabilities actually increase the upward driving force of the
inward gradient.
F.
The City previously retained Dr. Ralph Yarborough to review this
application as an independent geologist. His conclusions are included in the
record. He concluded that the proposed landfill could be constructed and the
groundwater supply of the immediate area can be protected as projected by the
applicant. He recommended the grouting ofthe open joints which are located in
the exposed competent dolomite on the landfill invert.
-Page 12-
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based upon all of the testimony provided herein, it is clear that the proposed
design and proposed operation plan satisfies Criteria Number Two and that the facility
is designed, located and proposed to be operated so that the public health, safety and
welfare will be protected. Said conclusion is based upon these specific findings:
1. The bedrock system is an aquifer.
2. There is sufficient evidence to establish that the applicant’s characterization
of the bedrock, based upon the measured characteristics as established by the
numerous test borings, is consistent with all other regional data.
3. The modeling performed by the applicant is sufficient and accurate.
4. The inward gradient design is adequate to eliminate the need to model
downward movement of contaminants.
5. The potentiometric surface of the bedrock is sufficiently above the base ofthe
liner and the maximum allowable level of leachate, which creates an inward
gradient which is consistent with the protection of the environment
6. The ground water impact evaluations are sufficiently accomplished and are
supportive of the applicant’s witness’ opinions that the design is consistent with
the protection ofthe public health and environment.
7. The applicant and the testimony of Stuart Cravens are consistent in the
characterization ofthe bedrock system.
8. The criticism of Stuart Cravens regarding the data of the applicant’s boring
data is not persuasive due to the lack ofsignificant information in the data upon
which he relied.
9. The testimony ofJeffery Schuh failed to consider the testing performed by the
applicant. Further his testimony regarding his lack of knowledge of the
conclusions of employees under his direct supervision on similar issues
undermined his credibility.
-Page 13-
10. The testimony of Dr. David Daniel is persuasive. His credentials and
qualifications indicate substantial knowledge and involvement both in the design
and remediation of solid waste disposal sites. His clear opinions were highly
supportive of the applicant’s satisfaction of this criteria. Dr. Daniel’s testimony
is found to be of substantial importance due to its clarity and his extensive
background and thorough knowledge.
11. The opinion of Dr. Ralph Yarborough is also found to be supportive of the
applicant’s position. Dr. Yarborough, while not a formal witness, was hired to
review the data of the application and the testimony of the hearing. The City
Council relies upon his opinion for the benefit of corroboration and input
regarding specific conditions to be attached to the granting or denial ofthe siting
application.
The City specifically requests the additional conditions described below be
imposed in order to provide additional assurance above and beyond that required by the
Environmental Protection Act in order to provide additional assurance of compliance
with this criteria. However, even without these conditions, the City Council finds that
the criteria have been satisfied by the evidence. In the event that additional borings
determine that additional protection of any aquifer that may exist, it is the
understanding and expectation ofthe City that the technical expertise of the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency make such additional requirements ofthe applicant,
as said technical expertise shall determine is necessary.
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
A.
The City Council does desire to attach certain conditions in order to
reassure the residents of the general area of the viability of the design.
Specifically, City Council requests the following conditions.
1.
The City shall provide a duplicate construction quality assurance
program which will monitor the construction of the landfill to assure that
the construction is consistent with the final design -as permitted by the
IEPA. The City program will provide inspections, monitoring, observation
and documentation of the following construction stages:
a.
Excavation, grading and preparation of the subgrade and
foundation to design parameters.
b.
Placement of the compacted low permeability soil liner.
c.
Placement of geomembrane and geosynthetic components.
d.
Installation of the leachate management systems.
e.
Placement of final cover.
-Page 14-
f.
Installation of the gas management system.
g.
Construction ofsurface water ditches, channels, berms, basins and
drainage structures.
h.
Placement of concrete structures.
The costs of this CQA shall be reimbursed by the applicant to the City.
2.
That a minium one hundred foot set back shall be maintainedfrom Minnie
Creek to the solid waste unit boundary. This set back may include any easement
or right-of-way granted to the Minnie Creek Drainage District for access for
cleaning of the creek and maintenance ofany spoils derived from that portion of
the cleaning which takes place abutting the facility.
3.
Leachate storage shall not be permitted in surface ponds or lagoons in any
point in the development or operation ofthe landfill.
4.
Any leachate storage which would occur outside the waste receiving
boundaries, shall occur in a location within the boundaries of the facility
boundary and shall be a minium of 5 feet above existing grade in an area
protected by other berms of a design and specification approved by the City of
Kankakee and the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.
5.
The quality and composition ofleachate shall be monitored to assure the
ability of the Kankakee River Metropolitan Agency Regional Waste Water
Treatment Plant to treat said leachate on a more frequent basis than proposed
by the applicant.
6.
The 12 foot side liner shall be constructed between the landfill side walls
and Minnie Creek and side walls shall be subject to the quality assurance
program described above.
7.
All storm water shall be routed to the sedimentation basins during the
construction period and retained in the basins prior to discharge. Monitoring of
said discharge will be reviewed by the City to assure sedimentation control
during the construction, operation and closure and any post closure period.
8.
The sedimentation basins closest to the initial cell construction shall be
constructed so as to assure that any dewatering ofthe weather bedrock stratum
takes place into the sedimentation basins.
-Page 15-
9.
Adequate measures shall be taken to assure the protection of any and all
aquifers from any contamination as required by the IEPA through its permitting
process. Upon the determination of the necessary measures of protection, said
measures shall be also approved by the City of Kankakee.
10.
The applicant shall investigate and use phyto-mitigation through the
selection of appropriate plants, to reduce contamination. That, if necessary, the
City shall, at all applicants expense, retain a botanist/biologist for the purposes
of providing consultation to assure appropriate application of this condition.
Costs of said consultant shall be reimbursed to the City by the applicant.
11.
Provide sampling of the storm water quality in the sediment ponds and
Minnie Creek on at least a quarterly basis and during any extreme events such
as high or low flow events.
12.
Provide a specific description of the manner in which the contaminated
water will be collected or stored and develop a plan to assure that the
contaminated water does not leave the site.
13.
Facility inspections and plan updates shall be performed at least
quarterly to detect any potential problems in the Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan.
14.
In the event that any dewatering occurs, effects on Minnie Creek and its
surrounding environment shall be identified as a result of the said dewatering
and associated plan and shall be submitted to the City for review and approval.
15.
Any washing ofwheels ofthe trucks should be routed through an oil-water
separator and assure that the runoff from any wheel washing will not impact the
quality ofwater in Minnie Creek.
16.
The Spill Prevention and Control Plan should identify the type of
equipment that will operate and be stored on site, the location ofthe equipment,
the potential source and type ofrelease, the amount offuel or oil that will be kept
on site and how oil or fuel products will be contained or captured if a release
occurs. In addition, the plan should describe the type ofspill control equipment
both asto its maintenance and its location. The applicant shall also create a spill
pollution control and counter-measures plan for the site.
-Page 16-
17.
All storm water contacting the vehicle fuel and maintenance area shall be
diverted through an oil water separator prior to discharging to the site drainage
ditch or sediment ponds and shall be monitored for water quality.
18.
The landfill shall be required to meet Phase 2 MS4 requirements in
conformity with the City of Kankakee Separate Storm Sewer Program.
19.
Because of Consumers Illinois Water Company’s (hereinafter “CIWC”)
expressed interest in assisting the monitoring ofthe facility and cooperating with
the applicant, the following additional conditions are imposed:
a.
The applicant shall allow CIWC to review and advise regarding the
proposed monitoring of the upper aquifer.
b.
Allow CIWC to review and advise regarding all sampling programs
for storm water management systems.
c.
Allow CIWC to review the sampling frequency and the constituents
to be tested as a result of any dewatering which occur after waste
placement.
d.
Allow CIWC to review the sampling frequency and the constituents
for which testing will occur regarding the vehicle fueling and
maintenance area.
e.
Allow CIWC to participate in construction quality insurance
meetings.
20.
The applicant shall cause the pressure grouting ofall open joints found in
the exposed competent Dolomite on the landfill invert as those open joints are
discovered upon removal ofthe weathered rock and prior to the installation of
any liner consistent with the application previously filed..
.21.
The City Council specifically finds that there is substantial political
interest in the requirements ofa “double liner”. The evidence in this hearing has
established, without contradiction, that a double liner does not offer any
substantial additional protection and its installation may be harmful to the
underlying liner system. However, as an additional condition, should it be
determined either by statute or regulation that a “double liner” system provides
any substantial measure of additional protection, the City Council hereby will
require the applicant to install such a double liner in accordance with said
statutes or regulations.
-Page 17-
Criteria 3: The facility is located so as to minimize incompatibility with the
character of the surrounding area and to minimize the effect and
value of the surrounding property.
FINDING OF FACT
Evidence in support offinding:
1.
Michael Donahue testified as an urban planner regarding the impacts of
the proposed facility on the area in which it is proposed to be located.
2.
He described the existing area mainly as agricultural with growing
commercial and industrial development.
3.
The Kankakee County Zoning Ordinance, previously zoned this property
as industrial.
4.
The City ofKankakee, upon annexation zoned the property as industrial.
Donahue testified that this facility would be compatible with such uses.
5.
Dr. Peter Poletti testified that the proposed facility would have no negative
impact on the surrounding real property values.
6.
He testified regarding his studies of impact on real estate values at a
number ofproposed sanitary landfill sites. He testified that his studies, as well.
as industrial literature, indicated that landfills do not negatively impact real
estate values.
7.
At the proposed site he performed an analysis where he compared real
estate values on an area surrounding the currently operating landfill with sales
in the greater Kankakee area. He found there was no statistically
significant difference in the price of vacant ground, improved lots and single-
family homes between the operating landfill area and the control area.
8.
Dr. Poletti further testified the applicant has instituted a real property
protection program offering land owners in the immediate facility the ability to
lock in a current value oftheir property. However, Poletti testified that such a
plan was not necessary due to the lack of impact on values.
-Page 18-
9.
No empirical evidence or studies were offered by any other witness to show
a negative impact of a solid waste landfill on surrounding real estate values.
10.
Poletti testified that he had re-evaluated his analysis after the initial
testimony in the prior application submitted to the City He acknowledged that
additional sales had occurred but that those sales did not in any way change his
evaluation.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based upon the evidence offered herein it is determined that the facility is located
in such a manner as to minimize incompatibility with the character ofthe surrounding
area and will have no effect on the value of the surrounding property. Said finding is
supported by the evidence described above and is generally without contradiction.
Applicant has established sufficient evidence to satisfy Criteria Number Three.
-Page 19-
Criteria 4. The applicant has established that the facility is located outside
the boundary ofthe 100-year Flood Plain.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Evidence in support of this finding:
1.
The applicant’s witness Devin Moose testified as a professional engineer
that based upon the most recent maps ofthe Federal Emergency Management
Agency Maps that the entire site is outside the 100-year Flood Plain.
2.
There has been no testimony to the contrary.
3.
Evidence in the form of public comment was received regarding past
flooding in the area surrounding the facility which occurred most severely in
1957. However, that evidence does not alter the current maps described above
which consider drainage improvements made since that time.
4.
The applicant has established a proposed storm water management
system which will allow for a controlled release of storm water.
5.
The storm water management plan will assure a more controlled effect of
storm water on the surrounding properties than currently occurs.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based upon the evidence offered, the City ofKankakee finds the proposed facility
is outside the boundaries ofthe 100-year Flood Plain. Criteria Number Four is satisfied.
-Page 20-
Criteria 5. The applicant has established that the plan ofoperations for this
facility is designed so as to minimize the danger to the
surrounding areas from fire, spills or other operational accidents.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Evidence in support of this finding:
1.
Devin Moose testified that this facility with the application contains
detailed emergency response for fire, spills and other operational accidents.
2.
Moose also testified and offered evidence that the City of Kankakee Fire
Department had reviewed the Fire Protection Plan and had issued its approval
ofthe plan.
3.
No evidence was introduced indicating that any responding agency was
incapable with any such accident which may occur.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The applicant has established that the plan of operation for this facility is
designed to minimize the danger to the surrounding areas from fires, spills, or other
operational accidents. The applicant has introduced the only evidence on this issue and
there is no contradictory evidence. The applicant has produced sufficient evidence to
satisfy Criteria Number Five.
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
1.
A condition ofthe approval ofthis application .shall.includeareqnirement
that the applicant, prior to commencing ofoperations, shall work with the
City of Kankakee Fire Department to assure that the operational plan is
consistent with the emergency response of the City of Kankakee Fire
Department and to assure that the City of Kankakee Fire Department
shall be informed at all times regarding any potential hazardous
conditions which may exists and which would increase the likelihood of
any accidently fire, spill or other operational accident.
-Page 21-
Criteria 6.. The applicant has established the traffic patterns to and from the
facility are designed so as to minimize the impact on existing
traffic flows.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Evidence offered in support of this finding:
1.
The applicant called Michael Werthmann, a licensed professional engineer,
who conducted a Traffic Impact Analysis. Werthmann testified regarding two
proposed traffic patterns which were described as a Northern access route and
a Southern access route. He testified that since preparing his initial report for
the prior application that no changes had occurred which would cause him to
modify his opinions.
2~
A Northern access route was preferred due to the fact that it reduced the
number of residences affected by the traffic.
3.
Werthmann testified that all relevant intersections inthe Northern access
alternative were at an A or B service level. He indicated that those servicelevels
would be unchanged by the projected traffic associated with the construction and
operation ofthe facility.
4.
In his opinion, the landfill would have no measurable impact on existing
traffic patterns and that the traffic patterns were designed to minimize the
impact on the existing traffic.
5.
Werthmann further testified that the applicant was agreeing to a
commitment to pay for all necessary upgrades to all road and intersections to
accommodate an access route for trucks of 80,000 lbs. capacity. The financial
costs will include the widening of the roads at certain intersections in order
increase available turn radius.
6.
There is no evidence indicating that the traffic pattern to and from the
facility are designed other than to minimize the impact on existing traffic flows.
7.
It is a finding ofthe City of Council ofKankakee that the Northern route
is the preferred route.
8.
If for any reason the Southern route is designed and permitted by the
IEPA as the preferred route, the conditions as described below shall be imposed.
-Page 22-
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the evidence and subject to the conditions described herein, the City
of Kankakee finds that the applicant has established that the traffic patterns to and
from the facility are designed so as to minimize the impact on existing traffic flows and
therefore has satisfied Criteria Number Six.
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
1.
The City Council of Kankakee requests that the following conditions to be
imposed.
A.
That the Northern route, as described in the testimony, be utilized
and be the preferred route
B,
That all trucks owned or under the control of the applicant be
restricted to the designated route.
C.
That all roadways be brought up to standards in accordance with
the City of Kankakee Engineering requirements to accommodate trucks
of 80,000 lbs. at the expense of the applicant.
D.
That all transporting vehicles to the facility should be covered or
enclosed as required by State law in order to reduce liter
-Page 23-
Criteria 7. The applicant has established that the facility not be used to
store, treat or dispose of hazardous waste.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Evidence in support of finding:
1.
Devin Moose, witness for the applicant has testified that this proposed
facility will not permitted, nor will it be used to store, treat or dispose of
hazardous waste.
2.
There is no need for a finding or additional evidence on this criteria as
such criteria is not applicable to this application.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This facility will not be used to store, treat or dispose ofhazardous waste.
Criteria Number Seven is not applicable.
-Page 24-
Criteria 8. The applicant has established that Kankakee County has not
adopted a solid waste plan which is consistent with the planning requirements ofthe
Local Sold Waste Disposal Act or the Solid Waste Planning and Recycling Act.
Alternatively, if such a plan does exist, the applicant has established that the
application is consistent with the plan.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Evidence in support of this finding:
1.
Kankakee County has adopted a Solid Waste Management Plan,
(hereinafter “the plan”). The plan was adopted on October 12, 1993.
2.
Prior to the time of the adoption of the plan a solid waste advisory
committee was appointed. After the committee was appointed the initial drafts
ofthe plan were apparently developed.
3.
Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, a request was filed by the
City of Kankakee with Kankakee County for all information concerning the
adoption of the plan and its amendments, including records of all notices to the
municipalities regarding the plan and its adoption.
4.
The response ofKankakee County is included in City ofKankakee Exhibit
Number One. Kankakee County filed additional documents after the evidence
had closed but during the period that the record was open for public comment.
There is no evidence that the response to the City pursuant to the Freedom of
Information Act request has not been supplemented.
5.
The records which have been produced and filed herein provide no
evidence that Kankakee County provided written notice to all municipalities
when plan development began.
6.
The records which have been produced and filed herein provide no
evidence that Kankakee County provided any periodic written progress reports
to any municipality or any other entity concerning the preparation of the plan.
7.
The records which have been produced and filed herein provide no
evidence that copies ofthe plan, asproposed, were. submitted.to.all municipalities
or to any other entity prior to its adoption, for review and comment.
-Page 25-
8.
The records which have been produced and filed herein provide no
evidence of any notice to any body or entity or of any public hearings or public
notice prior to the adoption of any of the amendments to the plan adopted by
Kankakee County.
9.
The plan was re-adopted by the Kankakee County Board on August 18,
1995 and a five year update was apparently adopted on July 31, 2000.
10.
Prior to October 9, 2001, the plan prohibited any out-of-county waste.
11.
The plan was amended, October 9, 2001. This amendment removed the
prohibition against out-of-county waste.
12.
Thereafter, the language included in the October 9, 2001 amendment
provided:
“Kankakee County has a single landfill owned and operated by Waste
Management ofIllinois, Inc.. This landfill has provided sufficient capacity
to depose ofwaste generated in Kankakee County and its owner advised
the County that it plans to apply for local site approval to expand the
facility to provide additional disposal capacity to the County. Operation
ofthe landfill has been conducted pursuant to a landfill agreement signed
by the County and Waste Management in 1974 and subsequently
amended. In the event siting approval for an expansion is obtained, the
landfill wil.l provide a minimum of 20-years of disposal capacity through
expansion of the Kankakee landfill. An expansion of the landfill, if
approved, will satisfy the County’s Waste Disposal needs for an additional
20 years. No new disposal facilities will be necessary or desired, in
Kankakee County for purposes of implementing the plan. Kankakee
County will not support and will contest the development of any other
landfill in the County, unless the expansion ofthe existing landfill is not
approved.”
13.
Pursuant to the evidence offered, the amendment was not submitted to the
City, nor any other municipalities or any other entity prior to, or after, its
adoption. The amendment was not submitted to the State of Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency until June 19, 2002, four days following the
commencement of the siting hearing in the prior application proceedings before
the City of Kankakee.
-Page 26-
14.
The plan was amended again on March 12, 2002, the day prior to the filing
ofthe prior application. This amendment provided “an expansion ofthe existing
landfill, if approved, would then satisfy the County’s waste disposal needs for at
least an additional 20 years. In and in accordance with the plan (as amended),
as well as relevant provisions of the local Solid Waste Disposal Act and the Solid
Waste Planning and Recycling Act, no new landfill facilities would be necessary.
15.
In addition, the amendment provided that a “privately owned” landfill
would meet the disposal needs ofthe County for a 20-year period. In addition,
the plan required the existence of an Environmental Contingency Escrow Fund,
a Domestic Well Water Protection Program and a Real Property Protection Plan.
16.
The March 12, 2002 amendment was not submitted to any municipality
including the City of Kankakee prior to its adoption. It also was not submitted
to the State ofIllinois EPA subsequent to its adoption, until June 19, 2002, four
days after the commencement of the hearing for the prior application.
17.
Subsequently, the Illinois Pollution Control Board found the Solid Waste
Plan ofKankakee County to be ambiguous in its decision regarding the previous
siting application.
18.- On February 11, 2003, Kankakee County again adopted an amendment
to its Solid Waste Management Plan. That amendment provided:
“It is the intent ofKankakee County that no landfills or landfill operations
be sited, located, developed or operated within Kankakee County other
than the existing landfill located southeast of the intersection of U.S.
Route 45/52 and 6000 South Road in Otto Township, Kankakee County,
Illinois. The only exception to this restriction on land filling is that an.
expansion ofthe existing landfill on the real property that is contiguous
to the existing landfill would be allowed under this Plan. The expansion
or development ofa landfill on the real property contiguous to the existing
landfill would limit the impacts of land filling activity in the County.
Accordingly, the development of any other landfills in the County on land
that is not contiguous to the existing landfill is inconsistent with this
County’s Solid Waste Management Plan. A noncontiguous landfill is
inconsistent with this Plan regardless of whether it is or to be, situated
-Page 27-
upon, unincorporated County land, incorporated municipal land, village
land, township land, or any other land within the County borders that is
not contiguous and adjacent to the existing landfill.” (sic)
19.
The City of Kankakee has adopted its own Solid Waste Plan which
addresses the need for solid waste disposal for the City’s residents.
20.
The City ofKankakee, as previously described, has the authority for siting
of a solid waste disposal facility within its own boundaries.
21
At the time ofthis finding,(August 18, 2003), no expansion of any current
Kaukakee County landfill has been approved, including any application forsiting
of any facility near or at the site of the currently operating Waste Management
Landfill.
22.
An application was filed with Kankakee County by Waste Management
of Illinois, Inc., to expand its facility on March 29,2002 which was scheduled for
a public hearing on July 22, 2002. No public hearing took place due to the filing
of a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction for failure of proper notice. The
applicant requested that the matter be continued. A second application forsiting
was filed by Waste Management with Kankakee County. The approval of that
siting application was reversed by the Illinois Pollution Control Board on August
7, 2003 when the Board found that Kankakee County lacked jurisdiction to
conduct the siting hearing which it had previously conducted.
23.
The facility proposed by Town and Country Inc .will meet the needs of the
disposal ofthe City ofKankakee’s solid waste for a guaranteed thirty years.
24.
The City of Kankakee has the largest demand for disposal of solid waste
in Kankakee County.
25.
In light of the fact that no expansion of any “existing” landfill has been
approved, this application is consistent with the County’s desire to have one
location and one landfill.
26.
No witness has testified that the application is inconsistent with the
Kankakee County Solid Waste Plan.
-Page 28-
27.
The applicant has agreed to post a liability insurance policy in the face
amount of $5,000,000.00 which is in excess of the requirements of the plan.
28.
The applicant has instituted a property value guarantee program and has
made offersto surrounding property owners in compliance with the requirements
ofthe plan. The applicant has also included a domestic well water protection-plan
which equals or exceeds the requirements of the plan.
29.
The applicant has entered into a host agreement with the City of
Kankakee in compliance with the plan.
30.
The site proposed by this application is contiguous to an existing landfill
and the Waste Management, Inc. operating landfill, in that it is in close
proximity as the proposed site is within two miles of the operating and an
existing landfill.
31..
The County’s plan is ambiguous on its face as it is applied to these facts.
in that the recitals include a stated desire to avoid a “second non-contiguous”
landfill. Further the plan allows for the expansion of“the existing landfill” when
in fact the undisputed evidence establishes that more than 20 landfills exist
within Kankakee County.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The City Council finds the following:
1.
Kankakee County has not adopted a Solid Waste Management Plan which
is consistent with the planning requirements of the Solid Waste Planning and
Recycling Act.
2.
Kankakee County failed to provide the required notices to the City of
Kankakee and other municipalities prior to the adoption of the plan and further
failed to notify or provide for any public hearings or other planning processes in
the adoption ofits subsequent amendments to the plan.
3.
The application is consistent with the Kankakee County Plan as adopted
due to the patent and latent ambiguity of the plan and the failure to define and
describe terms of the plan including “contiguous” and “existing”. Because the
current site is located so as to be near, and in an area which is contiguous, the
site is consistent with the plan.
-Page 29-
4.
The application is in all other ways compliant and consistent with the
plan. The application is further consistent in that no other siting or expansion
has currently been approved for any other site within Kankakee County.
5.
The City further holds that in its opinion the plan, as repeatedly amended
by Kankakee County constitutes an illegal and unconstitutional infringement
upon its statutory authority to site a solid waste disposal facility and upon its
constitutional authority as a Home Rule Unit of government, but concedes that
the Hearing Officer and this City Council are without authority to make such a
finding within the confines ofthis hearing.
6.
The applicant has satisfied the requirements of Criteria Number Eight.
-Page 30-
Criteria 9. The applicant has established that this facility is not located
within a regulated recharge area.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Evidence in support of this finding:
1. The applicant through Devin Moose has established that the site is not within
any regulated recharge area as designated by the State of Illinois. Said finding has
been verified by the JEPA.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The facility site is not located within a regulated recharge area and Criteria
Number Nine is not applicable..
-Page 31-
FINAL APPROVAL OF CITY OF KANKAKEE CITY COUNCIL
Based upon all ofsaid findings and conclusions, the City Council does hereby find
that the Siting Application filed herein has satisfied all criteria.imposed by Statute and
Ordinance and therefore approves the Siting Application subject to the conditions stated
herein.
Mayor Donald E. Green
Ayes:
Nays:
Absent:
~bstentions
12
1
0
1
Attest:
City Clerk
u:wp\cwb\iandfill final findings
2003
