CLERI’S OFFI
CONTROL
BOARD
NOV
1
2 2003
BYRON
SANDBERG,
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS
No.
PCB
~
Control Board
)
)
(Third-Party 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.
)
___________________________________________________________________________
)
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
No. PCB 04-34
)
)
(Third-Party 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.
)
_________________________________________________________________________________
)
COUNTY OF KANKAKEE, ILLiNOIS and
)
EDWARD D. SMITH, KANKAKEE COUNTY
)
STATE’S ATTORNEY,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
No. PCB
04-35
)
)
(Third-Party Pollution Control
)
Facility Siting Appeal)
)
(Consolidated)
THE CITY OF KANKAKEE, ILLiNOIS CITY
)
COUNCIL, TOWNAND COUNTRY UTILITIES,
)
INC. and KANKAKEE REGIONAL LANDFILL,
)
L.L.C.
)
)
Respondents.
)
NOTICE OF FILING
DJM 378163 vi November 12,2003
c~
/
Petitioner,
TO:
See Attached Service List
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on November 12, 2003, we filed with Mr. Bradley
Halloran, the attached
MOTION TO COMPEL
TOWN
& COUNTRY AND
KANKAKEE
REGIONAL
LANDFILL, L.L.C. TO
ANSWER REQUESTS
FOR ADMISSION OF
FACT AND
INTERROGATORY in the above entitled matter.
W
E MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.
BYT~J~
One ofIts Atto eys
Donald J. Moran
PEDERSEN & HOUPT
161 North Clark Street, Suite 3100
Chicago, Illinois 60601
(312) 641-6888
Attorney Registration No. 1953923
DJM 378163 vi November 12,2003
BEFORE
CONTROL BOARD
BYRON SANDBERG,
)
Petitioner,
)
No. PCB 04-33
)
)
(Third-PartyPollution Control
)
Facility Siting Appeal)
)
THE CITY OF KANKAKEE, ILLINOIS CITY
)
COUNCIL, TOWN AND COUNTRY UTILITIES,
)
INC. and KANKAKEE REGIONAL LANDFILL,
)
L.L.C.
)
)
Respondents.
)
_________________________________________________________________________________
)
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
No. PCB 04-34
)
)
(Third-Party 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.
)
_________________________________________________________________________________
)
COUNTY OF KANKAKEE, ILLINOIS and
)
EDWARD D. SMITH, KANKAKEE COUNTY
)
STATE’S ATTORNEY,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
No. PCB 04-3 5
)
)
(Third-PartyPollution Control
)
Facility Siting Appeal)
)
(Consolidated)
THE CITY OF KANKAKEE, ILLINOIS CITY
)
COUNCIL, TOWN AND COUNTRY UTILITIES,
)
INC. and KANKAKEE REGIONAL LANDFILL,
)
L.L.C.
)
)
Respondents.
)
MOTION TO COMPEL TOWN & COUNTRY UTILITIES, INC.
AND
KANKAKEE
REGIONAL LANDFILL, L.L.C.
TO ANSWER REOUESTS FOR ADMISSION OF FACT AND INTERROGATORY
Petitioner, WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC. (“WMII”), by its attorneys,
Pedersen & Houpt, pursuant to Sections 101.616(b) and 101.618(h) ofthe Pollution Control
Board’s Procedural Rules, moves for an order overruling the objection ofRespondents Town &
Country Utilities, Inc. and Kankakee Regional Landfill, L.L.C. (“T&C”) to certain requests for
admission of fact and one interrogatory and compelling T&C to answer them. In support ofthis
motion, WMII states as follows:
1.
On October 16, 2003, WMII served Request for Admission (“Request”) on T&C.
The Request contained 37 requests to admit facts relating to the service of pre-filing notice
(nos. 1-15) and the contents ofthe 2002 and 2003 siting application (nos. 16-36). Sufficiency of
pre-fihing notice and the filing ofsubstantially the same application as one disapproved within
the preceding two years are jurisdictional issues properly considered by the Pollution Control
Board in a Section 40.1(b) appeal. 415 ILCS 5/39.2(b),(m) (2002). A true and correct
photocopy ofthe Request is attached as Exhibit A.
2.
On November 6, 2003, T&C filed its Response to the Request (“T&C Response”).
In its Response, T&C objected to 22 requests to admit on the grounds that they called for a legal
conclusion. In addition, T&C objected to 18 requests (nos. 19-36) because they are alleged to
address issues on which the record is closed, and no further discovery is permitted. A true and
correct photocopy of the T&C Response is attached as Exhibit B.
3.
None ofthe requests to admit calls for a legal conclusion. Section 101.618 allows
a request for admission ofthe truth ofany “specific statements offact.” Each of the requests
involves a specific statement of fact, not a legal conclusion. Statements of fact include the
contents ofa document, a party’s understanding ofthe meaning ofa document, and a party’s
conductpursuant to a document. P.R.S. International, Inc. v. Shred Pax Corp., 184 Ill.2d 224,
2
23 6-37, 703 N.E.2d 71(1998); Booth Oil Site Administrative Group v. Safety-Kleen
Corporation, 194 F.R.D. 76, 80 (W.D.N.Y. 2000). Statements offact involve whether an action
was taken, a statement made, an event occurred or a consequence resulted. Hubeny v. Chairse,
305 Ill.App.3d 1038, 713 N.E.2d 222, 226 (2d Dist. 1999). Such requests to admit statements of
fact are proper. Robertson v. Sky Chefs. Inc., 2003 I1LApp. LEXIS 1270, at
2,4-5
(1st Dist. October 17, 2003).
4.
Moreover, a request to admit may seek admission ofan “ultimate” fact or a fact
that necessarily leads to a legal conclusion. P.R.S. International, 184 I11.2d at 236; Hubeny, 713
N.E.2d at 226. Even if the admission offacts
(e.g.
party’s failure to observe red traffic light
resulted in collision that caused compensable injury) requires a legal conclusion
(e.g.,
party was
negligent and liable for injury), a request for that admission does not call for a legal conclusion
and is proper. Hubeny, 713 N.E.2d at 226. So long as the fact finding must take some analytical
step, no matter how small, from the contents ofthe admission to reach the legal conclusion, the
request for admission is proper. Hubeny, 713 N.E.2d at 226.
5.
T&C’s objection to RequestNos. 19 through 36 that the record is closed and no
further discovery is permitted is also meritless. Requests for admission are not discovery. P.R.S.
International, 184 Ill.2d at 237. The purpose ofrequests to admit are not to discover facts, but to
establish facts so as to narrow the issues for trial. P.R.S. International, 184 Ill.2d at 237. Proper
use ofrequests to admit will save substantial time and cost for the parties and the Board.
Szczeblewski v. Gossett,
Il1.App.3d
,
795
N.E.2d 368, 372 (5th Dist. 2003). The Request
seeks to establish facts relating to pre-filing notice and to the filing ofa second application for
the purpose ofnarrowing factual issues and obviating the necessity offormal proof at hearing.
3
Specific Objections
6.
T&C objects that it is unable to respond to RequestNo. 2 because it calls for a
legal conclusion. T&C then asserts that the records “speak forthemselves.” Both claims are
groundless. The contents ofthe Assessor’s records are clearly questions offact. Safety-Kleen
Corporation, 194 F.R.D. at 80. An assertion that a document “speaks for itself’ is not a proper
response to a request to admit. Safety-Kleen Corporation, 194 F.R.D. at 80.
7.
T&C objects to RequestNo. 3 because it calls for a legal conclusion, and further
states that the record of the County Treasurer “speak for themselves”. For the reasons set forth in
paragraph 6 above, these assertions should be overruled and T&C should be required to answer.
8.
T&C objects to Request No. 4 because the word “indivfdually” renders the request
one that seeks a legal conclusion. The word “individually” refers to whether the notice was
served on Ms. Skates personally, as opposed to collectively or in a representative capacity, and
thus relates to the method ofservice and the capacity in which she received notice. These are
facts, not legal conclusions. Further, T&C’s answer is not responsive, and it should be compelled
to provide an answer that properly responds to the Request.
9.
T&C objects that Request No.
5
is vague and calls for a legal conclusion. Request
No.
5
requests that T&C admit the fact that Judith Skates was served pre-fihing notice on behalf
ofher brothers and sister. No legal conclusion is involved. The answer provided by T&C is not
responsive. T&C should be required to provide a responsive answer.
10.
T&C objects to Request Nos. 19 through 36 as calling for legal conclusions. The
objection is without merit. Request Nos. 19 through 36 request that T&C admit the contents of
two documents: the siting applications filed by T&C with the City ofKankakee in 2002 and
2003. The contents of those applications, including T&C’s understanding ofthe applications, are
4
questions offact which are proper subjects for a request to admit. P.R.S. International, 184 Ill.2d
at 23 6-37; Safety-Kleen Corporation, 194 F.R.D. at 80. The fact that the admission of certain of
these Requests may result in reaching the conclusion that the 2003 siting application is
substantially the same as the 2002 siting application does not render any individual Request
improper as seeking a legal conclusion. None ofthe Requests ask T&C to admit that the 2003
siting application is substantially the same as the 2002 siting application that was disapproved by
the Pollution Control Board. Even if such a requestto admit were presented, T&C acknowledges
that such an issue is a question offact. (T&C Response, ¶~f19-36.) In any event, Request Nos.
19 through 36 merely seek admission regarding the contents ofthe written applications. The
contents ofthese documents, and T&C’s understanding ofthem, are questions of factproperly
presented in a requestto admit. Robertson, at 2-5; Szczeblewski,
795
N.E.2d at 371; Safety-
Kleen Corporation, 194 F.R.D. at 80.
11.
T&C further objects to RequestNos. 19 through 36 because they are alleged to
address issues on which the record is closed, and “in which there can therefore be no additional
discovery or evidence presented.” (T&C Response, ¶~J19-36.) The objection is groundless.
Jurisdictional issues involving Sections 3 9.2(b) and 39.2(m) ofthe Illinois Environmental
Protection Act are properly considered by the Pollution Control Board in this appeal. 415 ILCS
5/40.1(2002). Hence, the record is not closed on these jurisdictional issues. In addition, the
purpose ofrequests to admit is not to discover facts but to establish them, so that issues may be
narrowed and the necessity offormal proofat hearing minimized. P.R.S. International, 184 Il1.2d
at 237; Szczeblewski, 795 N.E.2d at 372. The Request is proper as a means to establish facts and
obviate the need for extensive formal proofat hearing.
12.
On October 16, 2003, WMII served interrogatories on T&C. A true and correct
5
photocopy ofPetitioner’s Interrogatories are attached as Exhibit C. Interrogatory No. 5 asks that
T&C provide information explaining or supporting any denials of the requests to admit.
13.
T&C objected to Interrogatory No.
5
by stating as follows: “Respondents object
to this Interrogatory as vague, over broad, burdensome, calling for legal conclusions, and relating
to matters on which the record is already complete and on which, therefore, there cannot be
additional discovery.” T&C’s objection is substantially the same as its objection to the requests
to admit. A true and correct photocopy ofT&C’s Answers to Interrogatories Tendered by
Petitioner, Waste Management ofIllinois, Inc. are attached as Exhibit D.
14.
Interrogatory No.
5
is neither vague nor over broad. It simply requests T&C to
fairly address the substance ofthe requested admission by providing information explaining or
supporting its denial. As discussed above, the jurisdictional issues are relevant in this appeal and
the requests seek the admission offacts, not legal conclusions. Accordingly, T&C should be
compelled to answer Interrogatory No.
5.
WHEREFORE, WMII requests that an order be entered:
(A)
requiring T&C to answer Request Nos. 2 through 5 and 19 through 36;
(B)
requiring T&C to answer Interrogatory No.
5
for each request to admit it
denies; and
(C)
awarding such other and further relief as deemed necessary and just.
Dated: November 7, 2003.
pectfully submitted,
One ofIts ~ttorneys
Donald J. Moran
PEDERSEN & HOUPT
161 North Clark Street, Suite 3100
Chicago, Illinois 60601
(312) 641-6888
6
PROOF OF SERVICE
Victoria L. Kennedy, a non-attorney, on oath states that she served the foregoing
MOTION TO COMPEL TOWN & COUNTRY AND
KANKAKEE REGIONAL
LANDFILL, L.L.C. TO ANSWER REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION OF FACT AND
INTERROGATORY on the following parties as set out below:
Bradley Halloran, Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
100 West Randolph Street, Suite 11th Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60601
via hand delivery
Mr. George Mueller
Attorney at Law
501 State Street
Ottawa,IL 61350
viafacsimile transmission
-
(815) 963-9989
Mr. Byron Sandberg
109 Raub Ave
Donovan IL 60931
via electronic transmission-
byronsandberg@starband.net
Mr. Kenneth Leshen
Assistant City Attorney
One Dearborn Square
Suite
550
Kankakee,IL 60901
viafacsimile transmission
-
(815) 933-3397
L. PatrickPower, Esq.
956
North Fifth Avenue
Kankakee, IL 60901
viafacsimile transmission
-
(815) 937-0056
Ms. Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
100 West Randolph Street, Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
via hand delivery
Mr. Charles F. Helsten
Hinshaw & Culbertson
100 ParkAvenue
P.O. Box 1389
Rockford, Illinois 61105-1389
viafacsimile transmission
-
(815)
963-9989
Edward Smith
Kankakee County State’s Attorney
Kankakee County Administration Building
189 East Court Street
Kankakee, Illinois 60901
viafacsimile transmission
-
(815) 937-3932
Christopher Bohlen
Barmann, Kramer and Bohien, P.C.
300 East Court Street, Suite 502
P.O. Box 1787
Kankakee,IL 60901
viafacsimile transmission
-
815/939-0994
Ms. Claire Manning
Posegate & Denes, P.C.
111 N. Sixth Street
Springfield, IL
62705
viafacsimile transmission
-
(217) 522-6184
by electronic transmission to Mr. Byron Sandberg at the e-mail address noted above, by hand delivery to Mr.
Bradley Halloran and Ms. Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, by facsimile
transmission to the parties with facsimile numbers indicated above, and by depositing a copy thereof enclosed in an
envelope in the U.S. mail at 161 N. Clark St., Chicago, Illinois 60601 on this 12th day ofNovember, 2003.
Victoria L. Kennedy
~LL~
~‘
J
DJM 378163 vi November 12,2003
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
BYRON SANDBERG,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
No. PCB 04-33
)
)
(Third-Party Pollution Control
)
Facility Siting Appeal)
)
‘‘HE CITY OF KANKAKEE, ILLINOIS CITY
)
COUNCIL, TOWNAND COUNTRY UTILITIES,
)
INC. and KANKAKEE REGIONAL LANDFILL,
)
L.L.C.
)
)
Respondents.
)
___________________________________________________________________________
)
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
No. PCB 04-34
)
)
(Third-Party Pollution Control
)
Facility Siting Appeal)
)
THE CITY OF KANKAKEE, ILLINOIS CITY
)
COUNCIL, TOWNAND COUNTRY UTILITIES,
)
INC. and KANKAKEE REGIONAL LANDFILL,
)
L.L.C.
)
)
Respondents.
)
___________________________________________________________________________
)
COUNTY OF KANKAKEE, ILLiNOIS and
)
EDWARD D. SMITH, KANKAKEE COUNTY
)
STATE’S ATTORNEY,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
No. PCB 04-3
5
)
)
(Third-PartyPollution Control
)
Facility Siting Appeal)
)
(Consolidated)
THE CITY OF KANKAKEE, ILLINOIS CITY
)
COUNCIL, TOWNAND COUNTRY UTILITIES,
)
iNC. and KANKAKEE REGIONAL LANDFILL,
)
L.L.C.
)
)
Respondents.
)
REOUEST
FOR ADMISSION
376166.1
EXHIBIT
A
Pursuant to Section 101.618 ofthe Pollution Control Board Procedural Rules, Petitioner,
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC. (“WMII”) requests that Respondent, TOWN
AND COUNTRY UTILITIES, INC. and KANKAKEE REGIONAL LANDFILL, L.L.C.
(“F & C”), admit the following facts in writing and under oath within twenty-eight (28) days of
service. Failure to respond to the following requests to admit within 28 days may have severe
consequences. Failure to respond to the following requests will result in all the facts requested
being deemed admitted as true for this proceeding. If you have any questions about this
procedure, you should contact the hearing officer assigned to this proceeding or an attorney.
REQUESTS TO ADMIT
1.
The real property identified as parcel no. 13-16-23-400-001 in the records ofthe
Kankakee County Supervisor of Assessments is located within 250 feet ofthe lot line ofthe
proposed Kankakee Regional Landfill.
Answer:
2.
As ofFebruary 2003, the records ofthe Kankakee County Supervisor of
Assessments listed Gary L. Bradshaw, James R. Bradshaw, Jay D. Bradshaw, Ted A. Bradshaw,
Denise Fogel and Judith A. Skates as the owners of parcel no. 13-16-23-400-001.
Answer:
3.
As ofFebruary 2003, the records of the Kankakee County Treasurer listed Gary L.
Bradshaw, James R. Bradshaw, Jay D. Bradshaw, Ted A. Bradshaw, Denise Fogel and Judith A.
Skates as the owners ofparcel no. 13-16-23-400-001.
Answer:
376166.1
2
4.
Notice ofthe Application for Local Siting Approval filed March 7, 2003 for the
proposed Kankakee Regional Landfill was served on Judith Skates individually by certified mail,
return receipt requested, at 203 5. Locust, Onarga, Illinois,
60955.
Answer:
5.
Notice ofthe Application for Local Siting Approval filed March 7, 2003 for the
proposed Kankakee Regional Landfill was served on Judith Skates on behalfofGary L.
Bradshaw, James R. Bradshaw, Jay D. Bradshaw, Ted A. Bradshaw and Denise Fogel by
certified mail, return receipt requested, at 203 S. Locust, Onarga, Illinois, 60955.
Answer:
6.
Notice ofthe Application for Local Siting Approval filed March 7, 2003 for the
proposed Kankakee Regional Landfill was not served in person on Gary L. Bradshaw.
Answer:
7.
Notice of the Application for Local Siting Approval filed March 7, 2003 for the
proposed Kankakee Regional Landfill was not served in person on James R. Bradshaw.
Answer:
8.
Notice ofthe Application for Local Siting Approval filed March 7, 2003 for the
proposed Kankakee Regional Landfill was not served in person on Jay D. Bradshaw.
Answer:
9.
Notice ofthe Application for Local Siting Approval filed March 7, 2003 forthe
proposed Kankakee Regional Landfill was not served in person on Ted A. Bradshaw.
Answer:
376166.1
3
10.
Notice ofthe Application for Local Siting Approval filed March 7, 2003 for the
proposed Kankakee Regional Landfill was not served in person on Denise Fogel.
Answer:
11.
Notice ofthe Application forLocal Siting Approval filed March 7, 2003 for the
proposed Kankakee Regional Landfill was not sent by registered or certified mail and addressed
to Gary L. Bradshaw personally.
Answer:
12.
Notice of the Application for Local Siting Approval filed March 7, 2003 for the
proposed Kankakee Regional Landfill was not sent by registered or certified mail and addressed
to James R. Bradshaw personally.
Answer:
13.
Notice ofthe Application for Local Siting Approval filed March 7, 2003 for the
proposed Kankakee Regional Landfill was not sent by registered or certified mail and addressed
to Jay D. Bradshawpersonally.
Answer:
14.
Notice ofthe Application for Local Siting Approval filed March 7, 2003 for the
proposed Kankakee Regional Landfill was not sent by registered or certified mail and addressed
to Ted A. Bradshawpersonally.
Answer:
15.
Notice ofthe Application forLocal Siting Approval filed March 7, 2003 forthe
proposed Kankakee Regional Landfill was not sent by registered or certified mail and addressed
to Denise Fogel personally.
Answer:
376166.1
4
16.
On March 13, 2002, T & C filed an application with the City ofKankakee
pursuant to Section 39.2 ofthe Illinois Environmental Protection Act (“Act”) requesting location
approval for the Kankakee Regional Landfill (“2002 Application”).
Answer:
17.
The Kankakee Regional Landfill is a proposed 400-acre sanitary landfill located
in Otto Township in the City ofKankakee, Illinois.
Answer:
18.
On March 7, 2003, T & C filed a second application with the City ofKankakee
pursuant to Section 39.2 ofthe Act requesting location approval for the Kankakee Regional
Landfill (“2003 Application”).
Answer:
19.
The 2003 Application requests location approval for the same 400-acre landfill for
which T & C requested location approval in the 2002 Application.
Answer:
20.
The information and analysis presented by T & C to demonstrate compliance with
criterion one (415 ILCS 5/39.2(a)(i)) in the 2003 Applicationwas substantially the same as the
information and analysis presented by T & C to demonstrate compliance with criterion one in the
2002 Application.
Answer:
376166.1
5
21.
The information and analysis presented by T & C to demonstrate compliance with
criterion two (415 ILCS 5/39.2(a)(ii)) in the 2003 Application was substantiallythe same as the
information and analysis presented by T & C to demonstrate compliance with criterion two in the
2002 Application.
Answer:
22.
The location, size and legal description ofthe Kankakee Regional Landfill
presented in the 2003 Application was the same as presented in the 2002 Application.
Answer:
23.
The design of the Kankakee Regional Landfill in the 2003 Application was
substantially the same as presented in the 2002 Application.
Answer:
24.
As proposed in the 2002 Application, the Kankakee Regional Landfill had a
capacity of50.9 million airspace cubic yards, a waste footprint of236.3 acres and would receive
an average of3500 tons ofwaste per day.
Answer:
25.
As proposed in the 2003 Application, the Kankakee Regional Landfill had a
capacity of50.9 million airspace cubic yards, a waste footprint of 236.3 acres and would receive
an average of3500 tons ofwaste per day.
Answer:
26.
As proposed in the 2002 Application, the design ofthe Kankakee Regional
Landfill consisted of a composite liner, leachate collection system, inward hydraulic gradient,
landfill gas management and groundwater monitoring.
Answer:
376166.1
6
27.
As proposed in the 2003 Application, the design ofthe Kankakee Regional
Landfill consisted ofa composite liner, leachate collection system, inward hydraulic gradient,
landfill gas management and groundwater monitoring.
Answer:
28.
Both the 2002 Application and 2003 Application proposed that the liner system be
keyed into the Silurian dolomite bedrock.
Answer:
29.
The proposed operation ofthe Kankakee Regional Landfill presented in the 2003
Application is the same as presented in the 2002 Application.
Answer:
30.
The information and analysis presented by T & C to demonstrate compliance with
criterion three (415 ILCS 5/39.2(a)(iii)) in the 2003 Application was substantially the same as the
information and analysis presented by T & C to demonstrate compliance with criterion three in
the 2002 Application.
Answer:
31.
The information and analysis presented by T & C to demonstrate compliance with
criterion four (415 ILCS 5/39.2(a)(iv)) in the 2003 Application was substantiallythe same as the
information and analysis presented by T & C to demonstrate compliance with criterion four in
the 2002 Application.
Answer:
376166.1
7
32.
The information and analysis presented by T & C to demonstrate compliance with
criterion five (415 ILCS 5/39.2(a)(v)) in the 2003 Application was substantially the same as the
information and analysis presented by T & C to demonstrate compliance with criterion five in the
2002 Application.
Answer:
33.
The information and analysis presented by T & C to demonstrate compliance with
criterion six (415 ILCS 5/39.2(a)(vi)) in the 2003 Application was substantially the same as the
information and analysis presented by T & C to demonstrate compliance with criterion six in the
2002 Application.
Answer:
34.
The information and analysis presented by T & C to demonstrate compliance with
criterion seven (415 ILCS 5/39.2(a)(vii)) in the 2003 Application was substantially the same as
the information and analysis presented by T & C to demonstrate compliance with criterion seven
in the 2002 Application.
Answer:
35.
The information and analysis presented by T & C to demonstrate compliance with
criterion eight (415 ILCS 5/3 9.2(a)(viii)) in the 2003 Application was substantially the same as
the information and analysis presented by T & C to demonstrate compliance with criterion eight
in the 2002 Application.
Answer:
376166.1
8
36.
The information and analysis presented by T & C to demonstrate compliance with
criterion nine (415 ILCS 5/39.2(a)(iv)) in the 2003 Application was substantially the same as the
information and analysis presented by T & C to demonstrate compliance with criterion nine in
the 2002 Application.
Answer:
37.
Prior to August 18, 2003, T & C received a copy of the final report of Mr. Ralph
Yarborough ofGeo-Technical Associates, Inc. concerning the proposed Kankakee Regional
Landfill.
Answer:
Donald J. Moran
PEDERSEN & HOUPT, P.C.
161 North Clark Street, Suite 3100
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Telephone: (312) 641-6888
By
OF ILLINOIS, INC.
Donald J.
376166.1
9
J
Mr. George Mueller
Attorney at Law
501 State Street
Ottawa,IL 61350
(815)
433-4913
Christopher Bohlen
Barmann, Kramer and Bohlen, P.C.
300 East Court Street, Suite 502
P.O. Box 1787
Kankakee,IL 60901
(815) 939-0994
Bradley Halloran
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
100 West Randolph Street, Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
(312) 814-3669
Claire A. Manning
Posegate & Denes, P.C.
ill N. Sixth Street
Springfield, IL 62705
(217) 522-6184
City ofKankakee Clerk
Anjanita Dumas
385 E. Oak Street
Kankakee,IL 60901
(815)
933-0482
Mr. Charles F. Helsten
Hinshaw & Culbertson
100 Park Avenue
P.O. Box 1389
Rockford, Illinois 61105-1389
(815) 963-9989
Edward Smith
Kankakee County State’s Attorney
Kankakee County Administration Building
189 East Court Street
Kankakee, Illinois 60901
(815) 937-3932
and to Mr. Byron Sandberg, 109 Raub Aveue, Donovan IL 60931 by electronic transmission on October 16, 2003 at
byronsandberg@starband.net.
Victoria L. Kenned
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
The undersigned, a non-attorney, pursuant to the provisions ofSection 1-109 ofthe
Illinois Code ofCivil Procedure, on oath certifies that a copy of the foregoing was served upon
the following parties by facsimile at the number indicated below and by depositing a copy
thereof, enclosed in an envelope in the U.S. mail at 161 N. Clark St., Chicago, Illinois 60601, at
5:00 p.m. on this 16th day ofOctober, 2003.
376166.1
10
1. Respondents admit the Request.
2. Respondents can neither admit nor deny this Request as it calls for a legal conclusion,
Without waiving such objection, Respondents state that the records of the Kankakee County
Supervisor ofAssessments speak for themselves.
3. Respondents object to this Request as calling for a legal conclusion. Without waiving
such objection, Respondents state that the records of the Kankakee County Treasurer speak for
themselves.
4, Respondents object to this request as the term “individually” has a le3gal meaning and
this request therefore calls for a legal conclusion. Without waiving said objection, Respondents
state that Judith Skates was served in accordance with all legal requirements for service..
5.
Respondents object to this Request as being vague and calling for a legal conclusion.
Without waiving such objection, Respondents state that the individuals identified in this Request
were all served pursuant to certified mailing no.: 70022410000628156428.
6. Respondents admit this Request.
7. Respondents admit this Request.
8. Respondents admit this Request.
9. Respondents admit this Request.
10. Respondents admit this Request.
11. Respondents deny this Request.
12. Respondents deny this Request.
13. Respondents deny this Request.
14. Respondents deny this Request.
15. Respondents deny this Request.
16. Respondents admit this Request.
17. Respondents admit this Request.
18. Respondents admit this Request.
19-36. Respondents object to all ofthese Requests as calling for legal conclusions.
Moreover, Respondents object to these Requests as addressing issues on which the record is
closed, and in which there can therefore be no additional discovery or evidence presented. The
determination ofwhether the 2003 Application is substantially the same as the 2002 Application,
to the extent that such determination is required, is a question of fact to be determined by the City
Council. Accordingly, the PCB’s review of said determination is confined to the record of
evidence developed before the City Council, and it is improper by way ofdiscovery to request a
party to comment or opine on said record of evidence.
37. Respondent denies this Request.
Kankakee Regional Landfill, LLC and.
Town & Country Utilities, Inc.,
Respondents.
BY: ____
Thomas A. Volini
GEORGEMUELLER, P.C.
Attorney at Law
ShE
Sft,te St.
Ottawa, IL 61350
Phone: (815) 433-4705
STATE OF ILLINOIS
)
COUNTY OF
______
)
The undersigned, Thomas A. Volini, having read the foregoing Response by Town &
Country Utilities, Inc. to the Petitioner, Waste Management ofIllinois, Inc.’s Request For
Admission, state that the same are true and correct to the best ofhis information, knowledge, and
belief.
Thomas A. Volini
~
MeThis
Dayof
Notary Public
1~F~IC~EAL”
SUSAN McCOLLUM
NOTARY PUBUC, STATE OF ~LLIN0IS
MY COMMISSION
EXPIRES
07/01/07
GEORGE MUELLER, P.C.
Attorney at Law
501 State St.
Ottawa, IL 61350
Phone: (815) 433-4705
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
BYRON SANDBERG,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
No. PCB 04-33
)
)
(Third-Party Pollution Control
)
Facility Siting Appeal)
)
THE CITY OF KANKAKEE, ILLINOIS CITY
)
COUNCIL, TOWN AND COUNTRYUTILITIES,
)
INC. and KANKAKEE REGIONAL LANDFILL,
)
L.L.C.
)
)
Respondents.
)
___________________________________________________________________________
)
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
No. PCB 04-34
)
)
(Third-PartyPollution Control
)
Facility Siting Appeal)
)
THE
CITY OF
KANKAKEE, ILLINOIS CITY
)
COUNCIL, TOWN AND COUNTRY UTILITIES,
)
INC. and KANKAKEE REGIONAL LANDFILL,
)
L.L.C.
)
)
Respondents.
)
_________________________________________________________________________________
)
COUNTY OF KANKAKEE, ILLINOIS and
)
EDWARD D. SMITH, KANKAKEE COUNTY
)
STATE’S ATTORNEY,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
No. PCB 04-35
)
)
(Third-Party Pollution Control
)
Facility Siting Appeal)
)
(Consolidated)
THE CITY OF KANKAKEE, ILLINOIS CITY
)
COUNCIL, TOWN AND COUNTRY UTILITIES,
)
INC. and KANKAKEE REGIONAL LANDFILL,
)
L.L.C.
)
)
Respondents.
)
PETITIONER’S INTERROGATORIES
flBIT:.
Petitioner, Waste Management ofIllinois, Inc. (“WMII”), pursuant to the Rules of the
Illinois Pollution Control Board, submits the following Interrogatories to the Respondent,
TOWNAND COUNTRY UTILITIES, INC. and KANKAKEE REGIONAL LANDFILL,
L.L.C.
DEFINITIONS
A.
“T & C” refers to Town and Country Utilities, Inc. and Kankakee Regional
Landfill, L.L.C. and their respective agents, directors, officers, employees, attorneys,
representatives and all persons or entities who have acted or purported to act on their respective
behalves.
B.
“City” refers to City ofKankakee, Illinois and the City ofKankakee City Council,
its mayor, departments, elected officials, attorneys, agents, employees and all persons or entities
who have acted orpurported to act on its behalf
C.
“City Council member” refers to any member ofthe City ofKankakee City
Council, who voted.
D.
“Communication” means transmission or exchange of information, facts,
opinions, questions, requests, suggestions, results or conclusions between two or more persons or
entities, orally or in writing, by any means, including but not limited to meetings, discussions,
correspondence, e-mails, facsimile machine, conversations, phone calls, letters, documents or
memoranda.
E.
The “2002 Siting Application” means T & C’s request for site location approval of
the Kankakee Regional Landfill located in Otto Township, City of Kankakee, Illinois, filed
March 13, 2002.
2
F.
The “2003 Siting Application” means T & C’s requestfor site location approval of
the Kankakee Regional Landfill located in Otto Township, City ofKankakee, Illinois, filed
March 7, 2003.
G.
“Facility” shall refer to the proposed Kankakee Regional Landfill located in Otto
Township, City ofKankakee, Illinois which is the subject ofthe 2002 and 2003 Siting
Applications.
H.
“Identify,” when referring to a communication, means (1) to state the nature of
the communication
(e.g.,
telephone call, letter, meeting), (2) to state the date and time on which
the communication occurred, (3) to state each person who participated in the communication,
(4) to state each person who did not participate in the communication, but was present during (or
otherwise heard) any part ofthe communication, and
(5)
to summarize the statements made by
each participant in or during the communication.
I.
“Refer” or “Relate” with reference to a subject shall mean the following:
a.
Containing, comprising, constituting, stating, setting forth, or recording,
contradicting, referring to, relating to or in any way pertaining to, in whole
or in part, that subject;
b.
Describing, discussing, reflecting, interpreting, identifying, concerning,
contradicting, referring to, relating to, or in any way pertaining to, in
whole or in part, that subject.
J.
The relevant time period for answering the interrogatories is from January 1, 2003
to the present.
3
INSTRUCTIONS
Continuing
Responses. These interrogatories shall be deemed to be continuing in
miature and if, after serving your responses, additional information becomes known or available to
you, that is responsive to these interrogatories, then you are required to reasonably supplement or
amend your responses.
INTERROGATORIES
INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Identify all persons who provided information regarding
or assisted in answering these interrogatories.
ANSWER:
INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
Identify all communications ofT & C that refer or relate
to the 2002 Siting Application or the Facility with the following persons:
(a)
Donald Green.
(b)
Christopher Bohlen.
(c)
Ralph Yarborough.
(e)
Robert Boyd.
(f)
Any City Council member.
ANSWER:
4
INTERROGATORY NO.
3: Identify all communications of T & C that refer or relate
to the 2003 Siting Application orthe Facility with the following persons:
(a)
Ralph Yarborough.
(b)
Robert Boyd.
ANSWER:
INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Please identify all communications between the City and
T & C that refer or relate to the 2003 Siting Application.
ANSWER:
INTERROGATORY NO.
5:
Ifyou deny any ofthe requests to admit
(nos. 1 through 37) previously served upon you on October 16, 2003, indicate what you are
denying, the factual basis therefor, the source of your information and identify all documents that
support your denial.
ANSWER:
INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Please identify each witness you expect to present to
testify at hearing, and state the subject ofeach witness’ testimony and identify any document any
5
witness will utilize in his or her testimony.
ANSWER:
INTERROGATORY NO.
7:
Please identify each document used or relied upon in
preparation ofthe answers to these interrogatories.
ANSWER:
Dated: October 17, 2003.
PEDERSEN & HOUPT
161 North Clark Street
Suite 3100
Chicago, IL 60601
(312) 641-6888
Respectfully submitted,
W S
MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.
By:
Donald
~
J. ~oran
/ L.
One ofIts ttorneys
376263.1
6
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
The undersigned, a non-attorney, pursuant to the provisions of Section 1-109 ofthe
Illinois Code ofCivil Procedure, on oath certifies that a copy ofthe foregoing was served upon:
Mr. George Mueller
Attorney at Law
501 State Street
Ottawa,IL 61350
Christopher Bohlen
Barmann, Kramer and Bohlen, P.C.
300 East Court Street, Suite 502
P.O. Box
1787
Kankakee,IL 60901
Mr. Byron Sandberg
109 Raub Ave
Donovan IL 60931
Bradley Halloran
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
100 West Randolph Street, Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
City ofKankakee Clerk
Anjanita Dumas
385 E. Oak Street
Kankakee,IL 60901
Mr. Charles F. Helsten
Hinshaw & Culbertson
100 Park Avenue
P.O. Box 1389
Rockford, Illinois 61105-1389
Edward Smith
Kankakee County State’s Attorney
Kankakee County Administration Building
189 East Court Street
Kankakee, Illinois 60901
Claire A. Manning
Posegate & Denes, P.C.
111 N. Sixth Street
Springfield, IL 62705
by overnight delivery to the addresses listed above on orbefore 5:00 p.m. on this 16th day of
October, 2003.
Victoria L.
376263.1
7
THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD
BYRON SANDBERG,
Petitioner,
vs.
THE CITY OF
KANKAKEE, ILLINOIS)
CITY COUNCIL, TOWN & COUNTRY)
UTILiTIES, INC., and
KANKAKEE
)
REGIONAL LANDFILL, L.L.C.
)
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
PCB 04-33
(Third Party Pollution Control Facility
Siting Appeal)
WASTE
MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS)
INC.,
)
Petitioner,
)
)
THE CITY OF KANKAKEE, ILLINOIS
CITY COUNCIL, TOWN & COUNTRY
UTILITIES, INC., and KANKAKEE
REGIONAL LANDFILL,
L.L.C.,
Respondents.
)
vs.
)
)
)
)
PCB 04-34
(Third
Party Pollution Control Facility
Siting Appeal)
Petitioners,
COUNTY OF KANKAKEE, ILLINOIS,
and EDWARD D. SMITH,
KANKAKEE
COUNTY STATE’S ATTORNEY,
vs.
THE CITY OF KANKAKEE, ILLINOIS
CITY COUNCIL, TOWN & COUNTRY
UTILITIES, INC., and KANKAKEE
REGiONAL LANDFILL,
L.L.C.,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
PCB 04-35
)
(Third
Party Pollution Control Facility
)
Siting Appeal)
)
(Consolidated)
)
)
RESPONDENT, TOWN &
COUNTRY UTILITI~JNC.’S
ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES
TENDERED BY PETLTJONER,
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF Ii UN Q1S INC.
Now come Respondents, Kankakee Regional Landfill, LLC and Town & Country
Utilities, Inc., by and through one oftheir attorneys, George Mueller, P.C., for their Answers to
Interrogatories propounded by Petitioner, Waste Management of Illinois, Inc., state as follows:
I. Identify all persons who provided information regarding or assisted in answering tliese
intelTogatories.
Answer:
Thomas A. Volini
George Mueller
2. Identify all communications of T & C that refer or relate to the 2002 Siting
Application or the Facility with the following persons:
(a)
Donald Green;
(b)
Christopher Bohien;
(c)
Ralph Yarborough;
(d)
Robert Boyd
(e)
Any City Council member.
Answer:
Respondent objects to this Interrogatory as communications relating to the 2002 Siting
Application are not relevant to the proceedings herein, Without waiving such objection,
Respondents state that they are unaware ofany such communications beyond those set forth in
the record ofproceedings in PCB Case No.: 03-31 with the exception of a meeting of the
Kankakee City Council attended by Thomas Volini on February 3, 2003..
3. Identify all communication ofT &. C that refer to relate to the 2003 Siting Application
or the Facility with the following persons:
(a)
Ralph Yarborough;
(b)
Robert Boyd.
Answer:
(a)
None
(b)
None
4. Please identify all communications between the City and T & C that refer or relate to
the 2003 Siting Application.
Answer:
Respondents object to this Interrogatory as it contains no time parameters and pre-.filing
communications between the City and Respondents are not probative of any issue herein.
Without waiving such objection, Respond.ents state that Thomas A. Volini had numerous casual
and informal communications with various City officials after August 19, 2002 and. before March
7, 2003. The details ofthese communications cannot be recalled, but they did not refer to or
relate to the 2003 Siting Application with the exception of Mr. Volini advising City officials of
Respondents’ intent to file the 2003 Application. Mr Volini also met with the City Council on
February 3, 2003, at which time he advised the council of his intent to file a new application for
siting approval.
5.
Ifyou deny any ofthe requests to admit (nos. 1 through 37) previously served upon
you on October 16, 2003, indicate what you are denying, the factual basis therefor, the source of
your information and identify all documents that support your denial.
Answer:
Respondents object to this Interrogatory as vague, over broad, burdensome, calling for
legal conclusions, and relating to matters on which the record is already complete and on which,
therefore, there cannot be additional discovery.
6. Please identify each witness you expect to present to testify at hearing, and state the
subject of each witness’ testimony and identify any document any witness will utilize in his or
her testimony.
Answer:
Thomas A. Volini is expected to testify regarding service of Pre-fihing Notices.
Respondents reserve the right to supplement this Answer as investigation continues.
7. Please identify each document used or relied upon in preparation ofthe answers to
these interrogatories.
Answer:
The record ofproceedings in PCB Case 03-31; the record developed for the City Council
on the pending Application; and the tax records of Kankakee County, Illinois.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kankakee Regional Landfill, LLC and
Town & Country Utilities, inc.,
Respondents,
Thomas A. Volini
GEORGE MUELLER, P.
C
Attorney
atLaw
501 State Street
Ottawa, IL 61350
Phone: (815) 433-4705
