RECEIVED
CLERKS OFFICE
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARDFEB
262004
SALINE COUNTY LANDFILL, INC.,
PETITIONER,
V.
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
RESPONDENT.
)
)
)
)
)
No.
PCB 04-117
)
(PERMIT
APPEAL)
)
)
)
)
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Pollution Control Board
NOTICE OF FILING
John Kim, Esq.
Division ofLegal Counsel
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021
North Grand Avenue East
P.O.
Box
19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
Carol Sudman, Esq.
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
1021
North Grand Ave. East
P0 Box
19274
Springfield,
Illinois 62794-9274
Rod Wolf
Saline County State’s Attorney
10 E. Poplar
Harrisburg, Illinois 62946
Please take notice that I have today filed with the Hearing Officer Petitioner’s motion to
compel,
and
certificate of service, on
behalfof Saline County Landfill, Inc., copies of which are
herewith served upon you.
~27~
,
Brian E. Konzen, Es~
Lueders, Robertson, Konzen LLC
1939 Delmar, P.O. Box
735
Granite City, Illinois
62040
Phone: (618) 876-8500
ARDCNo.: 06187626
RECEIVED
BEFORE
THE
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOAR~ERKS
OFFICE
FEB
262804
SALINE COUNTY LANDFILL, INC.,
)
STATE OF ILLINOIS
)
Pollution Control Board
PETITIONER,
)
)
V.
)
No.
PCB 04-117
)
(PERMIT
APPEAL)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION
AGENCY,
)
)
RESPONDENT.
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned,
certify that I have served the attached motion to
compel by
first class
mailing upon the following persons
by
depositing
same in
a US
Post Office box
at
5:00
PM
in
Granite City, IL, with first class postage fullyprepaid and the envelopes addressed to the following
persons, on this
2
3~/dayofFebruary, 2004.
John Kim, Esq.
Division ofLegal Counsel
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021
North Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box
19276
Springfield,
Illinois 62 794-9276
Carol Sudman, Esq.
Hearing Officer
Illinois
Pollution Control Board
1021
North Grand Ave. East
P0 Box
19274
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9274
Rod Wolf
Saline County State’s Attorney
10 E. Poplar
Harrisburg, Illinois 62946
~
Brian Konzen
I)
RECEIVED
CLERK’S OFFICE
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
FEB
262004
SALINE COUNTY LANDFILL,
INC.,
)
Poll
on
d
PETITIONER,
)
)
V.
)
No.
PCB 04-117
)
(PERMIT
APPEAL)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
)
RESPONDENT.
)
MOTION TO
COMPEL DIRECTED TO RESPONDENT,
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Comes
now
the Petitioner,
and
moves
the Hearing
Officer enter an
Order
compelling
Respondent, the
IEPA
(Agency),
to
serve
complete and
responsive answers
to
discovery served
January 20, 21,
and 28, 2004,
all per 35
Illinois Administrative Code
101.616.
1.
Agency has not responded to interrogatories served January 21, 2004.
Agency’s answers
were
due February 19, 2004, per 35
Illinois Administrative Code 101.620(b).
2.
Respondent’s
answers
to
requests
to
admit
no.
4,
5,
18,
and
19,
attached,
are not
responsive.
The requests concernthe position taken by the Agency up until December 5, 2003,
and
the Agency’s change in position on
that
date.
The Agency’s answer to
no.
4
states only that the
December
5
permit denial
“is not based on the interpretation desc~ribed
in
Ms. Munie’s” attached
letter of March
12.
The Agency’s answer
to no.5 references solely “Ms. Munie’s understanding”.
Further, the objection of “legal conclusion” to 4,
5,
18, and
19, is invalid.
Requests no. 4,
5,
18, and
19 do not seek legal conclusions, but an admissionofthe Agency’s
historic position.
These requests to admit are important because Petitionerpleads the permit denial
is irreconcilable and inconsistent with, Agency’s historic position on local siting.
See par.
5
of the
petition for review ofpermit denial, filed January
7, 2004.
The Agency does not
have a right to be evasive or non-responsive in discovery concerning
a change in its historic position, particularly where, as here, the Agency told its historic position on
local siting to
the Petitioner during the application process.
The Agency should be compelled to
state whether it has changed its position by issuing theDecember 5, 2003
permit denial.
Its position
is discoverable per 35
Illinois Administrative Code 101.616(a).
3.
Respondent’s answer to request to admit no.
11
is not responsive.
Respondent’s answer
neither admits nor denies
any part ofthe request,
and therefore does not comply with 35
Illinois
Administrative Code
101.618(f).
Request no.11 again asks theAgency’shistoric position, concerning a specifically identified
local siting.
The request seeks the Agency’s historic position, not a legal conclusion as to whether
the local siting is valid. Therefore the objection that therequest seeks a legal conclusion, lacks merit.
Further,
it is not
a proper
objection to
state in response to
the request that the words
used in the
request are
not
defined
in
the
law, nor
does the objection
make request
no.11
vague.
On the
contrary, request no.
11 clearly identifies the specific Agency log no., application, and local siting.
35 Illinois Administrative Code 101.618 and SupremeCourt Rules do not require requests be limited
to words defined in
law or elsewhere.
Those authorities do require a responsive answer that either
admits,
or denies
the
parts
of the request
that
in
good
faith the responsive
party cannot admit.
Further, theAgency response that the referenceddocument “speaks foritself” is not a valid objection
to a request to admit, nora response answerto a request fOr the Agency’s historic position.
Requests
to admit maycite specific documents; see for example, 35 Illinois Administrative Code 101 .618(e).
4.
Respondent’s
answer
to
request
to
admit
no.
13,
a
denial,
is
improper and
not
in
compliance with Supreme Court Rules or 35
Illinois Administrative Code
101.6 18(f).
The stated
rationale for the denial should be stricken as not based in fact or law.
No lawful authority for the
rationale stated
in support of the denial is cited.
5.
Respondent’s answer to request to
admit no.
14
is not responsive.
The request seeks to
confirmPetitionerwithdrew its expansionapplication from 1EPA log no. 2001-362, aftertheAgency
recommended to
Petitioner that
Petitioner so withdraw its
expansion application.
The Agency’s
answer neither admits nor denies the Agency’s representatives made such a recommendation, and
therefore does not comply with 35
Illinois Administrative Code
101 .618(f).
6.
Respondent’s answer to request to
admit no.
15
is non-responsive.
The answer does not
admit or deny.
The arguments made above concerning
the Agency’s failure to
answer request to
admit no.
11
apply to the Agency’s failure to answer no.
15,
and
are not repeated here for brevity’s
sake.
7.
This motion
is timely.
The attached responses to requests to admit were not
formally
served until
on or about February 19, 2004.
The interrogatory answers
were due that date.
Phone
conferences with Respondent’s Counsel took place February 19 and 20, as describedin IL. S.Ct. Rule
20 1(k), but the parties were unable to reach an accommodation.
Therefore,
Petitioner requests
an
Order be
entered
by
the Hearing Officer
directing the
Respondent to
answer Petitioner’s interrogatories before the scheduled deposition of Joyce Munie
on February 27, 2004.
Petitioner further requests an Orderbe entered directir~g
Respondent comply
with
35
Illinois
Administrative
Code
101.618(f),
by
serving
a
sworn
statement admitting
the
requests, ordenyingspecificallythematters ofwhich admissionis requested, orsetting forth in detail
legitimate reasons why the party cannot truthfully admit ordeny those matters.
Petitioner requests
that the Order state that ifobjections are served, the remainder ofthe request must be answered, and
that any denial must fairly address the substance ofthe requested admission.
Petitioner requests the
Order direct
Respondent to
answer with a good faith admission or denial,
all parts of requests
to
admit 4,
5,
18,
19,
11,
13,
14, and 15, all before the hearing date ofMarch
3, 2004.
Petitioner further
prays
all
objections of Respondent to
those stated requests to
admit,
be denied, again before the
hearing date ofMarch 3, 2004.
7’?
~.7
Bnan Konzen
/
7
Lueders, Robertson and Konzen, LLC
1939
Delmar, P0 Box
735
Granite City, IL 62040
618-876-8500
44981
BEFORE
THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
SALINE COUNTY LANDFILL, INC.,
)
)
PETITIONER,
)
)
v.
)
No.
PCB 04-117
)
(Permit Appeal)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
)
RESPONDENT.
)
PETITIONER’S
FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Comes
now
Saline
County
Landfill,
Inc.,
Petitioner,
and
hereby
serves
the
following
intenogatories
upon
the
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(IEPA).
Per
35
Illinois
Administrative Code 101.620, Petitioner requests Respondent answer the followingwithin 28 days
of service, the answers signed by the person making them, under oath.
As used in these interrogatories, the following definitions apply.
“Local siting” refers to
the approval ofan expanded or new landfill by a host municipality
or county per the process described in 415 ILCS
5/3
9.2.
“Identify” means state the name, employer (specifying the administrative agency, section,
bureau, and department, if the employer is the State ofIllinois), work address, and job title, ofall the
persons referenced or described in
that interrogatory.
“Air
space”, refers
to
the three-dimensional volume
or area at
a
landfill
which has been
permitted for development or operation,
by the EPA, for disposal of solid waste.
“Permit
application”
refers
to
an
application
to
the
EPA
seeking a permit
to
develop,
construct, or operate, an
expansion ofa landfill or a new landfill.
“Developmental permit” refers to
a permit issued by
the IEPA for the construction ofthe
liner, leachate collection system, gas collection
system, cap, or other environmental
safeguards or
facilities,
associated with a new landfill or an expansion ofan existing landfill.
1.
Identify all
persons who participated in
the decision to
issue
the permit
denial
dated
December
5,
2003, in EPA log no. 2003-113.
2.
For each person identified in your answer to interrogatory no.
1, above, list in detail the
activities performedby that specific person to so participate in thedecisionto4ssue4he~permit
denial,
(i.e., recommended ordirected a change in the EPA’s historic interpretationof415 ILCS
5/39.2(f),
draftedthe language ofthe writtenpermit denial, determined the reason stated for thepermit denial,
etc.).
3.
For each person identified or referenced in your answers
to
interrogatories no.
1
and
2,
above, state all
the dates on which each person performed the
activities you detailed.
4.
Identifyall persons having knowledge ofany ofthe facts stated in the language underlined
in the attached letter dated March
12, 2003.
5.
Identify
all
persons
having
knowledge
of
statements
made
by
employees
and
representatives ofthe IEPA’s Bureau ofLand, that alandfill’s local siting approval expires in 3
years
only
if a permit
application has not been submitted
to the IEPA during that 3-year period.
Your
answershould include the identity ofeachperson toldthelocal siting
had not expired forthe landfill
represented by that person, though local
siting was granted over three years beforehand.
6.
Listby name and sitenumber each landfill in the State ofIllinois that since 1996, received
a
developmental permit
from
the EPA
over
three years
after that
landfill received local
siting
approval for some or all
ofthe air space referenced in that developmental permit.
7.
List by name and
site number each
landfill
in
the State
of Illinois
that,
since
1996,
received both a notice ofdenial of a permit application
and a developmental permit from the EPA,
over three years
after that
landfill received
local
siting approval for some or
all ofthe air space
referenced in that developmental permit.
Limit your answer to
landfills that received a
denial of a
permit application,
followed by a developmental permit.
8.
List each landfill in Illinois forwhich the EPA denied a permit application since
1996,
based in whole or in part onjustification statedby the EPA that local sitinghad expired. Limit your
answer to landfills
that had submitted to the EPA an application
for developmental permit within
three years ofreceiving local siting approval.
For each landfill listed,
statethe EPA log number for
which the EPA denied the permit application, and the date of the notice of permit denial.
9.
State whetherthe permit application in EPA log no. 2003-113 was complete, except for
the possibility local siting had expired.
Ifyour answer is in the negative, explain how the permit application was incomplete.
That
is, state in detail all documents missing from thepermit application, and detail all manners in which
theapplication failedto demonstrate compliance with the Illinois Environmental Protection Act, and
with all statutes and regulations ofthe State of Illinois.
10.
State whether December
5,
2003, was the first time the EPA denied an application
for
developmental permit based on thejustification that local-siting had expired, where the applicant had
submitted to the IEPA a complete application fordevelopmentalpermit withinthree years after local
siting was granted for some or all ofthe air space approved at that local siting.
11.
Identify all persons who answered,
or assisted in
answering, these interrogatories.
.7
)/
BY:
~
Brian Konzen
‘
Lueders, Robertson, Konzen
LLC
P. 0. Box
735, Granite City, IL 62040
618-876-8500
44667
ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
1021
NORTH
GRAND
AVENUE EAST,
P.O. Box 19276,
SPRINGFIELD,
ILLINOIS
62794-9276
JAMES
R.
THOMPSON
CENTER,
1 00
WEST
RANDOLPH,
SUITE
11-300,
CHICAGO,
~L60601
ROD
R.
BLAGOJEVICH,
GOVERNOR
RENEE
CIPRIANO,
DIRECTOR
217/524-3300
Hedinger
Law O~C~
March
12,
2003
mAR
1.~
2003
Stephen F. Hedinger
1225 South Sixth Street
Springfield, Illinois 62703
Re:
1658080001
--
Saline County
Saline County Landfill
Log Nos.
1999-381
and
2001-362
Permit File
Dear Mr. Hedinger:
This is in response to your letter, dated December
12, 2002, concerning the above-referenced
landfill and the permit applications for it, designated by the illinois EPA as Log Nos.
1999-381
and 200 1-362.
In
your
letter, you identify yourself as the Special Assistant State’s Attorney for
Saline County and you indicate that you do not understand what Saline County Landfill, Inc.
(SCLI) is requesting in Log No. 2001-362.
You also express your opinion regarding the current
validity of the
1996 local
siting
approval granted by the Saline County Board.
First, I want to thank you for bringing this matter
to my
attention and giving
me
an
opportunity to
provide clarification.
This
response
letter gives background information
on the
1996 local siting
approval and on Log No. 1999-381.
It
also explains what is being requested in Log No. 200 1-
362 and presents ourview on the viability ofthe
Saline County Board’s local
siting approval.
Background
On November 21,
1996, the Saline County Board granted local
siting approval for a lateral
expansion ofthis
landfill. The application for siting approval specified that there would be
a 50-foot separation berm between the existing waste footprint (Unit
1) and
the lateral
expansion
footprint
(Unit 2).
The application for siting approval also specified that the
separation berm was to be
constructed of clean soil and indicated that the purpose ofthe
berm was to isolate the waste from Unit
1
and Unit 2.
On October 8,
1999,
SCLI submitted
a permit application (Log No. 1999-381) to us
requesting a development permit for a lateral expansion.
As originally proposed in Log
No. 1999-381, the lateral expansion was consistent with
local siting approval.
However,
the original application had several technical and regulatory problems related to the
ROCKFORD
—4302
North
Main Street,
Rockford,
IL 61103
—
(815) 987-7760
•
Dts
PLAINES
—
9511
W.
Harrison
SI.,
Des
Plaines,
IL 60016— (8471 294-4000
ELON
—595
South
State,
Elgin,
IL 601 23— (8471 608-3131
•
PEORIA
—5415
N. University St.,
Peoria,
IL
61614—1309) 693-5463
BUREAU
OF
LAND
-
PEORIA—
7620 N.
University SI.,
Peoria,
IL 61614
—1309) 693-5462
•
CH~v~iP’~IcN—2125
South
First Street, Champaign,
IL
6182C—(2171 278-5800
SPRINGFIELD
—4500
S. Sixth Street
Rd., Springfield,
IL 62706
—
(217) 786-6892
•
COLLINSVILLE
—2009 Mall Street, Co)linsville,
IL 62234
—
(6181
346-51 20
MARION
—
2309
‘A’. Main
St.,
Suite
116,
Marion, IL 62959
—
1618) 993-7200
PRINTED
ON
RECYCLED
PAPER
Page 2
separation berm-
particularly with regard to
groundwater monitoring and groundwater
modeling.
SCLI was made aware ofthese problems by way of draft denial letters.
On August 30,
2000, SCLI submitted an addendum to Log No.
1999-381 proposing a
redesign ofthe lateral expansion that eliminated the separation berm.
This addendum
cured the previously identified problems associated with the bermbut the proposed
redesign was not, in our opinion, consistent with the
1996 local siting.
Upon being
informed that due to
this inconsistency we felt that we could not approve the redesign,
SCLI asked us to deny Log No.
1999-381 so they could appeal our decision to the Illinois
Pollution Control Board.
On
January
4,
2002, we denied Log No.
1999-381
solely because the proposed lateral
expansion, without the separation berm, was not consistent with the
1996 local siting.
SCLI appealed
this
denial and
on May
16, 2002,
the Illinois Pollution Control Board
affirmed our decision.
Log No. 2001-362
On September 24,
2001,
SCLI submitted Log No. 2001-362.
This application requested
renewal of Permit No. 1996-147-LFM and was timely filed pursuant
to
35 ill.
Adm.
Code
8 13 .301.
On
January 24, 2002,
SCLI submitted an addendum to Log No.
200
1-362 that made the
same
proposal (i.e., a
lateral expansion
without a separation barrier)
that had been
denied
in the final action taken on Log No.
1999-381.
The January
24, 2002 addendum was
flawed in
several respects and
on
February 7, 2003, SCLI submitted
another addendum
withdrawing
the request for a
lateral expansion. Thus, now once again, Log No. 200 1-362
only requests renewal ofSCLI’s
813 permit.
Status of 1996 Local Siting Approval
At the end of your letter, you argue that
SCLI’s
1996
local siting approval has lapsed.
The
Illinois EPA has not come to the same conclusion.
Instead, we have interpreted Section
39.2(f) ofthe Illinois Environmental Protection Act to mean that a landfill’s local siting
approval expires within 3
years ofbeing granted only if an application for a development
permit has not been made during that 3-year period. This interpretation has consistently
been employed in answering questions from potential
operators and in reviewing permit
applications.
SCLI made application for a lateral expansion’ (Log No. 1999-381) within
3 years of
obtaining local siting approval and although that application was denied and the Illinois
Pollution Control Board has affirmed its denial, the
1996 local siting approval remains
Page
3
viable.
Accordingly, if SCLI were to submit a permit
application for a lateral expansion,
that was consistent with the
1996 local siting approval and that
met all the
regulatory
requirements, the Illinois EPA would be obligated to
approve it.
Ifyou have any questions
regarding
this letter,
please
contact Chris Liebman at
217/524-3294
or
Christine
Roque at
217/524-3299.
Joyce L. Munie,t?.E.
Manager, Permit Section
Bureau ofLand
JLM:CMR:bjh\03
2991 .doc
Sincer~~_.._—
BEFORE
THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
SALINE COUNTY
LANDFILL,
INC..
)
)
PETITIONER,
)
)
v.
)
No.
PCB 04-117
)
(PERMIT APPEAL)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
)
RESPONDENT.
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I,
the
undersigned,
certif~’
that I have served the attached first
set
of interrogatories by
first
class mailing upon the following persons by depositing same in a US Post
Office Box in
Granite City, IL, with first
class postage fullyprepaid and the envelopes addressed to the
/7
following persons, on
~,
2/,~7,
2004.
John Kim, Esq.
Carol Sudman, Esq.
Division of Legal Counsel
Hearing Officer
Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency
Illinois Pollution Control Board
1021 North Grand Avenue East
600 South
Second Street, Suite 402
P.O.
Box
19276
Springfield, Illinois 62704
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
Brian
44625
BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
OF THE STATE
OF ILLINOIS
SALINE
COUNTY
LANDFILL,
iNC.,
)
Petitioner,
)
v.
)
PCBNo.04-117
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
(Permit Appeal)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Respondent.
)
RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSION OF FACTS
NOW
COMES
the Respondent, the Illinois
Environmental
Protection Agency
(“Illinois
EPA”), by one
of its
attorneys,
John J. Kim,
Assistant
Counsel
and
Special
Assistant Attorney
General,
and,
pursuant
to
the Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
(“Board”) Rules
at
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
101.616 and 101.618, hereby responds to
the First Set ofRequests to Admit propounded by
the Petitioner, Saline County Landfill, Inc.
(“SCLI”).
Request
No.
1:
The sole justification for permit denial is
the Agency’s allegation
in its December
5,
2003
permit denial letter, that the local siting provided in Petitioner’s application had expired.
Answer:
The
Illinois
EPA objects to
this
request
on the bases that it
calls for a
legal
conclusion
and
that
the December
5,
2003
letter
speaks
for itself.
Without
waiving
that
objection,
the
Illinois
EPA
admits
that
the
December
5,
2003
permit
denial
letter
states
in
pafl,
“The
application did
not provide proof of local siting approval pursuant to
Section 39(c)
of the Act.
The
siting provided in
the application
expired.”
The Illinois
EPA further
admits
that
no
other
reason is given for the denial ofpermit.
Request No. 2:
1
The
underlined
language
in the attached May
16, 2002
Oninion of the Illinois
Pollution
Cont:ol Board, cause PCB 02-108, accurately describes the penni~application
flied by Petitioner
in JEPA log no. 2003-113.
Answer:
The Illinois EPA objects to this request on the bases that it is
ambiguous and vague.
The
underlined
language referenced by
this
Request does not
attempt
to
describe
all
aspects of the
permit application in
question.
Without waiving that objection, the Illinois EPA
admits that the
specific statement made in the underlined language is not
inaccurate.
Request No.
3:
The attached letter dated March
12,
2003,
was signed
by
Joyce
L.
Munie,
P.E.,
in
her
official capacity as Manager, Permit Section, Bureau of Land, ofthe IEPA.
Answer:
The Illinois EPA admits this request.
Request
No.4:
The
underlined
language
in the
attached letter dated March
12,
2003,
signed by
Joyce
Munie,
accurately
describes
the
position taken by
the EPA
in
interpreting
415
ILCS
5/39.2(f),
until on or about December
5,
2003.
Answer:
The
Illinois
EPA objects
to
this request
on
the basis
that
it calls for a legal
conclusion.
Without
waiving
that
objection,
the
Illinois
EPA
admits
that
the
final
decision
issued
by
the
Illinois
EPA on
December
5,
2003
is not
based on
the interpretation described in Ms.
Munie’s
March 12,
2003 letter.
7
Request No. 5:
The
underlined
language
in
the attached
letter dated
March
12,
2003,
signed
by
Joyce
Munie,
accurately describes
the position taken by the
IIEPA
in
interpreting 415
ILCS
5/39.2(1),
from
1994, until on or about December 5, 2003.
Answer:
The illinois EPA objects to
this request on the basis that
it calls for a legal
conclusion.
Without waiving this
objection, the Illinois EPA admits
that the underlined
language
describes
Ms.
Munie’s
understanding
of Section
39.2(f)
of the
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Act
(“Act”) during the time period described.
Request
No. 6:
The
interpretation
of 415
ILCS
5/39.2(f)
described
in
the underlined
language
in
the
attached letter dated March
12, 2003, signed by Joyce Munie, was communicated in substance to
the
Petitioner by representatives of the
IEPA in
discussions or conferences regarding EPA
log
no.
2003-113.
Answer:
The Illinois
EPA objects to
this
request on the bases
that
it is overly broad,
ambiguous
arid
vague.
No
dates
of any
discussions or
conferences
alluded
to
are
provided,
nor are
any
representatives of either the Petitioner or the Illinois
EPA as referenced in
the request.
Without
waiving
that objection, the Illinois EPA admits that on at least one
occasion prior to
receiving a
legal
interpretation regarding
Section
3 9.2(f) of the
Act
from
the
Illinois
Attorney
General’s
Office, Joyce
Munie
conveyed
her
interpretation of Section
39.2(1)
of the Act
at
consultants
retained by the Petitioner in conjunction with the preparation of the permit application at issue.
Res~uest
No. 7:
The JEPA was ready to issue an
expansion permit to Petitioner in IEPA log no.
2003-113,
until
on or about December 3, 2003.
Answer:
The
Illinois
EPA
objects
to
this
request
on
the
bases
that
that
it
is
ambiguous
and
misleading.
Until the Illinois EPA issues a
final decision on a permit
application, as was done in
this
instance
on
December
5,
2003,
the
Illinois
EPA
is
“ready”
to
either
approve,
deny
or
approve with modifications
a permit application.
Request
No. 8:
The EPA issued
an expansion permit
to
Petitioner on or about December 31,
1996, log
no.
1996-147.
Answer:
The
Illinois
EPA
objects to
this
request on
the
basis
that
it
is
vague,
in
that
the term
“expansion permit” is
not one
defined in the Illinois Environmental Protection Act or underlying
regulations.
Without waiving this
objection, the Illinois
EPA admits that on or about December
31,
1996,
a permit was issued in response to Permit Log No.
1996-147.
Request
No. 9:
The expansion permit issued to Petitioner on or about December
31,
1996,
log no.
1996-
147,
permitted vertical
expansion of the Saline
County
Landfill
into part of the
same air
space
forwhich the Saline
County Board granted local siting approval on November 21,
1996.
Answer:
The
Illinois
EPA
objects to
this
request
on
the
basis
that
it
is
vague,
in
that
the
term
“expansion permit” is not one
defined in the Illinois Environmental Protection Act or underlying
4
regulations.
Without waiving this
objection, the Illinois
EPA admits that a permit was issued on
or about December 31,
1996,
in response to
Permit
Log No.
1996-147.
Among other thin~n
the
permit authorized vertical expansion as described in this request.
Request
No.
10:
Petitioner has had one
or more applications for expansion ofthe
Saline
County Landfill
on
filewith and pendingbefore the EPA
almost continuously since late October, 1999.
Answer:
The Illinois EPA objects to this request on the basis that it is vague.
Without waiving this
objection, the Illinois
EPA
admits
that
since
October
1999,
the Petitioner has had
at
least one
application
awaiting
final
decision
by
the
Illinois
EPA
except
for
two
periods,
lasting
approximately two weeks and two months, respectively.
Request No. 11:
When the EPA denied Petitioner’s
permit
expansion application
in EPA
log no.
1999-
381,
on January 4, 2002,
the EPA did not take the position
that Petitioner’s November 21,
1996
local siting had expired.
Answer:
The Illinois
EPA objects to
this request on
the bases that
it calls
for a
legal conclusion
and
is vague.
The permit
denial
dated
January
4,
2002,
speaks
for itself
Further,
the term
“permit expansion application” is not one defined in
the Illinois
Environmental Protection Act or
underlying regulations.
5
Request No.
12:
The
Petitioner’s
application
for
expansion
in
EPA
log
no.
1999-381,
referenced
and
included
the
same
November
21,
1996
local
siting
approval
as
included
in
Petitioner’s
application for expansion in EPA log no. 2003-113.
Answer:
The
Illinois
EPA
objects
to
this
request
on
the
basis
that
it
is
vague.
The
phrase
“application
for
expansion”
is
vague, as
an
“expansion permit”
is
not
a
term
defined
in
the
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Act
or underlying regulations
admits
this
request.
Without
waiving
this
objection,
the
Illinois
EPA admits
that
Permit
Log
No.
1999-381
referenced and
included
the
same
November
21,
1996
local
siting approval
as
including
in
Permit
Log No.
2003-113.
Request No. 13:
The permit denial dated December 5, 2003,
is not based on any concerns ofthe EPA that
the proposed expansion is unsafe or dangerous to the public health or to
the environment.
Answer:
The Illinois EPA denies this request.
The permit was denied based on a violation of the
Act,
and
any
violation
of the
Act
should
be
considered
a
potential
cause
of an
unsafe
or
dangerous condition to
the public health and environment.
Request No. 14:
Petitioner withdrew
its
expansion
application
from
EPA
log
no.
2001-362,
promptly
after
representatives of the EPA
recommended
to
Petitioner that
Petitioner
so
withdraw
its
expansion application from that log no.
Answer:
6
The
Illinois
EPA
objects
to
this
request
on
the
basis
that
it
is
vague.
There
is
no
identification
made of any
relevant representatives of either
the ihincis
EPA or the Petitioner,
and
no dates or time line is provided, nor is there a description ofwhat
is meant by an
expansion
application.
Without waiving this objection, the Illinois EPA admits that the Petitioner withdrew
a
development
permit
application
in
Permit
Log
No.
2001-362
following
discussions
with
representatives ofthe Illinois EPA.
Request No.
15:
The EPA denied Petitioner’s
application for expansion in EPA log
no.
1999-381
solely
because
the EPA
found the proposed lateral expansion, without the separation berm, was not
consistent with the
1996 local siting approval.
Answer:
The Illinois
EPA objects to
this
request on
the basis
that it
is
vauge, in that
it
includes
terminology not
defined
in
the
Act
or
underlying
regulations.
Further,
the
Illinois
EPA’s
referenced decision speaks for itself.
Request No.
16:
The application for expansion in EPA log no. 2003-113,
is consistent with the November
21,
1996 local siting approval.
Answer:
The Illinois EPA objects to
this request on the basis that it calls for a legal conclusion.
RequestNo.17:
The permit denial dated December
5, 2003,
is not based on any concerns of the EPA that
the proposed expansion will violate any regulations promulgated by the Illinois Pollution Control
Board.
7
Answer:
The Illinois EPA objects to this request on the basis that it is vague.
Without waiving this
objection, the
Illinois
EPA
admits
that
the
specific
reason
for
denial
of the
permit
does
not
include reference to any regulations promulgated by the Illinois Pollution
Control Board.
Request No.
18:
The permit
denial
dated December
5,
2003,
is
based
solely on
an
interpretation of 415
ILCS
5.39.2(f)
that the
EPA
has
not
previously taken
on
any
matter of public
record,
before
December
5,
2003.
Answer:
The
Illinois EPA objects to this request on the basis that it calls for a legal conclusion.
Request No.
19:
The permit
denial
dated December
5,
2003,
is
based
solely
on
an
interpretation of 415
ILCS
5/39.2(f)
that
is
contrary
to
the
interpretation
of
415
ILCS
5/39.2(f)
previously
communicated by the EPA to permit applicants.
Answer:
The
Illinois
EPA objects to
this
request
on
the
basis
that
it calls for a legal
conclusion.
Without
waiving this
objection,
the Illinois
EPA refers
the Petitioner to
the answer to
Request
No.
4.
Request No. 20:
The permit
application submitted
in EPA
log no.
2003-113 is
consistent with the
local
siting.
Answer:
The Illinois EPA objects to this request on the basis that it calls for a legal conclusion.
8
ILLINOIS ENV~ONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent
Assistant Counsel
Special Assistant Attorney General
Division ofLegal Counsel
1021
North Grand Avenue, East
P.O. Box
19276
Springfield,
Illinois 62794-9276
217/782-5544
217/782-9143
(TDD)
Dated:
February 18, 2004
9
ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
1021
NORTH
GRAND
AVENUE
EAST,
P.O.
Box
19276,
SPRINGFIELD,
LLINOIS
62794-9276
JAMES
R.
THOMPSON
CENTER,
100
WEST
RANDOLPH,
SUITE
11-300,
CHICAGO,
~L
60601
Ron
R.
SLACOJEVIcH,
GOVERNOR
RENEE
CIPRIANO,
DIRs~roR
217/524-3300
Hethnger LawOf~~
March
12,
2003
iw4~
1
‘~
2003
Stephen F. Hedinger
1225 South Sixth Street
Springfield, Illinois 62703
Re:
1658080001
--
Saline County
Saline County Landfill
LogNos.
1999-381 and 2001-362
Permit File
Dear Mt. Hedinger:
This is in response to your letter, dated December 12, 2002, concerning the above-referenced
landfill and the permit applications for it, designated by the illinois EPA as Log Nos.
1999-381
and 2001-362.
In your letter, you identify yourself as the Special Assistant
State’s Attorney for
Saline County and you indicate that you do not understand what Saline
County Landfill, Inc.
(SCLI) is requesting in Log No. 200 1-362.
You also express your opinion regarding the current
validity of the
1996 local siting approval granted by the Saline County Board.
First, I want to thank you for bringing this matter to my attention and giving me an opportunity to
provide clarification.
This response letter gives background information on the
1996
local siting
approval and
on Log No.
1999-38 1.
It also explains what is being requested in Log No. 2001-
362 and
presents our view on the viability ofthe Saline County Board’s local siting approval.
Background
On November 21,
1996, the Saline County
Board granted local
siting approval for a lateral
expansion of this landfill. The application for siting approval specified that there would be
a 50-foot separation berm between the existing waste
footprint (Unit
1) and the lateral
expansion footprint (Unit 2).
The application for siting approval also specified that the
separation berm was to be constructed of clean soil and
indicated that the purpose ofthe
berm was to isolate the waste from
Unit
1
and Unit 2.
On October 8,
1999, SCLI submitted
a permit application (Log No. 1999-38 1) to
us
requesting a development permit for a lateral expansion.
As
originally proposed in Log
No.
1999-38 1, the lateral expansion was consistent with local siting approval.
However,
the original application had several technical and regulatory problems related to the
ROCKFORD
—
4302
North
Main
Street, Rockiord,
IL 61103
—(815) 987-7760
•
DES
PLAINES —9511
W’.
Harrison St., Des
Plaines,
IL 60016 —(817) 294-4000
ELCIN —595
South
State,
Elgin,
IL 60123 —(84”) 608-3131
•
PEORIA
—5413
N.
UniversitvSt.,
Peoria,
IL
61614—309)693-5463
BuREAi~OF
LAND
-
PEORIA—
7620
N.
University
St.,
Peoria,
IL 61614
—(309) 693-3462
•
CHAMPAIGN
—
2123 South
First
Street.
Champaign.
IL 61820 —1217) 278-5800
SPR~NCFIELD
—
4500
S.
Sixth
Street
Rd.,
Springfield,
IL 62706 —1217) 786.6892
•
COLLINSVILLE
—2009 MalI
Street, Colhnsvi(Ie.
IL 62234 —(6181 346-5120
MARION
—2309 W.
Main
St.,
Suite
116.
Mar)on.IL 62939—1618)
993-7200
PRINTED
ON
RECYCLED
PAPER
Page
2
scparation berm
----
particularly with regard to groundwater monitoring and groundwater
modeling.
SCLI was made aware of these problems by way of draft denial letters.
On August 30,
2000, SCLI
submitted an
addendum to Log No.
1999-381 proposing
a
redesign of the lateral expansion that
eliminated the separation berm.
This addendum
cured the previously identified problems associated with the berm but the proposed
redesign was
not, in our opinion, consistent with the
1996 local
siting.
Upon being
informed that due to this inconsistency we felt that we could not approve the redesign,
SCLI asked us to deny Log No.
1999-381
so they could appeal our decision to the illinois
Pollution Control Board.
On Janu.ary 4,
2002, we denied Log No.
1999-381
solely because the proposed lateral
expansion, without the separation berm,
was not
consistent with the
1996 local siting.
SCLI appealed this denial and on May 16, 2002, the illinois Pollution Control Board
affirmed our decision.
Log
No. 2001-362
On September 24, 2001, SCLI
submitted Log No. 2001-362.
This application requested
renewal ofPermit No. 1996-147-LFM and was timely filed pursuant to
35
111. Adm. Code
813.301.
On January 24, 2002,
SCLI submitted an addendum to
Log No. 200 1-362 that made the
same proposal (i.e., a lateral expansion without a separation barrier) that had been denied
in the final action taken on Log No. 1999-381.
The January 24,2002 addendum was
flawed in several respects and on February
7, 2003, SCLI
submitted another addendum
withdrawing the request for a lateral expansion. Thus, now once again, Log No. 200 1-362
only requests renewal of SCLI’ s 813 permit.
Status
of 1996 Local
Siting Approval
At the end of your letter, you argue that SCLI’s
1996 local siting approval has lapsed.
The
Illinois
EPA has not come to the same
conclusion.
Instead, we have interpreted Section
39.2(f) ofthe Illinois Environmental
Protection Act to mean that
a landfill’s local siting
approval expires within
3
years of being granted only if an application for a development
-
permit has not been made during that 3-year period. This interpretation has consistently
been employed in answering questions from potential operators and in reviewing permit
applications.
SCLI made application for a lateral expansion (Log No. 1999-381) within
3
years of
obtaining local
siting approval and although that application was denied and the Illinois
Pollution Control Board has affirmed its denial, the
1996
local siting
approval remains
Page
3
viable.
Accordingly, if SCLI were to
submit a permnit
application for. a lateral expansion,
that was consistent with the
1996 local siting approval and that met all the regulatory
requirements, the Illinois EPA would be
obligated to
approve it.
Ifyou
have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Chris Liebman at 217/524-3294 or
Christine Roque at 217/524-3299.
Sincer~~.___—
Joyce
L. Munie,L?.E.
Manager, Permit Section
Bureau ofLand
L’~L
JLM:CMR:bjh\032991 .doc
