RECEIVED

CLERK’S OFFICE

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

APR

29

200’i

No. PCB 03-106

(Enforcement)

STATE OF ILUNOIS

Pollution Control Board

NOTICE OF FILING

To:

Donald J. Moran

Loren Blair

Pedersen

& Houpt

161

North Clark Street-Suite 3100

Chicago, IL 60602

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on April 29, 2004, I have caused to be filed with the Illinois

Pollution ControlBoard; Thompson Center; Chicago,Illinois, the~t~ched

VILLAGE

OFSOUTH

ELGIN’s

MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT, a,~p~7of

same being served upon you.

Derke J. Price

Stephanie A. Benway

ANCEL, GUNK, DIAMOND, BUSH,

DICIANNI

&

140

South Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor

Chicago, Illinois 60603

Phone: (312) 782-7606

Fax:

(312)782-0943

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that she served

a

copy ofthis Notice of Filing together with its

attachment by sealing a copy of same in a duly-addressed envelope, with proper first-class postage

prepaid, and depositing said envelope

in the US Mail at 140

South Dearborn; Chicago, Illinois, at

or before the hour of 5:00 p.m., on April 29, 2004.

Under penalties

as provided by

law pursuant to735 ILCS

5/1-109,

I certify that the statements

set forthherein are true and correct.

L:\LStefanich\My Documents\Derke\Village of South BlgirAWasteMgmt\PollutionControlBoard\NotFil ingMSJ.wpd / 3327310.000

e~/

VILLAGE OF SOUTH ELGIN,

.

Complainant,

v.

WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.;

Respondent.

of its attorneys

P.C.

---

RECEvED

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOA~RI(’SOFFICE

VILLAGE OF

SOUTH ELGIN,

)

APR

29

2OO~

a Municipal Corporation,

)

STATE

OF ILLINOIS

)

P~IIutI~n

Control

Board

Complainant,

)

)

No. PCB 03-106

vs.

)

)

(Enforcement)

WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.,

)

)

Respondent.

VILLAGE OF SOUTH ELGIN’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

The Complainant Village ofSouth Elgin (the“Village”), by and through its attorneys, Ancel,

Glink, Diamond, Bush, DiCianni & Rolek, P.C.,pursuant to Section 101.156 ofthe Illinois Pollution

Control Board Procedural Rules, hereby submits its Motion for Summary Judgment and

in support

thereofstates the following:

I.

INTRODUCTION AND STANDARD

OF REVIEW

On January

16,

2003,

the

Village

filed its

Complaint pursuant to

Section

5/31(d)

ofthe

Environmental Protection Act,

seekinga determination that the Respondent Waste Management of

Illinois,

Inc.

(“WMI”)

is

in

violation of the

terms

and

conditions

of the siting

permit

for the

Woodland III landfill expansion on the Woodland Landfill Site, granted September 13,

1988 by the

Kane County Board

(“County Board”) via Resolution No.

88-155

-

which prohibited any further

expansion oforon the Site

-

by attempting to expandthe WoodlandLandfill Siteby adding a second

pollution control facility (a transfer station).

All

fact discovery relevant to

this motion has been

completed

and

no

material

fact

exists.

Summary judgment

is

proper if the

record,

including

pleadings, depositions and admissions on file, together with any affidavits,

shows that there is no

1

---

genuine issue ofmaterial fact, and that the movingparty is entitled

to judgment as a matter oflaw.

Pollution Control Board Rules (“PCBR”),

§101.516 (c).

II.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The Woodland Landfill sits is located in unincorporated Kane County, and is adjacentto the

municipal boundary

and residential neighborhoods of the Village.

(Compit.

& Answer, ¶2).

The

site, which was a former quarry, was initially established as a pollution control facility in 1976 and

consists ofa total of213 acres.

Id..

In 1976, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (“IEPA”)

permitted the use of

55

acres for a landfill (“Woodland I”) and in

1982

the site was expanded an

additional 48

acres (“Woodland II”).

Id.

In

1988,

WMI

filed

an

application

with

Kane

County

to

expand the

landfill

between

Woodland I and Woodland II.

(Compit.

& Answer, ¶3).

The application detailed WMI’s proposed

end-use orclosureplanfor the site and represented that “upon completion the site will be comprised

sic

ofa combination offilled land and unfilled land, which will be left, essentially in a natural state

.A major component ofthe end use proposal is to allow for hiking and bicycle riding across this

large open space. (Compit. & Answer,

¶9; see also

WMI’s End Use Plan,

attached to Complaint as

Exhibit

6).

A public hearing was held regarding WMI’s application on July 26,

1988.

At the hearing,

counsel for WMI presented a letter dated July

8,

1988

addressed

to Honorable Mayor Thomas

Rolando, Village of South Elgin, Village Hall,

10 North Water Street, South Elgin, Illinois 60177.

(Compt. & Answer, ¶8;

see also

relevant portion ofthe transcript, attached to complaint as

Exhibit

5).

WMI’s counsel read the following into the record, among other things: “Dear Mayor Rolando:

Waste Management ofIllinois, Inc. will agree to the following conditions with theVillage ofSouth

2

---

Elgin, Illinois and the County of Kane upon successful siting ofour application which is before the

Kane County Board ofKane County, Illinois, and the issuance ofan operating permit by the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agnecy forthis landfill expansion.

.

.WasteManagement ofIllinois, Inc.

agrees and stipulates that this expansion will be the last expansionthat we will attempt to do on this

site, which is commonly known as the Woodland Landfill site.”

Id.

At the July

1988

hearing, the WMI also

introduced the testimony of Mr.

Hamblin.

Mr.

Hamblin testified that “the Woodland III proposal encompasses the entire site and looks at a final

land

use

plan

on

that land form that is

a passive

recreational

area.

It

incorporates

some ofthe

surrounding facilities or surrounding land uses into the final landuse plan.

The original Woodland

I

and Woodland II final land use plans

weren’t as comprehensive or detailed in their final form.”

(Complt.

&

Answer, ¶10;

see

also

relevant portion of transcript, attached to

Complaint as Exhibit

7).

The

Kane

County

Board

granted

siting

approval

pursuant

to

Resolution

88-155

(the

“Resolution”).

Id; see also

copy ofResolution, attached to Complaint as Exhibit

1.

Condition 2 of

the Resolution provided that “the site will be developed and

operated in a manner consistent with

the representations

made

at the public

hearing

on

this

matter held

on

July

26,

1988

and

to

all

applicable laws, statutes, rules and regulations ofthe Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, and

the Illinois Pollution Control Board,

or their successOrs,

as may be now or hereafter in effect and

which are applicable to this site.” (Exhibit 1).

The Resolution further provided in Condition 4 that

“the site, commonly known as the Woodland Site, shall not be expanded further.”

Id.

3

---

On June 14,

2002, WMI filed a Site Location Application (the “Site Application”) seeking

to site an 8.9 acre parcel ofthe Woodland Landfill for use as a waste transfer station.

(Complt. &

Answer, ¶4).

After months ofpublic hearing on thematter, on December 10,2002, the Kane Cuonty

Board deniedWMI’s application.

(Complt & Answer,

¶5).

Shortly thereafter, on January

14, 2003,

WMI filed its Petition for Hearing to Contest Site Location Denial, No. PCB 03-104 (the “Petition

for Rehearing”), requesting a hearing to contest the decision ofthe Board.

II.

ARGUMENT

WMI’S

PROPOSAL

TO

BUILD

A

WASTE

TRANSFER

STATION

ON

THE

WOODLAND

LANDFILL

SITE

IS

A

VIOLATION

OF

THE

CONDITIONS

IMPOSED BY THE

KANE

COUNTY BOARD

WMI’s proposal to build a waste transfer station on the Woodland Landfill Site constitutes

an impermissible

expansion on and of the site, in

violation ofthe conditions imposed

by the

Kane

County

Board through its

Resolution adopted

on

September

13,

1988.

Section

5/39.2(e)

of the

Illinois Environmental Protection Act, 415 ILCS

5/39.2(e),

provides that “in

granting approvalfor

a

site, the

county

board.. .may

impose

such conditions

as

may be

reasonable

and

necessary

to

accomplish the purpose ofthis

action.”

A violation of a condition properly imposed under the

authority to confer site location suitability approval conditions

is a violation ofthe Environmental

Protection Act.

County ofLake v.

PCB,

120 Ill.App.3d 89,

101, 457 N.E.2d 1309

(2u1d

Dist.

1983).

As such, the Village of South Elgin is entitled to summaryjudgment and the conditions imposed by

the Kane County Board must be enforced.

4

---

A.

The Kane County Board Granted Siting Approval for

Woodland III Pursuant to Resolution 88-155

WMI does not and

cannot dispute that the County Board,

in granting siting approval for

Woodland III,

imposed specific conditions relating to WMI’s development ofthe site.

In 1988, the

County Board adoptedResolution 88-1255, which includedthe followingconditions: (1)that the site

shall not be expandedfurther, and (2)that WMI fulfill all ofthe representations made at the July 26,

1988 public hearing, specifically that Woodland III was its last attempt

to

expand the Woodland

Landfill site and that the relevantportionofWoodland III would be turned into a passive recreation

area upon closure.

(Exhibit 1).

The terms ofthe Resolution were incorporated into WMI’s permit.

As such,WMI is obligatedto comply with the resolution to remain in compliance with its permit for

Woodland III.

B.

WMI’s Proposal to Build

a Waste Transfer Station on the

Woodland Landfill Constitutes an Impermissible Expansion

The

Village

is

entitled

to

summary

judgment

in

this

matter

because

WMI

‘

s

proposal

constitutes an expansion in violation of Condition 4

of the County Board’s siting approval.

The

word “expand”

has been defined by

courts

to

include

an

extension of nonconrofming use or an

increase in intensity ofsame.

People v.

TreirnSteel & Processing,

5

Ill.App.2d 371,

125 N.E.2d 678

(1st

Dist.

1955).

Furthermore, as already determined by the Pollution Control Board in the instant

case, a significant increase in usage can constitute an expansion ofa thenpermitted waste transfer

facility.

(March 23, 2003

Order of Pollution Control Board, attached for the Board’s convenience,

citing

Continental

Waste Industries of illinois,

Inc.

~

Mt.

Vernon,

PCB 94-138,

slip

op. at

5, 20

(October 27,

1997).

5

---

There can be no doubt that WMI’s proposal meets the definition ofexpansion.

WMI does

not

dispute that

it submitted

a

proposal

to

the

County

Board

to

site an

8.9

acre

parcel of the

Woodland Landfill for use as a waste transfer station,

nor does WMI dispute that its application

referred to its proposal as an “expansion.”

(Compt. &

Answer, ¶4).

WMI’s application proposes

to build a new transfer station

which will process, consolidate,

store

and transfer non-hazardous

municipal

waste,

including

landscape

waste

and

general

construction of demolition debris

from

residential, commercial and industrial waste generators which will be capable ofprocessing 2,640

tons per day.

(Compt.

& Answer, ¶11).

WMI’s proposal would double the number of pollution

control facilities on

the

site,

increase

truck traffic,

expand the operating

life of the site, expand

improvements ofthe site by adding septic,well, and waste management systems where none existed

previously and increase the intensity ofthe use ofthe site for pollution control purposes.

C.

WMI’s Proposal to Build

a Waste Transfer Station on the

Woodland Landfill Violates WMI’s Post-Closure Requirement

The

Village

is

entitled

to

summary judgment

in

this

matter

because

WMI’s

proposal

constitutes violates

Condition

2

of the County

Board’s siting approval requiring that the area be

turned into a passive recreation areapost-closure.

Condition 2 of the Resolution provided that “the

site will be

developed and

operated in a manner consistent with the representations made at the

public hearing on this matter held on July

26,

1988

and to

all

applicable laws, statutes,

rules and

regulations of the Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency,

and

the

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board, or their successors, as maybe now orhereafterin effect and which are applicableto this site.”

(Exhibit

1).

Pursuant

to

end-use

plan

requirements

under

Section

807.206

of the

Illinois

Administrative

Code,

in

its

siting

proposal

for

Woodland

III,

WMI

represented

that

“upon

6

---

completion the site will be comprised of a combination of filled land and unfilled land, which will

be

left, essentially,

in

a natural

state...a major component of the

end use proposal is

to

allow for

hiking and bicycle riding across this large open space.”

(Exhibit 6).

At the July

26,

1988

public

hearing, WMI reiterated this

end-use plan stating on the record that the “Woodland III proposal

encompasses the

entire

site and looks

at a final land use plan on that land form that

is

a passive

recreational use.

It incorporates some ofthe surrounding facilities or surrounding land uses intothe

final land use plan.”

(Exhibit 7).

In short, there is

simply no

credible means

by which

WMI can claim that a waste transfer

facilitythat will “process, consolidate, store and transfernon-hazardous municipal waste, including

landscape

wate and general

construction

or demolition debris

from

residential,

commercial and

industrial

waste

generators”

will

meet

the

end-use

plan

contemplated

in

Condition

2

of the

Woodland III site approval.

As

such, the Village is entitled

to summary judgment and WMI must

be found in violation.

III

CONCLUSION

The Village is entitled to

summaryjudgment because there are no material facts in dispute.

WMI’s proposal to site a new waste transfer facility on the Woodland Landfill site is a violation of

Conditions 2 and 4 oftheKane County Board’s siting approval forWoodland III. The waste transfer

facility would be an expansion of the site because it would result in a significant increase in non-

conforminguse and becausethe facility doesnot conformwith theend-use planproposed and agreed

to by WMI.

WHEREFORE, the Village of South Elgin respectfully requests that this Honorable Board

enter an order (a)

granting summaryjudgment in its favor; (b) finding that WMI’s attempt to

site a

7

---

transferstation on the Woodland Site violates the Act and rules, regulations, permits and terms and

conditions imposed by Kane County in

Resolution

88-155;

(c) ordering WIvil to

cease and desist

from

its

attempt

to

site a transfer station on the site; and (d) providing any such other and further

relief as the Board deems equitable and just.

Respectfully submitte

THE VILL

E

OUTH ELGIN

By:

____

/

One ofit

t

rneys

Derke J. Price

Stephanie A. Benway

ANCEL, GUNK,

DIAMoND,

BUSH,

DICIANNI

& ROLEK, P.C.

140 South Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor

Chicago, illinois 60603

(312) 782-7606

(3 12) 782-094~

Fax

L,\sBenway\My Documents\Muriic±palities\SouthElgirL\Transfer Station\Msc.memo of law.wpd

/

8

---

Exhibit

A

---

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL

BOARD~~

-~

CLF.~~

OFOC.

VILLAGE

OF SOUTH ELGIN,

.JA~.;

~

~

a municipal corporation,

STPC~’EOF

c.LLi~P~

Complainant,

Poliuflort C~n/rc$

A~OUTC~

No.PCBO3-_______

v.

(Enforcement)

WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.;

Respondent.

COMPLAINT

Complainant, Village ofSouth Elgin(”Village”), by,,its attorneys,

ANCEL, GUNK,DIAMOND,

BUSH, DICIANNI &ROLEK,

P.C., pursuant to

Section

5/31(d)

ofthe Environmental Protection Act,

415

ILCS 5/31(d), seeks a determination that respondent Waste Management ofIllinois, Inc.

is in

violation of the terms and

conditions of the

siting permit for the Woodland ifi expansion on

the

Woodland Site, grantedSeptember

13,

1988 by theKane County Board through Resolution No. 88-

155 (attachedas Exhibit

1 and incorporatedherein), insofar asRespondent’s presentapplication and

appeal

(PCB

03-104) seeking to

add a second pollution control facility (a

transfer station) to the

Woodland Site constitutes:

(1)

a

violation of the

terms

of Condition

4

of Resolution

88-155 providing:

“The

site,

commonly known as the Woodland site, shall not be expanded further;

(2) a violation ofWIM11’s representation incorporated in Condition

2 ofResolution 88-155

that: “Waste Management ofIllinois, Inc., agrees and stipulates that this expansion will be the last

expansion

that

we will

attempt

to

do

on

this

site which is

commonly known as the Woodland

Landfill site”;

and

(3)

a violation of the

Condition—imposed by Kane

County and by

35

Ill.

Admin.

Code

807.206--to implement the promised end-use plan designating the areanowproposed forthetransfer

station to be reconstructed as a passive recreation park.

In further support of this complaint, Village states as follows.

1

EXHIBIT

---

1.

The Village ofSouth Elgin,

a municipal corporation,

is in Kane County, Illinois.

2.

The Woodland Landfill site is located in unincorporated Kane County,

adjacent to

the municipal boundary ofthe Village, next to residential neighborhoods ofthe Village.

The site--a

formerquarry--was initially established as a pollution control facilityin 1976 and consists ofa total

of213 acres.

In 1976, IEPA permittedthe use of 55 acres for landfill (“Woodland I”).

In 1982, the

site was expanded by adding 48

acres (“Woodland II”).

3.

In 1988, Waste Management ofIllinois, Inc. (“WMII”) filedan application with Kane

County to

further prolong

the life of the landfill for an

additional

15

years by working the area

between

Woodland I

and

II

(this

application

is

commonly

referred

to

as

the

“Woodland

ifi”

appliction).

The Kane

County Boardadopted Resolution 88-155 approving, with

conditions, the

Woodland ifi application (Certitified copyofthe Resolution is attache~and

incorporated herein by

reference

as Exhibit

1),

including

conditions

that required

the Site be

developed

as

a passive

recreation park once it was full and closed.

4.

In June, 2002,

WM11 re-filed

a Site Location Application for Woodland Transfer

Facility (originally filed in February, 2002) with the Kane CountyBoard.

Inthis application, WM11

proposed to

locate a transfer station facility on the Woodland Site (~Jthoughthe entire application

is

too voluminous to

attach hereto, a portion ofthe application is

attached as Exhibit 2).

A map

showing the location ofthe proposed transfer station on the Woodland Landfill site is attached as

Exhibit

3.

5.

Following months ofpublic hearings, theKane CountyBoard overwhelmingly denied

WM11’s application for the transfer station.

On or about January 14, 2003, however, WIvill filed its

Petition for Hearing To Contest Site LocationDenial with this Board, No. PCB 03-104, requesting

a hearing

to

contest the

decision of the Kane

County Board.

A

copy of the Petition

(without

exhibits)

is attached hereto as Exhibit 4.

6.

WM11’ s persistent attempt to site a transfer station at the Woodland Site constitutes

a breach ofthe Conditions imposedby Kane County when approving the Woodlandifi application.

More specifically, Condition 4 mandated:

2

---

“The site, commonly known as the Woodland Site, shall not be expanded further.”

(Exhibit

1)

7.

Further, Condition

2 ofKane County Board Resolution No. 88-155 required:

“That

the site will

be

developed

and

operated in

a

manner

consistent

with

the

representations made at the public hearing on this matter held on July 26,

1988 and

to

all applicable

laws, statutes, rules and

regulations ofthe illinois Environmental

Protection Agency, and the Illinois Pollution Control Board, or their successors, as

may be now or hereafter in effect

and which are applicable to this site.”

(Exhibit

1)

8.

Among

the

representations

read

into

the

record

of the

July

26,

1988

public

hearing—subsequently incorporated into Condition 2—were the representations ofWMII set forth in

a July

8,

1988

letter from

WMII to

the Village of South Elgin in which WMil~omised(among

other things) that the Woodland ifirequest “will be the last expansion that we will attempt to

do on

this

site, which

is known

as Woodland landfill site.”

(Relevant portion of the transcript of the

hearing in which WM11 read the letter into the record is attached hereto as Exhibit

5.)

The July 8,

1988

letter was

attached to

and incorporated into Resolution

88-155 as

Exhibit B

thereto.

(See

Exhibit

1)

1

9.

Similarly, in its

1988 siting application forWoodlandifiand atthe public hearingon

the

application,

WMII detailed its

proposed end-use

(closure) plan for the

site.

Such a plan

is

requiredby35111. Aclmin. Code 807.206.

In its materials, WM11represented that: “Upon completion

the site will be comprised sic

ofa combination offilled land and unfilled land, which will be left,

essentially, in a natural state.

.

.

A major component ofthe end use proposal is to allow for hiking

and bicycle riding across this large open space.

.

.

.“

(WIVifi’s application materials concerning the

End

Use Plan are attached hereto as Exhibit 6.)

10.

Concerningthe end-use plan, WJVIII made the followingrepresentations at the July

26,

1988

public

hearing

(again,

these representations

are,

through

Condition

2,

conditions of

approval):

3

---

“Woodland ifi proposal encompasses the entire site and looks at a final landuseplan

on

that

land form

that

is

a passive recreational use.

It incorporates

some of the

surrounding facilities or surrounding land uses into the final

land use plan.

The

original Woodland I and Woodland IIfinal landuseplans weren’tas comprehensive

or as detailed in their final form.”

The relevant portion of the July 26,

1988 hearing transcript is attached hereto as Exhibit 7.

11.

Contraryto the terms ofits

site permit, WM11has filed with the Kane County Board

a site application for a new transfer station on nine acres ofthe Woodland site, which will “process,

consolidate,

store

and

transfer non-hazardous municipal

waste,

including

landscape

waste

and

general

construction

or

demolition

debris

from

residential,

commercial

and

industrial

waste

generators,” which will be capable of processing 2,640 tons per day.

(Exhibit 2.)

/

12.

Section 5/39.2(e) ofthe Illinois Environmental Protection Act, 415 ILCS

5/39.2(e),

provides that “In granting approval for a site, the county board..

.

may impose such conditions as

may be reasonable

and necessary to

accomplishthe purpose ofthis section..

.“

The Kane County

Board imposed on theWoodlandifi permit the condition that thesite “shall not be expandedfurther”

(Condition 4) and the condition that WMII fulfill all ofthe representations madeat the July26, 1988

hearing (Condition 2), including the representation that Woodland ifi was the last expansion on the

site and that the relevant portion ofWoodland ifi would be a passive recreation area.

13.

Pursuant

to

35

Ill.

Admin.

Code

807.206,

the

granting

of a

landfill permit

is

conditioned upon the adoption ofa closure plan.

WMII did include a closure plan in its Woodland

III application that calls for the specific area now proposed for a transfer station—indeed the entire

site—to

be

redeveloped as

a passive

recreation park.

W1vIll recently closed Woodland ifi

and,

therefore, should proceed to construct the passive recreation facility.

14.

Sitingthe proposed transferstation on the WoodlandSiteconsitutesanimpermissible.

expansion on the site and of the

site,

in

violation of Conditions

2

and 4,

in at least each ofthe

following ways:

(C)

the proposed transfer station would double the numberofpollution control facilities

on the site;

(D)

the transfer station would increase truck traffic to the site by more than 145

ofthe

4

---

volume oftraffic to the site at the time ofits

closure;

(E)

the transfer station would indefinitely expand the operating life ofthe site from its

intended closing date;

(F)

the transfer station would expand improvements on the Site by adding septic, well,

and waste management systems where none existor are needed presently;

and

(G)

the transfer station would increase the intensity of the use ofthe site for pollution

control purposes.

15.

Likewise, siting the proposed transfer station on the Woodland Site constitutes an

impeimissiblebreach ofthe condition that the entire site~beTedeve1opedas

apassive-recreati~n

area.

16.

Section

5/31(d)

oftheEnvironmentalProtection Act, 415 ILCS 5/3 1(d),provides that

any person may file a complaint with the Pollution Control Board for violations ofthe Act

or any

rule, regulation, permit or term or condition.

WHEREFORE, the Village ofSouth Elgin respectfully requests that this Honorable Board

enteran order (a) findingthat WM11’s attempt to sitea transferstation on the WoodlandSiteviolates

the

Act and the rules,

regulations, permits

and terms

and conditions

imposed by Kane County in

Resolution 88-155

; (b) ordering Wilvill to cease and desist from theirattempt to site a transferstation

on this site; and (c) providing such other and further relief as the Board deems appropriate.

Respectfully submitted,

Derke J. Price

ANCEL, GUNK, DIAMOND, BUSH, DICIANNI

&

140 South Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor

Chicago, Illinois 60603

(312) 782-7606

(312) 782-0943 Fax

D:\My Documents\AGDBDR\SO-ELGIN\transfer.pcb.complaint.wpd

I

VILLAGE OF

SOUTH ELGIN,

a municipal

attorneys

P.C.

5

---

---

4’,

STATE

OF

ILLINOIS

COUNTY

OF

KANE

RESOLUTION

NO.

88

~

GRANTING SITE APPROVAL FOR

THE

WOODLAND III LANDFILL SITE

WHEREAS, on

the 7th day

of April

J988,

Waste Management of

Illinois,

Inc.

did file

a request for site approval for

commonly known as the Woodland III site, and

WHEREAS,

Ill. Rev. Statutes, Chapter 111 1/2,

Sec. 1039.2 ~

~

(The

Act” mandates the County Board

to

render

a decision

thereon, and

//

WHEREAS,

due

notice

and publication,

the

Committee of the County Board did engage

upon

its

behalf

and

July

WHEREAS,

testimony and evidence were presented and

at

the

public hearing and comments were

the

request

of

Waste Management

of

Illinois,

Inc.

for

expansion of Woodland Landfill, to become known

is

hereby

granted pursuant

to

“Findings

and

Order”

September 13,

1988;

and

that

adoption.

Passed by the Kane County Board

ox

~

~‘~“

6’

1J~~irman,Coun~TBoard

Kane County,

Illinois

STATEOFILLINOIS

tM(~ci.~

COUNTY OF KANE

DATE~~~

‘~

t~

I, Bernadine

C.

Murphy,

Kane

County

Clerk

and

Keeper of the

Records in

Kane County

Illinois do

hetçbyceiiify that

the attached is

a

true

and

correct copy of the original record on file.

‘.~‘

~

In

witness

whereof. I have hereunto set my hand

and affixed the

Seal ol

the

County of

Kanc

at my office in Geneva

Illinois

Bern~

me

C. Murphy,

Kane

ountv

Clerk

Kane

,

Illinois

---

BEFORE

THE

KANE

COUNTY

BOARD

KANE

COUNTY,

ILLINOIS

IN

THE

MATTER

OF

THE

REQUEST

OF

WASTE

)

MANA6EMENT

OF

ILLINOIS,

INC.

FOR

SITE

)

APPROLJAL

FOR

A

NEW

RE6IONAL

POLLUTION

)

CONTROL

SITIN6

FACILITY

FILED

APRIL

7,

)

1388

AND

KNOWN

COMMONLY

AS

THE

WOODLAND

)

III

LANDFILL

SITE.

)

FINDINGS AND

ORDER

This

matter

coming

on

to

b~heard

upon

the

request

Ear

site

approval

of a new regional

pollution

control

facility

and

the

county board

having

considered

the

evidence

taken

at

the

public

hearing held

in

this

cause

on

the

26th

day

of

July,

1988

together

with

the

Exhibits

admitted

therein

and

the public

comments

received

does hereby Find and order as Follows

FINDINGS

We find that we have jurisdiction over this matter

by

virtue

oF

1387

Illinois

Revised

Statutes

Chapter

111

1/2,

section

1033.2

et

seq

(hereafter

the

Act)

and

we

further

Find

that

the

applicant

has

properly

performed

the

necessary

publication

and

notice

requirements

necessary

to

vest

us

with

jurisdiction

to

act

upon

its

request

for

site

approval

of

the

property

legally

described

in

the

Exhibit

1

attached

hereto

and

made

a

part

hereof.

1

---

The

Executive

Committee

did

engage

a

Hearing

OFFicer

who

conducted a

public hearing

on our

behalf.

The Hearing OFFicer

made various rulings regarding evidence and conduct of the public

hearing.

To

the

extent

necessary,

we

aFfirm

all

oF the rulings

and decisions oF the Hearing

OFFicer

and

the

Executive

Committee.

The

Act

mandates

that

we

must

consider

the

request

using

only the Following criteria:

1.

the

facility

is necessary to accommodate the waste needs

of the area it

is intended to serve;

/

2.

the

facility

is

so

designed

and

located

and proposed to

be

operated

that

the

public

health,

saFety

and

welfare

will

be

protected;

3. the facility is located so as to minimize incompatibility

with

the

character:

of

the

surrounding area and to

minimize

the

eFfect

on

the

value

of

surrounding

property;

-f. the

facility

is

located

outside

the

boundary

oF

the

100

year

Flood

plain

or

the

site

is

Flood—

proofed;

S.

the

plan

oF

operations

For

the

Facility

is

designed

to

minimize

the

danger

to

the

surrounding

area

from

fire

spills

or

other

operational

accidents;

6.

the

trafFic

patterns

to

or

From

the

facility

are

so

designed

as

to

minimize

the

impact on traFfic flows;

We

realize

that

the

Act

contains

three

additional

criteria

related

to

hazardous

waste

sites,

regulated

recharge

areas,

and

county

solid

waste

management

plans.

We

Find,

however,

that

this

request

a)

is

not

For

the

deposit

of

hazardous

wastes,

b)

is

not

within

a

regulated

recharge

area,

and

c)

that

we

have

not

adopted

a solid waste management plan.

Therefore,

we conclude

that those

criteria

are

not

applicable

to

this

request

For

site

approval.

2

---

After

considering

the

entire

record

based

upon

the

preponderance of the evidence standard of prooF,

we find that the

applicant has

met its

burden of

proof as to all six applicable

criteria,

and therefore the request

For

site

approval

must be

granted.

Pursuant

to

the

authority

granted to

us by

section 39.2

Ce) of the Act,

we find

it desirable

to

impose

conditions upon

the

grant

of

site

approval.

ORDER

The

request

For

site

approval

For

a

new regional

pollution

~ontrol

Facility

Filed

on

April

7,

1988

by

Waste

Management

of

Illinois

Inc.,

is

hereby

granted

For

the

real

estate

described

in

the

attached

Exhibit

1,

subject

to

the

following

conditions:

1.

For

the

purposes

of

these conditions,

Waste Management

means

Waste

Management

of

Illinois,

Inc.

and

any

successor

thereto or

assignee thereof.

“Woodland” or “The Woodland Site”

means

the

area

comprised

oF

the

Woodland

I,

II,

and

III

landFill

sites.

“Liillage”

means

the

Uillage

of

South

Elgin,

Illinois.

2.

That

the

site

will

be

developed

and

operated

in

a

manner

:3

---

consistent with the representations made at the public hearing

in

this matter

held on

July 26,

1888 and

to all applicable laws,

statutes,

rules,

and regulations

oF

the

Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency,

and the Illinois Pollution Control Board

,

or

their successors,

as may be now or hereafter

in effect

and which

are applicable to this site.

3.

In

the

event

that contamination of any kind

oF

any

well

is

determined

to

exist

by

virtue

oF

the

development

or

operation

of

the

Woodland

Site

by

the

certification

and

~~eal

of

a

professional

engineer

registered

in

the

State

of

Illinois,

Waste

Management

shall

pay

the

reasonable

costs

of

repairing

or

replacing

the

well.

In

the

case

oF

the

L1illage’s wells, Waste

Management

shall

advance

all

such

funds

as

estimated

by

the

registered

professional

engineer

as

may

be

necessary

to

repair

or

replace

its

well

if

the

Liillage

is

willing

to

agree

to

reimburse

Waste

Management

under

the terms and conditions

Fully described

in

Exhibit

II,

attached

hereto

and made a par.t hereof.

In

the

case

of

all

wells,

Waste Management

must,

within 60

days

after

receipt

of

the

engineer’s

estimate,

either

pay

to

the

well

owner

the

sum

listed

in

the

estimate

or

notiFy

the

well

owner

that

it disputes either:

a)

that

the

well

is contaminated,

and/or

b)

that

the

development

or

operation

of

the

Woodland

Site

is

the

source

of

the

contamination,

and/or

Lj

---

C)

that the estimated costs are reasonable

IF

a

dispute

exists,

it

shall

be Finally resolved by binding

arbitration

under

the

rules

oF

the

American

Arbitration

Association or another mutually agreed upon dispute resolution.

‘-f. The site, commonly known

as the Woodland

site,

shall not

be expanded Further.

S. Waste

Management shall

provide any traffic improvements

required by the Illinois Department

of

Transportation,

including

but not limited to road improvements and signals.

6.

Waste management

shall extend the existing groundwater

monitoring program to include quarterly sampling and analysis for

the

31

volatile

organic

parameters

listed

in

the

U.S.

EPA

priority pollutants

list,

arsenic, and cyanide at wells 6-107,

6-108 and 6_10t~k_1 CR).

These wells are screened within

the same

aquifer

as

the

village

water

suppl~wells.

They are located

directly upgradient of those water supply

wells and downgradient

oF the landfill.

(See Exhibit

2)

7.

Waste management shall analyze monitoring wells BP—33A,

6-108,

GlOlD and 6—106 as

set

forth

in

the

request

For site

approval,

for the extended set of parameters,

as specified

above,

on a one—time basis

prior to

receiving an

operating permit For

this Site.

(See Exhibit 2)

S

---

8.

Upon

reasonable

notice

in advance,

the site operator

shall

permit

the

opportunity

For

the

L.’illage

to

obtain

groundwater samples from any

of the monitoring wells at any time.

However, Waste Management may

reserve the

right to

operate the

downhole sampling

and monitoring

equipment at

each well.

(See

Exhibit 2)

S.

The Uillage shall have the right to inspect any phase oF

landfill construction

by their

authorized representative.

Such

representative will be required

to

notify

-

the

operator

on or

before arrival

and abide

by all site safety rules and practices

oF the operator.

Waste

Management

shall

notify

the Uillage

prior to

operating

in any of the lined areas permitted under the

Woodland

III design,

and prior to any cover removal operations on

Woodland or

Woodland

II

Landfill Sites which are adjacent to the

Woodland

III Site.

Entered this 13th day of September,

1888

Vce-

Chairman

Fred E. Ledebuhr

2~Z.

Attest:

Clerk

6

---

(DO

---

.EXHIBIT

#2

of

FINDINGS

&

ORDER

—..~,

.~—,

entered

9—13—88

f~t

Waste Management ot North America, In~.

\~1

M;dwesT

Region

300 C’~ëge

Crive.

P0.

Box

563

P.~osHeights.

Hinois 60363

~12 821-8100

July

8,

1988

The

Honorable Mayor

Thomas Rolando

Village

of

South

Elgin

Village

Hall

10

North

Water Street

South Elgin, Illinois

60177

Dear

Mayor

Rolando:

Waste

Management

of Illinois,

Inc.,

will agree to the

following

conditions

with

the

Village

of

South Elgin,

Illinois,

and

the

County

of

Kane

upon

successful

siting

of

our

application

which

is

before

the

Kane

County

Board

of

Kane

County,

lllinois,

and

the

issuance

of an

operating

pennit

by

the

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency

for

this

landfill

expansion.

In

the

event

that

contamination

of

any

kind

is

detennined

to

exist

in

the

two

closest

municipal

wells

to

Woodland

Landfill,

subsequent

to

the

date

hereof,

Waste

Management

of

Illinois,

Inc.,

shall

advance

any

remediation

costs

incurred

to

eliminate

such

contamination

or

replace

the

wells.

The

village

will

be

provided

descriptions

of

such

costs

as

they

are

incurred

and

should

it

be

proven

by

professional

engineering

jixigement,

that

the

contamina-

tion

was

the

result

of

causes

or

sources

other

than

any

associated

with

Woodland

Landfill,

the

Village

shall

reimburse

Waste

Management

of

illinois,

Inc.,

for

all

si.mis

of

money

it

has

advanced.

Such

reimbursement

shall

be

made

on

demand

but

Waste

Management

shall

accomodate

the

Village

to

the

extent

public

borrowing

is

required

to satisfy

payment.

Waste Management of illinois,

Inc., agrees and stipulates

that

this expansion

will

be

the last expansion

that

we will attempt to do on this site which

is

conmonly

known

as the

Woodland

Landfill site.

We

agree

to extend

our

existing groundwater monitoring

program

to

include

quarterly

sampling

and analysis for the 31 volatile organic

parameters

listed

in the U.S.

EPA

priority pollutants list,

arsenic,

and cyanide at wells G—

107,

G—108 and G—104-1

CR).

These wells are

screened

within the same aquifer

as

the South Elgin water

supply

wells.

They are

located

directly upgradient

of

those

water supply wells and downgradient of the landfill.

In

~,idition,

also

upon

approval of the

Woodland

III Application,

we agree to

sample

and

analyze

monitoring wells BP-33A, G—105, G—IO1D and G—106, for the

extended

set

of parameters, as specified above, on a

one—time

basis.

—1—

---

£

page 2

o.

~xhibit

#2

of Findings & Order

entered

9—13—88

Mayor

Rolando

—2—

7/8/88

We

also

will

extend

the

opportunity

for

the

Village

of

South

Elgin

to

obtain

groundwater

samples

from

any

of

the

monitoring

wells

at

any

time.

We

reserve

the

right

to

operate

the

downhole

sampling

and

monitoring

equipment

at

each

well.

Arrangements

for

such

sampling

should

be

made

in

advance

with

the

General

Manager.

The

Village

of

South

Elgin

may inspect any phase

of

landfill

construction

by

their

authorized

representative.

Such

representatives

will

be

required

to

notify

the

general

manager

on

or

before

arrival

and

abide

by

all

site

safety

rules

and

practices.

Notification

to the Village

will

be

made

prior

to

landfilling any

of

the

lined

areas,

permitted under

the

Woodland

III

design.

The

Village

will also be notified prior to

any

cover removal

operations

on

Wood.land or

Woodland

II Landfills,

adjacent to the

Woodland

Sincerely,

WASTE

MANAGEMENT

OF NORTH

AMERICA,

INC.

Midwest Region

~3~jL.a

Donald

R.

Price

Vice--President

DRP: fn

—2—

---

ç)

I

—

—

---

Site Location Application

Kane

County,

Illinois

Submitted By:

W?~A~TE

~A~A~EME~T

Waste Management of Illinois, Inc.

Submittedto:

Kane County, Illinois

February 2002

---

1)

WASTE

MANAC3EMErt!T

Illinois

I

Indiana Region

720 E.

Butterfield Road

-

Lombard,

Illinois 6014S

(630) 572-8800

(630) 218-1711

Fax

February 13, 2002

Kane County Board

c/a Ms. Bernadine Murphy

County Clerk

-

Kane County Government Center

719 Batavia Avenue, Building

B

Geneva, Illinois

60134

Re:

Application for Site Location Approval

Woodland Transfer Facility

Dear Ms. Murphy:

On

behalf of Waste Management of Illinois,

Inc.,

I

am

very pleased to submit this

Site

Location

Application

for

the

proposed

Woodland

Transfer

Facility.

The

original and forty-eight (48)

copies ofthe Application are filed herewith.

To facilitate the efficient review of the Application, we have organized

it according

to the

nine statutory criteria

set forth

in

the

Illinois

Siting Act, also

known

as

S.B.

172 (415

ILCS

5/39.2).

The Application establishes that the

proposed expansion

meets

all of the

siting criteria.

.

-

We look forward

to the

County’s

hearings

on

the

Application

and

responding to

any questions or concerns you

might have regarding the proposed facility.

Respectfully submitted,

Waste

ageme

t

Illinois,

Inc.

Dean

H. Va

rBaan

Vice President

---

Woodland TransferFacility

Site Location Application

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

I

Waste Management of illinois,

Inc.

(WMII)

proposes to

site, permit,

construct

and

operate anew

transfer

facility

at

the southern portion of the existing

Woodland Landfill property located in unincorporated Kane

County, Iffinois.

The Woodland Transfer Facility (Facility)will process, consolidate, store

and

transfernon-

hazardous

municipal waste,

including

landscape waste

and

general construction or demolition

debris from

residential,

commercial

and

industrial waste

generators.

Waste

materials received

at

the Facility

will be

processed

and

loaded into transfer trailers

for

transport

to landfills.

The Facility

is located approximately

1,500 feet

westlsouthwest of the intersection of illinois Route

25

and

Dunham

Road in unincorporated Kane County, illinois, and is approximately 9 acres in size.

WMIT

proposes to

construct a transfer station building

which will

be completely enclosed.

It

will

have a

tipping floor for the unloading of waste materials, a

primary

loading areaconsisting of

two

loading bays for

loading transfervehicles,

and

an auxiliary loading

area

used

to process seasonal

materials such as landscape

waste

and, if

needed,

source

separated recyclables.

Support

features include

ventilation

and

odor control,

stormwater management,

liquid management

and

fire

protection.

The Facility will

process

an average of

2,000 tons per day (tpd) of waste materials, with a maximum processing capability of 2,640 tpd.

This Application evaluates and assesses the nine criteria setforth in Section 39.2 of the Illinois Environmental

Protection Act (commonly referred

to as Senate Bill 172 or S.B. 172) as follows:

•

The needs analysis establishes that the Facility is necessary to meet the waste disposal needs ofthe

area

it is intended to serve.

•

The engineering design

and

operations plan demonstrates thatthe public health,

safety

and-welfare will

be

protected.

•

The Facility is located so as to minimize incompatibility

with

thecharacterufthe surroundingareaand

•

The Facility is not located within a 100-yearfloodplain.

•

The planof operations for the Facility is designed to minimize danger to the surrounding area

from

fires,

spills or other operational accidents.

•

The

traffic

impact

study results

demonstrate

that

traffic patterns

to

and

from the Facility have

been

designed to

minimize

impact on existing

•

Regulated hazardous wastes will not be accepted at the Facility.

•

The Facility is consistent with the Kane County Solid Waste Management Plan

and

Plan

•

The Facility is not located in a regulated recharge area.

The plans, drawings, dataand reports that

further

explain the nature

and

suitability of the Facility

are

included

in this

Application.

Wivill

looks forward to

the public hearing process

and

the opportunity

to present this

Application to the Kane

County Board.

It should

be

noted

that

this

Site Location Application is

the first

of two

steps

in

siting and

permitting

a

pollution

control facility in illinois.

The second step consists of obtaining

all

necessary County

and

Illinois

EnvironmentalProtection Agency permits.

t.L~.

fl/inn

---

---

I

.

I

-n

C-)

I—

—1

w

0

C

z

0

-

U

-(

1!

~(~‘

~i_

4,—

I-Iii

C~)

rq

z

a

•

‘C!

I.

-

-~

)

—

-

,-

I

I

I

I

I

00

—I

-~m

ma

—I

(.1)

-Do

01J°

nO

p

‘a

(J~

C)

‘ii

a.

cx

0

0

-

I

---

---

BEFORE

TIlE ILLINOIS

POLLUTIONCONTROLBOAR)

WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, iNC.,

)

)

Petitioner,

)

No. PCB 03-

)

vs.

)

(Pollution Control Facility

)

Siting Appeal)

)

COUNTY BOARD OF KANE

COUNTY,

)

ILLINOIS,

)

)

Respondent.

)

PETITION FOR

HEARING

TO CONTEST SITE LOCATION DENIAL

Petitioner

Waste

Management

of Illinois,

Inc.,

(“WMII”),

by

Pedersen

&

Houpt,

its

attorneys,

respectfully requests

a hearing to contest the decision of the

County

Board of Kane

County,

Illinois

(“County

Board”)

denying

site

location

for

the

proposed

Woodland

Transfer

Facility (“Facility”).

In support of

this

Petition,

WMII

states

as follows:

1.

This

Petition

is

filed

pursuant to

Section

40.1(a)

of the

Illinois

Erhrironmental

Protection Act (the

“Act”)

(415

ILCS

5/40.1).

2.

On

June

14,

2002,

WIvllI

submitted

its request for site location approval

for the

Facility

(“Request”).

The

Facility

is

a

waste

transfer

station

located

on

an

8.9-acre

site

on

Illinois

Route

25

in

unincorporated

Kane

County,

Illinois.

It

will

process,

consolidate,

and

transfer an average of 2,000 tons ofnon-hazardous

municipal

waste per day.

3.

On

December

10, 2002,

following

service

and

publication of notice

and

public

hearings

conducted

before

a

hearing

officer

and

two

County

Board

members,

said

hearings

having been held from September

17 to October 10, 2002, the

County

Board denied the Request.

A

true and

correct

copy of the

County

Board

Resolution

denying same

is

attached

hereto

and

made a

part

THIS

DOCUMENT IS PRINTED ON RECYCLED -PAPER.

•

I

---

4.

WMII

contests

and

objects to the

County

Board’s decision to deny the Request

because the

siting process

and procedures

used by the

County Board

in

reaching

that decision

were fundamentally unfair.

5.

WIvifi

further

contests

the

County

Board’s

siting

denial

because

it

is

wholly

unsupported bytherecord

and

is

against

the manifest weight ofthe evidence.

6.

To the extent the

County

Board’s siting

denial

held that criteria (ii),

(iii),

(vi) and

(viii) oftheAct werenotmet, the

denial was

clearly against

the

manifestweight ofthe evidence.

‘WHEREFORE,

WMII respectfully requests that the Board enter

an

order (a) setting

for

hearing this contest ofthe

County

Board siting denial decision, (b) reversing the County Board

siting denial decision,

and

(c) providing such other

and

Respectfully submitted,

W

STEMANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS,

iNC.

By~~-/

~

One ofItsA

meys

Donald J. Moran

PEDERSEN& HOUPT

Attorneys for Petitioner

161 N. Clark Street

Suite 3100

Chicago, IL

60601

Telephone:

(312) 641-6888

2.

THISDOCUMENT IS PRINTED ONRECYCLED PAPER.

---

---

/

1

cal.

your first

2

MR.

MORAN:

Before

I do that,

3

Hearing Officer,

I would

submit

in

4

5

identified,

a letter

that Waste Management

6

sent

to the mayor

7

Elgin,

which

we’d

like marked as

S

Petitioner’s Exhibit No.

4

and

with

the

9

hearing officer’s indulgence,

I

would

simply

10

request the opportunity to read this letter

11

into

the

record.

12

HEARING

OFFICER AKEMANN:

Anyone

13

object

to

counsel

reading

this

letter

into

14

the

record?

15

(No

response.)

16

17

18

MR.

MORAN:

The letter is dated

19

•

July

8th,

1988.

20

21

South Elgin, Village Hall,

22

Street, South Elgin, Illinois

23

‘Dear Mayor Rolando;

24

of Illinois,

SONNTAC REPORTING SERVICER T~’T~-

---

I

2

South El~in, Illinois and the County of Kane

3

upon successful

siting

of

our

application

4

which

is before the Kane County Board of

5

Kane County,

Illinois,

and the issuance of

6

an operating permit by the Illinois

7

Environmental Protection Agency for this

8

landfill expansion.

9

In the event that contamination of any

10

kind is determined to exist

in the two

11

closest municipal wells

to woodland

12

Landfill,

subsequent to the date hereof,

13

Waste Management

of Illinois, Inc. shall

14.

advance any zeinediation cost incurred to

15

eliminate such contamination or replace the

16

wells.

The Village will be provided

17

descriptions of suàb costs as they are

18

incurred and should be proven by

19

professional engineering judgment,

that the

20

contamination was the result of causes or

21

sources other than any associated with

22

Woodland Landfill, the Village shall

23

reimburse Waste Management of Illinois,

Inc.

24

for

all sums of money it has advanced.

Such

~OO.d

~z~#

••

•.•

•~.•

o~O~ooz~I~Mn2

---

1

reimbursement

shall

be

made

on

demand

2

Waste

Management

shall

accommodate

the

3

Village to the extent public large

is

4

required to satisfy payment.

5

Waste Management

of

Illinois,

Inc.

6

agrees

arid

stipulates

that

7

wil.

be the last expansion that we will

8

attempt

to

do

on

this

site,

which

is

9

commonly_known as Woodland Landfill site.

_

-

10

We agree

11

12

13

volatile organic parameters listed

14

U.S.

15

and cyanide at wells G—107, G—108, and

16

(R).

17

within the same aquifer as the South

18

water

supply wells.

19

directly upgradient

20

wells and downyradient of the landfill.

In

21

addition, 6180

U~Ofl

approval

22

III Application, we agree

23

24

G.—l0.D,

and G106,

for the extended set of

goo.d

g~~#

i~o

~OOg1ETNnL~

---

15

1

parameters

as

specified

above,

on

a

2

basis.

3

We

also

will

extend

the

4

for

the

Village

of

South

Elgin

to

obtain

5

groundwater

samples

from

any

of

the

6

monitoring wells

at

any

time.

We

reserve

7

the right

to operate

the

downhole

sampling

8

and

monitoring

equipment

at each well.

9

Arrangements

for

such

sampling

should

be

10

-

made

in

advance

with

the

general

11

The

Village

of

South

51gm

may

inspect

12

any phase

of landfill construction by their

13

authorized representative.

Such

14

representative will be required to notify

15

the general manager on or before arrival and

16

abide by all site safety rules and

17

practices.

Notification to the Village will

18

be made prior

to landfiiling any of the

19

lined areas, permitted under the Woodland

20

III design.

The Village will also be

21

notified prior to any cover removal

22

operations

on Woodland or Woodland It

23

Landfills,

adjacent to the Woodland

III

24

development.

cooa

q~~#

I~gO

~OO~ICVNflL’

---

---

The

~alustrine

t3nconsolidated

Bottomit

wetland

provides

feeding

habitat

for

large

wading

birds

such

as

herons and egrets.

Its

side

slopes

are

too

steep

to

provide

good

habitat

for

s~iiall

wading

birds.

Hbwever,

this

wetland

may

be

used

occasionally

by

waterfowl

for

resting

and

feeding

areas.

A similar

area is at the

downstream end

of the creek near Gilbert Street.

L~ocated.to the

west

and

north

along

the

creek,

arid

controlled by topography,

is

a

complex

mixture

of

“Palustrine

Emergent

Persistent

Wetland”

and

~

Scrub/Shrub Broaci-~LeavedDeciduous Wetland”.

This

wetland

is

dominated by plant species~

Typha in

its

southern

one-third

arid

by

Phalaris

and Carex in its northern two-thirds.

Other

common

species

are

Sa at~ria,.Ettphatorium,

Salix,

Acer,

and Cornus.

A plant

list

for

ths

area

has

been

prepared

and

is

presented ~

Attachment

~,

to this plan.

From a botanical point

of view this area

is

not considered

a high quality wetland.

This

wetland providC5 nesting habitat for blackbirds and feeding

and

nesting habitat for small,

seed eating birds.

DCer tracks and a

deer resting area were observed during

a

field review./

Small

mammals,

reptiles,

amphibians,

and numerous invertebrates may

also may also be supported by this habitat.

As stated in the “Site Characteristics” section,

a portion of the

existing wetland area will be impacted by the landfill expansion.

Figure

5,

Conceptual Wetland

~itigation

elan

shows which areas of

the existing wetland~i1flbe impacted by the proposed landfill

expansion.

In

order

to mitigate the impact on the existing

wetland,

a full wetland mitigation plan

shall

be

prepared

and

approved by USACE

arid

IEPA.

Proposed wetland mitiga~ionmeasures

shall include improving existihg wetland areas,

creating

new

wetland areas and designing

a

wetland discharge/drainage way.

The intent

Of

the wetland mitigation plan is to identify

mitigation measures that will result

in

a

high

quality, managed

wetland which will satisfy

the

requirements

of

the Corps of

Engineers and Katie County.

END

USE

PLAN

Upon

completion,

the

site

will

be

comprised

of

a

combination

of

filled land and unfilled land, which will

be

left,

essentially,.

in

a

natural state,

Of

the approximately 213 acres of site area,

approximately 121 acres wIll be

left

unfilled.

This

area

includes undisturbed land, wetland restoration areas,

and

stormwater

detention areas.

Figure

6, End Use

Plan,

illustrates

the

prop0sed

end

use

for

the

site.

The

site

will

be

used

primarily

for

passive recreational activities,

A

major

component

of

this

end.

use proposal is to allow for hiking

and bicycle riding across this large open space

area.

To

facilitate this, the end use plan calls for trails to be

developed

to

connect

the

various areas

of the site with the

Prairie

Path.

A

picnic

area

will

be

located

around

the

ponds

at

southern

portion

of

the

site.

A

sledding

hill,

located

near

the

northeast

corner

of

the.landfill

area,

will

represe.

~

_____

9

---

FIGURE

8

END

USE

PLAN

WOODLAND

III SANITARY LANDFILL

camiros

ltd.

---

active

recreational

program

element.

The

northern

portion

of

the

site will be left undisturbed as

existing

wetland,

prairie

and

wooded

areas.

An

on-site

road,

beginfLing

at

Route

25

and

ending

at

a

summit

observation

area,

will

provide

vehicular

access

and

parking to

the

various

activity

areas.

Post

closure

on—site

improvements

to

facilitate

the

end

use

program

will

be

th~

responsibility of the

Kane

County

Forest

Preserve

District

or

other

public

recreation

providers.

COMPATIBILITY

From

a

land planning perspective,

the compatibility of the

proposed

landfill

expansion

with

the

surrounding

area

can

be

addressed

in

two ways.

First, compatibility

can

be

addressed

in

terms

of

land,

use

impact;

second,

it

can

also

be

addressed

in

terms

of

it~ aesthetic

impact

on

surrounding

properties.

Regarding

land

use

impacts,

a

key

factor

involves

the

proximity

of

sensitive

land

uses,

such

as

housing,

schools

Or

hospitals,

which

could

be

impacted

by

the

landfill

operation.

The

location

of

the

subject

site

is

such

that

no

significant

impact

on

sensitive

land

uses

will

occur.

The

only

residential

area

adjacent

to

the

site,

located

to

the

northwest

along

Lor

Ann

Street,

abuts

an

already

completed

landfill

area.

In

fact,

most

of

the landfill expansion area is locatcad.between two existing

landfills.

Consequently,

the

nearest

residence

would

be

Located,

approUntateiy

800

feet

front

the

closest

area

of

active

landfill.

In

addition,

an

existing

wooded

area

exists

between

the

residences

and

the

completed

landfiLl

which

strengthens

this

buffer

space.

Another

residential

area

is

located

west

of

Gilbert

Street

and

the

Chicago

and

Northwestern

Railroad

tracks,

which

together

provide

substantial

separation

from

th~ landfill

site.

These

are

the

two

closest

areas

of

sensitive

uses

to

the

site,

and

they

are

adequately

separated

and

buffered

from

the

landfill

expansion

area

so

as

to

not

receive

significant

impacts.

It

should

also

be

noted

that

a

completed

landfill

arid

an

active

landfill are already existing on the site.

Thus,

the proposal

would

not

introduce

the

landfill

as

a

new

use

to

the

area,

but

rather as

a continuation of an existing use. Therefore,

the

landfill

site is located such

that

land use incompatibilities

with

the

surrounding

areas

will

be

minimiied.

The

second,

aspect

of

compatibility,

aesthetic

compatibility,

involves

designing

the

topography

of

the

landfill

(the

landiorm)

in

a

way

that

minimizes

visual

impact

on

surrounding

areas.

Of

particular

importance

are

the

views

of

the

lanciform

from

adjacent

residential

areas

and

major

roads/highways.

Given

their

location,

views

of

the

lancLform

from

nearby

residential

areas

will

be

buffered

by

the

presence

of

existing

vegetation,

topography,

and

distance

from

the

site.

These

same

factors

also

help

to

minimize

visual

impacts

as

seen

from

major

roads/highways.

In.

addItion,

the

landform

has

been

designed

with

a

combination

of

gentle

and

steep

slopes

to

provide

topographic

11

---

Section

NOTE:

LOCATION

OF

INCTION

CEYND

TO

ILLUNTOATIC.

COO

LINE

PLAN.

NOTE:

COMICAL

SCALE

WOODLAND

ID

LANDFILL

OPERATOR:

WASTE

MANAGEMENT

OF

ILLINOIS,

INC.

cam

iros

ltd.

411

SCIIIII

WpIIC

STIMLI

~

r—t_..i———i

(

)

number

Ch

j

.

III

b060?

o~o.

\__.

—

•A

(Jill

J12

1211

le

~

)(

At

F

NOR

FF1

L0

---

---

52

1

there are seats right

in the front.

You

car)

2

come

right

up.

I know we have the

3

air—conditioning

on and it may be difficult

4

to hear,

and if the witness would

try

and

5

speak up please.

6

A

I’ll

repeat.

The basis

for the design

is

——

7

and the basis for my opinion

——

is that

8

of the majorfeatures

of

9

will protect both the public health,

10

and welfare,

are first, that it

has

a

11

.

composite

liner

system.

This

12

13

14

Within the landfill there

is

a

15

leachate collection and system to remove

the

-

leachate from the landfill.

There

17

control system.

18

certain water management programs,

19

includes an operating plan that

20

and describes the details of the operating

21

life throughout

——

or the operation

——

22

-

throughout

it’s operating

23

The plan also includes a closure or

24

:

postclosure care plans,

There are monitor

•

~

,:

SONNTAG REPORTING

SERVICE,.

T!!~.

---

How

from

No.

Woodland

——

Woodland

water

facility

——

I’m

assuming

they

both

had

a

final

plan.

HOw

does

No.

3

——

how

does

that

differ

from

No.

I

and

No.

2?

-A

The most easy way to answer that question

that

the Woodland

III proposal encompasses

the entire site and

looks

ata

final

use plan

on that land form ~

t

is a passive

recreational

use.

It incorporates some of

the

surrounding

facilities

or

surrounding

-

land

uses

into

the

final

land

use

plan.

The original Woodland

I and Woodland

II

final

land

use

plans

weren’t

as

comprehensive

or

as

detailed

in

their

final

form.

Q

This

is

——

we’ll be going

on

a wetland and

54

I’ve already asked

the

quest ions

it

as anexhibit.

witness

about

it.

HEARING

OFFICER

AKEMANN:

Any

from

members

of

the

Board?

BOARD

EXAMINATION

BY

MR.

KAMMERER:

the

final

land

use

plan

3

differ

landNo.

2?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7’

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

SO!1NT~GREP()RPING

~PVTCE.

~

---

55

I

there is~acreek,

I

understand,

running

2

there where the landfill Woodland

III will

3

go.

What will

be done with the water?

4

Where will

that be directed?

-

5

A

Currently there

is

a tributary

6

Brewster Creek that passes between

7

bisects the Woodland

I and Woodland

8

9

As

a part of the development

10

Woodland III,

that creek will

11

and the relocation of that

12

surrounding wetland

is

a part

of

13

permit application which Waste Management

14

submitted

to the Corps

of Engineers

for

-

15

-

approval.

16

creek location is all

a part of that

17

application,

and

that

has to be done

in

18

conjunction

with

the

development

of

the

19

landfill.

-

20

Q

-

And the steps,

2.

to be approved before the Corps

22

23

A

The Corps of Engifleersare reviewing that

24

plan

right now.

-

-

SONNTAG REPORTING 5~VT~~

~

--

---

m

0~

-1-

---

CLERf(’5S(~FFr,~

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

-

M1L1y192003

VILLAGE

OF

SOUTH ELGIN

)

oTATE OP

ILLINrSrCT

a Municipal corporation,

)

POllUtiOn

Control B~rd

Complainant,

)

)

No.

PCB

03-106

v.

)

)

(Enforcement)

WASTE MANAGEMENT

OFILLINOIS,

INC.

)

)

Respondent.

)

ANSWER&

AEFIRMATIVE

DEEENSES TO COMPLAINT

Respondent Waste Management of Illinois, Inc. (“WMiII”), by

and

through its attorneys,

Pedersen

&Houpt, P.C.,

for its answer

and affirmative

defenses to the Complaint ofComplainant

(Preamble)

-

Complainant, Village of South

Elgin

(“Village”), by its attorneys,

ANCEL, GLINX, DIAMOND, BUSH,DICIANNT & ROLEK, P.C.,

pursuant

to

Section

5131(d)

ofthe Environmental

Protection

Act, 415

ILCS

5/31(d),

seeks

a

determination

that respondent

Waste

Management of illinois,

Inc.

is in

violation of the terms

and

conditions ofthesitingpermitfortheWoodlandifiexpansiononthe

Woodland Site, granted September 13, 1988 by the Kane County

Board

through

Resolution

No.88-155

(attached as Exhibit 1

and

incorporatedherein),insofarasRespondent’spresentapplication

and

appeal (PCB 03-104)

seeking to

add

a

second

pollution

control

facility (a transfer station) to theWoodlandSite constitutes:

(1)

a violation of the terms of

Condition

4ofResolution 88-155

providing: “The site, commonly

known

as the Woodland site, shall

notbeexpanded further;

(2)

a

violation

of

W1Vifi’s

representation

incorporated

in

Condition 2 of Resolution

88-155

that: “Waste Management of

fllinois, Inc., agrees

and

stipulates that thisexpansion will be the last

expansion thatwe will attempt todoon

this

sitewhich iscommonly

366126

This Document is

Printed on Recycled Paper

---

known as the WoodlandLandfill site”;

and

(3)

aviolation oftheCondition--imposedbyKaneCounty

and

by

35 III. Admin. Code 807.206--to implement the promised end-use

plan designating theareanowproposed for the transfer station tobe

reconstructed as a passive

recreation

park.

ANSWER (to

Preamble):

To the extent the preamble to the Complaint asserts legal

remainderofthe preamble to theComplaint.

1.

The Village

of South

Elgin,

a municipal

corporation,

is in

Kane County, Illinois.

ANSWER:

WMIT

admits

the allegations contained in paragraph

1.

2.

TheWoodlandLandfill siteislocatedinunincorporatedKane

County, adjacent to the municipal

boundary

of the Village,

next to residential neighborhoods ofthe Village.The site--a

formerquarry--was initially established as a.pollution control

facility in 1976

and

consists of atotal of213 acres. In 1976,

IEPA permitted

the use of

55

acres for

landfill

(“Woodland

I”).

In 1982, the site

was

expanded by adding 48 acres

(“Woodland II”).

ANSWER:

WMII

admits

the allegations contained in paragraph 2.

3.

In 1988, WasteManagement of

illinois, Inc. (“W.MIT”)

filed

an application with Kane County to

further

prolong the life of

the

landfill for an

additional 15 years by working the

area

between

Woodland

I and II

(this

application is

commonly

referred to

as

the

‘Woodland

Ill”

application). The Kane

County

Board

adopted Resolution

88-155 approving,

with

conditions, the Woodland ifi application (Certified copy of

the

Resolution

is

attached

and

incorporated

herein

by

referenceas Exhibit

1),

including conditions

thatrequiredthe

Sitebedevelopedas apassiverecreation parkonceitwas full

and

closed.

ANSWER:

WMII

admits

that WIvififiled an application with Kane County in 1988 to

366126

This

Document is Printed onRecycled Paper

-2-

---

expand the Woodland

Landfill

by a vertical expansion of 20 acresof theWoodlandII waste footprint

and a horizontal expansion of

28

acres between Woodland I and Woodland II (“Woodland

ifi”).

WMIff

furtheradmits

thatWoodland ifi

was

granted local sitingapprovalpursuant

to County

Board

Resolution 88-155 (“Resolution”),

which

is the

best evidence

of the

Resolution’s

contents

and,

therefore,WMIIrefers to theResolution foracomplete

andaccur~

terecitation-of

itscontents. WMI1E

denies the remaining allegations contained

in

paragraph 3.

4.

In June, 2002,-WMIIre-filed a SiteLocation Applicationfor

Woodland Transfer Facility

(originally

filed

in

February,

2002) with the Kane County Board.

In

this

application,

V/MIT proposed to locate a transfer station facility on the

Woodland

Site

(although

the

entire

application

is

too

voluminous to attach hereto, a portion of the application is

attached as Exhibit 2). Amap showing the location of the

proposed transfer station on the Woodland Landfill site is

ANSWER:

WMIIadmits thatWMIIfileda SiteLocationApplication (“Application”)on

June 14, 2002 seeking-to site an 8.9-acre parcelof theWoodland

Landfill

site foruse as awaste

transferstation. W.MTII furtheradmits thatdocuments entitledExhibit2

and

Exhibit3were attached

to the Complaint, but states that the June

14,

2002

Application

is

the

best

evidence of

the

Application’s contentsand, therefore,refersto theApplicationforacompleteandaccurate recitation

ofits contents.

5.

Followingmonthsofpublichearings, theKane

County Board

overwhelmingly denied WMEI’s application for the transfer

station. OnoraboutJanuary 14,2003, however, WIvffl filed

itsPetition forHearingTo ContestSite LocationDenialwith

this Board,No.PCB 03-104,requesting ahearingto contest

the decision of the Kane

County

Board.

A

copy

of

the

Petition (without exhibits) is attachedhereto as Exhibit 4.

366126

This

Document is Printed

on RecycledPaper

-3-

---

ANSWER:

WIvifi admits

that,followingapublic hearing,WMIT’sApplicationwasdenied

by the Kane County Board on December 10, 2002,

and that on January

14, 2003, WIvifi filed its

Petition forHearingTo Contest SiteLocation Denial with thisBoard, No.PCB 03-104 (“Petition

forReview”),

requesting a hearing

to contest the decision oftheKaneCounty Board. WIvifi

further

admits

that adocument entitled Exhibit4wasattachedto theComplaint, but states thatPetitionfor

Reviewis thebest evidenceofthePetition forReview’s contents and, therefore, refers

tothe Petition

forReview fora complete and accurate recitation of

its

contents. WMII denies the

remaining

allegations contained in paragraph

5.

6.

-‘

WMII’s

persistent attempt to site a transfer station at the

Woodland SiteconstitutesabreachoftheConditions imposed

by

Kane

County

when

approving

the

Woodland

ifi

application.

More specifically, Condition 4mandated:

“The site, commonly known as the

Woodland

Site,

shall

not be expanded

fhrther.” (Exhibit 1)

ANSWER:

WMII denies

the allegations contained in paragraph 6.

Further answering,

WMIJ

states that the Resolution is the best evidence of the Resolution’scontents and, therefore,

refers

to the Resolution for a complete and accurate recitation of its contents.

-

7.

Further,

Condition 2 ofKane

County Board Resolution No.

88-155 required:

“That the site will be developed and operated in a

manner consistent with the representations made at

the publicheanng onthis matterheldonJuly26,1988

and

to

all

applicable

laws,

statutes,

rules

and

regulations of the IllinoisEnvironmental Protection

-

Agency,

and

the Illinois Pollution Control Board, or

their successors, asmaybe now orhereafterin effect

and

which

are

applicable to

this

site.” (Exhibit 1)

366126

This

Document is Printed

on

Recycled

Paper

-4-

---

ANSWER:

WMII

states that the Resolution is the best evidence of the Resolution’s

contents and, therefore,refers totheResolution foracmF1-ete-and-accurate-ret~tionofit&cc~ntents.

8.

Among

therepresentationsread intotherecordoftheJuly26,

1988

public

hearing--subsequently

incorporated

into

Condition 2--were the representations ofWlvllI set forth in a

July 8,

1988

letterfrom Wivifi to theVillage of South Elgin

in

which

WMII

promised

(among

other

things)

that

the

Woodland

ifi request “will be the last expansion that we will

attempt

to

do

on

this

site, which

is

known

as

Woodland

landfill

site.”

(Relevant

portion

of the

transcript

of the

hearing

in

which W~fflread

the

letter

into

the

record

is

attached hereto

as Exhibit

5.)

The

July

8,

1988

letter

was

attached

to

and

incorporated

into

Resolution

88-155

as

ExhibitB thereto. (SeeExhibit 1)

ANSWER:

WN’ffl

tstates that the Resolution

and

the

hearing

transcripts are the best

evidenceofthe Resolution

and hearingtranscript’s

contents and, therefore, refers to theResolution

andthe

hearing transcript

for a complete

and

accurate recitation of theircontents. W~vffldenies the

remaining allegations containedin paragraph 8.

9.

Simil~arly,

in its 1988 siting application for Woodlandifi and

at the public

hearing

on the application,WMII detailed

its

proposed

end-use (closure) plan for the

site.

Such a plan is

required by

35

III.

Admin.

Code

807.206.

In its materials,

WMII represented that:

“Upon completion

the

site will be

comprised sic

ofa combination offilled

land and

unfilled

land, which

will be left,

essentially, in a

natural

state..

.

A

major component of the

end

use

proposal is

to

allow

for

hiking

and bicycle

riding

across

this

large

open

space...”

(WIvifi’s

application materials concerning theEnd UsePlan

are attached hereto as

Exhibit 6.)

ANSWER:

WMII states that

the Application and

the

hearing

transcript

are

the

best

evidence of the Application

and

the

hearing transcript’s

contents and, therefore, refers to the

Application and

the

hearing transcript

for a complete andaccurate recitation oftheir contents.

The

366126

This

Document is Printed on RecycledPaper

-5-

---

second sentence ofparagraph 9 contains a legal conclusion to which an

answeris neither necessary

nor appropriate.

10.

Concerning the

end-use

plan,

V/Mill

made

the

following

representations at the July 26, 1988 public

hearing (again,

these representations are, through Condition 2, conditions of

approval):

“Woodland ill proposal encompasses the entire site

and

looks

at a final

land use plan

on that land

form

thatis apassiverecreational use. Itincorporates some

of the

surrounding

facilities or surrounding landuses

-

into the final land use plan. The original Woodland I

and

Woodland

II

final land use plans weren’t as

comprehensive or as detailed in theirfinal form.”

The relevant portion of the July 26, 1988

hearing

transcript

is attached hereto as Exhibit 7.

ANSWER:

WMIT states that the hearing transcripts are the best evidence ofthe hearing

transcript’s contentsand,therefore,refers

tothe

entire-hearing transcriptforacomplete andaccurate

recitation of its contents.

To theextent paragraph 10 asserts legal conclusions,

WMH states that an

answeris neither necessary nor appropriate.

11.

Contrary to the terms of its site permit, WMII

has filed with

the Kane County Board a site application for a new transfer

station

on

nine

acres

of the

Woodland

site,

which

will

“process,

consolidate,

store

and

transfer

non-hazardous

municipal

waste,

including

landscape

waste

and

general

construction

or

demolition

debris

from

residential,

commercial and industrial waste generators,” which will be

capable ofprocessing 2,640 tons per day.

(Exhibit 2.)

ANSWER:

W.I’vffl denies that the filing ofits Application is contrary to theterms of the

site

permit.

Further

answering,

WIvifi states that

the Application is

the best

evidence

of the

Application’s contents and, therefore, refers to the Applicationfora completeand accuraterecitation

366126

ThisDocument is Printed on RecycledPaper

-6-

---

ofits contents.

12.

Section

5/39.2(e)

of the Illinois Environmental Protection

Act, 415 ILCS

5/39.2(e),

provides that “In granting approval

for a site, the county board... may impose such conditions as

may be reasonable and necessary to accomplish the purpose

of this

section...” The Kane County

Board imposed

on

the

Woodland ifi permit the condition that the site “shall not be

expandedfurther” (Condition 4) and thecondition that WMH

fulfill

all

of the representations made at

the July26,

1988

hearing

(Condition

2),

including

the

representation

that

Woodland ifi was the last expansion on the site and that the

relevant

portion

of

Woodland

Ill

would

be

a

passive

recreation area.

ANSWER:

W~vffl

states Section 5/39.2(e) of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act

/

(“Act”) and

the Resolution

are the best evidence

Of the Act and

the Resolution’s