BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
ROCHELLE WASTE DISPOSAL,
L.L.c.,
Petitioner,
v.
THE CITY OF ROCHELLE, an Illinois
municipal corporation, and THE
ROCHELLE CITY COUNCIL,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
PCB 07-113
(Third-Party Pollution Control Facility
Siting Appeal)
NOTICE OF FILING
TO:
See Attached Service List
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that
on December 10,2007, the undersigned electronically
filed with the Clerk
of the Illinois Pollution Control Board
ROCHELLE CITY COUNCIL'S
RESPONSE BRIEF
in the above entitled matter, a copy of which is attached hereto.
ROCHELLE CITY COUNCIL
By: /s/
Donald J. Moran
One of Its Attorneys
Donald
J. Moran
Lauren Blair
PEDERSEN
&
HOUPT
161 North Clark Street, Suite 3100
Chicago, Illinois 60601
(312) 641-6888
Attorney Registration No. 1953923
469172.1
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 10, 2007
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
ROCHELLE WASTE DISPOSAL, L.L.C.,
Petitioner,
v.
THE CITY OF ROCHELLE, an Illinois
municipal corporation, and THE
ROCHELLE CITY COUNCIL,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
PCB 07-113
(Third-Party Pollution Control Facility
Siting Appeal)
ROCHELLE CITY COUNCIL'S RESPONSE BRIEF
Respondent, Rochelle City Council ("City Council"), by its attorneys, Pedersen & Houpt,
submits this brief in response ("Response")
to Petitioner, Rochelle Waste Disposal, LLC's
("RWD"), appeal
of certain special conditions imposed in conjunction with the grant of site
location approval.
INTRODUCTION
This third-party appeal arises out of the October 16, 2006 siting application
("Application") filed by the City
of Rochelle ("City") with the City Council requesting site
location approval for the expansion
of the existing Rochelle Municipal Landfill (referred to
herein
as "Landfill"), pursuant to Section 39.2 of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act
("Act"). The Landfill
is operated by RWD and owned by the City. On April 11,2007, the City
Council passed Resolution R07-10 granting site location approval subject to the imposition
of
thirty-seven special conditions. RWD filed a motion to reconsider before the City Council
objecting to eight
of the thirty-seven special conditions, namely Special Conditions 8, 13,22,23,
468975vl
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 10, 2007
26, 28, 33 and 34 (collectively, "Subject Conditions"). On May 14, 2007, the City Council
passed Resolution R07-18 modifying Special Condition 34 and affinning all other special
conditions.
RWD filed the instant appeal challenging the Subject Conditions
on the grounds that they
are not reasonable and necessary to accomplish the purpose
of Section 39.2, are not supported by
the underlying record, and run contrary to the Restatement of Host Agreement and Agreement
for Operation/Development
of City of Rochelle Landfill No. 2 ("Host Agreement") between
RWD and the City.
The City Council maintains that the evidence
in the record
1
demonstrates that Special
Conditions 8, 26 and 28 as written are reasonable and necessary to accomplish the purposes
of
the Act and are not inconsistent with Board regulations. With regard to the remaining Subject
Conditions, the City Council asserts that the evidence warrants the modification
of Special
Conditions 13, 23, 33 and 34, and the deletion of Special Condition 22. Accordingly, the Board
should affinn Special Conditions
8, 26 and 28 as written, modify Special Conditions 13, 23, 33
and 34 as stated herein, and strike Special Condition 22.
ARGUMENT
I.
STANDARD
OF REVIEW FOR CHALLENGE TO CONDITIONS
Section 39.2(e) provides:
In granting approval for a site the county board or governing body
of the
municipality may impose such conditions as
may be reasonable and necessary to
accomplish the purposes
of this Section and as are not inconsistent with
I
The record consists of the Application, the transcripts of the public hearing held over
six days between January 22 and February 8, 2007, the exhibits and filings
of the participants,
and public comment.
468975vl
2
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 10, 2007
regulations promulgated by the Board.
415 ILCS 5/39.2(e). In reviewing a condition to a site location approval, the Board must
determine whether it is reasonable and necessary to accomplish the purposes
of the Act and is
not inconsistent with Board regulations. 415 ILCS 5/39.2(e);
see also Peoria Disposal Co.,
v.
Peoria County Board,
PCB No. 06-184 (December 7, 2006), slip op. at 14. The petitioner has
the burden
of proving that the application as submitted, without conditions, would not violate the
Act or the Board's regulations.
Browning Ferris Industries ofIllinois, Inc.
v.
PCB,
179 Ill. App.
3d 598, 534 N.E.2d 616 (2d Dist. 1989). The Board cannot reweigh the evidence, but must
determine if the decision to impose the condition is against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Fairview Area Citizens Taskforce
v.
PCB,
198 Ill. App. 3d 541, 555 N.E.2d 1178 (3rd Dist.
1990). A decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence if the opposite conclusion is
clearly evident, plain, or indisputable from a review of the evidence.
Turlek v. Pollution Control
Board,
274 Ill. App. 3d 244,653 N.E.2d 1288 (1st Dist. 1995);
CDTLandfill Corporation v. City
ofJoliet,
PCB 98-60, slip op. at 4 (March 5, 1998).
II.
THE BOARD'S AUTHORITY TO MODIFY AND AMEND CONDITIONS
Section 40.1 of the Act provides that the siting appeal before the Board is governed by
Sections 32 and 33(a). 415 ILCS 5/40.1(a). Section 33(a) provides that "the Board shall issue
and enter such final order, or make such final determination, as it shall deem appropriate under
the circumstances." 415 ILCS 5/33(a).
In
accordance with Section 33 of the Act, the Board has
the authority to affirm, strike, or modify conditions, as it has deemed appropriate under the
circumstances.
See Browning Ferris Industries of Illinois, Inc.
v.
Lake County Board of
Supervisors,
PCB No. 82-101, slip op. at 30-31 (December 2, 1982) (Board amends condition
imposed in connection with local siting approval);
see also Community Landfill Company
v.
468975vl
3
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 10, 2007
IEPA,
PCB Nos. 01-48; 01-49, slip op at 13 (Apr. 5,2001) (Board amends condition imposed in
connection with IEPA pennitting).
In
Browning Ferris,
the Lake County Board of Supervisors granted local siting approval
subject
to various conditions. On appeal, the Board affinned, struck and modified the conditions
where appropriate. For example, the Board struck part
of a condition that allowed the county to
require additional monitoring wells because it was "standardless," while letting stand the
unchallenged part
of the condition that allowed the county to receive copies of monitoring
reports.
Browning Ferris,
PCB No. 82-101, slip op. at 27-28. The Board affmned part of
another condition only to the extent it required notification before pumping of water off-site
because this was agreed to at hearing, but struck the remaining part that gave the county the right
to test for pollutants before pumping begins because the condition was vague and unspecific.
Browning Ferris,
PCB No. 82-101, slip op. at 31-32. The Board also amended a condition
which gave the Lake County Department
of Public Health the right to discuss and require
additional measures to control vectors, dust, odors, blowing and erosion problems.
Browning
Ferris,
PCB No. 82-101, slip op. at 30-31. The Board found "it entirely proper for the [Lake
County Department
of Public Health] to 'discuss and recommend' control measures, but not to
'require' measures which might conflict with pennit conditions."
Id.
Therefore, the Board
ordered that "Condition H will be amended to confer a parallel right
to 'recommend',but not to
'require.'"
Browning Ferris,
PCB No. 82-101, slip op. at 31.
Thus,
as shown in the Board's ruling in
Browning Ferris,
the Board has the authority to
modify local siting conditions by either striking or amending those portions that are not
supported by the record, that would be inconsistent with the purposes
of the Act, or that are
468975vl
4
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 10, 2007
agreed upon and not disputed by the parties.
See also Community Landfill Company,
PCB Nos.
01-48; 01-49 (Board exercises authority to modify permit condition imposed by the Agency
where Agency and petitioner both agreed that the condition, as written, made compliance very
difficult).
III.
THE RECORD SUPPORTS SPECIAL CONDITIONS 8, 26 AND 28
RWD argues that Special Conditions 8, 26 and 28 are not necessary to accomplish the
purposes of the Act or Board regulations. The City Council submits that the evidence in the
record supports the affirmance
of Special Conditions 8, 26 and 28.
Condition 8 - Litter Control
Special Condition 8 requires that:
The Operator shall, at a minimum, inspect on a daily basis the public rights
of way,
and areas adjacent to these rights
of way, from the landfill facility gate North on
Mulford Road and along Route 38 West to the Interstate 39 interchange and Route
38
East through Creston to Woodlawn Road. Litter collection along these rights of way
shall be performed at least once per week, and more often
if the City Manager
determines from review
of evidence that the Operator is responsible for the litter.
The Application outlines the plan for litter control along Mulford Road from the Landfill
entrance gate extending north
to Illinois Route 38 and also along Illinois Route 38 from the
intersection
of Mulford Road extending west to the Interstate 39 exchange. (Application,
Section 2.6,
p. 2.6-6-2.6-7.) The litter control plan does not, however, include daily inspections
and weekly litter collection for the public rights
of way and adjacent areas along Route 38 east
through Creston to Woodlawn Road,
as required by Special Condition 8. The evidence in the
record about RWD's operating history and the litter control problems at the Landfill demonstrate
the reasonableness and need for daily inspections and weekly litter collection along these
additional public rights
of way and adjacent areas.
468975vl
5
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 10, 2007
Pursuant to Section 39.2(a):
The county board
or the governing body of the municipality may also consider as
evidence the previous operating experience and past record
of convictions or
admissions of violations of the applicant (and any subsidiary or parent
corporation) in the field
of solid waste management when considering criteria (ii)
and (v) under this Section.
415 ILCS
5/39.2(a).
RWD has operated the Landfill since July 1995 through an operating agreement with the
City. (Application, E-1; E-16; Section 10-1.) Information concerning RWD's operating history
is contained in the Application and was also provided at the public hearing
by Mr. Thomas
Hilbert, the engineering manager responsible for the construction, permitting and compliance
of
the Landfill. (Application, App. U, Table 10-1;
2/8
Tr. at 9-165.) The Ogle County Solid Waste
Management Department has conducted inspections at the Landfill throughout its operations, and
a summary
of inspections and administrative citations was introduced into evidence.
(2/8
Tr. at
66.) Based on the evidence, RWD has received at least eight administrative citations for
"insufficient daily cover," "intermediate cover," "uncovered refuse
2
," "lack of litter fencing in
above grade areas," and "litter from previous operating day." (Application, App. U, Table 10-1;
2/8
Tr. at 66, 69-72.) In an inspection report prepared by inspector Steve Rypkema concerning
the litter problem at the Landfill, Mr. Rypkema stated: "I also suggested they install secondary
fencing around the perimeter
of the site or hire additional laborers to pick up the litter prior to the
end
of the operating day."
(2/8
Tr. at 85.) RWD has not installed secondary fencing per Mr.
2 Mr. Hilbert explained that the administrative citation on March 20, 2003 for
"uncovered refuse" was for refuse and standing water. He further explained that such an
occurrence was indicative
of insufficient daily cover.
(2/8
Tr. at 82-83.)
468975vl
6
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 10, 2007
Rypkema's recommendation, nor is that proposal contained in the Application as part of the litter
control plan. (2/8 Tr. at 85; Application, Section 2-6, p. 2.6-7.)
Mr. Devin Moose, a director
of Shaw Environmental and a professional engineer licensed
in Illinois, testified for the City on criterion (v), and specifically, about the operational plan for
litter control. He stated that there can be a "very good operating plan and
if it's not followed the
operating plan is
of little value." (1/25 Tr. at 50.) He acknowledged that litter is a "valid
nuisance" and that "litter should not be leaving the site." (1/24 Tr. at 224, 219.) He further
acknowledged that frequent inspection and prompt collection are the keys to a successful litter
control plan, stating:
On a well-run landfill that garbage should be contained to the landfill site and
should not go
off property.
It
does happen occasionally. If it does it should
immediately be picked up which means they should deploy their own litter
pickers that day and
if it's overwhelming for them they're going to have to call in
some temporary work force and get it taken care
of quickly. If it's -- if it's taking
more than 48 hours on a very bad day then there's a problem.
It
needs to be
collected.
(1/25 Tr. at 70.)
Based on the foregoing evidence, the imposition
of Special Condition 8 is warranted as
reasonable and necessary to satisfy criterion (ii) and (v)
of Section 39.2, and as such should be
affirmed.
Condition 26 - Imposition
of Costs of City's Review of Plans and Permit Application
Special Condition 26 provides that:
The City Manager, and its legal and technical consultants, shall have the right to
be involved in the permitting for the horizontal and vertical expansion
of the
Rochelle Municipal Landfill. As part
of this involvement, the City Manager and
its consultants may attend meetings between the Operator and its consultants and
the IEPA. The City Manager and its consultants may also review and comment
on the Operator's applications (provided such technical review and comment is
468975vl
7
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 10, 2007
conducted within 30 days of receipt of the information) prior to the Operator's
submission
ofthe applications to the IEPA. The technical review comments shall
be incorporated into the applications or addressed
to the satisfaction of the City
Manager. The Operator agrees to reimburse the City for reasonable costs
of its
consultants
to review and comment on the Operator's applications and
submissions.
RWD objects to Special Condition 26 only in that it requires it
to pay the City'soversight
costs. RWD has failed
to show that this condition is unreasonable or unnecessary to satisfy the
purpose
of the Act, or is inconsistent with any Board regulations.
In
fact, this Board has held
that local governments have the right to discuss and recommend administrative and remedial
measures relating to landfill operation
as a proper means of addressing concerns regarding the
public health and safety.
Browning Ferris,
PCB No. 82-101, slip op. at 30-31.
The
reasonableness
of this condition is built into the very language of the condition which expressly
provides that the City can only be reimbursed for "reasonable costs." Furthermore, the necessity
of the City's review and comment on RWD's permitting applications has been amply
demonstrated by the evidence in the record
of RWD's operating history. Special Condition 26
should be affirmed in its entirety.
Condition 28 - City Review
and Comment of Groundwater Impact Assessment
Special Condition 28 provides that:
The operator shall submit the groundwater impact assessment (GIA) planned
to
be submitted to the IEPA as a permit application to the City Manger for review.
The City Manager and its consultants may provide the Operator comments
(within 30 days
of receipt of the infonnation) that must be incorporated or
addressed prior
to submitting the GIA to the IEPA as a permit application.
In light
of the evidence of RWD's operating history, the requirement that RWD
incorporate or address the City's comments on the GIA prior
to submitting it to the IEPA is not
unreasonable or unnecessary. As the Board stated in
Browning Ferris:
468975vl
8
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 10, 2007
As SB 172 requires that a regional pollution control facility apply for local
government site location approval
a) prior to seeking any initial permit, b) prior to
any physical expansion, and c) prior
to seeking any first-time permit to accept
special or hazardous waste, SB 172 clearly contemplates an ongoing relationship
between a county or municipality and a site.
Browning Ferris,
PCB No. 82-101, slip op. at 30. Based on
Browning Ferris,
the City Council's
right to discuss and confer with RWD on a matter
of public health and safety is well-established.
RWD contends that Special Condition
28 should be stricken because it would undermine the
cooperative arrangement contemplated by the Host Agreement. This contention, however, is not
sufficient to satisfy RWD's burden
to demonstrate that the Application, without this condition,
would not violate the Act or the Board's regulations. Thus, Special Condition
28 should be
affirmed.
IV.
THE RECORD SUPPORTS THE MODIFICATION OF SPECIAL CONDITIONS
13, 23, 33 AND 34, AND THE DELETION OF SPECIAL CONDITION 22
Condition 13 - Time Required for Exhumation and Redisposal of Waste from Unit 1
Special Condition
13 provides that:
The Operator shall complete the exhumation and relocation
of the waste from
Unit 1
as soon as practicable, but in no event later than six (6) years from the date
an IEPA permit is issued for the expansion, except as otherwise provided by the
City Council for good cause shown. The waste exhumation and redisposal shall
be restricted
to the months of November, December, January, February and
March unless
it is demonstrated to the City Council that the process can occur in
other months without off-site odor migration or other impacts associated with the
process.
The Application includes a report by Shaw Environmental that provides detailed plans
and procedures for the exhumation and redisposal
of the waste from Unit 1 that had been
continuously deposited at the site over a twenty-three period from 1972-1995. (Application,
Section 2.6,
p. 2.6-24.) The plans include detail about the equipment to be used, the method of
468975vI
9
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 10, 2007
excavation and cover, the proposed hours and times of the year for the exhumation, the nature
and quantity of cover to be used, the procedures to be used
in
the event any hazardous waste is
encountered, an air monitoring program designed to avoid dangers from explosive gases and
VOCs, stormwater management requirements and other safety procedures and equipment
to be
implemented during exhumation. (Application, Section 2.6, pp. 2.6-24-2.6-28.)
The Shaw Environmental report estimated that the exhumation and relocation
of the
waste from Unit 1 could
be completed over a 5 to 10 year period. (Application,. Section 2.6, p.
2.6-24.) Mr. Moose, the only witness who testified about the timing of the exhumation of the
waste from Unit
1, also testified that the exhumation process would take "about 10 years" to
complete.
(1124 Tr. at 321-23.) There was no other credible information introduced into
evidence on the issue
of the timing of the exhumation process. The public comment that
suggested an abbreviated timetable for the exhumation process was not based on reliable
information.
The Host Agreement between RWD and the City provides that the exhumation be
commenced and completed within a commercially reasonable time. (Host Agreement, Section
7.4.)
It
is not disputed by the City Council that the evidence in the record supports the
imposition
of a ten year period for completing the exhumation and redisposal of waste from Unit
1, and Special Condition 13 should be modified accordingly.
Condition 22 & 23 - Requirement for Operational Screening and Perimeter Berms
Special Condition 22 proposes:
The plan of operations shall include the construction of operational screening
berms
of between six (6) and eight (8) feet in height along the Southern edge and
468975vl
10
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 10, 2007
partially along the East and West edges of operating cells to help to block the
operations from view from Creston Road as well as help contain litter and reduce
noise impacts. The Operator shall propose, and the City Manager shall consider
for approval, the placement and limits
of the operational berms prior to each cell's
development. Final approval must be obtained prior
to new cell construction. The
City Manager shall consider the height
of the active face, the distance from the
site boundary, and the presence
of other visual barriers (such as Unit 2) and the
effectiveness of other litter and noise control strategies (such as litter fences and
permanent perimeter berms) in making its determination.
Special Condition
23 states:
Perimeter berms shall be built in advance
of the cells in order to screen operations
to a reasonable extent.
It
is recommended to require the berms to be built at least
500 feet in advance
of the Easternmost edge of the cell being constructed. By
way
of example, prior to completion of Cell 3's liner, the Southern berm along
Creston Road shall be constructed from E 4,200 to E 6,500, which extends
approximately 600 feet East
of the cell. The vegetation shall be established (with
at least a one-year growing period) prior to waste being placed within 400 feet
of
a cell with active waste placement. The berm shall be at least 14 feet in height,
placed between the waste footprint and Creston Road, and located between E
4,500 and E 7,500.
The Application proposes a vegetated earthen berm or fence around the perimeter
of the
facility with a total height
of not less than eight feet. (Application, Section 3.1, Table 2.1-1.)
The Application does not propose operational screening berms.
Mr. J. Christopher Lannert of
The Lannert Group explained further in his testimony at the public hearing that the Application
proposes undulating perimeter berm eight
to ten feet in height with plant material on top of the
berm, including trees with a minimum height
of six feet. (1/22 Tr. at 92, 100, 153.)
No witnesses testified and no other evidence was introduced that operational screening
berms, or a fourteen-foot perimeter berm, were necessary.3
3 While Mr. Moose mentioned operational screening berms generally in response to a
question about the plan for daily and intermediate soil cover to screen the active area during the
first five-year phase
of the exhumation process, he did not testify that operational screening
berms were necessary or required.
468975vl
11
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 10, 2007
While there was no evidentiary support for the imposition of an operational screening
berm or a fourteen-foot perimeter berm, the evidence did support the requirement
of an
undulating perimeter berm eight to ten feet in height with plant material, including trees no less
than six feet in height, on the top
of the berm. Thus, Special Condition 22 should be stricken in
its entirety and Special Condition
23 should be modified to require an undulating perimeter berm
eight
to ten feet in height with plant material on the top of the berm, including plant material in
excess
of six feet in height.
Conditions 33
&
34 - Imposition of Cost of Road Improvements
Special Condition
33 provides:
The following roadway improvements shall be made to Mulford Road, at the
expense
of the Operator, prior to acceptance of waste within the expanded facility
waste footprint:
- The reconstruction
of Mulford Road between Route 38 and the existing
landfill entrance shall be designed to a rural standard with a dust free, all
weather surface, provide a design weight limit
of 80,000 pounds and
shall be at least two lanes wide.
Special Condition 34 provides:
The improvements to Mulford Road as described in special condition
33 above
shall be completed from the existing landfill entrance to Creston Road no later
than the date on which the proposed new entrance for the expansion
is built and
completed as required in Special Condition 16. The Operator shall pay all costs
of said improvements to the new landfill entrance, and a portion of the cost of the
improvements from the new landfill entrance
to Creston Road proportionate to the
anticipated traffic attributable
to the expanded facility, as determined by a traffic
study.
The Application proposes that Mulford Road be reconstructed and upgraded to a two-lane
road with a weight limit
of 73,280 pounds from Illinois Route 38 to just south of the access
drive. (Application, Section 6, p. 6.)
468975vl
12
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 10, 2007
Mr. Michael Werthmann of Kenig, Lindgren, O'Hara, Aboona, Inc., was the sole witness
to testify concerning roadway improvements. Mr. Werthmann testified that the Application's
proposal
to improve Mulford Road to accommodate transfer trailers and to reconstruct the road
as a two-lane road with an 80,000-pound weight limit was necessary. (1/23 Tr. at 21, 110-11.)
He also testified that the increased volume of traffic on Mulford Road as a result of the
expansion would not be significant because the expansion is a continuation
of existing operations
and most
ofthe traffic is already using that road. (1/23 Tr. at 23-24, 29,30-31,34-35.)
There was no testimony or the introduction
of any other evidence as to who would or
should bear the costs
of the proposed improvements to Mulford Road. There is no evidence
supporting the conclusion that RWD should bear the entire cost
of improving Mulford Road
between Route
38 and the Landfill entrance.
The City Council concedes that the allocation all
of the costs for improving Mulford
Road on the operator was not supported by the record. Rather, the evidence supports a condition
that the cost
of improving Mulford Road between Illinois Route 38 and Creston Road should be
allocated between the operator and the City on an equitable basis to be agreed upon between
them and incorporated into the Host Agreement, and therefore, Special Conditions 33 and 34
should be modified to that effect.
CONCLUSION
Based on the evidence, Special Conditions 8, 26 and 28 should be affirmed as written,
Special Condition 22 should be stricken, and Special Conditions
13, 23, 33 and 34 should be
revised as set forth below (deletions shown by strikethroughs, and insertions by underline):
Condition
13. The Operator shall complete the exhumation and relocation of the waste from
Unit 1
as soon as practicable, but in no event later than
sHt~
(elQ)
years from the date an IEPA
468975vl
13
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 10, 2007
permit is issued for the expansion, except as otherwise provided by the City Council for good
cause shown. The waste exhumation and redisposal shall be restricted to the months
of
November, December, January, February and March unless it is demonstrated to the City
Council that the process can occur in other months without off-site odor migration or other
impacts associated with the process.
Condition 23. Perimeter berms shall be built
in
advance of the cells in order to screen operations
to a reasonable extent.
It
is recommended to require the berms to be built at least 500 feet in
advance
of the Easternmost edge of the cell being constructed. By way of example, prior to
completion
of Cell 3's liner, the Southern berm along Creston Road shall be constructed from E
4,200 to E 6,500, which extends approximately 600 feet East
of the cell. The vegetation shall be
established (with at least a one-year growing period) prior to waste being placed within 400 feet
of a cell with active waste placement. The berm shall be at least 14 an undulating berm at least
eight
(8) to ten (l0) feet in height. with plant material on top of the berm in accordance with the
landscape plan in the application. including without limitation plant material in excess
of six (6)
feet in height, placed between the waste footprint and Creston Road, and located between E
4,500 and E 7,500.
Condition 33. The following roadway improvements shall be made to Mulford Road, at
the
e*pease
of the Operator prior to acceptance of waste within the expanded facility waste
footprint:
- The reconstruction
of Mulford Road between Route 38 and the existing landfill
entrance shall be designed to a rural standard with a dust free, all weather surface,
provide a design weight limit
of 80,000 pounds and shall be at least two lanes
wide.
Condition 34. The improvements to Mulford Road as described in special condition 33 above
shall be completed from the existing landfill entrance to Creston Road no later than the date on
which the proposed new entrance for the expansion is built and completed as required in Special
Condition 16. The
Operator shall pay aU costs of said iffiJJrovements to the neVl laadfill
entraaee,
and a portioa of the eost of the improvemeats from the aew landfill eatranee to Crestoa
Road
proportioaate to the aatieipated traffie attrihutaBle to the e*paaded faeility, as determiaed
hy a traffie study improvements to Mulford Road shall be allocated between the Operator and the
City on an equitable basis to
be agreed upon between them and incorporated in the Host
Agreement.
Should, however, the Board decide that it does not have the authority to modify the
conditions, then the City Council concedes that the evidence in the record does not support
468975vl
14
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 10, 2007
Special Conditions 13, 22, 23, 33 and 34 as written, and would acknowledge that in such case
these five conditions should be stricken.
WHEREFORE, Respondent, Rochelle City Council, respectfully requests that the Board
affirm Special Conditions 8, 23 and 28, modify Special Conditions 13, 23, 33 and 34, strike
Special Condition 22, and grant such other and further relief as the Board deems appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
THE ROCHELLE CITY COUNCIL
/s/
Donald J Moran
One of Its Attorneys
Donald J. Moran
Lauren Blair
Pedersen
&
Houpt, P.C.
161 N. Clark Street, Suite 3100
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 261-2149
Facsimile: (312) 261-1149
468975vl
15
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 10, 2007
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Donald J. Moran, an attorney, on oath certify that I caused to be served the foregoing,
ROCHELLE CITY COUNCIL'S RESPONSE BRIEF,
upon the following:
Bruce McKinney
City
of Rochelle
420 N. 6
th
Street
P.O. Box 601
Rochelle,
IL
61068
bmckinney@rochelle.net
Bradley Halloran
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 W. Randolph Street, Suite 11-500
Chicago,
IL
60601
hallorab@ipcb.state.itus
John McCarthy
45 East Side Square, Suite 301
Canton,
IL
61520
jjmccarthy@winco.net
David Wentworth II
Emily Vivian
Hasselberg, Williams, Grebe, Snodgrass
&
Birdsall
124
SW Adams, Suite 360
Peoria,
IL
61602-1320
dwentworth@hwgsb.com
evivian@hwgsb.com
Charles Helsten
Hinshaw & Culbertson
100 Park Avenue
Rockford, IL 61101
chelsten@hinshawlaw.com
nnelson@hinshawlaw.com
Alan Cooper
Rochelle City Attorney
233 E. Route 38, Suite 202
Rochelle,
IL
61068
cooplaw@rochelle.net
David Tess
Tess & Redington
1090 N. Seventh Street
P.O. Box 68
Rochelle,
IL
61068
dtess@oglecom.com
via electronic mail before 5:00 p.m. on this 10th day
of December 2007.
/s/
Donald
J
Moran
Donald J. Moran
469172.1
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 10, 2007
