ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ex
reI. LISA MADIGAN, Attorney General
of the
State
of Illinois,
Complainant,
v.
COMMUNITY LANDFILL CO., an Illinois
Corporation, and the CITY OF MORRIS, an
Illinois municipal corporation"
Respondents
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
PCB 03-191
(Enforcement - Land)
NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING
Please take notice that on October 29, 2009, we will have caused to be filed with the
Office
of the Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board by electronic filing the City of Morris'
motion for leave to file reply in support
of the motion for stay, tendering the reply and exhibits
with the motion for leave to file.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, an attorney certify that I will have caused to be served on October 29,
2009 the foregoing motion for leave to file reply in support
of the motion for stay and the
tendered reply and exhibits on all persons on the attached service list
by U.S. Mail with proper
postage prepaid at approximately 5 :00 p.m.
Hinshaw
&
Culbertson LLP
100 Park Ave.
P.O. Box 1389
Rockford, IL 61105-1389
(815)
490-4900
Scott
M. Belt
Belt, Bates,
&
Associates
105 East Main Street
Suite 206
Morris, IL 60450
(815) 941-4675
lsi
Charles F. Helsten
One
of the attorneys for the City of Morris
6499222vl 806289 52944
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 29, 2009
Mr. Christopher Grant
Jennifer
A. Tomas
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Bureau
69 W. Washington St., Suite 1800
Chicago, IL 60602
Mr. John T. Therriault, Assistant Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 W. Randolph, Suite 11-500
Chicago,
IL 60601
(via
U.S.
Mail and electronic filing)
Mr. Scott Belt
Belt, Bates
&
Associates
105 East Main Street
Suite
206
Morris, IL 60450
SERVICE LIST
Mark LaRose
LaRose
&
Bosco, Ltd.
200 N. LaSalle, Suite 2810
Chicago, IL 60601
Bradley Halloran
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 W. Randolph, Suite 11-500
Chicago,
IL 60601
Clarissa Cutler
155 N. Michigan
Suite
375
Chicago IL 60601
6499222vl 806289 52944
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 29, 2009
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ex
reI. LISA MADIGAN, Attorney General of the
State
of Illinois,
Complainant,
v.
COMMUNITY LANDFILL CO., an Illinois
Corporation, and the CITY OF MORRIS, an
Illinois municipal corporation"
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
PCB 03-191
(Enforcement - Land)
MOTION OF THE CITY OF MORRIS FOR LEAVE TO FILE A
REPLY
TO THE STATE'S RESPONSE TO THE CITY'S MOTION FOR STAY
Respondent City of Morris request this Board to grant leave to file a reply to the State's
response opposing the City's motion for stay pending appeal pursuant to
35 Ill.Adm.Code
101.500(e), for the following reasons.
1.
The City seeks a stay pending appeal as the Illinois Supreme Court Rule 335 and
§ 101.906(c) of this Board's regulations permit. The State has responded, objecting to the stay.
2.
In
the attached reply, tendered with this motion, the City has endeavored to limit
its reply to those issues and facts raised in the State's response. The City seeks to respond to the
State's statements
of fact and to its legal arguments.
3.
Among other points, the City seeks to reply to the State's assertion that the City
failed to make any assurance regarding whether there is any threat
of harm posed by a stay. The
City has provided such assurance in an affidavit submitted with the motion for reconsideration
as
exhibit C.
In
its reply, the City attaches this affidavit (again as exhibit C) to demonstrate the
fallacy
of the State's statement.
It
also updates this information, specifically showing that
6499222vl 806289 52944
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 29, 2009
according to Shaw Environmental, Inc., which has been monitoring the Landfill since 2005,
there still
is no current risk to human health or to the environment
(see
Exhibits A and C attached
to the reply, both
of which are incorporated herein by reference).
4.
In its response, the State erroneously asserted that the City is seeking a stay of this
Board's requirement that revised cost estimates be submitted. In fact, the City already submitted
these revised cost estimates
(see
Exhibit A attached to the reply and incorporated herein by
reference) .
5.
The State also claims that the City is permitting continued dumping at the
Community Landfill, and the City seeks
to reply to that statement. In October 2002, the Mayor
prohibited any City employee from any dumping
at the Community Landfill (City
Mo/reconsideration, Exhibit
E, incorporated by reference herein). The Mayor continues to
enforce that directive (see Exhibit E attached
to the tendered reply and incorporated by reference
herein). The City still prohibits any dumping
at the Community Landfill - it is only allowed at
an unrelated landfill (Environtech)
(see
Exhibit E, attached to the tendered reply and
incorporated
by reference herein).
6.
The State also claims that the City dumped waste water sludge at the Landfill in
2007 and 2009. Starting 2006, however, the City started
to use a sludge filter press, which
creates a semi-dry product that
is are deposited at an unrelated landfill (Environtech) (Reply
exhibit
E). Any liquid sludge cannot therefore be from the City of Morris; however, the CLC
operator told the mayor that other communities have dumped sludge
at Community Landfill
(Exhibit
E).
2
6499222vl 806289 52944
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 29, 2009
6.
In its reply, the City also seeks to rebut the State's claims regarding dumping by
submitting the affidavit of Warren Olson
(see
Exhibit D, attached to the reply and incorporated
herein
by reference). Mr. Olson explains that the conclusions of the State's employee, Mark
Retzlaff, that there is dumping in the Community Landfill is incorrect. Rather, there was a
"drive-by" dumping incident on City-owned land outside
of the Landfill boundaries
(see
Exhibit
D). The City has now taken steps to secure that area
of land to stop any further "drive-by"
dumping.
7.
In addition, the City seeks to include an excerpt of this Board's findings in the
case
of
People
v.
CLC
&
Prium,
PCB Cons. Nos. 97-193, 04-207 (August 20,2009), pages 26,
48, to establish that CLC and its employee, James Pelnarsh, Sr., not the City, who makes the
decisions on where to dump and controls the daily operations
of that landfill
(see
Exhibit B,
attached to the reply and incorporated
by reference herein).
For these reasons, the City
of Morris requests that this Board grant leave to file the
attached reply and for such other relief as is proper.
Dated: October 29, 2009
Charles F. Helsten
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP
100
Park Ave.
P.O. Box 1389
Rockford, IL 61105-1389
(815) 490-4900
Respectfully submitted
lsi
Charles F. Helsten
Scott M. Belt
Belt, Bates,
&
Associates
105 East
Main Street
Suite 206
Morris, IL 60450
(815)490-4900
Attorneys for Respondent the City of Morris
3
6499222vl 806289 52944
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 29, 2009
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ex
reI. LISA MADIGAN, Attorney General ofthe
State of TIlinois,
Complainant,
v.
COMMUNITY LANDFILL CO., an TIlinois
Corporation, and the CITY OF MORRIS, an
TIlinois municipal corporation"
Respondents
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
PCB 03-191
(Enforcement - Land)
CITY OF MORRIS'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS
MOTION TO STAY PENDING APPEAL
The TIlinois Legislature has given litigants an appeal as of right from decisions of
this Board. 415 ILCS 5/42. Entering a stay pending appeal is routinely allowed where,
as here, the movant is a government entity. This is not a situation where the City is going
to flee the country or dissipate the funds. Rather, the City is simply exercising its right to
appeal this Board's decision.
Ifit does not prevail after its appellate rights are exhausted,
then it will obviously comply with this Court's order. The City respectfully requests this
Board to enter a stay pending appeal.
I.
The State Repeatedly Misstates the City's Position, the Record, and this
Board's Decision.
In opposing the stay, the State makes multiple misrepresentations for reasons that
are unclear.
It
distorts this Board's order, the record, and the City's position in seeking a
stay, as shown below.
First, it is false that the City
of Morris "seeks to shield [Community Landfill
Company] CLC from compliance" the opposite is true (State Resp. p. 4 n.12). The City
sought a stay on its own behalf without a bond. There can be no doubt that the City was
6498551vl 806289 52944
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 29, 2009
not attempting to represent or protect CLC's interests. The City's motion to stay
expressly states:
"If this Board believes that an appeal bond is needed, in light of its
ultimate holding in the matters noted immediately above, it should require
CLC and the
Pruims to
post the bond and
comply with the orders,
not the municipality" (City Mo/Stay
p.9, emphasis added). The State has then completely misrepresented the City'S motion
and position.
Second, the State falsely claims that the City is seeking a stay
of the Board's order
to provide revised cost estimates within 60 days; this misstates the facts known to the
State (State Resp. 3). The City is not seeking a stay
of the revised cost estimates because
it submitted them before they were due. The PCB rules provide that an order is
automatically stayed when a motion to reconsider is filed, so the first deadline of August
17 was suspended, as this Board expressly recognized in its order
(9/17/09
Order p.2). 35
Ill.Adm.Code §101.902. Here, a timely motion for reconsideration was filed, and upon
ruling on the motion, this Board held the "deadline date for performance is now
November
16,2009"
(9/17/09
Order p.2). The City submitted the revised cost estimates
on August 17, 2009, within the original deadline, and three months before the current
deadline
(see
attached Exh. A, Varsho affidavit). On September 15, 2009, the EPA
required CLC, as the operator, to sign the estimates within 35 days, which was also done
ahead
of schedule, on October 9,2009
(id.)
As such, the City is not seeking a stay of the
revised cost estimates, they were submitted some time ago.
A third misrepresentation is the State's argument that the "closure
of Parcel B of
the Landfill was due in 1996" (Resp. 4). This deliberately ignores this Board's order,
which expressly declined to order the closure
of Parcel B: "[T]he Board does not order
2
6498551vl 806289 52944
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 29, 2009
immediate closure of the portion of the Landfill known as Parcel B. The record in this
case does not support such
relief' (6/18/09 Order p.3). Moreover, there was testimony in
2007 that the EPA never directed CLC (much less the City) to close Parcel B (9/11107 Tr.
235-37).
A fourth gross misrepresentation
by the State (again unsupported by citation to
the record) is that the City has authorized dumping in the Landfill (State Resp. pp. 3-4).
Over seven years ago, the City'S Mayor prohibited any dumping (City's MolReconsider
Exh. E). The mayor's directive was to "all City employees" and stated: "Effective
immediately, there will be no more dumping
of any kind by the City of Morris at the
Community Landfill site on Ashley Road. This is inclusive
of both sides of the road,
Parcel A (east side) or Parcel B (west side)" (City MolReconsider Exh. E).
This
directive is still in effect and enforced
by the City and its Mayor
(see
attached Exh. E,
Kopczick affidavit).
Notably, the
State's assertion that the City has been dumping at the Landfill is
without citation to the record (State Resp. p.3 n.8). To the extent that the State is relying
on the affidavit
by Mark Retzlaff1 which the State submitted with its June 3, 2009
request for final ruling, and
Retzlaffs photos,2 it has misplaced its reliance. The State
buries in a footnote (again, notably, without citation to the record) that there was
testimony at the 2007 hearing that the City "had" continued to dump its water treatment
plant sludge" (State Resp. 3 n.8). This use
of the past tense is deliberate. The State
1
This Board denied that motion as moot, declining the consider the
evidentiary materials in entering its final order (6/18/09 Order p.17). The State again
attached this affidavit to its response to the City's motion to reconsider as exhibit
2.
2
Upon receiving the State's request for final order, the City requested and
obtained a copy
of Retzlaff's report on the inspection, which included photos.
3
6498551vl 806289 52944
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 29, 2009
knows that the City does not dump anything at this Landfill under the Mayor's 2002
order (Exh.
E; City Mo/reconsider exh. E).
The City uses an unrelated landfill
(Environtech), not Community Landfill (Exh. E).
Mr. Retzlaff stated he saw waste water sludge and other refuse at the Landfill in
2007 and 2009, but he erred in assuming that this was from the City
of Morris. As shown
in the Mayor's affidavit, sludge from the City
of Morris is not dumped in liquid form.
Starting in 2006, a sludge filter press has been used
by the City. This machine presses
liquid sludge and solidifies it into a semi-dry product that has the consistency
of play
dough (Exh. E). This product (as well as all other refuse, street sweepings and other
materials from the City) are then deposited in the Environtech landfill, not the
Community Landfill.
Regardless
of what Mr. Retzlaff saw, he is incorrect in presuming it came from
the City (Exh. E). CLC's on-site operator, James Pelnarsh, Sr., admitted to the Mayor
that other communities, not the City
of Morris, dumped wastewater sludge at Community
(Exh. E).
It
may be that Mr. Pelnarsh said that the refuse and sludge was from the "city,"
and
Mr. Retzlaff assumed it was the City of Morris. 3
Retzlaff also stated he had personally seen a single instance where a City truck
dumped unidentified materials into the Landfill in April 2009 (State Resp. to City's
MolReconsideration Exh. 2
~12).
Once the City learned of this claim from Retzlaffs
affidavit, it promptly investigated. Five days after Retzlaffs affidavit and photos were
3
Regardless,
Retzlaffs statements regarding out-of-court statements by
CLC's employee, James Pelnarsh, Sr., are hearsay, which is incompetent evidence (State
Resp. to City's MolReconsideration Exh. 2
~10).
Beauvoir
v.
Rush-Presbyterian-St.
Lukes Med. Ctr.,
137 Ill.App.3d 294,302,484 N.E.2d 841, 846 (1st Dist. 1985) (hearsay
statements are incompetent evidence and do not create a material fact issues for summary
judgment).
4
6498551vl 806289 52944
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 29, 2009
provided to the City, the Mayor asked Warren Olson (a principal in the City'S outside
civil engineering firm) to verify
Retzlaffs claims
(see
attached Exh. D). Olson took
Retzlaffs photographs and had the area surveyed to determine the Landfill's boundary
(Exh. D). Olson verified that, contrary to
Retzlaffs claims, the material was dumped on
City property, "well outside the boundary of [ the] landfill" (Exh. D
~~4-7).
4 The "drive-
by" dumping incidents depicted in the Retzlaff photographs show dumping that
apparently occurred on the City-owned properly adjacent to the Landfill facility, referred
to as the "head-end" site (Exh. D). After the City became aware
of this situation, it placed
a padlocked gateway and erected signs to warn "would-be dumpers" to keep out (Exh. D
~~8-9).
These steps stopped further incidents of drive-by dumping in this area (Exh. D
The State continues to conflate CLC and the City in claiming the City permits
dumping (State Resp. 3). As this Board expressly noted
in
State
v.
CLC
&
Pruim
PCB
Cons. Nos. 97-193, 04-207,
"only the Pruims could decide to stop accepting waste at the
landjilf'
(see
attached Exh. B,
State
v.
CLC and Pruim,
PCB Cons. Nos. 99-193, 04-207
Order
of Aug. 20, 2009, p.48, emphasis added). CLC controls the daily operations and
has a full-time employee, James Pelnarsh, Sr., who has made all the daily operations
decisions, including where to place waste (Exh. B p.26). The City is not the guarantor
of
a private company's actions and it cannot control CLC's actions.
Fifth, the State falsely claims that the City is not overseeing
or monitoring the
Landfill (State Resp.
3,4). The State's claim that the City should be regularly monitoring
4
At the 2007 hearing, Retzlaff testified certain material was deposited
outside the edge
of the permitted area; he then admitted he made no effort to identify the
location
of the edge of the permitted area to determine whether the material was, in fact,
within that permitted area (Tr.
9/11107
at 91-92, 96, 112).
5
6498551vl 806289 52944
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 29, 2009
the Landfill (and that a stay should be conditioned on this) ignores the fact that the City
has been monitoring the Landfill conditions for years (State's Resp. 2-4). Over four
years ago, the City, on its own initiative, decided to conduct periodic testing
at the
Landfill
to monitor if there was any risk to the public or the environment (Exh. A
~~2-4;
Exh. C
~~4-11;
City MolReconsider Exh. A, Egner Affidavit).
Starting in 2005,
experienced environmental professionals from Shaw Environmental, Inc. have spent over
1,000 man hours and performed over 10,000 air and groundwater tests
(see
attached Exh.
A, C). Monthly monitoring of the permitted perimeter below grade landfill gas probes
occurs to determine whether below grade gas migration is taking place at the site (Exh. C
~8).
The below-grade landfill gas concentrations are not increasing (Exh. C
~8).
Methane levels are within regulatory limits and comply with the appropriate state
regulations (Exh. C
~9).
In painting the City as indifferent to the safety of its citizens, the State ignores
uncontroverted evidence
of the City's ongoing, voluntary efforts to protect public safety,
which includes not simply hiring Shaw to test and monitor the Landfill, but also
accumulating soil for the eventual cover that will be needed for the Landfill (City
MolReconsider Exh.
A, Enger Affidavit
~~7
-8).
A repetitive theme
of the State's response is that if there is a stay, it ''would
threaten harm
to the public" and to the environment (State Response 1, 2 & n.6, 3, 3-4,
4). The State falsely claims that the City failed to provide assurance that human health
and the environment will be protected (State Resp.
3). A multitude of tests have
established, and continued
to establish, that there is no current threat to the health and
safety
of the public
(see
attached Exh. A & C, Varso Affidavits). The City made this
6
649855lvl 806289 52944
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 29, 2009
demonstration in July 2009 with its Motion to Reconsider (Exh. C), and has updated this
assurance that there is
no threat to human or environmental safety in this Reply (Exh. A).
It
must be remembered that if this Board believed there was a reason to close Parcel B, it
would have closed it (6/18/09 Order p.3). The State's claim that the Landfill is
"deteriorating" and poses a threat
to human health and the environment is pure
speculation and conjecture and made without citation to the record (State's Resp. 2, 3-4).
Shaw's tests establish that this Landfill does not present a threat
to human health or to the
environment
(see
attached Exh. A, C, Varsho 2009 Affidavits).
To claim that a stay should be conditioned on requiring the City to take "repair or
emergency response efforts" ignores the issues
of this case which this Board resolved.
The State sued for
"Failure
to Provide Adequate Financial Assurance" in a one-count
complaint (Cmplt p.l).
The State asked this Board to require
"Respondents to
immediately obtain, and provide
to Illinois EPA, landfill closure and post-closure
financial
assurance" and to order the respondents to "cease and desist" from violating the
financial assurance
statutes and regulations
(id.
p. 7 ,-r,-r3-4, emphasis added).
It
must be
remembered that State did not sue for any alleged violation
of regulations regarding the
repair or maintenance
of the Landfill. Rather, it elected to sue only to enforce the
financial assurance regulations that provide funding for closure and post-closure costs
(State Resp.2-4), and this Board expressly declined
to order closure (6/18/09 Order p.3).
Again, this Board did not order the City (or CLC for that matter) to undertake
maintenance, repairs or other action on the Landfill (State Resp.
4).
It
ordered the City to
post financial assurance, or submit paperwork. Submission
of paperwork by a city,
which is going nowhere because it is a government entity that owns the land, does not
7
6498551vl 806289 52944
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 29, 2009
promote the health, safety and welfare of the public, as the State suggests when it claims
that a stay pending appeal "threatens the public welfare" - a claim that is unsupported
by
this record and refuted by the affidavits of Shaw's environmental professional who
continue to monitor the Landfill (State Resp.4; Exh.A, C).
While the posting
of financial assurance or an appeal bond by CLC - the
privately-owned landfill operator - is appropriate, it is not appropriate for the City
(see
City's MolReconsideration, Exhs. A, D). The State's suggestion that the City, which
owns the land, might "abandon" the Landfill is ludicrous (State Resp. 2 n.6). A city
cannot disappear.
II.
This Board Should Not Abdicate Its Statutory Duties in Ruling on a Stay.
The State suggests that this Board should abdicate its responsibility for ruling to
the motion for stay and should just leave this decision to the appellate court (State Resp.
2, 4-5). This Board should not abdicate its statutory responsibilities or decline to rule on
a motion for stay that its own regulations expressly authorize.
35 TIl.Adm.Code
§ 201.906(c).
The State is wrong in claiming that this Board lacks any procedures to decide the
stay motion. The
TIlinois Supreme Court has provided for guidelines in ruling on a
motion for stay.
Stacke
v.
Bates,
138TIl.2d 295,304-05,562 N.E.2d 192, 196 (1990).
The State misleadingly claims in its title for
§ III that
"An
Appropriate Bond Will
Be Set
by the Appellate Court," although elsewhere the State in fact admits that Rule
305(i) permits waiver
of any bond for appeals by public agencies
(compare
State Resp.
4 with
5). Rule 305(1) provides:
(i) Appeals
by Public Agencies. If an appeal is prosecuted by a public,
municipal, governmental, or quasi municipal corporation, or
by a public
officer in that person's official capacity for the benefit
of the public, the
8
6498551vl 806289 52944
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 29, 2009
circuit court, or the reviewing court, or a judge thereof, may stay the
judgment pending appeal without requiring that any bond or other form
of
security be given.
What
is notable is that nowhere does Rule 305 state that an appellate court has the
authority
to "condition grant of a stay on proper maintenance of the Landfill" as the State
asks and which is far beyond the issues in this case (State Resp.
5).
This Board is familiar with the record and is charged with enforcement of its
regulations. The State's concern that there is no formulaic process
to determine the
amount
of the bond misapprehends that this Board, like the appellate court, has the
discretion
to decide whether to require any bond whatsoever. This is a small community
that has a limited ability
to generate revenue. Its current funds already have designated
purposes such
as city operations, including police protection and paying the city
employees, and pre-existing contractual obligations (City MolReconsider, Exh.
A, Enger
affidavit).
Financial assurance is intended
to provide funds for closure and post-closure
costs. Neither Parcel A or B have been ordered
to be closed. This Board refused to order
Parcel B closed, and Parcel A still has available capacity.
If the City does not prevail on
appeal, it can then initiate procedures regarding financial assurance. But at this point, the
Landfill has not been ordered
to be closed, and there is no urgency to provide funding for
the eventual closure
of this Landfill. Under the circumstances of this case, if the
requirement
to post financial assurance is stayed, no risk is created and no harm is
threatened. Not requiring a bond is appropriate given the fact that the City
is a
government entity.
9
6498551vl 806289 52944
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 29, 2009
Conclusion
For these reasons, the City of Morris requests this Board to stay its order pending
appeal and for other relief as this Board deems proper.
Scott Belt
Belt Bates,
&
Associates
105 East Main St. Suite 206
Morris, IL 60450
(815)941-4675
/s/ Charles F. Helsten
Hinshaw
& Culbertson LLP
100 Park A venue
P.O.
Box 1389
Rockford, lL 61105-1389
(815) 490-4900
Attorneys for the Respondent City of Morris
10
6498551vl 806289 52944
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 29, 2009
Exhibit
A
B
C
D
E
EXHIBIT LIST
Description
Jesse P. Varso Affidavit (with attached October 9,2009
Community Landfill Company Response to the EPA's
September 15, 20091etter).
People
v.
Community Landfill Company
&
Prium,
PCB Cons. Nos.
97-193, 04-207, excerpt
of August 20, 2009 PCB Order, pp. 26,
48.
Jesse P. Varso affidavit (filed with City of Morris motion to
reconsider as Exhibit C).
Warren
Olson affidavit (filed
with City of Morris motion for leave
to file reply
in support of motion to reconsider as Exhibit B).
Richard P. Kopczick Affidavit
11
6498551vl 806289 52944
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 29, 2009
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
ex
reI.
LISA MADIGAN, Attorney General of
the State of Illinois,
Plaintiff,
v.
PCB 03-191
(Enforcement - Land)
COMMUNITY LANDFILL CO., an Illinois
Corporation, and the CITY OF MORRIS, an
Illinois Municipal Corporation"
l
Defendants.
l
AFFIDAVIT OF JESSE P. V ARSHO
I, Jesse P. Varsho, hereby certify pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/1-109 as follows:
1.
r
signed an affidavit dated 7/22/09 discussing the site conditions of the
Morris
Community Landfill. My opinions regarding the conditions of the
Landfill have not changed since I signed that affidavit.
2.
Starting in 2005, Shaw has been conducting on-site visits and reviewing
the IEPA file. Since June 2005, Shaw has actively monitored the Landfill.
3.
Since July
22, 2009, when I signed my first affidavit, Shaw Environmental,
Inc. (Shaw)
has continued to monitor the conditions at the Landfill. There
has been no significant change in the condition of the Landfill.
It
still
does not pose a current threat to the public health, safety
&
welfare.
4.
The City of Morris continues to pay Shaw to monitor the Landfill
conditions
and perform other work.
5.
On or before August 17, 2009, I submitted revised cost estimates to the
IEP A. On September 15, 2009, the IEP A required Community Landfill
Company (CLC) as the operator to sign the estimates. CLC complied with
this directive and returned the documentation to the IEP A as required
within 35 days on October 9, 2009. CLCfs attorney sent me a copy on
October 9, 2009, a true and correct copy of which is attached to this
affidavit.
6.
Under penalties as provided by law pursuant to Section 1-109 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, the undersigned certifies that the statements set forth
in this
instrument are true and correct, except as to matters therein stated
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 29, 2009
to be on information and belief and as to such matters the undersigned
certifies as aforesaid that he verily believes the same to be true.
4~E.:-p-.G-.
----
OCT 2.62009
2
649RR90vl 8062R9 52944
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 29, 2009
10/09/2009
13:38 FAX
312B420434
LAROSE&BOSCO
~OOl/015
To:
FAX TRANSMISSION
LARoSE & Bosco, LTD.
200 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 2810
Chicago, Illinois 60601
(312) 642-4414
Fax: (312) 642
.. 0434
Confidential In/ormation:
This fax contains confidential information which also may be legally
privileged and which is intended for the use
of only the addressee(s) named below. If you are not the
intended recipient
of this fax, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this fax is
strictly prohibited.
If you have received this fax in error, please immediately notify us by telephone
and return the ol'iiinal fax to us at the above address via the U.S. Postal Service. Thank you.
Scott Belt
815-941-4677
Date:
October 9, 2009
'.I
Pages:
15, including this cover sheer.
Charles Helsten
815-490-4901
Jesse Varsho
(630) 762-1402
From:
Mark
A.
LaRose
Subject: Community Landfill- Parcels A & B
0630600001- Grundy County
Permit Applications for revised closure/post-closure care cos
COMMENTS:
..
'~
!'.
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 29, 2009
10/09/2009 13:38 FAX
3128420434
LAROSE&BOSCO
THE LAW OFFICES
OF
LAROSE
& Bosco,
LTD.
MARK
A.
LAROSE"
JOSEPH A. Bosco*
DAVID KOPPELMAN
JUSTIN
E.
BURTNETT
DAVID
J.
BERAULT
CHAR/SSE: LOGARTA
ANDREW T. SPERRY
OF COUNSEL
HON. ANTHONY J. BOSCO (1926.2006)
JOSEPH G. AUOTO*'"
CLARISSA
Y.
CUTLER"
'ADMITTED IN MICHIGAN ALSO
"AOM/'T1'EO IN WISCONSIN ONLY
By Federal Express
October 9) 2009
Illinojs
Environmental Protection Agency
Bureau
of Land - #33
Permit Section
102] North Grand Avenue East
Springfield,
IL 62794-9276
ATTN: Mr. Stephen F.
Nightinga1e~
P.E.
Re:
0630600001 - Grundy County
Community Landfill Parcel A
Log No. 2009-424 .
Permit
Landfin810~817
File
Permit DOl
Dear Mr. Nightingale:
200 N. LASALLE STREET
SUITE
2810
CHICAGO, IL 60601
(312) 642-4414
FAX (312) 642-0434
www.laroseandbosco.com
135 S,
WHITIAKER
NEW BUFFALO, MI49117
(269) 469-6440
FAX (269) 469-8442
~002/015
We are in receipt of your letter dated September 15, 2009 (copy enclosed) requesting
addWonal information to complete the
perm~t
application submitted
by
Shaw Environmental,
Inc. on August 17,2009, and received
by
the IEPA on August IB, 2009 in the above matter.
Please note we are enclosing the requested information
for both Parcel A and Parcel B as
follows:
Parcel A
'An
original and 3 copies of the signature page to the General Application Pennit
(LPC~
PAl). This page has been signed and dated by the operator and his signature has been
notarized.
-An original and 3 copjes
of the Certification of Authenticity of Official Fonns (to be
jnserted as the last
page of "Attachment 1 "). This page has been signed and dated by the
operator and his signature has been notarized.
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 29, 2009
10/08/2008
13:38 FAX 3128420434
Illinois Envirol").l'nental Protection Agency
October
9,2009
Page 2
ofZ
l'arcel
B
LAROSE&BOSCO
~003/015
.An original and 3 copies of the signature page of the General Application Permit (LPC.
PAl). This page has been signed and dated by the operator and his signature has been
notarized.
-An
original and 3 copies of the Certification of Authenticity of Official Forms (to be
inserted as the last page
of "Attachment 1 "). This page has been signed and dated
by
the
operator and his signature has been notarized.
Pursuant
to your letter, we have marked this additional information "revised 10/9/09" on the
bottom,
right hand corner of each of the pages. For your convenience, we have also enclosed
copies
of the August 17, 2009 cover letters which were submitted with each of the pennit
applications (Parcel
A
and Parcel B).
We trust that the above information satisfies the deficiency noted
in your September 15,
2009
correspondence. If you have any questions regarding this submittal, please feel free to
contactm~.
MALlmk
Enclosures
cc:
Community Landfill CO.
Very tmly yourS)
Mark
Y:i/
A:--t~s~
(J,
p?L
M!". Scott Belt (by fax (815) 941-4677)
Mr. Charles F. HeIsten
(by fax (815) 490.4901)
Mr. Jesse Varsho, P.E., P.G., Shaw Environmental, Inc.
(by fax (630) 762-1402)
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 29, 2009
10/09/2009
13:38 FAX
3128420434
LAROSE&BOSCO
~
004/015
ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION ACENCY
1021
NOrth
Orand Avenue East, P,O.
80)1: 19:il76, 5pri"gfield, Illinois 62794-927&. (217) 782-2821)
J$mu R. ThomPlon Cerller, 100We,t RzlndQlpl'1,Suhc 11-300, o,ic:aso, IL 60601. (312) 814-6026
PAT QUINN, GOVERNOR
DOUGLAS P. ScOTt', DIRI!C:TOR
2171524-3300
SepteJn.be:r;
15, .2009
.o'WNaR
GityofMoms
Attu~
Mayor Richard Kopozick
320 Wa:uponsee Street
MQms~
Illinois 60450
R.,:
0630600001 "- Grundy
CoUllty
Community Landfill- Patcel A
Log No. 2009 .. 424
Permit Landfill 810-817 File
PexmitDOI
Dear
Mayor
Kopczick and
:MI.
Ptuim:
.'
C ertifled M
afi
7002 3150 0000 1111 1018
7002 3150 0000 1111 1025
OPERATOR
Co;Qltllunity Land:611 Company
Attn~
Mr. Robert J. Pruim
1501 S. Ashley Road
Moms, Dlinois 60450
PtIlIiol.Wlt to 35 IAC 813.103(b), the Illinois 'Snv.i:romnentel Protection Agency
has
reviewed., for
pUIpQses of completeness only, the application refe:rellced above, dated August 17, 2009 and
received Al1gust
l8~
2009. This review
has
revealed that the application does not COlltain the
infon.D.atioll described below and then=fore is incomplete. This dctermina:tioll of incompleteness
is
b~
on tb,e omission of the following item(s):
1.
The
applica:tion was not signed
by
the operator. Putsuant
to
35 IAC Section 812.104.
aU
permit applications shall be s1gtJ.ed by a duly authorized agent of the operator and
property owner.
Within 35
days
after the date of mailing of this l1lilmis :EPA :fil:!al decision, the
2ppli~t
llI.8.y
petition for a hearing before the Dlinois Pollution Control BOaX'd to contest the decision of'tbe
Illinois EP
A~
however
t
the 35-day period for petitioning for a bearing may be extended for a
period of
time
not to ex.oeed 90 days by written notice provided toJ:b.e.B.oaM from. the applicant
and the
llli:D.ois
EPA
witlrln
the 3S-..day initial appeal p.m.od.
lfyou wbmit additional bl.folmation addressins
~
deficiencies identified within 35 days ofthc
date of this lettet
J
the Illinois EPA shall :review it for wmplete;nes$ i:D. cortiu:ndio:Jl with the
ixtfurmation
conta:in~
in the application deemed. lncomplete..
If
additional infoIIIl.l11ion
is
submitted, tWa new application
will
be considered to have
bl:l~
filed OIl the day that
the
additional i:o:fonna;tion 'W88l'ecei:ved by the Dlinois EPA.
~lcase
be aware that anya!4Uti0pal
J:a.fOJ::tDa1ion
._---
should:
.- =-
Roddar1l. 'l3Ollll. Miln SI. JQ,ddol'.l.ILlill03.
(81S19B~·nDO
laP..
J9! s. SII\II,liIsl", IL G012a "(647) OOWlll
110 ........
of
\.lind - ..... " 'UO III.
UnJ~"'sltv
SL. PeDi1a.'lIiH; 1 •• (309)
693-S4G~
Colllnbal •• ;:ZOtl!l
MaR$"=~
CCIII'l'IIIIlD~'~
6223'" (11111) 34G.5120
Des Pliline:", 11511 W, H:mi:>tm
SI..
DIS I"IIIine!..IL 6001 .. (147)29 ..... 000
Peori." 5.ml
N.
U"""'I'IIt'1' SL. P.on..IL 61.,.. jla9)alll.$463
Ch.1.mpa/gllo 21155. 111'1
sa..
Champaign, 11.611lO "1l17) 278-!800
M.rfon. 230i1 W. Mfl.
!~.
Su'ta 11
S.
MlriDlIIIL
82'S'.
(6111) "J.,.;ZOO
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 29, 2009
10/08/2008 13:38 FAX
3128420434
LAROSE&BOSCO
1itI005/015
.
.-"..
.;
V
.;
./
J
Page 2
1.
2.
3 .
4.
s.
be
;in
a format whic.h allows incotporation oftbc
JJI!:W
infoml8.tion into the appropriate
s"ctions of the
CU1l'eut
application;
include a cross-refe:tmce indicating wh.er"
in
the lletW in:fo:rmatiOl1 each d.f>ficiency.
identified above, has been addressed;
have the date of the revision on each page and
0'.0
each drawing;
include
an
original
and at least thtoe oopies;
and
be submitted to the eddress below.
Dlinois Environmental Protection' Agency
Bureau of Land .- #33
Permit Section
1021 North Grand A"'CIlue East
Post Office :Sox 19276
Springfield" Illinois 62794-9276
If you
do not submit additiozml iufolDlation witbiD. :3 S
days~
you
will
need to submit a new penm.t
applieation in its e:ntirety.
Jfyou have any questions regarQing this letter, please contact
Chris~e
Roque at
217/524-3299.
7#-
Stephli:n F. Nightingale, P.E.
'
Menage!J:'_ Permit Section
Bureau of Land
( .. ::l l...
SFN~\091132s.doc:.
cc:
Jesse P.
V31'~J
P.E.. - Shaw;Envilo.Dmental, Inc.
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 29, 2009
10/08/2008 13:38 FAX
3128420434
LAROSE&BOSCO
@008/015
SIi
~'"S
aw
haw Environmental
l
Inc.
A World of
Solutions~
August 17, 2009
Stephen F. Nightingale, P.E.
Permit Seclion Manager
Illinois Environmental Prolection
Agency
Buteau of Land
1021 North Grand Avenue East
Spring1ield, Illinois 62794-9276
Re'
SHe 10 No. 0630600001
Morris Community
Land1ill- Parcel A (Parmi!
No. 200-155-lFM)
Deet
Mr.
NighHngale:
Shaw EnvirMmenlal (SI1oW) is submiWng this permit application 10 revise closure and post-closure
cost estimates for Ihe Morris Communily Landfill- Parcel A. The narrative below and the 'Included
al1achmenls provide explanation of the closure and pas I-closure cosl estimate revisions and all
supponing documentation. The original arld 4 copies are provided; 1M appropriate IEPA forms
ale provided in At1achment
1.
Narrative
Shaw has revised the cloSlJre and post-closure
Co~1
estimales lor Morris
Comf11~mily
Landfill.
Parcel
A.
The revised cost eslimates represent [he mosl current costs required
10
complete
closure of Parcel A and 10 'lund posl closure care activities as required
by
the applicable
regulations. Tables summarizing lhe lasks and costs associaled wi1h Ihe closure and post-closure
cafe 01 Parcel A are included in Attachment 2_ The closure and posl-closure care cos1 tables
'Include bolh Ihe quanlities required along with Ihe appropriate unit cosls and re!erences for the
unit
COSIS.
An operaling plan supporting Ihe revised closure and post-Closure cosl eSlimates lor Parce.l A has
been developed and is inch:Jded in AUachment 3.
On November 14, 1994. the City of Morris passed an ordinance Ihat prohibited Ihe disposal of any
wasle malerial with Ihe exception of inert C&D materials. This ordinance is provided in
Altachmenl.4. SinCe Parcel A unit has taken only inerl waste, lherelore the appl;CQble regulations
are 35 Ill. Adm. Code Subpan A (811.100) and Subpan B (811.200).
The closure and posl.closure care cost eslimales include a revised final cover design
111
a I meets
1M
requiremenls of 35 III. Adm. Code 811.20-4. Additionally, Ihe POSI-closure cosl1or 100 years
01 groundwaler 1realmenl. has been removed since 35 III. Adm. Code 811.317 is no longer
applicable.
.,. ......... u_ .. __ .. _ ... __ ... _ .'_ ................ _.....
..._~
__ . __ .....
~
.... ,.,
,~..
.
' .. - .. - .. - .. - ... - -- --'-'-'" ...... -'---'-...:.""'-• ..;... -:':''::';'-',,,,. -c:.;' ==
,50; (.
MAIN
SlREE1 SUIH [ .51
CHARl(;,.
IL
601i~·<'2.43
.,AI.I ... ] f':,)",
-;\,~,
1
"Inri
r , •••. r. ,,',
"':"1
~
A 1""\
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 29, 2009
10/09/2009
13:38 FAX
3128420434
Mr. Stephen Nightingale
IEPA - Bureau
01 land
LAROSE&BOSCO
Page 2 01
2
August' 7. 2009
Groundwater, leachate and perimeler landfill gas probe sampling are included in the pos\-CIOSlJre
cos! estimates even lhrough not required
by the regulations. This addi1ional sampling will be an
additional safely factor to ensure prolection of the public heal1h, wel1are and safely.
We look forward 10 work,jng with the IEPA 10 resolve all the of IEPA concerns with this permit
application in a timely manner. II you have any questions, please conlact me al (630)
762-1400.
Sincerely,
;;?
E~~I.I"C.
Jesse varsho, P.E., P.G.
Projecl Manager
cc:
Mayor Richard Kopczick • Cily 01 Morris
Chuck Helslen Hins/law & CulberSlon
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 29, 2009
1al007/015
10/08/2008
13:38 FAX
3128420434
ShQ,"
Shaw Environmental, Inc.
Augus1
17. 2009
Stephen F. Nigh1ingale, P.E.
Permil Seclion
Manager
Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency
Bureau
01
Land
1021 North Grand Avenue East
SprIngfield, Illinois
62794-9276
Re:
Site 10 No.
0630600001
LAROSE&80SCO
Morris Community Landfill. Parcel B (Permi1 No. 200-156-LFM)
Dear Mr. Nightingale:
IlJ008/015
A World ot Solutions"
Shaw Environmenlal (Shaw) is submiUlng lhis permil applicalion 10 rev'lse closure and posl-closure
cosl eslimales for !he Morris Communily Landfill - Parcel B. The narralive below and (he included
atlachments provide explanation 01 the closure and post-closure cost es1imale revisions and all
supporling
doclJrnenl~llon.
The original and 4 copies are provided; the appropria1e IEPA forms
are provided in Attachment 1.
Narrative
Shaw has revised Ihe closure a/'ld po.sl-closure cost estimales lor Morris Communily Landfill
Parcel
B. The revised cosl eSlimates represent Ihe mos1 curren1 cosls required 10 complete
closure 01 Parcel Band 10 fund poSl closure care aclivities as reQuired by the applicable
regulalions. Tables summarizing Ihe tasks and cosls associa1ed with 'he closure and posl-closure
care of Parcel 8 are inclUded in A1tachmen1 2. The closure and post-closure care cost tables
include bolh Ihe Quanlilies required along with the appropriale unit coslS and references lor the
unit costs.
An operating plan
supporting lhe revised closure and pos1-closure cosl eSlimates lor Parcet B has
been developed and
is inCluded in Al1achrnenl 3.
The revised closure and post-closure cost estimales for Parcel 8 do nol inclUde costs for 100
years of leachate I real ment. Under 35
III. Adm. Code 814.4 02. landfills tha I ini1ial.e closure within
seven years
of January 13, 199£1 are exempl from developing a groundwa'er impact assessmenl.
Parcel B
01 Morris Cornmunity Lal'ld1i11 initialed closure activilies wilhinlhis seven year rime period
and is there10re
exempt from developing a groundwater impacl assessmenl model.
Documenlalion 01 the placemenl 01 the final cover prior 10 2000 is pro\l;ded in Attachment 4.
Additionally. Parcel B has
1'101
received waste since the early
1990s.
1607 E MAIN SlRH1.
:3-UIH
E 'Sl.
CHMLE$.IL
tiQ17.j.2:l-l2.
1\~/lJt-l
c.,r,
~r:'"
, ,,(In,", [" 1\" """I' -, .... .., ... AI 1"1'1
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 29, 2009
10/09/2009
13:39 FAX 3128420434
Mr, Slephen Nightingale
tEPA - Bureau 01 Land
LAROSE&BOSCO
Page 2 of
2
August 17. 2009
We look 10rwafd 10 working wilh the IEPA 10 resolve all the of IEPA concerns with lhis permit
application in a timely manner. If you have any questions, please contact me al (630) 762.1400.
Sincerely,
Shaw Environmental, Inc.
1.Z~'PG
Projecl Manager
cc:
Mayor Richard Kopczick - City of Morris
Chuck Helslen - Hinshaw
& CulberSlon
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 29, 2009
~
008/015
10/09/2009 13:39 FAX
3128420434
LAROSE&BOSCO
Site I.D.
No.
0630600001
MORRIS COMMUNITY LANDFILL - PARCEL A
(Permit No. 200-155-LFM)
ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION
SUBMITTED 10/9/09
~010/015
'An original and 3 copies of the signature page to the General Application Pennit (LPC-
PAl). This page has been signed
and dated
by
the operator and his signature has been
notarized.
oAn original and 3 copies of the Certification of Authenticity of Official Forms (to be
inserted as the last page of "Attachment 1"). This page has been signed and dated
by
the
operator and his signature has been
notari~ed.
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 29, 2009
10/09/2009 13:39 FAX
3128420434
LAROSE&BOSCO
1lI011/015
lV,
COMPLETE~ESS
REQlJlREMENTS
The followjng ;(ems mu:;t be checked Yes. No
Of
N/A. Each item will be reviewed by the log clerk. Blank ilems will result in
rejeclion l)[ the
:Jpplic~lIjon.
Plea!lC
rcler
10
th~ ill~lrucliong
for
further guidllnce,
.
"
I,
Have
011
r~quiretl
public notice lellNl{ bt'cil mniled in
accor(.hmc~
with Ihe: LPC.I>A) 6 in:>tructlom,?
Of so, provide a
li~t
of those recipients of the requited public nOlice leiters fOJ lllinois EPA relention.)
Such rt'h:mtion shall not imply lll1)'
lI1inoi~
EI' A review amllor c(lJ')fin'mllion of Ihe lis!.)
2.
il.
l~
the Siting Cenifjca!ion FornJ (LPC-PA8) completed Ilnd encIos!;'d'?
b. ls siting approvIII curreJ)l)Y under litigalion?
3. 0. ls u closure. and
jf
necessary a POSt clOSUre', plan covering.
tht~e
aClivities being submilled_ or
b. ha:; onl!'
:llTI1'~dy
heen lIppn.rvcd? (Provide pc:nnJt number
;I.!l{~Q,..;-1w.:i~5~"
...
L .....
F.J.:M",-_" ________ .)
4. a.
for
wa~tE.'
dispol':ll
:;iH':s
only: Has any l"mployee. owner, operalor, officer or director of the
OWI)er
or
OI'~I':lIm
had a prior conduci ceJ1jjicalion denied, canctltu or revoked'?
b. HavE.' you
incJ~ldt:d
H
demol1slralion of how you l;ol1lply or inlend 10
I;tlmply
wilh
35
IJI,
Adm,
Cod~
Pan 745')
5. a. Is land ownership held in beneficialtrusl'?
b. Ifycl<. is:J benefi<:i,TllTUl>t ccrlificalion fotJ'n (LPC.PA9) compleled and endo:;ecl7
o. u. Does Ihe appJic(llion cOlltain information or proposal:> regarding the hydrogeology; groUndw:31er
monitoring. modeling: or classificalion: a g.roundwiller in'lpacI
:j:;~~'i"~mltnl:
or 'IIadosc :lOlle
monitoring for which Yol.l are
requc:~ting
approval'?
h,
lfye);. have' you I'oubmillcd
II
third (3rd)
C()py
of 111e
applic~lliol'
(4 lorul) and
~upporljll!! Jocumt'~m;'?
181
'Yes
0
No
0
N/A
o
Yel> 0 No
cgJ
NJA
DYes 0 No I2J NI
A
DYes
t8JNo
ON/A
I8IYc':!l DNa ON/A
DYe::;
[8J
No
0
N/A
OY~s
t8l Nt) 0
N/A
DYes
I8INo ON/A
Dyl;':;
ONo
t8]N/A
o
Yc-s
181 No
ONiA
V.
SlGNATlIJt:f;S (Ori!.!in!!1 ::;ig.lJnrures Tt"guiTC'd. Signature
~I~mps
or nppliciltionll
Iran$ll)ill.:d
<:'Je-clronically
('If
by
rncsimil~
nre
nOI
rlcctplabk)
AJlllppliC:::llioll!l shDlI b .. ::;ignc:d
by
Ih~
person designated
b~low
;,:;
(l
(July aUlhorized
represenl3li\'e
oj' the:: ownef anu'clr operalOr.
Corporal ion - BY;l principal e:xecul;ve officer of 31 lea51 Ihe- Je\'el of vice-ptesident.
PaTlnn::hip or S"If:' Proprietorship" By u I?cmtl'(al pal1Jltr or the prt'prit:lof. respeCli\'C'ly.
Govemmt'llt •
By
eilher a principal e)(e-culive officer ()T a ranking eJecled official.
A
per~on
i:<; a duly aUlhorized fepresem3tjve ofl11e owner and operator ollly
jf;
J
Thl('Y meet the
crileria
above
I?T
the authoriza1ion hafi beC'n gri11Jled in wrilintl by a perllon dl'liCribed ab'l\'C'; Imd
::!.
i$ ::\ubl'l1illrd with thls applic:llion (a copy ora
pJ'e'\,'iou~ly
$Ilbmillt'd aUlhorizalion can
b~
used).
I ht'Te-hy affirm 111::11 alJ infonmill(lJ'l
L'~)m<ljned
in tblS Applicalion iii
Inle:'
and aCCUfi1le 10 The bellI of
my
kl1()wkil~t;'
::md belief.
., do herein
~we-ar Iha,,~-~;;
II
dul~lOri):·
reprC!it'lllIlIivC' (l(
(lwnt'r"Clp~rnl~)r
:md 1 !1m !lulhorized 11."1
~Jgl1
Ihis
PL"m'IJI
applirSlil)ll
I~nn.
O"llct Sig,naluTr:
Y(..
'~/--:::
..
J!:..""
•
~
/' .... S:.:.. .... __
Titl",;
...
~'/;j
/. ,.'
I)al~':
"i2~!
7. c..:
'f
Owner
fE1N
Or
S~-;;",,~;';1'/':
1/'
e'C
.';-
....
Operalor l)i!1JJilture: __
~~ ~
__ •
TjMf~;;.tJ)rN1
Operalor FE)N or S.S, Number;:;1 ....
>~ ~D:l
-.~1I0!'F!'!IF~IIlil'ClAL~~Si.1lOEALI!i;ili;J;II;IIIla;,'
lOot
VVr.n.1. CJheshareck
NC>lary:
Sub:lcrj~~
and :;WOnl bef0,?i
~ 1hi~~
day
o~~ ~~
Notary
Pllbli~. Sl~le
of
Illinois
Nm:.try
Slgnl'I\I~..n.:o...~CI.n.,
ADO u '"
k~:.:rN~H~lry
Sc-31:
My
Commission Exp.1lI17J2009
'2l-n-
.
p\
M::-
CC'>1Mli;::Jl
~"/)')'
\\-I,'J.:O-..S .. -..
~~
,,"I
I~'
(.J
I~
I'..J..tttr9
0'1
Fllginct'r 5igna1url:':
~ 7~
"_.' ______ ,,___ _ Til)e: ,
.
__
DylL"'
~ ~-ot1
.
EIl~iJ)"'er.L\Jdr(')l~,
liCi t:..
~"'"
~,
r:n~~~
toM:" •••••• ,
~."
~''-~'
~
/ .....
~:'-_"1
.......
/)1
'1tJ~w.:
~
.. "7t.
~,.It
'-OIlf.l
~/1.-""
'.
~
'Q
~
v
'~
f
,"'\,
~F-<lQ
1.
,1 ..
L...o1t.,., .'
-_._-_ ...... __ .
--"'--
::
fUJ~:'
u:
JESSE
VARSHO
PAUL
.:..~::'
• m
0Pf1CW.1ML
".U.
- :::i •
:
:0
LOIUINI: ..
DUNlAP
Fl~!;!int'('r
~~h\'ll1l'
NIl
~.~_",~-=-1.!i(j()
_ .. __ , ...... ,. __ ...
~
*""
062.059069 :
* ..
IIoeary
~
'lIeN of tIIInoq
:\11 inlimwlllOIl
~lIbmiltnj :I~
pari ,,1' thl'
Applil.';\l1l1n
l~ ;~"111~bk
1I.;'1l;lt<>
&UQli':
\'\:l'('pl
WllC~~~":;
~~fJtI:ntat1llOll
h'·lr<'ltlt:~II.:(1nnth:·l1lit1ll)
as:1
tr;I\,k
~<."\'·n·1
liT
~1t,rC.'1
prp~·~~"
Ul
:JL·"·"Yl,:u.y:~·JJh,~I;'
...
~ifl\l~1i)
lllf.lh
;\]ipJl..:able
I~u't:;:'
:llld
}{,,!,!
tt/;11 1("1'" \11' .h..: Illilloi;.. )JOIIUIIOll
('\~l1lwl
B\)atd4lf~€'J'Q):1I:i~,NimOl~
EPA
rnleo,; ::md
1l1lld"'11n.;'~,
"1'"111
1
'
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 29, 2009
10/09/2009 13:38 FAX 3128420434
Illinois
Environmll'lllal
f'rOIl:!;lion Agency
LAROSE&BOSCO
I3lJr(:o~t1
tlf
ltmd
J 02 J Nonh Grllnd
AV~I1\le
East
Box 1927fJ
Springlj"ld.
Il 627?4-\l276
Certification of
Authenticil~'
orOfficial Forms:
rhi~
fonn musl accompany lmy applictllion
~ubmill~d
10 thc
)llinoi~
EPA Bun:au
or
Llllld. Div)!'-iOJl of Land
Pollulion COnlrol, Penni1 Section on forms other (han (he official
copy
primed and provided by Ihc Illinois EPA.
The only
allowc;d changes 10 Ih, form
ate in :.po:scing,
foOlS.
and 1I'1C'
:JddiliOfl
or Iht:' mJ"ormmioll
provided,
Any
additions must be: underlined. 'fhe ComlS would not be cOTlsid.:-red idcnlicOlI if
theft'
i~
any change 10. ;Jddilian or
delelion of
words
on
Ihe
forOl or (0 (he
laJlgullgr;:
ol"lhc form.
The same
illdjvidu!lls
thaI
sign Ihe applicalitln
form
;1
t1cCllmpanic~ m\l~t
;;i;;n Ih.: following c<.'nifJ(:alioll.
I
he"~'by
el!l'llfy uIJder pellolt)' of
law
Ihelll how.'
per,r()//(JJ(,' eWlmillE'd. Iwd
(1171
1/1I1/i/iol' "I1'if17 fhe applicatioll
/,orm 0/'
forms and all included
supplemental i1!(QI"IlI(J(ion
mbmil/t'J
/II
(he }/Jino;" EPA ht'r('wilh,
(llld
rhal
Jh~ r~(fi('i(J1
Illinois
Environmental ProJecTion Age'l1c.v applicafitm ji>rnr Ill'
.f/Jml.~
I/J"('d
lIt'rein
"of
0/'
IIr('
;d(:,I1I/~'(J1
i/1
(J1l I"E'SpeC//j
/()
the
officia//oml ol'/orms prOl'iJed
~v
the lIIinois EPA Brweor; o/I.(Jnd Permit S,','lioll, flruJ I1(JS not or haw' I1QI been
ollered.
amended, or orherwise modified
ill
1m." 11'0.'" J limb!'r
n(rrUi'
Pll1del" pC'/llllry I?/
Jaw
Ihar
al~\'
l.J/loC'lted
Qr
;11i:hlded e/(l(;JI"(mic d(){Q
version
I~r
Ih" (Jppli('(I1;QN /em1l
1!I"/;>I111.'
("()lIIplir'" 1fillt till' rll,/i('iIJI JI/;/1oi" EPA
',1
r:.f«'c.rl"r;ni(o
l'l?l'sion ,hereaj;
and
;s or are I'denticol
;/1
(1/1 rr!sp,','IS Iv Ihl:'
,~mdal
e-fl'tU'()nicoll,. d()l\"/Iloodable fo,.,,,
or fOl7ns
p1"lJ\'ideQ
b;r
the Jllim,is EPA l)lIJ"f!fm qf LUlld PI"/"m;/ S/'('(;III/,
(//1(/
iUI8 /111/
Ill'
hlln" 11m I)('('n nt/PI'l:'d, m!lf'l1fif!'l1 or
o,herwi~a(Ji'i~'d
il, om.ln:J)..
/.
I 'J''')' .
-.....
Owner
~(/
Signalure
r'
!/~/\CC
:J
"
Operator
Signalure-
SlibscI'ibed (md
SWOI'l1
Ie)
B(lI;)I"(1
A
f<'.
{I
No/a,,' Pllblic
ill
UIIJ
(or
Ii",
ah01'e-J;,tJllJ;m1(lJ COIII;t.,.
lind
.)/(11<".
__ .. it.
~,:/-
c' ?
(dale)
Of FacIAL
SQL
LDlM*NI M DUIiMN'
~012/015
NOtory
Public -
IfGhI of IlnoM
My CornmlllJOn bpI .... HOy 2D,
2011
" .;"
pi"
tJJ
~J
1: 111m
',-,I._J
~ Ch~'r\(LLI,.(
.. 9
.... -
.. _
1)-~""\
~
00,.
i
_.\,
-;:
k.
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 29, 2009
10/09/2008 13:39 FAX
312B420434
LAROSE&BOSCO
Site I.D. No. 0630600001
MORRIS COMMUNITY LANDFILL - PARCEL B
(permit No. 200-156-LFM)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
SUBMITTED 10/9/09
141013/015
.An
otiginal and 3 copies of the signature page to the General Application Pennit (LPC-
PAl). This page has been signed and
da't.~d
by the operator and his signature has been
notarized.
-An
original and '3 copies of the Certification of Authenticity of Official Forms (to be
inserted as the last page of "Attachment 111). 111is page has been signed and dated by the
operator and his signature has been notarized.
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 29, 2009
10/09/2009 13:39 FAX
3126420434
LAROSE&BOSCO
~014/015
,IV.
COMPLETENESS REQUIREMENTS
The following ilems must be checked Yes, No or
N/A.
Elich ilem will be reviewed
by
the log clerk. Blank items
wj1J
resuh in
rcjeclkm of 1 he:.- applicalion. J>ltase refer 10 the instruclions for further guidance.
J.
Have all requil'ed public nOlice letters been mailed in accordance with \he LPC.PAI6 instl'uctions'?
[gJ Yes 0 No 0
N/A
Of so, pro\lide a list of (hose recipieJ)ts of the required public no lice leners fOT lIIinois EPA relention.)
Such
relemion shall nOI imply any] Ilinois EPA teview and/or confirmation of Ihe list.)
2. ;'.
III
Ihe S,ling Certificalion Form (LPC.PA8) complcted and enclosed?
b. Is siling approval currcnlly under litigation?
3. a. Is a closure, and
if
necessary a POSI closure, plan covering tbese activities being submitted, or
b, h1l)\ c:m(' alrettdy been approved? (Provide permit number 2 OOQ. 1 56.LFM
.)
4. o. For waste disposal siles on))': Has any employee, owner, operator, officer or director of the owner
or openllor had a prior conduct certiJiclltion denied, canceled or revoked'1
1:>. HilW you included
II
demonslJ1llion of how you comply or inlend
10
comply with
35
lII.
Adm. Code Pan 745?
S. a. 1.s land owncnohip held if) beneficial
trUSt?
b.
If
YCI'.
il,
a ocncJicial lrust certification fann (LPC-?
A9)
completed and enclosed?
6, a. 1)oe!' Ihe application COJ)la)J) information or propo:>aJs regarding the hydrogeOlogy; groundwcller
moniloring,
modding Or clllssification; n groundwater impact IIssessment; or vadose
lone
moniwring for which you are requesting approval?
b,
If:l·~.
hav\: you
~ubmjllcd
a third (3rd) copy oflhc application (4 lotlll) and supporting documents'?
DYes
0
No I2?J
N/A
o
Yel> 0
No
181
N/A
o
Ye$
[81 No ON/A
~Y~s
ONo ON/A
DYes
r8I No 0
N/A
OY~
18INo ON/A
DYes DNo t?5lN/A
DYes [81 No
0
N/A
V,
SJGNA TlJRES (Original :;;igolJture$ requir<:d. Signature stamps or applications trilnsmillcd eleclronically or by facsimile
~
nOI
acceptable.)
AlIlippli(,:l1ion~
$h811 be signed by Lhc person deSignated below as II duly auLborized representative of the owner and/or opera lOr.
C orporalion . By a principal execullve officer of at leasl the level of vice-presjdent.
Pllnlll;'r:;hip or Sole Proprietorsbip. By a gc:ncral partner
Ot
the proprietor, rt!spcctively.
Government -
By either a principal executjve officer or a ranking <:Jecled oflicial.
A pen:o!)
i ....
a duly authorized representative of [he owner and operator only
if:
1 ,
They
meet thl;' crileOa
<lbo'l/!!:
or Ihl:" authorizalion ball been granted in \'.\I'J'iling
by
13 person described' abl,we: and .
2. is submil1cd wilh
this applicatioll
(<I
copy o1'apreviously SUbmitted autbor.izaljon can be used).
1
hereby tlfJinn thElt 1111 information contained in this Application is true and accur",Ie 10 Ihe best of my knowledge and belief.
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 29, 2009
10/09/2009
13:38 FAX 3128420434
lJIiJlO)S
Ellvin)nmentOilI
PtotCl:a~
Agency
LAROSE&80SCO
B~rC;IIU
orLand
1021 Nonh
GrandAvcnu~ Ea~1
Bo'll
19276
S"tiflefield. It 62794-9276
Certification of Authenticity or Official Forms
-nlis foml must accompllny any applic<ltion submint:t1 to Ihc llIinois EPA Bureau of Land, Di'llision of Land
Pollu1ion ConlTol, Permit Scction OJ) fonns other than tht: official copy printed and provided by the II1ioois EPA.
The only allowed ehanges to
Ib~
f()Jm are in spacing, ronts, and the:: addilion 01" the inf(lfJJlalion provided.
Any
addilions must
be
underlined. The forms would nOI be considered idemical if Ihere is any change 10. addition OJ'
deletion of
words
on the fonn
Of
10
the: language oflhe (orm.
The same individuals lhal sign the: appJitalion form it accompaoicl> must sign the following ccniliclJlion.
J
hereby' unify under penalty of low ,lull
J how!
perso"oJ~y
e:.:omined.
and tlm familiar with ,he applicQlionfor»l or
forms Dnd till ;",::I"ded JNpP/rmurntol informQ'io" s/Ibmirled
10
'he Jl1inois EPA 1/er(;Wilh. and
rhor fhl!'
officiol
Illinois
Emrironmfm"d i>rofection
Agency application fo,.",
or
fornu used
het'ein is
or
urt
iJl!ntico/
in
an respec's '0 fhe
offici,,' form or forms provided by ,he /J1inoi:s £PA B11reoJl of
}~and
Perm;, Set:t;Or'l. a"d hos no' or n01'12 n." been
o/.ered, amended, or o,nerw;u modified
in
an:y way.
J
further cenify
Imaer
JH""oJry
~(
law
Ihal
a~v
O"(lcneJ
or
inclilded electronic dala Yer;;i.,n of tile applica/ion few", or
fon".~
cQmp/ie,\' "..j/h Ihe officio! JI/;nQiS EPA .s Electronic
l'f[nic;n thereo/. and
is
or ore
idenTical
il1
011 respects
10 fhe
official eleclronkol/:y
dQwni()doabJe
form or forms
p,o~.iJed
by 'he 1II;no;$ EPA
Burcew of
Land Pt!rmi'
Sn;";(m,
Qnd "os
1101
or
hal.(J
not ''''(!'n al'ered, anllmaed or
otherwise modified in ony
WQV.
w;2,
J/,
/y~
--,,-<fj'_~_1-,--7
-_() 1"'---__
OWner
Signam~
~
. (d<lte)
Opc:ralor
sjg"~tur('
(If
necessary )
$lIbs{"ril>eci find Sworn IQ lJe/ort' /11(0'.
()
NOlO"; P,/ol;" in and {or
rhe
(lbor(~~'t!!H1io,,('d
('mm~y
and SIOI('.
OPJtclAl. ........
LORRAINE .. D4MN
NOIaJV P\II)IIC
• IIattI
01 IIInoII
M1 CommlAkH'l bpi .... NO'I
20.
2011
"OFFICIAL SEAL"
VVrn.J. <:heshareck
NorDry pur:)"., Sla(; of illinois
M)I
Commiss,()~
Exp.1lI17/2009
~.
"...,
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 29, 2009
~
015/015
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
August 20, 2009
)
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
)
Complainant,
)
)
v.
)
)
CO~TYLANDFILLCONWANY,
)
INC,
.
)
)
Respondent.
)
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
)
Complainant,
)
)
v.
)
)
EDWARD PRUIM and ROBERT PRUIM,
)
)
Respondents.
)
PCB 97-193
(Enforcement - Land)
(consolidated)
PCB 04-207
(Enforcement - Land)
CHRISTOPHER
J. GRANT AND JENNIFER VAN WIE OF THE OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
ILLINOIS.
MARK A. LAROSE OF LAROSE
&
BOSCO, LTD. AND CLARISSA Y. CUTLER OF THE
LAW OFFICES OF CLARISSA Y. CUTLER APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE
RESPONDENTS;
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by G.T. Girard):
SUMMARY OF THE OPINION
The Office of the Attorney General, on behalf of the People of the State of Illinois
(people) filed
two separate enforcement actions, which were consolidated by the Board at the
request of the parties. The first case brought in 1997, with amended complaints filed in 1998,
and 1999, was filed against Community Landfill Company, Inc. (CLC). In 2004, the People
brought a second
case against Edward Pruim and Robert Pruim (collectively the Pruims), as
owners ofCLC. CLC operates a pennitted landfill, known as Morris Community Landfill (the
site or landfill), located at 1501 Ashley Road in Morris, Grundy County. The approximate 119-
~
EXHIBIT
~
~8
~
..
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 29, 2009
26
tested on the gas system when Ms. Kovasznay was present, but Mr. Pelnarsh conceded that the
operators
of the gas system did not report to him.
12/4Tr.
at 23, Resp.Exh.9 at 3.
Mr. Pelnarsh did not have the authority to cease operations at the site.
12/4Tr.
at 24-25.
Mr. Pelnarsh did not submit landfill capacity certification forms to the Agency and the
overheight was not his responsibility.
Id.
Mr. Pelnarsh does believe that there is available
capacity in Parcel
B, and believed that space was available when waste stopped being accepted
in Parcel B.
12/4Tr.
at 26. Mr. Pelnarsh does not recall ever being directed by the Pruims to
place waste in Parcel B above the permitted height.
Id.
In 1994, 1995, and 1996, Mr. Pelnarsh decided where to place waste in Parcel B and he
did not discuss that decision with the Pruims.
12/4Tr.
at 27. Mr. Pelnarsh has been deciding
where
to
place the waste at the site since the time he started working at the site, without any
input from the Pruims.
Id.
Mr. Pelnarsh is the operator and he has made the decisions on the
day-to-day operations
of the landfill.
12/4Tr.
at 28. Mr. Pelnarsh had on occasion made a
decision
to close the landfill.
Id.
When
Mr. Pelnarsh found out that Parcel B was allegedly overheight, Mr. Pelnarsh was
not placing waste in Parcel B.
12/4Tr.
at 29-30. Mr. Pelnarsh has never personally verified that
Parcel B
was overheight or filled beyond the capacity.
12/4Tr.
at 30. Mr. Pelnarsh believes that
there
is still capacity in Parcel B and there is no waste in that area today.
12/4Tr.
at 31. Mr.
Pelnarsh indicated that dirt was being moved from Parcel B to Parcel A for daily cover for over
two years and estimates that over 100,000 yards of dirt was moved.
Id.
Testimony of Robert Pruim
Robert Pruim is president and one of two owners ofCLC.
12/4Tr.
at 35. CLC was
formed to operate Morris CLC and the offices were located in Riverdale and Crestwood.
12/4Tr.
at 37. Robert Pruim has been involved in various businesses that were engaged in waste hauling,
disposal and transportation.
12/4Tr.
at 36-37. After 1985, the Pruims managed CLC except that
they did not "have anything
to do with the site operations."
12/4Tr.
at 39.
The Pruims personally guaranteed royalties to Morris in the CLC lease agreements and
between 1990 and 2000 personally guaranteed bank loans and surety bonds
on behalf of CLC.
l2/4Tr. at 41. Tipping fees were based on other landfills in the area and with input from Mr.
Pelnarsh, tipping fees were set at the site. l2/4Tr. at 41-42. The credit applications were
approved at the Crestwood office and the Pruims hired Andrews.
12/4Tr.
at 43-44.
Robert Pruim
and Edward Pruim signed documents as owners and officers of CLC,
including landfill capacity certifications.
12/4
at 45-47, Comp.Exh. 14d and 14e. Robert Pruim
believes that Parcel B has available space and there
is nothing in the landfill capacity
certification forms signed by Robert Pruim which indicates the elevation.
Id.
Robert Pruim
believes that the space where the garage office
is located is permitted space and he did not
understand that the
forms he signed indicated there was not space available.
12/4Tr.
at 48.
Robert Pruim disputed the information with the engineer and believes the issue was corrected on
the form filed in 1997.
12/4Tr.
at 49-50, Comp.Exh. 14f.
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 29, 2009
48
any kind" that Parcel B was actually filled above 580 feet and in fact the capacity fonns do not
talk about pennitted elevations
or the amount of waste above pennitted elevations. Resp.Br. at
19. The respondents argue that based on the evidence the Board should find that the Pruims did
not have direct and personal involvement in acts leading to the violations. Resp.Br. at 20.
People's Reply
The People note that the Board has already found that CLC was in violation of the Act
and Board rules by dumping waste outside
the pennitted boundaries. Reply at 3. The People
argue that substantial evidence
was submitted at hearing corroborating the Board's earlier
finding
and that the Pruims knowingly continued to dump waste after Parcel B had reached
capacity.
Id.
The People reiterate that landfill capacity certification fonns and pennit
applications support the People's allegations
and respondents claims are "merely an attempt to
avoid an appropriate civil penalty." Reply at 3-4. Furthennore, the signatures of the Pruims on
the fonns and applications establish that the Pruims are responsible for the alleged violations.
Reply
at 4.
Board's Findings on Counts VII. VIII. IX. and X as Alleged Against the Pruims
The record establishes that the Pruims were signing landfill capacity certification fonns
that indicated
no space was left in the landfill and yet the landfill remained open accepting waste.
Mr. Pelnarsh may have been able to close the landfill for a day or so due to weather, but the
testimony establishes that only the Pruims could
decide to stop accepting waste at the landfill.
Thus, the Pruims were personally involved in signing reports that
no space was available, while
continuing
to accept waste at the landfill. The Board finds that the actions of the Pruims were
not merely those of a corporate officers, but that the Pruims were actively participating in acts
that resulted in the landfill being filled beyond the pennitted capacity. Therefore the Board finds
that the Pruims violated Sections 21(a), 21(d)(I) and 21(0)(9) of the Act (415 ILCS 5/21(a),
21(d)(1), and 21(0)(9) (2008» by allowing the placement of waste in the landfill above the
pennitted height of the landfill.
Count XIX (Closure Estimates)
The Board notes that on October 3,2002, the Board found that CLC violated Section
21(d)(2)
of the Act (415 ILCS 5/21(d)(2) (2008» and Section 807.623(a) of the Board's landfill
regulations
(35 Ill. Adm. Code 807.623) by failing to provide cost estimates. Count XIX alleges
that the Pruims violated Section 21(d)(2)
of the Act (415 ILCS 5/21(d)(2) (2008» and Section
807.623(a) of the Board's landfill regulation
(35 Ill. Adm. Code 807.623(a» because the Pruims
failed to provide a revised cost estimate. 04Comp. at 48-49. The Board will summarize the
parties' arguments and then make a finding
on this count.
People's Arguments
The People assert that the Pruims failed to cause the filing of the revised cost estimates
as only they had the authority to file the revised cost estimates. Br. at 29. The People argue that
the Pruims
are persons under the Act and they made all of the significant decisions related to
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 29, 2009
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PEOPLE OF THE STATE
OF ILLINOIS!
ex
reZ.
LISA MADIGAN! Attorney General of
the State of Illinois!
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff!
v.
PCB 03-191
(Enforcement - Land)
COMMUNITY LANDFILL CO,!
an Illinois
Corporation!
and the CITY OF MORRIS, an
Illinois Municipal Corporation"
Defendants.
AFFIDAVIT OF JESSE P. V ARSHO
I, Jesse P. Varsho, being first duly sworn on oath, do depose and state as follows:
1.
I am currently employed as the Head of Landfill Engineering for the St. Charles,
Illinois office
of Shaw Environmental, Inc. (Shaw), located at 1607 E. Main
Street,
St. Charles, Illinois 60174. Shaw is an international engineering and
consulting firm.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
I am a Professional Engineer and Geologist, with over eight years of experience in
the area
of geological, geotechnical and environmental engineering.
My practice focuses on the siting, permitting, construction/development/operation
and closure
of pollution control facilities (most notably landfills), as well as
remedial aspects of operation and closure of pollution control facilities, and I have
been involved in the siting, permitting, and due diligence review
of over twenty
(20) landfills across the country.
I was retained in December
of 2004 by the City of Morris to undertake a
comprehensive investigation and evaluation, on
an ongoing basis, of conditions at
the Morris Community Landfill.
In my role as Project Manager for the Morris Community Landfill ("the landfill"
or "the Site"), I was responsible
for supervising the review of the IEPA operating
record, which consisted
of thousands of pages of information.
Working under my supervision, other Shaw personnel (including other
professional engineers, professional geologist, geological engineers and other
licensed experts in the area
of solid waste management), performed numerous site
inspections, and, based upon those site inspections, developed work plans for the
characterization and evaluation
of site conditions and possible corrective action
measures.
EXHIBIT
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 29, 2009
7.
The effort by Shaw at the Site has entailed more than 1,000 man hours, and over
10,000 groundwater
and air monitoring tests have been performed over the past 4
years.
8.
Monthly monitoring of the permitted perimeter below-grade landfill gas probes
previously installed
on the landfill property by CLC began in June of 2005, to
determine whether below grade
gas migration is occurring at the Site. Readings
for landfill gas within perimeter below-grade landfill probes indicate that the
below-grade landfill
gas concentrations are not increasing.
9.
The majority of landfill surface scans taken since January 2007 did not detect
methane levels above 500 ppm background levels (i.e. the regulatory limit).
Surface scans that
did measure methane levels above 500 ppm background levels
during the original scan did not confirm the methane levels during the mandatory
re-sampling period, and therefore comply with the appropriate state regulations.
10.
Since the beginning of 2009, over 140 LEL measurements have been performed
and only one below-grade perimeter landfill probe has recorded a LEL (Lower
Explosive Limit) greater than 50% for methane. This is significant because the
LEL
is the percentage of methane within the air that could cause explosion and
thereby a potential threat
to human health and safety.
11.
Based upon Shaw's review of the IEPA regulatory file on this matter, field
inspections and investigations, numerous analytical and field test results, and my
professional knowledge and experience, it is my professional opinion that the
current conditions at the Morris Community Landfill
do not constitute a present,
and immediate or imminent and substantial or material threat
to human health or
the environment, and that conditions at the landfill can be more than adequately
addressed by the routine corrective action measures called for
by the state and
federal regulations governing the landfill in question.
12.
We are currently at work on the revised cost estimates and believe they can be
completed by mid-August. However, additional work is needed in order
to
develop the schedule of the required work for the closure and post-closure plans.
I estimate that Shaw can complete both tasks in not less than two months, or by
mid-September, although three
to four months would be much better for Shaw
which has other conflicts.
13.
Under penalties as provided by law pursuant to Section 1-109 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, the undersigned certifies that the statements set forth in this instrument
are true and correct, except
as to matters therein stated to be on information and
belief and
as to such matters the undersi ed certifies as aforesaid that he verily
believes the same
to be tru
Date
2
70608043vl 52944
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 29, 2009
EXHIBrr
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 31, 2 f
- .......
B-J.-..,-.--
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
ex
reI.
LISA MADIGAN, Attorney General of
the State of Illinois,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMUNITY LANDFILL CO., an Illinois
Corporation, and the
CITY OF MORRIS, an
Illinois
Municipal Corporation,
PCB 03.191
(Enforcement - Land)
Defendants.
AFFIDAVIT OF WARREN OLSON
I, Warren Olson, being first duly sworn on oath, do depose and state as follows:
J.
I am a project manager for Chamlin & Associates, Inc., and have been employed
in that capacity since 1985.
2.
Chamlin
&
Associates, [nc., has been the city engineer for the City of Morris
since approximately J 955.
3.
I am primarily responsible for engineering liaison to the City of Morris, and I am
familiar with the geography and appearance of the Morris Community Landfill
and surrounding property, including the adjacent property commonly referred to
as the "head-end" site. The head-end site is owned by the City of Morris, consists
of approximately 5 acres, and fonnerly housed equipment for an area cable
television service.
4.
On June 8, 2009, I was asked by Mayor Kopczick to detennine whether materials
depicted in photographs attached to the Affidavit of Mark Retzlaff had been
dumped within the landfill.
S.
On June 8, 2009, the Mayor and I walked the property adjacent to the parcel A,
known as the "head-end site."
6.
I initiated the assistance of my field crew to survey the head-end site detennine its
boundary line, and on June 9, 2009 and June JO, 2009, Chamlin field crews
worked at the site, locating and staking its comers.
7.
The survey
by
ChamJin field crews revealed that the material depicted in the
Retzlaff photographs was NOT located on parcel A, but was instead dumped on
the head-end site, well outside the boundary of landfill.
!..
EXHIBIT
~
~r:>
i
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 29, 2009
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 31, 2009
8.
I am aware that the City of Morris has initiated placement of a padlocked gateway
to block the access road to prevent future unauthorized dumping, as well as
erection of signage that warns would-be dumpers to keep out.
9.
To my knowledge. there have been no further incidents of
drive~by
dumping since
installation
of the padlocked gateway and signage.
10.
Under penalties as provided by law pursuant to Section ).109 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, the undersigned certitics that the statements set forth in this instrument
are true and correct,extept as to matters therein stated to
be
on infonnation and
belief
and as
to such
matters the undersigned
certifies as aforesaid that he verily
believes
the same lo
bcJ~
K.
Q",,----
Warren Olson
Dated: August ZS
n.I
,2009
2
71l6122J4vl 806289 52944
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 29, 2009
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PEOPLE
OF THE S"fATE OF ILLINOIS,
ex
rei.
LISA MADIGAN, Attorney General of
the State of Illinois,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMUNITY LANDFILL CO., an Illinois
Corporation,
and the CITY OF MORRIS, an
Illinois Municipal Corporation"
Defendants.
PCB
03-191
(Enforcement - Land)
AFFIDAVIT
OF RICHARD P. KOPCZICK
I, Richard P. Kopczick, certify as follows:
1.
I
am the Mayor of the City of Morris. I am aware that Mr. Retzlaff, the
State's inspector, has concluded that the City of Morris has continued to dump general
refuse as well as
sludge from the City of Morris water treatment plant in 2007 and 2009.
While I
do not and cannot dispute that there could have been general refuse and sludge
at the Community Landfill, I do dispute that it was from the City of Morris.
2.
Around 2005, the City of Morris bought a sludge filter press which was
activated in 2006. This machine presses liquid sludge and solidifies it into a semi-dry
product
that has the consistency of play dough ("Play Doh"). The City does not deposit
this
product at Corrununity Landfill, but at an unrelated landfill, the Environtech
Landfill. Thus,
Mr. Retzlaff's statements that the wastewater
liquid
sludge that he saw
in 2007 and April 2009 came from the City is incorrect. By the end of 2006, the sludge
from the City
of Morris treatment plant was already being pressed and deposited in
another landfill (Environtech Landfill).
~
EXHIBIT
~L
III
~
~
<
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 29, 2009
3.
I was made aware of Mr. Retzlaff's statement that there was sludge found
in April
2009. The City's investigation revealed that this sludge was not from the City
of Morris,
but from another community. I was told this by Community Landfill's
operator, James Pelnarsh, Sr., who told me that this sludge was from another city
but
not the City of Morris. I have been told that Mr. Retzlaff stated in an affidavit that Mr.
Pelnarsh told him that there was street sweepings and wastewater treatment sludge
coming from the City of Morris. I presume that this is a mistake, given the fact that the
City of Morris presses its sludge, so it
is not liquid, and I prohibited dumping in the
Community Landfill in October
2002.
It
may
be
that Mr. Retzlaff may have assumed
that when
Mr. Pelnarsh referred to a "City" that this meant the City of Morris.
However, I know that Mr. Pelnarsh told me that this was
not
from the City of Morris.
4.
The City of Morris currently uses the Environtech Landfill, not
Community Landfill, for all of its disposal needs. This includes street sweepings, which
are dumped at the Environtech Landfill at no extra cost to the City. The City has no
incentive or reason to use the Community Landfill for street sweepings.
5.
As Mayor, I have continued to enforce my written directive to all city
employees in my
Odober 7, 2002 memo. I have been told that this memo was filed with
the
PCB as exhibit E to the City's motion for reconsideration filed on July 22, 2009.
When claims have been made that the City was continuing to dump, I have investigated
and ordered that my directive be enforced. I do not spend 24 hours a day guarding the
Community Landfill,
but I have continued to prohibit use of the Community Landfill
2
6499734vl 806289 52944
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 29, 2009
by the
city
of Morris. However, I cannot control Mr. Pelnarsh or CLC, and I cannot
prevent
Mr. Pelnarsh from accepting waste from other cities and towns.
6.
Under penalties as provided by law pursuant to Section 1-109 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, the undersigned certifies that the statements set forth in this
in..,trument are true and correct, except as to matters therein stated to be on information
and belief and as to such matters the undersigned certifies as aforesaid that he verily
believes the same to be true.
Dated:
October~
2009
Mayor Richa a P. Kopczick
3
6499734vl 806289 52944
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 29, 2009