BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

RECEIVED

PEORIA DISPOSAL COMPANY

)@

~

OCT

0 5 2006

Petitioner,

C ,

STATE OF ILLINOi,

PCB 06-184

Pollution Control

Boa((

v.

)

(Pollution Control Facility Siting

Appeal)

PEORIA COUNTY BOARD,

)

Respondent .

)

RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR PARTIAL

SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Criterion v)

NOW COMES

Respondent, Peoria County Board, (hereinafter the "County

Board") by its attorneys, and as and for its Response in opposition to Petitioner's Motion

for Partial Summary Judgment (Criterion v), states as follows :

1 .

Paragraphs I through 9 of Petitioner's Motion for Partial Summary

Judgment are superfluous and require no response in light of Paragraph 10's statements .

2.

Respondent knows full well that the County Board, in formal action,

during a properly scheduled and noticed official meeting of the County Board on May 3,

2006, voted to deny PDC's application for local siting approval pursuant to detailed

findings of fact which were adopted after the vote .

3 .

Pursuant to the County Board's detailed findings of fact on Criterion v, it

is clear PDC did not unconditionally satisfy Criterion v .

4.

The Perpetual Care Fund to which PDC's motion is directed was

voluntarily introduced into and proposed during the proceedings before the County Board

by PDC and its representatives .

5 .

If PDC had, or could, unconditionally meet its evidentiary obligations

during the proceedings, there would have been no need for PDC to voluntarily offer the

Perpetual Care Fund and its associated per ton fee as part of its presentation.

6.

While PDC did not specifically agree to the $5.00 per ton charge

eventually approved by the County Board, its initial proposal was $0 .13 per ton and prior

to the County Board's vote had stated to the media, in an apparent attempt to sway the

County Board's vote, that it would agree to the $1 .50 per ton recommended by County

Staff, and later PDC proposed an annual fee of $281,250 per year over 12 years.

---

7.

To the extent a local siting authority is prohibited from imposing

additional fees or financial assurance requires, or care obligations beyond those imposed

by Illinois EPA's closure and post-closure care regulations, PDC waived any and all such

prohibitions or limitations by voluntarily proposing and agreeing to a special condition

creating the Perpetual Care Fund .

8.

There was sufficient evidence in the record for the Peoria County Board to

find that PDC had not satisfied Criterion v without the imposition of special conditions,

and in particular, the imposition of the Perpetual Care Fund and attendant per ton fee

.

9.

The Peoria County Board's decision was not against the manifest weight

of the evidence

.

WHEREFORE, Respondent, the Peoria County Board, respectfully prays that

this Board deny Petitioner's motion for Partial Summary Judgment

.

Respectfully submitted,

PEORIA COUNTY BOARD

David A. Brown

One of its attorneys

---

RECEIVEDCLERK'S

OFFICE

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

OCT 0 5 2005

PEORIA DISPOSAL COMPANY

STATE OF ILLINOIS

©~

Pollution Control Board

Petitioner,

PCB 06-184

v.

)

(Pollution Control Facility Siting

Appeal)

PEORIA COUNTY BOARD,

)

Respondent.

)

MEMORANDUM OF FACTS AND LAW

IN SUPPORT OF RESPONSE TO MOTION

FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Criterion v)

NOW COMES Respondent, Peoria County Board, (hereinafter "County Board")

by and through its attorneys, and as and for its Memorandum in support of its Response

to Petitioner's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on siting Criterion v, states as

follows :

INTRODUCTION

According to the opening paragraph of PDC's Motion for Partial Summary

Judgment concerning Criterion v, the Motion relates solely to the imposition of the $5

.00

per ton ($750,000 minimum per year) fee based upon the argument it was against the

manifest weight of the evidence

. PDC then goes on to make a number of additional

arguments concerning why it should not have to pay any fee for perpetual care of the

facility

. As will be demonstrated herein, the imposition of the special condition was not

against the manifest weight of the evidence, and while the $5

.00 per ton ($750,000

minimum per year) fee was not specifically agreed to by PDC, the "Perpetual Care Fund"

was initially proposed by PDC as a special condition during the proceedings, and a per

ton fee of $1 .50 ($225,000 minimum per year) was agreed to by PDC

. Subsequently, on

April 27, 2006, PDC filed with the County Clerk a "Response to Committee of the Whole

Vote" in which it offered to "pay $281,250 per year over 12 years in twelve annual

1

---

installments" into the Perpetual Care Fund

. See, "Response to Committee of the Whole

Vote (PDC)" (C12461-13522)

. As such, most, if not all, of PDC's arguments in its

motion should be deemed to have been waived or PDC should be estopped from making

them, and the motion should be denied

.

While the Board would never know it from PDC's motion or memorandum of

law, the Perpetual Care Fund was first inserted into the proceedings by PDC, not by the

County or any other person or participant in the hearings

. Why PDC offered to

voluntarily create a Perpetual Care Fund and contribute a per ton or annual fee into the

fund is readily apparently from the record of the proceedings

. During the course of the

proceedings, one of the primary arguments and/or concerns raised by opponents and

concerned citizens related to the longevity of the hazardous constituents in the wastes

PDC was proposing to deposit into an expanded landfill

.

The application asked for the siting of a hazardous waste landfill to accept many

different types, and large volumes, of wastes consisting largely of heavy metals

. As

stated by PDC's own expert during testimony at the hearings, those heavy metals are

stable and would be around for another millennia or more

. See, Dr. Daniels testimony

on February 23, 2006, at page 105 (C7483)

. In other words, those same hazardous

components of the waste that require the waste to be listed as hazardous and to be

handled and disposed of in specially designed landfills, would persist for hundreds if not

thousands of years after the post-closure care period had expired

. However, the plans

presented in PDC's application only provided for care and maintenance of the landfill for

30 years after it closed

. Therefore, a very real and serious concern was evolving during

the proceedings as to whether the plans of operation in PDC's application for expansion,

in fact, were protective of the health, safety and welfare of the public and the

environment

.

Furthermore, Peoria County's siting ordinance requires that all siting applications

include planning information for perpetual care of the proposed facility

. Peoria County

Code at 7 .5-38(e), (Exhibit "A" hereto)

. It is important to note the County's ordinance

does not require an applicant to pay for or set up a program for funding the perpetual care

of the facility

. Rather, it only requires that plans be included in the application . One

purpose of such a provision would be to allow the siting authority to fully understand and

2

---

evaluate the proposed plans for the facility, and the potential long-term financial impact

on the community after the landfill is closed

. PDC spent a significant amount of time

during the hearings discussing the economic benefits the community might enjoy if the

landfill expansion were approved

. However, neither the application nor PDC's

presentation provided any information about any costs to the community if the expansion

were approved

. The County's ordinance requiring information provides that balance of

information

. Another purpose of the ordinance would be to evaluate the applicant's

previous operating experience and ability to manage the proposed facility

. PDC's

application failed to contain any information relating to the planning for long-term care

and maintenance of the facility beyond the regulatory post-closure care

.

In an apparent last minute attempt to comply with the County's ordinance and to

address the public's growing concerns about what would happen with the landfill after

the 30 year post-closure care period ends, on February 27, 2006, on the record during the

course of the public hearing on its application, PDC voluntarily offered the Perpetual

Care Fund as a special condition

. Counsel for PDC stated as follows :

"Mr. Meginnes

: I think it would be our 8`h

proposed voluntary condition

by Peoria Disposal Company

. But basically based upon some of the testimony

and public comments regarding the question of what will happen

- I guess it's

really 48 years and one day form today, which is the period of time that we would

complete our operations at the facility and the 30 year post closure period would

expire -

what would happen at the facility and what provisions were made,

assuming the Illinois EPA released a closure fund to continue certain maintenance

and other activities at the facility

.

The more we thought about it, we thought that the concern should be

addressed. So what we are willing to

- what we are proposing as a voluntary

condition is that a Perpetual Care Fund be established

. And it would be funded by

a charge upon a per ton fee on the future disposal at the facility. And that money

will be set aside . . .

[and] would provide funds for perpetual care

.

[ . . .]

So we think that goes a long way towards addressing everybody's concern

in terms of the long-term care of that facility, in providing funds available to take

care of those costs

. "

Hearing Transcript from February 27, 2006, Public Hearing, pp 6-8 (C7778)

.

During the thirty (30) day public comment period following the public hearing,

significant amounts of information was provided into the public record for consideration

3

---

by the County Board

. Part of that documentation included submittals by Dr

. G. Fred Lee,

an apparent expert in the area of landfill design, maintenance and monitoring

. Part of the

materials submitted by Dr

. Lee included extensive discussions and information about the

need for long-term, or perpetual, care of the facility . See Dr. G

. Fred Lee Commonts on

Potential Impacts of the Peoria Disposal Company Landfill Expansion on Public Health,

Groundwater Quality and the Environment (C11964-11997)

.

After the close of the public comment period, Peoria County Staff presented its

reports to the subcommittee responsible for holding the public hearings

. See, Peoria

County Staff Report for Peoria Disposal Company Application for Local Siting Approval

(C12093-C12198), and the Supplemental Peoria County Staff Report for Peoria Disposal

Company Application for Local Siting Approval (Exhibit "B" hereto) . In the Staff

Reports, County Staff recommended increasing the per ton fee from $0

.13 per ton, to

$1

.50 per ton, with a minimum of $225,000 per year to be placed into the fund . The

reason for County Staff's recommendation relating to the increased funding is detailed in

the Staff Report, and is based upon the projected rates of inflation and rates of return over

the course of the proposed fund

. PDC stated that it would accept the special conditions

proposed in the Staff Reports

. See, April 4, 2006, Peoria Journal Star article (Exhibit "C"

hereto)

. In addition, on April 21, 2006, almost a month after the close of the public

comment period, PDC took matters one step further, and, as mentioned above, offered to

"pay $281,250 per year over 12 years in twelve annual installments" into its proposed

Perpetual Care Fund

.

By voluntarily proposing the Perpetual Care Fund to address "testimony" and

"public comments" PDC should be deemed to have waived all of the allegations and/or

arguments contained in its motion

. As demonstrated by PDC counsel's statement on the

record, the reason PDC voluntarily proposed the Perpetual Care Fund condition was the

presence of significant testimony and evidence in the record on which the County Board

could, and eventually did, conclude PDC's plans of operation were insufficient, in part,

because they failed to take into account the long-term care of the proposed facility . For

those reasons, PDC's motion must be denied

.

4

---

ARGUMENT

A.

PDC Voluntarily Offered Paying Additional Fees as Condition to

Approval and Thereby Waived its Arguments

.

One, if not the most prominent, of PDC's arguments is that the County lacks the

power to impose a fee as a condition for siting approval

. In support of its argument, PDC

cites the

Lake County v

. Illinois Pollution Control Board,

120 III.App .3d 89 (2"a Dist.

1983)

. In that case, the local siting authority attempted to unilaterally impose a $3

million bond requirement on the applicant for post-closure care related to the acceptance

of special wastes

. The Appellate Court held that the siting authority did hot have the

express authority to impose a financial responsibility obligation as a special condition to

siting approval

. It should be noted that the bond in that case was directly related to post-

closure care, an area which IEPA already regulates, and for which the applicant would

already have to meet regulatory financial assurance obligations

. In no way did the

Appellate Court state that any and all financial responsibility obligations voluntarily

proposed by an applicant as a special condition to siting and accepted by the siting

authority, during the course of the application review process would be improper or

beyond the authority of the sting authority .

By voluntarily proposing the special condition, PDC effectively waived, or should

be estopped from contesting, any limitation on authority to impose the perpetual care

fund and a per ton fee

. Waiver is a common principal which typically precludes a party

from raising on appeal an argument it failed to raise in the original proceedings

. See,

Fairview Area Citizens Taskforce v . PCB,

198 I11.App.3d 541, 545, 55 N .E.2d 1178,

1180-81 (3`d Dist. 1990)

. Not only did PDC fail to object to the Perpetual Care Fund

special condition and the imposition of a per ton fee to fund it, PDC was the one that

initially introduced the concepts into the proceedings

. Any other conclusion other than

PDC waived its present argument would allow an applicant, such as PDC did in this case,

to volunteer a special condition and then after the siting authority acted on the application

in reliance on the voluntary special condition, seek to eliminate the condition as part of an

appeal .

Allowing an applicant to play such "games" would significantly undermine the

integrity of the local siting process and result in insurmountable prejudice to the local

5

---

siting authority and all other participants in the siting process

. Once a voluntary

condition is offered by the applicant, both the siting authority and any opponents or

concerned citizens reasonably assume any issues resolved by the voluntary special

condition(s) no longer need to be addressed

. As a result, the local siting authority would

not need to make special findings of fact or impose any additional special conditions for

the issue resolved, or proposed to be resolved, by the voluntarily proposed special

condition

. Likewise, any opponents would reasonable assume the issue addressed by the

voluntarily proposed special condition no longer needs to be addressed, and would likely

cease asking questions about that issue or stop presenting evidence concerning the issue

.

Another of PDC's arguments is that somehow PDC's voluntarily proposed special

condition "usurps" Illinois EPA authority

. According to PDC's argument, Illinois EPA

has exclusive responsibility for establishing requirements relating to post-closure care,

that it is already required to post financial assurance for its post-closure care obligations,

and as a result the County cannot require PDC to create a fund for care and maintenance

of the facility after the post-closure care period established by IEPA

. As clearly

demonstrated at the hearings, the regulatory scheme for hazardous waste landfills fails to

make any provision for maintenance and care of a facility after the mandatory 30 year

post-closure care period

. However, the heavy metal wastes which PDC has disposed of

at the facility, and proposed to dispose of at the expanded facility, by the testimony of

their own expert . Dr

. Daniels, will persist for thousands of years

. It is hard to imagine

how it can be said IEPA has such an extensive regulatory scheme as to preempt all other

regulation of what can and should be done with hazardous waste landfills after the close

of the regulatory 30 year post-closure care when IEPA has done nothing in that area

.

Furthermore, the siting statute authorizes local siting authorities to impose special

conditions on siting approval so long as the conditions are not inconsistent with IEPA's

regulatory scheme

. The Perpetual Care Fund, the per ton fee, and the associated "escrow

agreement" voluntarily proposed by PDC at the public hearings, are not inconsistent with

IEPA's regulatory scheme

. PDC's proposal called for a program whereby the perpetual

care would not start until after the end of the regulatory post-closure care period

.

Therefore, the timing of the care and the use of the funds would not overlap with or

conflict with IEPA's closure and/or post-closure care requirements

. Likewise, the

6

---

voluntarily proposed special condition was not in lieu of, or in replacement of some IEPA

requirement, rather it was offered as a supplement to the regulatory scheme

.

It cannot be emphasized enough that the concept of a Perpetual Care Fund and

associated fees comes from PDC

. According to PDC's attorney, the reason they were

offering the perpetual care fund was to address "evidence" and "concerns" which were

coming out during the public hearing

. As a result, PDC should be deemed to have

waived, or be estopped from presenting, its arguments concerning usurping agency

authority and/or authority of the County Board to impose an additional fee

. In no event

should PDC be allowed to now withdraw its voluntary proposal create the Perpetual Care

Fund and associated fees .

B.

Fee Condition Voluntarily Proposed by Applicant is Not an Attempt

By County to Require Demonstration of Financial Responsibility

PDC argues that even if the County can impose fees as part of the siting process,

it cannot delve into the area of financial responsibility

. In support of its argument, once

again PDC sites to the

Lake County v

. Illinois Pollution Control Board

decision . As

more fully discussed above, that decision is not controlling because it did not deal with

special conditions voluntarily imposed by the applicant

.

As is clear from the proceedings, the issue of long-term care and maintenance of

the facility was not viewed as part of PDC's financial assurance obligations

. PDC's

financial assurance information is contained in section 2

.7 .7 of its application which

purportedly deals with criterion ii

. When the County Board dealt with the concept of

long-term care of the facility, it did not view it as part of financial responsibility, but

instead placed it rightfully in the context of a plan of operations under Criterion v

.

PDC's own witness, Ron Edwards, said during cross examination, that PDC would still

have to "manage the property" after the post closure care period ended

. Hearing

Transcript from February 22, 2006, Public Hearing, at p

. 159 (C7399) . Dr

. Daniels

testified that the maintenance and monitoring of the facility was extremely important

.

Hearing Transcript from February 23, 2006, Public Hearing, at pp

. 84-85 (C7478)

. He

also said "[t]here is no change in importance of monitoring over time

." Id ., (7468, 7478)

.

7

---

The application contained no information or plan of operation for how the

property would be managed after the regulatory period ended, until PDC volunteered the

concept of perpetual care, and provided the County Board with a list of the types of

activities which would take place and estimates of the costs

. There is little or no dispute

that after the post-closure care period ends, PDC would still be responsible for the

maintenance and care of the property, assuming PDC still owns the property

. The

concept of perpetual care and the perpetual care fund goes directly to, as PDC's Ron

Edwards said, the "management" of the property, and not the financial assurance

obligations for closure and post-closure care

. As stated in PDC's "Response to

Committee of the Whole Vote"

:

11

'

. .

PDC and the County Staff propose a perpetual care fund which will

significantly impact the natural processes described above

. From a functional

perspective, the two most important aspect of the perpetual care fund are the

continued removal of leachate and ongoing maintenance of the final cover

. The

continued removal of leachate means there is nothing to escape from the site

. The

ongoing maintenance of the final cover is, however, even more important

. That

final cover guarantees that the waste will remain dry

. . . . Because a final cover

system is at the ground surface and readily accessible for maintenance and repair,

the only limitation on maintaining the integrity of a final cover system is the

availability of funds with which to pay for the ongoing maintenance and repair

.

The perpetual care fund proposed at this site remove the limitation permanently

Response to Committee of the Whole Vote (C13475-13476)

.

Even if the Board were to accept PDC's argument that the perpetual care fund

voluntarily proposed by PDC is some form of financial assurance, the Board should find

that PDC has waived that argument, or should be estopped from arguing it

. For PDC to

argue now that the County Board should not have considered financial responsibility is

disingenuous

. In the proceedings before the County Board, PDC regularly brought up the

issue of financial responsibility

. PDC included a section in its application that deals

specifically and exclusively with financial responsibility

. See section 2 .7.7. PDC's

witnesses discussed financial responsibility during direct testimony

. Hearing Transcripts,

February 21, 2006, Public Hearing, Testimony of George Armstrong p

.228-229 (C7324) ;

Hearing Transcripts, February 22, 2006, Public Hearing, Testimony of George Armstrong

p. 12 at line 20 (C7362)

. If the local siting authority was not permitted to even consider

8

---

financial responsibility, why would the applicant include such information in its

application and have its witnesses spend time discussing it during their case in chief

.

PDC encouraged the County Board to consider financial assurance, and should not be

allowed now to argue that a special condition which PDC itself proposed is some type of

financial assurance which the County Board could not consider

.

C.

There Were and Are Material Issues of Fact as to Whether

PDC Satisfied Criterion v

According to Pollution Control Board Rules, if the record, including pleadings,

depositions and admissions on file, together with affidavits, show there is no genuine

issue of material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law,

the Board will enter summary judgment

. Title 35, Subtitle A, Chapter I, Section 101

.516.

According to prior Board decisions

:

"When reviewing a local decision on the nine statutory criteria, this Board

must determine whether the local decision is against the manifest weight of the

evidence

. [citations omitted] A decision is against the manifest weight of the

evidence if the opposite result is clearly evident, plain, or indisputable from a

review of the evidence. [citation omitted]

.

This Board, on review, may not reweigh the evidence on the nine criteria

.

Where there is conflicting evidence, the Board is not free to reverse merely

because the lower tribunal credits one group of witnesses and does not credit the

other .

Fairview Area Citizens Taskforce v

. PCB, 198 III.App.3d

541, 550, 555

N.E.2d 1178, 1184 (3rd

Dist. 1990) ; Tate v. PCB,

188 I11.App.3d 994, 1022, 544

N.E.2d 1176, 1195 (4`

h Dist. 1989) ;

Waste Management of Illinois, Inc

. v. PCB,

187 IllApp

.3d 79, 82, 543 N .E.2d 505, 507 (2"d

Dist. 1989) . Because the local

government could have drawn different inferences and conclusions from

conflicting testimony is not a basis for this Board to reverse the local

government's findings .

File v . D & L. Landfill, Inc .,

PCB 90-94 (Aug. 30, 1990),

aff d, 219 II1.App.3d

897, 579 N .E. 1228 (5`h

Dist. 1991) ."

Rochelle Waste Disposal, L

.L.C. v

. City Council of the City of Rochelle,

PCB 03-218

(April 15, 2004) .

PDC's motion for partial summary judgment does not reference any depositions,

admissions on file, or affidavits

. Therefore, it must be relying entirely upon the record in

these proceedings

. The record, taken as a whole, and as argued above, clearly reveals

9

---

evidence upon which the County Board could, and did, base its decision

. Thus, at a

minimum, issues of material fact do exist regarding whether Criterion v was met or not

.

There is evidence in the record that the leachate removal from the manhole sumps was

inadequate, that there was a lack of monitoring of storm water discharges, and that there

was a lack of information or adequate planning for coordinating emergency response with

local agencies responsible for emergency response activities for both the landfill and

residential neighborhoods, some of which were within 300 feet of the landfill property

.

The County Board's detailed findings of fact, which are set forth in PDC's motion,

clearly articulate these deficiencies, and PDC apparently does not contest those findings

or those special conditions

.

PDC argues that the special condition to approval of Criterion v relating solely to the

$5

.00 per ton fee for the perpetual care fund is not appropriate because PDC now believes

it has demonstrated compliance with Criterion v without the need for any special

conditions

. If PDC were correct, and, in fact, it had demonstrated compliance with

Criterion v.,

then PDC could take it's argument one step further and say that no special

conditions of any kind to approval of Criterion v were appropriate

. The problem with

that argument, and no doubt the reason PDC did not make it, is because PDC also offered

during the course of the proceedings other voluntary special conditions relating directly

to Criterion v

. For instance, PDC offered, among others conditions :

1

. to not construct a rail spur into the facility to bring waste in by rail

;

2

. to implement an ambient air monitoring program at the facility ;

3

. to not ask for any further vertical or horizontal expansions of the facility after the

present siting application ;

4

. to remove the surface impoundment presently used for storage of leachate

; and

5

. to install secondary containment in the leachate collection sumps

.

Hearing Transcripts, February 21, 2006, Public Hearing, pp

. 25-29 (C7273-C7274)

. All

of the foregoing special conditions voluntarily offered by PDC relate either directly or

indirectly to plans of operations at the facility

. And, just like with the Perpetual Care

Fund, PDC would have a difficult time arguing against those special conditions because it

10

---

either voluntarily proposed those special conditions or agreed to them during the course

of the proceedings

. Yet, if PDC's argument is correct, no special conditions of any kind

to Criterion v would be appropriate

.

Furthermore, to allow PDC to offer certain special conditions as part of a siting

application process, and then to try to withdraw them or have them thrown out after the

close of the proceedings is fundamentally unfair and should not be permitted or tolerated

by the Board

. If an applicant were allowed to do so, it could offer numerous, voluntary

special conditions as the beginning of a siting hearing, such as PDC did, and thereby

discourage or avoid testimony and evidence which might otherwise indicate the special

conditions were necessary

. In other words, the siting authority, opponents and concerned

citizens, relying upon the voluntarily offered special conditions by the applicant, would

believe it is no longer necessary to ask questions, provide testimony, and submit evidence

and/or comment on issues that are apparently resolved by the applicant's voluntarily

imposed special conditions

. To then allow the applicant to, in essence, pull the rug out

from underneath the local siting process, would be unfair and contrary to the purposes of

local siting

.

As set forth in prior sections of this Response, there was ample evidence in the

record at the public hearings concerning the care and management of the facility, and

what would take place after the period of post-closure care ended

. PDC's own experts

raised the issues during their testimony at the public hearing

. In addition, the expert

reports submitted into the record by opponents after the public hearing during the 30 day

comment period, clearly articulated the concerns identified by PDC's counsel concerning

the long term care of the facility

. It is not for the Board to "reweigh" the evidence or

reallocate the County Board's credit of certain witnesses over others

. There are clearly

facts in the record on which the County Board could reasonably conclude the Perpetual

Care Fund voluntarily offered by PDC during the course of the proceedings was

reasonable and necessary

. Certainly, the decision was not against the manifest weight of

the evidence .

At best, PDC's position can be read to mean the voluntarily imposed perpetual

care fund special condition is acceptable, but that PDC object to the $5

.00 per ton

(minimum $750,000 per year) which PDC did not agree to but which the County Board

11

---

found to be appropriate .

If that is the case, at a minimum, the Board should still allow

or require imposition of the voluntarily proposed special condition, but at the amount

contained in PDC's "Compromise" which was a minimum of $281,250 per year for

twelve (12) years in equal annual installments, or at the $1

.50 per ton with minimum

$225,000 contained in the Staff Report, which PDC stated they would accept

.

PDC's argument that the County Board is required to accept uncontradicted and

unrebutted expert testimony, while interesting, has no bearing in this motion

. As

demonstrated in the County Board's findings of fact, as well as PDC's tacit admission by

voluntarily proposing special conditions with relate directly to Criterion v, the application

did not satisfy Criterion v on its own or with the testimony of its experts

. Furthermore,

PDC's own expert testimony raised the concerns and issues regarding management of the

facility after post-closure care ends, and the longevity of the hazardous constituents in the

waste

. Finally, there was evidence submitted into the public record from the opposition

groups which contradicted some or much of PDC's expert testimony

. The opponents to

the application pointed out a general lack of coordination of plans with local officials,

including schools and County emergency responders

. Likewise, the opponents' expert,

G

. Fred Lee, submitted materials into the record demonstrating the need for long term

care and maintenance of the facility .

While many of the concerns raised during the proceedings might not be relevant

to a regular solid waste landfill siting application, the siting of a hazardous waste landfill

within three hundred feet (300) of high density residential housing increases these types

of concerns substantially

. Likewise, the fact, as discussed above, that the types of

hazardous wastes proposed to be disposed of at the facility would maintain their

hazardous constituents for hundred, if not thousands, of years demonstrates the need to

long term care and maintenance of the cap so as to prevent spills or accidental releases

from the facility which would jeopardize the health and safety of the environment and

surrounding residents

. PDC's own experts recognized the need for preserving the

integrity of the cap for years into the future

.

It appears PDC is arguing that if it presents expert testimony, and there is no

expert testimony at the public hearing directly rebutting PDC's experts, the County Board

must accept the testimony of PDC's experts, even if there is other evidence, albeit non-

12

---

expert testimony evidence, in the record contradicting the applicant's expert testimony

.

If the Board accepts PDC's argument, then many, if not most, concerned citizens will be

effectively precluded from having any input into the local siting process

. PDC took over

two (2) years to develop its application for local siting after entering into a Host

Community Agreement with the County, while the local concerned citizens had roughly

90 days to get organized, become informed about hazardous waste landfills and

regulation, and attempt to gather evidence, including expert testimony and input

. The

costs and expenses in terms of time and resources on local concerned citizens are

immense

. To require them to present expert testimony on every issue in the siting

application would effectively eliminate any ability of concerned citizens to participate in

the local siting process, and should be rejected by the Board

.

D.

The Perpetual Care Fund has Everything to Do

With Criterion

v.

PDC's argument that the Perpetual Care Fund bears no relation, whatsoever to

Criterion v is without merit

. PDC was required to demonstrate to the County Board that

it had plans for operating the facility to minimize the danger to surround area from fire,

spills and other operational accidents so as to protect the public

. Releases from the

facility would most certainly present danger to the surrounding area

. PDC's application

had no plans for how it would, in Ron Edwards's words, "manage" the facility after the

period of post-closure care, until it voluntarily proposed the Perpetual Care Fund

. The

perpetual care fund is nothing more than a plan of how PDC will operate the facility,

albeit some time in the future

. That plan is to address real concerns raised by opponents,

concerned citizens, County Board members, and even PDC's own witnesses about how

the integrity of the final cap would be maintained so as to preserve the so-called "dry

tomb" design

. Without maintaining the integrity of the cap, the risk of release of

hazardous waste constituents into the surrounding area, including the groundwater, would

be greatly increased

.

The concept that the long term care and maintenance of the facility is not related

solely to PDC's financial assurance obligations can be found in Peoria County's Pollution

Control Facilities siting ordinance

. See, Chapter 7

.5 Article II of the Peoria County Code

13

---

of Ordinances . Section 7

.5-33 requires the application to provide background

information relating to the applicant, including subsections 7 .5-33(7)(c) and (d) which

collectively require details of planning for perpetual care of other hazardous waste

disposal facilities the applicant has previously closed . Peoria County Ordinance 7.5-

33(7)(c) and (d).

According to the heading of this provision of the ordinance, it relates

directly to the background of the applicant . Furthermore, section 7 .5-38(e) requires the

applicant to provide financial planning information and technical information relevant to

the perpetual care of the facility after closing . The heading of this section is

"contingency plan", and the section deals primarily with emergency planning and

insuring against risk to surrounding properties and persons . Pursuant to Section 39 .2 of

the Environmental Protection Act, Peoria County is specifically given the authority to

consider evidence of previous operating experience when considering Criterion v . 415

ILCS 5/39.2(a) . As a result, Peoria County's siting ordinance clearly shows perpetual

care is related directly to Criterion v

.

CONCLUSION

PDC, recognizing it had failed to adequately set forth plans for the maintenance

and care of the facility, voluntarily proposed numerous special conditions during the

public hearings, including a proposed Perpetual Care Fund and associated fee . By

voluntarily proposing the special condition, PDC waived its arguments that the County

could not impose such a special condition for siting approval . PDC's voluntary proposal

of the perpetual care fund is tacit recognition by PDC that it had failed to meet its burden

of proof with regard to Criterion v, and that a special condition was necessary and

appropriate . The imposition of the special condition is logically related to Criterion v,

and PDC should not now be allowed to change its position in that regard . The motion for

partial summary judgment should be denied .

If the Board views PDC's motion as well taken with regard to the argument there

is no evidence to support the need for a charge of $5 .00 per ton, the Board should still, at

a minimum, allow the special condition to remain with either the $281,250 per year

14

---

offered by PDC is its "Compromise" or at the Staff recommended, and PDC accepted,

$1

.50 per ton fee with a minimum annual amount of $225,000

.

WHEREFORE, Respondent, Peoria County Board, respectfully prays that the

Board deny Petitioner's motion for partial summary judgment

.

Black, Black & Brown

Attorneys at Law

101 S

. Main Street

P.O

. Box 381

Morton, IL 61550

Phone

: (309) 266-9680

Fax : (309) 266-8301

Respectfully submitted,

PEORIA COUNTY

rte.

BOARD

Byr-~ /

David A . Brown

One of its attorneys

15

---

EXHIBIT "A"

PEORIA COUNTY CODE AT

7.5-38(e)

---

Chapter 7 .5

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Art.

I. In General, §§ 7.5.1-7.5.15

Art.

II. Pollution Control Facilities, §§ 7.5-16-7.5-60

Div. 1. Generally, §§ 7 .5-16-7.5-30

Div. 2. Site Hearings, §§ 7 .5-31-7.5-60

Art.

III.

Erosion, Sediment and Stormwater Control, §§ 7.5-61-7.5-72

ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL

Sees

. 7.5-1-7 .5-15

. Reserved.

ARTICLE II. POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITIES

DIVISION 1

. GENERALLY

Sees. 7.5-16-7.5-30

. Reserved

.

DIVISION 2. SITE HEARINGS*

. Sec. 7.5-31 . Definitions.

The terms used in these rules and regulations (this division] shall have the same mean-

ings as the same terms defined in the Environmental Protection Act of the State of Illinois, in

effect as of the date hereof and as said act maybe amended or modified from time to time

.

(Res. of 2-14-84, § 1)

Sec. 7.5-32. Application .

(a) Thirty-five (35) copies (plus one each additional copy for municipality within one and

one-half (11/2) miles of the site location) of the application and all exhibits thereto shall be filed

with the county clerk.

*Editor's note-Res . of Feb. 14, 1984, §§ 1-19, did not specifically amend the Code,

hence

20 and

inclusion

21, providing

herein

the

as Diveffective

. 2, §§ 7.5-31-7date

and

.5-49,

initial

was at

appointments

the discretion

have

of the

been

editoromitted

. Sectionsfrom

codification .

disposal

11-1Ch

.

;

Cross

24motor

.

systems,

references-Administration,

vehicles

Chand

. 19traffic,

; subdivisions,

Ch . 15

;

Chplanning

Ch

. 20

.

;

2 ;

water

garbage

and development,

supply

and

and

trash,

water

ChCh.

wells,

17

.

;

11sewers

; disposal

Ch

.

and

23;

sites,

zoning,sewage§

Supp

.No .21

423

EXHIBIT "A"

---

§ 7 .5-32

PEORIA COUNTY CODE

(b) The application shall be typed on paper eight (8) inches by eleven (11) inches in size

and shall be securely bound in the left hand margin with a type of binding which allows the

document to lie flat when opened .

(c) The application shall contain the information specified in sections 7

.5-31 through

7 .5-46 hereof

.

(d) The application shall be signed by the applicant or if the application is filed by a

corporation, it shall be signed by its principal executive officer .

(e) The face sheet of the application shall contain only the following information

:

(1) A statement that it is an application for approval of a site for a new regional pollution

control facility ;

(2) A statement indicating whether it is an application for a waste, hazardous waste or

special waste storage site, sanitary landfill, waste, hazardous waste or special waste

disposal site, waste, hazardous waste or special waste transfer station or waste, haz-

ardous waste or special waste incinerator, or any combination thereof ;

(3) The name of the applicant ;

(4) The principal business address and telephone number of the applicant

; and

(5) The name, address, telephone number and title of the person designated by the ap-

plicant as its agent for service of notices

.

(p The application shall be sworn under oath by the applicant, or if a corporation, the

principal executive officer thereof, which shall state that the person signing said application

has read the application, that he knows the contents thereof and that each statement made

therein is true in substance and in fact

.

(g) If any portion of the application or exhibits is prepared by anyone other than the

applicant, the name, address and telephone number of any such person should be clearly

shown together with an indication of the portion prepared by said person

.

(h) The application shall contain a list of the names, addresses and telephone numbers of

all persons who will testify in support of the application together with a summary of their

proposed testimony unless written testimony is filed

.

(i) If the applicant proposes to use written testimony, copies thereof shall be filed with the

application .

(j) The application shall contain the names and addresses and a complete list of the

qualifications of all persons who conducted tests, borings, surveys, examinations, experiments,

or produced any information or rendered any opinion which is included within the application .

(Res . of 2.14-84,

§ 2 ; Amend . of 3-9-93)

Sec . 7.5-33 .

Background of applicant .

The application shall contain the following information concerning the applicant

:

(1) Applicant's full name, addresses and telephone number, if a partnership, the names

and addresses of all partners and the telephone number of the partnership

. If a

Supp.No.21

424

EXHIBIT "A"

---

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

corporation, the names and addresses of all officers and directors, and the names and

addresses of all shareholders owning seven and one-half (7V2) percent or more of the

capital stock of said corporation and the telephone number of the corporation

.

(2) If the applicant is a corporation copies of the current articles of incorporation thereof

shall accompany the application as an exhibit . If applicant is a corporation and more

than seven and one-half (7.5) percent of its capital stock is owned by another

corporation, either directly or derivatively, then the requirements of this part shall be

applicable to said other corporation or corporations also .

(3) Unless otherwise agreed between the County of Peoria and the applicant in a host

community agreement, attached to the application shall be a copy of the balance sheet

of the applicant as of the end of the last five (5) years preceding the filing and a copy

of the profit and loss statement of the applicant for each of the five (5) years preceding

the filing . Each balance sheet and profit and loss statement shall be certified to by a

certified public accountant in the usual form of said certification

.

(4)

The application shall contain a listing of any lawsuits or court proceedings

or

administrative proceedings in which any person or entity named in subsections (1) and

(2) of this part has been a party during the five (5) years preceding the filing of this

application . With respect to each such listing, the court or agency shall be identified

and the number of such case, and a brief summary of the nature of each and the

decision thereon shall be provided .

(5)

With respect to each individual named in subsection (1) of this part, the application

shall contain a statement of his respective prior employment history for the five (5)

years preceding the filing of this application

.

(6)

A statement detailing the prior experience of the applicant and of any officer and

employee of the applicant in the activity in which the applicant intends to be engaged

if the application is approved .

(7) If the applicant has previously closed any facility defined as a hazardous waste

disposal site, a regional pollution control facility, a sanitary landfill, a storage site or

a waste disposal site, either voluntarily or involuntarily, the applicant shall provide

the following information :

(a)

The name and location of the facility which was closed ;

(b) The date on which the process of closing started and ended ;

(c) The details of the plan for closing such facility. If the applicant had not previously

prepared a detailed plan for closing, then such fact should also be supplied in the

application ;

(d) The details mentioned in (7)(c) above should include information as to the

financial planning, engineering planning, and those items listed under section

7

.5-38 paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of these rules and regulations, [this division]

and the planning for perpetual care ;

Supp. No . 28

425

§ 7.5-33

---

§ 7.5-33

PEORIA COUNTY CODE

(e) If closing of any facility has been completed to any degree, the applicant should

indicate whether the stated plan has been followed; describe any deviations from

the plan ; and discuss any problems encountered . Describe how the problems were

handled ; and, describe the presently existing arrangements for perpetual care

. If

the closing has been completed to any degree, and no plan had been prepared

prior to the initiation of the closing process, the applicant should describe what

procedures have been used to date in the closing process, and any problems

encountered . Describe how the problems were handled

; and, describe any

presently existing plans for continuation of the closing and the presently existing

arrangement for perpetual care;

(f) The terms of this subsection shall apply to facilities which were closed when the

applicant was the owner or operator of said facility, and also to facilities which

were owned or operated by a corporation or partnership of which the applicant

was owner of more than seven and one-half (71) percent of the ownership

interest of said corporation or partnership . If the applicant is a corporation or a

partnership, this subsection shall also apply to anyone owning more than a seven

and one-half (71) percent interest in the applicant .

(Res

. of 2-14-84, § 3 ; Amend . of 3-9-93 ; Ord . of 10-9-03, § 1)

See . 7.5-34

. Site.

(a) The application shall contain a legal description of the proposed site .

(b) The application shall set forth the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of the

owners of the site, if other than the applicant . If the site is owned by a trust, the names,

addresses and telephone numbers of all of the beneficiaries shall be set forth and a copy of the

trust agreement shall be attached to the application as an exhibit . If the site is owned by a

corporation or partnership, all of the information required by the paragraphs of section 7 .5-33

shall be furnished in the application as to the owning corporation or partnership

. If the site is

not owned by the applicant, the application shall describe all documents giving the applicant

the right to use the site for the purposes listed in the application and the applicant shall attach

copies of all said documents to the application as exhibits

.

(c) There shall be filed with the application a map or maps, prepared and certified by a

registered land surveyor, or licensed professional engineer, of sufficient size, which shall show :

(1)

(2)

The location of the site ;

The location and depths of all water wells within one and one-half (1 1/2) miles of the

boundaries of the proposed site in each direction

;

(3)

The location of all streams, ponds, rivers and lakes within a five-mile radius of the site ;

(4)

The land use of all lands within a one and one-half-mile radius of the site ;

(5)

The location of all roads and bridges within a five-mile radius of the site ; and

Supp .No .28

426

EXHIBIT "A"

---

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

§ 7 .5-34

(6) The location of all buildings within fifteen hundred (1,500) feet of the proposed site and

the use of each .

(d) There shall be filed with the application a complete hydrologic study of the site,

including :

(e) Unless otherwise agreed between the County of Peoria and the applicant in a host

community agreement, there shall be filed with the application as exhibits copies of all other

applications filed with respect to said site with any state or federal agency and copies of any

responses thereto from said agencies .

(f) The applications shall contain a statement of the estimated volume of waste, hazardous

waste and special waste the applicant intends to receive at the site during each of the first five

(5) years of its operation expressed in gallons for liquid material and pounds for solid material

.

(g) The application shall state whether any surface or subsurface mining has ever been

done on the site or within five (5) miles of the perimeter of the site

. If any such mining has ever

been done, the type of mining shall be fully described including an identification of the product

Supp . No. 28

427

EXHIBIT "A"

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

A description of the general geography of the area ;

A summary of the hydrologic conditions typical of that portion of Illinois

;

A complete log of each boring made during the exploratory program

;

If bedrock was encouraged during said boring program, the following information

should be provided :

a.

b .

c.

Depth(s) to bedrock

;

Physical character and hydrological characteristics of the bedrock formation

;

Names and ages of the formations encountered during the boring operation

and/or which crop out on or adjacent to the site .

(5) The following information shall be provided for samples taken during the boring

operation

:

a.

b .

c .

d.

Textural classification (USDA system) ;

Particle size distribution for representative samples ;

Coefficient of permeability based on filed or laboratory determinations

;

Ion-exchange capacity and ability to absorb and "fix" heavy metal ions

.

(6)

The following information regarding the hydrologic flow system shall be provided

:

(7)

a.

b.

Depth to water in boreholes at time of boring completion and periodic measure-

ments until the water level has stabilized ;

Rate and direction of groundwater movement .

If the facility will be located within a regulated recharge area, the applicant shall

confirm that any applicable requirements specified by the Illinois Pollution Control

Board for such areas have been met .

---

§ 7.5-34

PEORIA COUNTY CODE

removed, the approximate quantity of product and soil removed, the depth from which removal

was made, the time when the mining was done and a legal description of the land which was

mined .

(h) The application shall state whether any other activity has ever taken place on the site

which disturbed the natural condition of the soil, such as grading . If any such activity has ever

taken place, the type of activity shall be fully described, including the depth to which soil was

disturbed, the purpose of the activity, the time when the activity was done and a legal

description of the land which was disturbed from its natural state .

(i) The application shall state the zoning classifications of the proposed site and shall

contain a map drawn to scale of all zoning classifications within one mile of the boundary of

the site .

(Res

. of 2-14-84, § 4 ; Amend . of 3-9-93 ; Amend. of 10-11-94 ; Ord . of 10-9-03, §§ 2, 3)

Sec . 7.5-35 . Proposed service area .

(a) The application shall define the geographic area that the proposed facility is intended to

serve .

(b) There should be included either in the body of the application or in an exhibit filed

therewith a complete listing of all producers of waste within the proposed service area from

whom the applicant intends to or may receive waste, identifying in each case the kind of waste

produced ; and designating in each case whether the waste is hazardous waste, garbage,

industrial process waste, municipal waste, pollution control waste, refuse, or potentially

infectious medical waste.

(c) The application shall identify the location of each existing regional pollution control

facility within the area proposed to be served, and within one hundred (100) miles of the

perimeter of said area, and with respect to each such facility, the application shall provide the

following

:

(1) The size thereof;

(2) The owner and operator thereof ;

(3) The kind of pollution control facility ;

(4) The capacity thereof;

(5)

The kinds of waste received at each such facility .

(d) There shall be filed with the application an analysis of the market for the disposal of the

types of waste anticipated at the proposed facility. This analysis shall set forth the reasons and

facts supporting the applicant's assertion that the proposed facility is necessary to accommo-

date the waste disposal needs of the area it is intended to serve .

(e) There shall be filed with the application complete plans, drawing, designs and

specifications of all improvements, machinery and equipment proposed to be constructed or

installed upon the site .

Supp . No . 28

428

EXHIBIT "A"

---

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

§ 7.5-35

(f) There shall be filed with the application a complete description of the procedures,

processes, methods and construction which will be utilized to prevent

spills or entry of

contaminants into the environment .

(1) If manufactured materials or chemical compounds are to be utilized in any way under

this section, those manufactured materials and/or chemical compounds

shall be

sufficiently described so as to show :

a. The manufacturer thereof;

b. The manufacturer's specifications therefore ;

c.

If a chemical compound, the effect that the wastes proposed to be received would

have thereon, and the combustibility thereof

.

(g) There shall be filed with the application an operations manual showing complete and

detailed operating procedures .

(h) The application shall contain a list of all wastes to be received on the site and the

chemical composition of each . The potential of each waste to interact chemically or otherwise

with each of the other listed wastes shall be described

. The method to be used to control or

prevent such interaction if desirable shall be fully described .

(i) If the application is for approval of the site for waste storage or as a sanitary landfill, the

following information shall be provided :

(1) The period of time during which it is proposed that the site will be used for such

purpose;

(2)

A complete description of the procedures which the applicant will follow upon

termination to assure that there will be no danger to the public health and safety

.

Q) If the application is for a storage site of waste, hazardous waste or special waste, the

applicant shall state in detail how each type of stored waste will be disposed of ; and,

(1)

How the wastes will be stored;

(2)

If the waste is to be stored in containers, designate the kinds of containers and the

manner in which they will be stored .

(k) If the application is for approval of the site as a waste, hazardous waste or special waste

transfer station, the application shall state :

(1) The period of time that the average shipment of waste will be on the site, and the

maximum time that any particular waste will be permitted to remain at the site

;

(2) The identity and location of the facility to which it will be transferred from the

proposed site ;

(3) If the facility to which the transfer will be made is already in existence, there shall be

filed with the application copies of all governmental permits issued for that facility

;

(4)

If the facility to which the transfer will be made is not already in existence,

the

applicant shall so state .

Supp . No . 28

429

EXHIBIT "A"

---

§ 7 .5-35

PEORIA COUNTY CODE

(1) If the site is proposed to be used for incineration, the following exhibits shall be filed with

the application:

(1) Complete designs, specifications and construction

plans of the incinerator and auxil-

iary equipment;

(2) A statement showing the location of any similar facility within the proposed service

area and within one hundred (100) miles of the perimeter of the area

;

(3) A complete statement of operating procedures and maintenance requirements con-

cerning the proposed facility;

(4) A detailed statement of contingency plans dealing with handling of wastes during

periods when the incinerator is nonfunctional ;

(5) The kinds of materials proposed to be incinerated, identifying or designating them by

chemical composition.

(Res

. of 2-14-84, § 5; Amend . of 3-9-93)

Sec. 7.5-36

. Site development plan .

(a) There shall be filed as a part of the application a detailed topographic map of the site as

it exists at the time of filing the application, prepared and certified by a registered land

surveyor, drawn to a scale of not less than one inch equals two hundred (200) feet

. The map

shall show :

(1) Five-foot contour intervals on sites, or portions thereof, where the relief exceeds

twenty (20) feet, and two-foot contour intervals on sites, or portions thereof, having

less than twenty (20) feet of relief;

(2) The location of all buildings, ponds, streams, wooded areas, bedrock outcrops,

underground and overhead utilities, roads, fences, culverts, drainage ditches, drain

tiles, easements, streets, boundaries, areas previously mined ox where the soil has

been disturbed from its natural condition, the location and elevations of borings made

under subsection (c) hereof, and any other item of significance

.

(b) There shall also be filed a separate map, prepared and certified by a registered land

surveyor, or licensed professional engineer, at the same scale as above, of the site as it is to be

developed, which map shall show :

(1) All changes in topography to be made ;

(2) All surface features specified in section 7 .5-36(a)(1), (2) of these regulations as they

will exist upon completion of development of the site, including new construction

proposed ;

(3) The proposed location of all buildings, equipment and other structures to be con-

structed on the site ;

(4)

The location of and description of all monitoring devices which will be utilized at the

site .

Supp . No. 28

430

EXHIBIT "A"

---

Supp . No . 28

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

§ 7.5-37

(c) If the site is proposed to be utilized as a landfill, a topographic map, prepared and

certified by a registered land surveyor, or licensed professional engineer, drawn to the

same

scale as provided above shall be filed showing the final contours of the closed and covered site

.

(d) The applicant shall provide with the application plans for any required leachate

collection and treatment system . Said plans shall be drawn to a scale of not less than one inch

equals two hundred (200) feet, which shall include cross-sections of the systems

and the

following information :

(1) Type, location and construction of the subsurface collection system and

attendant

devices ;

(2) Location, dimensions, volume and surface elevations of any treatment lagoon

;

(3) Detailed written narrative of the methods and processes of the treatment system

;

(4) Applicant's program for monitoring the performance and effectiveness of the system

;

(5) Discharge points of effluent .

(e) The application shall also include a statement setting forth the reasons

and facts

supporting applicant's assertion that the proposed facility is located so as to minimize

incompatibility with the character of the surrounding area and to minimize the effect on the

value of the surrounding property.

(Res. of 2-14-84, § 6 ; Amend . of 3-9-93 ; Amend . of 10-11-94; Ord . of 10-9-03, §§ 4, 5)

Sec . 7.5-37 . Operating procedures .

(a) There shall be filed with the application complete detailed operating procedures for the

proposed facility. Emphasis should be placed upon the following areas :

(1) Personnel requirements, including training and supervision ;

(2) Traffic control on the site ;

(3) The means by which the quantity of waste delivered to the site will be measured;

(4) Plans for chemical analysis of waste ;

(5)

Plans for identification and verification of wastes ;

(6) The application shall include a statement setting forth the applicant's agreement to

adhere to the volume reporting requirement of the Peoria County

Solid Waste

Management Plan ;

(7) The application shall include a statement setting forth the reasons and facts support-

ing applicant's assertion that the facility is consistent with Peoria County's Integrated

Solid Waste Management Plan .

(b) The application shall provide information as to the proposed schedule for required

monitoring of the site

. This information shall indicate not only the schedule to be used, but also

the type of monitoring which will be used on each such date and time

. The application shall

also provide information as to the applicant's plans for delivering the results of said monitoring

431

EXHIBIT "A"

---

§ 7.5-37

PEORIA COUNTY CODE

to the County of Peoria, and other governmental agencies

. These plans should also indicate

what provisions will be made to allow access to the monitoring devices by the Peoria County

authorities or any appointed representative .

(Res . of 2-14-84, § 7 ; Amend . of 3-9-93 ; Amend . of 10-11-94)

Sec . 7.5-38 . Contingency plans .

(a) The application shall list the possible emergency situations which might occur at or near

the facility which might affect the activity or operations of the facility, including but not

limited to explosion, spills, tornadoes, fire and vandalism .

(b) As to each emergency situation identified, there shall be filed with the application

detailed plans for dealing with each such emergency .

(c) If such plans require or suggest the participation therein of any governmental unit,

official or department, the application shall in detail describe

:

(1) The current state of preparedness of each such governmental unit, official or depart-

ment to participate therein;

(2) The estimated cost to each which would be incurred in achieving a state of readiness

to participate in such plan ;

(3) A statement showing that the involved governmental unit, official or department has

reviewed said plans and is in agreement therewith

; or if not in agreement, a statement

defining the areas of disagreement or objection .

(d) If the applicant proposes to insure against the risks of injury to person or property the

application shall so state and there shall be filed therewith

:

(1) Copies of all applicable insurance policies ; or

(2)

Copies of commitment letters from the insurer who will issue all said policies to which

shall be attached copies of the proposed policies .

(e) The applicant shall provide as part of the application detailed information regarding its

proposed closing plan which may be required due to a voluntary or involuntary closing of the

site

. Such plan shall conform to the requirements of both the state and federal Environmental

Protection Acts and any applicable rules or regulations adopted by the federal or state

Environmental Protection Agencies, and shall provide financial planning information and

technical information relevant not only to the actual closing of said site, but also for the

perpetual care of said site after closing.

(f) The application shall provide information on the planning which the applicant has made

to provide financial reimbursement to the county and any municipality or township whose

roads and highways experience unusual and excessive wear due to the increased traffic in and

from the applicant's operations

. The applicant shall also provide a timetable which it will

follow in the initiating and completing of discussions with the appropriate governmental

authorities on the issue of compensation for or protection from unusual or excessive wear to

the highways or roadways .

9upp

.No .28

432

EXHIBIT "A"

---

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

§

7.5-40

(g) If the facility for which application is made is a hazardous waste facility, a copy of the

contingency plan required by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act shall be attached as

an exhibit .

(Res . of 2-14-84, § 8 ; Amend. of 3-9-93)

Sec . 7.5-39 . Floodplain .

(a) The application shall include a statement that

.the facility is within or outside of the

boundary of the one-hundred-year floodplain as determined by the Illinois

Department of

Transportation

.

(b) There shall be filed with the application a map prepared and certified by a registered

land surveyor showing the one-hundred-year floodplain as aforesaid within a five-mile radius

of the site

.

(c) If the site is within the one-hundred-year floodplain, there shall be filed with the

application

:

(1) Evidence that the site is flood-proofed to meet the standards and requirements of the

Illinois Department of Transportation ; and

(2) Evidence of the approval of the site by said department .

(Res. of 2-14-84, § 9)

Sec. 7.5-40 . Traffic patterns .

(a) There shall be filed with the application a map of the county, prepared and certified by

a registered land surveyor, showing the roadways which will be used to transport material to

and from the site .

(b) There shall be filed with the application a traffic study showing the present traffic flows

on said roadways and the impact that the traffic generated by this facility will have thereon

.

(c) The application shall state the estimated number of motor vehicles and the types and

weights thereof which will be entering and leaving the site via such roadways during each

month of a typical year of operation during the first five (5) years .

(d) The application shall contain a statement setting forth the procedures which will be

utilized by applicant, if any, to assure that only the roadways specified shall be utilized

.

(e) The application shall state the load limitations, if any, on all of the roads and bridges

surrounding the site which the applicant proposes to use or may use in the course of operating

the facility.

(f) The application shall state what types of vehicles will be used to deliver waste to the site,

as well as the empty weight of each of the vehicles proposed to be used, and the gross weight

of the vehicles when loaded .

(Res. of 2-14-84, § 10)

Supp . No. 28

433

EXHIBIT "A"

---

§ 7 .5-41

PEORIA COUNTY CODE

Sec

. 7.5-41 . Date of filing

.

(a) No application for site approval shall be deemed to have been filed or accepted for filing

unless all of the requirements of this resolution [division] applicable thereto shall have been

met and the county clerk shall not give a receipt or other indication of filing until such time as

it is determined that the application complies with the requirements of this resolution

. Within

a reasonable period of time after delivery of an application to him, the county clerk shall advise

the applicant:

(1) Either that the application is complete and that it has been accepted for filing,

designating the date of filing

; or

(2)

That the application is not complete, specifying wherein it is

deficient.

(b) Upon determining the application is complete, the county clerk shall date stamp the

same and immediately deliver one copy of the request to the chairman of the county board

; one

copy to the county planning and zoning administrator

; two (2) copies to the county recycling

and resource conservation director

; two (2) copies to the director of the Peoria City/County

Health Department ; two (2) copies to the state's attorney

; and, two (2) copies to the county

engineer

. The county clerk, in addition, shall mail one copy of the request to the clerk of each

municipality whose geographic political borders are within one and one-half (1

1/2)

miles or less

of the proposed facility.

(c) At any time prior to completion by the applicant of the presentation of the applicant's

factual evidence and an opportunity for cross-questioning by the county board and any hearing

participants, the applicant may file not more than one amended application

. In the event that

an amended application is filed, the time limitation for final action set forth in section 7

.5-47(b)

shall be extended for an additional period of ninety (90) days

.

(Res . of 2-14-84, § 11 ; Amend . of 3-9-93 ; Amend . of 7-8-97 ; Amend . of 8-12-97

; Ord

. of 10-9-03,

§ 6)

Sec. 7.5-42. Filing fee.

(a) There shall be paid to the county clerk for delivery to the county treasurer for deposit

in a special fund at the time of the filing of an application for site approval a fee of

:

(1) Twenty thousand dollars ($20,000

.00) for an organic waste composting facility

; and

(2) Fifty thousand dollars ($50,000 .00) for all other types of pollution control facilities

.

(b) The fee paid hereunder with any application shall be used only to defray the costs

incurred by the county in connection with the application for site approval to which the fee is

applicable . The county board may use the fee to pay any costs incurred by the county in

reviewing the application, employing qualified professional persons to evaluate the informa-

tion contained in the application, to pay the costs involved in any hearing, including the fees

of court reporters and expert witnesses employed by the county to clarify or refute any

Supp .No .28

434

EXHIBIT "A"

---

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

§ 7 .5-44

information contained in the application, to pay any costs incurred in the appeal of any

decision of the county board as to the application and to pay any other costs or expense in any

way connected with the application

.

(c) The county clerk shall accept no application for filing unless said fee has been paid

.

(Res. of 2-14-84, § 12 ; Amend . of 3-9-93 ; Amend . of 6-13-02)

Sec. 7.5-43. Public comment .

(a) A copy of the request shall be made available for public inspection in the offices of the

county clerk and members of the public shall be allowed to obtain a copy of the request or any

part thereof upon payment of actual cost of reproduction to the county clerk

. All

copying

requests shall be fulfilled by the county clerk within a reasonable time from the time of the

request

.

(b) The county clerk shall receive written comment from any person concerning

the

appropriateness of the proposed site . Upon receipt of any such written comment the county

clerk shall date stamp same and file the written comment with the postmarked envelope in

which the comment is received .

(c) Copies of the written comments shall be made available for public inspection in the

offices of the county clerk, and members of the public shall be allowed to obtain a copy of any

written comment upon payment of actual cost of reproduction .

(d) Any written comment received by the county clerk or postmarked not later than thirty

(30) days after the date of the last public hearing shall be made part of the record

as

hereinafter described and the county board shall consider any such timely written comments

in making its final determination . In the event that the 30th day falls on a Saturday, Sunday

or any holiday when the Peoria County Courthouse is closed, the next day on which mail is

received by the Peoria County Clerk shall be considered the 30th day for purposes of this

paragraph

.

(Res. of 2-14-84, § 13 ; Amend . of 3-9-93 ; Amend . of 10-11-94)

Sec. 7.5-44

. Staff review.

(a) Upon receipt of a copy of a request for site location approval, the recycling and resource

conservation director shall be responsible for coordinating the review of the request with the

following :

(1) City of Peoria/County of Peoria Health Department .

(2) Peoria County Engineer.

(3) Peoria County Administrator .

(4)

Peoria County State's Attorney.

(5) Peoria County Planning and Zoning Administrator .

(6) Other such persons as may be designated by the site hearing committee chairman .

Supp

. No . 28

435

EXHIBIT

"A"

---

§ 7 .5-44

PEORIA COUNTY CODE

(b) The solid waste management director is authorized to call interdepartmental meetings

and set deadlines for the submittal of reports and recommendations

.

-

(c) A representative of the aforenamed departments/officials

shall attend the public

hearings and may ask such questions as are needed to assist it in reaching their recommen-

dations .

(d) The aforenamed departments/officials are authorized to prepare and submit reports and

recommendations in connection with the application

. Interim reports

prepared by

the staff,

summarizin and anal zin the .ro .osed site

application, the written comments,

reports,

tudies and e hibi s conce nm the a.f ofnateness

of the rr .osed site shall be filed with the

county cler no later than ten (10) days in advance

of the public hearing .

Copies of

departmental reports shall be available for public inspection in the office of the county clerk

and members of the public shall be allowed to obtain a copy of said documents upon payment

of the actual cost of reproduction .

(e) Upon completion of the testimony by the

applicant, members of the general

public,

or

intervening

parties, and the

aforenamed officials and departments,

shall have a

reasonable

time to file their final reports and recommendations

with the county clerk.

Copies of the final

reports shall be available for public inspection

in the office of the county clerk for three (3)

working days prior to reconvening the hearing and members of the public shall be allows

to

obtain a copy of said documents upon payment of the actual cost of reproduction

.

(f)The

transcript of the public hearings

to date shall be typed and a copy filed with the

county clerk .

(Res. of 2-14-84, § 14 ; Amend. of 3-9-93

; Amend . of 7-8-97 ; Ord . of 10-9-03, § 6)

Sec

. 7.5-45 . Record.

(a) The county clerk shall be responsible for keeping the record

.

(b) The record shall consist of the following :

(1) The request for site location approval as described in sections 7

.5-32 through 7

.5-40 .

(2) Proof of notice as described in section 7.5-46(b)(3), hereof.

(3) Proof of notice given by applicant pursuant to section 39

.2(b) of said Act (415 ILCS

5/39 .2(b)) .

(4) Written comments filed by the public and

received by the county cle

thin thirty (30) days after the date of the

last public hearing.

(5)

All reports and recommendations as described in section 7

.5-44(d) .

(6) All reports, studies, exhibits or documents admitted into evidence

at the public

hearing .

(7) A complete transcript of the public hearing(s) .

(8) The findings of fact and recommendations of the regional pollution control hearing

committee.

Supp . No. 28

436

0

.

stmarked

EXHIBIT "A"

---

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

§ 7.5-46

(9) A copy of the resolution containing the final decision of the county board

.

(c) The county clerk shall be responsible for certifying all copies of the record

.

(Res . of 2-14-84, § 15 ; Amend. of 3-9-93 ; Amend . of 10-11-94)

Sec . 7.5-46 . Peoria County Regional Pollution Control Site Hearing Committee

;

public hearing

.

(a) Committee

.

(1) Generally. The Peoria County Pollution Control Site Hearing Committee shall be

comprised of one county board member from each district

. The Peoria County Pollution

Control Site Hearing Committee ,

may create a subcommittee to hold the required

>u

lic

hearings

. Such a subcommittee shall consist of seven (7) memhers of the whole

committee and shall be anointed by the chairman of the county board.

The chairman

of the county board shall designate a chairman of

the subcommittee who shall

act as

the hearing officer. No member of the subcommittee can represent the district in which

the propose`site located. Once the county portion of the hearing process which will

include a decision is completed, the site hearing subcommittee shall cease to exist

.

(2) Reserved.

(3) Quorum . Ten (10) members of the whole committee shall constitute a quorum for the

purpose of holding the public hearing . Four (4) members shall constitute a quorum of

the subcommittee, if appointed for the purpose of holding the public

hearing. In Me-

event the cTairman of the committee or subcommittee is not in attendance at a public

hearing, the members present shall select a chairman pro tern from among those

members present who shall preside over that hearing session .

(b) Public hearing

.

(1) Within ten (10) days of the date upon which a request for site location approval is

filed,

the county clerk shall notify the members of the regional pollution control hearing

committee of the request.

(2) Within ten (10) days of the date the request for site location is filed,

the chairman of

the county board shall determine the date, time and location upon jyhich such

public

hearing shall be held. The initial public hearing must be scheduled no sooner than

ninety (90) days but no later than one hundred twenty (120) days of the

date the

rey

nuest for site approval was filed with the county clerk.

If, in the chairman's reasonable opinion, the facilities of the Peoria County Courthouse

are not sufficient to accommodate the number of persons expected to

attend the

hearing ; the chairman may arrange for the hearing to be conducted at a site other than

the Peoria County Courthouse . In such an event, the chairman is authorized to lease

an adequate auditorium and sound system for the hearing

. Any and all costs associated

with such acquisition shall be paid by the applicant

.

Supp

. No . 28

437

EXHIBIT "A"

---

§ 7.5-46

PEORIA COUNTY CODE

(3) The chairman of the county board shall promptly notify the county clerk of the date

upon which such hearing shall be held and shall request the county clerk to cause

notice of such hearing to be made as set forth in "An act relating to the location of

sanitary landfills and hazardous waste disposal sites" (415 ILCS 5/39

.2(d))

. Such

notice must be given as follows :

a . At least once per week for three (3) successive weeks in the legal notice section of

a newspaper of general circulation published in the county

.

b .

At least once during the week preceding the public hearing, as a display ad in a

newspaper of general circulation throughout the county

. Such notice shall consist

of all items hereinafter described except for item iii "the legal description of the

site ."

c.

Written notice sent by certified mail to all members of the general assembly from

the district in which the proposed site is located .

d .

Written notice sent by certified mail to the Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency.

Such notice shall consist of the following

:

1. The name and address of the applicant requesting the site approval

.

2 .

The name of the legal owner(s) of the site property, if ownership is in a land

trust, the name(s) of the beneficiaries .

3 . The legal description of the site .

4 . The street address of the property

. If there is no street address, a description

of the site with reference to location, ownership or occupancy or in some

other manner which reasonably identifies the property to the local resi-

dents .

5 . The nature and size of the proposed development

.

6 . The nature of the activity proposed .

7. The probable life of the proposed activity.

8 . The time and date of the public hearing .

9 .

The location of the public hearing .

10

. A statement that all copies of evidence other than testimony to be submitted

at the public hearing must be filed with the county clerk at least ten (10)

days before the public hearing .

(4) The county clerk shall promptly notify the applicant and all municipalities within one

and one-half (1'/2)

miles of the proposed facility of the date, time, and location of such

hearing.

(5) The state's attorney shall make the necessary arrangements to have a court reporter

present at any public hearing for purposes of establishing a record and a transcript

thereof.

Supp . No . 28

438

EXHIBIT "A"

---

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

§ 7 .5-46

(6) The state's attorney, or an assistant, shall serve as legal advisor for the Peoria County

Regional Pollution Control Site Hearing Committee .

(7) All written reports, studies, exhibits or other evidence or copies thereof, other than

testimony, which any person other than the applicant or staff desires to submit for the

record at the public hearing must be filed with the county clerk at least ten (10) days

before the public hearing and shall be available for public inspection in the office of the

county clerk . In the event the 10th day prior

to

a public hearing falls on a Saturday,

Sunday or holiday on which the Peoria County Courthouse is closed, the next working

day shall be considered the day the reports, studies and exhibits must be filed

. The

county clerk shall date stamp any such reports, studies, exhibits or other evidence

upon receipt .

(8)

Members of the public shall be allowed to obtain copies of any documents filed upon

payment of the actual cost of reproduction .

(9) All testimony at any public hearing shall be under oath or affirmation .

(10) The applicant requesting site location approval shall have the burden of going forward

with evidence of the suitability of the site location for the proposed use

.

(11) Any person appearing at the public hearing shall have the right to give testimony and

comment on the suitability of the proposed use for the site location . Any person

testifying shall be required to state their name, address and telephone number where

they may be reached during regular business hours .

(12) The opportunity for any person appearing at the public hearing(s) to cross examine any

witness may be limited by the hearing officer . The hearing committee reserves the

right to limit questions, comments and cross examination to prevent argumentative

comments, personal attacks on other parties, to maintain order

.and decorum during

the hearing process, and to prevent cumulative, repetitive or irrelevant material in the

record . The committee reserves the right to ask questions of

any party or person

testifying in order to clarify an issue, statement or fact .

(13) Any person shall have the right to be represented by a licensed attorney-at-law at the

public hearing(s) . Such attorneys shall have the right of reasonable .cross examination

.

(14) Upon the completion of all testimony, the chairman of the committee shall announce

the evidence gathering and public comment portion of the hearing to be closed . At that

time, the department staffs and officials shall prepare their final reports and

recommendations . The public hearing shall be reconvened, upon notice to the appli-

cant, to hear the staff reports . Any member of the public who wishes to be notified of

the reconvened hearing may leave their names and addresses with the county clerk

.

Notice of the reconvened hearing will be mailed not less than three (3) days prior to the

hearing date .

(Res. of 2-14-84, § 16 ; Amend. of 3-9-93 ; Amend . of 10-11-94)

Supp . No . 28

439

EXHIBIT "A"

---

§ 7.5-47

PEORIA COUNTY CODE

Sec

. 7.5-47 . Site approval decision .

(a) After the public hearing(s) or any continuation thereof, the Peoria County Regional

Pollution Control Site Hearing Committee shall hold a public review meeting for purposes of

establishing findings of fact and a recommendation concerning the site approval request

. Any

findings of fact and recommendation shall be supported by the record and shall be presented

by the committee to each county board member at least within one hundred fifty (150) days

from the county clerk's filing of the site approval application .

(b) The county board shall consider the record and the findings of fact and the recommen-

dations of the regional pollution control hearing committee and shall make a determination

concerning a site approval request not more than one hundred eighty (180) days after the date

of the county clerk's filing of the site approval request . The county board may conditionally

approve any request for site approval provided such conditions are reasonable and necessary

to satisfy the criteria set forth in the Act (415 ILCS 5/39 .2(a)) and so long as the conditions are

not inconsistent with regulations promulgated by the Illinois Pollution Control Board

. Any

determination by the county board shall be supported by the record .

(c) No determination by the county board of a site approval request may be reconsidered

except as provided in the act . (415 ILCS 5/1 et seq.)

(Res

. of 2-14-84, § 17 ; Amend . of 3-9-93 ; Amend . of 10-11-94)

Sec

. 7.5-48 . Administration of fees and costs .

(a) The county administrator, or his designee, shall establish a suitable accounting system

for the acceptance, distribution and reconciliation of the fee in accordance with good

accounting practices .

(b) The application fee received pursuant to section 7 .5-42(a) shall be deposited with the

county treasurer

. The county treasurer is hereby authorized and directed to receive and hold

said application fee until payment is directed as described below

.

(c) All expenses incurred by the County of Peoria as a result of the application for site

approval and the hearing process set forth herein shall be paid by the applicant from the

application fee .

(d) The county administrator must give preliminary approval before an expense chargeable

to the application fee is incurred ; except notice and publication costs incurred by the county

clerk and the court reporter expenses by the state's attorney

.

(e) All costs incurred, by the county, its staff officials and departments as a result of

administering the hearing process herein shall be reported to the auditor of Peoria County.

The auditor shall submit said bills and expenditure requests to the health and environ-

mental services committee for approval

. The committee shall authorize reimbursement for

expenditures and payment of all bills upon proper documentation .

Supp . No . 28

440

EXHIBIT "A"

---

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

§ 7.5-48

Upon termination of the proceedings under the hearing process, the auditor shall prepare

a final accounting and summary of all bills and expenses which shall be presented for approval

to the committee .

(f) Any portion of an application fee not required for reimbursement to the county for costs

or expenses incurred by the county under the hearing process shall be returned to the

applicant . If the costs incurred by the county exceed fifty thousand dollars ($50,000

.00) the

county administrator shall present a claim to the applicant for the excess . Payment of this

excess is due within thirty (30) days of the date the claim is presented to the applicant

.

(g) If the county and the applicant do not agree on the final

accounting, the applicant may

appeal the decision of the county administrator to the management services committee of the

county board . In no event shall a dispute over costs delay the decision or influence the decision

of the county board on the site application .

(Res . of 2-14-84, § 18; Amend . of 3-9-93 ; Amend . of 7-8-97 ; Ord . of 10-9-03, § 7)

Supp . No . 28

4 40 .1

---

EXHIBIT "B"

SUPPLEMENTAL PEORIA COUNTY

STAFF REPORT

FOR

PEORIA DISPOSAL COMPANY

APPLICATION FOR LOCAL SITING APPROVAL

---

Supplemental

Peoria County Staff Report

For

Peoria Disposal Company

Application for Local Siting Approval

April 3, 2006

EXHIBIT "B"

---

Table of Contents

1

.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1

2. CRITERION I

7

3

. CRITERION 2

8

4. CRITERION 3

26

5. CRITERION 5

29

6. CRITERION 7

33

7 . ADDITIONAL SPECIAL CONDITIONS

34

8 . APPENDIX 1

36

EXHIBIT "B"

---

I .

Introduction.

County Staff filed their Staff Report on March 27, 2006

. The public comment period

remained open until March 29, 2006

. The County Clerk received a significant number of

comments after Staff prepared its report and before the public comment period ended

. County

Staff reviewed the public comment file and several reports filed in the last week of public

comment. County Staff noted the most relevant items or issues, and the following pages

highlight those items or issues, along with the County Staff response

. The reports reviewed

include :

•

Peoria Families Against Toxic Waste (PFATW), "Evidentiary Summary", March 27,

2006, filed March 27, 2006 ;

• Dr. G. Fred Lee and Associates, "Comments on the Potential Impacts of the Peoria

Disposal Company Landfill Expansion on Public Health, Groundwater Quality and the

Environment", March 24, 2006, filed March 27, 2006 ;

•

Dr. G. Fred Lee and Associates, "Appendix A, Flawed Technology of Subtitle D

Landfilling of Municipal Solid Waste", updated March 2006, filed March 27, 2006

;

•

Charles H . Norris, correspondence, March 27, 2006, filed March 29, 2006 .

•

Sierra Club, Heart of Illinois Group (SC), Essential Considerations - Key Findings,

March 28, 2006, filed March 29, 2006 ;

•

PFATW, "Response to Peoria County Staff Report regarding Peoria Disposal Company

Application for Local Siting Approval", March 29, 2006, filed March 29, 2006 ;

•

PFATW, "Supplemental Information", March 29, 2006, filed March 29, 2006 ;

•

Peoria Disposal Company (PDC), "Supplement to the Public Record", March 29, 2006,

filed March 29, 2006 ;

•

PDC, "PDC Response to the Comments of Charles Norris as Supplemental Public

Comment by Peoria Families Against Toxic Waste and Heart of Illinois Sierra Club",

March 29, 2006, filed March 29, 2006

•

Dr. Larry Barrows, correspondence, March 29, 2006, filed March 29, 2006 .

County Staff is cognizant of the fact that the timing of the release of its original Staff

Report before the close of the public comment period has raised many concerns

. Therefore,

Staff feels it is appropriate to explain, at this time, the reason for the timing of the release . First,

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT

1

April 3, 200

%XHIBIT "B"

---

and foremost, County Staff wanted to make its initial report available for review by the

applicant, the opponents, and the general public before the close of the public comment period so

all concerned would have an opportunity to respond to the Staffs recommendations

. Doing so

has allowed for this additional comment and information, and has provided Staff with additional

information which has resulted in additional refinement of its recommendations, as set forth in

this Supplemental Report . Furthermore, County Staff wanted to make sure the Sub-Committee

had plenty of time to fully review and digest the information provided in the rather substantial

initial Staff Report . Finally, the state siting statute requires disclosure of any Host Community

Agreement as part of the record (415 ILCS 5/39 .2(e)) . In order to comply with that provision,

and to make sure the amendments to the Host Community Agreement were made public and

were subject to public scrutiny and debate, Staff felt it necessary and appropriate to place the

proposed amendments to the Host Community Agreement, which was an integral part of the

recommendation, in the public record . Waiting until the close of the public comment period

would not have provided that opportunity . At all times, County Staff fully intended to conduct a

full and thorough review of all materials and comments submitted into the public record, and has

done so.

II.

Staff Recommendation .

Based upon its review of the additional information, the County Staff determines that,

subject to a few exceptions which are dealt with by special conditions, the Applicant satisfies the

nine (9) statutory criteria established by state law . County Staff believes that approval of the

landfill expansion with the special conditions is most protective of the health, safety, and welfare

of Peoria County . As a result, the County Staff recommends the County Board approve the

application, subject to certain special conditions outlined in the March 27, 2006 County Staff

Report and this Supplemental County Staff Report .

While the Staffs recommendation is contrary to the position taken by the Peoria Families

Against Toxic Waste group, the local chapter of the Sierra Club, and numerous individuals who

oppose the proposed expansion, County Staff commends those groups and individuals for

bringing to light many of the issues and information upon which many of the special conditions

are based . These private citizens have committed substantial amounts of their own resources and

SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT

2

April 3,

2006

EXHIBIT "B"

---

time to research, understand, and advocate against the proposed expansion

. Without these very

considerable efforts of these private citizens, the record would be less complete regarding

information addressing their specific concerns . The siting process has been enhanced and has

functioned well with the continued participation of all groups involved .

County Staff has diligently reviewed the significant amount of documents and comments

which have been submitted into the public record in the closing days of the public comments

period

. Based upon that review, County Staff continues to believe that a cautious approach to

expansion of the landfill coupled with the establishment of a perpetual care fund to address

maintenance, care and monitoring of the site well beyond the regulatory post-closure care period

is not only prudent, but is the approach which provides the most protection for the citizens of the

County. The additional special conditions included in this report, which are based upon some of

the information submitted since the initial Staff Report, plus the special conditions which were

listed separately in Section 11 of the original Staff Report provide increased or additional

protections for the public, make sure the proposed expansion of the facility is designed, located

and proposed to be operated to protect public health, safety and welfare, and minimize

incompatibility with surrounding property uses .

This Supplemental Report addresses only those issues and topics raised in the additional

materials submitted into the record which County Staff feels are relevant and appropriate and/or

which were not directly addressed in the Staff's original report . Later in this Supplemental

Report, certain issues and comments are addressed criteria by criteria .

A.

Cautious Expansion over Trench C-1 .

PDC has demonstrated to the satisfaction of County Staff that the design and operations

of existing Trenches C-2 through C-4 and proposed Trench C-5 meet or exceed all regulatory

standards for any new landfill being built today . As such, for those areas of the facility, County

Staff continues to believe the proposed expansion is designed, located and proposed to be

operated that protects public health, safety and welfare . Likewise, County Staff continues to

believe Trench C- I's liner and leachate collection system has a different and, in the Staff's view,

less protective design than the other areas . This position is supported by much of the

commentary recently submitted into the record . While perhaps perfectly acceptable at the time it

was permitted and installed, the design of Trench C-I's liner is no longer "state-of-the-art", as

SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT

3

April 3, 2006

EXHIBIT "B"

---

the other areas are or would be

. As a result, County Staff continues to recommend that there be

no expansion over Trench C-1 unless PDC installs an intermediate double composite liner and

separate leachate collection system so as to prevent the migration of leachate from the expanded

area of C-1 into the existing waste in C-1

. Such an intermediate liner system will minimize the

amount of leachate reaching the existing liner and leachate collection system . Ultimately, if the

expansion is approved and PDC expands above C-1 in accordance with the special conditions,

the additional liners and collection system will further, in essence, provide multiple caps to

prevent the migration of liquids into the existing area of C-1, providing more protection than

currently exists.

B .

Perpetual Care Fund .

At the public hearing, PDC proposed creating a Perpetual Care Fund for the entire facility

(not just the proposed landfill expansion) as an additional condition to siting approval . The

concept is money would be contributed by PDC to the perpetual care fund during the operation

of the expanded landfill

. The money and investment earnings would be used in the future for the

care and maintenance of the entire site after PDC's obligations with IEPA for post closure care

have terminated

. County Staff believes that a perpetual care fund, such as that proposed by

PDC, is not only appropriate, but is consistent with the County's siting ordinance

.

As set forth in the original Staff Report, County Staffs review of PDC's proposal has

revealed that the $0

.13 per ton PDC proposed to deposit into the fund would not be sufficient for

perpetual care

. County Staff, using what it believes are conservative assumptions of rates of

return (5

.0%) and inflation (4 .5%), has determined that $1 .50 per ton for 2 .2 million projected

tons of waste would adequately provide funding for not only the activities PDC suggested for

long-term care, but also groundwater monitoring . Using these figures it is estimated the fund

would have approximately $20,983,794 when it is projected PDC will have concluded its post-

closure care period in the year 2054 . That amount is estimated to provide sufficient funds to

cover the cost of maintaining and monitoring the site for at least 100 years . Therefore, Staff

recommends that any County Board approval of the application include a condition that PDC

create and fund a Perpetual Care Fund at the rate of $1

.50 for each ton of waste disposed of at

the facility

.

SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT

4

April 3, 2006

EXHIBIT `B"

---

After considering comments and questions posed by opponents to the application, County

Staff believes it is prudent and necessary to amend its original recommendation concerning the

funding of the Perpetual Care Fund

. The possibility exists that less than 150,000 tons of waste

per year or less than the entire approximately 2 .2 million tons set forth in the application may be

disposed of at the facility . County Staff's calculations regarding levels of funding and future

costs were based upon the assumption that at least the full amount of 150,000 tons would be

disposed of each year

. In order to insure the necessary funding is available, County Staff is

recommending that the language of the special condition and the amendment to the Host

Community Agreement be modified so that it requires $1 .50 per ton, but not less than $225,000

per year for at least 15 years following PDC's receipt of the necessary permit to operate the

expanded landfill .

Opponents to the application have raised numerous concerns about the fate of the site if

the applicant files for bankruptcy and/or dissolves prior to completion of the closure or post-

closure care period . County Staff notes that PDC has demonstrated its existing financial

assurance fund is funded in excess of the amount IEPA presently requires . However, County

Staff also acknowledges the present regulatory requirements do not require PDC to provide

financial assurance for potential corrective action of inactive areas of the facility

. To further

protect against the possibility of PDC not being willing or able to address potential corrective

action of the inactive areas of the facility before the Perpetual Care Fund would be available (30

years after closure of the expanded landfill, estimated to be 2054), County Staff is

recommending an additional Special Condition which requires PDC to deposit an additional

$1 million into its financial assurance trust fund for the facility within ninety (90) days of receipt

of final, non-appealable local siting approval .

C.

Amendment of Host Community Agreement

At the public hearing when PDC offered its proposed conditions, PDC indicated it would

be willing to amend the Host Community Agreement to incorporate the proposed conditions

.

Peoria County, as the siting authority, has the ability to impose special conditions on its approval

of siting

. However, any such conditions must be consistent with IEPA laws and regulations . So

long as IEPA believes they are consistent with its regulations, it will typically incorporate those

SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT

5

April 3, 200

%XHIBIT "B"

---

conditions into the permits for the proposed facility

. While none of the conditions outlined in

this report are inconsistent with state law or regulations, County Staff believes it is most prudent

to include the proposed conditions in an amendment to Host Community Agreement so that

Peoria County can directly enforce the terms, instead of relying upon IEPA . Therefore, County

Staff is also recommending that the County enter into a First Amendment Host Community

Agreement with PDC.

As stated in the initial Staff Report, most, if not all, of additional protections for the

public health and the environment which would be provided by the special conditions and the

amendment to the Host Community Agreement (including the Perpetual Care Fund), might not

be available if the siting application is denied

. Opponents dispute this point by stating that

Illinois EPA can always add conditions to permit approval . While County Staff agrees IEPA can

condition permit approval, Staff does not believe reliance on IEPA to impose conditions beyond

those contained in its regulations and/or its typical permit requirements is advisable

. At one

point in its submittals, opponents to the application encourage the County not to rely on IEPA to

monitor PDC's regulatory compliance because the opponents do not feel IEPA is reliable

.

County Staff feels it is perfectly appropriate to rely upon and expect IEPA to diligently

implement and monitor its own rules and regulations, but does not believe it should rely on IEPA

to look out for the County's additional concerns

. County Staff feels it is the County's

responsibility to obtain these additional protections that would not, or likely will not, be available

based upon IEPA's typical permitting requirements

. For example, to County Staffs knowledge,

establishment of a perpetual care fund is not typical of IEPA practice

. Therefore, County Staff

continues to believe the County may obtain more, perpetual, protection by imposing additional

requirements on PDC as amendments to the Host Community Agreement .

SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT

6

April 3, 20

tHIBIT "B"

---

CRITERION 1

THE FACILITY IS NECESSARY TO ACCOMOMODATE THE WASTE NEEDS

OF THE AREA IT IS INTENDED TO SERVE

Issue:

Non-local wastes should be managed closer to their source

"The expansion ofthe PDC Hazardous Waste Landfill is not necessary to accommodate

the waste needs

ofthe area . " (SC, p. 1) This finding from Sierra Club is inconsistent with the

actual criterion in the Environmental Protection Act, that it "is necessary to accommodate the

waste needs of the area it is intended to serve"

. As stated in the Staff Report, the applicant has

the authority to identify the service area, and the service area defined by the applicant is not

consistent with that proposed by the Sierra Club

.

"PDC did not include hazardous waste facilities in Indiana in their figures determining

need.

This fact raises questions as to the accuracy of their statement of need, as available

landfill space in Indiana was not taken into account."

Pursuant to state law, the applicant

defines the service areas for the proposed facility . In Ms

. Smith's testimony on February 13`h

she indicated that PDC has not received much waste from Indiana in the recent past, saying the

amount of waste received from Indiana from 2000 to 2004 was around 4,500 tons annually while

it was around 100,000 tons annually from Illinois, Iowa and Wisconsin, so they did not include

it. However, Ms

. Smith did include Indiana in the disposal capacity available to the service area

in Table 1-4

. The Heritage Environmental facility took in 716 tons from the PDC service area of

the waste types that PDC accepts

.

"Members of

the public are concerned that they are being exposed to the hazards

associated with the landfilling of

hazardous wastes from other areas of

the Midwest that more

appropriately should be managed in the areas where the hazardous wastes are generated. " (Lee,

Comments, p.30)

Lee presents no evidence or data, and there is no evidence or data in the

record, to establish that the public is being exposed at off site locations to hazards or hazardous

waste or hazardous constituents from the PDC landfill

. A long standing line of United States

Supreme Court cases stands for the proposition that states and local communities cannot restrict

or prohibit out of state or out of area wastes under our constitution

.

SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT

7

April 3, 200

~XHIBIT "B"

---

CRITERION

2

THE FACILITY IS SO DESIGNED, LOCATED AND PROPOSED TO BE

OPERATED THAT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE WILL BE

PROTECTED

While the title to this criterion may seem ambiguous, the volume of material documented

and time spent reviewing this section are good indicators that this is the most sensitive of the

nine criteria

. After reviewing all materials submitted into the record including those documents

filed after the Staffs initial Report, Staff has identified four areas that are of most relevance by

interested parties

. They are :

1 .

Health Concerns and the Threat of Land Disposal and Air Emissions

2 .

Landfill Design

3 .

Groundwater Quality and Trends

4.

Older Sections of the Site

Details of these items are highlighted in this section .

ITEM 1-

Health Concerns and the Threat of Land Disposal and Air Emissions

.

Issue:

The Wastes land disposed will be a threat forever

"The proposed hazardous waste landfill expansion application fails to discuss the fact

that many of the waste components that are to be proposed to be deposited in the landfill

expansion will be a threat to the public health, groundwater resource quality and the

environment forever

. " (Lee, Comments, p.5)

There is no requirement for PDC to discuss this as

the existing permits, operation and design, as well as present laws and regulations, allow them to

accept these wastes in a landfill designed that meets the existing technology requirements by

USEPA and IEPA

. The County cannot impose conditions upon approval or make a decision on

the application which is inconsistent with applicable laws and regulations

. However, the County

may impose special conditions consistent with their siting ordinance, including perpetual care .

This will be addressed in Criterion 5 .

Issue

:

Airborne releases of hazardous chemicals

SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT

8

April 3,

200

~XHIBIT "B"

---

"This is an area that needs independent, in-depth review to assess whether the public in

that area is being exposed to greater concentrations of hazardous chemicals through airborne

releases from the landfill than would occur

if the landfill operations were terminated ." (Lee,

Comments, p.27)

The USEPA Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) shows both amount of hazardous

constituents landfilled as well as permitted air releases from the stack in the waste-treatment

processing area, not part of this siting application . PDC testified that ambient monitoring around

the landfill showed no releases off site of hazardous constituents, no solvents are disposed of at

the landfill in quantities to cause a release as seen in the gas vents, very low-to-non-detectable

pressure was recorded in the gas vents, much lower than landfill gas at solid waste facilities .

Methane will be required to be addressed and monitored as a special condition and PDC will

monitor ambient air around the landfill as special condition

.

"Was monitoring done with adequate detection limits during the time when the greatest

potential for release was occurring?" (Lee, Comments,

p.29) Staff agrees this is a good point .

As a result, County Staff recommends the special condition proposed by PDC regarding ambient

air monitoring be modified so as to require an ambient air monitoring program during times of

most likely emissions during the active phases of operating PDC landfills, and to require PDC to

submit an air quality monitoring plan to the County for its review and approval .

"These areas are likely releasing hazardous chemicals to the atmosphere which are

trespassing onto adjacent properties ." (Lee, Comments, p.14)

Lee presents no proof of his

claims, and there is no evidence or data in the record which would tend to support Lee's

accusation

. Due to the characteristics of the major waste disposed of at PDC, which are primarily

inorganic wastes consisting of metals not prone to vapor phase transport, County Staff does not

consider these remarks as particularly credible

. Furthermore, daily cover is required and dust

control also is required by PDC's operating permit to prevent particulate emissions

.

"The inadequate buffer lands lead to a situation where airborne releases of regulated and

currently unregulated hazardous chemicals, through off-gases and volatilization, have limited

opportunity for dispersion on PDC property before trespass onto adjacent properties

. " (Lee,

Comments, p.4)

No evidence is provided to support this claim, and none is found in the record

.

"The County Board and the people of Peoria do not have adequate information regarding

air monitoring . ..

. The Federal Environmental Protection Agency Toxic Release Inventory (TRI)

SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT

9

April 3, 200

&HIBIT "B"

---

data for PDC shows consistent air emissions for various heavy metals, including ones named by

Sandra Steingraber

. " (SC, p.6) Staff agrees that metals are shown in the TRI report, and

emissions of heavy metals should be a concern

. However, the point source emissions are from

the processing facility, not the landfill . A 2004 IEPA report of an inspection of the processing

facilities emissions indicates the facility was emitting less than it is permitted to emit, and was

otherwise in compliance with its air permit .

PDC is not required to report air emissions data from their separately

permitted hazardous waste processing facility as part of their Application . If they

had, the Peoria County Board would surely be alarmed by the data . Thanks only

to requests by citizens who exercised the Freedom of Information Act, the County

may now consider that PDC reported dangerous PM-]0 pollutants in our air, for

example in 2002, of 35 times the permitted level established by the Illinois EPA

.

Likewise, for 2004, it was 43 times the permitted level

. Indeed, PDC 's recent

annual PM-10 emissions have been consistently high, with its highest numbers

reported in 2004.

This trend is especially concerning given the known risks

associated with PM-10

.

"PM" stands for particulate matter, which is a complex mixture of

extremely small particles and liquid droplets

. "10 "stands for micrometers . PM-

10 particles are of concern to the EPA because, given their tiny size, they can be

inhaled and reach deep into our lungs, and some can even get into our

bloodstream

. Numerous scientific studies have linked particle pollution to a

variety of problems including increased respiratory problems, decreased lung

function, aggravated asthma, chronic bronchitis, irregular heartbeat, non fatal

heart attacks, and premature death in people with heart or lung disease

.

PDC did not disclose this information during the hearing process or, to

the best of our knowledge, in the Application

. The Peoria County Board should

consider this to be a very serious concern

. We hope IEPA is working diligently to

correct this serious health concern in order to protect Peoria County citizens for

the remaining life of the existing landfill

. The County Board now has an

opportunity, and responsibility, to eliminate this known health and safety threat

going forward by denying the PDC expansion

. Without the expansion of the

hazardous landfill facility, the processing plant emitting the PM-10 would have

nothing to do

. (PFATW, Evidentiary Summary,

p.16)

"It is inaccurate, however, for the PES (PFATW Evidentiary Summary) to state that the

reported emission rates exceed those established in our permit since our facility permit, with

which we are in full compliance as verified by the IEPA through its 2004 inspection, does not

regulate PM-10 emissions .. . .

In summary, PDC has authorization to emit 33 .8 tons ofparticulate

matter

. As there is no limit on PM-10, PM-10 may be emitted up to the total particulate matter

SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT

10

April 3, 200

~XHIBIT "B"

---

level of 33.8

PDC has been reporting well below that total and is in full compliance . "

(PDC,

Exhibit B, March 29)

County Staff has reviewed the various documents submitted by both PDC

and opponents, and has concluded that PDC's treatment plant is not part of the application . As

such, air emissions from that plant are not directly related to the issues which the County must

address as part of the siting

. Therefore, County Staff does not find it "alarming" that such

information was not included as part of the application

. By all indications, the air emissions

from the treatment plant are in compliance with the treatment plant's air permit

. [Appendix 1]

County Staff notes that the distance between the treatment plant and the nearest property line

along the eastern side of the landfill is approximately 1,800 feet .

Dr

. Michael Vidas followed Dr. Zwicky (Pgs

. 296-334) on February 27th . He testified

that he did not study the application (Pg

. 298, Feb . 27 Transc.), and that he reviewed the 2003

USEPA Toxic Release Inventory and said this shows metals have been released in significant

portions (Pg . 308, Feb

. 27 Transc.). However, Dr

. Vidas has misinterpreted the TRI report, and

the material quantities listed in the report are materials that have been treated and disposed, not

released in the atmosphere

. According to written comments by PDC concerning Dr . Vidas'

comments, PDC finds that three out of four of the contiguous zip codes to the site have lower

cancer rates than the county average (PDC, March 17)

. PDC makes an effective argument that

no air emissions are being released at the property boundary

.

One of Peoria Families Against Toxic Waste (PFATW) submittals into evidence is an

article entitled, "Health Effects of Residence Near Hazardous Waste Landfill Sites

: A Review of

Epidemiologic Literature" .

This is from Environmental Health Perspectives, Volume 108,

March 2000

. In the Conclusions section of the article, the following statements are made :

For several reasons, evidence is limited for a causal role of landfill exposures in

the health outcomes examined despite the large number of studies

. Effects of

low-level environmental exposure in the general population are by their nature

difficult to establish.

Evidence for a causal relationship between landfill exposures and cancers is still

weak

. Cancers are difficult to study because of long latency periods, as discussed

in previous sections

.

Landfill sites may differ enormously in the conditions that render them hazardous,

and conditions that determine the exposure to and resulting health risks posed by

any waste site are likely to be unique to that particular site

.

SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT

11

April 3, 2006EXHIBIT

"B"

---

Much of the existing epidemiological work involves large, old sites, uncontrolled

dumps, and sites where heavy off-site migration of chemicals was detected

.

On the basis of current evidence, we cannot extrapolate findings for these

individual sites to landfill sites in general or conclude which landfill sites are

more likely than others to affect the health of nearby human populations

.

Staff does not dispute the health risks associated with direct exposure to the heavy metals

that are accepted at this facility

. Staff concurs with Dr . Vidas (March 28, 2006) and PFATW's

citation of the Cassarett & Doull's Toxicology

: The Basic Science of Poisons, which summarizes

the knowledge of metals that cause cancer in humans and animals . By definition, these materials

are hazardous (meaning harmful to one's health) and regulated by IEPA and USEPA

. The main

issue is that Staff has not seen documentation indicating that this site specifically is responsible

for any direct exposure and resulting health risk to the general public . During Dr . Zwicky's

testimony, he used the words threat, fear, and potential, but did not offer any factual data that

showed this facility is causing any exposures

. He also stated that he was not aware of how

contaminants are exiting the site or if they ever will exit the site

.

ITEM 2- Landfill Design

.

Adequacy of Cover Monitoring System

"Since PDC proposes to only maintain the superficial aspects of the cover for the

minimum post closure period of 30 years, there will be a need for someone to maintain the cover

after that period, after PDC attempts to walk off

and leave the responsibility for continuing

monitoring, maintenance and eventual remediation for someone else to pick up

. Will this be the

responsibility of the County? If not, who will provide the funds to accomplish this?" (Lee,

Comments, p.11)

This comment simply highlights the need for the Perpetual Care Fund

.

"The construction and operation of a leak detectable cover on the landfill

. .

. provides a

means to determine when the plastic sheeting layer in the cover will no longer prevent moisture

from penetrating through it and thereby generating leachate

." (Lee, Comments, p .21) Dr. Lee

does not provide a design of such a cover system

. The performance of the cover can be

evaluated in terms of leachate production as is noted in the declining leachate quantities in the

primary and secondary even from the partially capped landfills C-1 and C-2

. Staff agrees with

Dr

. Lee's point that the cap must be installed and maintained so as to minimize leachate

SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT

12

April 3, 200

~XHIBIT "B"

---

production. Given the importance of cap permeability, although the design of the cap, according

to testimony by PDC, meets the RCRA standards, staff would suggest an additional layer of

geonet to further ensure quick drainage off the top of the low permeability layer, and a 2 foot

thick recompacted clay low permeability layer underneath the geomembrane as added insurance

that further minimize infiltration into the waste .

"Daniel has not discussed the fact that the key element in preventing water from passing

through the cover is the plastic sheeting layer in the cover . This plastic sheeting layer will

degrade, likely at a faster rate than the bottom liner plastic sheeting, because of the greater

exposure conditions that lead to free radical formation

." (Lee, Comments, p .24)

Dr. Daniel

agrees that eventually the HDPE material will lose strength, but has a differing estimate of the

timeframe, but further highlights the need for care of the facility after closure . The perpetual

care fund will ensure cap maintenance and integrity.

Adequacy of Leachate Collection System

"The PDC leachate collection system maybe prone to plugging

. The collection systems

will need to be maintained far into the future."

(SC, p.2) "It has been known for many years that

leachate collections systems are prone to plugging, especially when sand is used in such

systems. " (Lee, Comments,

p. 6) Dr. David Daniel disagrees and said "I have no reason to

believe that this is a particularly clog-prone drainage layer in the leachate collection system, the

layer of sand on the bottom, because this is not an organically rich landfill ." (Pg .109, Feb 22

Transc.)

County Staff agrees that the leachate collection system will need to be maintained into

the future, the length of time is at least 30 years after closure already required by the IEPA .

USEPA generally concludes that leachate generation from a properly capped facility should be

minimized in 8 to 10 years following capping

. So the amount of leachate should be minimized

well within the 30-year post-closure period if the cap operates as expected

. However, the

Perpetual Care Fund provides for the continued inspection of the system after the post-closure

care period, and further provides for the extraction of any leachate that might be generated

sometime in the future.

"When leachate is detected in the leak detection system between the primary and

secondary liner systems, it is known that the liner system has failed and that it is only a matter of

time until the secondary liner system will fail if it has not already done so . " (Lee, Comments,

SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT

13

April 3,

2000

tXHIBIT "B"

---

p.10)

According to PDC testimony, the primary liner performed as predicted in "de minimus"

levels that USEPA approved according to their consultant's predictions for the specific liner

designs

. The data from PDC on leachate flow from the primary to the secondary system shows

that it is reduced by over ten-fold or greater into the secondary system . The mere fact that

leachate is being collected in the secondary system does not mean the primary system has failed .

In fact, USEPA has built into the regulations that leachate is collected as soon as it is detected in

both primary and secondary systems and removes head

(i .e ., the potential for fluid to migrate

into the liner) from the liners . Also, USEPA approved the calculated leakage rates that are

expected from the design, construction and level of QA/QC for Trenches C-2 to C-4 . According

to testimony by PDC, the calculated leakage rates were not exceeded when operating the primary

and secondary leachate collection systems

. Therefore, the liner systems appear to be performing

as designed .

"A composite liner system can be effective in collecting leachate that penetrates both the

primary and the secondary liner systems

. " (Lee, Comments, p.10) In the Illinois EPA's report to

the Legislature (A Study of the Merit and Effectiveness of Alternative Liner Systems, January

2003), Joyce Munie and Dr . Daniel state that there are no known releases to groundwater from a

Subtitle D composite lined landfill anywhere in the US to their knowledge .

"The inevitable leachate generation that will occur in post-closure year 31 and beyond

will eventually lead to leachate transport of hazardous chemicals to the underlying

groundwaters

. " (Lee, Comments, p.24)

There is no evidence provided by Dr . Lee to show why

there would be substantial leachate generation in year 31 while EPA's data shows rapidly

declining leachate production with 8-10 years after capping when de minimus levels of leachate

are generated

. There is no evidence to support that RCRA caps have failed after 30 years either .

Maintenance of the cap will ensure that perpetual care will not allow leachate to be generated at

levels that are a risk to the environment

.

Adequacy of Liners

The Sierra Club report attributes Dr

. Daniel as saying : "The PDC hazardous waste

landfill liners will deteriorate

. At some point in time the liners will fail to provide containment

for the heavy metals and other toxic wastes in the landfill . " (SC, p.2)

SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT

14

April 3, 2006EXHIBIT

"B"

---

Dr. Daniel said (paraphrased) that of the studies he has seen, the antioxidants in the liner

will degrade in 300 to 500 years, then the FIDPE slowly starts to lose strength and deteriorate

(Pg. 110

. Feb 22 Transc .) He goes on to say the compacted clay will still be in tact and actually

be less permeable due to the continued weight and compression

. He believes that even if liquids

go through the clay, the liquid will also "tend to drive the permeability down", making it more

difficult to pass through

. He has said also that metals will tend to be attracted to the clay

particles, and that clay is a substantial separator between the water table and the waste. He said

that statements that say all liners will fail are extremist statements

. He agrees that plastic liners

will fail if you look at "forever" as the timeframe, but the clay will likely still be there

.

Therefore, given Dr

. Daniel's comments and standing as an expert, County Staff tends to agree

with his opinion as he has stated them, and not as perhaps they have been improperly interpreted .

"Contaminants in trace amounts are already showing in test well results . Research done

by hydrologist Charles Norris, based on Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Information,

concludes that pollution is already reaching the aquifer sands . . . .

Norris adds that operating and

monitoring data for leachate production from Area C at the landfill

demonstrates that the

primary liners of trenches Cl through C4 leak,

and that data from trench Cl shows the

secondary liner also leaks."

(SC, p.4) The ISWS Research Report 124 discusses sources of

chloride and sulfate in Peoria from shale and other surface sources

. In addition, PDC's March

22, 2006 submittal provides evidence to show the leachate isn't the source in wells downgradient

of C-2, C-3 and C-4

. Trench C-1 is a concern raised by Staff, and has been adequately addressed

by Staff's recommended special conditions .

"Over time the integrity of the plastic sheeting liners will deteriorate to the point where

they are no longer effective in preventing leachate from

passing through them into the

underlying groundwater system

. " (Lee, Comments, p. 7)

Although the latest information by

USEPA ("Assessment and Recommendations for Improvement for the Performance of Waste

Containment Systems, USEPA, December 2002) shows that a HDPE liner could last up to 1000

years, the references by Dr

. Lee cite conditions different from those presented at PDC landfill .

The cases Dr

. Lee cites for liner failure are mostly from solvents (of which are not at levels in

leachate to cause a liner interaction) and oxidation, which his references state could happen in a

lagoon exposed to air (the lagoon at PDC will be removed)

. Very little or no oxidation is

expected to occur in buried liners (due to anaerobic conditions), and based upon the evidence in

SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT

15

April 3, 2006EXHIBIT

"B"

---

the record, there is no reason to expect interactions between leachate and the HDPE liners or the

compacted clay which would cause more rapid degradation of the multiple, redundant liner

system. Dr. Lee discusses many generalities, such as differential settling cracks in clay under

membrane liner . However, geotechnical review shows foundation materials to be stable

. As

stated in Dr . Daniel's testimony, even if plastic liners degraded over eons of time, the clay

compacted liner would attenuate metals and the low concentrations of organics before they even

migrate into the natural clay geology underlying the landfill . The underlying thick glacial clayey

deposits also would act as a substantial barrier, according to Dr

. Daniel's testimony, to further

attenuate metals and organics well before they reached the lower sand aquifer .

"It is not possible to reliably predict when this plastic sheeting will no longer function as

an effective base for a leachate collection system." (Lee, Comments, p .8) "There is no reliable

information that would demonstrate that HDPE plastic sheeting layers can be expected to

function as designed for at least 200 years . " (Lee, Comments, p.15) "While the proposed landfill

expansion liner and cover description provides for more than the minimum allowed design

of a

landfill containment system, this enhanced design is also subject to failure and will not prevent

leachate from being generated in the landfill that can penetrate through the liner system into the

underlying groundwater system during the time that the wastes in the landfill will be

a threat. "

(Lee, Comments, p.16) Staff tends to give more weight to Dr . Daniel's testimony that HDPE

liners will start weakening from 300 to 500 years in the future . At that point in time, leachate

quantity and quality should be reduced to "de minimus" levels . There is a finite amount of

pollutants that would leach from wastes within the landfill that at some future point in time, there

would be no release of hazardous pollutants of any kind at this site . Also the perpetual care fund

would manage the cap and ensure that leachate is no longer generated

.

"I concluded that HDPE-based plastic sheeting liners were the most stable

and least

likely to be affected by chemicals in municipal solid waste and hazardous waste." (Lee,

Comments, p .22) Today's liner formulations are much improved since Dr. Lee was involved in

working for a liner company and are even more resistant to degradation .

"The HDPE liners used in the earlier cells of the PDC landfill would be expected to fail

more rapidly than the HDPE liners that are proposed for the landfill expansion .

" (Lee,

Comments, p.23)

Given Dr. Lee's opinion, he would likely agree with staff that it is imperative

SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT

16

April 3, 2006

EXHIBIT "B"

---

to keep the cap on Trench C-1 or place additional liners on top of the existing cap . The perpetual

care fund should be able to maintain the cap and reduce leachate production to "de minimus"

levels as shown in "Assessment and Recommendations for Improvement for the Performance of

Waste Containment Systems, USEPA (December 2002) . The data in this report are from real

RCRA capped and lined hazardous and solid waste facilities . The data show that if a landfill is

capped with a RCRA cap as proposed at PDC, then no leachate is produced after 8-10 years of

final cap installation .

"The bottom line issue with respect to clay liners is that they are not impermeable, and

that, in time, leachate can pass through them, leading to the pollution of groundwaters

underlying the landfill

. " (Lee, Comments, p.23) The groundwater under the site may be subject to

pollution only if there is sufficient quantity of leachate and high concentration of pollutants that

can overcome the natural barriers to groundwater transport

. PDC is constructed over a natural

clay aquitard (that inhibits the flow of liquids) that protects the underlying aquifer . There are

interactions in the compacted clay liner and clayey natural till that will adsorb metals and

organics, and diffuse leachate . Furthermore, if ever released, any contaminants in the leachate

would be expected to further dilute and disperse once in the aquifer . The perpetual care fund

will ensure that leachate is not of sufficient quantity to overcome the engineered and natural

barriers that underlay PDC landfill

.

"The PFATW says The Peoria County Board is entitled under the law to deny the

Application if the Board determines that the proximity of the landfill expansion to the

interconnected Sankoty/Shebyville aquifer creates a present or future health concern, even if the

application process are otherwise met."

(PFATW, Evidentiary Summary, p.3)

Due to the

relatively low levels of hazardous constituents in the waste disposed of at the landfill, the County

Staff is of the opinion is that if

a

release of leachate were to occur at the landfill site, any

hazardous constituents would be in low levels

. On the other hand, in order for any affect to be

observable or measurable in the Sankoty aquifer or at the Pleasant Valley Public Water District

wells, there would need to be a large magnitude release of relatively high concentration of

contaminants, due to distance from the site and the nature of the materials of most concern in the

waste (i.e.,

metals, which are normally attenuated naturally in clay)

.

ITEM 3- Groundwater Quality and Trends

SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT

17

April 3, 2006EXHIBIT

"B"

---

Issue:

Superficial approach to analyzing the groundwater threat

"This (soil)

complexity makes monitoring leakage through the landfill liner system

difficult to conduct reliably."

(Lee, Comments, p .12) Staff believes this conclusion may conflict

with Mr. Norris' testimony

. If, as Mr. Norris claims, liquids percolate through the substrate

underlying the site very quickly, any leakage would presumably migrate quickly into the

groundwater and would be relatively easy to detect . In regard to this, County Staff has

recommended a special condition which would require additional wells be installed down

gradient of the landfill so as to provide enhanced ability to detect if leakage has occurred .

"There is need for independent expert review of such modeling to evaluate its reliability . "

(Lee, Comments, p.12)

Staff, with the assistance of independent qualified consultant engineers,

reviewed the model

.

"A far more intensive hydrogeological investigation is needed to properly characterize

the complexity of the hydrogeology underlying and near the landfill through which leachate-

polluted groundwaters can pass on their way to the domestic water supply aquifer ." (Lee,

Comments, p.14)

The testimony at the public hearing was that this is one of the most, if not the

most, extensively studied sites in the State of Illinois

. Extensive borings were conducted on site

to determine the critical elements of the site geology and hydrogeology . The studies were

adequate to obtain hazardous waste permits from USEPA and IEPA in the past, and additional

information was developed for the application

.

"PDC has not adequately characterized the underlying hydrogeology with respect to

predicting when such pollution could be expected

" (Lee, Comments, p. 15) Dr. Lee does not

present any specific recommendations for what additional investigations are needed or criticism

of the existing hydrogeologic work other than a general criticism

.

"This approach toward estimating groundwater impacts based upon diffusion through the

liner system is fundamentally flawed This approach ignores that the ultimate deterioration of

the HDPE liner system and the advective transport of leachate and many of its associated

chemicals through the compacted clay layer is the primary mechanism of leachate transport

through the liner system that leads to groundwater pollution

. " (Lee, Comments, p. 1 7) The

original GIE model assumed liner degradation and fractures in the clay as discussed by Dr

.

Barrow.

SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT

18

April 3, 2006EXHIBIT

"B"

---

"The Board should not only disapprove the expansion of this landfill but also work with

regulatory agencies to more appropriately evaluate whether the existing PDC landfill is

polluting groundwaters and to set up a more adequate monitoring program to determine when

each of the sections of the existing landfill starts to pollute groundwaters so that remediation by

PDC can be initiated in a timely manner

. " (Lee, Comments, p.13) "The placing of groundwater

monitoring wells at hundreds of feet apart along the downgradient edge

of the landfill could

readily fail to detect initial plumes of leachate polluted groundwater passing the monitoring well

line (the point of compliance for groundwater monitoring)

. " (Lee, Comments, p .25) Additional

wells are to be installed and Peoria County has the right to sample leachate, groundwater, air,

and surface water at any time for any constituents at any time

. Furthermore, the perpetual care

fund provides the community with the assurance that there will be an adequate monitoring

program well into the future to determine if or when areas of the landfill, including inactive

sections of the old landfill are causing any problems

.

"It is my experience that landfills can pollute groundwaters several miles from the waste

deposition area . "

(Lee, Comments, p .26)

No specific case studies are cited or literature cited to

show this, and there is certainly nothing in the record which would suggest that this landfill has

that potential .

Mr

. Charles Norris provided the following comments on March 29, 2006 with the Peoria

County Clerk in regard to the PDC Siting Application

. County Staff identified and addressed

key items from Mr

. Norris' comments in the following sections :

Norris Introduction (Page

3).

Mr

. Norris states he is no longer confident Sections (Trench) C waste is more isolated

than the older disposal areas

. While the older disposal areas are a significant concern for many

of the commentators, it is not part of the application pending before the County

. Staff review has

focused particular attention on Trench C-1 because of the older design and Staff concerns

regarding chloride downgradient of that area

. As a result, the proposed vertical expansion over

C-1 is not recommended without an intermediate composite liner system to isolate the existing

liner and leachate collection system

. Furthermore, the perpetual care fund covers not only the

area covered by the application, but also the older closed areas of the PDC landfill

. This

provides significant additional protections for the community which might not be available

SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT

19

April 3, 200

IXHIBIT "B"

---

otherwise .

Leaking from liner systems under Section

C (Assumed Trench C, Pages 4, 5 and 6)

Mr

. Norris states he has reviewed leakage rates and quality data from Trench C since his

testimony

. He concludes it does not match predicted primary leakage rates and water quality

was leachate, especially Trench C-1

. Secondary detection system leakage rates fell off after the

trench was capped . Mr

. Norris' conclusions in this regard are consistent with Staffs conclusions

regarding Trench C-1 design and the drop off of leachate generation rates . This is why staff

recommends no vertical expansion over Trench C-1 without an intermediate composite liner

above the existing waste .

Contamination under the PDC Waste Disposal Complex (Page 6)

Mr

. Norris states "Unknown, unproven and speculative off-site sources are rationalized

as the cause of all on-site contamination." Staff disagrees with Mr

. Norris' characterization of

off-site sources

. The ISWS Research Report 124 discusses sources of chloride and sulfate in

Peoria from the bedrock and other surface sources

. The application included data near the site of

chlorides present in the shallow bedrock or shale (Pottstown School well)

. In addition, the

March 22, 2006 submittal provides evidence to show the leachate isn't the source in 2 of the 3

downgradient monitoring wells showing increases in non-hazardous indicator parameters . That

being said, County Staff has not been able to definitively determine the chloride in one down

gradient well is from off-site sources As a result, staff continues to believe the approach

proposed in its initial Staff Report is appropriate

.

Mr

. Norris states "The multitude of assumptions that are necessary to explain away all

the contamination under . . .

does not conform to the maxim

." Staff disagrees. Chloride and

sulfate provide good indicator parameters since they are high in leachate, but published reports

by the Illinois State Water Survey for the Peoria-Pekin region reports these occur naturally and

from other non-landfill man-made sources

. The leachate fingerprinting provided in the March

22, 2006 submittal rules out Trench C as a possible sources of the increases, except for the

chloride found in well RI38

. County Staff believes this well could be impacted from man-made

offsite sources of chloride, natural increases in chloride, closed PDC landfills and/or Trench C-1

.

Since County Staff is unable to make a definitive determination of the source, Staff has taken the

conservative approach of trying to isolate any area of C-1 which might be contributing chloride

SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT

20

April 3, 200

~XHIBIT "B"

---

to the groundwater

.

Chloride (Pages 6 and 7)

Mr

. Norris states "each of these speculative off-site sources can be easily eliminated

."

Staff disagrees . Well-documented occurrences of natural variation of these indicator parameters

(discussed in item 3 above) . This may very well be why they were not evaluated against

background in the PDC monitoring network .

Mr. Norris states "The dismissal of leachate as a possible source of chloride

contamination on the basis of the lack of correspondence between sulfate and chloride, both of

which are in the leachate of at least the C-area trenches, is inappropriate ." Staff agrees . This is

why staff asked for the chloride-bromide data and the major cation-anion Piper Diagram Plots be

provided .

Mr

. Norris states were the chloride from some offsite source from the wells, there would

not be a decline in chloride contamination occurring with a drop in precipitation . This point is

not applicable to the proposed expansion since the wells Mr

. Norris appears to be referring to

(R132, R133, and R122) are located over 1,000 feet upgradient from the proposed expansion . If

these wells were impacted by onsite sources, it would have to be from closed units that are not

proposed for expansion in the application

.

Chloride/Bromide Ratios (Pages 8)

.

Mr

. Norris states "It was not reported whether these 8 wells and single source of leachate

constituted the entirety of the "special" sampling event or a subset ." Staff agrees with this

comment.

Staff did not have the opportunity to review the sampling approach, data or

calculations used to prepare the geochemical plots and tables

.

Mr

. Norris states the analyses of the leachate from several areas of this old unit would

allow testing of this conclusion and could shed considerable light on the other contaminant

concentrations and distributions related to the PDC waste disposal complex as a whole . Staff

agrees with this comment

. Staff points out that other closed areas are not proposed for vertical

expansion, so they are not as critical as Trench C . In addition, the perpetual care fund will

provide additional protection for these older closed areas of the PDC landfill not proposed for

vertical expansion.

SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT

21

April 3, 200

%XHIBIT "B"

---

Tritium (Page 9)

As performed, the tritium analyses are largely meaningless . Staff agrees with this

comment. Tritium enrichment should have been used in the leachate and groundwater analyses

to provide lower detection limits .

General Contamination Patterns (Page 10)

Mr

. Norris states the biochemical alterations of chlorinated and non-chlorinated organic

compounds is one of the reasons why the indicator parameters TOX and TOC are so valuable .

Staff disagrees with this comment . TOX and TOC are of little value if you analyze for specific

inorganic compounds and are subject to frequent false positives (increases over background not

attributable to the landfill)

.

Piper Diagrams (Page 11)

Mr

. Norris states that PDC did not choose to include analyses of the leachate from the

older units, including the municipal solid waste units, leachate as likely or more likely to be

impacting site water quality

. Staff agrees with this comment . However, since Trench C is

proposed for vertical expansion and not the closed PDC units, the study was useful to determine

impact of Trench C on downgradient groundwater quality .

Groundwater Assessment Modeling

Staff believes that the type of groundwater model used by Dr. Barrows is appropriate for

this type of application for evaluating future potential impacts to groundwater quality as required

by IEPA for the permit application . The IEPA requires that the applicant model impacts up to

100 years after closure, but PDC decided to model out to 500 years after closure . Staff had

concerns over the assumptions and parameters used for the original model regarding the

appropriate hydraulic conductivity of the clayey till (based on lab permeability tests) . Also, there

is evidence that portions of the till may be saturated, as seen in numerous borings and in sand

lenses, not unsaturated as assumed by Dr

. Barrows.

Dr

. Barrows, however, recently submitted a supplemental report stating that the most

sensitive parameter for the model used in the application was not hydraulic conductivity . I-le

admitted that this was in error and that the model is actually more sensitive to liner leakage rates,

not hydraulic conductivity . In regard to Staff concerns over the effects of saturation, he stated

SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT

22

April 3,

2006EXHIBIT

`B°

---

that that modeling the till as saturated or saturated is neither conservative or less conservative

because soil pore pressure is the more important parameter . Also the lab tests for permeability

were correct since vertical permeability was a concern, not horizontal permeability as would

have been gained from field tests .

Regarding the PFTAW concern about flow rates calculated by Harza in 1989 may be

almost 10 times higher that the flow rates calculated by PDC for the present groundwater

conditions, it is concluded that this discrepancy would not have had a significant impact to the

original GIE model for the aquifer transport results in Dr . Barrows results and conclusions . As a

result, the difference in flow rates also would not cause Staffs opinion regarding the

recommendations and Special Conditions for the PDC expansion siting application .

Since Staff has not had an opportunity to independently verify the change in sensitivity

(i.e . liner leakage rates) analysis of the model set forth in PDC's Supplemental Report, Staff is

unwilling to rely solely on modeling conclusions to eliminate the possibility that the increasing

historical trends in chloride concentrations at downgradient monitoring well R138 are not due to

leakage from C-1

. Although it is possible that elevated chloride levels are coming from other

sources, to be conservative, Staff has determined it prudent to continue to include C-1 as a

possible source

. Therefore, Special Conditions relative to C-1 vertical expansion are

recommended and necessary .

Supplemental Comments (Page 12)

Norris states "the monitoring wells at the site tell us that organic contaminants do reach

the aquifer and do migrate to monitoring wells at levels that are not only detectable, but are of

regulatory concern"

. Staff acknowledges these organic compounds have been detected ; however

the IEPA has acknowledged that they are not from this facility .

Issue:

Connection to Sankoty Aquifer

The Sierra Club report says

The PDC hazardous Waste Landfill is not located to protect

public health, safety and welfare because it is located over part of the Sankoty Aquifer system

sands .

The Act is specific that the facility not be located in the regulated recharge area, and it is

not.

SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT

23

April 3, 2006EXHIBIT

"B"

---

If PDC were 1/10 mile closer to the Pleasant Valley Water District, state regulations

would not allow a new pollution control source to proceed (SC, p .10). Staff is unaware of the

requirement to be I mile away from the regulated recharge area . The three pumping wells

shown in the state regulations for the Pleasant Valley Public Water District already have the

1000-foot buffer, and the outer edge of the buffer is over 1 .1 mile away from the landfill . We

will seek clarification of this, however, it still remains that the site is well outside the regulated

recharge area . The regulations (615 .105 (A) 5) b) ) that are established for Pleasant Valley

Public Water District also exempt facilities that may be considered a new pollution control

source that are located over 2500 feet from the boundary of the facility to the well head

.

ITEM 4- Older

Sections of the Site.

"Older parts of the landfill have not been brought up to best available technology and

current day standards."

(SC, p.5). Although the County Staff agrees that the old parts of the site

should be monitored closely, PDC is already responsible for those areas to the satisfaction of the

IEPA

. Since the older units are not part of this siting request, staff must focus on the actual

siting request as required by the Act

. The perpetual care fund will provide long term care and

monitoring of not just the expanded area, but the inactive areas of the larger facility as well .

"There is need for the County to work with the public and the regulatory agencies to

investigate this situation

. This investigation will likely involve constructing additional

monitoring wells and monitoring the groundwaters that are potentially impacted by the former

landfill section, to determine if

pollution is occurring in that part of the landfill . This

investigation should be paid for by PDC and would include involvement of independent experts

who could provide reliable information to the public on the development of the investigation, its

implementation and results .

If there is an indication that this part of the landfill is polluting

groundwaters, then PDC should be

required to start a comprehensive groundwater

investigation/remediation program to define the extent of the pollution, to control its further

spread and to remediate the polluted groundwaters to the maximum

extent possible. " (Lee,

Comments, p.26)

This should be covered by Peoria County's perpetual care fund as cap

maintenance, monitoring and leachate management will be required . Also, the barrel trench is

monitored and regulated by the IEPA and any evidence of contamination by hazardous

constituents that originate from the barrel trench over groundwater quality standards will trigger

SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT

24

April 3,

2006

EXHIBIT "B"

---

corrective action required to be performed by PDC

. The US EPA would have required the

facility to prepare RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) prior to the Part B permit for the existing

permit

. This would have included all the old units .

"The County Board may also consider 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 two and five . " (SC,

p.]]) The report cites references documents from the 70's to mid 80's

. The Sierra Club is

correct in that the Board may also consider past experience, often referred to as the 10th

criterion

. Although Staff has concern over the old units and their potential to leak, Staff has

focused on the siting application as required by the Act

. At this juncture, we rely on the IEPA to

monitor and address the old units

. However, if the Board feels that additional scrutiny should be

placed on those units, County Staff would work with IEPA to require PDC to investigate them

further

.

The compliance record of the last 12 consecutive years appears impressive. The

proposed expansion of the landfill is proposed to be operated in substantially the same manner as

the present operating portions of the facility have been operated over the past 12 years .

Therefore, Staff believes the more recent operating record is more indicative of how PDC is

likely to operate the proposed expanded landfill as opposed to compliance records from the

distant past before the present hazardous waste landfill regulatory regime was in place

.

SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT

25

April 3, 2006EXHIBIT

"B"

---

CRITERION 3

THE FACILITY

IS SO LOCATED SO AS TO MINIMIZE INCOMPATIBILITY

WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING AREA AND TO MINIMIZE

THE EFFECT ON THE VALUE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY

Issue :

Compatibility with the Character of the Surrounding Area

"The landfill is located too close to a major residential area . Dr. Fred Lee states that

several miles of buffer lands should be located between such a landfill and adjacent property

owners . (SC, p. 4)

Neither Illinois nor federal regulations require such large buffer zones . The

landfill is buffered by properties owned by PDC, and varies in length and width . The minimum

distance from the landfill to the PDC property line is estimated at over 300 feet

.

"The proposed expansion will not be compatible with the character of the surrounding

area. PDC proposes to build a

45foot vertical expansion (mound) over 32 acres of their

existing landfill, and for

15

years this mound will be under construction . " (SC, p.7) County Staff

has reviewed the report by Lannert and believes it accurately reflects the present situation, but

Staff is also concerned of the proximity of the vertical expansion over C-1 to the residents to the

east of the landfill

. The landfill has been in existence for over thirty (30) years . During that

period of time, residential land uses have expanded out to within the distances now being

discussed

. Presumably, this encroachment would not have taken place if the land uses were, in

fact, incompatible

. Since the proposed expansion of the landfill is proposed to be operated in

substantially the same fashion as the existing landfill, it would seem logical to conclude that

continued landfilling operations would not be incompatible

. That being said, the proposed

expansion would increase the height of the landfill, and that increased height and the continuing

landfilling activities could potentially create visual and/or noise impacts on the surrounding

residential uses

. This is the rationale for the special condition to install a screening berm to

block the view of active landfill operations, as well as to help block potential noise that could

emanate from the site

. If C-1 is not vertically expanded, then the impact of the expansion should

largely be mitigated

.

If C-1 is not vertically expanded, the approximate amount of waste

entering the site would likely be about between 25% and 30% less than proposed, thus the

potential length of time the site is open could be reduced

.

SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT

26

April 3, 2006

EXHIBIT "B"

---

An Applicant cannot satisfy criteria #3 merely by pointing out that a landfill presently

exists at the location

. Even with an existing facility, an applicant is required to demonstrate the

proposed expansion is so designed and located as to "minimize" incompatibility with

surrounding land use

. However, an applicant is not required to prove as part of its application,

that it has or will eliminate or prevent all conflict with or impact on surrounding land use. The

applicant has to prove it has taken or will take reasonably feasible steps to do what it can to

minimize the impact of the facility on surrounding land uses . The reasonable efforts to minimize

impact, however, are required only if there has been shown that there is some incompatibility

with the surrounding area

. County Staff believes the special condition of a berm would be a

reasonable effort to minimize potential impacts .

"The application

must be treated as if it is a new pollution control facility, and

compatibility standards must be applied as strictly to an expanded facility as to one not yet in

existence

. " (PFATW, Evidentiary Summary, p

.20)

County staff acknowledges this concept, and

refers to its response to the prior point .

Issue:

Effect on the Value of Surrounding Property

"It remains to be seen what effect PDC will have on the value of surrounding property . "

(SC, p.8)

It is true that no one knows what future land values will be, be they near a landfill or

near a shopping mall, in elsewhere

. County Staff has reviewed DeClark's report and found it to

be properly prepared .

That report concludes proximity to the landfill has not caused an

appreciable affect on property values as compared to other residential property in similar areas .

There is no evidence in the record to contradict Mr . DeClark's report . Since the existing

landfilling operations have apparently had no impact on property values, and the proposed

expansion is to be operated in substantially the same manner as the existing facility, it is logical

to assume continued landfilling operations during any proposed expansion would likewise have

little or no impact on property values

. It is true that if a drinking water source is not useable due

to contamination, property values could be impacted

. However, since the majority of residences

east of the property are on water supplied by the water district, they are not at risk unless the

Sankoty is affected

. Staff believes the risk to the Sankoty at the pumping wells to impact by the

landfill is very small .

SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT

27

April 3, 200F

EXHIBIT "B"

---

"The publicity of the dump has caused a recent increase in requests to the Assessor's

Office by Peoria-area home owners to decrease their property taxes given their proximity to a

hazardous landfill. " (PFATW, Evidentiary Summary, p .22) While this concern raises an

interesting question, there is nothing in the record upon which the County can conclude that this

specific site will cause a decrease in property values

. County staff has received no direct

communication requesting reductions in assessments due to proximity to the landfill . In

communication with the City of Peoria Township Assessor, there have been a couple of requests

for reduction. As with any complaint if there is evidence to support an individuals claim for a

reduction in assessed value, it will be reviewed by the Township Assessor, County Assessment

staff or the Peoria County Board of Review

.

SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT

28

April 3, 200EEXHIBIT "B°

---

CRITERION 5

THE PLAN OF OPERATIONS OF THE FACILTY IS DESIGNED TO MINIMIZE

THE DANGER TO THE SURROUNDING AREA FROM FIRE, SPILLS OR

OTHER OPERATIONAL ACCIDENTS

Issue:

Perpetual Care Fund

"One of

the major issues with respect to landfilling of

hazardous wastes is establishing

adequate funding for post-closure monitoring and maintenance of the landfill for as long as the

wastes in the landfill will be a threat . Peoria County should be complimented for including the

'perpetual care" requirement in it Site Hearing section of the Peoria County Code . It wisely

added the requirement ofperpetual care to the siting application process

. It is my understanding

that this is above and beyond the requirements

of Section 39.2 of

the Illinois Environmental

Protection Act, found at 415 ILCS 5/39.2

.

"Perpetual" is defined to mean "lasting for eternity . "

Peoria County has clearly adopted a 'forever" standard of care, a standard that PDC fails to

meet." (Lee, Comments, p .6)

"Perpetual care should be defined based on the period of time that the wastes are a

threat to be released from the landfill into the environment, not some arbitrarily developed 30-

year minimum post-closure care period, which was originally adopted as part of the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) by the US Congress. " (Lee, Comments, p.20)

"There will be a need for adequate post closure care, forever, if there is to be any hope of

minimizing adverse impacts ofthe

PDC hazardous waste landfill on water supply, water quality,

public health and the environment."

(Lee, Comments, p .19) . "Who is going to provide for the

post-closure activities from year 31 on, to hundreds to a thousand or more years that the wastes

in the PDC landfill will be a threat? It is apparent that PDC proposes a "turn-key" transfer for

the perpetual care obligations related to the site to the County ofPeoria sometime after the post

closure release of the site by the Illinois EPA . The Flawed Technology review discusses the

types ofpost-closure

activities that will be needed, effectively, forever . " (Lee, Comments, p.20)

"PFATW is elated the Staff is recommending a true Perpetual Care Fund, as opposed to

the one offered by the Applicant, to be expanded not only in dollar amounts contributed to the

escrow fund, but also the expansion ofthe

scope to include all areas ofPDC #1, open or closed"

(PFATW Response, p.4)

SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT

29

April 3, 200

~XHIBIT "B"

---

Much of the submission into the public record following the release of the County Staff

report pertained to the need to care for the site into perpetuity . Many communities do not have

perpetual care requirements in their ordinances pertaining to solid waste management . Peoria

County does .

County Staff believes the perpetual care fund proposed in the staff report is

sufficient to protect this site into perpetuity

. However, the Peoria Families Against Toxic Waste

raised the issue of adequate funding in the perpetual care fund should the County Board

determine that no expansion over C-1 should occur

. According to Staff estimates, no expansion

over C-1 would reduce the potential air space available for expansion by 25-30% . With the

possibility that less than 150,000 tons of waste per year or less than the entire approximately 2 .2

million tons set forth in the application may be disposed of at the facility, County Staff agrees

and recommends a minimum annual contribution into the perpetual care fund be established .

County Staff's calculations regarding levels of funding and future costs are based upon the

assumption that at least the full amount of 150,000 tons would be disposed of each year

. In order

to insure the necessary funding is available, County Staff recommends that the language of the

special condition and the amendment to the Host Community Agreement be modified so that it

requires $1

.50 per ton, but not less than $225,000 per year for at least 15 years following PDC's

receipt of the necessary permit to operate the expanded landfill

.

"All of these issues should be reviewed and deftned by Peoria County, with respect to the

potential long term cost to the County, as part of its review of the PDC hazardous waste landfill

expansion application

. These same issues need to be defined with respect to the closure of the

existing hazardous waste landfill, should the County determine that an expansion of this landfill

should not be allowed because of the increase magnitude of the threat to the public health,

groundwater resources and the environment that already exists for the currently operating PDC

hazardous waste landfill."

(Lee, Comments, p .21) County Staff recommends a perpetual care

fund to be established as a special condition

. This fund will be more than adequate by the time

PDC operates and closes the facility and after the 30 years of Post-closure care have been

conducted .

This will allow for continued cap maintenance, monitoring, corrective action,

leachate management (if any required), and compliance on the new expansion and the older

sections of the hazardous waste landfill

. It will also provide additional protection for the "barrel

trench" and older sections of the landfill

. Should the landfill expansion not be approved, none of

the perpetual care provisions would be in place to provide additional protection to Peoria

SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT

30

April 3,

200fXHIBIT

"B"

---

County

. In fact, if the opponents of the expansion are correct, and the threat of this site is

forever, then the County will at some point be exposed to the existing threat

. Thus the only way

to provide additional protections over and above the State and Federal requirements is with an

established perpetual care fund paid by the Applicant, not the future taxpayers of Peoria County .

The following table reflects Dr

. Lee's recommended perpetual care requirements, the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency post closure care requirements (415 ILCS 5/22

.3), and the

perpetual care activities outlined by County Staff, enforceable through the Host Agreement . The

table also identifies the period of time the IEPA or the County would have oversight over the site

and could compel PDC towards corrective action :

Table SSR-1 : Comparison of Post-Closure Care Activities With or Without Expansion

SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT

31

April 3, 200

9XHIBIT "B"

Post-Closure Care Activity

G . Fred

Lee's

Comments

on PDC

Expansion with

Special Conditions

No Expansion

IEPA

Monitoring

Peoria

County

Monitoring

IEPA

Monitoring

????

Perpetual 2006-2054

2055-

o0 2006 - 2039

2040 -

co

Gas Migration

r

r

r

d

Drainage Problems

s

r

r

r

Erosion

v'

s

s

r

Settling

s

r

r

r

Groundwater Pollution

d

r

d

d

Surface Water Pollution

s

r

VI

V

Other Environmental and Safety

Problems

r

r

r

Remedial Action of Problems (during

period of responsibility)

s

r

Monitoring Groundwater Wells

r

s

Removing Leachate

r

r

Cleaning out Leachate Collection

System

rs

Replacing Domestic Water Supply

V

J

Funding the Liability (incl . Insurance)

s

Facility Inspections

s

Data Evaluation

s

Natural Resource Damage Costs

s

Legal Costs

s

Professional Engineering Costs

VI

---

Opponents to the application have raised numerous concerns about the fate of the site if

the applicant files for bankruptcy and/or dissolves prior to completion of the closure or post-

closure care period .

County Staff notes that PDC has demonstrated its existing financial

assurance fund is funded in excess of the amount IEPA presently requires . However, County

Staff also acknowledges the present regulatory requirements do not require PDC to provide

financial assurance for potential corrective action of inactive areas of the facility . To further

protect against the possibility of PDC not being willing or able to address potential corrective

action of the inactive areas of the facility before the perpetual care fund would be available (30

years after closure of the expanded landfill, estimated to be 2054), County Staff is

recommending an additional Special Condition which requires PDC to deposit an additional $1

million into its financial assurance trust fund for the facility within ninety (90) days of receipt of

final, non-appealable local siting approval

.

Lastly, it appears to County Staff that this site was permitted prior to the adoption of

Chapter 7.5 (Site Hearing Procedures) of the Peoria County Code, thus this RCRA permit was

not subject to the local siting process . On September 10, 1985, the Peoria County Board adopted

a statement of policy opposing the "disposal of toxic or hazardous waste over a known aquifer in

Peoria County

." [Attachment 1] While staff cannot from the record conclude the intent of prior

County Boards, it appears that this resolution may have been in response Peoria County's

inability to subject the expansion of this permit to the local siting provisions established under

the Peoria County Code

.

SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT

32

April 3, 200kXHIBIT

"B"

---

CRITERION 7

IF THE FACILITY WILL BE TREATING, STORING, OR DISPOSING OF

HAZARDOUS WASTE, AN EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN EXISTS FOR THE

FACILITY WHICH INCLUDES NOTIFICATION, CONTAINMENT AND

EVACUATION PROCEDURES TO BE USED IN CASE OF AN ACCIDENTAL

RELEASE

Issue:

Emergency Plans

"No guidelines or brochures appear to exist to inform residents near PDC what to do in

the event of an air pollution emergency or toxic spill event . " (SC, p.

7) Staff agrees, although the

emergency plans are in place to handle spills and emergencies, more information should be

available to the public and other emergency management organizations in the county to

coordinate in case of some unforeseen hazard release

. Given the nature of the regulated

operations and the placement methods, Staff believes the risk level of a major catastrophe to

impact surrounding areas is minimal

. However, to address these concerns, County Staff has

recommended annual review of the emergency preparedness with appropriate agencies

.

"While PDC has safety plans for their own employees, what drills or specific plans are in

place to help nearby residents in case

offire, spill or other operation accidents?" (SC, p.9)

The

most logical location for an operational accident is the processing building

. Given the buffer

between the processing building and the edge of the PDC property boundary, the risk of fire, or

other emergencies impacting properties off-site is considered remote

. However, County Staff

has added a special condition to deal with concerns such as these

. PDC shall host an annual

tabletop exercise with appropriate emergency responders from Peoria County to ensure such

issues are prepared for

.

"There was no testimony regarding coordination with the City of Peoria in the event of an

emergency."

(PFATW, Evidentiary Summary, p.29)

County Staff agrees and is one reason for

the proposed special condition .

SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT

3 3

April 3,

200~XH1131T

"B"

---

ADDITIONAL SPECIAL CONDITIONS

The County should appoint an advisory panel that would periodically meet to discuss

current operations and proposed changes in operations of the PDC hazardous

waste landfill

(Lee, p.30) This comment, and others, has highlighted the fact that PDC, throughout its

presentation, has referred to the types of wastes is accepts at the facility as a method of resolving

or eliminating certain concerns of the opponents and the County Staff

. County Staffs review

has been largely based upon the types of wastes which PDC has accepted and continues to

accept . If those types of wastes were to change, that may change some of the Staff's analysis

.

Therefore, County Staff is recommending a new provision be added to the Host Community

Agreement to create a Waste Review Committee .

County Staff recommends the following special conditions to the County Board for

consideration in addition to those set forth in the initial Staff Report

.

1 .

Waste Review Committee .

"The Company shall not accept any new waste codes at the Facility unless said

new waste code has previously been approved by the Waste Review Committee

established herein . A "new waste code" shall mean any type of new waste

represented by a waste code set forth in Illinois EPA or U .S

. EPA regulations

which the facility is not presently accepting or which has not been accepted in the

past. A review Committee shall be established by the County Board, which shall

consist of seven (7) members . The County Board Chair, with the advice and

consent of County Board, shall appoint the following to serve on the committee

:

One (1) County Health Department representative, three (3) residents of the

County who has demonstrated an interest in the facility, and three (3) members

from the Company's waste stream review committee . If the Company desires to

accept any new waste code, then it shall make a request in writing to the Review

Committee, by giving notice as provided in this Agreement . The Review

Committee shall review the request promptly, but in no case later than sixty (60)

days after receipt by the County . The review shall take into account factors such

as the capacity of the facility and EPA regulations . Recommendation of approval

or disapproval of the request by the Review Committee shall be by majority vote

.

The recommendation shall go to the County Board, and the Board shall act on the

recommendation at the next regularly scheduled Board meeting more than five (5)

days after receipt of the recommendation . The Company shall have the

opportunity to address the Board at such meeting . The Board may not

unreasonably deny approval of the request . Failure by the Board to act on the

request at said meeting shall constitute approval, unless a continuance is requested

by the Company."

SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT

34

April 3,

200

6HIBIT "B"

---

2 .

Minimum Annual Contribution to Perpetual Care Fund .

As discussed in the body of this Supplemental Report, the issue of PDC not

disposing of the full 150,000 tons in a year or the full 2.2

million tons during the

course of any approved expansion raised the concern about proper funding of the

Perpetual Care Fund . As a result, County Staff is recommending the language

proposed for the perpetual care fund be modified so as to require PDC to

contribute to the fund at the rate of $1.50 per ton of waste, but not less than

$225,000 per year for fifteen (15) years .

3 .

Ambient Air Monitoring

As discussed in the body of this Supplemental Report, opponents have raised the

question about how and when the ambient air monitoring will be conducted .

County Staff agrees that if monitoring is going to be done, it needs to be done in a

meaningful manner. Therefore, County Staff recommends the Ambient Air

Monitoring condition be modified so as to require PDC to submit to the County,

for review and approval, a plan for ambient air monitoring that would provide, at

a minimum, for the monitoring at such times and under such conditions as would

be expected to create the greatest potential for detection of airborne releases from

the facility .

4 .

Additional $1 Million Post Closure Trust Fund Contribution

PDC shall, within ninety (90) days of receipt of final, non-appealable local siting

approval, deposit an additional $1 million into its financial assurance trust fund

for the facility . The $1 million, and the earnings thereon, shall be in addition to

any and all other funds which IPEA may require pursuant to applicable financial

assurance requirements .

SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT

35

April 3, 200

~XHIBIT "B"

---

APPENDIX 1

The first attachments in Appendix 1 include the June 17, 2004 Inspection of the PDC site

for compliance with the IEPA Regulations . This includes the entire site permitted under the

RCRA part B permit (current hazardous waste landfill, older sections of the site, and the waste

processing facility) . The report states that PDC is below permitted standards for NMOC

emissions, VOM emissions, particulate emissions, and BTU/hour boiler burning fuel oil

. The

document concludes with the statement, "No problems were observed during this inspection ."

The second attachment includes the September 10, 1985 County Board statement of

policy opposing the disposal of hazardous materials over a known aquifer, correspondence from

County Administration in 1987 and the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency regarding the

issuance of the RCRA permit for the site . It appears to County Staff that the site was permitted

prior to the adoption of Chapter 7

.5 (Site Hearing Procedures) of the Peoria County Code, thus

this RCRA permit was not subject to the local siting process . While staff cannot from the record

conclude the intent of prior County Boards, it appears that this resolution may have been in

response to not being able to subject the expansion of this permit to the local siting process .

SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT

36

April 3, 200

&HIBIT "B"

---

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

1021 Natnt G o A'VtNUE FAST,

P.. .

Box 19276.

SPk4NGFIrww, i

u.ir.as 62794-9276, 217-782-3397

ins K

. THohw

t4 Ctsa 100 WW

Rw-"

II(,

c

Fr 11-300, Ovc4cp, ti WW 1

1

1) 2-814-6026

Re:

Peoria Facility

ID

: 143 808 AAN

Dear Mr

. Welk

On June 17, 2004, an Inspection of Peoria Disposal Company was conducted by

Wayne Kahila representing

the

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency . The purpose

of the visit was to review facility operations

with regard to applicable state and federal

air pollution control laws and regulations.

A

copy of the inspection report is enclosed

for your information .

Please contact Wayne Kahila at 309 693 3461 if you have any questions regarding this

Inspection .

Si cerely,

Dean Hayden

Regional Manager

Field Operations Section

Peoria Regional Office

EnCJOSUra

-i302~~o71sh6unShaw.A .9ttt'~!rri

.It i107-IAIEl' 7.7764

Ds IN .wss-1111W H :IrtisanSi .IDe,P1, r'r

.RW1016_'tin :?sePOn

Ls:--'335'jIi Sr

.n_Hp+n.4

.Gs71 ;A-1M71

-tt11

N:-.r. .- .s13ta.t : r.,r>

•r

tit PnrIa.iLoVI-t-3i1:Ss~r~l~sr0j

.tvt .•.

m .1r„io '6104

.Uoht .4YR

.Pmitu,1161t,Ia

._UCMF93-511.2

;3c11iIl 1Y1^tt. hLi AIt I

.

:i7 .

hneIWd . ":m-In,Mild,1

.aLF17fl -1211)?116-6192

-

I'217 •s .Vsir-1IY~0 00 91 st"t .Cs

lsm [I't it "z .lr

'~!7' -'7

}109'Nt,!wS 116 7-134+in . a 5 9"7 -

;(,;(fl7)3-74nn

PMi,"O Uo Rtc.ritr

RECEIVED

Bft

AUG 1

0

2004

- IJA.FrC

- stew

EXHIBIT "B"

ROD R. . &AcoltvtoF, GovERNOR

RENEEGPRIANO,

DIRECTOR

309 6935461

FAX: 309 693 5467

I " .

.11

.J

Mr. Ron Welk

1

Peoria Disposal Company

JW4riY

tacouMwgEit

IhUMM$

4349 Southport Road

Peoria, IL. 61615

---

ILLINOis ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

1071 Nram Gwuio AveiUr Ens7, P .O . Sox 19276, Sn roman, lultagls 62794-9276

In n6 R. Tnow on Caarot, 100 MIT Rn 00th-, Sum 11 .300, Crnc.+w, IL 6(1601

Roo R

. BLAcoxv,oi, GotretKOfr

RENEE C/PRIANo, DIRrciax

ID: 143 808 AAN

Peoria Disposal Company

Field Inspection Report

Tier II Inspection Memorandum

Date

: July 7, 2004

Date of Inspection

: June 17, 2004

To : Ed Bakowski

Last Inspection Date

: September 2, 1993

From : W. Kahiia tI A/_

ID : 143 808 AAN

RID

201

County: Peoria

SIC

: 4953

Source

:

Peoria Disposal Company

Address:

4349 Southport Road, Peoria, IL 81616

Contactrftle :

Ron Walk, Facility Manager

Phone/FAX:

309 6764893

Description:

This facility Is a hazardous waste landfill . Most

of the received material Is a solid that is

classed as hazardous because of heavy metal content

. A typical example of such material is

the dust collected from a steel mill arc

fumace. Lifetime Permit No . 8202 0021 covers a

solidification and stabilization process for this material so that it can be properly landfilled-

Another process under the permit Is an

oily wastewater treatment process where oil and

grease is separated from the wastewater

. Leachate fount the landfill Is also treated in this

process,

The permit also covers a boiler and a gas collection system In the landfill .

Findings

:

Jeffrey Paul and Rachel Rose, GEC interns, were with me on this inspection . We met Ron

Walk and reviewed the required records

. After checking the records, we toured the air

emission sources

.

Since this landfill is not a municipal solid waste landfill it is not subject to-Section 220 or

40CFR60 Subpart WWW

. It does have a gas collection system consisting of 16 gas vents

ti

r ,vY

that exhaust to the air

. The permit requires a calculation of the NMOC emissions based on T' i

several parameters of the landfill

. The calculated amount is significantly less than the

t"l ;re:!rtIi

In5ir

.Rtr.4Lxd,

1611 1-rK15)?R7-7-h0

•

tb

l'Ln,fix_9

. II

V),t±1 .t,;,n ;1 .-ndrr,itie, ltsOpv,_ bc'! :at

te<xl

I

.ri aulhScale

.Elgin,ILfp7177-4W)hbft4r31

•

foot.-SZ SN (n ..naySt .Peorio II .6IfiIu

.I}r!9t g3 6)

._ • L •,

, .

Y!<Y:~ -

Ih';L1

tJ

11~ nst 5!_

rcwln,

Ii 51 61,, .

;IJ091693-5 •i d

• C ..vnc-v

it 23

South Ant ,utt1, Clfeoq, g,., l bI62U

L :7a -idi)(I

. - aSlPl % ,,,,r

Snret At1 .

1- ra•h i . R Ii' lb

-

1! 7) 766-68='1

Cix! .•A'•i l l - 2rU9 .ttalt Sttee4 tta ntvdtc ?L A

'i

'6iAi ?aG .' I 0

.au~..- 2`J09Mill,

51 . . ;,ill1164ta rn,1467951 .'6191 •193~7?pn

EXHIBIT "B"

---

Peoria Disposal Company, ID : 143 808 AAN

Page 2

permitted 8.4 tonslyear.

The

and

permit

Includes

limits

a formula

emissions

for calculating

of VOM from

the

the

VOM

wastewater

emissionstreatment

. The calculated'

process

actual

to 28

.3

emissionstonslyear

for 2003 were 4.7 tonslyear

. Up to 21,000,000 gallons of wastewater are allowed to be

processed

in a year, and in 2003 only 1,149,638 gallons were processed

.

Particulate emissions from the waste soiitllfloatlon process are limited

to 33.8 tons/year

. The

actual ernissian for 2003 based on amount proud and operating time were 20

.3 tons.

This process was operating at

the time of

this tnspaction and there were

no visible emissions.

The 20 million BTUltwur baler,

which is allowed

to burn up to 80,000 gatlonslyser of No .2

fuel oil,

actually

burned only 5,446 gallons In 2003 .

No problems were observed during this inspection

.

cc:

W.Kahila

ID 143 808 AAN

HGLE0

MAR 2 9 2006

JOANN THOMAS

PEORIA COUNTY CLEW

EXHIBIT "B"

---

143808AAN -

Peoria Disposal Co

itiS AND

LO&AT IC rl

SOURCE

n.3uH .FSS

ANNUAL.

EMISSION

REPORT

Wat,124G

A*"RESS

AIR! : 17-143-0141

TFPA USN

F"-ftr : TL

-

"00080591 : IEPA USE

IYJU~c :

4O :4J :3s •9 _0V

~LOCiG7TUUE ;

89 :39 :20,0800

Peoric Disposal Co

4349 Southport Rd

Peoria, IL 616615

COOan'ACT _ Ronald J Welk

PHONE : 309-676-4893

FAY : 3D9-672-1726

S- MAIL : rveflclpd c^area .com

F

D1oposai Co

4349 Southport Rd

Peoria, IL 61615

CONTACT: Ronald J Nelk

PHONE : 309-676-4997

EM 201

FAX :

109-672-2726

Ft-YlA IL

: rwelkepdcarea .com

7

n

utanro,,ifypcrordeuce

:tred .

..nder

easedwith

p+rnstry

onn

my

system

inquiry

of law

designed

ct

thatthe

to

uiis

parser,

aaauzn

document

or

that

persons

and

qualifiedalldirectly

.ttacbnnta

personnelresponsible

are

properly

prepared

tot

gathergathering

under

and

myChe

evaluate

direction

information,

the

or

ln£ormetiensupervision

the

n

tion s •3:mitted La

. to the heat of my knowledge and belief, tine, accurate and cao+plete

.

AUTHORIZED SIMIATURE

'.'

i :ioas Em, :roJlt': :

:aI Protection Agent/

Pnq,± : I

Division of Air Pollution Control

Date : 03-2 .'.-~OOG

DAPC

- AM=L AXI98I04w BZPORT - 2004

- SOURCE DA2A -

EXT

: 201

OGt,v

91C 1 ~ •4 25 :

NAflS 1 :

552211

ONLY

SIC 2 :

NAICS 2 :

SIC J ;

NAICS 3 :

SIC 4 :

NAICS 4

:

SIC 7 :

:5AICS S ,.

SIC 6 :

NAICS 6!

DATE

ry22!L OR PRlfSD NAME AND TITLE

TELEPHONE NUMB-<

---

Acj rcy

Davis_on of Air Pollntior. Cnncrol

Page : 0-

Dace : 03-22-2006

DAPC - ANNUAL EIISSIONS REPORT - 2004

143&OOFMv - Pooria Dicpoun1 Co

- ANL'0AL SOURCE Z=sslous -

ALLOWABLE

El£ISSX(x4s

EMISSIO215 .

REPORTED

FOR 2003

IEEPA 2004

ESTISTED

EfSSIONS

SOtmcB REPORTED

EMISSIONS FOR 2004

POL! .'JTh . T CODE

I TONS

----------------------(TO

;tiS/Y ARI

---------------------(TONS/YEAR)

------------------(TONSI1

oar R)

0 .013600

0

.150696

0

.000003

0

.000039

0 .024111

0

.024111

0,054500

0.60'2.7a4

/

.'F-AR)

30 .475300

34 .567478

16 .374800

0 .442418

0 .000700

0 .007535

0 .106400

1 .198335

39 .077788

4 .725000

37 .989148

---

I

.ois lnvirz,nna •n al PrcCecC

:on Agency

Page. :

C3

Date :

?iv

:~ian of Air Pollution Control

03-22-2006

DAPC -

ANNGAL EMISSIONS REPORT - 2004

143808AAN -

Peoria Diayoral Co

-

PERMIT LISTING -

"EN?fl"

lWMBcZ,

TYPE O

STATUS

PERI4ST

OPERATION NAME

STATut

DATE

LXVIRES

F 2O2DC? S LL€ET:ME

LAN B?ILL CPERATIC+i5

^.RAl7 Et

04-2~-ZOd2

:I4OSQ0O1 CONSTRUCTION 9AGROUSE DUST COJJ:F^TOR

GRANTED

08-18-1994

---

43boGAILN - P.oria DiaDonal Co

L-aiaaion

. Points

0004 WLM.

.00, W'RSTE SOLIDIFICATION BU :LDING

cUIe;

LEACHAI% CCLL :ZC.TI Oil SYSTEM

t;o

0

LANDFILL C;AS

COLLECTION S7.71"EX

Co:

;()

WASTE WATER TREATMENT FACILITY

0031

-

. RFAGErrr STORAGE SILOS

Control Dovicoo

: ;005

I'ARR DUST COLLECTOR

0000 BELGRADE SPLIT-SM SILO BAG;TUUS-=

Stacks

0004 B011IR EXHAUST

0000 FARR CARTRIDGE

QOi 8

F-ACK

3019

STACK

00 :0 CREATED STACK

0021

STACK

DUST COLLECTOR

1

':J .%

Page : 04

DiViDiorn or AL ; Fol.! .ntion Ccint

.rul

UALO : 03-220W

DAPC - AWMAL E=SSIONS REPORT -

204

-

Equipmant Listing -

(2)

FILED

W 2 9 2006

JOAAUY 11JOAMAS

MXRKcmbuyCaLEq

---

TO THE HONORABLE

COUNTY BOARD )

COUNTY OF PEORIA, ILLINOIS

)

Your Land Use and Executive Committees do hereby

recommend passage of the following Resolution :

RESOL U T I O N

WHEREAS, the County Board of

Peoria County has the power

to

adopt statements of general

policy

;

and

WHEREAS, the County Board of Peoria County believes it

is

in

the

best interest

of

its

citizens to protect its water

sources .

aquifer

herebySeptember,the

disposalNOW,declarein

THEREFOREPeoria

1985ofthatthetoxicCountyBECountyasorITa

.

matterRESOLVEDhazardousBoardofofthisgeneralmaterialsPeoria

lb~~

Countypolicy

day

overofita

doesknownopposes

LAND

TRANSPORTATION

USE AND

COMMITTEE

n Stevens,

-.L01

_

Chs'rman

- - -

/

as,' .

ii/LL,I LG~L

i

19

Av+4

ReviewedDated

:

:

September

5e

: RLS

&'r-

P

5,

,"D

ro

1985

e

I9p5

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

A

_001

,

9L.,,

E

1..~

5

{r;

COUNTY

WY E

. HARKRADW

CLERK

a

%,<//L%L

I

+/%,

r~r~

,a

EXHIBIT "B"

---

June 2, 1987

TO :

A11 Board Members

FROM :

Virginia Pearl

Office Manager

SUBJECT : Hazardous Waste

Peoria Disposal Company

Dave asked that the attached information from the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency be forwarded to your attention

. It

refers to a notice of intent from IEPA and U.S

. EPA to issue a

joint permit (Resource Conservation & Recovery/Hazardous & Solid

Waste) to the Peoria Disposal Company

. The attached sheets are

only an overview . The entire document is quite lengthy

; however,

it has been filed in the County Clerk office for your reference

.

Thank you .

vp

cc : D . J . Krings

County Board

County of Peoria

Room 101 •

Peoria County Courthouse

• Peoria, Illinois 61602

Phone 309)672-6056

61

---

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

2200 Churchill Road, Springfield, IL 62706

IEPA NO . :

1438120003

ILD NO . :

000805812

NOTICE NO . :

PBO1-87

DATE : Friday, May 15,

1987

PUBLIC NOTICE

The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) and the

United States

Environmental Protection Agency (U .S .

EPA)

hereby jointly give notice of intent

to issue a joint Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) permit and a

Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) permit to the Peoria Disposal

Company at 4349 Southport Road, Peoria . The facility's mailing address is

4700 N . Sterling, Peoria 61615 . The Peoria Disposal Company is currently

operating under interim status as provided for in Section 3005 of RCRA . This

joint permit would allow the Peoria Disposal Company to continue to operate a

hazardous waste storage, treatment and landfill operation . IEPA has the

authorization to issue RCRA permits although specific 1984 HSWA provisions

(amending RCRA) are addressed by U .S . EPA .

The permit application, draft permits, related information and all data

submitted by applicant, as part of the Administrative Record, are now available

for public inspection Monday through Friday between 8 :30 AM and 5

:00 PM at the

following locations :

Illinois EPA

U .S . EPA, Region V

Government & Community Affairs

Solid Waste Branch, 13th Floor

Attn

: RCRA Public Notice Clerk

230 South Dearborn Street

2200 Churchill Road

Chicago, Illinois 60604

P .O . Box 19276

312/353-2197

Springfield, IL 62794-9276

217/782-5562

Please telephone ahead for an appointment to view the documents .

Interested citizens are invited to review copies of the permit application,

draft permits and related fact sheets at the following locations :

Peoria Public Library

Peoria Public Library

IEPA

Main Branch

Lakeview Branch

5415 N . University

Business, Science and

1137 West Lake

Peoria, Illinois

Technology Section

Peoria, Illinois

107 NE Monroe

Peoria, Illinois

A public hearing to address the proposed issuance of this joint permit has

been scheduled for July 16, 1987 at 7

:00 PM at Holiday Inn, 4400 N

. Brandywine

Dr., Peoria

. The hearing will be held in accordance with Illinois EPA's

Procedures for Permit Hearings

(35 Ill . Adm . Code 166) and 35 Ill . Adm

. Code,

Subtitle G, Section 705 .182 . Written comments will be accepted from the public

for 45 days before and 30 days after the hearing (postmarked by August 15, 1987)

and will become part of the Administrative Record

. Comments should be sent to

:

Illinois EPA, Agency Hearing Officer, 2200 Churchill Road, P .O . Box 19276,

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276 .

EXHIBIT "B"

---

Page 2

All

comments submitted will

become part of the Administrative

Record and

will

be

evaluated by IEPA

and U.S . EPA in making the final permit

decisions

.

The two

agencies will

respond to comments on the draft permits,

specify which

provisions,

if any, of the final permits

may

have been changed and

indicate

whether

additional documents have been included in the Administrative

Record .

Anyone

who submits written comments will be notified of the final

permit

decisions .

KL :cla

EXHIBIT "B"

---

EXHIBIT "C"

PEORIA COUNTY JOURNAL STAR

ARTICLE FROM

APRIL 4, 2006

---

REC

CLERK'SEVE

I

D

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

OCT 0 5

2006

PEORIA DISPOSAL COMPANY

STATE OF iLLINOI

)

c

Pollution Control

130ard

v)

Petitioner,

©21 .j

PCB 06-184

v.

)

(Pollution Control Facility Siting

Appeal)

PEORIA COUNTY BOARD,

)

Respondent .

)

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

The undersigned, a non-attorney, being duly sworn upon oath, states that a copy

of the attached Response to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Criterion v) and

Memorandum of Facts and Law in Support of Response to Motion for Partial Summary

Judgment (Criterion v), of Respondent Peoria County Board, was served upon the

following persons by enclosing such documents in separate envelopes, addressed as

follows, and depositing said envelopes in the U

.S . Postal Service mail box at Morton,

Illinois on the 4!h

day of October, 2006, before 5 :00 p .m., with all fees thereon fully

prepaid and addressed as follows :

Carol Webb

George Mueller, P.C.

Hearing Officer

Attorney at Law

Illinois Pollution Control Board

628 Columbus Street, Suite 204

1021 North Grand Avenue East

Ottawa, IL 61350

P.O. Box 19274

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9274

Brian J . Meginnes

Elias, Meginnes, Riffle & Seghetti, P .C.

416 Main Street, Suite 1400

Peoria, IL 61602

Dated: October 4, 2006 .

Subscribe and sworn to before me, a Notary Public, in the County and State as

aforesaid, this day of /I(IfD hjA.

• ,

2006 .

OFFICIAL SEAL

HEATHER A . FEENEY

NOTARY PUBLICS STATE OF ILLINOIS

MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 56200'

Notary Public

(