ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

August

5,

1982

WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS,

INC.,

)

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB 82—55

)

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF

TAZEWELL

)

COUNTY,

Respondent.

DISSENTING OPINION (by

J.D. Dumelle):

My reasons for dissenting are:

the obviously inadequate

legal notice regarding special wastes;

the lack of due process

for East Peoria in its request for a hearing before this Board;

the majority’s position on prohibiting the County from considering

technical “subsurface” issues;

and

the admittedly “leaky landfill”

to be built over a major water supply aquifer.

The printed notice

(Joint Exhibit

6)

is clearly deficient

in telling the public that special wastes were to be considered

for disposal at the site under review,

All the notice says is

“for location approval of a solid waste disposal facility

will be used as a regional landfill.”

This notice,

prepared by

Waste Management of Illinois, Inc. does not mention that special

wastes are to be disposed of at the site.

The County Board Chairman,

in his opening

statement on

February 18,

1982 describes

the

application as desiring approval

to dispose of “nonhazardous household,

industrial and special

wastes.”

This statement does not cure the printed notice

defect.

Some of the public may have relied upon the printed

notice and thus not attended the hearing.

The majority in its

opinion gives a warning to future applicants to be more precise

in notices.

That does not cure the legal defect in this case.

At the very least,

I would have disallowed permission to dispose

of special wastes at this site because of failure of the printed

notice to inform adequately.

The second defect in this proceeding was the majority’s

failure to grant East Peoria a hearing before the Board.

In

the Board’s hearing on July 1,

1982 the Hearing Officer only

allowed intervention at the end of the hearing.

Thus East Peoria,

a city of 22,083,

could not present any evidence at all because

of this late ruling

on

intervention,

Its evidence might have

dealt with the adequacy of the record or the fundamental fairness

of

the County proceedings.

Sufficient time

(17

days)

remained

for a hearing

(see July

21

and July

26

orders and the dissent

filed by me).

The acceptance of the offers of proof by the

majority is not sufficient.

47-497

---

—2—

The third problem in this case is the majority’s reading

of legislative intent to leave technical

(translated as “subsur-

face”) matters to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

and to exclude the County from considering them.

I do not read

criteria #2 in P.A.

82—682 as saying that.

Indeed a plain reading

shows the opposite intent.

What could be plainer than “The facility

is so designed, located and proposed to be operated that the

public health,

safety and welfare will be protected”

(underlining

added)?

The leading case in Illinois to date of errors

in landfill

“design and location”

(to paraphrase the criterion cited above)

is the Wilsonville landfill,

Here,

a site was approved over

abandoned mine shafts,

That fact is certainly germane to approval

or disapproval of a site.

Yet the majority’s ruling on legis-

lative intent would prohibit an elected County Board from consi-

dering subsurface geology whether involving abandoned mine shafts

or earthquake faults or nearby potable water aquifers or the safety

and adequacy of a clay layer.

It can be argued that a County Board is not sufficiently expert

in hydrology and soils to decide issues concerning these areas.

At the same time, however, the County Board members are charged

with protecting public health and certainly with protecting

their county’s major water supply.

Somewhere in the political

process the elected layman has to make technical decisions

if

all of us are not to be governed by “experts”.

Lastly let us analyze those “subsurface” factors,

The Waste

Management landfill will leak into the Sankoty aquifer.

Joint

Exhibit 13A gives the time period for this to happen (Appendix IV).

Using

a leachate percolation rate of 0.206 feet per year

it would

take 50 years to penetrate the 10 feet of clay,

And using 1.03

feet per year it would take

90 more years to penetrate the average

90 feet of soil below the clay layer and above the Sankoty aquifer.

That totals to 140 years.

Two questions arise.

How reliable are these time estimates?

How “clean” will be the leachate after attenuation and cationic

exchange by the clay layer?

The Waste Management witness,

Dr. Murray M. McComas,

an

expert hydrogeologist, testified on Feb.

18,

1982 at the County

hearing.

He increased the flow rate through the clay layer by

50

over that estimated by Patrick Engineering,

Inc. in Joint

Exhibit 13A.

He used 0.3 feet per year instead of 0.206 feet

per year

(R.93).

The time necessary to penetrate 10 feet of clay

then becomes

33 years and not the 50 years referred to above.

Dr. McComas then states that the next layer to be encountered

is a “buried silt zone” with a transmission velocity of 0.002 feet

per year (R.95).

But Patrick Engineering had put it at 1.03 feet

per year or 515 times more porous!

These major discrepancies by

experts from the same side are not explained.

47-498

---

A landfill above a major

potaht~. water

supply

ought to be

“fail—safe”.

If we use Dr~

McCc’n~

~:~uro of 0,3 feet per

year

as

the

worst

case

condition

we

are

:~uciq

about 33

years

to

penetrate

10

feet

of clay~ But the 1~feet of clay is the

“natural

clay”

layer.

it

is not placed by man,

A

sand

lense

could

occur

in

the

bottom and negate the 1C feet of

protection.

Testimony

by

a

local

consulting engineer,

Robert

M. Randolph,

points

this

out

(R,203),

If

a sand lense has only

two

feet

of

clay

over

it, then using Dr. McCornas~0~3feet per year rate,

the

bottom

integrity

would

be breached in 6.7 years,

not

33

years!

How

much

protection

would be given by the layer

below

the

clay

also

depends

upon

its

integrity with reference to the

sand

lense

problem.

The Patrick Engineering use of “average”

depth

of

90

feet

is

not

correct,

The least depth

(50 feet)

should be used.

In

summary

the

“140

year” figure

is probaby much

too

generous.

Leakage

into

the

Sankoty

Aquifer could well

occur

early

in

the

21st

century,

The

other

question posed was the degree of attenuation of

organics

and metals by a clay layer.

Dr, McComas testified

that

a

layer

of

two feet is “more than adequate” for

most

landfills anywhere

in the country

(R,103),

However,

the

technical

literature has recently begun to discuss the deleterious effects

upon clay of certain organic solvents0

Will the clay liner resist

this action and continue to attenuate or will

it simply become much

more porous?

Will special wastes,

which include oily sludges,

metal

fines,

and hot lime, overwhelm the attenuation capacity of

the clay?

Certainly the County Board would wish

to consider these

“subsurface” factors when making its decision.

Until other methods of refuse disposal such as recycling

and incineration are better developed,

landfills will be needed.

But they should receive full scrutiny (surface and subsurface)

by elected public officials if they are to protect their consti-

tuents.

And

I believe that is the statutory intent.

I,

Christan L. Moffett, hereby certify that the above

dissenting opinion was filed on

~~day

of__________________

1982.

~

Illinois Pollutio

ontrol Board

,~,

Jumeile, Chairman

I:Llinois Pollution Control Board

d

47-499