ILLINOIS POLLUl ION CONTr~OL BOARD
October 1, 1987
A.R.F. LANDFILL, INC.,
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 87~-5l
LAKE COUNTY,
Respondent.
MESSRS RICHARD
3.
KISSEL AND BRADLEY R. O’BRISN, MARTIN,
CRAIG,
CHESTER
AND SCNNENSCHEIN, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS;
MESSRS FRLD L.
FOhLI1~N,
STATE’S ATTORNEY OF LAKE COUi~~TY,AND
LARRY
~i.
CLARK ASSISTANT STATE’S ATTORNEY AND BERNARD ~1YSOCKI,
SPECIAL ASSISTANT STATE’S ATTORNEY APPEARDS
ON
BEHALF CF
RESPONDENT.
OPiNION
AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by
3.u.
Dumelie):
This matter comes before the Board on a Siting Application
Appeal filed by Petitioner on April
27,
1967. Specifically,
Petitioner appeals the March 24, 1987 decision of a Lake County
Board denying local siting approval to Petitioner’s planned
expansion of an existing landfill in Lake County, Illinois. The
Lake County Board reached its decision after 16 days of hearings
at which various persons participated, including A.R.F. Landfill,
Inc., tbe Lake County Joint Action Solid Uaste Planning Agency,
Libertyville Township, C.L.E.A.R., the Casey—Almond Group, the
illinois Attorney General’s Office and ~iiliam Alter. At the
County Board hearing Petitioner presented witnesses, testimony
and evidence in favor of the application. Likewise, objector’s
and concerned citizens were afforded similar opportunity to
present evidence and make public comment. The County Board
hearing generated approximately 4,000 pages of transcript,
pleadings, motions and argument and 127 exhibits.
MOTION
FOR SANCTIONS:
On May 22, 1987, Petitioner’s filed Interrogatories and
Requests To Produce to be answered by Lake County Board
Members. The interrogatories sought to discover the occurrence
of allegea ex—parte contacts and the existence of prejudice among
members of the County Board. On June 5, 1987 the Hearing Officer
granted Petitioner’s motion for discovery; thereby compelling
individual County Board Members to respond to the
interrogatories. However, realizing that time was short, the
hearing Officer’s order provided as follows: “Respondents shall
supply justification for the inability of any member to respond
82—47
to the discovery at that date.~ Notwithstanding the Hearing
Officer’s order to the contrary, each and every member of the
County Board failed to comply. The first responses to discovery
were not filed until June 16, 1987 this only after petitioner
filed an Emergency Motion For Sanctions and the last responses
were not filed until July 9, 1987
——
two weeks after hearing.
None of the responses contained any explanation or justification
for failing to comply with the explicit content of the Hearing
Officer’s order.
On July 15, 1987, Petitioner filled an Emergency Motion For
Sanctions, which, inter alia, identified the extremely short
statutory time limitations and further alleged that Respondent’s
failure to comply with the Hearing Officer’s order severely
prejudiced petitioner’s ability to prepare for hearing scheduled
and held on June 24, 1987. Significantly, Petitioner fails to
allege exactly how it was prejudiced by respondent’s failures.
Respondent did not file its Response To Emergency Motion For
Sanctions until July 1C, l9~7.
As a threshold matter, Respondent’s Response To Emergency
Motion For Sanctions is untimely; hence it is waived. 35 Ill.
Adm. Code Sections 105.102, 103.123(c) and l03140c) required a
response by Respondent no later than June 26, 1987. Not only was
Respondent’s reply two weeks in excess of the time limitation,
but a1so~ the response was so late as to constitute a meaningless
afterthought. The purpose of shorter filing deadlines is to
accommodate the extremely short time limitations imposed by
statute. In this case Respondent’s reply was not filed at such
time as to constitute a meaningful and timely response to
Petitioner’s allegations that the failure to comply witn the
Hearing Officer’s order prejudiced Petitioner’s case.
i~espondent’sresponse to Emergency Motion For Sanctions will not
be considered.
There is no question t~iateach and every member of the
County Board failed to comply with the Hearing Officer’s order;
first, by rendering answers well past the deadline including
well past the hearing date and secondly, by failing to explain
or justify such failure. It is also noteworthy tnat Respondent
did not appeal the Hearing Officer’s decision or seek a
modification of same.
The Hearing Officer is a critical participant in proceedings
before this Board. It is his or her duty to ensure a fair
hearing, to maintain order, to avoid delay and to develop a clear
and complete record for this Board. To this end the Hearing
Officer has the power and authority to administer oaths, issue
subpoenas, require prior submission of testimony and “to issue an
orãer requiring the answering of interrogatories
...“
35 Ill.
Adm. Code Section lO2.160g. In cases such as the one pending
with a statutorily imposed deadline looming the Hearing
Officer’s role becomes even more important. In this case, with
the statutory deadline fast approaching, the Hearing Officer
82—48
—3—
imposed a rather tight discovery schedule: He required the
County Board Members to respond to certain discovery already in
their possession by June 12, 1987
——
or to explain and justify a
late filing. All Responses were late, some of them almost one
month in excess of the Hearing Officer’s Order.
Turning now to Petitioner’s interrogatories, it is clear
that many of the questions contained therein are improper. This
Board will not sort through the questions and identify
which are
improper. It is sufficient to state that a party’s probing of
the mind of an adjudicator on that adjudicator’s deliberation
process is improper. Morgan v. U.S.
298
U.S. 468, Seabolt v.
Moses, 220 Ark. 242, 247 S.W. 2d
24
(1952). In Ash v. Iroquois
County Board, PCB 87—29, July 16, 1987 this board examined this
issue and held such probing into the “deliberation process” is
improper.
All of Petitioner’s discovery questions were not clearly
improper. However, the otherwise proper questions and their
answers do not warrant a conclusion that the Lake County Board
was biased or prejudiced, as asserted by Petitioner.
Accordingly, Motion For Sanctions is denied.
GENERAL INFORMATION
The site of the proposed landfill expansion is on 80 acres
located along the east side of Illinois Route #83, approximately
one—half mile south of Route #137 in Lake County Illinois.
Currently, Petitioner already operates a solid waste, non—
hazardous landfill at the site. According to the proposal, the
landfill will have a maximum excavated depth of 50 feet, with 80
to 130 feet of impermeable clay lying beneath the landfill. The
facility would operate six days per week, with hours of operation
9:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Monday thru Friday and 9:00 to noon on
Saturday. The proposed landfill is designed as an inward
gradient “below the zone of saturation.” The inward gradient
will be maintained until final closure by extracting leachate
from the bottom of the fill; thus, hydraulic pressures should
induce waters to migrate into the fill. Upon closure leachate
will no longer be routinely extracted and at some future time the
inward gradient will cease. Petitioner claims that the design
and proposed operation will serve to prevent leachate leakage.
Under Ill. Rev. Stat 1986 Ch. No. 111 1/2 par. 1039.2 local
authorities are to consider six criteria when reviewing an
application for site suitability app~oval for a non hazardous
regional pollution control facility.~ These criteria are as
follows:
Ill. Rev. Stat.
1986
ch. No. 111
1/2
par.
1039.2
was recently
amended. These amendments do not alter the six criteria as
stated above.
82—49
—4—
1. The facility is necessary to accommodate the waste
needs of the area it is intended to serve;
2. The facility is so designed, located and proposed to be
operated that the public health, safety and welfare
will be protected;
3. The facility is located so as to minimize
incompatibility with the character of the surrounding
area and minimize the effect on the value of the
surrounding property;
4. The facility is located outside the boundary of the 100
year flood plain as determined by the Illinois
Department of Transportation, or the site is flood
proofed to meet the standards and requirements of the
Illinois Department of Transportation and is approved
by that Department;
5. The plan of operations for the facility is designed to
minimize the danger to the surrounding area from fire,
spills or other operational accidents; and
6. The traffic patterns to or from the facility are so
designed as to minimize the impact on existing traffic
flows.
Ill. Rev. Stat. 1986 ch No. 1/2, par 1040.1 charges this Board
with reviewing the County Boards decision; specifically, whether
the County Board’s decisions concerning each of the six above
stated criteria are against the manifest weight of the
evidence. City of Rockford v. IPCB, 125 Ill. Adm. 3d 384, 80
Ill. Dec. 650, 465 N.E.2d 996 at 998 2d Dist. 1984); Waste
Management of Illinois, Inc., v. IPCB, 122 Ill. App. 3d 639, 77
Ill. Dec. 919, 461 N.E.2d 542 3rd Dist. 19841. Additionally,
this Board must evaluate whether the County Board’s procedures,
used in reaching its decision, were fundamentally fair. E & E
Hauling, Inc. v. IPCB, 116 Ill. App. 3d 586, 71 Ill. Dec. 587,
451 N.E.2d 555, at 527 2d Dist. 1983).
FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS
Ill. Rev. Stat. 1986 ch No. 111 1/2 par. 1040.1 requires
that this Board review the proceedings before the County Board to
ensure fundamental fairness.
Petitioner claims that the hearing before the County Board
was fundamentally unfair owing to the prejudice and bias of
individual Board Members. The thrust of petitioner’s allegations
is that certain County Board Members were predisposed to denying
the application. Petitioner asserts that such bias and prejudice
renders invalid the County Board decision; providing approval for
Petitioner’s landfill by operation of law.
82—50
—5—
In support of this assertion, Petitioner offers a series of
newspaper articles and excerpts from County Board deliberations
which, it claims, demonstrate the prejudice of several Board
Members. The proffered newspaper articles fall neatly into two
categories: first, quotations of statements made by Board Members
and secondly, articles by newspaper reporters giving the
reporters’ impressions and interpretations of certain statements
made by individual Board Members. The second group will not be
considered. In addition to being more than double hearsay the
articles merely contain newspaper reporters’ impressions of an
event, and are neither admissable nor credible concerning the
accuracy of those statements.
In reading the direct quotations of County Board Members and
transcripts of the Board meeting it is important to note the type
of conduct which requires disqualification: The test has been
succinctly stated as whether a disinterested observer might
fairly conclude that the decision maker had adjudged the facts as
well as the law of the case in advance of hearing. Cinderella
Career and Finishing Schools, Inc., v. F.T.C., 138 U.S. App. D.C.
152, 425 F 2d 583, 591 D.C. Cir. 1970). E & E Hauling, Inc., v.
IPCB 116 Ill. app. 3d 586, 71 Ill. Dec. 587, 451 N.E.2d 555 at
565.
Board deliberations occurred after hearing and thus cannot
be an adjudication of the facts and law prior to hearing.
Additionally, the face of the statements do not demonstrate
prejudice. The statements do reflect one Board Member’s
assessment of what the final vote will conclude and the
statements do contain admissions of past voting records; but the
statements do not demonstrate that the speakers had prejudged the
law and the facts prior to hearing. The fact that certain Board
Members admit to voting against another landfill application does
not constitute bias or prejudice.
In turning to the newspaper articles containing direct
quotations from Messrs Hanson, Reindl, Geary, Beyer, and Graham
it should be noted that these quotations are clearly hearsay
——
outside any recognized exception. But this hearing was not a
trial. And although the rules of evidence provide guidance,
hearsay is admissible when relevant, material and would be relied
upon by reasonably prudent persons in the conduct of serious
affairs. This Board upon considering the quotations from
newspaper articles, and the inherent lesser credibility afforded
such, does not agree that the speakers have adjudged the law and
facts prior to hearing
——
except for Mr. Bruce Hanson, who, in a
November 27, 1986 newspaper article, was quoted as saying the
following:
“We need to start speaking out. We need to
stand up and say, “if eight saints stand on
their heads, I still won’t vote for a
landfill”
and
-~82—51
—6—
“I am deeply saddened that I even have to be
here tonight
...
to fight off a landfill in
our own backyard.”
Initially, it should be noted that an official is presumed
capable of judging a particular controversy fairly on the basis
of the particular circumstances. U.S. v. Morgan (1941) 313 US
409, 421, 61 S. CT. 999, 1004, 85 L. ED. 1429, 1435. And the
mere fact that the official has taken a public position or
expressed strong views on an issue does not overcome that
presumption. CBE v. IPCB 152 Ill. Add. 3d 105, 105 Ill. Dec.
297, 504 N.E.2d 166 at 171 1st Dist. 1987). Rather, the
presumption of administrative regularity will be overcome only
where it is shown by clear and convincing evidence that the
official has an unalterably closed mind in critical matters.
Association of National Advertisers, Inc. v. F.T.C. (D.C. Cir.
1979) 627 F. 2d ll5lat 1170.
Mr. Hanson’s statements stand by themselves. According to
his own words it would take in excess of eight saints standing on
their heads to change his mind on petitioner’s application. It
is significant that Mr. Hanson’s statements were reported on
November 27, 1986
——
no more than two months before hearings
began. A literal interpretation of Mr. Hanson’s statement
justifies the interpretation that Mr. Hanson requires celestial
witnesses to testify for petitioner. A figurative interpretation
of Mr. Hanson’s statement is that his mind is clearly made up:
He has adjudged the case prior to hearing the evidence. As such,
Mr. Hanson is disqualified from hearing this case. And his under
oath statements in answers to interrogatories do not undo the
damage. The participants and the public have the right to an
impartial, fair adjudication and Mr. Hanson is simply not
impartial.
The disqualification of Mr. Hanson does not render the
County Board’s decision invalid. “Disqualification will not be
permitted to destroy the only tribunal with power in the
premises.” E & B Hauling, Inc. v. IPCB, supra, citing Brinkley
v. Hass~~,83 F 2d 351, 357 10th Cir. 1933).
The fact remains that Ill. Rev. Stat. 1986 ch. No. 111 1/2
par. 1039.2(a) provided as follows: “The County Board of the
County or the overruling body of the municipality
...
shall
approve the site location suitability for such
...“
The County Board is, by statute, the only body empowered to
render a decision in this matter; and the disqualification of Mr.
Hanson does not affect this. Additionally Mr. Hanson was not
needed to constitute a quorum nor was his vote ciitical to the
outcome; the final vote was 22 to 1 with one abstention.
In summary, with the disqualification of Mr. Hanson, the
hearing was fundamentally fair. Petitioner was afforded a full
and fair opportunity to present its case, and the allegations of
bias and prejudice are unsubstantiated.
82—52
REASONS FOR DECISION
Petitioner claims that the County Board’s decision was in
error because petition satisfied the six statutory criteria
contained in Ch 111 1/2 par. 1039.2. Before this Board, the
issue is whether the County Board’s decision is contrary to the
manifest weight of the evidence. E & B Hauling, Inc., supra;
City of Rockford b. IPCE, 125 Ill. App. 3d 384, 80 Ill. Dec. 650,
465 N.E.2d 996 (2d Dist. 1984); ~aste Management of Illinois,
Inc. v. IPCB, 122 Ill.
App. 3d 639, 77 Ill. Dec. 919, 461
N.E.2d
542 3d Dist. 1984
-
Specifically,
the standard is as follows:
“A verdict is
.. .
against the manifest weight
of the evidence where it is palpably
erroneous, wholly unwarranted, clearly the
result of passion or prejudice, or appears to
be arbitrary, unreasonable, and not based
upon the evidence. A verdict cannot be set
aside merely because the jury could have
drawn different inferences and conclusions
from conflicting testimony or because a
reviewing court would have reached a
different conclusion
...
when considering
whether a verdict was contrary to the
manifest weight of the evidence, a reviewing
court must view the evidence in the light
most favorable to the appellee.
Steinberg v.
Petra, 139 Ill. App. 3d 503, 508 1986.
Consequently,
if after reviewing the record, this Board finds
that the County Board could have reasonably arrived at its
conclusions, the County Board’s decisions must be affirmed.
Petitioner
claims that each and every one of the County Board’s
decisions are contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.
CRITERION NO. 1
Ill. Rev. Stat 1986 Ch no. 111 1/2 par 1039.2(a) (1) requires
the County Board to review petitioner’s application to ensure
that the proposed facility is necessary to accommodate the waste
needs of the area it is intended to serve.
Petitioner’s first witness was a Mr. John Thorsen, Project
Director for a consulting firm retained by petitioner. Thorsen,
is an environmental engineer of some 15 years experience, and
holds a master’s degree in Environmental Resource Planning from
Southern Illinois University, in addition to being a registered
professional engineer and member of the American Academy of
Environmental Engineers. R. January 19, 1987 pp. 89.
82—53
—S.-
Mr. Thorsen testified that at the present rate, current
landfill capacity would be exceeded in 1993 and that current
A.R.F. Landfill operations accommodates only 20—30 percent of the
total county—generated municipal solid wastes because there are
two other landfills in Lake County R. January 19,. 1987 pp. 96.
Thorsen described a two phased plan of development involving
a complete recycling waste—to—energy operation. Phase 1 involved
the construction of a recycling and materials recovery facility
and a landfill disposal unit. It will also include the
reservation of 17 acres for the anticipated Phase II development
of a third—party operated on—site incinerator unit or
alternatively a transfer/feed station to service a future off—
site incinerator unit R. of January 19, 1987 p. 95.
Thorsen testified that the estimated compaction ratio for
current operations was 2:1 ; in other words, the volume of refuse
is reduced by approximately one—half. This compaction will
ultimately result in 1,300 pounds of refuse per yard in the
compacted state. R. January 19, 1987 pp. 114. But at this
rate the
current facility capacity will be exhausted by early
1992. ER. January 19, 1987 p. 138. Notwithstanding this fact
or perhaps because of it, the current facility accepted
approximately 700,000 gate yards of refuse in 1985. R. of
January 9, 1987 p. 116.
However, Mr. Thorsen also testified that he only used a 15
mile range in his review of the distance waste haulers travel.
Thorsen testified that the rule of thumb for travel distance was
“driven by the economics and politics of the locality”; and in
this case it was “in the neighborhood of 15 to thirty miles.”
Thorsen also admitted that there are 26 landfill facilities in
the Cook County and collar counties but that he did not consider
these nor possible Wisconsin facilities when performing his
study. R~. January 19, 1987 pp. 115—117.
Objectors’ witness in opposition to petitioner’s proposal
was hobert Luedtke, President of the Village of Hawthorn Woods,
and Chairman of the Lake County Joint Action Solid Waste Planning
Agency (SWAC). Mr. Luedtke testified that petitioner’s
application will have a direct impact upon his agency’s ability
to implement a comprehensive publicly inspired long—range solid
waste management plan for the county ER. January 28, 1987 p.
23. Mr. Luedtke testified that the Lake County Board directed
SWAC to identify long—term solutions to manage solid waste
recovery in Lake County and to present a plan for solid waste
management to the county board R. January 28, 1987 p. 24. As a
direct result of SWAC’s activities,
the local Solid Waste
Disposal Act (P.A. 84—963) was adopted ER. January 28, 1987 p.
26.
Mr. Luedtke also pointed out that there are at least two
private wells within 400 feet of the proposed site.
R. January
28, 1987 p. 83.
82—54
-9
-
Mr. Luedtke stated that in accordance with P.A. 54-1319,
which recommends alternatives to land disposal, SWAC developed a
plan incorporating alternative methods (including incineration)
to land disposal. Mr. Luedtke estimated that it will take 4—5
years to fully implement his agency’s plan H. January 28, 1987
p. 303.
Ultimately,
Mr. Luedtke recommended denial of petitioner’s
proposal in order to give his agency sufficient
time to bring
their incinerator on—line R. January 28, 1987 p. 31
-
Mr.
Luedtke stated that the auxiliary landfill capacity would not
become exhausted until 1994—1997, which would afford enough time
to complete the incinerator R. January 26, 1987 p. 44.
However, on cross—examination,
Mr. Luedtke admitted that
additional landfill capacity was necessary, according to a study
performed
by his agency R. January, l9b7 p. 44.
This Board is charged with the duty to review the County
Board’s decision, to ensure that Petitioner’s proposal is
reasonably necessary to meet the needs of the community, in
reviewing this
portion of the County Board’s decision, it is
important to note the meaning of Criterion No. 1. One court has
defined “necessary” as meaning expedient or reasonably
convenient. B & E Hauling, Inc. v. IPCB, 116 Ill. App. 3d 586
2nd List. 1953. Another court has required a demonstration
that the proposed facility is reasonably required by the waste
needs of the area it is intended to serve, taking into
consideration such factors as the area’s waste production and
waste disposal capacity. Waste Management of Illinois, Inc. v.
IPCB, 122 Ill. App. 3d 639 3rd Dist. 1984. “Necessary,” as
regards this Criterion is something more than mere convenience
Waste Management of Illinois, Inc. v. IPCB, 123 Ill. App. 3d
1075 2nd List. 1984.
It should be noted that Petitioner used data from the
S.W.A.C. county report in attempting to demonstrate that Lake
County needs more landfill capacity. But the S.W.A.C. County
Report is merely the County’s earlier efforts at waste planning;
it is not prima facie evidence of a need for more landfill
capacity pursuant to Criterion No. 1.
Also, the SWAC county
report is merely an attempt to locate or dispose or recycle Lake
County generated waste in Lake County itself.
The Act does not
require Petitioner
to locate Lake County generated wastes in Lake
County. However, Petitioner’s witness testified that it was Lake
County’s disposal capacity he analyzed.
R. January 9, 1987 p.
194
There is no question that the area eventually will run out
of landfill capacity Petitioner says this will occur in 1993;
Objectors say this will occur 1994—1997
——
but this does not
exhaust this review. Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Thorsen, stated
that he used a 15—30 mile travel distance in his analysis. He
also stated his awareness of, 26 other landfill tacilities in the
Cook County and surrounding area
—-
but these were not utilized
82—55
—10-
in his analysis. Additionally, it should be noted that the
Wisconsin border is only 12 miles away
——
but possible landfill
capacity in Wisconsin was also ignored in his review.
Significantly, Mrs. Josephsen, office manager for petitioner,
testified she has received calls from outside areas requesting
permission to bring garbage to A.R.F.; and that she was surprized
to learn that H.C.D. hauls Round Lake and Antioch garbage to
Wisconsin. Even accepting Mr. Thorsen’s 15—30 mile rule—of--
thumb, Petitioner has failed to examine potentially available
landfill capacity in neighboring areas; areas which may provide a
solution to the County’s disposal needs. The issue before this
Board is whether the County Board decision that Petitioner
failed to establish that the proposal was necessary to
accommodate the needs of the community was contrary to the
manifest weight of the evidence. Based upon the testimony and
evidence it cannot be said that the County Board’s decision was
mistaken. Therefore, the County Board decision concerning
Criterion No. 1 is affirmed.
CRITERION NO. 2
Ill. Rev. Stat. Ch. 111 1/2 par. 1039.2 requires the County
Board to review the proposal to ensure that the facility was so
designed, located and proposed to be operated that the public
health, safety and welfare will be protected.
Petitioner’s first expert witness concerning criterion No. 2
was Mr. Edward Need, a senior hydrogeologist and geosciences
manager for Roy F. Weston, Inc., Petitioner’s retained expert.
Mr. Need summarized the regional geology as follows: 80 to 130
feet downward of fine—grained glacial deposits which are
predominantly till; 80 to 100 feet of silty sands, somewhat
interbedded with till, which must be used for domestic water
supply. This unit is known as the Glacial Aquifer. Some of the
private supply wells within one mile of Petitioner’s site utilize
this aquifer. Underlying that are zero to 20 feet of fine—
grained till, and 50 to 70 feet of dolomite that can be used for
domestic and small municipal water supplies. This is known as
the Niagaran Aquifer. Most of the public and private water
supply wells within one mile of Petitioner’s landfill obtain
water from the Niagaran Aquifer. 250 feet of shales and
agrillaceous dolomites, comprising the Maquoketa Group underlie
the Niagaran Aquifer, and 800 feet of sandstones and dolomites
which are available as municipal or industrial water supply lie
beneath that.
Mr. Need testified that soil borings were performed up to 30
feet below the proposed bottom of the landfill. But below this
level there was no direct testing results. Additionally
undisturbed soil samples were obtained for various geotechnical
parameters. The materials were clearly classified as silty clays
with moisture content ranging from 16.9 to l7..~percent.
Ver~ical permeabilities ranged from 6.64 x l0 cm/sec to 8.17 x
10 cm/sec; which, Mr. Need testified, were very favorable for
82—56
-11-
minimizing potential
leachate migration.
R. January 20, 1987 p.
17. Using triaxial test apparatus in accordance with US Army
Corps of Engineers procedures generated a 1~boratory coeffici9t
of vertical permeability range from 5 x 10 cm/sec to 6 x 10
cm/sec, with the figures being reconcilable owing to a difference
in methods. R. January 20, 1987 p. 19.
Mr Need further testified that non—surface groundwater flow
is primarily horizontal; therefore directly influenced by
topography. Groundwater in the Niagaran Aquifer flows in a south
easterly direction. R. January 20, 1987 p. 24.
Mr. Need stated that hydraulic gradients at the water table
‘were found to range from 0.011 to 0.008 feet/foot with downward
vertical gradient of 0.3 feet/foot in the area between the
Niagaran Aquifer and water table system.
Ultimately Mr. Need calculated maximum horizontal flow
velocity in a range from 8.3 feet/year. to .16 feet/year. and
maximum vertical flow rate within the Glacial and Niagaran
Aquifers at 0.044 feet/year. H. January 20, 1987 p. 29. But
he did make a rule of thumb adjustment that horizontal
permeability is one or two orders of magnitude greater than
vertical permeability. R. January 20, 1987 p. 154.
Mr. Need testified that a 12—well groundwater monitoring
network is proposed consisting of 9 wells in addition to the
three already in use. R. January 20, 1987 p. 33. But that in
any event the leachate collection system will not be operated in
the post closure stage. H. January 20, 1987 p. 51.
Mr. Need admitted that he was unaware that 40,000 people
were projected to use and drink water on the 3,500 acres
immediately west of Petitioner
——
but he did know that there were
at least seven private wells within 500 feet of the proposed
site. Mr. Need further admitted that leachate migration will
only occur, or is only likely during the post closure stage, when
the inward gradient is no longer maintained. R. January 20,
1987.
The existing clays of the landfill would be “re—worked as
necessary” to provide a clay liner. H. January 20, 1987 p.
209. And the existence of large vertical cracks extending to
the sand aquifer is extremely unlikely. H. January 20, 1987 p.
231
Mr Need testified that lateral migration of leachate is
calculated at 16 feet in 100 years
——
but the effect of the sand
seams might double that figure to 32 feet in 100 years. H.
January 20, 1987 p. 238. Notwithstanding, Mr. Need asserted
that the landfill had been engineered to minimize the likelihood
of leachate migration; H. January 20, 1987 p. 31 and there is
virtually no hazard to the public health, safety or welfare from
leachate migration. H. January 20, 1987 p. 33. In support of
82—5 7
—12.-
tnis conclusion
Mr.
Need noted that there was no leachate in
monitoring wells as of that date. ER. January 29, 1987 p. 16.
Assuming a worst case scenario, Mr. Need claimed it would take
600 years for the landfill
to leach.
H. January 20, 1987 p.
31.
Petitioner’s second witness on Criteria No. 2 was Mr. John
Thorsen; the same Mr. Thorsen identified supra concerning
Criteria No. 1. Mr. Thorsen stated that petitioner was not, at
this time, seeking approval for its proposed incinerator,
——
but
the 17 acres will be available free of charge to the County if
the County decided to incinerate solid waste in the future H.
January 21, 1987 p. 130. Mr. Thorsen explained tnat petitioner
intends a two phase approach. Phase No. 1 development would
involve construction of recycling and materials recovery facility
and landfill disposal unit. Phase No. 1 also included
reservation of land areas designated for future Phase No. 2
development of third party operated, on—site incinerator unit or
a waste processing and transfer feed station to service off—site
incinerator units. Phase No. 2 development would also include
additional landfill disposal capacity. H. July 21, 1987 p.
139. The Phase No. 2 expansion was intended to comport with the
S.U.A.C. county report.
Mr. Thorsen further testified that the system is designed to
intercept percolating leachates from the landfill and collect
these liquids in a perforated piping network, with the pipes
placed at a one percent slope toward the collection and removal
point. H. January 21, 1987 p. 155. The removal point is a
reinforced—concrete manhole which will facilitate collection,
temporary storage and removal of leachate R. January 21, 1987 p.
176. He acknowledged that sanitary sewers are usually designed
at 2 slope. H. January 21, 1957 p. 176.
Mr. Thorsen stated that leachate collection and removal
system will be designed and constructed to reduce the hydraulic
pressures within the cells; thereby minimizing the possibility of
leachate migration beyond the liner containment system. H.
January 21, 1987 p. 158. Each cell will be closed upon
exhaustion of its capacity H. January 21, 1987 p. 239 with a
moist daily cover consisting of soils excavated from each trench
R. January 21, 1987 p. 171. Continued monitoring of the closed
landifll would be for three or five years. H. January 21, 1987
p. 179. Mr. Thor-sen also stated that surface water diversion
structures have been designed to divert storm water so as to
minimize erosion of soils while minimizing impact on downstream
and adjacent properties. R. January 21, 1987 p. 169.
On January 22, 1987 Mr. Thorsen returned and testified that
there was no need for a 24 hour guard at the facility, that a 100
foot buffer would be placed between the land and the edge of the
property, plus a 10 foot berm would be used to block roadway view
of the landfill. H. January 22, 1987 p. 94
,
Mr. Thorsen also
testified that gas vents would be utilized up to a depth of 35
82—58
-13-
feet. These vents with dimensions of 12—24” in diameter, LR.
January 22, 1987 p. 246 should eliminate noxious odors. We note
that the current fill, in which odors have been detected, does
not use such a gas vent operation. H. February 22, 1987 p. 41).
Mr Thorsen testified that he did not consider whether
certain proposed post closure procedures would deprive nearby
farmers of a water supply for cattle. ER. January 22, 1987 p.
117. The closure operations referenced above include mainly
monitoring and maintenance. This means quarterly well samples
H. February 22, 1987 p. 122 will be taken
——
but once the
leachate pipe is capped it will take 20—100 years for leachate to
reach the water table. H. January 23, 1987 p. 64.
The next witness for petitioner was Cr. Robert Schoenber~er,
Vice President for Solid and Hazardous Waste for Petitioner’s
consultant. Dr. Schoenberger has a bachelor’s degree in Civil
Engineering, master’s degrees in Environmental Engineering and
Geotechnical Engineering and a Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering, all
from Drexel University. Dr. Schoenberger was a consultant to the
U.S. Public Health Service and on the Governor’s solid waste
advisory committee from Pennsylvania. Additionally, Dr.
Schoenberger testified that he has publisned 40 or 50 scientific
papers in trade journals R. January 23, 1987 p. 140.
Dr. Schoenberger further stated that the site
characteristics, design and proposed operation meets currently
accepted standards, H. January 23, 1987
p. 155 and the proposed
plan does protect the public health, safety and welfare.
H.
January 23, 1987 p. 161.
Additionally
Dr. Schoenberger
testified that upon his review of the site characteristics design
and
proposed operation the proposed site does minimize
incompatibility with the surrounding area H. January 23, 1987 p.
162.
Objectors produced Mr. Brandon Koltz, who holds a masters
degree from the University of Iowa in environmental
engineering. Mr. Holtz has attended some courses on sanitary
landfill design, and has participated in water pollution
management projects. Currently, he is an environmental engineer
with Graef, Anhalt, Schloemer & Associates. Mr. Koltz stated
that his firm was retained by the Lake County Joint Action Solid
Waste Agency (SWAC) to review petitioner’s application H.
January 28, 1987 pp. 65—68.
In characterizing the area, Mr. Koltz testified as follows:
“The upper zone.. .is characterized as weathered
material, the potential for some water flow
following the contours of topography. ~Below that
type, clay with permeability of 1xl01 or less,
very limited vertical movement of water.. .beneath
that also glacial material is a sand and gravel
layer, silty sand, sand and gravel. This is used
82—59
—14-
as an aquifer.
-
.beneath that, the regional geology
suggests... there may be a very thin clay layer
carrying dolomitic rock in some places... this, in
turn, lies over the top of maquoketa shale, which
is a relatively impermeable layer, and below that
is cambrian
—
ordovician aquifer limestone and
sandstones. The characteristics here, the per-
meability, is very low in this clay. H. January
28, 1987 pp. 76—77
Mr. Koltz stated that certain monitoring wells used and
proposed by petitioner
cannot detect the level of the water
supply aquifer, which is just below the landfill
H. January 28,
1987 p. 60. Mr. Koltz indicated that the direction of water
flow is tram ‘west to east; and that Area No. 4 of the proposed
site would be located within 250 feet of one citizen’s well and
within 400 feet of another. He further stated that there were no
monitoring wells proposed as an early warning system for these
individuals H. January 26, 1987 p. 83.
Ultimately, Mr. Koltz concluded as follows:
Because of the questions and issues raised in our
review, we believe that the hydrogeology of the
site has not been sufficiently characterized in
order for the application to be appraised.. .more
data is needed in the area of
groundwater levels
and movement in this area H. January 28, 1987 p.
87.
Additionally, after highlighting the importance of a leachate
collective system, Mr. Koltz concluded: “we.. .analysed the
leachate collection system, we found it to be somewhat
inadequate” R. January 28, 1987 p. 89. Mr. Koltz criticized
the leachate collection system as only 12 percent efficient. Mr.
Koltz also criticized certain design deficiencies. Specifically
Mr. Koltz criticized the grainular blankets intended to be used;
he criticized the distance between leachate collection pipes and
he criticized the proposed method of closure. H. January 28,
1987 p. 90. Mr. Koltz also criticized the report’s failure to
fully characterize the proposed liner, specifically, he stated
“there’s no depth or width stated” R. January 28, 1987 p. 91.
Ultimately, he recommended that the specifications include a 3—
foot bottom liner.
Additionally, he stated as follows:
“An important part of any
——
of this type of
construction
is that an inspection be done.
It’s
not enough just to have the specifications there,
but a professional inspection should be included
as part of the construction activities. This was
not done in the application” H. January 2s, 1987
p. 93
82—60
—15-
Mr. Roltz also criticized the plan for failing to include
gas monitoring H. January 2, 1987 p. 94.
Next, objectors produced Dr. James Tracy, who holds a Ph.D.
in civil and geological engineering. Dr. Tracy stated that he
has studied or worked in various areas including groundwater
hydrogeology, facility designs, general water supply, contami-
nation studies and permitting requirements under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Dr. Tracy stated that he
has authored numerous publications in this area. Specifically,
in this case, Dr. Tracy testified that he was a consultant asked
to review petitioner’s application to determine the adequacy of
the hydrogologic characterization and monitoring plan H. January
28, 1967 p. 32. Dr. Tracy did not, himself, perform any
borings, or other tests (p. 32); rather, he reviewed the
application and its supporting documentation H. February 2, 1987
p. 33. He did, however, have the opportunity to hear
petitioner’s experts testify.
In stating the results of his review of petitioner’s
documents relative to regional hydrogeology, geology and
stratiography, Dr. Tracy stated “for the purposes of the
application I reviewed ,in general that what they submitted is
adequate” H. February 2, 1987 p. 34. Dr. Tracy was,
nonetheless, somewhat critical. Dr. Tracy went on to identify
certain “shortcomings” in the regional data, specifically,
limited site description, lack of hydrogeologic data, lack of
data concerning collection wells, lack of pump tests, lack of
slug tests and lack of “in—the—field permeability tests” H.
February 2, 1987 p. 36. Additionally, Dr. Tracy criticized
petitioner’s data relative to zones of saturation or non—
saturation H. February 2, 1987 p. 40. Dr. Tracy testified that
rather than the data provided, petitioner should have completed
more soil borings and actually completed some monitoring wells or
piezometers within the upper fractured till because of its
importance as a hydrogeologic unit H. February 2, 1987 p. 42.
Ultimately, Dr. Tracy concluded that the amount of
monitoring wells is inadequate given the complexity of the site
conditions: “Three wells are only adequate if there is no
vertical component
—
component of gradient or if they are all
completed at the same elevation. Additionally, owing to lack of
reliable data, the direction and magnitude of the groundwater
gradient and flow cannot be accurately assessed.” Dr. Tracy also
stated that it would have been proper and customary for field
tests on horizontal permeability and laboratory tests of the
boring samples to have been done
——
but such was not the case H.
February 2, 1987 pp. 47 & 48.
Additionally, Dr. Tract criticized petitioner’s calculation
of horizontal water velocity. Dr. Tracy stated as follows:
82—6 1
—16-
“So if anything, I believe that the gradient as
determined by the applicant is underestimated
because it averages gradients, vertical gradients
that cross a lowly permeable till and a much more
permeable basal sand and dolomite, so that what we
have is an average gradient that is lower than
what may exist across the till itself” H.
February 2, 1987 p. 54.
Thus, Dr. Tracy concluded, the migration of water would be
greater. H. February 2, 1987 p. 54.
Dr. Tracy also criticized petitioner’s identifying a
shallow
water table at or about 30 feet below the surface. “The water
table that they are talking about is what they have called the
‘true water table’. I don’t believe that that is the case...I
believe.. .the depth would not be 30 feet but it would be between
2 and 20 feet, as indicated by these water levels in the boring”
H. February 2, 1987 p. 63.
In summary, Dr. Tracy testified as follows:
I just don’t believe that sufficient groundwater
data, hydrology data, was collected.. .to
thoroughly characterize this site; and therefore,
any conclusions regarding the placement of
monitoring well and regarding the direction and
rate of flow is relatively speculative. H. February 2,
1987 p. 66.
On cross—examination, Dr. Tracy testified that the proposal
did utilize an inward gradient “for a transient period of time”
H. February 2, 1987 p. 87. Additionally, when directly asked
whether the facility was designed, located and proposed to
protect the public health, safety and welfare, Dr. Tracy’s answer
was “I wouldn’t feel that I would have adequate information to
draw that conclusion” H. February 2, 1987 p. 125.
Next, Objectors called Mr. George Noble to testify. Mr.
Noble is an environmental consultant and president of Noble and
Associates, Inc. Mr. Noble has a master’s degree in civil
engineering and has performed post—graduate work in land use
planning. He is a registered professional engineer in Illinois,
Pennsylvania, the United Kingdom and European Council of
Engineers. Mr. Noble testified that his principal area of
expertise is sanitary landfill design. H. February 2, 1987 p.
219
Mr. Noble identified his concerns as follows: “I have two
major problems with the landfill design as it impacts the
maintenance of surface water level inside the landfill. One is
during operation, and the other is after closure.” ER. February
2, 1987 p. 224. Mr. Noble criticized Petitioner’s leachate
collection system: “It would be common to design a manhole that
82—62
-17-
had a sufficient accommodation, sufficient room to allow a two—
man crew to get down inside the manhole and to rod out the
leachate collection system in the event there were any plugging
of the system. It’s apparent to me from review of the plan that
there is insufficient room to clear the leachate collection
system in any potential clogging.” H. February 2, 1987 p.
225. Mr.
Noble stated that
a better plan would have provided
for an alternative means for leachate to flow into the collection
system. Mr. Noble also recommended a “dedicated leachate pump”
so leachate could be collected in foul weather. H. February 2,
1987 p. 226. Additionally, the 1 slope of leachate collection
pipes was criticized. It was asserted that a greater slope would
provide a self cleansing attribute to the system. H. February
2, 1987 p. 227, H. February 3, 1987 p. 36. Mr. Noble criticized
both the operational design and the post closure design. H.
February 2, 1967 p. 229.
Mr. Noble also criticized Petitioner’s proposed landfill
liner. Mr. Noble testified that with one minor exception, the
application did not identify any type of liner for the proposed
landfill. Another factor that concerned Mr. Noble was the
apparent lack of description or identification of a plan to
remove incident rainfall inside the trench prior to closure. H.
February 3, 1987 p. 17, 19 and 113.
It should be noted that Mr.
Noble admitted that he was not reviewing final engineering
plans. His review was of permit application designs, which are
not the same thing as final engineering plans. H. February 3,
1987 p. 42; but he also stated that he did not feel final
engineering drawings were necessary to calculate the quality of
the design H. February 3, 1987 p. 120.
Finally, Mr. Noble criticized the hours of operation of the
future recycling center stating that the hours of operation
should be longer. H. February 3, 1987 p. 71. Mr. Noble
concluded by testifying that petitioner’s landfill design was not
a good design. H. February 3, 1987 p. 22.
Objectors next called Mr. Ronald Riepe. Hr. Riepe is a
professor of Geology at College of Lake County. Mr. Hiepe holds
Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees in Geology with work toward a
Ph.D. Mr. Riepe identified Lake County as being host to an
abundance of moraines a ridge which accumulates along a margin
of glacial ice ; and characterized the proposed site as 90
wetland H. February 3, 1987 p. 177. Mr. Riepe identified the
scope of his review as those parts relating to geology and
hydrogeology R. February 3, 1987 p. 222).
Mr. Hiepe stated that the proposed site is located in areas
of “poor or very poor drainage; H. February 3, 1987 p. 217)
with 133 private wells within a 3 mile radius. H. February 4,
1987 p. 100 Mr. Hiepe related his fears concerning the danger of
infiltration into the aquifers.” H. February 3, 1987 p. 219.
Mr. Riepe also characterized the direction of water flow as from
east to west. R. February 3, 1987 p. 37.
82—63
—Is—
Mr. Riepe criticized petitioner’s application as utilizing
an insufficient amount of well borings. H. February 3, 1987 p.
47. Mr. Hiepe stated he would be more comfortable with twice as
many boring samples, to examine the diverse vertical and
horizontal characteristics of the moraine. H. February 3, 1987
p. 65. He also stated that it was this diverse character of the
moraine which gave rise to the need for field testing, as opposed
to only lab tests. H. February 3, 1987 p. 94.
In conclusion, notwithstanding the fact that Mr. Riepe had
not heard all the testimony at hearing, he testified
“
that the
proposed expansion was a bad idea” H. February 4, 1967 p. 76
Specifically Mr. Hiepe stated as follows: “I think
———
that the
way the A.H.F. application addresses the water issue missed by a
wide mark.” H. February 4, 1987 p. s7.
Objectors next called Mr. Jerome Chudzik, an engineer
registered in both Illinois and Wisconsin. Mr. Chudzik holds a
bachelor’s degree in civil engineering and has attended various
engineering seminars in solid waste landfill siting and design.
Mr. Chudzik noted that the area of the proposed landfill was
currently zoned to allow landfills and was an area not intended
for future sewer and water services. H. February 5, 1987 p.
145.
In reviewing the recycling facility, Mr. Chudzik noted
several positive features of the proposal (including public
participation and the fact that scavenging would not be
allowed). However, Mr. Chudzik noted three negative aspects,
including lack of evidence relative to any interference with
current operations; inadequate traffic signs and insufficient
hours of operation. H. February 5, 1987 p. 151
In reviewing landfill construction Mr. Chudzik again noted
several positive and several negative aspects. Positive aspects
included the use of excavated clays in the construction and
filling processes, use of proper heavy equipment and use of
adequate refuse compaction. However, negative aspects included
insufficient data regarding stockpile locations, failure to
remove 25 of the cover on a daily basis and placement of a
geotextile filter fabric over the leachate trench. Mr. Chudzik’s
concern was that the use of heavy equipment might damage the
filter fabric.
In reviewing post closure operations Mr. Chudzik found
several favorable aspects, including plans to maintain a trust
fund for post—closure care; compatibility between the
construction and closure phases; use of final grading and
landscaping, negative aspects included a final closure plan that
required plugging of the manhole port Mr. Chudzik felt that the
system should not be closed; thereby allowing for leachate
monitoring after closure; failure to require certification by a
registered engineer of each stage of the closure plan; failure to
82—64
—19
—
address long—term ownership questions and failure to identify the
purchase or lack of environmental impairment liability
insurance. H. February 5, 1967 p. 174.
Regarding the questions of health, safety and welfare, Mr.
Chudzik concluded that the proposal failed to meet tnis
criterion. K. February 5, 1987 p. 176
Objectors next called Dr. Louis Marchi, a chemist. Dr.
Marchi’s specialty is in the field of inorganic chemistry, from
which he retired in 1980. H. February 4, 1987.
Dr. Marchi noted the differences between the way a geologist
and chemist defines clay geologist looks to particle size,
versus a chemist who looks at chemical composition. Dr. Marchi
stated that a chemist views clay as complex calcium
aluminosilicate. Dr. Marchi further stated that he would expect
to find certain toxic metals in a non—hazardous, solid waste
landfill because of common consumer products like lead batteries,
tin cans and plumbing products. R. February 4, 1987 p. 226
Dr. Marchi testified that these chemicals in addition to
expected acid rain will interact with the proposed clay liner
and may affect stated permeabilities. R. February 4, 1987 p.
250.
Dr. Marchi was also critical
of the “small number” of soil
borings conducted. Dr. Marchi characterized the placement of
testing bores as “haphazard” as opposed to scientifically sound,
random samples H. February 4, 1987 p. 231. Dr. Marchi stated
that data derived from the small number of samples was not
necessarily accurate, H. February 5, 1987 p. 16) and further
stated that
he
disagreed with petitioner’s stated permeability
calculations.
On cross examination Dr.
Marchi testified that he never
designed a landfill, nor had he ever conducted a permeability
test nor had he ever seen a permeability test performed. H.
February 5, 1967 p. 23. Dr. Harchi also clarified his use of
the term “haphazard”; explaining that “haphazard” was used only
to distinguish the data from scientific random samples. H.
February 5, 1967 p. 36
——
although from a statistical
perspective, haphazard testing renders results invalid. H.
February 5, 1987 p. 62. In reaching his conclusions, Dr. Marchi
acknowledged that he did not agree with the concept of
attenuation. Dr. Marchi declined to acknowledge that his view
was contrary to those of a vast majority of scientists. H.
February 5, 1987 p.44.
The Act requires this Board to review the decisions of the
County Board to ensure that the proposal is designed, located and
proposed to be operated to protect the public health, safety and
welfare, The County Board held that Petitioner had failed to
demonstrate compliance with this criterion.
82—65
—
——‘J
As demonstrated above, both sides introduced a significanf~
amount of testimony concerning the geology, design and operation
of the proposed landfill. Objectors complained that Petitioner
provided insufficient data; failed to propose gas vents and did
not adequately address
the possibility of potential sand lenses.
Petitioner’s proposal did not plan to rework the bottom
layer of the landfill. Instead, Petitioner planned to rework the
clay liners only “as needed”. Petitioner stated, however, that
it would use heavy equipment to compress the bottom layer, in
place, into a highly dense clay liner. But the fact remains that
based upon the data provided, no one knows the exact composition
of that bottom clay layer. Petitioner fails to address important
questions concerning the integrity of that bottom layer. If the
bottom layer ‘were extracted, recompacted and then replaced, the
integrity is assured because any sand lenses or other unoesirable
components can be eliminated. But this is not the proposal.
Petitioner’s proposal would merely use heavy equipment to
compress whatever materials currently exists into a tighter layer
of the same materials. ln this case the integrity of the bottom
clay barrier is unknown because the nature of the materials is
relatively unknown.
The issue before this Board is whether the County Board’s
decision that Petitioner failed to demonstrate compliance with
Criterion No. 2 was contrary to the manifest weight of the
evidence. Based upon the evidence presented and inlight of the
forgoing we cannot say that Petitioner’s proposal, ‘was clearly
designed, located and proposed to be operated such that the
public health safety and welfare is protected. For this reason
we affirm the County Board relative to Criterion No. 2.
CRITERION NO. 3
Ill. Rev. Stat. ch 111 1/2 par. 1039.2 requires local county
boards to examine the proposal to ensure that the facility is
located so as to minimize incompatibility with the surrounding
area and to minimize the effect on the
value of surrounding
property.
Dr. Schoenberger, identified above in Criteria No. 2, stated
that the facility does minimize any incompatibilities with the
surrounding area. R. January 23, 1967 p. 162. However, when
asked about any investigations conducted, he stated “I observed
the
operations,
I observed the landfill
and the location of the
road system and some of the houses in the proximity of the
landfill.”
H. January 23, 1987 p. 190.
He further testified
that the site is located away from major population areas, in a
fairly
sparsely developed area.
“...
there are some commercial
establishments
in that area, but now you are getting to be a
substantial distance from the landfill.” H. January 27, 1987 p.
195
8 2—66
—21—
Petitioner then called Mr. John Whitney, of Valtec
Associates, Schaumburg, Illinois. Mr. Whitney is vice president
for real estate evaluations for that firm. Mr. Whitney was
previously vice president of real estate appraisals for Mid—
American Appraisal and Research, and a M.A.I. by the American
Institute of Real Estate Appraisers. He has appraised most types
of real estate. H. January 29, 1987 p. 10.
Mr. Whitney testified that he conducted a review of the
proposal and potential effects or impact of the proposal on
surrounding property values. In so doing he inspected the
facility, the surrounding area, appraiseá several homes in the
vicinity and has analyzed recent property sales in the area. Mr.
Whitney stated that he discussed the proposal, including physical
dimensions and operations, with A.H.F. personnel.
H. January
29, 1967 p. 102.
In concluding Mr. Whitney testified as follows: “My opinion
is that the expansion of the existing landfill will have a
minimal effect on properties to the north, to the west and to the
south of the subject, and will impact properties to the east.”
H. January 29, 1987 p. 103. He further testified as follows:
“Based upon the configuration of the property with the setbacks,
the berming, and the landscaping, it’s my opinion that impact on
these properties will be minimized H. January 29, 1987 p.
104. “Minimal”, is later defined as a 0—5 change in value H.
January 29, 1967 p. 135.
However, Mr. Whitney testified that he was only on the site
for approximately 2 hours in January of 1987; H. January 29,
1967 p. 106, and this was his only visit. Mr. Whitney also
admitted that closure of the existing facility might increase
nearby land values H. January 29, 1987 p. 107. Significantly,
Mr. Whitney initially testified that all of the opinions he
rendered were based upon the fact that there was an existing
landfill, currently on site. H. January 29, 1987 p. 114, p.
122. Mr. Whitney also stated that his analysis did not consider
the ability of landlords to rent nearby properties. H. January
29, 1987 p. 137. Mr. Whitney also admitted that he was
operating on the assumption as stated to him by Petitioner’s
engineers that there would be no contamination from the
landfill. K. January 29, 1967 p. 140. Mr. Whitney further
stated that the facility would be visible along Routes # 137 and
#83 at ground levels H. January 29, 1987 p. 36, p. 39
On cross examination regarding Petitioner’s Exhibit #47
which identifies nearby property sales from 1980 Mr. Whitney
explained that even though 30 properties were included in the
report, only 17 sales were deemed relevant and of these sales,
several involved Petitioner.
In summary Mr. Whitney stated that neighboring industrial
properties would not be affected by the facility’s presence H.
January 30, 1987 p. 68; that his assessment would be the same
82—67
even if he had detected odors H. January 30, 1987 p. 70; that
noise was a minimal factor H. January 30, 1987 p. 73; and that
his conclusion would be the same even without the current
existence of the landfill.
Objectors then introduced Mr. Thomas J. Peters, a Real
Estate Appraiser. Mr. Peters stated that he holds an M.A.I.
Designation from the Society of Real Estate Appraisers, he is
a licensed real estate broker and a member of the Mchenry County,
State of Illinois and National Board of Realtors. Mr. Peters
testified that he has 26 years of experience in the field. H.
February 2, 1967 p. 141.
Mr. Peters stated that he conducted no independent study and
did not perform an independent evaluation of the impact the
proposed facility might have. Basically, he simply listened to
the testimony, before the County Board and reviewed the
application to determine whether or not adequate proof had been
offered to make an intelligent decision relative to criterion No.
3. H. February 2, 1987 p. 144.
Mr. Peters criticized Petitioners for failing to clearly
define the surrounding area of the proposed landfill, stating
that he felt that a mile and a half was the approximate distance
for this
——
especially since a mile and a half is the “statutory
distance for zoning work” H. February 2, 1957 p. 165. Because
of that stated failure, Mr. Peters identified the following
reservations: What is the area to be affected? Are single
family residences included? Developed areas? Agricultural
areas?
Then Mr. Peters criticized petitioner for failing to
determine relative values within the area; ultimately concluding
that utilizing the data provided by Petitioner’s expert Mr.
Whitney he could in no possible way reach the conclusions that
he Mr. Whitney) previously stated. H. February 2, 1967 p.
154. Mr. Peters testified that the proper methodology is to
determine the value of the surrounding property before deciding
whether the proposal minimizes impact on the surrounding
property. H. February 2, 1967 p. 171. Ultimately, Mr. Peters
testified that the facility fails criterion No.
3
“because it’s
in the wrong location.” H. February 2, 1987 p. 179.
Finally Mr. Peters criticized Petitioner’s property study
because it included sales of nearby property involving Petitioner
as a party; Mr. Peters stated that such was
“...
unreasonable, I
mean I can’t believe anybody would do such a thing.” H.
February 2, 1987 p. 210.
Objectors next called Charles Titus, a nearby resident, who
testified that each year it takes longer for his fields to dry
Out; R. February 5, 19087 p. 125 and certain foul odors were
coming from the existing site H. February 5, 1987 p. 135. On
cross examination. Mr. Titus admitted that he never filed any
8 2—68
—23-
complaint against Petitioner; notwithstanding the above stated
complaints.
Objectors also called Mr. William Alter, a nearby land
developer. Mr. Alter agreed that the roads were unduly slippery
when wet, owing to “elements” caused by the various trucks using
Petitioner’s facility. Mr. Alter also complained about garbage
flying off trucks and the “substantial volume of trucks.” K.
February 6, 1967 p. 20.
In relating the above to its adverse effect upon his
property Mr. Alter stated as follows: “The traffic going to and
from that landfill with tne garbage flying and the mud and
everything else flying, I find very offensive and I think it’s
very detrimental to the value of the real estate.” however, Mr.
Alter admitted that in his opinion a negative impact is
indigenous to a landfill operation. H. February 6, 1987 P.
77.
Next Objectors called Neil King, a real estate appraiser, to
testify in support of the proposal’s alleged negative impact on
Mr. Alter’s nearby property. Mr. King holds a S.R.E.A., Senior
Real Estate Analyst designation and has approximately 30 years
experience. H. February 6, 1987 P. 66. Mr. Ring also holds a
bachelor’s degree in civil engineering.
Mr. King testified that placement of a landfill adjacent to
or in an area that was planned for development, is the least
acceptable alternative. H. February 6, 1967 p. 94. In
describing the impact of the proposal on Mr. Alter’s property,
Mr. Ring noted that Mr. Alter’s property is “sort of surrounded”
on three sides by approaching land developments. He also
testified that the existence of foul odors and seagulls was
significant in his analysis H. February 6, 1987 p. 120
Mr. Ring testified that the zone of influence from the
proposal would definitely impact Mr. Alter’s property. H.
February 6, 1987 p. 99. Mr. King was critical of Petitioner’s
appraiser analysis, stating that the use of property purchased by
A.R.F. and under contract to Waste Management was not a valid
evaluation. H. February
6, 1987
p. 100.
Significantly, Mr. King stated that the basis of his
assessment was that there was not an existing landfill at the
site. Also, Mr. King admitted that the proposed Waste Management
site would have a greater adverse impact than Petitioner’s
proposal.
In reviewing this portion, this Board must decide whether
the County Board’s decision regarding Criterion No.
3 was
contrary to the evidence. The County Board held that Petitioner
failed to demonstrate that the facility is located to minimize
incompatibility with the surrounding area and minimize effects on
surrounding property values.
82—69
—~—
It should be noted that the statute does not require an
applicant to demonstrate that the proposed use is the highest and
best use. The statute requires an applicant to show that its
proposal minimizes incompatibility and effects on surrounding~
property values. Section 39.2 (g) of the Act specifically
excludes local zoning, land use plans or requirements from
consideration in these cases. There was no testimony that a
landfill was not a proper use for the area intended.
Significantly, Petitioner’s expert witnesses explained that the
proposed sites are located away from major population areas, in a
fairly sparsely developed area, with some commercial
establishments in the area
——
but only at a substantial distance
from the landfill. Testimony January 27, 1987 p. 195
.
A
landfill could reasonably be located in such an area.
This Board must also review the proposal relative to its
minimizing of effects on nearby property values. Mr. Whitney,
Petitioner’s witness on Criterion No. 3 conducted a thorough
analysis of the area and potential impact on nearby property
values. Mr. Whitney’s analysis which considered proposed
landscaping factors, setbacks, and visual and vegetation berms
concluded that there would be minimal effect on properties to the
north, west and south. Criterion No. 3 calls for the facility to
be located so as to ‘minimize’ incompatibility
——
but does not
allow for rejection simply because there might be some reduction
in value. Watts Trucking Service, Inc., v. City of Rock Island,
PCB 63—167. Although Objectors produced Mr. Peters, to criticize
Hr.
Whitney’s report, it should be noted that Mr. Peters did not
conduct his own analysis, he merely reviewed Mr. Whitney’s
testimony and criticized it.
More is required of an applicant than a de minimus effort at
minimizing the facility’s impact. An applicant must demonstrate
tnat it has done or will do what is reasonably feasible to
minimize incompatibility. Waste Management of Illinois, Inc. v.
IPCB, 123 Ill. App. 3d 1075, 1090 2nd List. 1984. Criterion
No. 3 calls for a proposal to minimize its effects
——
but does
not allow for rejection simply because there might be some
consequential reduction in value. Petitioner, via its plans to
install screening berrns, utilize setbacks and landscape around
the area, does indeed minimize any impacts to be expected in the
area. The County Board’s decision that Petitioner failed to
demonstrate compliance with Criterion No. 3 is contrary to the
manifest weight of the evidence and is, therefore, reversed.
CRITERION NO. 4
Ill Rev. Stat. 1986 ch no. 111 1/2 par. 1039.2 requires the
County Board to review the proposal to ensure that the facility
is located outside the 100 year floodplain, or the proposal
incluaes water proofing to meet the standards and requirements of
the I.D.C.T. and is approved by that department.
82—70
—25—
Petitioner’s first witness concerning this criteria was Mr.
Gary Diegan, Lead Project Engineer
for A.R.F. Mr. Diegan’s job
responsibilities included concept planning and engineering design
and he testified that he was very familiar with the facility’s
operations and the site’s characteristics. Mr. Diegan stated
that the proposal incorporated recognized engineering practices
to minimize the potential for increased flooding, surface water
quality degradation, or undue soil erosion; R. January 26, 1987
p. 12) and the facility was designed for the 100 year flood.”
Mr. Diegan testified that the Illinois Department of
Transportation was contacted and has confirmed, by signed
affidavit that siting of the proposed facility is approved by
that Department. H. January 26, 1987 p. 14. Supporting
correspondence is Petitioner’s Exhibit #29. Mr. Diegan also
testified that petitioner had provided data concerning the
feasibility of floodproofing provisions and over—all storm water
movement H. January 26, 1987 p. 13.
Mr. Diegan further testified that a constructed stormwater
management basis will be utilized on area #3 to provide
compensatory floodwater storage, resulting in a capacity of
500,000 cubic feet. H. January 26, 1987 p. 19. The technical
sources of Mr. Diegan’s report were the Illinois State Water
Survey; the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Illinois
Department of Transportation. Ultimately Mr. Diegan related the
dimensions and interconnections of the designs, currents and
tributary channels. R. January 26, 1987 p. 47)
.
In summary,
the proposed floodproofing was intended to accommodate a 10 year,
24 hour flood, H. January 26, 1987 p.
47) which he stated, was
typically suitable for this design. He did admit, however, that
the 10 year, 24 hour storm was calculated to generate only 3.9
inches of precipitation. H. January 26, 1987 p. 70). Mr.
Diegan also testified that a 25 year and 50 year, 24 hour storms
generated only 4.2 inches and approximately 5 inches,
respectively. Any difference between the two is small.
Mr. Diegan offered further testimony regarding storm water
runoff and storm water basin. Mr. Diegan testified that he
performed runoff calculations using the Soil Conservation Service
TR—55 method for each land area, as well as the other land areas
that could contribute runoff to each of those areas. On cross
examination regarding the plans and methodology of storm water
collection, drainage and runoff Mr. Diegan calculated the trench
volume at 220,370 cubic yards. Mr. Diegan claims that the
calculations utilized the best available floodplain information
R. January 27, 1987 p. 78 and he,
personally, observed the
site. R. January 27, 1987 p. 82). Ultimately, he concludes
that the future “rate of flow—off would be approximately the same
as now.” It should be noted that this conclusion assumed the
current existence of the present facility
——
and did not consider
the property in an undisturbed state. R. January 27, 1987 p.
166).
82—71
—26—
Mr. Diegan stated that there was no peat beyond the top soil
layers in area 2 & 4 as confirmed by 28 soil borings. H.
January 27, 1987 p. 155
Objectors produced Mr. Robert Mosteller, Deputy Director of
Lake County Department of Planning, Zoning and Environmental
Quality. Mr. Mosteller testified in opposition to petitioner’s
application. Mr. Mosteller testified that he was in charge of
advanced planning and current planning sections of the
department, including a storm drainage study of the entire
county. Mr. Mosteller holds a master’s degree in city and
regional planning from Rutgers University and is a member of the
~merican Planning Association, state and federal chapters. H.
February 2, 1987 p. 10. Mr. Mosteller testified that the
proposed site falls within a floodplain H. February 2, 1987 p.
12
Mr. Mosteller explained his concerns regarding the
facility. He stated that his main concern was that any
construction that occurs within a floodplain must consider
“compensatory storage” to avoid additional flooding to other
areas H. February 2, 1987 p. 16; but on cross—examination, Mr.
Mosteller admitted that he could not testify that the proposal
failed to provide adequate compensatory storage H. February 2,
1987
The Act requires this Board to review the County Board
decision to ensure that the decision is not contrary to the
manifest weight of the evidence.
The Act requires applicants to locate their proposed
landfill outside the 100 year floodplain as determined by the
Illinois Department of Transportation, or the site must be
floodproofed to meet the standards and requirements of that
Department and the proposal is approved by that Department. At
hearing, Petitioner introduced its Exhibit No. 29, as approval by
the Illinois Department of Transportation that Petitioner’s
proposed site was outside the 100 year floodplain. The Board
notes that in the past it has experienced difficulty with this
Criterion because the Illinois Department of Transportation does
not have floodproofing standards for this type of facility.
However in this case there was extensive testimony regarding
Petitioner’s floodproofing plans and the County Board may
properly may have considered this data pursuant to Criterion No.
2. Based
upon Board precedent and the contents of Petitioner’s
Exhibit No. 29, Criterion No. 4 has been satisfied. Board of
Trustees of Casner Township et al. v. Jefferson County, et al.,
PCB 84—175. This decision of the County Board that Petitioner
failed to meet Criterion No. 4) is clearly against the manifest
weight of the evidence and therefore reversed.
82—72
—27—
CRITERION NO. 5
Ill. Rev. Stat. 1986 ch No. 11 1/2 par. 1039.2 requires
local county boards to review the plan of operation to ensure a
minimizing of dangers from fire, spills or other operational
accidents.
Dr. Schoenberger, identified ~pra, testified that in his
opinion dangers from fire, spills and accidents were minimized.
“I base it the opinion) on the fact that the waste coming in
will be controlled, there will be no liquids and no hazardous
waste, these are generally the source of two of the biggest
problems.
——
although inevitably there will be some.” H.
January 23, 1987 p. 251
.
With respect to other catastrophes
those are controlled through proper operation and design
including leachate collection, proper daily cover, compaction of
refuse; control of traffic. And all those elements have been
factored into the design and application. H. January 23, 1987
p. 166). Furthermore Dr. Schoenberger characterized Petitioner’s
proposal as a “wet landfill” as opposed to a dry landfill H.
January 23, 1987 p. 173), which would, of necessity, reduce fire
hazards. In conclusion Dr. Schoenberger stated “I don’t believe
that site will leak.” H. January 23, 1987 p. 241).
Petitioner’s next witness on this criteria was Mr. Gary
Diegan, identified above. Mr. Diegan testified that the proposal
is designed to minimize damage to surrounding areas from fire,
spills or other operational accidents; and the overall
possibility of fire is minimized. H. January 27, 1987 p.
206). In addition to being an engineer, Mr. Diegan has obtained
formal training for hazardous waste management and certification
and level B training self contained breathing apparatus).. R.
January 27, 1987 p. 217)
Mr. Diegan states, that Petitioner’s trained operators and
available equipment use is capable of containing and stopping any
fires that might occur. Petitioner possesses high volume liquid
pumping equipment on site, in addition to cover soils and
bulldozing equipment. H. January 27, 1987 p. 206).
It was again asserted that the probability of spill related
accidents was extremely low because the facility only accepted
non—hazardous solid wastes. Also nearby local municipal and
County support and emergency services were available. “In
summary, A.R.F. Landfill Corporation’s plan of operations
combined with its experienced, trained operating staff, fleet of
on—site equipment and sound facility designs will minimize the
potential for damage to the surrounding area from fires, spills
and other operational accidents.” H. January 27, 1987 p.
207).
However, under cross examination, Mr.
Diegan admitted that
there were no written emergency procedures or protocol concerning
fire or fuel oil spills. H. January 27, 1987 p. 213).
82—73
—28—
Mr. Diegan also stated that restricted access, through the
use of fences, gates and natural barriers enhanced security for
the facility, ER. January 27, 1987 p. 213) even though there are
no guards at the site after hours.
Objector’s called Mr. Chudzik, identified above in Criteria
No. 2. In reviewing general facility operations, Mr. Chudzik
noted 10 positive aspects, including planned daily maintenance
use of temporary earth berm, and plans to include gas migration
control vents. However, Mr. Chudzik also identified 13 negative
factors including, use of clays versus granulated materials) for
daily cover; failure to protect against equipment and refuse
fires; refueling of autos should not occur at the site; failure
to provide a written protocol in case of fire and failure to
provide for surface water monitoring. H. February 5, 1987 p.
160
In conclusion, Mr. Chudzik stated that if the facility
modified its proposal to accommodate his concerns then he
believed the proposal is generally proposed to minimize the
danger from fire, spills or operational accidents. H. February
5, 1987 p. 176.
The Act requires this Board to review the decisions of the
County Board to ensure that Petitioner’s plan of operations
minimize the danger from fire, spills and other operational
accidents.
The main complaint raised by objectors was the fact that
emergency procedures were not in writing and that certain
commonly used consumer products placed in the landfill may be
flammable. But there is no current requirement that emergency
procedures be in writing. Petitioner has established that it
will accept only non—hazardous, solid wastes; that the facility
is located in a generally moist area; that municipal emergency
facilities are nearby and that it has sufficient equipment and
trained personnel to properly handle most operational
incidents. This being the case, Petitioner demonstrated
compliance with Criterion No. 5. The decision of the County
Board that Petitioner failed to demonstrate compliance with
Criterion No. 5 is clearly against the manifest weight of the
evidence. Accordingly, the County Board’s decision regarding
Criterion No. 5 is reversed.
CRITERION NO. 6
Ill Rev. Stat. 1986 ch 111 1/2 par 1039.2 requires the
County Board to review the proposal to ensure that the traffic
patterns to and from the facility are so designed to as to
minimize the impact on existing traffic flows.
Petitioner’s witness concerning this criterion was Mr.
Gerald Salzman, senior associate at Barton—Aschman Associates,
Inc., a traffic engineering and planning firm. Mr. Salzman has a
82—74
—29—
master’s degree in transportation planning from Texas A&M,
University.
Mr. Salzman testified that he conducted turning movement
counts on January 9, 1987 at the intersection of Routes #83, 137
and Petersen Road; and on January 12, 1987 and January 14, 1987
at the intersection of Petersen and Harris Roads, and at Route
#137 with Harris and Casey Roads. All counts were conducted from
7:00 to 9:00 a.m. and 3:30 to 6:00 p.m., peak hours). Traffic
was also counted at the landfill entrance drive. Additionally,
information was obtained from local governmental agencies of
Grayslake, Round Lake Park, Lake County and I.D.O.T. H. January
26, 1987 p. 101.
Likewise, daily truck traffic created by the landfill was
recorded for a one—week period during June, 1986. Approximately
40 of landfill traffic is “oriented” to the north of Route #83
and 60 to the south, with 100 trucks/day average. R. January
26, 1987 p. 103)
.
It was stated that truck frequency would peak
from 12:30
—
1:30 p.m. each day. (H. January 24, 1987 p. 113).
Mr. Salzman stated that no plans currently exist for improving
Harris and Casey Roads intersection with other major road—ways in
the site’s vicinity. H. January 26, 1987 p. 104.
Mr. Salzman claims that even under a worst case scenario an
increase of 50) all intersections could still operate at a
satisfactory level. R. January 26, 1987 p. 106).
To minimize any effect upon traffic, Mr. Salzman noted that
Petitioner is proposing to install a right—turn lane for truck
traffic approaching the facility from the south. This lane will
be 150 feet with a minimum stacking, vehicle storage length of 50
feet. Additionally, the access will have a minimum curb return
radius of 50 feet. As the landfill exhausts its storage
capacity, a 200 foot section will be added to Harris Road between
the Route #137 intersection and the facility entrance. H.
January 26, 1987 p. 107. To minimize effects on traffic flow,
petitioner will locate 150 feet of the access drive so as to
accommodate a right—turn lane, 50 feet of stacking, 100 feet of
taper. Additionally, a 200 foot section of Harris Road would be
upgraded in accordance with I.D.O.T. standards.
Other aspects included a high velocity, low volume wheel
washing system, which would eliminate mud residue on nearby
roads. Mr. Salzman testified that this was generally a state—of—
the—art proposal. H. January 26, 1987 p. 109).
In summary Mr.
Salzman concluded that the proposed expansion
would have no adverse effect on traffic conditions in the Area.
ER. January 26, 1987 p. 108).
However, under cross examination, Mr. Salzman admitted that
he did not know the weight of a packer truck; H. January 26,
1987 p. 118
;
and no discussions have been held with the railroad
82—7 5
—30—
or the relevant local government concerning any proposed
upgrading of Harris Road
H. January 26, 1987 p. 123.
Additionally, although he states that the major use of the
railroads was from commuter traffic, Mr.
Salzman did not
know how
many long freight trains use the tracks R. January 26, 1987 p.
125). Also, Mr. Salzman states that his analysis and review did
not consider any traffic generated
in relation to the proposed
recycling center
——
although such should be taken into
consideration. H. January 26, 1987 p. 127). Mr. Salzman also
noted that he did not know whether there was already existing,
sufficient public right of way
to widen Harris Road; H. January
26, 1987
p~
143 and that the basis of his analysis was data
provided by Petitioner only. H. January 20,, 1987 p. 149). Mr.
Salzman also testified that it would he “15 years or less” before
the entrance onto Route #83 received a traffic signal H. January
26, 1987 p. 220. Finally, Mr. Salzman testified that, although
during filling of Areas No. 2 and 3, the traffic would be
diffused, during the filling of area No. 4 traffic will be
concentrated at one intersection. R. January 26, 1987 p. 227).
Objectors called Mr. Paul Box, a traffic engineering
consultant. Mr. Box holds a bachelor’s degree in civil
engineering and a certificate in highway traffic from Yale Bureau
of Highway Traffic. R. February 4, 1987 p. 168. Mr. Box
testified that he has conducted between 20 and 30 studies of
traffic and site access locations over the last 21 years.
Initially Mr. Box criticized the configuration of a proposed
five—legged intersection at Route #137 and Casey Road. Mr. Box
called this particularly dangerous because a truck driver would
have to look over his shoulder in an approximately 130 degree
angle to observe oncoming traffic. ER. February 4, 1987 p.
174. Mr. Box also criticized a proposed entrance as being too
close to a nearby railroad crossing, thereby increasing the
danger that a truck would get “caught” on the railroad tracks.
H. February 4, 1987 p. 175. Mr. Box also noted that the
traffic on route #137 was three times greater than on Route #83;
and that nearby Harris Road was not wide enough to safely allow
two way truck traffic. H. February 4, 1987 p. 177). Ultimately
Mr. Box stated that in his professional opinion the proposed
entrance to Harris road would substantially increase hazards; and
that the proposal did not minimize impacts on existing traffic
flows. R. February 4, 1987 p. 179.
On cross examination Mr. Box admitted that driver error was
a major portion of his concern, H. February 4, 1987 p. 184 and
that under a worst case scenario there would be no more than 60
trucks per hour entering the landfill.
Finally, Mr. Box stated as follows: “This would be the last
place to put it. This is one of the worst locations for a
landfill truck driveway that I have ever seen in my life.” H.
February 4, 1987 p. 207.
82—76
-31-
Objectors also called Leland Reid, a nearby landowner. Mr.
Reid testified that the roads exiting petitioner’s site are
always slick if there is moisture present. R. February 6, 1987
p. 12 Mr. Reid also testified that equipment from the existing
site made traffic matters worse. R. February 6, 1987 p. 19.
Mr. Reid opposed the proposed landfill for, inter alia, the above
stated reasons.
The Act requires this Board to review the record and ensure
that Petitioner’s proposal is designed to minimize impacts on
existing traffic flows.
Although petitioner produced expert testimony regarding this
criterion, petitioner failed to mollify problems associated with
the 5 legged intersection at the intersections of Route #137,
Harris and Casey Roads) ; problems associated with one entrance
being placed too close to railroad tracks, problems associated
with Harris Road being too narrow to safely allow truck
traffic. At one point, Mr. Box, testified that the existence of
a 130 degree angle intersection at Route #137, Harris and Casey
Roads constituted “one of the worst locations for a landfill
truck driveway that I have ever seen in my life.”
Based upon the evidence, the County Board could reasonably
have concluded that Petitioner had failed to meet Criterion No.
6. This Board cannot say that the evidence present clearly
warrants a different conclusion. The County Board decision is
not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence and is,
therefore, affirmed.
GENERAL
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
During the time allowed for public testimony there were
several citizens who sought to express their views. Speaking for
the Village of Mundelein, Mayor Cohn McRae stated that he was
concerned about the air, asthetic beauty and landscape and
quality of water in his community. H. February 9, 1987 p. 9
Mayor McRae stated that he believed proponent’s clay liner, as
well as the proposed leachate collection system, were
inadequate. Mr. McRae stated that the “technology is available
now to design, construct and operate safe landfills. What we
need is courageous political leadership in order to assure that
the technology of today is utilized today to protect us
tomorrow.” H. February 9, 1987 p. 10). In addition to other
recommendations Mayor McRae requested double liners or a
synthetic liner be used. H. February
9, 1987
p. 15).
Mayor McRae criticized the proposal as being too close to
nearby wells and failing to contain a gas monitoring and leachate
collection systems. Mayor McRae stated that many potentially
hazardous chemicals are found in municipal solid wastes. R.
February 9, 1987 p. 18. Mr. McRae ultimately stated that denial
of the application was the responsible choice for the County
Board. H. February 9, 1987 p. 23.
82—7 7
—32—
Next, Mr. George Bell read a resolution at the request of
the Freemont Town Board of Trustees. Mr. Bell read the
resolution, which contained a criterion—by—criterion breakdown of
the six criteria required pursuant to S.B. 172. Mr. Bell’s
statement agreed with Petitioner on some criteria but disagreed
on others. Ultimately, on behalf of the Freemont Town Board of
Trustees, Mr. Bell recommended that the County Board reject
Petitioner’s application.
Next, Mrs. June R. Salandra testified. She stated that the
current site and the closed EDCO site were already creating
health problems and the granting of petitioner’s application
would only increase these. She recommended denial of
Petitioner’s application. H. February
9, 1987 p. 33.
Next, Mr. William Frank testified in opposition to
Petitioner’s application. Mr. Frank criticized the current
operations as sloppy, inadequate and improperly allowing a foul
smell to be emitted. He also stated “the current use of the
Avon—Fremont drainage ditch to drain the existing landfill
jeopardizes the health of all life downstream. H. February 9,
1987 p. 36)
Next, Mr. Douglas Salandra testified. Mr. Salandra
complained about foul orders and chemical smells emanating from
the current site. H. February 9, 1987 p. 48).
Next, Mr. R.J. Morby, Sr., testified in opposition to
Petitioner’s application. Mr. Morby criticized the “lack” of a
leachate collection system in addition to the use of one
manhole. Mr. Morby recommended two manholes be used. Finally,
Mr. Morby noted that the land encompassing the proposal is “some
very good farmland.” R. February 9, 1987 p. 52).
Next, Mr. Lorens Tronet, Executive Director of Lake County
Defenders, testified in opposition to Petitioner’s proposal. Mr.
Tronet attacked the proposal criterion—by—criterion in addition
to attacking the operators of the current site. Mr. Tronet
stated that in his opinion all landfills leak. H. February
9,
1987 p. 80. Mr. Tronet also criticized Petitioner’s failure to
obtain a 10 million dollar environmental insurance policy, H.
February 9, 1987 p. 87) and the fact that the application
contains a monitoring provision for only 3 years during the post
closure period. H. February 9, 1987 p. 98). Mr. Tronet also
criticized the water drainage system in—place before closure H.
February 9, 1987 p. 116.
Next, Mr. Pete Tekampe, a nearby farmer who raises
approximately one hundred head of cattle, complained about foul
odors and sea gulls scavenging the site. Mr. Tekampe stated that
he was in opposition to Petitioner’s proposal and that the Lake
County Farm Bureau was vigorously opposed to any expansion of the
existing site. R. February 9, 1987 p. 170).
82—78
This Opinion constitutes the finding of fact and the
conclusions of law of the Board in this matter.
ORDER
The March 24,
1987 Decision of
the
Lake County Board,
denying site—suitability approval to Petitioner, A.R.F. Landfill,
Corporation for expansion of its existing facility is hereby
affirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Board Member 3. Theodore Meyer dissented.
Board Members 3. Anderson, H. Flemal and B. Forcade
concurred.
I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order was
adopted on the
/
-~
day of
~
,
1987 by a vote
of
-
~.
Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
82—79
