ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
December 30,
1982
JESSIE
Q. ABBOTT, et al.,
)
Petitioners,
V.
PCB 82—124
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS,
INC.,
AND
THE CITY OF EAST
ST. LOUIS,
Respondents.
MR.
EARLE
NC CASKILL, ATTORNEY AT
LAW,
APPEARED ON
BEHALF
OF
PETITIONERS;
MSSRS.
DONALD J.
MORAN
AND
THOMAS
VOLINI, PEDERSEN
& HOUPT,
APPEARED
ON
BEHALF
OF
THE
RESPONDENT,
WASTE MANAGEMENT
OF
ILLINOIS,
INC.;
MR.
SAMUEL
F.
ROSS,
SR.,
ATTORNEY
AT
LAW,
APPEARED
ON
BEHALF
OF
THE
RESPONDENT,
THE CITY OF
EAST
ST.
LOUIS.
OPINION
AND ORDER
OF THE BOARD
(by D.
Anderson):
This matter comes before the Board upon
a petition for
review of the approval of a new regional pollution control
facility filed on October
8, 1982 pursuant to Section 40.1 of
the Environmental Protection Act
(Act)
by Jessie Q.
Abbott,
Alvin Abbott, 2\bra Gray, Sr., Edward Powell, John C. Griffin,
James C. Blevens
and
Scott R.
Randolph.
Waste Management of
Illinois, Inc.
(Waste Management), which applied to operate the
landfill in question, was
named
as respondent,
along with
the
City of East St. Louis
(City), the municipality which approved
the
site location suitability.
A hearing was held before a
Board hearing officer, pursuant to Section 40.1 of the Act, on
November 30, 1982,
at which time the petitioners and other
members
of
the
public
offered
testimony
and
oral
and
written
comments, generally against the
site
location.
On August 17, 1982 the Community Block Grant Committee of
the City’s Aldermanic Council conducted a public hearing pursuant
to Section 39.2 of the Act.
The characteristics
of the site and
plan of development were laid out for the public in testimony and
exhibits.
*
*The August
17 Kearing will be referred to as the “municipal
hearing”.
References to the transcript
(R-
)
and exhibits will
refer to the August 17 hearing, unless “Board hearing”
is
specified.
50-204
—2—
At their request Petitioners were ordered to file their
brief
by
December
7,
1982
(Board
hearing,
page
:112).
Respondents’
briefs
were due seven days thereafter,
To date the Board has
received
no
briefs.
In
that
a
decision
is
due
by
January
6,
1983, the Board has decided this case on the last scheduled
meeting prior to the due date.
~
~opuseci
~anifill
is located on a
230 acre site north-
east of Route
15
(Missouri Avenue)
in
the
City
of East St.
Louis.
It is an irregular tract situated within the Sw 1/4
of T2N, R9W of the 3rd P.M.
It is bounded on the southwest
by
Missouri Avenue, on the southeast by the Alton and Southern
Railway, on the north by “Louisiana Boulevard”,
also known as
“Lake Avenue”
or “Lake Drive”, and on the northwest by unidenti—
fled railways.
The site is near the southeastern edge of East
St.
Louis, north of Alorton and Centreville, and west of Grand
Marais State Park (Applicant’s Ex.
12,
p.
3, figures
1
& 2).
The proposed site is designed to accept general municipal refuse
and non-hazardous special waste other than
:liguIds.
The site was formerly occupied by Alcoa,
a primary aluminum
manufacturer.
It is now owned by the City pursuant to a quit—
claim deed from the Southwest Regional Port District.
Only
two buildings now stand.
The rest of the site
is
covered with
“red mud”,
a clay-like residue left from the extraction of
alumina from bauxite.
The site includes
a large mound of red
mud, but it is mostly level and above the surrounding grade
(R48,
59; Applic. Ex.
l5B).
East St. Louis at one time hauled
its
garbage north to
the
Milam
landfill (R-24),
This was terminated when the City
was unable to pay some $58,000 in accumulated user fees.
This
was caused by the City’s inability
to collect a $2 per month
garbage collection fee and by the general erosion of its tax
base.
East St. Louis then started conducting an unpermitted
general waste operation on the site in question.
Eventually
the City was enjoined by the Circuit Court from conducting
further landfill operations
at the site.
Presently the City is hauling its garbage to Milstadt,
which involves
a 44 mile round trip,
Besides the obvious
problems of excessive fuel and labor expense associated with
this, the City experiences excessive maintenance costs and
sometimes is unable to pick up garbage on schedule because of
inadequate serviceable equipment
(R-22),
Following the injunction the City began negotiating with
waste Management concerning development of a permitted landfill
to be operated by the latter at the site.
This culminated in
an agreement signed May 20,
1981 (Applic. Ex.
2).
The agreement
50~205
—3—
provides for 10
of the gross receipts to be paid to East St.
Louis.
It is terminated without penalty in the •event necessary
permits and approvals are not issued.
The City estimates that the proposed site will save it
some $200,000 to $250,000 per year, while allowing it to improve
collection service
(R—37).
In addition, the City will actually
receive revenue from the landfill,
and local jobs will be
created as opposed to the present system which transfers
funds
out of the City.
Furthermore, the surrounding landfills are
expected to be phased out soon,
leaving a need for a regional
facility (Applic.
Ex.
6).
The facility is expected to receive waste from East St.
Louis and the surrounding area.
It will have an expected hfe—
time of 15 years.
The waste pile will reach an ultimate height
of 110 to 120 feet above Missouri Avenue,
It will be graded,
covered and seeded as it is completed.
The site will then be
left as open space
(R—l6l),
The objections to the siting voiced at the municipal
hearing reflected such concerns as:
fear of the adequacy of
the synthetic liner; permeability of the underlying soil;
the
site becoming a hazardous waste landfill; reduction in property
values; possible unlawful use of residential streets for access
to the site; repetition of the odor and vector problems which
resulted from the City’s unpermitted dump site; aggravation of
runoff problems during rainfall; and overloading sewers
and
the treatment plant as a result of the plan to pump leachate
from the collection system to the City’s sanitary sewers.
A number of citizens
commented
that
Waste
Management
might
be professionally able, but they didnt want a site inside the
City limits.
Waste Management and the City made their witnesses avail-
able for public questions concerning these matters.
Several
specific assurances were given:
1.
The site would never accept hazardous waste,
or
liquid
waste
in
any
form,
although
municipal-type
sewage treatment plant sludge might be accepted.
2.
Access to the site would be limited to a single
paved entrance road off Missouri Avenue,
3.
A buffer zone of 400 to 600
feet would be main-
tained between the operational area and the nearest
residences.
50-206
After
the
hearing
before
the
Community
Block
Grant
Com-
mittee,
the
City,
on
September
8,
1962,
adopted,
on
a
mayoral
tie-breaker
vote,
an ordinance approving the
site
application
and
adopting
the
Cornmittee~s
:~indings
and
recommendations.
After
finding
that
the
required
notices
had
been
given,
and
acknowledging
the
receipt
of objections,
the City gave the
following
reasons
required
under
Section
39,2
of the
Act:
1.
That
all
exhibits
tendered
and
considered
by
this
Committee
be
received
in
evidence,
2.
That
the
facility is
necessary
to
accommodate
the
waste
needs
of
the
region,
particularLy
in
view
of
its
western
proximity
to
densely
populated
areas
and
the
fact
that other
sanitary
landfill
services
may
be
phased
out in a year or less
in
the
St.
Clair
and Madison County areas abutting the City of East
St. Louis.
3.
That the facility is so designed, located
and
proposed
to be operated that
the
public health, safety and
welfare
will
be
protected, the
uncontroverted
evidence
being
that
the
Appiicant~.
WASTE
MANAGEMENT
OF
ILLINOIS,
INC.,
is
experienced
in
the operation of similar
facilities
and has demonstrated
by
its
reputation
within the State of Illinois of a highly efficient
system of operations to protect the public health and
welfare.
4.
That the facility is located so as to minimize
incompatibility with the character of the surrounding
area and to minimize the effect on the value of the
surrounding property,
the evidence beind undisputed
that the property
is located in a suitably zoned area,
i.e., heavy
manufacturing,
and
that
immediately
adjacent to the proposed site that it is
primarily
surrounded by heavy industrial facilities with a few
residential properties abutting to the Site,
Further,
it is evident from the testimony that the operation
of the landfill facility will not adversely affect
the value of the surrounding oroperty.
6.
That the plan of operation for the facility,
as
submitted by WASTE
MANAGEMENT
OF
ILLINOIS,
INC.,
is
designed to minimize the danger to the surrounding
area from fire, spills or other operational accidents.
7.
That the traffic patterns
to and from
the
facility
are so designed so as to minimize the impact on
existing traffic flows, and there will be no material
change in the existing access and traffic patterns,
50-207
and
the
proposed
~rcne~
an~egxess
to
the facility,
when considexing
the
v~xa~
tines
of
use
as to the
abutting
highs~rays v
~I
n y
~esu1t
in a
minimal
increase
of
txaffi
r’
laL
‘he
existing highways
abutting
the
site
axe
~‘deq
~re
o
provide
non—
disruptive acce~dur n
~e prposed life expectancy
of the facility
The Board notes that th~
~.
t.
re~o1ut1oncontains no
paragraph 5,
and does
not
cidrs
~tion
39(a)
(4)
of
the Act
which requires that
the
f~ci
~
~
cu
side
the
100
year flood
plain as determined
by
the
Ii1~
is
Department
of
Transportation
(IDOT), or that it be
flood
o
fed
to
meet
IDOT
standards
and
be approved by IDOT.
Applicant’s Ex,
18 is
c
1ette~r ~ron IDOT stating that:
the site is within the 100 y
i
f
dp~aLn,it does not require
an IDOT permit in that
1
S ro
hui
a floodway,
it will
meet IDOT standards
and
~q~r
i~
f
floodproofing;
and,
it is approved by IDOT subject to
SUci
cc of Agency permits.
The Board finds that the om~s’ir cf paragraph 5 was an inad-
vertent error by the City
Ba~ec. ~r‘~e DOT letter, which
was before the City, the B a d
f
i~r
tuat the facility meets
the requirements of Sectior
(~
(4
The petitioners filed th~sappeal
co the Board after
the
site
suitability
was appreved ~
‘hs City~ The petitioners
raised
the
following
issues o~ ~opea
That
the
action
of
tI~e
ity
Esst
Sd,
Louis
in
approv—
ing the application
of
re~p rderts
was
against
the
manifest
weight
of
the
evidence
presented
at
the public
hearing and was contrary
‘~
provisions of Public
Act 82-682,
for the followng r~asons:
a.
The
pre—public
hearing procedure of the
respondents
contravened ~he public involvement
provisions
of
Pubi
c
A~t 82-682,
which
require
notice
to
owners
with~n 250
feet
in
all
directions
of
the
boundary of
~he proposed site,
b.
The
evidence
presented at the public hearing
failed to establish,
(1)
The facility x~~o
1es~giied,~ocated
and proposed to be
pe ~atedthat the
public health
saf~t ard welfare will
be
protected~
(2)
The facility ~s
~atc~dso as to minimize
incompatability with the character of the
—6—
surrounding area and to minimize the effect
on the value of the surrounding property.
(3)
The plan of operation for
the
facility
is designed to minimize the
danger
to
the
surrounding area from fire, spills,
or other operational accidents,
(4)
The traffic patterns to and from the
facility are so designed as to minimize
the impact on existing
traffic
flows.
c.
The
manner
in
which the
:E~ubiichearing
was
conducted
was
unfair
in
that
the
petitioners
were
not
permitted
to cross—examine witnesses
in
support
of
respondents’
application.
At the Board hearing,
the petitioners and other objectors
testified and presented statements~petitions and exhibits in
opposition to the siting on grounds similar to those raised at
the municipal hearing.
Waste Management and the City appeared
at the Board hearing but presented no
additional
testimony.
Petitioners presented no evidence whatsoever suggesting
that the notice to owners was
in any way deficient.
Most of petitioners’
case centered on introduction of the
same and additional evidence tending to contradict the findings
which the City made with respect to th.e design and proposed
operation, compatibility with and effect on the value of
surrounding property, danger of operational accidents and
traffic patterns.
The hearing officer accepted the testimony
and exhibits over Waste Management and the City’s objections,
leaving it to the Board to rule on admissibility.
The Board
finds that, with the exception below,~the testimony and exhibits
are inadmissible under Section 40.1(a)
of the Act, in that they
are additional evidence in opposition to the site location
suitability.
In its case in chief petitioners
offered
no evidence
suggesting that the public hearing was unfair or that petitioners
were not permitted to cross examine the witnesses in support of
the application.
However, this was touched on in the statement
of James Blevens
(Board hearing, p~106)
He complains that
the municipal hearing was fundamentally unfair in that citizens
were not given an opportunity to ask questions or to present
rebuttal evidence.
The Board disagrees~~The hearing specif—
ically provided a format, which was announced beforehand,
for
questioning of, and rebuttal to, the formal witnesses, who sat
as
a panel after their presentations were
finished.
A
reading
of the Committee hearing of August
17 demonstrates that the
50-209
—7—
public was given an adequate opportunity to question witnesses
and to comment on the proposal.
The Board finds that the
procedures were fundamentally fair under Sections 39.2 and 40.1
of the Act.
The Board finds that the City’s determination to approve
the site location suitability,
as supplemented by the Board’s
finding on paragraph 5,
is not against the manifest weight of
the evidence in the transcript and exhibits of August 17,
1982.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact
and conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
The decision of the City of East St. Louis approving the
site location suitability in question is affirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Chairman
Dumelle
dissented.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order
were adopted on the
~
day of ~
1982 by a vote
of
4-i
C~L~
,~,
~
Christan L. MoLfqt21y,~Clerk
Illinois Pollutiob Control Board
50-210