BEFORE THE ILLINOIS

POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

RE C El V ED

CLERK’S OFFICE

JUN 2 4 2003

Citizens Against Landfill Expansion,

)

Petiti ners

)

STATE OF ILLINOIS

)

Pollution Control Board

V.

)

American Disposal Services ofIllinois, Inc.

)

No.

-

Respondent,

)

)

and

)

)

Livingston County Board, Livingston County,

)

Illinois, Respondent

PETITION

TO

REVIEW POLLUTION CONTROL

FACILITY SITING DECISION

Citizens Against Landfill Expansion, an unincorporated association ofresidents of

Livingston County (“CALE”), hereby petitions for review of approval ofthe application

ofAmerican Disposal Services ofIllinois, Inc. (“Applicant”) for a 160-acre, 50-million-

cubic-yard expansion ofthe Livingston Landfill located in Pontiac, Livingston County,

Illinois, by the Livingston County Board (the “County Board”) on May 15, 2 ‘03.

PARTIES

CALE is an unincorporated, voluntary association ofresidents of Livingston

County, including, but not limited to Pontiac, Cornell, Flanagan, Dwight and Saunemin.

CALE is a citizen’s group that is so located as to be affected by the proposed facility.

415 ILCS 5/39.2(n) and 35 III. Adm. Code 107.200 & 107.306. CALE has sometimes

also been referred to “Citizens Against the Landfill.” Members ofCALE appeared at

andJor participated through counsel at the siting hearings held March 10-14, 2003.

Applicant is a subsidiary ofAllied Waste Industries, Inc. (“Allied Waste”), the second

largest solid waste disposal company in the United States. The Livingston County Board,

the siting authority with jurisdiction over the Livingston Landfill, is comprised of24

members from three districts.

JURISDICTION

Applicant filed a request for siting approval with the County Board on December

4, 2002. A public hearing was held March 10-14, 2003 with John McCarthy acting as

---

hearing officer. Applicant presented its case; representatives of CALE participated as

objectors. The County Board did not present any witnesses. Public written comment was

accepted for 30 days thereafter. On May 6, 2003, the Agriculture Committee of the

County Board formally recommended approval ofthe application. On May 15, 2003, the

County Board formally granted Applicant’s request, subject to special conditions.

Pursuant to

35

Ill. Adin. Code 107.208(b), a true, certified copy ofthe County Board’s

decision is attached hereto as Exhibit A. CALE filed this petition for review within the

statutory time frame. Thus, the PCB hasjurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Section

39.2 and Section 40.1 of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act. 415 ILCS

5/39.2

&

40.1.

GROUNDS FOR APPEAL

CALE contests and objects to the County Board’s siting approval on the

following grounds:

A.

Lack ofJurisdiction

The County Board lacked jurisdiction to conduct the siting hearing due to the

failure ofApplicant to give required statutory notice under Section 39.2(b).

B.

Fundamental Fairness

The process was fundamentally unfair based on the following: (1) upon

information and belief, many members of the siting authority pre-judged or failed to

judge whether the Applicant had satisfied the statutory criteria: (a) due to fear that ifthe

County Board did not approve ofthe application, the City ofPontiac would annex the

property in question and collect the host fees, and/or (b) due to an overpowering desire to

obtain the $162 million host fee that was previously negotiated, which figure included

higher host fees for the existing landfill (almost double the rate per ton) if the County

Board approved an unspecified expansion (assuming such expansion became final); and

(2) any such other bases of fundamental unfairness as may hereafter be discovered and

established.

C.

Failure to Meet Siting Criteria

The following statutory criteria were not met: (a) need; (b) health, safety and

welfare; (c) minimization ofincompatibility and property value impacts; and (d)

consistency with the County’s Solid Waste Management Plan. 415 ILCS 5/39.2(a)(i),

(ii), (iii) & (viii).

1.

NEED

The statute states that the applicant must demonstrate that “the facility is

necessary to accommodate the waste needs ofthe area it is intended to serve.” 415 ILCS

2

---

5/39.2(a)(i).

This criterion has been held to requirethe applicant to demonstrate “both an

urgent need for, and the reasonable convenience of, the new facility.” Waste

Management, Inc., 175 Iii. App. 3d 1023, 1031,

530

N.E. 2d 682, 689 (2~”Dist. 1988).

In light of Applicant’s own evidence, together with evidence submitted by CALE, it was

plainly evident that the proposed expansion of 50 million cubic yards--approximately

double the capacity ofthe existing facility--is not urgently needed at this time.

2.

HEALTH, SAFETY & WELFARE

The statute requires that the Applicant prove that “the facility is so

designed, located and proposed to be operated that the public health, safety and welfare

will be protected.” 415 ILCS 5/39.2(a)(ii). Applicant has failed to do so.

(a) Hydrogeology Study. The Applicant’s hydrogeology study suffers

from such serious flaws that it cannot provide a reasonable basis for the proposed

expansion.

(b) Inward Gradient Design. Given the hydrogeological features ofthe

proposed site, the “inward gradient” design is not protective of human health or the

environment.

(c) Impact on the Vermilion Riyer. The impact ofthe landfill on the

Vermilion River is unknown. The Applicant failed to demonstrate that the expansion

would not adversely affect the area’s major body ofwater.

(d) Air Pollution. The Applicant failed to demonstrate that the air

pollution generated by the project would not impact arearesidents through hazardous air

pollution, nuisance odors, or deposition ofhazardous substances on fanuland or in the

City of Pontiac’s drinking water reservoir.

3.

COMPATIBILITY/PROPERTY VALUES

The Applicant has failed to demonstrate that “the facility is so

located as to minimize incompatibility with the character ofthe surrounding area and to

minimize the effect on the value ofthe sunounding property. 415 ILCS

5139.2(a)(iii).

Based on testimony provided by Applicant’s own withesses, as well as other evidence in

the record, it was against the manifest weight ofthe evidence to conclude that the

proposed facility would meet this criterion, with respect to both compatibility and

property values. Incompatibility issues include, but are not limited to, the presence ofa

school in the immediate vicinity of the facility; proximity to the Pontiac Municipal

Airport; obvious impacts on the real estate market in the area as evidenced by Applicant’s

own involvement in purchases in the area; and the gross inadequacy ofthe proposed

Property Value Guarantee Program to protect property owners located within the

extremely large zone of influence ofthe 1 60-foot-high facility being proposed by

Applicant.

3

---

4.

CONSISTENCY WITH TIlE COUNTY’S SOLID WASTE

MANAGEMENT PLAN

Prior to June 13, 2002, the County’s Solid Waste Management Plan specifically

prohibited any new landfill space in the County. Before Applicant ever filed an

app!ication for expansion, Applicant requested the County to amend the SWMP to permit

the expansion that is the subject of this petition for review. (The Applicant withdrew its

first application because Applicant failed to provide all the necessary pre-filing notices.)

On June 13, 2002, the County Board complied with Applicant’s wishes and amended the

SWMP

to permit the expansion, but they did so at a meeting at which dozens ofcitizens

were intentionally excluded from the room. Counsel for CALF, in her individual

capacity, challenged the validity of that vote under the Open Meetings Act. That case is

now on appeal before the Illinois Appellate Court. Relief requested therein includes

nullification ofthe June 13, 2002 amendment ofthe SWMP. Thus, the validity ofthe

amendmentto the SWMP that would permit the expansion is subject to pending legal

proceedings.

RELIEF REQUESTED

For the foregoing reasons, CALE respectfully requests that the PCB set this

matter for hearing and discovery, that the approval ofthe application be REVERSED and

the application DENIED, and for such further relief as the PCB may deem appropriate.

Respectfiully submitted,

Carolyn

thz4AI

K. (f9rwin, Aft mey at Law

Counsel for Citizens Against Landfill Expansion

Carolyn K. Gerwin

Attorney at Law

705 South Locust Street

Pontiac, Illinois 61764

(815)

842-2486

4

---

—y

RESOLUTION NO. 03-012

RESOLUTION CONCURRING WITH THE FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS OF LIVINGSTON COUNTY’S INDEPENDENT REVIEW

TEAM AND THE COUNTY REVIEW TEAM’S RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS

AND THE RECOMMENDATION QF THE AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE TO

GRANT THE REQUEST FOR SITING APPROVAL FOR THE LIVINGSTON

LANDFILL POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY FILED WITH THE

LIVINGSTON COUNTY BOARD BY

AMERICAN DISPOSAL SERVICES OF ILLINOIS, INC.

WHEREAS, on December 4, 2002, American Disposal Services of Illinois, Inc.,

hereinafter referred to as “ADS,” filed with the County of Livingston, Illinois, hereinafter

referred to as “County,” a request for siting approval for the expansion of a pollution

control facility located in a portion of Section 4 of Pontiac Township and a portion of

Section 33 of Esmen Township in the County; and

WHEREAS, the request and supporting documents were submitted pursuant to

Section 39.2 of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act, hereinafter referred to as “the

Act,” and the Livingston County Pollution Control Facility Siting Ordinance dated and

adopted on October 14, 1999, as amended; and

WHEREAS, LMngston County and the Agriculture Committee, hereinafter

referred to as “Committee,” after proper notice thereof, conducted public hearing

beginning on March

10, 2003

and ending on March 14, 2003, before a hearing officer

elected by the Committee, at which time ADS made its presentation in support of the

request for siting approval followed by a presentation by various objectors. All

interested persons in attendance, including objectors, were given an opportunity to

make a statement or cross question the witnesses, and the hearing was, in all respects,

called and conducted pursuant to applicable law and ordinance; and

WHEREAS, all notices were duly and properly given as required by law; and

WHEREAS, the County has jurisdiction to cause a public hearing to be held and

to grant or deny the request of ADS for siting approval of a pollution control facility; and

WHEREAS, at the public hearing ADS and objectors submitted the oral

testimony of expert and other witnesses along with extensive d ocumentary evidence

and exhibits, afi of which were received into evidence by the hearing officer; and

WHEREAS, Livingston County’s independent Review Team filed its Findings and

Recommendations and the County Review Team’s Recommended Conditions with the

---

Livingston County Clerk on May 2, 2003, which is attached hereto and made a p art

hereof by reference as Exhibit A.

WHEREAS, the Committee, on May 6, 2003, made a recommendation for

approval of the request for siting approval filed by ADS subject to the Findings and

Recommendations of Livingston County’s. Independent Review Team and the County

Review Team’s Recommended Conditions, as set forth in Exhibit A; and

WHEREAS, ADS has agreed to the Recommended Conditions as set forth in

Exhibit A, which Conditions are hereby incorporated by reference, as a condition of

approval by the County, and ADS agrees that the total expansion of the Livingston

Landfill shall not exceed an additional 50,000,000 cubic yards of airspace; and

WHEREAS, the Committee submitted the findings, recommendations and

conditions as set forth in Exhibit A and the recommendation of the Committee to the

Livingston County Board for its consideration at a regular meeting of the Board on May

15, 2003.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that County Board of Livingston County,

Illinois, concurs with the Findings and Recommendations of Livingston County’s

Independent Review Team and the County Review Team’s Recommended Conditions

with regard to the Request for Siting A pproval fort he Livingston Landfill, a Pollution

Control Facility, filed by ADS, as set forth in Exhibit A, a copy of which is attached

hereto and made a part hereof in its entirety by reference.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Livingston County Board grants the

request for siting approval filed by ADS for expansion of the Livingston Landfill which

shall not exceed an additional 50,000,000 cubic yards of airspace, subject to the

recommended conditions set forth above and approves the site location set forth in the

request for a pollution control facility in accordance with Section 39~2of the Illinois

Environmental Protection Act and the Livingston County Pollution Control Facility Siting

Ordinance adopted on October ‘14, 1999, as amended, and that a copy of the Findings

and Recommendations of Livingston County’s Independent Review Team and the

County Review Team’s Recommended Conditions, as well as a copy of this Resolution,

be forwarded to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency by the County Clerk of

Livingston County, Illinois, and she shall certify the siting approval on IEPA Form LPC-

PA8.

---

Adopted by the Livingston County Board on the

15(h

day of May, 2003.

AYES:

(‘7

NAYS:

ABSTAIN:

PRESENT:

/

ATTEST:

~2~c~cec

Judith K. McGlassonRlerk,

~- /3t çcq~

County

-

Jear~t,Chairma~~tntyBoard of

Livingston County, Illinois

Board of Livingston County, Illinois

---

BEFORE THE COUNTY BOARD &

AGRICULTURAL & ZONING CO~’Th1ITTEE OF THE

COUNTY OF LIVINGSTON, ILLINOIS

IN RE:

RECEIVED

APPLICATION OF

MAY 2 - 2003

A1~ERICAN DISPOSAL SERVICES

)

OF ILLINOIS, INC.

)

JUDITH K. McGLASSON

FOR

NEW

POLLUTION CONTROL

)

LIVINGSTON

COUNTY CLERK

FACILITY SITING

APPROVAL

IN LIVINGSTON COUNTY, ILLINOIS

)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OP

LIVINGSTON COUNTY’S INDEPENDENT

REVIEW TEAN

1.

On

December 4, 2002, American Disposal Services of

Illinois, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “ADS”) filed its

Application for Siting Approval for the Livingston Landfill with

Livingston County. Said Application incorporated a previous

filing of June 14, 2002, which was withdrawn by ADS as well as an

additional volume of information and additional drawings.

2. The subject property that constitutes the proposed

expanded Livingston County Landfill is ituated in a portion of

Section 4, Township 28 North, Range 53, and in a portion of

Section 33, Township 29, Range 5, both East of the Third

Principal Meridian, and is located in unincorporated Livingston

County, Illinois

3. ADS

tion to purchase the subject

properties, a:

j~or of the proposed landfill

expansion.

4. At

!UJ!J l9~

b~yf~riorto filing the Application, ADS

was required t-

Jfftten notice of its intent to file

the Applicatio ~r ~cotThe”) in person and/or

by

registered

mail, return receipt requested, on the owners of all property

within the subject area not solely owned by ADS and on the owners

of all property within 400 feet in each direction of the lot line

3.

---

of the Subject Property, said owners being such persons or

entities which appear from the authentic tax records of

Livingston County. ADS further was to have served the Filing

Notice in person and/or by certified mail, return receipt

requested, at least 14 days prior to filing the Application, on

the members of the General Assembly from the legislative district

in which the Proposed Facility is located. ADS further caused the

Filing Notice to be published in a newspaper of general

circulation published in Livingston County at least 14 days prior

to the filing of the Application.

5. The Application contained all the information required

by Section 39.2(c) of the Act and the Livingston County Siting

Ordinance.

6. ADS paid the required application fee to the County

pursuant to the Siting Ordinance.

7. Prior to commencement of the public hearing, Livingston

County caused notice of the public hearing on its Application

(“Public Hearing Notice”) to be served by certified mail, return

receipt requested, on the members of the General Assembly from

the legislative district in which the Proposed Facility is

located, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (“IEPA”)

Livingston County further caused the Public Hearing Notice to be

published in a newspaper of general circulation published in

Livingston County on February 15, February 19 and February 24,

2003, prior to the start of the public hearing.

8. The Public Hearing Notice was served and published

within the prescribed time periods in accordance with the

requirements of Section 39.2(d) of the Act and Section 4(d) of

the Ordinance.

9. That public hearings were held on the Application

beginning March 10, 2003 and running day to day until March 14,

2003. Said hearings were conducted on behalf of the Livingston

County Agricultural & Zoning Committee and were presided over by

Hearing Off icer John McCarthy.

10. ADS did not file a formal amendment to the Application.

11. No request for local siting approval of the Proposed

2

---

Facility, which is substantially the same as a request that was

disapproved under any of the criteria of Section 39.2(a) of the

Act, has been filed within the preceding two years. Although ADS

had previously filed an application that was substantially the

same as this Application, said prior application was withdrawn

and was not “disapproved” as defined by statute.

12. An opportunity for members of the general public to

present testimony, evidence and witnesses, and to make statements

was given at the public hearings.

13. The Livingston County Administrator of the County

Regional Planning Commission, with the advice and consent of the

County Board, retained legal counsel, Larry M. Clark as well as

technical consultants Deigan & Associates, LLC to perform legal

and technical reviews of the Application and to prepare and

submit this final report to the Agricultural & Zoning Committee

of the County. The Administrator of the Livingston County

Regional Planning Commission, Larry M. Clark, and Deigan &

Associates, LLC are collectively called the “County Review Team”.

14. Based on the record developed pursuant to the County’s

Siting Ordinance, the 8 volume Application for local site

approval, the prior records of the Livingston Landfill filed in

conjunction with this Application, the testimony elicited at the

public hearing, and written/oral public comment, the County

Review Team recommends approval of the request for landfill

expansion siting, as submitted, subject to the following

conditions, provided such conditions are not inconsistent with

regulations promulgated by the Illinois Pollution Control Board

(see 415 ILCS 5/39.2(e)).

15. The County Review Team’s recommended conditions and

brief statements relating to said conditions, which provide the

supporting basis for the conditions, are set forth in the

following paragraphs. The County Review Team recommends that

each and all of the conditions set forth herein should be imposed

on ADS, if the County Board approves the Siting Request. The

recommended conditions are reasonable and necessary in

accomplishing the purposes of Section 39.2 of the Illinois

Environmental Protection Act. The conditions are supported by

evidence in the record.

3

---

16. The County Review Team conducted a comprehensive review of the

Record developed for this siting request, including all of the

materials filed by the applicant and the public. The County’s

review team was present throughout the public hearings and has

considered all of the technical submittals, testimony and public

comments in formulating our findings and recommendations outlined

herein.

County Review Team’s Response to April 11, 2003 Letter by Ms.

Sondra Sixherry.

Ms. Carolyn Gerwin, a public participant, retained Ms. Sixberry as

a hydrogeologist consultant. Topics of concern raised by Ms.

Sixberry’s letter focused on Criterion 2 of Section 39.2 of the

Environmental Protection Act. The following bullet points are

presented in Ms. Sixberry’s letter as conclusions and are responded

to by the County’s independent review team, as follows:

• “The chaotic nature of

the

potentiometric

surface maps is in

part

due

to the

discontinuous nature

of the

water bearing sand

units.

The application thoroughly describes the heterogeneity of the three

sand units occurring across the landfill site. It is our

professional opinion that these units have been adequately and

reasonably characterized from a geotechnical, geological and

hydrogeological standpoint for purposes of assessing the siting

criteria. Although these units are clearly shown to be quite

variable in their occurrence, there has been sufficient field

documentation to determine the flow regimes. The earlier

hydrogeologic studies, such as the 1995 potentiometric surface map

prepared for the middle sand, shows a quite normalized flow

pattern. This pattern precedes any dewatering activities, When we

review this same sand unit under influence by dewatering over the

past two years, the flow patterns are significantly different.

Therefore, we concur with the applicant’s discussion that the

erratic groundwater flow patterns observed are from ongoing

dewatering, and not from the morphology or “discontinuous nature” of

the sand units.

• “It will be difficult to adequately assess groundwater flow

through discontinuous sand lenses.”

4

---

Groundwater flow occurs through all soil types; including silt and

clay. The siting application discusses the presence of these lower

permeable soil types in each of the sand units. Groundwater flow

directions within each of the sand units can be characterized

regardless of its geotechnical properties and morphology.

Groundwater movement rates however, will be affected by the

presence of silts and clays within each sand unit. Even though we

can expect an increase in hydraulic gradients in those soils to

maintain the groundwater velocity rates, flow directions will not

be significantly effected.

It should be noted that the

application discusses a network of monitoring wells that will be

installed on all downgradient perimeters of the landfill. The

reason for this conservative monitoring approach is admittedly due

to the uncertainty of groundwater flow created by the applicant’s

ongoing dewatering. The alternative, as hinted by Ms. Sixherry’s

letter, would be to not monitor a discontinuous sand unit or an

unsaturated sand unit. We believe this would be a less conservative

approach.

• “Boring

logs indicate that monitor well screens

are not

properly

located which will likely cause problems in interpreting

future monitoring data.”

Installation of monitoring wells within unsaturated soils provides

important information, as do wells placed in saturated soils.

Seasonal variations in precipitation have an effect on shallow

groundwater levels, and well screens may not always fully penetrate

the saturated zone. Proper placement of well screens is important

to accurately represent the aquifer conditions for the respective

unit. However, even a partial screened penetration can yield

adequate information. Our recommended conditions further address

well screening requirements for future well installations.

• “Based

on

the deeper boring logs that encountered

the

bedrock,

fractures

and weathered zones

are

present at depth.”

Typically, the weathered zone of the shale bedrock occurs at the

top (interface) and is characterized as being “thin and absent at

some locations”. The boring logs document this weathered zone in

all of the boring logs that penetrated the bedrock, ranging from

less than 1 foot up to 5 feet in thickness. In the deep boring log

(BOS-O1D); the bedrock consists primarily of shale with occasional

dolomitic limestone interciasts. Weathered and fractured shale is

5

---

only described as being at the bedrock around 78 feet below grade.

The remainder of the bedrock is classified as unweathered shale.

• The bedrock present beneath the site is not competent, but

capable of transmitting water.

At least 17 borings were cored into the bedrock, with core lengths

ranging from 10.6 to 51.8 feet. According to the packer test field

data, the average hydraulic conductivity value for the bedrock

shale was presented as being 6.33 x l08 cm/sec. This value

represents the average conductivity for entire bedrock column

tested. The highest conductivity values were noted to be around 2

x

l0~ cm/sec. These values occurred in unweathered, competent

shale in 301-OlD. Over 50 of the packer tests documented “no

take” and were given an assumed 1 xl08 cm/sec value. Although two

values listed above for B01-Ol suggest a relatively higher

permeability, these zones were not considered to be water bearing.

Based on our review of the data presented, it is our professional

opinion that the bedrock has been adequately characterized with

respect to its permeability and

(in) ability to transmit water.

• “If the leachate from the landfill happens to migrate

through

the

landfill liner,

there

is a potential for area bedrock wells to

become contaminated.”

The applicant’s Groundwater Impact Assessment (GIA) modeling assumed

a 1 square centimeter hole to be present in the landfill

geosynthetic liner, occurring at 5 locations within each acre of

landfill liner area. The model, even with presumed failure and

leakage of the liner and contaminant levels equal to the known

worst-case leachate concentration (nickel used for model),•

predicted that the Applicable Groundwater Quality Standard (AGQS)

would not be exceeded at the outer edge of the zone of attenuation

(ZOA) after 100 years of landfill closure. The distance of the

outer edge of the ZOA from the landfill is only 100 feet from the

waste boundary. The closest known residential bedrock well is at

least 1,400 feet from the landfill property margin. Thus, based on

our review of the predictive modeling; the methodology of which is

prescribed and reviewed by IEPA, we would disagree with this

conclusion. Further, the groundwater monitoring program and the

Host Agreement’s residential well protection program would further

protect against this potential occurrence.

6

---

• “In order to determine if this site is located in a hydrogeologic

setting that would be capable

of

adequately protecting humans

and the environment, several issues related to the

hydrogeologic conditions at the site should be resolved.”

The County’s independent review team has developed a number of

reasonable and necessary recommended conditions related to the

hydrogeologic conditions at the proposed landfill expansion site.

It is our professional opinion that with these conditions, there is

sufficient technical information for the Board to make a

determination as to the site’s geology and hydrogeology as it

relates to Siting Criterion 2.

County Review Team Comments on Emerging/Alternate Solid

Waste Technologies

During the public hearing, information and testimony was presented

by a public participant on an emerging technology that utilizes

uclosed~loop gasification” processes to manage the solid waste

stream. This technology application, while founded in proven

science principle, is still in development stage and as such for

some period of time, will have to be applied on a small scale and

in combination with traditional landfilling and recycling

technologies. During this period of small scale application, the

economics, performance, and regulatory standards may be further

developed and proven. Livingston County has not been presented with

a request for siting approval for the closed loop gasification

technology at this time. The siting application before the County

and which the County must act upon is for an expansion to the

existing landfill site.

This is not to state that the County should not be motivating this

applicant to explore alternative technologies in the context of its

landfill development and operation. The County Review Team believes

that applying innovative technology in addition to traditional

solid waste landfilling techniques is beneficial to the County, the

region, and the applicant. To this end, we urge the applicant to

work closely with the County during this next period of expanded

operation, if approved, to enhance and optimize the existing and

expanded landfill operation.

Specifically, The County’s Review Team recommends that the

applicant, ADS, accept a special condition of siting approval that

7

---

furthers several innovative technologies in landfill development,

including but perhaps not limited to:

1) Developing bioreactor landfill conditions via the controlled

recirculation

and

recycling of leachate within the

waste

mass.

This innovative design and operational approach can result in 10

to 20 accelerated biodegradation and stabilization of solid

waste. Benefits, when properly implemented can include:

• Reduced long-term pollutant loading on the landfill liner

system as waste degradation occurs more rapidly.

• More efficient energy recovery via accelerated rates of

landfill gas generation and re-use.

• Higher rates of waste settlement and consolidation

(increased landfill capacity)

• Decreased post-closure maintenance requirements, with

opportunity for timely end-use plan implementation.

2) Enhanced techniques to densify the waste mass and

optimize air

space.

The use of deep dynamic compaction, modified vibro compaction

techniques, and surcharge loading can be further assessed as an

opportunity to obtain additional disposal capacity in the same

amount of air space.

3) Increased use of recycled materials in construction of

landfill components.

The use of recycled, shredded tire chips as an alternate to

granular soils (sand and gravel) in constructing the leachate

and gas collection layers is an opportunity to further advance

recycling goals.

4)

Landfill development and closure with cognizance of future

beneficial end-uses

for

the land area.

As the existing or proposed expansion, if approved, approaches

final closure, an in depth soils balance evaluatiOn of the

remaining soils should be undertaken. If large quantities of

excess soil are available, the applicant should approach the

County with one or more proposals to dispose of excess soils on

the cap of the landfill. Such soils could be used to change the

8

---

plain “hill-like” appearance of the closed landform as well as

to provide further opportunities to install additional plantings

on top of the form without impacting the cap. There are numerous

landfill redevelopment projects being implemented that are

eliminating the long-term non-productive use of former solid

waste landfills both locally and nationally. These projects can

be accomplished at less expense and in shorter time frames when

they are planned concurrently with landfill development,

operation, and closure.

The framework of a potential special condition which advances

these innovative principles with the development and operation

plan for the expanded landfill, if approved may look something

like this:

Within the initial 3 years of the expanded landfill development

and operation, ADS shall develop supplemental and/or

experimental permit modifications for County and IEPA review

that advance each of the concepts in items 1 through 4 above for

the benefit of the Facility and the County.

9

---

County Review Team’s Recommended Conditions

Opportunity for Enforcement of Conditions

The County Review Team’s recommended conditions are intended to

further define and/or clarify design and operating performance

standards for the proposed landfill expansion facility, as

related to the nine siting criteria of Section 39.2 of the

Illinois Environmental Protection Act, if the Board grants

conditional siting approval. The County shall have the

opportunity to enforce these conditions via several mechanisms:

a) By further condition that ADS shall submit these final

conditions with its applications for a development and

operating permit to IEPA, and as such the conditions become

incorporated into the IEPA permit, by reference to the

application and become enforceable by IEPA under such

permit.

b) When siting conditions have become an IEPA permit condition

(incorporated by reference as described in (a) above), the

County has the opportunity to bring notice of complaint to

IEPA and/or the Illinois Pollution Control Board (IPCB) of

non-compliance.

c) In the event IEPA and/or the IPCB decline jurisdiction over

enforcement of these conditions, then the County shall have

the right to enforce the conditions in an action before the

local judicial court and ADS has indicated that it waives

any right to raise jurisdiction as a defense or challenge

the authority of the County to enforce these conditions.

Compliance & Implementation Schedule

Unless an alternate compliance schedule period is otherwise

stated specifically within the condition, the schedule for ADS

implementation and compliance with these conditions shall be

prior to commencement of construction on any landfill or landfill

appurtenance development associated with the expanded landfill

air space.

I. Criterion Number 1: The Facility Is Necessary To

Accommodate The Waste Needs Of The Area It Is Intended To

10

---

Serve

At the hearing the County Agricultural Committee heard

testimony regarding this Criterion from Philip Kowalski who

testified regarding the current capacity of landfills both inside

and those located outside the service area (but available and

currently or potentially receiving waste from inside of the service

area)

.

He testified that if all of the waste generated within the

service area was disposed of in the landfills located within the

service area, less than two years of capacity remain. When

considering other landfills located outside of the service area,

many of which are currently receiving waste generated from within

the service area, his capacity estimate jumps to 3 and 1/2 years

and to approximately 5 years capacity when considering capacity and

potential (relative to distance) capacity, respectively.

Although the service area may not appear uniform or may not

accurately reflect an ideal “wasteshed” service area, the service

area may be selected unilaterally by the applicant and the County

must make its determination based upon the service area as selected

by the applicant. Both Mr. Kowaiski and Mr. McDonnell testified

that the service area was based upon historical waste acceptance.

(See Transcript at Page 61 and Page 240)

Based upon the testimony and the application and other

information available to the County’s Review Team, the estimates

provided by the applicant were not considered to be extreme and

would support the idea that additional landfill capacity is

reasonably required, subject to certain conditions.

The County’s continued oversight of the landfill may impose an

additional staffing and resource burden to County Staff in

overseeing the expanded landfill. The siting, design, and operation

of this facility may, from time to time, require the use of

specialized outside consulting resources and expertise to:

• Review technical submittals and follow-up plans/studies

required by conditions of the Siting Resolution,

• Inspect the facility and/or conduct independent oversight

for compliance with the Siting Resolution,

• Enforce the conditions of the Siting Resolution and/or

Host Agreements.

11

---

Condition 1-A The County shall

have the right

to conduct

inspections

of the facility,

at any reasonable

time, and

ADS

shall grant access to all areas of

the facility at time of such inspection.

During

each inspection, ADS shall provide documents and

records related to compliance with the condition(s)

of

Siting Resolution and

br

Host

Agreement.

At

the County’s discretion, a routinely scheduled

quarterly review meeting with ADS may be requested.

Condition 1-B ADS shall establish an electronic, internet-based,

secure system of making technical submittals and

posting of routine, periodic reports to the County

and any submitta.s made by the operator to IEPA.

The internet—based system shall provide an e-mail

notification to the designated County

representative (and/or its designated consultant)

whenever the web page is updated or electronic

submittals are posted. The operator shall provide

the County representative with training and/or

software necessary to access the electronic

submittals.

ADS

shall continue hard copy submittals

to the County, concurrently with electronic

postings, until such time as the County notifies

the operator that hard copies are no longer

required.

Basis for Conditions:

The applicant,

ADS

stipulated in its testimony that this landfill

siting expansion was intended to be consistent with conditions

developed for the Streator Area Landfill, Inc. siting approval.

(See Transcript at Page 197). The County authorized these

conditions in its resolution of the Streator Landfill expansion

and such conditions are applicable to the Livingston Landfill

expansion, if approved.

total gate waste stream or 300,000 tons/yr.,

12

---

calculated on an average annual basis, but not in

excess of 360,000 tons/yr in any one year.

County

approval shall be obtained for any exceedances of

this special waste quantity. Special waste receipt

volume shall be reported to the County at least

semi-annually.

Basis

for

Condition:

The facility has not demonstrated a need for a facility to dispose

of special waste volumes beyond the past historical amounts of

Condition 1-fl Total waste intake shall not exceed 3,000,000

tons/yr averaged over 11 years, with a

maximum

of

3,600,000 tons in

any

one year. Daily intake shall

not exceed 13,500 tons/day on any given operating

day.

Basis for Condition:

ADS testified, through Philip Kowaiski that they would limit daily

and yearly intake in order to assure the County that at least 11

years of capacity would be reserved for the entire service area.

(See Transcript at Pages 241 and 302)

.

This restriction is in

addition to the Host Agreement entered into by ADS

and the County

that requires capacity for the County’s waste through 2026.

It.

Criterion Number 2: The Facility Is So Designed, Located

And

Proposed To Be Operated That The Public Health, Safety

And

Welfare Will Be Protected

Mr. Devin Moose was the principal witness regarding this

criterion with some overlap of Mr. Dave Bryant’s testimony. Mr.

Noose testified about the geology, hydrogeology, design,

construction, quality assurance program, and monitoring programs

for the proposed expansion.

Mr. Bryant testified

primarily

regarding operations, as currently exist, and as proposed

for

the

expanded facility.

Condition 2-A

ADS

shall install the Rowe Road underpass prior to

the development of

any

landfill

expansion

in Parcel

C.

13

---

Basis

for

Condition:

In order to protect any impact from vehicular traffic traveling

along Rowe Road, all construction and landfill traffic should be

required to use the underpass in order to prevent an accumulation

of dirt and mud upon the public roadway. Additionally, the

reduction of landfill equipment, construction/disposal traffic

using the at-grade crossing at Rowe Road

would minimize the

potential for

vehicular accidents. (See Transcript at Page 1164)

Condition 2-B ADS shall continue to aggressively remove leachate

from the non-Subtitle 0 “Old Fill Area” by drilling

additional extraction wells, arid maintaining

pumping withdrawal rates, as necessary to

demonstrate leachate head reduction.

Condition 2-C ADS shall sample surface water ponds at least semi-

annually for the “01 List” groundwater indicator

parameters in its IRPA permit, irrespective of flow

or discharge frequency._ADS shall request a permit

modification, if necessary, to report the results

of this expanded analysis to IEPA within its

surface water discharge monitoring report.

Basis

for

Condition:

The “Old Fill Area” may serve to allow a migration pathway into the

pond areas located south of Parcels A and B. By the removal of any

leachate build-up, it would serve to reduce head and would

contribute to the “inward gradient landfill” design of the

remainder of the Parcels. Stormwater ponds may accumulate

contaminants having a potential to migrate to groundwater.

Stormwater pond sampling provides an additional monitorable point

for assessing landfill containment performance.

ADS currently samples these ponds and should continue to do so.

Condition 2-fl Within 180 days of Board approval, if granted, ADS

shall provide a triple trap catch basin at

discharge outlet(s) of the Transfer Trailer

Parking Area. The basin shall be operated &

maintained per manufacturer’s recommendations to

maintain flow capacity and water quality function.

Residuals collected by the basin shall be managed

14

---

and disposed per applicable State of Illinois

regulations. ADS may request an extension to the

schedule for this condition only in the event that

IEPA permitting, if required, causes a delay in

implementation. Such permit applications,

if

required, shall be submitted to IEfl by

ADS

within

45 days of Board approval, if granted.

Condition 2-E

ADS

shall not expand or relocate the area of the

Transfer Trailer Parking Area beyond its present

area bounded by the east

and

south fence lines, the

northern containment curb, and the existing

internal roadway signage to the west. Any expansion

or relocation shall be subject to County review

and

approval.

Basis for Condition:

The potential for leakage from the parking of transfer trailers

from oil, diesel fuel, or liquids from stored waste on the trailers

presents a potential impact to the surface water runoff quality,

both on the site and off site. By limiting the size of the

Transfer Trailer Parking Area to its present size, it will reduce

the impact of aesthetic views and potential odor problems related

to the overnight parking of transfer trailers loaded with waste.

Condition 2-P Any

replacement or

newly installed treated or

untreated leachate storage

tank and

transfer piping

systems shall be equipped with ixrjervious secondary

contaimnent. Tank shall have high level alarms and

rapid-drawdown level indicator alarms that are

wired into the main office or other staffed office

to alert personnel to such events. The County shall

review any new or replacement tank locations prior

to being permitted with IEPA. Secondary containment

volume shall be at least 100 of the largest

tank

within its boundary, plus the volume from a 100-

year, 24-hr rainfall. The leachate removal

and

conveyance system shall be designed

and

operated at

both the vertical and horizontal landfill

expansions as an automated pumping system to

maintain less than 1 ft. of leachate head level at

15

---

all times in the landfill cells.

Basis

for Conditions

As leachate is

automatically pumped to the leachate storage tanks,

additional precautions and warning alerts shall be inherently

designed into the units to prevent accidental overfill and release

to the environment.

The applicant has not depicted additional tank

locations in its siting request nor demonstrated that additional

tanks will meet the siting criterion.

Condition 2-G

ADS

and its on-site earthwork contractors shall

utilize Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel Fuel

(ULSDF)

for

all heavy equipment used on site when such fuel

becomes commercially available from bulk suppliers

in the metropolitan Chicago Area.

Condition 2-H

ADS

shall develop and implement a plan for

measuring baseline (background)

and

operational air

quality indicators in the vicinity of the landfill.

ADS

shall submit this air monitoring plan for

County review within 180 days of final unappealable

local siting approval if Board approval is granted.

The plan shall present locations of air monitoring

stations, sampling and analysis protocols,

and

air

quality

indicator

parameters

that

represent

potential background and landfill-related air

emissions. Data collected from the air monitoring

program shall be compared •to other

baseline air

monitoring data stations operated by IEPA

throughout the State

and

to

NAAQS. Such data

comparisons will determine the necessity and

frequency of further air monitoring.

Basis

for Condition:

ADS

indicated that due to the size of the facility

and the

magnitude of its daily waste receipts,

a considerable fleet of

diesel-fueled equipment operates at the

facility. Recent USEPA

studies have indicated a potential health impact to employees

subject to excessive amounts of diesel exhaust particulates. ADS

has agreed in the course of the hearing and in their post-hearing

16

---

comments of John McDonnell to use ULSDF in its equipment fleet when

it

becomes commercially available.

Condition 2-I Within

the ADS horizontal

landfill

expansion

application to the IEPA, provide a discussion in

the application that addresses a conservative

course of action to be taken in the contingent

event that an abandoned mine shaft is encountered

Basis for Condition:

Abandoned mines may provide a preferential, un-monitorable

migration pathway, if they are not adequately identified and

addressed. The siting application indicates two abandoned mines in

the area, approximately 2 miles from the facility. Further search

is not warranted since all available historical literature has been

reviewed. However, the final IEPA development application should

provide a discussion on how an abandoned coal shaft would be sealed

below or adjacent to a landfill cell. A contingency plan to

address this potential situation should be provided for IEPA review

in granting a development permit.

Condition 2-J Additional upper sand monitoring wells shall be

installed by

ADS around Parcels ABC

and D as part

of the expansion. Final determination of their

locations would be dependent on the field

verification of the upper sand unit. The proposed

number and

intended locations of these wells should

be included as part of the application prior to

submittal to IEPA and

shall be subject to County

review and comment.

Basis

for Condition:

The Application filed in December, 2002 provided for monitoring the

middle sand unit and the uppermost aquifer in their monitoring well

system.

Because the middle and upper sands systems

may

be

hydrogeologically connected off-site, it is recommended that the

monitoring network include the upper sands, wherever encountered at

the landfill perimeters.

Furthermore, the upper sand is documented

as being utilized in nearby downgradient residential wells.

Monitoring of the upper sand unit is necessary to provide further

protection of the local private drinking water and shallow

groundwater resources.

ADS

has stipulated to these.additional

well

17

---

nests in its testimony at the public hearing. (See Transcript at

Page 779)

relocated Baker’s Run shall be constructed and

stabilized with vegetation at least one full

growing season prior to being required for landfill

cell development.

Basis for Condition:

By constructing stormwater ponds and ditches and stabilizing same

prior to their actual intended use,

it will further minimize any

impact that stormwater will have on the ponds and ditches and

correspondingly will minimize potential for downstream surface

water quality impacts. This condition shall not reduce the

requirement for providing temporary stabilization measures and

other stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs)

Condition 2-L

ADS

shall obtain at least one and preferably two

(2) “back-up” agreement(s) for leachate treatment

at facilities (conmiercial/industrial treatment

facilities and other POTWs) other than its current

arrangement, in the event that Pontiac

WWTP

determines that it temporarily or permanently

cannot accept leachate for treatment.

ADS

shall at

all times maintain an agreement for one Uback..upIt

leachate treatment facility in addition to the

Basis for Condition:

The facility will continue to rely on off-site treatment of

leachate. Such treatment at a publicly

owned facility may be

interrupted or terminated due to a variety of different reasons,

including flow capacity and regulatory reasons. With the volumes

of leachate currently being produced and the volumes of leachate

anticipated to be produced in the future, based upon the proposed

expansion, it is necessary to have additional leachate treatment

agreements

in place.

Condition 2-M

Two

additional upgradient monitoring wells should

be installed within the upper sand, middle sand

and

the uppermost aquifer for both Parcels

ABC

and D.

18

---

These additional wells shall be included in the

IEPA permitted monitoring network.

Basis for Condition:

Due to the uncertainty of groundwater flow patterns within the sand

units and uppermost aquifer, additional upgradient monitoring wells

will provide additional protection of local private drinking water

resources. Ongoing dewatering activities has continued to affect

the groundwater flow patterns, and a final determination of

potential landfill contaminant migration directions has not been

established. (See Transcript at Page 1022)

the private well sampling program_as described in

the February 8, 1994 County Host Agreement shall be

supplemented by

ADS

to include the following, in

addition to those provisions stipulated in the 1994

Host Agreement:

a) All wells within 2000 ft. of the landfill

footprint shall be included in the program, subject

to owner approval.

b) ADS shall ensure that the landfill dewatering is

not affecting the well yield and/or waterquality of

any

private wells within the host agreement-defined

monitoring zone.

c)

ADS

shall provide a one page fact sheet to the

well owner(s) for any primary or secondary

groundwater constituent that exceeds Class I

Groundwater Standards of 35 IAC Part 620.410 or

USEPA maximum contaminant levels (MCL5) when

measured by the

ADS

private well monitoring

program. The fact sheet shall utilize published

EPA health advisory information for the constituent

exceedance(s).

Any

exceedance of EPA MCL5 list

shall be reported to the owner

and

the County

within 48 hours of determination with an action

plan for further assessment.

d)

ADS

shall ensure that EPA sampling protocols are

19

---

consistently

adhered

to

and

that

sample

interference

is minimized and sample integrity is

maintained.

e)

ADS

shall provide an alternate water supply

source when yield or water quality is determined to

be landfill related impacts. The burden for

demonstrating that such impact is not landfill

related shall rest with

ADS

upon notification by

the County.

Basis for Condition,

The groundwater flow patterns within the monitoring sand units and

uppermost aquifer remains uncertain, due to ongoing dewatering

events at the landfill. By adding nearby residential wells that

are currently presumed to be cross or upgradient, ADS

can further

ensure that the local private groundwater resources are protected.

There have been several consistently

reported private

well

groundwater quality exceedances for select parameters (e.g.,

chlorides, manganese, sulfates, and thallium), and their results

may be indicative of the aquifer unit. Nonetheless, the private

well owner shall be given sufficient factual health related

information to assess these results.

Condition 2-0 The GIA model that is required to be performed

every 5 years for permit renewal should be

conducted using only groundwater data that is under

normalized, static conditions.

Basis for Condition:

•The GIA model has

been utilizing groundwater data with assumptions,

due to the ongoing dewatering activities at the landfill. These

activities have a significant effect on the hydraulic gradients and

flow patterns.

By using normalized, static condition data, a more

representative

GIA model can be developed to predict potential

contaminant migration behavior

and allow IEPA to consider permit

monitoring conditions.

layer of the leachate collection system shall be at

least 8 oz/yd2 thickness. Seams of the geotextile.

shall be overlapped and field sewn on sideslopes.

20

---

Basis

for Condition:

The applicant has not demonstrated that a geotextile thickness of

4 oz/yd2 will meet the performance standards over the life of the

landfill and post-closure period. The geotextile filter is

essential to prevention of clogging of the leachate collection

layer and to assure long-term satisfactory performance of the

leachate collection system. ADS stipulated in its testimony that

this landfill siting expansion was intended to be consistent with

conditions developed for the Streator Area Landfill, Inc. siting

approval. The County authorized these conditions in its

resolution of the Streator Landfill expansion and such conditions

are applicable to the Livingston Landfill expansion, if approved.

Condition 2-Q The typical monitoring well screen detail on

Drawing 024 shall be changed to show the minimum

Basis for Condition:

IEPA requires a minimum 5 ft.. well screen for monitoring well

systems.

require retrofitting due to the “piggyback” filling

of Parcel

ABC

and Parcel 0 expansions shall be

designed with both leachate system tie-in options

for redundancy, in the event of failure of the

primary

tie in. This detail is shown on Drawing 013

Basis for Condition:

The applicant did not provide a technical justification or design

basis for selecting one option over another. The applicant has not

constructed either of these options at the site, nor proven their

functionality.

The redundant tie in piping system provides an

additional factor of safety and operational certainty for continued

collection of leachate in the piggy back expansion areas.

The

applicant testified that they anticipated installing 2 out of the 3

options.

(See Transcript at Page 978).

21

---

Condition 2-S Interior

HOPE lining

in the lower 10 ft.

of

leachate collection

sumps/risers shall be at least

100 mil thickness. Exterior HOPE lining shall be at

least 60 mil thickness for entire height of

sump/riser.

Basis for Condition:

The Application (Drawing D19) failed to specify the thickness of

these liners.

developed in a cell-by-cell sequencing approach

that provides for timely placement of final cover

and establishment of permanent vegetation over

landfill areas that reach final closure grades.

Placement of vegetative cover shall not be delayed

beyond a 4 month period to allow settlement.

Completed sideslopes shall receive stabilization

and vegetative cover prior to the end of each

growing season.

Basis for Condition:

In order to minimize water infiltration, production of leachate,

siltation and to facilitate an aesthetically acceptable looking

landfill, it is important to close and vegetate the landfill as

soon as possible.

Condition 2-U The operator shall increase the height of the

portable screens used at the active face to a

minimum

of 20 ft. The width of the portable screens

shall extend laterally at least 30 ft. beyond the

active filling area(s) (both sides) of the landfill

Basis for Condition:

ADS stipulated in its testimony that this landfill siting

expansion was intended to be consistent with conditions developed

for the Streator Area Landfill, Inc. siting approval. The County

authorized this condition in its resolution of the Streator

Landfill expansion and such conditions are applicable to the

Livingston Landfill expansion, if approved.

22

---

Condition 2-V For a minimum of 200 days/year, the operator shall

continue to employ temporary or permanent employees

to pick up litter whenever litter leaves the site,

with the “goal” to maintain the I-55/Rte.66

corridor in a reasonably clean manner. Such litter

collection programs shall include the continuation

of picking up litter from the I-55/Rte. 66 right-

of-way_(ROW) as long as litter from transfer

trailers continues to be a problem. The litter

picking areas shall include, in particular, but not

be limited to, the first 250 ft. of the I-55/Rte.

66 ROW within communities and unincorporated areas

of Livingston County. Counties extending north to

Interstate 80 shall be picked of litter, as

permitted by the applicable authorities. Farm

fields adjoining I-55/Rte. 66 corridor shall be

picked of landfill/ transfer trailer litter upon

request of the property owner or tenant farmer, at

least twice per year in Spring and Fall.

Discontinuance or reduction of such

litter picking shall only be permitted upon further

Basis for Condition:

Litter continues to be one of the more day-to-day offensive

problems with the facility.

The applicants litter picking program

and 3 Strikes Program along 1-55 has made significant progress in

the reduction of litter off-site and should be continued as long as

needed.

Condition 2-W Upon submittal of IEPA development

and

operating

permit applications for the Parcel ABC and 0

horizontal expansions,

ADS

shall increase its

Contingent Closure Cost Estimate

and

Financial

Assurance to account for refilling

below grade

landfill areas with clean fill soil assuming 3~

party implementation and

unit costs for earthwork

published in technical literature

sources at the

Basis for Condition:

ADS contingent cost estimate for a premature or contingent

23

---

closure event did not include the costs for returning partially

developed below grade landfills to grade. The cost and financial

assurance should not assume that waste can continue to be placed

to achieve grade, but must instead assume that clean soil fill

must be imported.

III. Criterion Number 3: 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 Agricultural Hearing Committee heard testimony from two

different witnesses in regard to this criterion number 3. 3.

Christopher Lannert supplied testimony that the facility is so

located so as to minimize incompatibility with the character of the

surrounding area. He further testified that by the planting of

various plant materials around the base of the landfill, that the

incompatibility would be further minimized.

Peter Poletti testified on behalf of the applicant ADS in

regard to the second portion of this criterion, that the location

of the facility would minimize the effect on the value of the

surrounding property. He further testified as to how he formed his

analysis and the fact that the property protection plan has been

implemented a number of times to help to minimize any impact on

property values.

Condition 3-A The Applicant shall not store loaded transfer

trailers anywhere upon the site other than the

designated Transfer Trailer Parking Area. Transfer

trailers shall not be stored when loaded with

municipal solid waste for a period of more than 24

hours.

Condition 3-B Within 180 days of Board approval, if granted, an

opaque fence, subject to County review and

approval, shall be installed around the Transfer

Trailer Parking Area and at the entrance area

located on Illinois Route 23. This fence shall be

compatible with, and in addition to the landscaping

24

---

as identified in the Application. Landscape

improvements in this area of the entrance

and

along

Route 23 and Rowe Rd. shall

be conducted within the

18t

planting season of County Board approval,

if

granted.

Basis for Conditions:

ADS indicated that landscape buffering was necessary to “minimize

incompatibility” with the surrounding area. Visual impacts along

Route 23 and Rowe Rd. should be given initial priority.

Specifically J. Christopher Lannert testified that the ADS could

install an opaque fence around the trailer parking area. (See

Transcript at Page 550)

Condition 3-C All landscaping as described in the Application

shall be installed within one planting season of

approval by the IEPA of the proposed expansion.

In areas where no such activities are anticipated

within the next two years, said landscaping may be

deferred to the following planting season. All

landscaping materials shall be inspected

periodically. Any material that does not survive

or propagate shall be replaced within one planting

season for the life of the facility. Plant

selection and density shall comply with the Siting

application renderings and plant lists prepared by

Lannert, unless otherwise approved by the County.

Basis

for

Condition:

ADS, through 3. Christopher Lannert indicated that landscape

buffering was necessary to “minimize incompatibility” with the

surrounding area and that he recommended that it be installed at

the next planting season in order to give the greatest benefit.

Condition 3-fl In the ivent that the gas to energy plant

discontinues bperáting for a period of greater than

3 months consecutively, and flare units are

utilized, the back-up external LFG flare units

shall be retro-fitted or replaced with enclosed

flare units within 180 days of their continued use.

Enclosed flare units shall be permanently installed

prior to the County or other local entity

establishing an end-use on the site.

25

---

Basis

for

Condition:

The visual impact of seeing flare units burning, particularly at

night, is further minimized by the installation of enclosed flare

units. Although the flare units are not currently being utilized,

this requirement would only be implemented if they began to be

utilized.

Condition 3-E

ADS

shall advise the County, in writing, of all

significant

permit modifications

for consistency

with all siting conditions prior to their submittal

to IEPA for consideration. All permit modification

applications submitted by ADS to IEPA shall

incorporate by reference these final siting

conditions, as adopted by the Board.

Basis

for Condition:

By reviewing all proposed significant modifications with the County

prior to their submittal with the IEPA, it will assure both ADS and

the County that all conditions of siting are being met or will be

met by the submittal. It will also help to facilitate effective

communication between the County and ADS so that the County knows

what is being planned and implemented at the site that may not have

been addressed previously. (See Transcript at Page 194)

Condition 3-F Construction and site preparation activities may

not take place more than 1 hour before or after the

IEPA permitted waste acceptance hours of 5:30 AN to

6:30 PM, on Monday

through Saturday, unless

otherwise approved by the County.

Basis for Condition:

The operation of heavy equipment during evening, night or early

morning hours particularly

impact surrounding areas because the

noise seems to travel further at night.

By reducing or eliminating

this noise at hours when people are most likely to be outside

relaxing or otherwise participating in recreational activities, it

will further minimize impact on the character of the surrounding

area.

Condition 3-G No off-site stockpile areas or borrow areas shall

be used other than what is located upon the

proposed 730 acre boundary. When areas are used

26

---

for stockpiling or borrow areas, they shall be

temporarily vegetated when planned to be idle, in

whole or in part, for more

than 120 days.

Basis

for

Condition:

ADS has indicated that they will not have to access property other

than the 730 acres for the purpose of stockpiling or a borrow area,

thereby limiting the impact to the surrounding area to that of the

730 acres. (See Transcript at Page 214)

Condition 3-H Within 180 days of Bâard approval, if granted, ADS

shall install and operate an outbound truck

inspection and cleaning station to facilitate

removal of litter and debris from trucks, and to

ensure legible call—in number signage on trucks

before departing the site onto public roads. This

station shall provide signage to drivers requiring

that they stop for inspection. Each outbound truck

shall be inspected. OSHA compliant platforms and

stairs shall be provided to further facilitate

efficiency and safety at this station. The area

shall be equipped with containerized storage for

debris. ADS may request an extension to the

schedule for this condition only in the event that

IEPA permitting, if required, causes a delay in

implementation. Such permit applications, if

required, shall be submitted to IEPA by

ADS within

45 days of Board approval, if granted. While

obtaining IEPA permits, if required, ADS shall

continue its current interim practice of truck

inspection and cleanout.

Basis for Condition:

ADS indicated in its testimony by Dave Bryant that these truck

inspection procedures have been implemented at the facility.in

an

effort to reduce litter escape on public roads. This condition

further promotes the procedure by establishing a routine inspection

platform for drivers to recognize and abide by.

Condition 3-I In the event that ADS shall acquire and/or lease

all or a portion of the Mackinson Property, ADS

Within 30 days of such acquisition or lease shall

provide a deed or lease restriction permanently

noted on the property records to preclude any

27

---

development of the Mackinson property for landfill

disposal or

support facilities in the future on the

property shown as Concept End Use Plans (NE 1-55

and Rte. 23 corridor).

Basis

for

Condition:

This area has been shown by ADS to be reserved for end-use plans

that are non-related to landfill activities. Furthermore, the

reservation of the property for non-landfill purposes will allow

development to take place in the future at the intersection of 1-55

and Rte. 23.

Condition 3-J The landfill gas extraction points shall be

converted to below grade structures upon

development of an end use plan for the site.

Basis for Condition:

The removal of visible gas extraction points to below-grade will

further help to minimize the impact upon the surrounding area and

provide for end-use planning. This condition was stipulated in

testimony by Devin Moose. (See Transcript at Page 984)

Condition

3-K ADS

shall install various bushes and shrubs and

shallow root system trees upon stable final

landfill cover areas and cover terraces on an

experimental permit basis as approved by the County

and IEPA.

Said plant material shall be

specifically approved by a Landscape Architect as

being appropriate for planting on a landfill cap.

Basis for Condition:

The planting of shallow

root trees, bushes and shrubs will further

minimize impact to the surrounding area by “breaking up” the

uniform shaped, grassy “hill”. (See Transcript at Page 555 as to

feasibility)

Condition 3-L Within 10 days of Board approval, if granted, ADS

shall formalize its ~Three Strikes and You’re Out”

policy as it relates to the tarping of transfer

trailers in a written plan. Said plan shall be

reviewed by the County prior to its required

28

---

distribution to haulers. The written plan, subject

to County review and comment, shall include, but

not necessarily be limited to:

a) Tarping performance standards.

b) Signage and call-in placarding requirements that

ensures each trailer contains a legible,

prominently displayed toll-free call-in number to

report litter escape. Each trailer shall be

numbered with a unique identifying number having

12-inch number/letter size in a standard location

on the trailer.

c) Enforcement & driver violation policy

The tarping policy shall establish that a “strike” shall be

assigned to drivers that receive call-ins to ADS for litter

escape, loose tarps, and tarp adjustments made just prior to

entering the site._Additionally, as part of the written plan, ADS

shall provide certified mail notices to Livingston County

municipalities and townships which adjoin the 1-55 corridor

providing them with a call-in nunber to report litter

accumulation and request ADS action. ADS shall maintain a log of

driver violations and call-ins and shall produce copies of the

log upon request of the County.

Basis for Condition:

ADS has indicated that it will continue to penalize haulers for

failing to adequately tarp transfer trailers. Said policy should

be reduced to a formal written plan, as opposed to a “letter”

policy and

should be updated periodically,

as needed.

Condition 3-N ADS and its contract operator may not expand the

Landfill Gas (LFG) to energy plant in any manner

without prior County review and approval, which

approval shallnot be unreasonably withheld.

Basis for Condition:

Although ADS is not presently proposing an expansion of the LFG

to energy plant, any such expansion in the future could

potentially impact Livingston County residents. Accordingly,

because the plant is an integral part of the landfill operation,

29

---

the County should be entitled to review and approve any expansion

of the plant.

Condition

3-N At the time the County or another entity develops

and implements an end—use plan for the site, the

LFG to Energy plant shall be retro-fitted with

additional buffering and noise mitigation

measures.

Basis for Condition:

The LFG to energy plant has not been designed and is not being

operated for compatibility with public end-use of the closed

landfill site. In that the LFG to energy plant will be operating

long after the termination of disposal into the landfill, it is

important to minimize any impact at the point in time that an end

use plan is implemented.

Condition 3-0 ADS shalldesign, permit, operate and maintain

alternate surface water management features other

than the rip-rap lined down chutes shown on

Drawing D27. Such alternate design shall be more

aesthetically and visually compatible while

maintaining functionality and effective storinwater

conveyance.

Basis for Condition:

The rip-rap lined down chutes visually contribute

to the “plain

hill” look of the landfill and require significant maintenance. A

more aesthetically

appealing look would minimize impact to the

character of the surrounding area.

IV.Criterion 4: The Facility Is Located Outside The Boundary Of The 100

The applicant, through Mr. Devin Moose testified that the

facility was located outside of the 100 year floodplain. No

proposed conditions.

V. Criterion Number 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

Mr. Dave Bryant.testified about the current operations of

30

---

the facility and how the proposed expansion would continue to be

operated to reduce danger from fires, spills, and other

operational accidents.

Condition

5-A ADS

shall install, or continue

to maintain methane

monitors.in all buildings and the scale house. A

radioactive material detector shall be installed,

and/or maintained at the scale as long as waste is

being received at the facility.

Basis

for Condition:

Continued monitoring is important to maintain protection against

fires, spills or other operational accidents.

These monitors are

currently in place and should continue to be used in order to

effectively monitor the site.

Condition 5-B ADS shall complete installation of the Phase 4 Gas

mitigation slurry wall cut-off by November 1,

2003.

Basis for Condition:

The Phase 4 Gas mitigation slurry wall cut-off has already been

approved by the IEPA. Continued gas migration problems in and

around the “old fill area” as identified by landfill gas probe

exceedances require installation of this slurry wall in an

expedited manner during this forthcoming construction season.

Dave Bryant testified that the slurry wall would be installed

this summer. (See Transcript at Page 1240)

Condition 5-C The facility’s pollution prevention team and

emergency response plans shall be updated within

90

days of Board approval, if granted. Such plans

shall utilize current staffing and shall Add at

least two (2) emergency response contractor

agreements.

Basis for Condition:

The plan shows outdated personnel and needs to be updated

periodically.

Condition 5-D A back-up manager shall be trained and certified

by IEPA as a Landfill Site Manager.

31

---

Basis for Condition:

A back-up manager for a site of this size should be fully

certified and approved so as to have a certified manager on site

at all times of waste receipt or other active operations are

ongoing.

CondItion 5-E ADS shall maintain an inventory of back-up

auxiliary leachate extraction pumps and a portable

generator on the site, so as to provide for

leachate extraction in times of power outages or

malfunction of primary

systems.

Basis for Condition:

The importance of maintaining 1 foot or less of leachate at the

base of the landfill is important so as to reduce the amount of

head on the leachate as well as to maintain an inward gradient

landfill.

Condition 5-F Within 180 days of Board_approval, if granted, ADS

shall install two (2) additional monitoring wells

on the east side of Parcel A and shall incorporate

these wells into its IEPA monitoring program.

Basis

for Condition:

Additional monitoring wells located on the east side of Parcel A

will provide an early detection of impacts from the old till

area.

Additional monitoring wells would give further assurances

of no groundwater impacts and were agreed to by ADS during the

course of the hearings. (See Transcript at Page 1022).

Condition 5-0 Wood debris stockpiles used for alternate daily

cover and road building shall be managed to

preclude release of fugitive emissions during

loading, unloading, and processing. Wood debris

piles shall not be placed on areas that do not

have at least 24-inches of soil cover separation

between waste and wood debris to minimize the

potential for waste mass ignition in the event of

a wood debris fire. Wood debris stockpiles shall

not exceed a height of 10 ft. and a width of 20

32

---

ft. to minimize internal temperatures and allow

for extinguishment in the event of fire.

Basis

for

Condition:

ADS experienced a woodpile debris fire in 2003 which raised

awareness of the issue of wood debris stockpiling. The wood

debris stockpiles at the site represent a substantial volume of

combustible material. Sources of the wood debris include

demolition debris containing various sources of co-mingled dusty

materials. Internal temperatures within the debris can become

elevated due to decomposition. The potential for an underground

landfill fire exists if adequate surface debris separation is not

maintained. Limiting the size of the wood debris stockpiles

provides an opportunity for more controlled management and

extinguishment in the event of ignition.

VI. Criterion Number 6: The Traffic Patterns To Or From The

Facility Are So Designed As To Minimize The Impact On

Existing Traffic Flows

The applicant, ADS presented testimony in support of

criterion 6 from Michael Friend. He testified as to the

structural capacities of the roadways, the vehicular capacities,

the construction of the entrances and intersections as well as

safety.

As a result of his review, he recommended intersection

upgrades to the landfill entrance and to the Row Road/Rte 23

intersection as well as an underpass to be constructed prior to

development of Parcel C. Additionally he recommended the

installation

of a truck wheel wash to assist in the removal of

any mud or debris from the underside of landfill vehicles prior

to their departure from the site.

Condition 6-A The Parcel C landfill expansion shall not proceed

without the underpass being

completed.

ADS shall

install the Rowe Road underpass prior to any

landfill development of Parcel C. The design of

the underpass shall include a detailed safety

analysis with safety provisions, line of sight

analysis for trucks and heavy equipment volumes

and rates of queuing that will pass through the

underpass on internal landfill roads during

maximum waste receipt times.

33

---

Basis for Condition:

ADS has not demonstrated that the Parcel C expansion will meet

Criterion S and 6 without the underpass completed. Michael

Friend further testified that he recommended such an underpass

and that it be constructed prior to the development of Parcel C.

Condition 6-B Once the Rowe Road underpass is completed,

ADS

shall install access restrictions to prohibit

landfill construction equipment from crossing Rowe

Road at grade level.

Basis

for Condition:

The actual usage of

the Rowe Road underpass is imperative to its

effectiveness.

Condition 6-C

ADS shall install new

truck wheel wash facility as

described in siting application. Spent wheel wash

wastewater shall be managed as leachate due to the

potential for high solids and oil/grease content.

Basis

for Condition:

The proposal by ADS to install a truck wheel wash unit was

determined by Michael Friend, its traffic consultant to be

necessary to meet Criterion 6. ADS must

have an acceptable plan to

manage spent wheel wash water to prevent discharge and potential

water quality impacts. Rather than considerable

sampling and analysis, it is recommended that this water be managed

in similar manner as waste-contact water or leachate. (See

Transcript at Page 1164).

Condition 6-D Construction of the left turn lane improvements

shall be targeted for completion during 2004,

subject to IDOT approvals. Additionally, laDS shall

install a street light at intersection of Rowe Road

and Rte. 23 simultaneously with intersection

improvements, subject to IDOT approval. Said

installation shall be coordinated so as to minimize

impact on local traffic during construction.

I

Variances/extensions to this completion schedule,

34

---

in the event of force majeure shall be submitted by

ADS

for County review and

approval.

Basis

for

Condition:

As proposed by ADS, left turn lanes should be installed to minimize

the impact upon existing traffic.

(See Transcript at Page 1163)

VII. Criterion 7—Hazardous Waste Emergency Response Plan

No conditions are recommended for this Criterion at that

hazardous waste is not proposed to be accepted at this site.

VIII.

Criterion 8—Consistent w/ County Solid Waste Plan

Mr. Philip Kowalski testified that the proposed expansion is

in conformance with Livingston County’s solid waste plan, as

updated.

Condition 8-A Within 90 days of Board action on this

application, ADS shall submit a plan to the County

to establish and maintain a public recycling drop

off center(s) as required by the February 15, 2001

Amendment to County Host Agreement condition 5(a).

Such facility plan shall be reviewed and approved

by the County and shall incorporate County and

local government recommendations with respect to

location, design, housekeeping/maintenance,

collection and schedule of delivery to the

secondary materials market.

Basis for Condition:

Host Agreement condition that has

not been implemented. This

facility will assist in advancing the County’s recycling goals.

IX. Criterion 9—Regulated Recharge Area Location

No conditions are recommended for this criterion in that the only

regulated recharge area in the State of Illinois is located near

35

---

Basis for Condition:

Host Agreement condition that has not been implemented. This

facility will assist in advancing the County’s recycling goals.

IX. Criterion 9—Regulated Recharge Area Location

No conditions are recommended for this criterion in that the only

regulated recharge area in the State of Illinois is located near

Peoria..

X. Criterion 10—Prior

Operating

Experience

p

Convictions

No conditions are recommended for this Criterion.

RESPECTIVELY SUBMITTED TO THE LIVINGSTON

COUNTY AGRICULTURAL & ZONING

COZIMITTEE

A~,. t~rTté~../0a.9t. Dated: May 2, 2003

Charles T. Schopp~Adminfitrator

Livingston County Regional Planning Commission

~9akA.L_j ‘1t1,

c?ZOIJK

Dated; May 2, 2003

Larr~’M. Cl

Special

Assistant State’s Attorney

___________________________________ Dated: May 2, 2003

Kerry W. an Allen, Geology/Hydrogeology Consultant

Deigan & Associates,

LLC

6t~~a12 —

Dated: May 2, 2003

Ga~v~.ibei

anJJ Principal! Solid Waste Consultant

Deigan & Assodiates, LLC

37

---

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS

CLERK’S OFFICE

POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

JUN 2 4 2003

STATE OF ILLINOIS

Citizens Against Landfill Expansion,

)

Pollution Control

Board

Petitioners

)

)

V.

)

a

American Disposal

Services ofIllinois, Inc.,

)

No.

C

Respondent,

)

)

and

)

)

Livingston County Board, Livingston County,

)

Illinois, Respondent

NOTICE OF

APPEARANCE

Carolyn

Gerwin hereby appears in the above-captioned matter on behalfof

Citizens Against Landfill Expansion, Petitioner, on this

19th

day ofJune, 2003.

Respectfully submitted,

e4~44M

Caro1yn~.Gerwin

Carolyn K.

Gerwin

Attorney at Law

705

South Locust Street

Pontiac, Illinois 61764

(815) 842-2486

---

CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have filed and served the foregoing Petition for Review and

Notice ofAppearance as follows:

On June 19, 2003, I mailed one original and 9 copies thereofto the Illinois

Pollution Control Board, by U.S. Mail, return receipt requested and postage prepaid, to:

illinois Pollution Control Board:

Pollution Control Board

Attn: Clerk

100 West Randolph Street

James R. Thompson Center, Suite 11-500

Chicago, Illinois 60601-3218

On June 19, 2003, I sent a copy thereof by U.S. Mail, return receipt requested and

postage prepaid, to:

Respondent American Disposal Services of illinois, Inc.:

Ehrmann, Gehlbach, Badger & Lee

Commerce Towers, Suite 100

David Bryant

General Manager

American Disposal Services ofIllinois, Inc.

P.O. Box

646

Rural Route 3

Pontiac, Illinois 61764-0646

John W. McDonnell, P.E.

Environmental Manager

Allied Waste Industries, Inc.

13701 Kostner

Crestwood, Illinois 60445

Respondent Livin2ston County Board:

C. Thomas Blakeman

Strong, Blakeman & Schrock

307 West Washington

Street

Pontiac, Illinois 61764

---

On

June

19, 2003,

1 hand-delivered a copy thereofto the Office ofthe Livingston

County Clerk, 112 West Madison, Pontiac, Illinois, addressed to:

Resnondent Livin2ston County Board:

Livingston County Board

Jeanne Rapp, Chairman

2

---

CAROLYN GERWIN

70-2226/711

a

313

CITIZENS AGAINST LANDFILL EXPANSION

PONTIACJL 61764

~

~b-2’/~

~

Jth~t&topa~~t~~

F

$75oo

-

/‘cc

Bank of

Pontiac

~

Pon~inWs6U54

I:o?LL2226I:

II’q~ouu’~7L,II’

03L