F
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
,,,
4
aT
PST
/z .
P
?p~n~
PEORIA DISPOSAL COMPANY,
j
°n
C
'
1
61/1'
Petitioner,
)
~C-~
V
)
(Pollution Control Facility Siting Appeal)
PEORIA COUNTY BOARD,
)
Respondent .
)
NOTICE OF FILING
TO :
See attached service list
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on the 7t
h day of June, 2006, George Mueller,
one of the attorneys for Petitioner, Peoria Disposal Company, filed the original and nine
(9) copies of Petitioner's Petition for Review, pursuant to 415 ILCS 5/40.1(a), with the
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, by hand-delivery
.
Respectfully submitted,
PEORIA DISPOSAL COMPANY
BY
:
106-1361
1
RECIVED
CLERK'S
E
OFFICE
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
JUN 0 7 2006
STATE OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DISPOSAL COMPANY,
)
Pollution Control Board
Petitioner,
v .
)
(Pollution Control Facility Siting Appeal)
PEORIA COUNTY BOARD,
)
Respondent .
)
ENTRY OF APPEARANCE
To the Clerk of the Pollution Control Board and all parties of record
:
Please enter my appearance as counsel of record in this case for the following
:
PEORIA DISPOSAL COMPANY
Dated: June 7, 2006 .
Respectfully submitted,
Brian J. Meginnes
Elias, Meginnes, Riffle & Seghetti, P .C
.
416 Main Street, Suite 1400
Peoria, Illinois 61602
Telephone: (309) 637-6000
Facsimile: (309) 637-8514
bmeginnes(Wemrslaw.com
106-1362
RECEIVED
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOAR6-
ERK'8 OFFICE
JUN 0 7 2006
PEORIA DISPOSAL COMPANY,
)
STATE
OF ILLINOIS
Pollution Control Board
Petitioner,
)
TPC
0 6 - I
$9
V
)
(Pollution Control Facility Siting Appeal)
PEORIA COUNTY BOARD,
)
Respondent
.
)
ENTRY OF APPEARANCE
TO :
The Clerk of the Pollution Control Board and all parties of record
:
Please enter my appearance as counsel of record in this case for the following
:
PEORIA DISPOSAL COMPANY
Dated June 7, 2006 .
Respectfully submitted,
1
GEORGE MUELLER
628 Columbus Street, Suite #204
Ottawa, Illinois 61350
(815) 431-1500-Telephone
(815) 431-1501 - Facsimile
george(&muelleranderson.com
STATE OF ILLINOIS
)
SS
COUNTY OF LASALLE
)
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
The undersigned, a non-attorney, being first duly sworn upon oath, states that a
copy of the Petition for Review of Petitioner, Peoria Disposal Company, was served
upon the following persons by enclosing such documents in separate envelopes,
addressed as follows, and depositing said envelopes in a U .S. Postal Service mail box
at Ottawa, Illinois, on the 7"' day of June, 2006, before 5 :00 p.m ., with all fees thereon
fully prepaid and addressed as follows
:
Mr. David Brown
Attorney at Law
Black, Black & Brown
101 S. Main Street
P.O. Box 381
Morton, IL 61550
Mr. Kevin Lyons
State's Attorney
Office of the Peoria County State's Attorney
324 Main Street, Room 111
Peoria, IL 61602
Service List
Mr. David Williams, Chairman
Peoria County Board
Peoria County Courthouse
324 Main Street, Room 502
Peoria, IL 61602
Subscribed and sworn to Wore me, a Notary Public, in the County and State as
aforesaid, this
7
day of
d
rime ,
2006
.
.GALS.
NNELIER
NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF ILLINOIS
MYCOA
IO WW0V$O8
Not
7
2
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
Receiver)
OFFICE
JUN
0 7 2006
PEORIA DISPOSAL COMPANY,
)
PSTA
E
OF ILLINOis
Control
f30,rp
Petitioner,
)
`t"
~B
0 (. -
I
g9
V
)
(Pollution Control Facility Siting Appeal)
PEORIA COUNTY BOARD,
)
Respondent .
)
PETITION FOR REVIEW
NOW COMES Peoria Disposal Company ("Petitioner') by its attorneys, Brian J
.
Meginnes and George Mueller, pursuant to §40 .1 (a) of the Environmental Protection Act
("the Act") (415 ILCS 5/40 .1(a)) and petitions for review of the action of the Peoria
County Board on May 3, 2006, in which it failed to pass a motion to approve Peoria
Disposal Company's Application for Site Location Approval of a vertical and horizontal
expansion of its existing hazardous waste landfill located in Peoria County, Illinois, with
special conditions
.
In support of its Petition, Peoria Disposal Company states and
alleges as follows
:
1
.
That on November 9, 2005 Petitioner filed an Application with the Peoria
County Board for site location approval pursuant to §39.2 of the Act of a pollution
control facility, namely a vertical and horizontal expansion of Petitioner's hazardous
waste landfill located in Peoria County, Illinois (the "Application")
.
2 .
That a public hearing was held on the Application commencing on
February 21, 2006 during which Petitioner proved that the Application satisfied all nine
statutory siting criteria
.
3
.
That on May 3, 2006 the Peoria County Board held a special meeting to
consider the Application, and the Peoria County Board at that time failed to pass a
motion to approve the Application . No written findings were made, no written decision
was issued, and Petitioner has never received any written record or report of the action
of the Peoria County Board on May 3, 2006, although a transcript of the meeting itself
does exist .
4. That the Peoria County Board or a committee of the same had previously
held a meeting on April 6, 2006 for the purported purpose of making a recommendation
to approve or deny the Application and adopting findings of fact with respect to the
Application. Petitioner cannot determine what if any action was taken on that date as
the transcript of that meeting reveals a convoluted pattern of motions and amendments
and further amendments, often with no vote on the amendments, and with no ultimate
clarity as to what was voted on
.
The Peoria County Board admits that no
recommendation was made in the April 6, 2006 meeting to either approve or deny the
Application. Petitioner further takes the position that neither the Peoria County Board,
nor any committee thereof, made any legally binding findings on April 6, 2006 with
regard to whether the proposed facility was so located, designed and proposed to be
operated that the public health, safety and welfare would be protected . No written
record of the actions on April 6, 2006 has ever been published or provided to the
Petitioner, although a transcript of the meeting itself does exist . Such transcript does
not include the findings of fact purportedly made at the April 6, 2006 meeting, but
instead demonstrates that, in several key instances, Peoria County Board members did
not know or understand what they were voting for or against .
5 .
Petitioner acknowledges that the Peoria County Board believes it has
denied the Application by its action of May 3, 2006 . However, no written decision
exists, although a transcript of this meeting was posted on the Peoria County Web site
on May 12, 2006, more than 180 days after the filing of the Application. Additionally
there was a written Agenda for the May 3, 2006 meeting, and that Agenda is
accompanied by documents entitled resolutions, agenda briefings and recommended
findings of fact. All these documents are file stamped April 27, 2006 . The record of the
proceedings of May 3, 2006 indicates that these resolutions, including the resolution
regarding proposed findings of fact, were not adopted in the form presented
.
Nonetheless, they represent what Peoria County may well believe to be the required
"written decision," and they are therefore attached to this Petition as Petitioner's good
faith attempt to comply with the requirement of 35 I .A.C. 107.208(a)
.
6 .
Petitioner alleges that, based on the foregoing, the Application should be
deemed approved by operation of law for failure to take timely final action as required
by Section 39.2(e) of the Act. Without waiving said argument, and in the alternative to
said argument, Petitioner asserts that in the event the Pollution Control Board finds that
the Peoria County Board did deny the Application, such denial is otherwise defective,
unlawful or void for the reasons set forth hereinafter
7 .
The Hearing on the Petition for Site Location Approval was not conducted
in accordance with the requirements of §39 .2 of the Act and the action of the Peoria
County Board was not made in accordance with the requirements of §39.2 of the Act.
8
.
The Peoria County Board did not specify reasons for its purported denial
of the Application and there was no written decision rendered, contrary to the
requirements of 415 ILCS §5/39 .2 .
9 .
The proceedings of the Peoria County Board, including the public hearing,
post-hearing procedures and the decision making process, as well as the action of the
Peoria County Board taken on May 3, 2006, were not fundamentally fair for the
following reasons :
A .
The Peoria County Board failed to comply with its local pollution
control facility siting ordinance and said non-compliance rendered the
proceedings fundamentally unfair.
B .
The Hearing procedures employed by the Peoria County Board
were not fundamentally fair
.
C .
The post-hearing proceedings employed by the Peoria County
Board were not fundamentally fair.
D .
The decision making procedures employed by the Peoria County
Board were not fundamentally fair
.
E .
Multiple members of the Peoria County Board were biased against
Peoria Disposal Company and prejudged the Application
.
F
.
Multiple members of the Peoria County Board had disqualifying
conflicts of interest.
evidence
.
G .
The action of the Peoria County Board was not based upon the
H .
The action of the Peoria County Board was based on matters
outside the record .
I
.
The Peoria County Board disregarded the recommendation for
approval of its own technical staff and adopted findings which were in direct
conflict with the findings of its technical and professional staff
.
J
.
Peoria County Board members did not understand what they were
voting on either on April 6, 2006 or on May 3, 2006
.
K .
Objectors to the Application including, but not limited to,
participants Heart of Illinois Sierra Club and Peoria Families Against Toxic Waste
engaged in prejudicial ex part6 contacts with the Peoria County Board and
promoted and advocated prejudicial ex part6 contacts by others with the Peoria
County Board .
L .
The Peoria County Board applied a fundamentally unfair and
incorrect burden of proof .
M .
The proceedings were otherwise fundamentally unfair.
10 .
Without waiving the arguments set forth hereinabove, and in the
alternative to said arguments, the purported finding of the Peoria County Board that
Peoria Disposal Company had not proven siting criteria i, ii and iii was against the
manifest weight of the evidence. Additionally, the purported finding by the Peoria
County Board that Peoria Disposal Company had only proven siting criterion v if certain
special conditions were imposed, was against the manifest weight of the evidence and
was not supported by the evidence
.
11
.
The Peoria County Board made findings which are inconsistent with denial
of the Application .
WHEREFORE, Peoria Disposal Company prays that the Peoria Disposal
Company's Application for Site Location Approval be deemed approved pursuant to 415
ILCS §5/39.2(e). In the alternative, Peoria Disposal Company prays that the action of
the Peoria County Board, failing to approve Peoria Disposal Company's Application for
Site Location Approval be reversed or, alternatively, that the same be remanded with
instructions to correct fundamental fairness errors including, but not limited to, removal
of those Peoria County Board members who had conflicts of interest, were biased or
otherwise prejudged the Application from further consideration of the matter
.
Respectfully submitted,
PEORIA DISPOSAL COMPANY
and
B
Brian J. Meginnes
Elias, Meginnes, Riffle & Seghetti, P .C
.
416 Main Street, Suite 1400
Peoria, Illinois 61602
Telephone: (309) 637-6000
Facsimile: (309) 637-8514
George Mueller
628 Columbus, Suite 204
Ottawa, IL 61350
Telephone: (815) 431-1500
Facsimile: (815) 431-1501
106-1348
There will be a Special Meeting of the County Board, County of Peoria, on
Wednesday, May 3, 2006, at five o'clock p.m. at the Itoo Hall, 4909 W .
Farmington Road, Peoria, IL.
CALL TO ORDER
MOMENT OF SILENCE
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL BY THE CLERK
CITIZENS' REMARKS
(To address the County Board,
fill
out card and submit to the Chairman)
1. Application from Peoria Disposal Company for local siting approval of a
pollution control facility that was filed with the Peoria County Clerk on
November 14, 2005 .
2. A recommendation from your Peoria County Regional Pollution Control
Site Hearing Committee to approve findings of fact concerning Peoria
Disposal Company's application for local siting approval of a pollution
control facility that was filed with the County Clerk on November 14,
2005 .
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
MISCELLANEOUS
ANNOUNCEMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
JoAnn Thomas
County Clerk
(boa rd\agenda\0605SpecAgnLandfrll Siting .doc)
AGENDA
F! L P
APR 2 7 2006
JOANN THOMAS
PEORIA COUNTY CLERK
FILED
APR 2 7 2006
COMMITTEE: Peoria County Board
LINE ITEM: n/a
JOANN THOMAS
MEETING DATE:
May 3, 2006
AMOUNT: n/a
PEORIA COUNTY CLERK
AGENDA BRIEFING
ISSUE:
To make a determination concerning Peoria Disposal Company's application for local siting approval of a
pollution control facility .
BACKGROUND :
In November 2005, Peoria Disposal Company submitted an application for local siting approval to expand
their current hazardous waste landfill. Section 7.5 of the Peoria County Code identifies the items to be
included in the application, addresses administrative processes and responsibilities of staff members, and
outlines the time frame for events to occur during the 180 day review period .
The County Clerk
deemed the application sufficiently complete on November 14, 2005 . Highlights of the review process
include holding six days of public hearings for the Applicant to present their case in chief as well as to
allow opponents to cross-examine witnesses and offer their own testimony and evidence. One day was
dedicated to hearing public comments; where 90 people spoke in favor of and against the proposed
expansion. The public hearings commenced on February 21, 2006 and concluded on Monday, February
27. Upon conclusion of the public hearing, the County Code identifies that any written comment
received by the County Clerk for 30 days shall be made part of record . This window of opportunity
ended on March 29. A comprehensive staff report was submitted into the record on March 28 and
distributed to Board members as well. This staff report included the findings from County employees
and outside consultants hired to assist in the review. Consultants from Patrick Engineering and Alan
Environmental; David Brown, special assistant to the State's Attorney's Office ; and County employees
prepared the report that included recommendations of special conditions. A Supplemental Staff Report
addressing materials submitted during the last week of the public comment period was prepared for the
reconvened hearing held on April 3, 2006, which allowed members of the County Board the opportunity
to ask staff questions about their reports.
One of the last steps in the review process is for the Regional Pollution Control Site Hearing Committee
to hold a public review meeting to establish findings of fact and a recommendation concerning the site
approval request. The RPCSH Committee met on April 6 and approved findings of fact for each of the
nine statutory criteria. The Committee approved findings of fact consistent with denial for Criteria I, 2,
and 3; and approval with special conditions for Criteria 4-9
.
During this process, all materials submitted into the record including PDC's application, evidence
submitted prior and during the public hearings, transcripts, written public comment, and staff reports
were scanned and downloaded onto Peoria County's website to allow the public (both locally and
nationally) the opportunity to view materials at their convenience
.
RECOMMENDATION :
In the initial Staff Report dated March 27, 2006 and the Supplemental Staff Report dated April 3, Staffs
recommendation to the Committee was for approval with special conditions .
On April 6, 2006, the
Regional Pollution Control Site Hearing Committee recommended approving findings of fact concerning
Peoria Disposal Company's application for local siting approval for a pollution control facility consistent
with denial
.
PREPARED BY :
Karen Raithel
DEPARTMENT: Recycling
DATE: April 26, 2006
FILED
TO THE HONORABLE COUNTY BOARD
)
APR 2 7 2006
COUNTY OF PEORIA, ILLINOIS
)
JoANN THOMAS
PEORIA COUNTY CLERK
Your Regional Pollution Control Site Hearing Committee does hereby recommend passage of the
following Resolution :
RE :
Siting approval for the Peoria Disposal Company expansion of an existing hazardous waste facility
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, on November 14, 2005, Peoria Disposal Company ("Applicant"), filed an application
requesting local siting approval for an expansion of an existing hazardous waste facility ("facility") ; and
WHEREAS, under the Illinois Environmental Protection Act, 415 ILCS 5/1 et. seo . ("the Act"), the
Peoria County Board must approve or deny the proposed site location of said facility ; and
WHEREAS, the Act specifies nine criteria that must be satisfied for local siting approval; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing concerning said facility commenced on February 21, 2006 ; and
WHEREAS, on April 6, 2006 your Committee deliberated concerning the evidence presented at the
hearing and found certain facts relevant to these statutory criteria to have been proven in these hearings
;
and
WHEREAS, on April 6, 2006 your Committee did not recommend either approval or denial of the
proposed site location of said facility .
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Peoria County Board, after due consideration of all
of the evidence from the public hearings and public comment documents submitted, that the Peoria County
Board approves local siting for the Peoria Disposal Company expansion of an existing hazardous waste
facility; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, approval of the application is subject to acceptance by Peoria
Disposal Company of all special conditions identified in the Findings of Fact separately voted upon
immediately following passage of this resolution .
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
REGIONAL POLLUTION CONTROL SITE HEARING COMMITTEE
Reviewed :
Dated :
Ids/03/PDC expansion application res (2).doc/plf
ISSUE:
Approval of Findings of Fact concerning Peoria Disposal Company's application for local siting approval
of a pollution control facility.
BACKGROUND:
The Regional Pollution Control Site Hearing Committee met on April 6, 2006 and approved findings of
fact for each of the nine statutory criteria . Attached are those Findings of Fact the Committee
approved .
On April 6, 2006, the Regional Pollution Control Site Hearing Committee recommended approving
findings of fact concerning Peoria Disposal Company's application for local siting approval for a pollution
control facility consistent with denial
.
FILED
APR 2 7 2006
AGENDA BRIEFING
J
RIACOUW
oMAS
PEORA COUNTY CLERK
COMMITTEE: Peoria County Board
LINE ITEM : n/a
MEETING DATE:
May 3, 2006
AMOUNT: n/a
RECOMMENDATION:
To approve findings of fact concerning Peoria Disposal Company's application for local siting approval
for a pollution control facility.
PREPARED BY :
Karen Raithel
DEPARTMENT: Recycling
DATE: April 26, 2006
TO THE HONORABLE COUNTY BOARD
)
COUNTY OF PEORIA, ILLINOIS
)
FILF!)
APR 2 7 2006
JoANN
'
fUivjnd7
PEORIA COUNTY CLERK
Your Regional Pollution Control Site Hearing Committee does hereby recommend passage of the
following Resolution :
RE
:
Siting approval for the Peoria Disposal Company expansion of an existing hazardous waste facility
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, on November 14, 2005, Peoria Disposal Company ("Applicant"), filed an application
requesting local siting approval for an expansion of an existing hazardous waste facility ("facility") ; and
WHEREAS, under the Illinois Environmental Protection Act, 415 ILCS 5/1 et
. sea . ("the Act"), the
Peoria County Board must approve or deny the proposed site location of said facility
; and
WHEREAS, the Act specifies nine criteria that must be satisfied for local siting approval; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing concerning said facility cornfnenced on February 21, 2006; and
WHEREAS, on April 6, 2006 your Committee deliberated concerning the evidence presented at the
hearing and found certain facts relevant to these statutory criteria to have been proven in these hearings
;
and
WHEREAS, your Committee's findings of fact are attached to this Resolution and are incorporated
herein by reference; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Peoria County Board, that the findings of fact of the
Peoria County Regional Pollution Control Site Hearing Committee attached hereto are approved, as
amended by the Peoria County Board .
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
REGIONAL POLLUTION CONTROL SITE HEARING COMMITTEE
Reviewed :
Dated :
Ids/03/1313C expansion application facts res (2).dociplf
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT 415 ILCS 5/39.2
LOCAL SITING APPROVAL CRITERIA
(i)
The facility is necessary to accommodate the waste needs of the area it is
intended to serve ;
(ii)
The facility is designed, located and proposed to be operated such that public
health, safety and welfare will be protected
;
(iii)
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 ;
(iv)
The facility is located outside the boundary of the 100 year flood plain or the
site is flood-proofed ;
(v)
The plan of operations for the facility is designed to minimize the danger to the
surrounding area from fire, spills or other operational accidents ;
(vi)
The traffic patterns to or from the facility are designed to minimize the impact
on existing traffic flows;
(vii)
If the facility will be treating, storing or disposing of hazardous waste, an
emergency response plan exists for the facility which includes notification,
containment and evacuation procedures to be used in case of an accidental
release ;
(viii) The facility is consistent with the County Solid Waste Management plan; and
(ix)
If the facility will be located within a regulated recharge area, any applicable
requirements specified by the Board for such areas have been met
.
The County Board may also consider the previous operating experience and past record
of convictions or admissions of violations of the applicant and any subsidiary or parent
corporation in the field of solid waste management when considering criteria (ii) and (v)
under the Section. The County Board may also impose conditions on its siting approval
.
FILE
APR 2 7 2006
PEORIA
JoANNTHOMAS
COUNTYC[.r
Criterion I
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT
The facility is not necessary to accommodate the waste needs of the area it is
intended to serve.
•
Applicant failed to use the most recent U.S. EPA data on hazardous waste
generation ;
•
U.S. EPA data from 2003, reported in 2005, shows a significant decline in
hazardous waste generation rates in the hazardous waste service area
;
•
During cross-examination by County staff, applicant's expert Smith testified that
there was a reduction in hazardous waste generated in the service area from
2001 to 2003 ;
•
Applicant's expert Smith testified that there are a decreasing number of
hazardous waste landfills in both the service area and the nation ;
•
Applicant's employee and expert Ron Edwards is quoted in a newspaper article,
included in the public record, as saying that applicant's tipping fees have
decreased from an average of $100 per ton to an average of $80 to $85 per ton ;
•
While not subject to cross-examination, applicant's statement about price is
deemed reliable as a statement against interest
;
•
A decreasing price during a time period when the number of hazardous waste
landfills is decreasing suggests decreasing demand for disposal capacity ;
•
On cross-examination applicant's expert Dr. David Daniel testified that over the
last two decades there has been a gradual reduction in the amount of hazardous
waste generated ;
•
Daniel was qualified by applicant as a national expert on hazardous waste and
landfill design and technology
;
•
In her report applicant's expert Smith assumed a constant rate of hazardous
waste generation in the service area from 2001 until 2029
;
•
However, the evidence provided by U .S. EPA data, applicant's public statement
about prices and the testimony of the applicant's own experts indicates a
reduction in the amount of hazardous waste generated in the service area
;
•
An annual reduction in hazardous waste generation in the service area of
between one and two percent, and therefore consistent with the U .S. EPA data,
FILED
APR 2 7 2006
JOANN THOMAS
PEORIA000myCLERK
would reduce the capacity shortfall applicant's expert Smith estimated in her
report for hazardous waste by hundreds of thousands or even millions of tons
;
•
In estimating disposal capacity applicant's expert Smith assumed that hazardous
waste landfills outside the service area would not utilize a greater percentage of
their capacity for hazardous waste generated within the service area than they
did in 2001, but supplied no evidence or data to support this assumption ;
•
Applicant's expert Smith failed to fully consider potential substitutes for a new
hazardous waste landfill in the service area, including increased recycling of the
type of waste codes accepted by applicant, continued waste reduction in the
service area and increased disposal of hazardous waste generated in the service
area in landfills outside the service area .
FILED
APR 2 7 2006
F~p~ N THOMAS
COUNTY CLE
Criterion 2
The facility is not so designed, located and proposed to be operated that the public
health, safety and welfare will be protected .
•
There is evidence that the existing landfill may already be leaking into the
aquifer;
•
If the existing landfill is already leaking, the facility and the proposed facility
which relies upon the existing liners and leachate collection systems is not
designed to be protective of the public health, safety and welfare
;
•
The liner systems presently in use at the facility and proposed to be used in the
vertical expansion, by the applicant's own experts' testimony, will fail at some
time in the future ;
•
When those liners fail, leachate will begin migrating through the site, and will
eventually reach the groundwater under the site ;
•
The groundwater aquifer located under the site is, by the applicant's own
experts' testimony, hydraulically connected to the Sankoty aquifer which is the
primary drinking water aquifer for the area ;
•
If the drinking water wells for the area are contaminated, the costs of replacing
the water supply will be enormous ;
•
The risk of contaminating of the area's drinking water is not worth the short
term economic benefits of allowing the expansion of the landfill ;
•
The old areas of the site are not constructed to modem regulatory standards and
present unreasonable risks to the public
;
•
The location of a hazardous waste disposal site over the aquifer is against the
stated policy of the Peoria County Board ;
•
The design of trench C-I is inferior to present "state-of-the-art" technology in
the waste field, and allowing the Applicant to remove the existing cover from
that trench presents an unreasonable risk to the public and the aquifer under the
site ;
•
The testimony of opponents' expert, Charles Norris, was that fissures in the
clayey till, weathering of the till, and continuous sand seams all contribute to the
rapid transport of liquids through the glacial till underlying the site, and will,
and have, resulted in leachate releases and other contaminants migrating into the
groundwater from the glacial till ;
CL)
r
$16
APR 2 7 2006
JoANN THOMAS
PEORIA COUNTY CLE. r
•
The testimony concerning the organic contaminant found in a shallow
monitoring well located in the upper till in the northeast comer of the facility,
and the subsequent discovery of the same contaminant in a monitoring well
located in the lower sand aquifer in the same area suggests the rapid migration
of contaminants at the site, in directly conflict with the testimony of applicant's
experts, and in support of Mr. Norris' testimony ;
•
The increased levels of chlorides in the monitoring well downgradient of trench
C-1 also suggest the same conclusions ;
•
The close proximity of residential neighborhoods to the east of the proposed
facilities raises numerous questions concerning whether the location of the
proposed facility is protective of the public health, safety and welfare
;
•
The facility, at its closest location, is a mere 300 feet from the nearest
residential property;
•
The close proximity of the residences raises serious concerns regarding the
potential adverse health effects the proposed landfill may cause to these
residents;
•
The medical community has spoken out against the proposed expansion due to
the potential health risks posed by place large volumes of hazardous waste so
close to the residents of the County;
•
The Applicant did not present any data, studies, or reports concerning the
potential health affects on the citizens, or any risk assessments or
epidemiological studies or data concerning the proposed facility
;
•
Due to the close proximity and the hazardous nature of the materials being
disposed of and proposed to be disposed of at the facility, the proposed facility
presents an unwarranted risk to the public ;
•
Opponents primary comments were that the liner systems would fail at some
point in the future, and this commentary was largely supported by the testimony
of Applicant's witnesses, the major difference being when the liner systems
would begin to degrade ;
•
Applicant and opponents agree that protection of the groundwater is the primary
concern at the proposed facility ;
•
However, there is considerable difference of opinion between the parties as to
the magnitude and likelihood of a risk to the groundwater presented by the
proposed facility ;
FILED
•
One area of concern for the County Staff was the groundwater impact
APR 2 7 Z006
PEORIA
Cou"
THOMAS
assessment conducted by PDC's experts Dr . Barrows and Ken Liss ;
•
The type of groundwater modeling done by Dr. Barrows is appropriate for this
type of application and for determining future potential impacts to groundwater
as required by IEPA for permit applications ;
•
IEPA requires this type of modeling to determine impacts up to 100 years after
closure, but the Applicant did the modeling for 500 years after closure ;
•
At the public hearing, Dr. Barrows was asked about his modeling and his
sensitivity analysis, and he stated in his testimony that the report on his
sensitivity analysis was incorrect, and that the most sensitive parameter was flux
through the liners as opposed to the hydraulic conductivity of the clayey till
underlying the liners ;
•
After the public hearing, and before the close of the public comment period, Dr
.
Barrows submitted a supplemental report detailing his corrected findings
regarding the sensitivity analysis, but County Staff was not able to
independently verify his corrected conclusions ;
•
Because County Staff was not able to independently verify his corrected
conclusions, the County is unwilling to accept the results of the modeling as a
method for ruling out the possibility that the C trenches are or have released
contaminants at the site ;
•
Mr. Liss testified for the Applicant that the groundwater monitoring data
demonstrates the existing facility is not contributing contamination to the
groundwater at the site;
•
Mr. Norris disputed that conclusion by pointing to TOX sampling data
;
•
The County finds the surface impoundment presently located at the facility and
used for the collection and storage of leachate is less protective of the public
health than other areas of the facility because it is only double lined, and has no
effective means of leak detection ;
•
A number of the opponents and their witnesses call into question the safety of
the inactive portions of the site
.
FILED
APR 2 7 2006
JOANN THOMAS
PEORIA COUNTY CLEPP
Criterion 3
The proposed facility is not 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 .
A .
Compatibility
•
Surrounding land uses are a mix of open space, agriculture, industrial and
residential ;
•
The testimony and report in the record state the site is separated from
surrounding land uses by natural buffers, vegetative screening, and natural
topography, but with an expansion the natural buffers are not as effective
;
•
A significant portion of the residential property is in relative close proximity to
the proposed facility ;
•
A 45 foot increase in vertical height of this landfill will have a noticeable and
demonstrable effect on surrounding residential properties ;
The County did note that during the Applicant's presentation certain before and
after images of what the proposed facility will look like from various positions
in the neighboring residential areas showed that in a few locations the top of the
proposed facility will be visible to neighboring residential properties .
B .
Property Values
•
Numerous individuals commented during the public comment period that they
were totally unaware of the facility until the siting process started, but are aware
now;
•
A 45 foot increase in vertical height of this landfill will have a noticeable visual
impact on surrounding residential properties
.
FILED
APR 2 7 2006
JoANN THO,e,Ad
PEORIA COUNTY Ct.r."
Criterion 4
The proposed facility is located outside the 100-year floodplain .
•
Applicant presented expert testimony to this effect
;
•
County Staff confirmed the location of the facility outside of the 100-year flood
plain ;
•
There was no evidence presented that the facility was located in the 100-year
flood plain .
FILED
APR 2 7 2006
JOANN THOMAS
PEOPoA COUNTY (LFr"
Criterion 5
The plan of operations for the facility is designed to minimize the danger to the
surrounding areas from fire, spills, and other operations accidents, if certain special
conditions are met.
•
Applicant presented expert reports and testimony concerning its plan of
operations and its fire, spill, and operational accident plans
;
•
The plans set forth details of hours of operation, waste screening and acceptance
procedures, waste handling procedures, daily waste placement and cover
operations, leachate management, air quality controls, dust managements, mud
tracking, noise control, access control, hazard prevent and emergency response
plans ;
•
The testimony and documents submitted by Applicant demonstrate it is fully in
compliance with its regulatory requirements for financial assurance for closure
and post-closure care, and in fact has more funding in its trust than is presently
required by IEPA ;
•
The testimony and documents submitted both in support of and against the
application suggest that long term care and maintenance of the facility is
necessary to fully and adequately protect the public health, safety and welfare;
•
The County ordinance requires the applicant to present calculations of perpetual
care costs for the proposed facility ;
•
The Applicant presented perpetual care cost estimates during the public hearing,
and offered to implement and fund a perpetual care fund for the proposed
expansion as well as inactive waste management areas of the larger facility;
•
Applicant's plans do not adequately provide for the perpetual care of the facility
after the termination of the post-closure care period
;
•
Applicant's plans do not adequately provide for the proper removal of leachate
from the leachate manholes
;
•
Applicant's plans do not adequately provide for the monitoring of stormwater
discharges to make sure stormwater has not come into contact with either the
waste and/or leachate ;
•
Questions and concerns were raised about coordination with fire departments
and emergency service providers, and the proximity to schools ;
•
There was no evidence presented which demonstrated Applicant's plans for
fires, spills or accidents were insufficient ;
FLED
APR 2 7 2006
JOANN THOMAS
'EORIA COUNTY CLEW
•
There was no evidence presented which demonstrated there was a lack of
coordination with local fire departments and emergency service provides ;
•
There was no evidence presented which demonstrated there was any risk to
schools from potential fires, spills, or accidents at the facility;
•
The facility is located close to residential houses, and a fire, spill or other
operations accidents, could present a danger for residents .
Special Conditions - Criterion 5:
1
.
Leachate will be automatically removed from all leachate manholes to maintain
a minimal risk of leachate on the manhole liner. This is intended to minimize
risk of leachate leakage through liner components .
2 .
The south stormwater detention basin shall be tested on a schedule identical to
the existing permit requirements for groundwater monitoring wells and for the
following indicator constituents: TDS (total dissolved solids), chloride,
calcium, bromide, sulfate, and sodium . Although stormwater typically has less
stringent water quality parameters, the records shall be kept and analyzed to
verify that trends do not increase to levels of concern that would indicate
leachate has been accidentally released to stormwater as long as the active
landfill operations occur. PDC shall notify the County of any statistically
significant upward trend in stormwater concentrations
.
3 .
Effective upon PDC's receipt of a permit from Illinois EPA to operate the
proposed expanded landfill, PDC shall pay additional sums into a perpetual care
fund, on at least a quarterly basis equal to $5 .00 per ton of the Expanded
Volume of Waste deposited in the PDC Landfill, but if the volume of waste
disposed of at the landfill facility in any calendar year is less than 150,000 tons,
PDC shall pay into the fund a minimum of $750,000 for 15 years . Said
payments shall be calculated based upon the same information and figures used
to calculate the Host Benefit Fee pursuant to Section 9 of the Host Community
Agreement, and shall be subject to the same documentation and verification
requirement of the Host Benefit Fee. Said Perpetual Care Fund shall be used
exclusively for the care and maintenance of the entire PDC site after the period
of post-closure care for the expanded landfill has been terminated by IEPA
.
FILED
APR 2 7 2006
PEORIA
JOANNTHOMAt
COUNTYCLE
Criterion 6
Traffic patterns to and from the facility are so designed as to minimize the impact
on existing traffic flows provided certain special conditions are met
.
•
Applicant presented expert testimony and a report establishing that the facility
will have minimal or no impact on existing traffic flows ;
•
No expert testimony, report or other evidence was submitted into the record that
contradicts the conclusions of Applicant's expert ;
•
The expanded facility is proposed to be operated in substantially the same
fashion as the existing facility, and the existing facility is not causing traffic
flow problems according to local and state transportation agencies
;
•
Some concerns regarding the possibility of transportation related accidents were
raised; however, those concerns were better addressed under other criteria
;
•
Applicant's expert report recommends coordinating efforts with the Illinois
Department of Transportation to install advance warning signs along State
Route 8 to warn motorists of possible truck turning movements ;
•
Applicant's report indicates it has designated two (2) main haul routes for trucks
coming to and leaving the facility, but does not specify whether or how those
routes are communicated to haulers who are not affiliated with Applicant
;
Special Conditions - Criterion 6:
I
.
PDC shall work with IDOT to install an advance warning sign along State
Route 8 at this location to alert motorists of possible truck turning movements
.
2
.
PDC shall inform all haulers to and from the facility of the designated truck
routes in writing and PDC shall cooperate with local law enforcement agencies
to enforce the truck routing requirements on the surrounding roads
.
FILE
APR 27 2006
JOANN THOMAS
PEORIA COUNTY CLERK
Criterion 7
The Applicant has an emergency response plan that sufficiently includes
notification, containment and evacuation procedures to be used in case of an
accidental release at the facility, provided special conditions are met.
•
The application includes Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan, a
Stormwater Pollution Prevent Plan, and a RCRA Contingency Plan ;
•
Applicant presented testimony of its operational expert concerning the
foregoing plans;
•
There was no evidence or testimony submitted into the record indicating there
were no plans or that any plans were lacking ;
•
Some questions were raised regarding the degree of emergency preparedness
and coordination with applicable emergency response agencies, but no facts or
evidence was presented to support or validate such questions or concerns
;
•
While the plans generally meet this criterion, additional measures are necessary
to fully coordinate emergency procedures and activities with applicable
emergency responders in the County to adequately prepare for a potential
emergency;
Special Conditions - Criterion 7
:
1 .
PDC shall annually host a table-top meeting with appropriate emergency
responders from Peoria County as approved by the Peoria County
Administrator. This may include, but not be limited to, the Peoria County
Emergency Services and Disaster Agency, Peoria County Highway Department,
Peoria County Sheriffs Office, Limestone Township Fire Protection District,
with invitations to attend forwarded to the City of Peoria Fire Department and
the Illinois Emergency Management Agency for their input
.
2
.
PDC shall annually have a mock disaster drill, with appropriate emergency
responders from Peoria County as approved by the Peoria County
Administrator. This may include, but not be limited to, the Peoria County
Emergency Services and Disaster Agency, Peoria County Highway Department,
Peoria County Sheriff's Office, Limestone Township Fire Protection District,
with invitations to attend forwarded to the City of Peoria Fire Department and
the Illinois Emergency Management Agency for their input
.
3 .
PDC shall coordinate with E-91 I in order to utilize the reverse 911 system and
is responsible for contacting 911 if and when an emergency happens .
FILET
APR 2 7 2006
POR~IAc
uN'.
Criterion 8
The proposed expansion of the landfill is consistent with the County's integrated
solid waste management plan and the 1996 and 2001 five-year plan updates
.
•
Applicant presented a report and testimony by its expert, Sheryl Smith, who
concluded the proposed facility is consistent with the County's solid waste
management plan and the updates thereto ;
•
There was no evidence or testimony that was contrary to the Applicant's expert
testimony or report ;
•
County Staff concluded the proposed facility is consistent with the County's
solid waste management plan ;
•
County Staff is responsible for implementing the County's solid waste
management plan, and is in the best position tb make a determination as to
whether the facility is consistent with the plan or not .
.
FILF r
APR 2 7 2001
JOANN r.
PEORIA
ca
Criterion 9
The proposed facility is located outside any regulated recharge area .
•
Applicant presented the testimony of its expert, George Armstrong, that the
proposed facility is not located within a regulated recharge area
;
•
Comments or concerns were raised concerning the proposed facility being
located above an aquifer and that the aquifer is hydraulically connected to a
regulated recharge area ;
However, no testimony or evidence was provided that contradicted the
Applicant's witness regarding the location of the recharge area and the location
of the proposed facility ;
•
County Staff independently confirmed the proposed facility is not located
within the regulated recharge area for the Pleasant Valley Public Water District
or any other regulated recharge area .
FILED
APR 2 7 2006
'" rnUNTwr
„
