RECEIVED
CLERK'S
OFFICE
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
OCT
1 6 2006
PEORIA DISPOSAL COMPANY,
)
Pollution
STATE OF
Control
ILLINOISBoard
Petitioner,
)
PCB 06-184
v.
)
(Pollution Control Facility Siting
Appeal)
PEORIA COUNTY BOARD,
)
Respondent .
)
SECOND SET OFREQUESTS
TO ADMIT OF PETITIONER, PEORIA DISPOSAL
COMPANY, DIRECTED TO RESPONDENT, PEORIA COUNTY BOARD
NOW COMES Petitioner, Peoria Disposal Company, by and through its attorneys
Brian J
. Meginnes and George Mueller, P.C., and hereby requests that Respondent,
Peoria County Board (the "County Board"), admit the truth of the following facts under
oath, within 28 days of receipt of this request
:
(Any and all capitalized terms not defined herein should be ascribed the
meanings given them in the Petition for Review) .
1977
. The document attached hereto as Exhibit D, titled "Final Findings of Fact,"
is a true and accurate copy of Deposition Exhibit #35, identified by Karen Raithel under
oath, on September 28, 2006 .
1978
. The document titled "Final Findings of Fact" (Exhibit D hereto) was not
filed in the Peoria County Clerk's office prior to May 8, 2006
.
1979
. The document titled "Final Findings of Fact" (Exhibit D hereto) was not
filed in the Peoria County Clerk's office prior to May 13, 2006 .
1980
. The document titled "Final Findings of Fact" (Exhibit D hereto) was not
filed in the Peoria County Clerk's office prior to June 7, 2006
.
1981
. The document titled "Final Findings of Fact" (Exhibit D hereto) was not
filed in the Peoria County Clerk's office prior to Peoria Disposal Company's appeal to
the Pollution Control Board .
1982
. The document titled "Final Findings of Fact" (Exhibit D hereto) was not
filed by the County Board as part of the Record before the Pollution Control Board in
this case .
1
1983
. The document titled "Final Findings of Fact" (Exhibit D hereto) was not
tendered or sent to Peoria Disposal Company prior to document production in this
appeal, on August 30, 2006
.
1984
. The document titled "Final Findings of Fact" (Exhibit D hereto) was not
received by Peoria Disposal Company prior to document production in this appeal, on
August 30, 2006 .
1985
. The document titled "Final Findings of Fact" (Exhibit D hereto) was not
posted on the Peoria County website
.
1986
. The document titled "Final Findings of Fact" (Exhibit D hereto) was never
made public by the County Board .
1987
. The "purple color coded findings" referenced at the April 6, 2006, meeting
of the Peoria County Board (see Transcript, pg
. 5, lines 2-6) were not filed in the Peoria
County Clerk's office prior to May 8, 2006
.
1988
. The "purple color coded findings" referenced at the April 6, 2006, meeting
of the Peoria County Board (see Transcript, pg
. 5, lines 2-6) were not filed in the Peoria
County Clerk's office prior to May 13, 2006 .
1989
. The "purple color coded findings" referenced at the April 6, 2006, meeting
of the Peoria County Board (see Transcript, pg
. 5, lines 2-6) were not filed in the Peoria
County Clerk's office prior to June 7, 2006
.
1990
. The "purple color coded findings" referenced at the April 6, 2006, meeting
of the Peoria County Board (see Transcript, pg
. 5, lines 2-6) were not filed in the Peoria
County Clerk's office prior to Peoria Disposal Company's appeal to the Pollution Control
Board .
1991
. The "purple color coded findings" referenced at the April 6, 2006, meeting
of the Peoria County Board (see Transcript, pg
. 5, lines 2-6) were not filed by the
County Board as part of the Record before the Pollution Control Board in this case
.
1992
. The "purple color coded findings" referenced at the April 6, 2006, meeting
of the Peoria County Board (see Transcript, pg
. 5, lines 2-6) were not tendered or sent
to Peoria Disposal Company prior to document production in this appeal, on August 30,
2006.
1993
. The "purple color coded findings" referenced at the April 6, 2006, meeting
of the Peoria County Board (see Transcript, pg
. 5, lines 2-6) were not received by
2
Peoria Disposal Company prior to document production in this appeal, on August 30,
2006.
1994. The "purple color coded findings" referenced at the April 6, 2006, meeting
of the Peoria County Board (see Transcript, pg . 5, lines 2-6) were not posted on the
Peoria County website .
1995. The "purple color coded findings" referenced at the April 6, 2006, meeting
of the Peoria County Board (see Transcript, pg . 5, lines 2-6) were never made public by
the County Board .
1996 . The "pink color coded findings" referenced at the April 6, 2006, meeting of
the Peoria County Board (see Transcript, pg . 5, lines 7-11) were not filed in the Peoria
County Clerk's office prior to May 8, 2006 .
1997 . The "pink color coded findings" referenced at the April 6, 2006, meeting of
the Peoria County Board (see Transcript, pg . 5, lines 7-11) were not filed in the Peoria
County Clerk's office prior to May 13, 2006.
1998. The "pink color coded findings" referenced at the April 6, 2006, meeting of
the Peoria County Board (see Transcript, pg . 5, lines 7-11) were not filed in the Peoria
County Clerk's office prior to June 7, 2006.
1999. The "pink color coded findings" referenced at the April 6, 2006, meeting of
the Peoria County Board (see Transcript, pg . 5, lines 7-11) were not filed in the Peoria
County Clerk's office prior to Peoria Disposal Company's appeal to the Pollution Control
Board .
2000. The "pink color coded findings" referenced at the April 6, 2006, meeting of
the Peoria County Board (see Transcript, pg
. 5, lines 7-11) were not filed by the County
Board as part of the Record before the Pollution Control Board in this case.
2001
. The "pink color coded findings" referenced at the April 6, 2006, meeting of
the Peoria County Board (see Transcript, pg . 5, lines 7-11) were not tendered or sent to
Peoria Disposal Company prior to document production in this appeal, on August 30,
2006.
2002. The "pink color coded findings" referenced at the April 6, 2006, meeting of
the Peoria County Board (see Transcript, pg
. 5, lines 7-11) were not received by Peoria
Disposal Company prior to document production in this appeal, on August 30, 2006 .
3
2003
. The "pink color coded findings" referenced at the April 6, 2006, meeting of
the Peoria County Board (see Transcript, pg
. 5, lines 7-11) were not posted on the
Peoria County website.
2004
. The "pink color coded findings" referenced at the April 6, 2006, meeting of
the Peoria County Board (see Transcript, pg
. 5, lines 7-11) were never made public by
the County Board .
2005
. The "yellow color coded findings" referenced at the April 6, 2006, meeting
of the Peoria County Board (see Transcript, pg
. 5, lines 12-16) were not filed in the
Peoria County Clerk's office prior to May 8, 2006
.
2006
. The "yellow color coded findings" referenced at the April 6, 2006, meeting
of the Peoria County Board (see
Transcript, pg
. 5, lines 12-16) were not filed in the
Peoria County Clerk's office prior to May 13, 2006
.
2007
. The "yellow color coded findings" referenced at the April 6, 2006, meeting
of the Peoria County Board (see Transcript, pg
. 5, lines 12-16) were not filed in the
Peoria County Clerk's office prior to June 7, 2006
.
2008
. The "yellow color coded findings" referenced at the April 6, 2006, meeting
of the Peoria County Board
(see
Transcript, pg
. 5, lines 12-16) were not filed in the
Peoria County Clerk's office prior to Peoria Disposal Company's appeal to the Pollution
Control Board .
2009
. The "yellow color coded findings" referenced at the April 6, 2006, meeting
of the Peoria County Board
(see Transcript, pg
. 5, lines 12-16) were not filed by the
County Board as part of the Record before the Pollution Control Board in this case
.
2010
. The "yellow color coded findings" referenced at the April 6, 2006, meeting
of the Peoria County Board (see Transcript, pg
. 5, lines 12-16) were not tendered or
sent to Peoria Disposal Company prior to document production in this appeal, on
August 30, 2006 .
2011
. The "yellow color coded findings" referenced at the April 6, 2006, meeting
of the Peoria County Board (see Transcript, pg
. 5, lines 12-16) were not received by
Peoria Disposal Company prior to document production in this appeal, on August 30,
2006.
4
2012
. The "yellow color coded findings" referenced at the April 6, 2006, meeting
of the Peoria County Board (see Transcript, pg
. 5, lines 12-16) were not posted on the
Peoria County website
.
2013
. The "yellow color coded findings" referenced at the April 6, 2006, meeting
of the Peoria County Board (see Transcript, pg
. 5, lines 12-16) were never made public
by the County Board .
Respectfully submitted,
Peoria Disposal Company, Petitioner
906-1313
GEORGE MUELLER
628 Columbus Street, Suite #204
Ottawa, Illinois 61350
(815) 431-1500 - Telephone
(815) 431-1501 - Facsimile
george(a~muelleranderson
.com
5
BRIAN J . M
NES and
GEORGE(MUE LER, Its Attorneys
BRIAN J. MEGINNES
416 Main Street, Suite #1400
Peoria, Illinois 61602-1611
(309) 637-6000
- Telephone
(309) 637-8514
- Facsimile
bmeginnes(gDemrsIaw.com
Criterion 1
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,
1
Peoria County Board's Final Findings of Fact - PDC Siting Application
05/03/06
FINAL FINDINGS OF FACT
Cm
2
G
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.
2
Peoria County Board's Final Findings of Fact - PDC Siting Application
05/03/06
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 modern 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-1 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 off 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 ;
3
Peoria County Board's Final Findings of Fact - PDC Siting Application
0 5 /03/06
•
The testimony concerning the organic contaminant found in a shallow
monitoring well located in the upper till in the northeast corner 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;
•
One area of concern for the County Staff was the groundwater impact
4
Peoria County Board's Final Findings of Fact - PDC Siting Application
0 5 /03/06
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 ;
•
County Staff indicated, upon questioning at the April 3, 2006 hearing, that it
was their opinion that the application as submitted did not satisfy Criterion 2
.
County staff indicated it was their opinion that only with the imposition of
numerous special conditions could Criterion 2 be satisfied .
5
Peoria County Board's Final Findings of Fact -
PDC Siting Application
05/03/06
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 .
6
Peoria County Board's Final Findings of Fact - PDC Siting Application
05/03/06
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
.
7
Peoria County Board's Final Findings of Fact - PDC Siting Application
05/03/06
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 fording 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 ford 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 ;
8
Peoria County Board's Final Findings of Fact - PDC Siting Application
05/03/06
•
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 .
9
Peoria County Board's Final Findings of Fact - PDC Siting Application
05/03/0 6
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:
1 .
PDC shall work with )DOT 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
.
10
Peoria County Board's Final Findings of Fact - PDC Siting Application
05/03/06
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 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
.
3 .
PDC shall coordinate with E-911 in order to utilize the reverse 911 system and
is responsible for contacting 911 if and when an emergency happens
.
I I
Peoria County Board's Final Findings of Fact - PDC Siting Application
0 5/03/06
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 to make a determination as to
whether the facility is consistent with the plan or not
.
12
Peoria County Board's Final Findings of Fact- PDC Siting Application
0 5 /03/06
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 .
13
Peoria County Board's Final Findings of Fact - PDC Siting Application
05/03/06
STATE OF ILLINOIS
)
SS
COUNTY OF PEORIA )
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE & FILING
The undersigned being first duly sworn on oath, states that a copy of the
foregoing SECOND SET OF REQUESTS TO ADMIT OF PETITIONER, PEORIA
DISPOSAL COMPANY DIRECTED TO RESPONDENT, PEORIA COUNTY BOARD
was served upon the following persons as set forth below on the 12th day of October,
2006:
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 W
. Randolph, Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
via U.S
. Mail from Peoria, IL
[FIVE (5) Copies]
Mr
. David A . Brown
Black, Black & Brown
101 South Main Street
P .O . Box 381
Morton, Illinois 61550
via U.S
. Mail from Peoria,
IL
Notary Public
GEORGE MUELLER
628 Columbus Street, Suite #204
Ottawa, Illinois 61350
(815) 431.1500-Telephone
(815) 431.1501-Facsimile
aeorge(atmuelleranderson.com
Mr. Kevin Lyons
Peoria County State's Attorney
324 Main Street, Room #111
Peoria, Illinois 61602
via hand delivery
Ms. Carol Webb, Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
1021 North Grand Avenue East
P .O. Box 19274
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9274
via U.S. Mail from
Peoria, IL
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 12th day of October, 2006
.
Brian eqinnes
(print name)
OFFICIAL SEAL
JESSICA M ROCI(EY
NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF ILLINOIS
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: 06.13-07
BRIAN J. MEGINNES
416 Main Street, Suite #1400
Peoria, Illinois 81602-1611
(309) 637-6000-Telephone
(309) 637-8514 -
Facsimile
bmeginnes(diemrslaw.com
