~6 40
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT 415 ILCS CE I
VE
D
LOCAL SITING APPROVAL CRITERIA
(i)
JAN 0 8 2007
The
intended
facility
to serveis
necessary
;
to accommodate the waste needs of the area it i kATE
OF ILLINOIS
Pollution Control Board
(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
.
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 .
Proposed Findings of Fact - Approval
April 5, 2006
Criterion 9
The proposed facility is located within a regulated recharge area and has not
demonstrated compliance with applicable requirements specified for that recharge
area.
none offered
Proposed Findings of Fact -
Denial
April 5, 2006
Criterion 9
The proposed facility is located outside any regulated recharge area, provided
certain special conditions are met .
•
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.
Special Condition - Criterion 9
:
[none offered]
I J 'ou
Proposed Findings of Fact
- Approval with Special Conditions
April 5, 2006
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 .
Proposed Findings of Fact -
Approval
April 5, 2006
Criterion 8
The proposed expansion of the landfill is not consistent with the County's integrated
solid waste management plan and the 1996 and 2001 five-year plan updates
.
none offered
~'6U
Proposed Findings of Fact - Denial
April 5, 2006
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,
provided certain special conditions are met
.
•
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 .
Special Condition -
Criterion 8 :
[none offered]
uUca
Proposed Findings of Fact - Approval with Special Conditions
April 5, 2006
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 .
•
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
.
Proposed Findings of Fact - Approval
April 5, 2006
Criterion 7
The Applicant has failed to provide adequate emergency response plan that includes
notification, containment and evacuation procedures to be used in case of an
accidental release at the facility
.
none offered
4
I J) 6
;
"I
Proposed Findings of Fact - Denial
April 5, 2006
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 a
special condition is 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 Condition
- 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
.
Proposed Findings of Fact -
Approval with Special Conditions
April 5, 2006
Criterion 6
Traffic patterns to and from the facility are so designed as to minimize the impact on
existing traffic flows
.
•
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
.
i
Proposed Findings of Fact - Approval
April 5
, 2006
Criterion 6
Traffic patterns to and from the facility are not designed so as to minimize the
impact on existing traffic flows
.
none offered
Proposed Findings of Fact -
Denial
April 5, 2006
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 .
Proposed Findings of Fact
- Approval with Special Conditions
April 5, 2006
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 .
•
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
;
•
Applicant's plans comply with all laws, regulations and requirements ;
•
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 ;
•
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 ;
•
Due to the types of wastes proposed to be handled and disposed of at the facility,
there is little risk of fires, spills or accidents impacting surrounding properties
other than those inherent with more typical commercial or industrial facilities .
Proposed Findings of Fact - Approval
April 5, 2006
Criterion 5
The plan of operations for the facility is not designed to minimize the danger to the
surrounding area from tire, spills, or other operations accidents .
•
The Applicant has failed to demonstrate it has plans for adequately addressing a
fire, spill or other operational accident ;
•
Not all local emergency responders are familiar with the facility and the
activities thereon ;
•
The facility is located close to residential houses, and a fire, spill or other
operations accidents, could present a danger for residents ;
•
The applicant has failed to adequately prove or establish it will be financially
responsible for the proposed expansion after the post-closure care period expires ;
•
Testimony of both applicant's witnesses and opponent's witness and documents
submitted into the record by opponents suggest perpetual care of the facility is
needed well after the regulatory post-closure care period has expired .
Proposed Findings of Fact -
Denial
April 5, 2006
i, J J i Y
Criteria #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 ;
Proposed Findings of Fact - Approval with Special Conditions
April 5, 2006
•
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 ;
•
Due to the types of wastes proposed to be handled and disposed of at the facility,
there is little risk of fires, spills or accidents impacting surrounding properties
other than those inherent with more typical commercial or industrial facilities ;
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 string
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 $1
.50 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 $225,000 for 15 years
. Said payments shall be
calculated based upon he 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 .
Proposed Findings of Fact -
Approval with Special Conditions
J
April 5, 2006
>
a
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.
Proposed Findings of Fact - Approval
April 5 , 2006
Criterion 4
The proposed facility is located within the 100-year floodplain, and the site is not
flood-proofed
.
none offered
Proposed Findings of Fact - Denial
April 5
, 2006
Criterion 4
The proposed facility is located outside the 100-year floodplain provided that certain
special conditions are met
•
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
Special Condition -
Criterion 4:
[none offered]
i
Proposed Findings of Fact -
Approval with Special Conditions
April 5, 2006
Criterion 3
The proposed 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.
A.
Compatibility
Applicant presented the report and testimony of Christopher Lannert who which
concluded the proposed facility is consistent with local land uses and meets
rigorous standards to protect the environment ;
•
Surrounding land uses are a mix of open space, agriculture, industrial and
residential;
•
Numerous individuals commented during the public comment period that they
were totally unaware of the facility until the siting process stated, suggesting the
existing facility has not been incompatible for the existing land uses ;
•
Applicant's study and expert testimony was not contradicted in the public
record ;
•
Numerous comments in the record raised concerns about the close proximity of
the landfill to residential uses, and attempted to argue the uses were
incompatible, but presented no evidence, data, studies or reports that were
specific to the proposed facility ;
•
The testimony and report in the record state the site is separated from
surrounding land uses by natural buffers, vegetative screening, and natural
topography;
•
The property on which the proposed site is to be located is zoned industrial and
the proposed facility would be compatible with that zoning classification ;
•
The have been virtually no odor problems associated with the existing facility,
and the proposed facility is to be designed and operated in substantially the same
fashion, and therefore one would expect few if any odor problems in the future ;
•
A significant portion of the residential property which are in relative close
proximity to the proposed facility have been built in recent years and certainly
since the existing landfill has been operating ;
•
If the land uses were truly incompatible, the County would not expect to see that
type of growth and development on surrounding properties, and the development
suggests the residential uses are not incompatible with the existing facility ;
•
Since the proposed facility is designed and planned to be operated in
Proposed Findings of Fact - Approval
V v
April 5, 2006
substantially the same fashion as the existing landfill has been operated for the
past 12 to 15 years, the County does not anticipate the proposed facility would
be incompatible with the surrounding land uses
;
•
However, 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
•
existing
The Applicant
facility
presented
has had
the
no impact
report
on
and
property
testimony
values
of Mrof
.
surrounding
DeClark to
residentialestablish
the
properties ;
•
Opponents attempted to argue that the methodology used by Mr
. DeClark was
faulty in some fashion ;
•
The County finds the methodology used by the Applicant's expert to be common
and acceptable for these types of studies ;
•
Mr. DeClark adequately explained why he did not study property values for non-
residential uses, because of a general lack of sufficient sales and re-sales data for
such types of property ;
•
Opponents also contend Mr
. DeClark's study was insufficient because it did not
estimate or predict future values and the possibility that the publicity brought on
by the siting application process will cause a decrease in property values
;
•
The County finds there are no facts or date in the record which would indicate
property values will decrease in the future merely because of the proposed
landfill, and that such concerns are, at this time, merely speculation
;
•
The County is mindful that an applicant is not required to prove zero impact or
guarantee there will be no impact on property values, only that it has taken
reasonable measures to minimize any impacts
;
•
The Applicant's studies show little or no impact from the existing landfill no
property values, and since the proposed facility is designed and planned to be
operated in substantially the same manner as the existing facility, the County
finds the proposed facility will likely have the same minimal or non-existent
effect on property values .
La
Proposed Findings of Fact - Approval
April 5, 2006
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.
Proposed Findings of Fact -
Denial
April 5, 2006
I f;
Criterion 3
The proposed
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, provided a
special condition is met.
A.
Compatibility
•
Applicant presented the report and testimony of Christopher Lannert who which
concluded the proposed facility is consistent with local land uses and meets
rigorous standards to protect the environment
;
•
Surrounding land uses are a mix of open space, agriculture, industrial and
residential
;
•
Numerous individuals commented during the public comment period that they
were totally unaware of the facility until the siting process stated, suggesting the
existing facility has not been incompatible for the existing land uses ;
•
Applicant's study and expert testimony was not contradicted in the public
record;
•
Numerous comments in the record raised concerns about the close proximity of
the landfill to residential uses, and attempted to argue the uses were
incompatible, but presented no evidence, data, studies or reports that were
specific to the proposed facility;
The testimony and report in the record state the site is separated from
surrounding land uses by natural buffers, vegetative screening, and natural
topography;
•
The property on which the proposed site is to be located is zoned industrial and
the proposed facility would be compatible with that zoning classification
;
•
The have been virtually no odor problems associated with the existing facility,
and the proposed facility is to be designed and operated in substantially the same
fashion, and therefore one would expect few if any odor problems in the future
;
•
A significant portion of the residential property which are in relative close
proximity to the proposed facility have been built in recent years and certainly
since the existing landfill has been operating ;
•
If the land uses were truly incompatible, the County would not expect to see that
type of growth and development on surrounding properties, and the development
suggests the residential uses are not incompatible with the existing facility ;
Proposed Findings of Fact -
Approval with Special Conditions
April 5, 2006
•
Since the proposed facility is designed and planned to be operated in
substantially the same fashion as the existing landfill has been operated for the
past 12 to 15 years, the County does not anticipate the proposed facility would
be incompatible with the surrounding land uses ;
•
However, 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
;
•
In order to minimize the views of the active operations of the proposed landfill
and to minimize any potential noise coming from the proposed landfill
operations, the County finds it is necessary and appropriate to install a screening
berm on the eastern portions of the proposed facility so as to screen the active
operations from the neighboring residential land uses ;
B.
Property Values
•
The Applicant presented the report and testimony of Mr . DeClark to establish the
existing facility has had no impact on property values of surrounding residential
properties ;
•
Opponents attempted to argue that the methodology used by Mr. DeClark was
faulty in some fashion
;
•
The County finds the methodology used by the Applicant's expert to be common
and acceptable for these types of studies
;
•
Mr
. DeClark adequately explained why he did not study property values for non-
residential uses, because of a general lack of sufficient sales and re-sales data for
such types of property ;
•
Opponents also contend Mr . DeClark's study was insufficient because it did not
estimate or predict future values and the possibility that the publicity brought on
by the siting application process will cause a decrease in property values ;
•
The County finds there are no facts or date in the record which would indicate
property values will decrease in the future merely because of the proposed
landfill, and that such concerns are, at this time, merely speculation ;
•
The County is mindful that an applicant is not required to prove zero impact or
guarantee there will be no impact on property values, only that it has taken
reasonable measures to minimize any impacts ;
•
The Applicant's studies show little or no impact from the existing landfill no
property values, and since the proposed facility is designed and planned to be
Proposed Findings of Fact -
Approval with Special Conditions
4
April 5, 2006
operated in substantially the same manner as the existing facility, the County
finds the proposed facility will likely have the same minimal or non-existent
effect on property values;
•
However, the special condition set forth herein to address the visual and noise
concerns will be a reasonable effort to minimize potential impacts on property
values as well;
Special Condition -Criterion 3
:
1 .
Screening Berm.
In order to address visual and noise concerns for residences to the east of the
proposed facility, the development of the eastern portion of the landfill shall be
built in such a manner that visual barrier berms shall be placed and vegetated to
minimize view of the landfill operations and to assist in minimizing possible
noise from reaching residences to the east
. The County Staff shall be given the
right to approve the berm and barrier design prior to the design being submitted
to IEPA for a permit .
6 : )rl
Proposed Findings of Fact - Approval with Special Conditions
April 5, 2006
Criterion 2
The facility is so designed, located and proposed to be operated that the public
health, safety and welfare will be protected .
•
Applicant presented numerous experts that testified the design of the proposed
expansion meets or exceeds all regulatory requirements and criteria
;
•
Applicant demonstrated the composite liner design for trenches C-2, C-3, C-4
and proposed trench C-5 is "state-of-the-art" technology, and that the design of
trench C-1 is meets the presently regulatory requirements for a hazardous waste
landfill
;
•
There was no expert testimony presented that contradicts the Applicant's expert
witnesses regarding the design of the facility
;
•
Opponents presented Mr
. Montague as a witness to testify regarding landfill
liners and liner suitability
;
•
Mr. Montague primary stated that liners have a propensity to fail, and eventually
the liners at the proposed facility would fail
;
•
Mr. Montague is not a licensed engineer, and his claimed expertise was based
solely from reading articles
;
•
Mr. Montague's testimony was general in nature, and not specific to the site
application, the design of the proposed expansion or the physical conditions or
characteristics of the site, and as a result his testimony was not persuasive or
particularly helpful concerning questions about the design of the facility or the
suitability of the use of liners in the design of the facility
;
•
Dr . Lee's information, submitted as part of the public comment period, and not
subject to cross-examination, was also general in nature, and did not provide site
specific information regarding the design of the proposed facility
;
•
Dr . Lee's "Flawed Technologies" paper dealt with other types of landfills
(RCRA Subtitle D landfills as opposed to this RCRA Subtitle C landfill), was
very general in nature, and not particularly helpful or informative to the County
in evaluating the design of the property facility
;
•
Because Dr. Lee's information was not presented at or before the public hearing
and was not subject to cross-examination, the information provided has not been
subject to tests of credibility, and as such, should not be given, and has not been
given, the same weight as the sworn testimony of individuals who testified at the
public hearing
;
Proposed Findings of Fact - Approval
April 5, 2006
•
Charles Norris, who testified for the opponents, did not provide any opinion
regarding design and engineering of the proposed facility
;
•
Applicant's experts concluded that the liner systems designed into the proposed
facility would remain in tact and functioning for in excess of five hundred years ;
•
Opponents questioned how such conclusions could be drawn, but presented no
evidence, data or studies specific to the proposed facility to contradict that
testimony;
•
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 ;
•
The County Board believes the weight of the evidence regarding the suitability
of the liners, the period of time the liners will function, and the design of the
liner systems is with the testimony of Applicant's experts ;
•
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 ;
•
The Applicant presented expert reports testimony by Mr . Liss concerning the
present groundwater conditions at the existing facility, and the expert reports and
testimony by Dr
. Barrows concerning predicted groundwater impacts in the
future;
•
One area of concern for the County Staff was the groundwater impact
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 ;
Proposed Findings of Fact - Approval
April 5, 2006
•
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
;
•
Opponents questioned the ability to reliably predict 500 years into the future, but
no alternative modeling was performed, and there was no testimony or evidence
that the type of modeling performed was incorrect or inappropriate ;
•
Opponent's witness Charles Norris questioned the conclusions of the modeling
and questioned some of the assumptions and input parameters for the modeling,
and attempted to identify fluctuations in groundwater levels as proof for his
conclusions ;
•
During cross examination, Dr . Barrows testified that the fluctuations in
groundwater levels in monitoring wells was the result of pressure changes
caused during wet periods, and, not due to rapid transport of water through the
unsaturated glacial till at the site ;
•
The County finds Dr . Barrow's explanation much more believable and consistent
with the known site conditions, and the County concludes that the modeling, the
assumptions and inputs were appropriate for the site specific conditions at the
proposed facility ;
•
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
;
•
Based upon the testimony at the public hearing however, the County does not
believe TOX is a reliable parameter, and therefore questioned Mr . Liss as to
whether he had conducted any testing or analysis which would indicated whether
increases in chlorides and sulfates in certain downgradient wells was coming
from the landfill or some other source(s) ;
•
Mr
. Liss testified that the facility had done sampling and analysis, and he had
studied the data and determined based upon bromide/chloride ratios that the
contamination was not coming from the leachate of the existing facility, and was
most likely coming from off-site sources ;
•
Mr
. Norris attempted to dispute the off-site source theories in his supplemental
submittals, but was unable to present any evidence or data to dispute Mr . Liss'
testimony or supplemental report ;
it
Proposed Findings of Fact - Approval
April 5, 2006
•
Applicant's experts testified that the existing groundwater monitoring network at
the facility is adequate to monitor the facility in accordance with applicable
regulations ;
•
Dr. Lee, a commentator for the opponents, suggested that the downgradient wells
were spaced too far apart, and as a result it was possible the wells would not
immediately detect groundwater contamination if it were coming from the
proposed facility ;
•
Dr
. Lee was unable to provide any reference to regulations, design criteria, or
other basis for his comments concerning the spacing of the wells
;
•
Applicant presented expert reports and testimony finding the existing and
proposed operations of the facility are conducted in such a manner as to fully
comply with all Illinois EPA regulations and are therefore protective of the
public health, safety and welfare ;
•
There was no evidence presented by opponents that directly contradicts the
Applicant's expert witnesses regarding the operations of proposed facility
;
•
A number of the opponents, their witness Charles Norris, and Dr . Lee who
submitted comments into the public record, call into question the safety of the
inactive portions of the site ;
•
Those inactive portions of the site are not part of the proposed expansion of the
facility, are not covered by the application and these siting procedures, and
therefore the County is not in a position to comment on those areas of the
facility ;
•
Although the inactive portions of the site are not part of the proposed expansion,
the Applicant has proposed a perpetual care fund which would provide funding
for the long term monitoring and care of the entire site, including the inactive
portions, and as a result the County finds that such a perpetual care fund would
be protective of the public health, safety and welfare
;
•
Applicant presented numerous expert reports and testimony which concluded
that the location of the proposed facility was adequately protective of the public
health, safety and welfare ;
•
There was testimony at the public hearing to the effect that the location of the
proposed facility is one of the most, if not the most, studied sites in Illinois
;
•
The application and testimony of the Applicant demonstrate the proposed
expansion is to be located in an area with at least 40 feet of natural, relatively
impermeable, clayey till underlying the site, with intervening, non-continuous
sand lenses, some of which are saturated or partially saturated
;
Proposed Findings of Fact -
Approval
April 5, 2006
•
It was generally agreed that the site sits over an aquifer that is not the Sankoty
aquifer, but that is hydraulically connected to the Sankoty aquifer;
•
Both the applicant and the opponents agreed that the primary issue of concern
relating to the proposed facility is the protection of the groundwater at the site
;
•
The County agrees protection of groundwater is a paramount concern ;
•
The applicant's expert reports and testimony concluded that the location of the
proposed landfill above the approximately 40 fee of clayey glacial till was
protective because the clayey till would provide additional
protection against
migration of leachate from the site in the event the liners failed or reached the
end of their useful life;
•
Opponents presented Mr . Norris as an expert to testify about the geological
setting, and his conclusions, based upon a review of the data contained in the
application and his review of the groundwater monitoring data from the IEPA,
was that the glacial till underlying the site provided no protection for the
groundwater in the event of a release of leachate ;
•
Mr. Norris's opinion was based upon the concept that weathering and cracks in
the clayey till, and continuous sand seams in the clayey till, resulted in liquids
moving through the soil at relatively high rates, and the till would, as a result,
provide no barrier to migration
;
•
Mr. Norris presents no independent data or analysis for his theories, and upon
cross examination he admitted he has made similar conclusions in opposition to
other landfills in the State of Illinois
;
•
The County has reviewed Mr
. Norris' conclusions and respectfully disagrees
with them, and finds that the testimony and reports of Applicant's experts to be
more compelling regarding the characteristics and qualities of the underlying till
to retard migration of leachate ;
•
At the public hearing, Mr. Norris agreed with the data and determinations of the
Applicant's witnesses that the rate of groundwater flow in the lower sand aquifer
below the site was approximately 10 feet per year ;
•
During the public comment period following the hearing, opponents presented
information suggesting the flow rate in the lower sand aquifer may be much
higher, and in the range of feet per day, instead of feet per year ;
•
The County has considered that new information provided by the opponents, and
has concluded that such a change would have no impact on the groundwater
modeling, impact study, and analysis performed and presented by the Applicant ;
U J
Proposed Findings of Fact - Approval
April 5, 2006
•
The Applicant's expert, Dr. Barrows, testified that the most sensitive factor for
his groundwater impact assessment was the migration of leachate through the
liner, and not the groundwater flow rate ;
•
Furthermore, if contaminants were to be released from the proposed facility and
migrate into the groundwater, a higher flow rate in the lower sand aquifer would
tend to increase the natural attenuation of any contaminants in the groundwater,
and as a result, the County concludes any variability in the flow rate of the
groundwater in the lower sand aquifer would have no impact on the groundwater
modeling conclusions ;
•
Opponents presented testimony of two medical doctors at the public hearing, as
well as numerous public comments by medical doctors at the public hearing and
in the public record against the proposed facility ;
•
The testimony and comments of the doctors was the hazardous wastes being
disposed of at the existing landfill, and those proposed to be disposed of at the
proposed expansion of the landfill, presented unwarranted health risks to the
citizens of Peoria County;
•
The doctors did not present any evidence that any person had been, was being, or
will be exposed to any contaminants from either the existing landfill or the
proposed landfill ;
•
The doctors contended that air pollution from the proposed facility may cause
exposure, but the only information they could refer to was the Toxic Release
Inventory reports prepared by the Applicant which showed air emissions from a
waste treatment process that is not part of the application under review ;
•
The testimony and information provided indicates the types of wastes proposed
to be accepted at the landfill are very low in organics, and most of the wastes are
heavy metal wastes, which would not be expected to volatilize;
•
The proposed facility is proposed to be operated so as to minimize and control
dust and airborne particulate matter during active operations ;
•
The information in the record indicates the treatment plant, which is not part of
this application, is in full compliance with its air permit, and is, in fact, emitting
less than the allowable levels ;
•
The doctors also testified and stated they were concerned about potential
exposure by drinking contaminated groundwater;
•
As stated above, the groundwater impact assessment performed by Applicant's
experts, indicates there will be no impact to the groundwater above drinking
Proposed Findings of Fact - Approval
April 5, 2006
water standard at the point of compliance in 500 years after closure ;
•
Based upon the groundwater modeling, the low levels of contaminants found in
the waste proposed to be disposed of at the proposed facility, the geological
setting beneath the proposed facility, the characteristics of the aquifer below the
proposed facility, and the distance to the nearest public drinking water wells, the
County does not believe, if there is a release of leachate from the site, there will
ever be detectable levels of contaminants from that leachate reaching those
drinking water wells ;
•
The County believes that in order for there to be a health risk posed by a
contaminant, there must be an exposure, and there was no testimony, evidence,
data, studies, or reports of any kind that stated the proposed facility caused any
exposure, therefore the County is unable to find that the proposed presents a risk
to human health .
U J
.i
Proposed Findings of Fact
- Approval
April 5, 2006
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 be 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
expansion, but 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, but 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 areas 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-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 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 ;
Proposed Findings of Fact - Denial
April 5, 2006
•
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-I 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 entire 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 .
L
J)
Proposed Findings of Fact -
Denial
April 5, 2006
Criterion 2
The facility is so designed, located and proposed to be operated that the public
health, safety and welfare will be protected, provided certain special conditions are
met.
•
Applicant presented numerous experts that testified the design of the proposed
expansion meets or exceeds all regulatory requirements and criteria ;
•
Applicant demonstrated the composite liner design for trenches C-2, C-3, C-4
and proposed trench C-5 is "state-of-the-art" technology, and that the design of
trench C-I is meets the presently regulatory requirements for a hazardous waste
landfill ;
•
There was no expert testimony presented that contradicts the Applicant's expert
witnesses regarding the design of the facility ;
•
Opponents presented Mr. Montague as a witness to testify regarding landfill
liners and liner suitability;
•
Mr
. Montague primary stated that liners have a propensity to fail, and eventually
the liners at the proposed facility would fail ;
•
Mr. Montague is not a licensed engineer, and his claimed expertise was based
solely from reading articles ;
•
Mr
. Montague's testimony was general in nature, and not specific to the site
application, the design of the proposed expansion or the physical conditions or
characteristics of the site, and as a result his testimony was not persuasive or
particularly helpful concerning questions about the design of the facility or the
suitability of the use of liners in the design of the facility ;
•
Dr. Lee's information, submitted as part of the public comment period, and not
subject to cross-examination, was also general in nature, and did not provide site
specific information regarding the design of the proposed facility ;
•
Dr
. Lee's "Flawed Technologies" paper dealt with other types of landfills
(RCRA Subtitle D landfills as opposed to this RCRA Subtitle C landfill), was
very general in nature, and not particularly helpful or informative to the County
in evaluating the design of the property facility ;
•
Because Dr
. Lee's information was not presented at or before the public hearing
and was not subject to cross-examination, the information provided has not been
subject to tests of credibility, and as such, should not be given, and has not been
given, the same weight as the sworn testimony of individuals who testified at the
public hearing ;
Proposed Findings of Fact
- Approval with Special Conditions
April 5, 2006
•
Charles Norris, who testified for the opponents, did not provide any opinion
regarding design and engineering of the proposed facility;
•
Applicant's experts concluded that the liner systems designed into the proposed
facility would remain in tact and functioning for in excess of five hundred years ;
•
Opponents questioned how such conclusions could be drawn, but presented no
evidence, data or studies specific to the proposed facility to contradict that
testimony ;
•
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 ;
•
The County Board believes the weight of the evidence regarding the suitability
of the liners, the period of time the liners will function, and the design of the
liner systems is with the testimony of Applicant's experts ;
•
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 ;
•
The Applicant presented expert reports testimony by Mr . Liss concerning the
present groundwater conditions at the existing facility, and the expert reports and
testimony by Dr. Barrows concerning predicted groundwater impacts in the
future;
•
One area of concern for the County Staff was the groundwater impact
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
Proposed Findings of Fact -
Approval with Special Conditions 4 I J
April 5, 2006
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 ;
•
The position of the County is a conservative and protective position, and should
not be deemed to be a statement by the County that it believes there is or has
been a release from the C trenches, but merely a statement of possibility ;
•
Opponents questioned the ability to reliably predict 500 years into the future, but
no alternative modeling was performed, and there was no testimony or evidence
that the type of modeling performed was incorrect or inappropriate ;
•
Opponent's witness Charles Norris questioned the conclusions of the modeling
and questioned some of the assumptions and input parameters for the modeling,
and attempted to identify fluctuations in groundwater levels as proof for his
conclusions;
•
During cross examination, Dr
. Barrows testified that the fluctuations in
groundwater levels in monitoring wells was the result of pressure changes
caused during wet periods, and, not due to rapid transport of water through the
unsaturated glacial till at the site ;
•
The County finds Dr
. Barrows' explanation much more believable and consistent
with the known site conditions, and the County concludes that the modeling, the
assumptions and inputs were appropriate for the site specific conditions at the
proposed facility ;
•
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
;
•
Based upon the testimony at the public hearing however, the County does not
believe TOX is a reliable parameter, and therefore questioned Mr . Liss as to
whether he had conducted any testing or analysis which would indicated whether
increases in chlorides and sulfates in certain downgradient wells was coming
from the landfill or some other source(s);
Proposed Findings of Fact -
Approval with Special Conditions
April 5, 2006
•
Mr. Liss testified that the facility had done sampling and analysis, and he had
studied the data and determined based upon bromide/chloride ratios that the
contamination was not coming from the leachate of the existing facility, and was
most likely coming from off-site sources
;
•
Mr. Norris attempted to dispute the off-site source theories in his supplemental
submittals, but was unable to present any evidence or data to dispute Mr
. Liss'
testimony or supplemental report;
•
Based upon the testimony of Mr . Liss, and the supplemental report submitted by
Mr
. Liss, the County has determined that all of the increased chlorides and
sulfates in the downgradient monitoring wells are not related to the leachate in
the C trenches, with the exception of the leachate in trench C-1
;
•
The County believes the supplemental report is not definitive or conclusive
enough regarding the trench C-1 leachate and the chloride found in one
groundwater monitoring well directly downgradient of trench C-1 ;
•
As a result, the County believes it is prudent and necessary to assume that the
leachate from trench C-I could be a source of the chloride in that monitoring
well;
•
Mr. Liss testified as to numerous other sources of chloride, but natural and man
made, which could be causing the chloride increase, and the County
acknowledges those are also possibilities;
•
Since the placement of the cap over approximately 80% of the area of trench C-
I, the leachate generation rates have decreased dramatically as would be
expected ;
•
In addition, since the capping of trench C-1, the leachate quality has started to
improve as well, indicating the cap is beginning to have its desired affect ;
•
Based upon the possibility that the chloride in the one downgradient monitoring
well may be coming from trench C-1, and the fact that the design of the liner
system and leachate collection system for trench C-I is not the same state-of-the-
art design of the other units, the County finds that it is not prudent to allow the
removal of the cap over C-1 and expose the lesser designed liner and leachate
collection system to increases in leachate generation, unless the Applicant
installs an intermediate composite liner and leachate collection system over the
top of the existing waste cell so as to prevent new leachate
from migrating
through the existing waste in trench C-I and to its existing liner and leachate
collection system ;
•
Applicant's experts testified that the existing groundwater monitoring network at
1
Proposed Findings of Fact - Approval with Special Conditions
April 5, 2006
the facility is adequate to monitor the facility in accordance with applicable
regulations ;
•
Dr
. Lee, a commentator for the opponents, suggested that the downgradient wells
were spaced too far apart, and as a result it was possible the wells would not
immediately detect groundwater contamination if it were coming from the
proposed facility ;
•
However, Dr
. Lee was unable to provide any reference to regulations, design
criteria, or other basis for his comments concerning the spacing of the wells
;
•
During the operation of the existing landfill, contaminants have been discovered
in certain groundwater monitoring wells, and through investigation the Applicant
has demonstrated to IEPA's satisfaction that the contaminants were not coming
from the facility, but were instead coming from the well casings ;
•
In order to eliminate the potential for interference from such well casings
masking potential releases from the proposed facility, the County believes it is
appropriate and necessary for the Applicant to install three (3) additional
groundwater monitoring wells at specific locations downgradient of the C
trenches and that the wells be constructed of materials that do not contain
galvanized or stainless steel
;
•
Applicant presented expert reports and testimony finding the existing and
proposed operations of the facility are conducted in such a manner as to fully
comply with all Illinois EPA regulations and are therefore protective of the
public health, safety and welfare ;
•
There was no evidence presented that contradicts the Applicant's expert
witnesses regarding the operations of proposed facility ;
•
However, the County believes that certain portions of the design and operation
can be, and need to be, improved or enhanced so as to be protective of the
public;
•
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 than
other areas of the facility because it is only double lined, and has no effective
means of leak detection, and as a result, the County believes the surface
impoundment should be removed and replaced with storage tanks
;
•
The County finds the trench C-I manhole sumps are inadequate and should be
retrofitted before any vertical expansion of the landfill is permitted
;
•
The County further finds it is more protective of the public if the low
permeability material over capped portions of trench C-2 are retained during any
Proposed Findings of Fact - Approval with Special Conditions
April 5, 2006
vertical expansion over that area ;
•
The County further finds the Applicant's proposal to totally exclude methane
migration planning from its application is not protective, and it is necessary to
protect the public that the applicant include potential methane migration to sump
pits and other confined areas of the landfill in its health and safety program and
contingency plans;
•
A number of the opponents, their witness Charles Norris, and Dr . Lee who
submitted comments into the public record, call into question the safety of the
inactive portions of the site
;
Those inactive portions of the site are not part of the proposed expansion of the
facility, are not covered by the application and these siting procedures, and
therefore the County is not in a position to comment on those areas of the
facility ;
•
Applicant presented numerous expert reports and testimony which concluded
that the location of the proposed facility was adequately protective of the public
health, safety and welfare ;
•
There was testimony at the public hearing to the effect that the location of the
proposed facility is one of the most, if not the most, studied sites in Illinois
;
•
The application and testimony of the Applicant demonstrate the proposed
expansion is to be located in an area with at least 40 feet of natural, relatively
impermeable, clayey till underlying the site, with intervening, non-continuous
sand lenses, some of which are saturated or partially saturated ;
•
It was generally agreed that the site sits over an aquifer that is not the Sankoty
aquifer, but that is hydraulically connected to the Sankoty acquifer
;
•
Both the applicant and the opponents agreed that the primary issue of concern
relating to the proposed facility is the protection of the groundwater at the site ;
•
The County agrees protection of groundwater is a paramount concern;
•
The applicant's expert reports and testimony concluded that the location of the
proposed landfill above the approximately 40 fee of clayey glacial till was
protective because the clayey till would provide additional protection against
migration of leachate from the site in the event the liners failed or reached the
end of their useful life ;
•
Opponents presented Mr
. Norris as an expert to testify about the geological
setting, and his conclusions, based upon a review of the data contained in the
application and his review of the groundwater monitoring data from the IEPA,
Proposed Findings of Fact - Approval with Special Conditions
April 5, 2006
was that the glacial till underlying the site provided no protection for the
groundwater in the event of a release of leachate ;
•
Mr. Norris's opinion was based upon the concept that weathering and cracks in
the clayey till, and continuous sand seams in the clayey till, resulted in liquids
moving through the soil at relatively high rates, and the till would, as a result,
provide no barrier to migration ;
•
Mr
. Norris presents no independent data or analysis for his theories, and upon
cross examination he admitted he has made similar conclusions in opposition to
other landfills in the State of Illinois
;
•
The County has reviewed Mr . Norris' conclusions and respectfully disagrees
with them, and finds that the testimony and reports of Applicant's experts to be
more compelling regarding the characteristics and qualities of the underlying till
to retard migration of leachate
;
•
At the public hearing, Mr
. Norris agreed with the data and determinations of the
Applicant's witnesses that the rate of groundwater flow in the lower sand aquifer
below the site was approximately 10 feet per year ;
•
During the public comment period following the hearing, opponents presented
information suggesting the flow rate in the lower sand aquifer may be much
higher, and in the range of feet per day, instead of feet per year ;
•
The County has considered that new information provided by the opponents, and
has concluded that such a change would have no impact on the groundwater
modeling, impact study, and analysis performed and presented by the Applicant ;
•
The Applicant's expert, Dr. Barrows, testified that the most sensitive factor for
his groundwater impact assessment was the migration of leachate through the
liner, and not the groundwater flow rate ;
•
Furthermore, if contaminants were to be released from the proposed facility and
migrate into the groundwater, a higher flow rate in the lower sand aquifer would
tend to increase the natural attenuation of any contaminants in the groundwater,
and as a result, the County concludes any variability in the flow rate of the
groundwater in the lower sand aquifer would have no impact on the groundwater
modeling conclusions ;
•
Opponents presented testimony of two medical doctors at the public hearing, as
well as numerous public comments by medical doctors at the public hearing and
in the public record against the proposed facility
;
•
The testimony and comments of the doctors was the hazardous wastes being
disposed of at the existing landfill, and those proposed to be disposed of at the
Proposed Findings of Fact
- Approval with Special Conditions
April 5, 2006
proposed expansion of the landfill, presented unwarranted health risks to the
citizens of Peoria County
;
•
The doctors did not present any evidence that any person had been, was being, or
will be exposed to any contaminants from either the existing landfill or the
proposed landfill ;
•
The doctors contended that air pollution from the proposed facility may cause
exposure, but the only information they could refer to was the Toxic Release
Inventory reports prepared by the Applicant which showed air emissions from a
waste treatment process that is not part of the application under review ;
•
The testimony and information provided indicates the types of wastes proposed
to be accepted at the landfill are very low in organics, and most of the wastes are
heavy metal wastes, which would not be expected to volatilize ;
•
The proposed facility is proposed to be operated so as to minimize and control
dust and airborne particulate matter during active operations;
•
The information in the record indicates the treatment plant, which is not part of
this application, is in full compliance with its air permit, and is, in fact, emitting
less than the allowable levels
;
•
The doctors also testified and stated they were concerned about potential
exposure by drinking contaminated groundwater ;
•
As stated above, the groundwater impact assessment performed by Applicant's
experts, indicates there will be no impact to the groundwater above drinking
water standard at the point of compliance in 500 years after closure ;
•
Based upon the groundwater modeling, the low levels of contaminants found in
the waste proposed to be disposed of at the proposed facility, the geological
setting beneath the proposed facility, the characteristics of the aquifer below the
proposed facility, and the distance to the nearest public drinking water wells, the
County does not believe, if there is a release of leachate from the site, there will
ever be detectable levels of contaminants from that leachate reaching those
drinking water wells ;
•
The County believes that in order for there to be a health risk posed by a
contaminant, there must be an exposure, and there was no testimony, evidence,
data, studies, or reports of any kind that stated the proposed facility caused any
exposure, therefore the County is unable to find that the proposed presents a risk
to human health .
r
Proposed
Findings of Fact -
Approval with Special Conditions
April 5, 2006
Special Conditions - Criterion 2 :
1 .
Surface Impoundment
PDC shall submit the permit modification within 90 days of siting
approval to replace the surface impoundment with additional storage
tanks for management of all leachate from PDC No
. 1 .
2.
C-1Sump Manhole Retrofit
The retrofit design referred by Mr
. Meginnes shall be included in the permit
application for the expansion permit and the C-I sump manholes shall be
retrofitted if the vertical expansion is approved
.
3.
No Expansion over Trench C-1
There shall be no vertical expansion over trench C-1 unless PDC shall install an
intermediate composite liner and leachate collection system over C-1 at or near
the existing cap elevation to effectively minimize leachate from reaching the
bottom of Trench C-1 .
4.
Retain Low Permeability Material Over Capped Portions of Cell C-2
PDC shall leave in place the low permeability materials over portion of cell C-2
that is already capped .
5 .
Alternative Manhole Retrofit
PDC shall include in its permit application to the IEPA an alternative retrofit
design for manhole sumps for all other trenches that have manhole penetrations
.
6 .
Intermediate Liner
PDC shall either utilize the existing cap (HDPE geomembrane) as an
intermediate liner if analyses show that it will function properly relating to its
geotechnical and drainage characteristics, or install a separate intermittent liner
at or near the existing cap elevation to effectively minimize leachate from
reaching the bottom of Trench C-1 .
7.
Ambient Air Monitoring
PDC shall communicate all past measured methane concentrations and pressures
to the IEPA during the permitting process in order for the IEPA to determine
whether PDC shall design and install a system to manage methane vapors at the
facility.
8
.
Methane Migration Planning
Although methane gas pressures are minimal in the landfill, Staff believes that
PDC should include the potential of methane migration to sump pits and other
confined areas of the landfill in its health and safety program and contingency
plan.
Proposed Findings of Fact - Approval with Special Conditions
April 5, 2006
9.
Additional Groundwater Monitoring Wells
Three (3) additional groundwater monitoring wells shall be installed
downgradient from Trench C along the compliance boundary
. The additional
wells shall be located between existing monitoring wells R138 and RI 13
; RI 13
and R137 ; and G136 and Rl37 . The wells shall be screened across the top of the
water table in the sand aquifer
. The monitoring well screens and riser shall be
constructed of materials that do not contain galvanized or stainless steel 10
.
5 64,7
Proposed Findings of Fact - Approval with Special Conditions
April 5, 2006
PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT
Criterion 1
The facility
is necessary to accommodate the waste needs
of the area it is intended to
serve.
•
Applicant presented expert studies and testimony that demonstrates a short fall in
disposal capacity for all three waste streams for all three service areas
;
•
Shortfall in disposal capacity for the three waste streams combined is
demonstrated to be in excess of 4 million tons, and the proposed expansion is for
2.2 million tons;
•
The study and testimony provided by Applicant took into account the specific
waste codes accepted by Applicant, and considered projected recycling of non-
hazardous process waste ;
•
Testimony by Applicant and public comment by customers of Applicant showed
that if the expansion is not granted, local companies will experience significantly
higher transportation costs for disposing of their wastes ;
•
Opponents criticized some of the methodologies utilized by Applicant's expert
but presented no facts, data, or studies to substantiate those criticisms ;
•
No conflicting expert studies or testimony was presented .
Proposed Findings of Fact
- Approval
April 5 , 2006
PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT
Criterion 1
The
intended
facility
to serveis
not
.
necessary to accommodate the waste needs of
the area
it is
•
Applicant failed to use the most recent U
.S. EPA data on hazardous waste
generation ;
•
2005 U
.S. EPA data shows significant declines in hazardous waste generation
rates in the hazardous waste service area ;
•
Applicant's expert failed to fully consider potential future recycling or waste
reduction of hazardous waste in the service area ;
•
Applicant is quoted in newspaper article which was submitted into the public
record as saying its tipping fees have decreased from $100 to $80 over the past
few years ;
•
Decreasing price suggests decreasing demand for disposal capacity
;
•
These economic issues were not adequately covered by Applicant's expert report
and testimony;
•
While increased transportation costs of local business were discussed, there was
no analysis of whether there would be an over-all increase in waste disposal
costs for the local businesses if they were to have to haul their waste to other
disposal facilities .
JLJr
t.?
Proposed Findings of Fact - Denial
April 5
, 2006
PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT
Criterion 1
The facility is necessary to accommodate the waste needs of the area it is intended to
serve, provided certain special conditions are met .
•
Applicant presented expert studies and testimony that demonstrates a short fall in
disposal capacity for all three waste streams for all three service areas
;
•
Shortfall in disposal capacity for the three waste streams combined is
demonstrated to be in excess of 4 million tons, and the proposed expansion is for
2.2 million tons;
•
The study and testimony provided by Applicant took into account the specific
waste codes accepted by Applicant, and considered projected recycling of non-
hazardous process waste
;
•
Testimony by Applicant and public comment by customers of Applicant showed
that if the expansion is not granted, local companies will experience significantly
higher transportation costs for disposing of their wastes
;
•
Opponents criticized some of the methodologies utilized by Applicant's expert,
but presented no facts, data or studies to support or substantiate those criticisms ;
•
No conflicting expert studies or testimony was presented
;
•
Applicant, at the public hearing, proposed to guarantee capacity to Peoria
business during the proposed expansion to satisfy this criterion ;
•
Applicant, at the public hearing, proposed to that it would never seek an
expansion or extension of the landfill again ;
Proposed Findings of Fact - Approval with Special Conditions
April 5, 2006
Special Conditions - Criterion 1 :
1 . Capacity Guarantee for Peoria Generators
. Until June 1, 2021, PDC
agrees to provide disposal capacity at the PDC #1 landfill for waste
generators located in Peoria County for all of the Hazardous Waste, MGP
Remediation Waste and Nonhazardous Process Waste which is estimated
to be generated by industry located within Peoria County's boundaries,
provided, however, this provision only applies to the extent that PDC is
permitted by Illinois EPA to receive said Hazardous Waste, MGP
Remediation Waste and Nonhazardous Process Waste
.
Prior to the first day of each calendar year during the operating life of the
PDC Landfill, PDC shall provide Peoria County with an estimate of the
amount ("Annual Estimate") of Hazardous Waste, MGP Remediation
Waste and Nonhazardous Process Waste it expects to be received from
industry located within Peoria County for that year, using methodologies
which are consistent with the methodologies used to prepare the Needs
Assessment portion of Peoria County's Solid Waste Management Plan.
For the first year of operation of the PDC Landfill, the Annual Estimate
shall be 30,000 tons of Hazardous Waste, MGP Remediation Waste and
Nonhazardous Process Waste . PDC shall reserve sufficient capacity to
dispose of the Annual Estimate of Hazardous Waste, MGP Remediation
Waste and Nonhazardous Process Waste estimated by Peoria County .
During the operating life of the PDC Landfill, the Annual Estimate shall
not increase by more than 4% per year . The reservation of disposal
capacity for industry located within Peoria County shall not be
cumulative, and should the estimated disposal capacity not be utilized by
Peoria County during any calendar year, that capacity may not be utilized
in subsequent years . PDC shall submit each year to the Peoria County
Board a copy of the Annual Capacity Report filed with the Illinois EPA
by PDC which report shall be used to determine PDC's remaining landfill
capacity .
2.
Additional Expansions Prohibited . PDC shall not seek to expand
vertically or horizontally the PDC Landfill again in the future .
3
.,
Proposed Findings of Fact - Approval with Special Conditions
April 5, 2006
RECEIVEDCLERK'S
OFFICE
JAN 0 8 2007
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTRPollution
VffGAVIILControl
Board
PEORIA DISPOSAL COMPANY
P
)
Petitioner,
)
PCB 06-184
v.
)
(Pollution Control Facility Siting
Appeal)
PEORIA COUNTY BOARD,
)
Respondent .
)
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
The undersigned, a non-attorney, being duly sworn upon oath, states that a copy
of the attached Illinois Environmental Protection Act 415 ILCS 5/39
.2 Local Siting
Approval Criteria, of Respondent Peoria County Board, was served upon the following
persons by enclosing such documents in separate envelopes, addressed as follows, and
de ositing said envelopes in the U .S
. Postal Service mail box at Morton, Illinois on the
day
ofJCtfl ,
2007, before 5
:00 p.m., with all fees thereon fully prepaid and
addressed as follows
:
Carol Webb
George Mueller, P .C.
Hearing Officer
Attorney at Law
Illinois Pollution Control Board
628 Columbus Street, Suite 204
1021 North Grand Avenue East
Ottawa, IL 61350
P
.O
. Box 19274
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9274
Brian J. Meginnes
Elias, Meginnes, Riffle & Seghetti, P
.C.
416 Main Street, Suite 1400
Peoria, IL 61602
Dated ~446 ,
2007
.
Legal
ie
Assistant
jn
o.
J&Ili,r
Subscribe. and swo to before me, a Notary Public, in the County and State as
aforesaid, this .'_') day of ''nLLt
t
2007 .
NOTARY PUBLIC,
KIEM
"OFFICIAL
M.
STATE
POWERSSEAL"OF
IWNOIS
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES APRIL 20 2009
