utig
it
onF7
NO1S
Mta
pa
S MAY
?
OF
0
ntrad
I
2008
LU
3
2
-71,
/D--t
May 07 08 02:41p
?
Thomas Madigan
?
309-673-2612
?
p.1
O
R
I
GINAL
V
May 07 08 02:41p?
Thomas
Madigan
?
03Ritin A L
P.2
TO: ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
515/08
Brief from Tom Edwards for PCB case 08-42 (See Constitutional authority page 5)
Synopsis:
1--
The Peoria Disposal Co.'s toxic waste landfill at Peoria
is
in the most hazardous
location in the nation relative to the health and well being of people.
2 --
Inspection, oversight, and control need to be vastly improved, and it needs to be
safely closed as soon as possible.
3 -- Best alternative: The state needs to find the safest site possible for
MattYptUtly
it, and contract out and oversee its operation.
Status:?
$TATE
OF IWNOIS
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency is proposing changes IrPollutteattiontrol
Board
governing the Peoria Disposal Co.'s toxic waste landfill here. Yet it contains major
omissions, and changes that will weaken the permit. This is crucial to the Peoria area
environment because this "landfill" a) directly abuts the west edge of the City of Peoria, a
densely populated area; b) sits right over the aquifer from which most of Peoria and
adjacent communities draw their water; and c) takes in toxic waste from (so far) up to 15
other states. And this EPA landfill permit is slated to govern operation and closure of
the PDC landfill for the next 30 years
Overview of situation:
The toxic waste landfill of the Peoria Disposal Co. will be a major hazardous
environmental factor here, literally,
forever.
It is the elephant in our living room that
we have avoided acknowledgin
g
--
a
critical mistake
by both PDC and government. To
deal with it is going to take longterm
combined
financing and effort
by both.
All sides
need to work together to achieve a total solution -- and an example for others. We can.
We Need
Far Better Oversight:
Of the still remaining active commercial toxic waste landfills in the nation (16 in only 13
states), the one at Peoria, owned by Peoria Disposal Co.(PDC), is in by far the
most
dangerous
location in regard to the health and welfare of people and a municipality.
See
es( A ; 4
rs?
a, am-Pct.-7
Industries and communities of up to 15 states (so far) send their hazardous waste to be
"buried", literally, on a hill in Peoria that is as close as just 50 feet above the sand aquifer
from which most of the Peoria area draws its water supply. It is the only active
commercial toxic waste landfill in the top half of the nation from this side of Indianapolis
to the Rocky Mountains.
PDC's toxic waste "landfill" at Peoria is the
only
still
active one in the nation that:
1) Sits right
above
let
alone close to an aquifer from which is pumped the majority of
a municipal area's drinking water, and
2) Is also located immediately upwind of the air Peorians must breathe.
Only nuclear waste is ranked more of a health hazard than the phalanx of toxic chemicals
(843 of them) that are permitted by the federal and state EPAs to be put in PDC's Peoria
MAY 0 12008
May 07 08 02:42p
?
Thomas Madigan
309-673-2612
landfill, which abuts the west city boundary line. And there is on y one site in the nation,
in Nevada's desert mountains, being planned for a nuclear waste disposal site.
Water and air pollution are the twin hazards of PDC's toxic waste landfill. It is a
pollution hazard, present and potential, to the Peoria area's vital ground water supply.
And though research has shown air pollution to be a health hazard in the vicinity of toxic
landfills elsewhere (see below), the IEPA has given that possibility virtually no attention
at PDC's landfill, saying it isn't a hazard there.
Specific Points and Recommendations:
1 -- Independent inspections and testing direly needed: EPA's permit puts
virtually the entire responsibility on PDC for monitoring, testing, and reporting on its
own
landfill and performance rather than vice versa. EPA inspectors say they visit the
landfill once,' occasionally twice, a month. In effect, the EPA is having , the "permitee"
inspect himself. In contrast,the City of Peoria has inspectors on the job checking road
and sidewalk projects the entire 8-hour work day..
2 -- Illegal volume change: Original volume capacity limit for waste in the
new (post 1987) part of the landfill was originally set at 1.84 million cubic
yards, but was upped by PDC and EPA to 2.63 million cubic yards 'in 2002.
[Permit page V-1]. That is a
huge
43 % increase. Public hearings are required
for major changes. One was not held, making that expansion illegal.
b.
Moreover, when the total capacity of the seven (7) cells of this part
of the landfill are added, they total 2.87 million c.y., considerably more
than the stated 2.63 million c.y.total permitted limit cited on the same page.
c.
Also. PDC has evidently exceeded even the 2.63 total volume limit.
The above all needs outside review and investigation.
See
Ex h
t- V-
3 --
Reinstate quarterly monitoring for leaks, problems. Testing of water
samples from monitoring wells, now done quarterly, is proposed to instead be collected
semi-annually, and a number only annually. Leaks could then go on 6 to 12 months
without discovery, greatly hindering leak detection and increasing pollution.
Continued quarterly monitoring, at the least, is a vital safeguard. Even more
so after landfill closure. as problems worsen over time.
4 -- Much leaking reported from landfill's new section by independent
consultants. It must be solved. Or it will be a constant, growing hazard for the
Peoria area, as the landfill sits over
its
drinking water aquifer. But none of this
leaking was found or reported either by PDC or the
IEPA.
A county hired
engineering consultant found Cell No.1 to be leaking. But a privately hired geo-
-> hydrologist Charles Norris of Denver, CO,
found that
a
seven cells of
the newer
part
(built since 1987)
of the landfill, all with' liners to prevent leaking; in fact do leak.
Even the newest ones with "double liners" are leaking, probably straight down through
the bottom, he reported. (Therefore likely missing the monitoring wells.)
May 07 08 02:42p?
Thomas Madigan
?
309-673-2612
?
p.4
3
5 --
Pre-law, unlined section of landfill is ignored and 411t-ely
,
- leaking. Must
be monitored. PDC's landfill has been in operation 79 years, 58 years before the state
began in 1987 requiring plastic liners, drains, etc. Because this older but larger section is
"pre-law" the EPA does little if any inspection and monitoring of it.
(Love Canal, N.Y., had a pre-regulation landfill. Residents there went to
Washington and pounded on Congressional doors to get action to relieve
them of the pollution sickening their community. 750 homes were razed.. It
woke up EPA and the nation. Congress then set up a massive fund to help
the host of other places with pre-law dumps. It quickly ran out of money.)
6/-- A dangerous location for people.. As stated above, Peoria is the nation's only
metro area with a toxic waste landfill sitting over the city's main water source, and
immediately upwind of a densely populated area. Research in New Jersey and five
European Union
countries of communities near toxic waste landfills showed
significantly higher rates of birth defects, premature births,
and
in New
York State a 15% higher rate of strokes.
Air pollutants
from landfills are
6"--
the main
Peoria
suspect.
County
Peoria
has by far
Ca
the
reports
Se
highest
a
k-g
very
chemical
A
high
7b
infant
Toxic
M
mortality
Release
6
r
Inventory
rate.
i
r
of any county. in Illinois, 4.3 times higher than Cook County's (Chicago),.
and 16th highest in the nation, according to a 2002 USEPA survey. In the
survey PDC's toxic releases were over 21 times higher than the next highest
in the county, which was ADM's ethanol plant. (News report to be attached.)
7 —*Air pollution: The denied reality: The EPA has
jE.
long been saying there is
no
air pollution from the PDC landfill. But its closest monitor is 4.5 miles away on a bank
building roof. And recent detailed studies (noted above) in New York State,
New Jersey, and the European Union show air pollution to be a
major health
problem for people
living in the vicinity of toxic waste landfills. In an
unauthorized visit into the PDC landfill last year
I
found behind a knoll a cluster of pipes
12 to 15 inches in diameter sticking up 7 or more feet out of the ground. A whiff of the
fumes they were venting sent me reeling backwards. I reported this to an IEPA inspector
of the site. He replied that he and the EPA were unaware of any air pollution or vents
for emissions on PDC's site, and asked me where the vents were. I trust he reported this
vital knowledge to higher-ups. Other air pollutants from the site are certainly being
dispersed by PDC elsewhere.
This needs to be thoroughly and publicly
investigated by the
federal
EPA. which has suzerainity over the site.
8 -- Barrel trench: This needs an official public investigation! The metal
barrels certainly must all be rusted away and their
toxic
contents loose.
This trench, reported as containing 35,000 cubic yards of waste, was in operation from
1986 to 1990. It must be venting pollutants to the air.
But a groundwater monitoring
well slated for installation
under
the barrel trench has yet to be installed 20 years later.
9 -- Test for
and prevent escape of very volatile & highly toxic mercury.
Only 2% by weight of 'extremely toxic mercury is allowed in the present and proposed
May 07 08 02:43p?
Thomas Madigan
?
309-673-2612
?
P.5
permit. But for a 5-ton load of waste, 2% would amount to 200 pounds -- a whale of a
lot. But because only grab samples from the top of any incoming load are tested, and
loads may be left sitting out for weeks or months after arrival, any mercury would have
volatilized into the city's air. Its actual quantities are, therefore, unaccountable.
10 -- Taking & testing groundwater samplesVDC sets the day, time and means
for collecting samples, not the EPA. Also, the bulk of the testing of the samples is
reportedly given over by the EPA to PDC, which PDC also does in its own Peoria lab.
11 -- Problem reporting: The EPA permit gives PDC 30 days to report any problems
it may find, even breakdowns in the landfill. That is an inordinate length of time.
12 --Why is this landfill for toxic waste located right in a heavily populated
area when there are over 100.000 acres of former stripmine land in the 4-
county Peoria area. and much more elsewhere? The IEPA says the
legislature has given it no authority to take into account "location," only
operation rules, and that location is up to the land owner and local officials.
FeAr hî t-- /
13 -- The public hearing held by the county board two years ago on PDC's
landfill was the longest (6 days and evenings) and most attended in county
history.The county board voted 12 to 6 not to issue a new operating permit.
Previously a Circuit Court ruling in Chicago held that any increase in
original landfill capacity, up, down, or sideways, is expansion.
)
6
LEGAL BASIS FOR CASE PCB 08-42,
?
4j.. /0/07(11-e.
PREFACE TO BRIEF FROM TOM EDWARDS,
r P
o
4z1
ce-vr
t
a
rA.4-
_z-e
May 07 08 02:43p?
Thomas Madigan
y
?
((8 017-442.
309-673-2612
p.6
fie_
.1-
*
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
ARTICLE
XI
ENVIRONMENT
Section 1. Public Policy - Legislative Responsibility.
The public policy of the State and the duty of each person is to provide and maintain a
healthful environment for the benefit of this
and
future generations.
The General
Assembly shall provide by law for the implementation and enforcement of this public
policy.
Section 2. Rights of Individuals.
Each person has the
right to
a healthful environment.
Each person may enforce this
right against any party, governmental or private, through appropriate legal proceedings
subject to reasonable limitation and regulation as the General Assembly may provide by
law.
PREAMBLE TO THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT
2. (a) The General Assembly finds:
(i)
that
environmental damage seriously endangers the public health and
welfare,
as
more specifically described in later sections of this Act;
(vi) that despite the existing laws and regulations concerning environmental damage
there exists continuing destruction and damage to the environment and harm to the public
health. safety and welfare of the people of this State,
and that
among the most
significant sources of this destruction, damage, and harm are the improper and
unsafe
transportation, treatment, storage,
disposal, and dumping of hazardous
wastes;
(b) It is the purpose of this Act, as more specifically described in later sections, to
establish a unified, state-wide program supplemented by private remedies,
to restore,
protect and enhance the quality
of the environment, and to assure that
adverse
effects upon the environment are fully considered and borne
by those who cause
them.
c) The terms and provisions of this Act
shall be liberally construed
so
as
to effectuate
the purposes of this Act [720 /LCS 5/1-1 et seq.].
t o
2
W, Refs
4ve
Aer
IL
eX 0
6
May 07 08 02:43p?
Thomas Madigan
?
309-673-2612
?
p.7
LIST OF REFERENCE EXHIBITS FOR PETITIONER'S BRIEF FOR PCB 08-42
1 U.S.Army Corps of Engineers (Data on nation's hazardous waste landfills)
2 -- Nation's Most Dangerous Toxic Waste Landfill Location
3 -- Letter to Illinois EPA director Doug Scott
4 -- Section V-1 of Revised Landfill Permit (erroneous volumes)
5 -- Hazardous Waste Landfills Linked to Birth Defects in 5 European Countries
6 -- Down Syndrome Abstract - Re: Hazardous Waste Landfills
7 -- Hazardous Waste Sites and Stroke in New York State
8 -- Birth Complications Linked to New Jersey Hazardous Waste Landfills
9 -- Hazards of the PDC Hazardous Waste Landfill
10--
Don't Allow Hazardous Landfill to Expand (Re: highest Toxic Release Inventory)
11--
Insanity to Bury Hazardous Waste Over Water Supply (Rutherford letter)
a
o
•
co
n
-o
2
IAA
An"-
Cif
I ft-t-A4Y
Corps
csk(—
CA
3
;4,-zo-s)
50.006
/-/
Comparison to other Comrneetlele
ilazpaste Landfills
.
I
Population
wfin 3 mile
radius
..?
.
Distance to closest
large (recognizable)
cityitown (Google
Owner
City
ST .
(ECHO)
Earth)
Local Host Fee
State Taxes/Fees'
Perpetual are
.
Fund
JnettileeMarttebilanegament -
tfilfrY CLOSED
Emetic
AL
NA
70`rni SW of
Tuscaloosa
32.40/ton to County where
site located; and
?
.
Sumter County levies adds .
Based on toxicity of waste
$41.60/tan - ID, F, K codes
requiring
stabilization and PCB
$5/ton
$66,60/ton - U Codes?
•
$103.60/ton -
.
P.Codes
-
$11.60/ton –K061 (electric arc dust)
-
$1.00/ton on all waste received for disposal
Clean Harbors
Westmorland
CA
139
127
ml E of San
Diego
Clean Harbors?
'
Buttonwillow
CA
246
27•ml W of
$229.62/ton
?
Extremely
hm.
waste and
Bakersfield
$46
restricted
NZ. wast
Charrical Waste Management
Kettlemah
City CA
.16 54 ml S of Fresno
n/a
.38/ton
Clean Harbors
Deer Trail
CO
60 58 ml E of Denver
5120,000 annually + 2%?
'
gross Upping fees (state
statute)
?
.
$600 annual operating fee
US Ecology/American Ecology Grand View?
.
ID
5 63
mi'S
of Boise?
.
no .
$30.00/ton' -
RCRA detirted waste?
•
$20.00/ton - same site 0-2,500 tons .
$10.00/ton - same site 2,500 - 12,500 .
$5.00/ton - same eke 12,500 - 25,000
.
$2.50/ton - same site 25,000+ tons
.
Peoria Disposal Company
Pottstown
/A, d
p
intrel
IL
53,190 partially located
Win
City of Peoria?
.
S1.00/ton fo Peoria County (If
expansion
permitted)
518.18/cubic
yard - RCRA defined waste
?
-
56.06/cubic yard - treated waste
Heritage Environmental
•
Roachdale
IN
•758
39 ml W of
Indianapolis
25%
of amount collected
from state's Haz. Waste
$11.50Aon '
.
•
Disposal
Ta
Chemical Waste Management Sulphur
L A
1,955
12 W of Lake
Charles
no
?
-
$30/ton of haz
iwaste generated & disposed
of at the same site?
.
$40/ton of hex waste disposed of In LA at a
site other than generated
$100/ton of extremely hex waste disposed
of
in LA
Wayne Disposal, Inc. -
FACILITY
CLOSED
•
Belleville
MI
NA
21 mi SW of
Dearborn
no
$10.00/ton - RCRA defined
waste
excludes KO61, treated waste, Incineration •
ash
?
.
Population
wile 3 mile
radius
Distance to closest
large (recognizable)
city/town (Google
Owner .
City
ST (ECHO)
Earth)
Local Host Fee
State Taxes/Fees
Perpetual Care Fund
US Ecology/American Ecology Beatty
NV
39 117 MI NW of Las
Vegas
$.80/ton to Nye-County
$18.50./ton - RCRA
defined
waits
$3.00 - PCBs and treated waste
$2.80/tan + 5.07/cubic
foot for perpetual
care
end maintenance
Chemical Waste Management Model City
NY
4,227
8.5 ml NE of Niagara
no?
.
Regulatory Program fees and
agreement between
Falls
$27.00iton
NYS Dept of
Environmental
Conservation and
CWM Chemical
Services
Envirosafe of Ohio
Oregon
OH'
43,581
4.3 mi SW of Toledo
.S15
no
$9.00/ton - RCRA define waste .
52.00/ton - treated waste?
..
$11 million deposited
by Envirosafe in 1991
Clean Harbors Lone Mountain
Facility
Waynoka
OK
-
?
67 137 ml NW of
?
.
Manama
City
10% of amount collected
from State's Facility
$9.00/ton . RCRA define waste
$2.00/ton • treated waste
Monitoring Fees to an
organization comprising of
several counties
Chemical Waste-Management
Arlington
?
•
OR
48
116
ml S of Yakima, - $1.18/ton' to Gilliam County
$20.00/ton - RCRA defined waste and PCBs
WA
$2.50/ton • '<OEM
.
$20.00/ton - same site 0-2,500 tons
$10.00/ton - same site 2,500 - 12,500
$5.00tton • same site 12,500 - 25,000
$2.50/ton
?
same site 25,000+ tons
US Ecology/American Ecology Robstown
TX
516
22 ml NW of Corpus no
Christi, TX
Waste Control Specialists?
'
Andrews
TX
36
45 ml NW of Midland/
35 mi
N
of Odessa
no
$5,000/surface
fealty
acre annual
fee
.
?(min
$2,500 and max. $25,000)
,------i....----
/
Envimdre of Utah - FACILI
Clive
UT
NA
74 mi W of Salt Lake
Envirocere deposits
abSED
City
10% of the fees received t
county facility located In
(Utah Code)
--
$28.00/ton • RCRA defined waste
$14.00/ton - treated waste
$4.75/ton - PCBs
$400,000/year since
2001: Fund available
after 109 years
Clean
Harbors
Lone 8 Grassy
Grantsvile
UT
3
38 mi SW of Salt
Mountain
Lake City
a.
6.1
0
OD
0
N.
0
>,
2
pe-740, A-opt-
C/4,5, AirMy Cokios
-
0(
tErt/QC
Y
'
S
) 15,1)01006
Comparison to otheetimmercial Haz Waste Landfills
To Illinois Pollution Control Board -- Testimony
Nation's Most Dangerous Toxic Waste Lan
Case PCB 2006-184
dfill Location?
May 07 08 02:44p?
Thomas
Madigan
?
309-673-2612?
p.10
cc./(7 {)--
April 5/07
Disposal Co.'s hazardous waste landfill
oth at the state and local level we need to realize
that no city or town in the nation
has"
more people than Peoria living not only within 3 miles of an active toxic waste landfill,
but also immediately adjacent to one.
Not only more, but generally 50 times more!
That
ria
includes
has 54,000
such
living
huge cities
within
as
3
New
miles
York
of Peoria Los Angeles.
P
abutting the city's west side, plus Bradley University's students. The site itself is densely
bordered to its fence with houses and apartments, nursing homes, and nearby schools.
Even more crucial, though, is that Peoria is evidently the only place in the United States
that has a toxic waste landfill that:
1)
Sits even near its aquifer, let alone atop a shallow sand-gravel aquifer from which is
pumped via wells most of the water for the 200,000 people of the Greater Peoria area:
2) And is also located immediately upwinea–
Of the city and the air it breathes. *(And
increases in severe maladies (birth defects, premature births, strokes) in the vicinity of
such landfills elsewhere have been linked by researchers to escaping toxic fumes.)
Of the 16 still operating commercial toxic waste landfills in the nation lister
tic 1/41t
.
y the U.S
Army Corps of Engineers, most are out in the boondocks. Eight have only 3 to 50
residents within 3 miles and are far (40 to 150 miles) distant from population centers,
4 have 139 to 759 people and are nearly as isolated, one has 1,955, and another 4,227.
6.J
citpw.:44.,
Only one Oregon, Ohio, (near Toledo) with 43,580 people within 3 miles,2las near the
proximity of Peorians to the hazards of a toxic waste landfill -- but via dust air
contamination. Its water comes from Lake Erie. Oregon is currently going to court to
block expansion of the privately, owned toxic waste landfill in its community.
Remember, the EPA permit for the PDC landfill allows 843 of the most toxic chemicals
known, and PDC is petitioning to add to the list very toxic PCBs, a chemical now banned
from usage. It also takes lead compounds, which are banned from landfills in Europe. Wi
the 2005 closure of the toxic waste landfill in Chicago, much more may be coming here.
/
ALSO REMEMBER, THERE ARE 100,000 ACRES OF STRIPMINED LAND WITHIN
10 TO 40 MILES OF PEORIA, INCLUDING TRACTS OF 15,000 AND 5,000 ACRES
WITH NO PEOPLE LIVING ON THEM, AND VERY FEW EVEN NEARBY.
YET ALL. THE FOCUS SO FAR HAS ONLY BEEN ON CONTINUED
OPERATION OF THE PDC LANDFILL. RATHER, A NEW LOCATION CAN
CERTAINLY BE FOUND BY THE STATE AND/OR THE LANDFILL OWNER.
IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT
"FOREVER" CLOSURE OF THE PDC LANDFILL
AT PEORIA BE BEGUN NOW WHILE IT (HOPEFULLY)
IS
STILL AT A
MANAGEABLE SIZE, AND WE ARE ON TOP OF THE PROBLEM, AND WE HAVE
THE PRESENT OWNER-OPERATOR ON BOARD TO HOLD ACCOUNTABLE.
From:
Tom Edwards,
River Rescue,
902 W. Moss Ave, Peoria, IL 61606
/0112–
aeczn%>.
A.■
May 07 08 02:45p
?
Thomas Madigan
?
309-673-2612
?
p.11
Doug Scott
e
...
??
Wer •
••?
-
2007
?
;
t-2
Director, IEPA (copy to Peoria County Bd.) ?
April 10,
Dear Director Scott,
The attached paper, "Nation's Most Dangerous Toxic Waste Landfill?" aptly describes
( the location of Peoria Disposal Co.'s toxic waste landfill adjoining Peoria's west edge.
b)
is
the only one directly against and upwind of a city, and the toxic fumes we now
atop the aquifer from which a city and.
surrounding towns pump most of their water, a d
As the paper tells, only one of the nation's 15 other active hazardous waste landfills even
right up to and against the landfill's fenced enclosure!
Even worse, the PDC landfill, as the map shows, is a) the only one in the nation that sit
realize constantly escape from such landfills into the air we breathe, to our detriment.
approximates Peoria's close-by density of population. And Peoria has a dense populatio
And the toxic wastes from as many as 15 states so far are being brought to Peoria to be
dumped, actually, on a hilltop packed with hazardous, toxic materials.
I don't believe that -- given that knowledge -- a sovereign state and a major county of th
state will not immediately take direct action to correct and remove that undenialable
danger to the health and well being of its citizenry.
However, the Greater Peoria area is fortunate in that it is in a location in which remedial
action can quickly be taken. It has over 100,000 acres of former stripmines within 10 to
40 miles of the city and along major highways. Most are now pasture land.
Certainly there are far superior -- and hugely safer -- sites for such a landfill, even in
this area as well as others, that can be found by the state and/or landfill operator. And
the PDC landfill at Peoria can be
forever
closed as safely and securely as possible.
The Peoria County Board took strong, wise action when it voted last May (as is its legal
prerogative) not to issue a permit for expansion of the PDC landfill beyond its original
permitted area and volume. .
PDC is trying to overturn that decision via an appeal to the Illinois Pollution Control
Board. But it is obvious that was a vital and just decision that needs to be upheld.
If a new landfill is deemed necessary, then there needs to be a combined effort to
immediately find and secure the best, Most suitable site possible. 42(-----
Sincerely, Tom L. Edwards,
River Rescue
cc: "Nation's Most Dangerous ..."
?
902 W. Moss Ave.
"Solutions to Hazardous. . Landfill"
?
Peoria,IL 61606
May 07 08 02:45p
?
Thomas Madigan
?
309-673-2612
?
p.12
Revised: October 2007
ILD000805812
ri
,
" Page
Section LANDFILLS
e
t
ki% C. •
a
3
e-s ;i
vc
i-o
x
-
r
c
L
aes)
02._)
C
te.?
Fev-antibd,./...y)
Peoria Disposal Company operates a ninety (90) acre facility, seventy-foul 74 of which
?
are approved for disposal units. The total waste
capacity is approximate
ly
2,63: ,580 cubic Li
?
yards. Industries served by the site include earthmoving and agricultural equipment
manufacturers, chemical and steel companies, and breweries. Some wastes are to be treated
at the Stabilization Unit at the facility 'knot
.
to disposal in a landfill cell. The final landfill
unit is scheduled to close in the year 2009.
This section presents permit conditions for the landfill according to the regulatory
requirements of 35 Ill. Ada
Code 724 Subparts N (Landfills) and G (Closure).
B. WASTE IDENTIFICATION
1. The landfill disposal units are located as shown on the site topographic map contained
n Appendix B-2 of the approved permit application.
The Permittee may dispose the following
wastes in landfill cells, subject to the terms
of this permit:
Landfill Cell
Designation
Approximate
Total
Capacity (c.v.)
Surface
Area
Dimensions of
Landfill Cell
(Acres)
Description
of
Hazardous
Waste
31
Barrel Trench
Area
35,000
14
See Attachment C
for Waste List and
Section A
5
?
6,500
8
Hazardous Waste Nos.
Section B
190,000
10
and
Trench C-1
425;929
7.3
Non-hazardous
Trench C-2
453,846
6.4
wastes identified
Trench C-3
775,939
7
.
3
in Condition X.H.2
Trench C-4
982,865
11.0
v..a-roprt.,
3. The Permittee is prohibited f om disposing any waste in the permitted units not
included in Condition B. 2.
t
f this Section.
.230 (frj
?
a€
?
<?rert
t
i4
f-2
ite?
{±~
S
2A 4--e
tt--/ 6_4ove(; 6
r
-V
i
PPG)
-
?
Yes-
44241
7
1
-
psi"
ei
A. SUMMARY
May 07 08 02:46p?
Thomas Madigan
?
309-673-2612?
p.13
Fx4(1);
r g
Best Practice of Medicine - Patient Guide
Press Ctrl-P (PC) or ot-P (Mac) to print this page
HEALTtl
N ews
1/25/02
Hazardous waste landfills linked to birth defects
NEW YORK, Jan 25; 2002
(Praxis Press)
Babies are more likely to have .
chromosomal abnormalities, such as Down's syndrome, if their mothers live
within a few miles of a hazardous waste landfill, according to the results of a
study published in the journal
Lancet,
Previous research suggests that babies of mothers living within about
two miles of a hazardous waste landfill are more likely to have
non-chromo
s
omal abnormalities, such as neural tube defects and cleft
.palate.?
.
A multinational team of researchers included in the study more than •
2,000 babies whose Mothers lived various distances from hazardous waste
landfills in the United Kingdom, Denmark, France, Belgium, and Italy. The
researchers recorded how far the babies'
•
mothers lived from the landfills
as
a possible measure of the mother's exposure to chemicals from the landfill..
At the time of birth (or early termination of a pregnancy), 9% of the babies.
in the study had chromosomal abnormalities.
Compared with babies whose mothers lived about two to four miles from
the landfill, babies whose mothers lived about 0 to 2 miles from the landfill
_ were 41% more likely
-
felhaomal abnormalities. This pattern was
present even after the researchers took into account other factors that
might influence the occurrence of these abnormalities, such as a mother's
age and socioeconomic status.
?
.
The study's findings suggest that babies are more likely to have
chromosomal abnormalities if their mothers live within a few miles of a
hazardous waste landfill. The researchers emphasize that additional studies
will be needed to determine if chemicals from the landfills are actually
responsible for the abnormalities.
References:?
1
Oilfield
M, Doff( H, Armstrong 9,
et al.:
Chromosomal congenital anomalies and residence near
?
l
hazardous waste landfills.
Lancet.
Jan 26 2002; 359:320-22.
(httpliwww.thelancet.comflournal/volfissffullplan.359.9303.oriqinal research.19269.1]
r
I inn in nn
A ,d?
lb%
I
May 07 08 02:46p
?
Thomas Madigan
?
309-673-2612
?
p.14
15,
1-
?
ExA;het
Down Syndrome Abstract
of the Month: Apr 2002
Chromosomal congenital anomalies and residence near
hazardous waste landfill sites
Vrijheid M, Dolk H, Armstrong B, Abramsky L, Bianchi F,
Fazarinc I, Game E, Ide R, Nelen V, Robert E, Scott JE, Stone
D, Tenconi R.
Lancet 2002 Jan 26;359(9303):320-2
EUROCAT Central Registry, Environmental Epidemiology Unit, Dept. of Public
Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London,
UK.
Abstract:
A- Previous findings of the EUROHAZCON study showed a 33% increase in risk of
non-chromosomal anomalies near hazardous waste landfill sites. Here, we studied
245
of chromosomal anomalies and 2412 controls who lived near 23 such
sites in Europe. After adjustment for confounding by maternal age and
socioeconomic status, we noted a higher risk of chromosomal anomalies in people
who lived close to sites (0-3 km) than in those who lived further away (3-7 km).
A _,Our
results suggest an increase in risk of chromosomal anomalies similar to that
d
i found for non-chromosomal anomalies.
My comments:
Eurohazcon is a collaborative"study among a number of congenital abnormality
registries in Europe. Sixteen public health institutes were involved in the initial
1998 study (you can read it here). In this study, information about births of infants
with chromosomal anomalies were obtained from England, Denmark, Belgium,
France and Italy. 23 landfill sites were selected for their containing hazardous
waste (as defined in a 1991 Eurocat document);a proximal zone was defined as
being within 3 kilometers (1.8 miles) of the site, and compared with a distant zone
of 3 to 7 kilometers away from the landfill. 245 cases of infants with
chromosomal anomalies were identified, and compared with over 2000 control
babies.
For all chromosomal anomalies, the odds of being near a site were 40% more
likely than being distant from a site. For Down syndrome, the odds were 36%
higher for living near the site.
1/20/2004 4:02 PM
May 07 08 02:46p?
Thomas Madigan
?
309-673-2612?p.15
Environmental Health: A Global
Access Science Source
y A:Air
7
C.)
'Horned
Central
Research
?-
Hazardous waste sites and stroke in New York State
Ivan Shcherbatykh
1,4,
Xiaoyu Huang
2
, Lawrence Lessner
2,3
and
David 0 Carpenter*
1•3
Open Access
Address: i
Depanment of Environmental Health and Toxicology, School of4
h
ublic Health. University at Albany, SUNY, One University Place, A217,
Rensselaer, NY 12144, USA. 'Department of Biometry
and Statistic's, School
of
Public Health, University at Albany, SUNY. One University Place,
A217, Rensselaer, NY 12144, USA, 'Institute
for
Health and the Environment, Uriversity at Albany, SUNY, One University Place, A217, Rensselaer,
NY 12144, USA and 'McMaster University, Centre
for Evaluation of
Medicines. 105 Main St. E., P1 Level, Hamilton, Ontario L8N 106, Canada
Email: Ivan Shcherbatylth - shchetiy@mcmaster.ca; Xiaoyu Huang - siaoyu.h@gmail.com; Lawrence Lessner - LLessnereuamailalbany.edu;
David 0 Carpenter •
- carpentaluarnailalbany.edu
• Corresponding author
Published 29 August 2005
?
„.
Received: 28 April 2005
Environmental Health: A Global Access Science
Source 2005. 4:18 doi:10.11 86/1476-069X-4- 18
?Accepted 29 August 2005
This article is available from: http9/www.ehlournal.net/contenU4/1/18
40 2005 Shcherbatykh et at licensee BloMed Central Ltd.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the oerms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (litrinitirreativecornmemanreirensestbyr 0),
which pennies unrestricted use, distribution. and reproduction In any medium. provided the original work is properly cited.
Abstract
Background -: Environmental exposure to persistent organic pollutants (POPs) may lead to
elevation of serum lipids, increasing risk of atherosclerosis with thromboembolism, a recognized
cause of stroke. We tested the hypothesis that exposure to contaminants from residence near
hazardous waste sites in New York State influences the occurrence of stroke.
Methods -: The rates of stroke hospital discharges were compared among residents of zip codes
containing hazardous waste sites with POPs, other pollutants or without any waste sites using
information for 1993-2000 from the New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative
System
(SPARCS)
database, containing the records of all discharge diagnoses
for patients admitted
to state-regulated hospitals.
Results -: After adjustment for age and race, the hospitalization rate for stroke in zip codes with
POPs-contaminated sites
was 15% higher
than in zip codes without any documented hazardous
waste sites (RR 1.15, 95% CI, 1.05. 1.26). For ischemic stroke only, die RR was 1.17
(95% CI 1.04,
1.3 1).
Residents of zip
codes containing other waste sites showed a RR of 1.13 (95% CI, 1.02. 1.24)
as compared to zip codes without an identified waste site.
Conclusion -: These results suggest that Bring near a source of POPs contamination constitutes
a risk of exposure and an increased risk of acquiring oerebrovascubr
disease.
However further
research with better control of individual risk factors and direct measurement of exposure Is
necessary for providing additional support for this hypothesis.
Background
Cerebrovascular disease is a major public health problem
In addition to well-documented modifiable risk fac-
tors of stroke, there is evidence for a link between a broad
category of environmental factors and stroke, such as air
pollution pi, environmental tobacco smoke [3], metals
(4f, pesticides [53, and other anthropogenic factors,
including persistent organic pollutants (POPs).
POPs
arc
chlorinated organic compounds [polychlorin-
ated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxins and chlorinated pesti-
cides( that are resistant to degradation and able to bio-
Page 1 of 8
(papa
number not for citation purposes)
309-673-2612
p.16
-rxhr.6.
e r I
May 07 08 02:47p
?
Thomas Madigan
Terse
landfill
ff
•
e.w_evidence_of-the-possible
A hterica's Newspapers: Document Display _
Page 1 of
2.
N cwsB ank
nfoWeb -
America's Newspapers
Estimated printed pages: 1
September 15, 1997
Edition: FINAL
Section: A SECTION
Page: A2
Column: SCIENCE NOTEBOOK
BIOLOGY: BIRTH COMPLICATIONS.LINKED TO LANDFILL
Author Joby Warrick '
Article Text:
A study of pregnant women and infants near
''Itealth risks of living near hazardous chemical waste umps.
•
Two scientists analyzed 25 years of birth records in Pitman,
NJ.,
and found that complications increased
with proximity to a waste dump on the outskirts of town. Mothers who lived closest to the Lipari landfill
were twice
as
likely to deliver prematurely, compared with women living more thw a half-mile away,
and
their babies weighed an average four ounces less at birth L the researchers report in the journal
Environmental •Health Perspectives.
"The magnitude of this effect is about as bad as the birth weight reduction that is associated with
Cigarette smoking during pregnancy," said lead investigator Mich
aeltirry
of the New Jersey
Department of Health.
The scientists ruled out other possible explanations, snail as economic or cultural
differences.
The
nothers living nearest the toxic waste dump were generally wealthier and better educated than those
.vho lived farther iway.
kit the mothers in the survey drank from the same municipal water supply. Berry suspects that the
)1-estit/Hey problems resulted from breathing fumes front industrial compounds such es benzene and
itethylene chloride, which were dunqied in great quantity at the landfill during the 1970s.. • ; .E
fri_.,
'a tre7i* a4-e•
a //.
1
2we d
e
:-...-
-14 r
PO
c. /4 4-4/44;'//
ttp:/, in lowehatewsbank.cont
:
M search ‘‘e.litfuWeb7p4action=printkp_doeiti=01-ill2C2A... 2123;2004
May 07 08 02:47p
?
Thomas Madigan
?
309-673-2612
?
p.17
°°'.
-
)(ti
'lb '
I 7
January,
2004
7/000
PIE-nnon .
?
January,
--."-
-,Tycz-
--- --
-
-
;-;--"
.11:1
:ke.-ihe.
" " 2005
1111
by---ektrrttliatkes
--
• -
latqa--Cesoiein
4-
4-1-71-r
-
Ght
-9-5'
-
Hazards
of the PDC Hazardous
Waite
Landfill
0
E f(Piii°
• Peoria Disposal Co.
:
is Seeking a permit frointhe county hoard to
greatly
expand
its
toxic
waste landfill on the city's west edge (bounded by Rt. 8, Forrest Hill, Molleck, and
Reservoir Rds.) and
operate it for at least 15 more years.
It. is the only one left in the
Greater Midwest, one of only 14 left in. the nation:, and has received highly toxic waste
from 15 states. It is
the
most important issue facing the
city-county --
and
its future.
95% of the direct impact would be to the city. But -
the city's health
is
also the county's.
*There are 843 toxic chemicals -many the most toxic known to man short of nuclear
waste .-- that the Illinois EPA permits PDC to bury in this 74-acre landfill. The EPA
requires testing roundwater for
just
20 of them -- and has PDC itself do most testing.
*But
there-is no EPA testing or air pollution
from the landfill, though- chemicals do.
volatilize through soil in
ur air, indeed, PDC has stack pipes in its
landfill
to vent gases_
f
*A recent joint 5-country study in Europe found that babies born of mothers living within-
. 2 miles of hazardous waste landfills
.
had 40% more birth defects and
33 ;%
more of other
abnormalities
(The lancet
I/26/02: Countries were Britain,Denmark,France,p elgiurn,itaJA-
A New Jersey study revealed
twice
as
many premature births,
ascribed to airborne fumes
In 2005 a Now York slate study revealed
15% more strokes
in adults near such landfills_
*.Peoria
-
has a
dense population (over
p
ri
,
gai
) living
.?
downwind from
and
within
-
•
a
.1-41:/e
2.-raite
radiu of the
PDC
landfill (from Farmington "Rd., University.Ave_, and Chatter Oak and-.
Big Hollow Rds). This area includes 265 residential streets-lined with single and multi-
family homes
and apartments
-..-
plus
Bradley University_
BUT
its effect goes fat.beyond_ .. -
*Groundwater contamination is- a longterm concern. It travels formiles_ Ibis landfill
adjoins the aquifer
from which much (60%) of the city water supply is drawn. -Also, it is
close to Kickapoo Creek and Illinois River. Chemical toxins can last for centuries,
"forever," experts want
But
the plastic and clay landfill liners are shortlived. And
monitoring methods
"are not"
fail-safe.
"Every
landfill leaks," states Robert Kennedy Jr.
*PDC's current EPA permit allows 2.6 million cubic yards Of waste and exiiire,s-1020045-,
According
MI
published reports,
it
wants
to add
more states -arid
at legit
six.(6) million:
more cubic yards (2 million tons) over the
next
15 years. That would fill 158..of one of •
the 30-story Peoria.
Twin
Tower buildings. Do we warn a mountain of highly toxic waste .
from
throughout
the Midwest
and
beyond in the-heart of the county arid
,
on the city'sdoorStep?
DEFINITION
.
OF HAZARDOUS WASTE in4
tatsja
k
r:
Waste which "may cause or signi-
ficantly contribute to an increase in mortality or
t
..serions, irreversible,'or incapacitating
ill
_ or_prise
n iiih
q
sant;a
1
?hazard
to human health or the environment.-_"
\I
,
WHAT WE MANZ-,
-?
'
?
•?
.
**Reject expansion of the landfill. (Peoria- County Board
has full
authority to do this)
**Begin now. the permanent
closure
of this landfill
while we are
alert to the problems.
**Become a- community voice urging the state and nation to require and accelerate .
development of means to (a) detoxify hazardous waste
and (14
recycle it to beneficial .
uses instead of
-
burying it
in
the ground where it remains hazardous and a menace..
—
Corm:4.10d from Mans,
sourtes by
Tom L. Edward<
?
teiliE)R1
May 07 08 02:47p
?
Thomas Madigan
?
309-673-2612
?
p.18
Don't allow hazardous landfill
to expand in Peoria County
Yie
Thank you to the Journal Star for
et reporting that Peoria County releases
.L
,
k
4 the
cal pollutants
greatest amount
in Illinois,
of toxic
and
chemi-
IS in the
t‘ c
t o
a
paWfi
un es
rce
acenotraiug to th
i's worst
e U.S.vi-
ronniental Protection AgeniTTV 2002
"Toxic Chemical Release.
Inventory."
4?
Specifically Peoria County
is
't
chemical
16th
in
in
the ?
nation
d 43
tot toxic
)_. more th
c
a
r
rook County, whicl—
n-
The
story
concentratedon Archer
.., Daniels Midland. Itspollution,though
under one
yr, of toxic
'cats re/eased into the ds
environment, compared to 21 million
i sin ria LE s • : Company (PDC .
Those releases in ti , e c -r-causing
compounds, The EPA says PDC's toxic
deposits are considerably greater than
any other state company.
Though ADM discharges via a
smokestack and PDC is mainly a
landfill, volatile chemicals evaporate
up through soil into the air and seep
out into water supplies. PDC's landfill
adjoins the residential west side of
Peoria. It also abuts the aquifer from '
which much of the city's water supply
comes and is close bo Kick apoo Creek,
which drains into the Illinois River As
every swimming pool develops leaks,
so does every landfill
PDC's state permit authorizes it
to deposit in its landfill
the most toxic chemicals known, and
it receives them from 12 to 14 states.
It wants to extend its soon-to-expire
state permit to triple the landfill's vol-
nine and operate 30 more years. This
is not the kind of publicity the city
wants. To heal the problem would be
grand publicity. And we certainly can_
1DM EDWARDS
PEORIA
•
a_f_tnA.a
/66, zei-
EtA
-ht-1
et_
(teixizt:
-7/°4-
?
4-e-Ae
May 07
08 02:48p
?
Thomas Madigan
?
309-673-2612
?
p.19
x
it— I
A4.
SUNDAY
JANUARY 29.2006
JOuRrukt. STAR
Insanity to bury hazardous waste over water supply
I have been following
the issue Of propOSed: fill hallinoisfirid the:greater part of the Mid-
expansion of the Peoria-Disposal Company's west.kidenehf only flew in the nation. M any
hazardous waste landfill oh-the west : edge-of
of the4),:
40$
'toxic chemicals are permitted to be
Peoria, and'attended PDC's
presentation
to •
butienire; arid 15atates
send them here_
the Peoria City Council laStiqoveliiher.
The majority OVISae chemicals are vola-
Thistandfin is the worst thing I-'have seen
tile ineattingthey'litetally'dissipateinto the
without reSerVatioh
in my 90
years in this
cernmunitY-1taYSt.7'!".-
?
gert
no
u
• Wir pobr
ilu
edtiboyn
j and this
it is amazing
• that, in this era of "space
.
.1.t4" a !I
te
.
elmology, we are building ahrountaMtere
*ill:
•
itooSliMSgats-Oaste
of a couple million tons of a huge asSo
,
nt que
N
d
airtgoing to gii the irk) of the
of terribly toxic chdrititals
t
al the ba
i;‘; tuts. Of the billions *e spend an space
a plastic liner will forever
-prevent them 16fifn
• we must spend as-much, indeed,
leaking into the aquifer from which over half evenfavpitflph carin
g
for
and preserving
of the Peoria area's tap water'idviunlied.
• nib" seaWs
e
t4Ptialith.
We have
to find ways
PDC's toxic wastedaridfill sits dell:dyer th:st
to treta
•
alid recycle all Such
.
waste. It is
precious groundwater' supPly.Plastic:lirdOta
.41
•
inskiikg
and cracks with age and stress; and
C .
?
BILL ROTHERCORD
can eat into and through
it.?
•?
FOREST PARK FOUNDATION
MordovetitAllle only
hazardous
waste 140.
1/44: -;• C.4.0:
.
“?
.
?
PEORIA IJEIGHTS
