Re:

Case

#

AS

08-10

1

Dear

Members

of

the

Board:

I

write

to

you

concerning

Peoria

Disposal

Company’s

proposal

to

obtain

a

delisting

of

electric

arc

furnace

dust

wastestreated

at

their

PDC

No.1

Landfill

and

waste

treatment

facility

near

Peoria,

Illinois.

I

am

opposed

to

this

delisting

on

numerous

grounds,

but

for

the

purposes

of

this

letter

I

will

confine

my

arguments

to

issues

of

the

location

of

the

waste

treatment

facility

that

would

(in

the

event

that

their

request

is

granted)

remain

open

indefinitely.

The

Peoria

County

Board

denied

PDC’s

application

to

expand

its

hazardous

waste

landfill

due

to

concerns

regarding

the

landfill’s

proximity

to

densely

populated

areas

of

Peoria

and

its

position

above

the

aquifer

from

which

Peoriaand

many

other

central

Illinois

communities

draw

drinking

water.

These

concerns

pertain

as

well

to

PDC’s

proposed

activities

should

it

obtain

this

delisting.

Truck

traffic

bringing

loads

of

dusty

hazardous

material

through

our

communities

to

PDC#1

would

continue

for

longer

and

at

an

increased

rate

over

what

would

be

expected

if

the

waste

continued

to

be

classified

as

hazardous

and

landfilled

accordingly.

Indeed,

if

PDC

succeeds

in

their

efforts

to,

in

effect,

self-delist

so

they

can

accept

wastes

from

generators

not

listed

in

this

application

then

such

traffic

could

increase

greatly

on

a

daily

basis

and

extend

indefinitely

into

the

future.

In

their

Technical

Support

Documents

PDC

projects

an

anticipated

200-300

tons

of

EAF

dust

coming

in

to

the

facility

on

a

daily

basis,

just

from

the

generators

listed

in

the

proposal.

It

could

be

much

more

if

theyare

allowed

to

accept

wastes

from

new

generators

withoutapproval,

as

they

are

proposing.

Increased

traffic

brings

an

increased

risk

of

accidents

and

spills.

This

summer

alone

in

Peoria

County

there

have

been

two

truck

spills

that

have

appeared

prominently

in

local

papers

(and

likely

others

that

have

not

received

such

press

coverage):

a

truckload

of

gravel

overturned

in

downtownChillicothe

at

the

intersection

of

Route

29

and

Truitt

Ave.;

and

a

tanker

truck

full

of

lye

skidded

onto

its

side

on

Route

24nearthe

interchange

with

1-474.

Just

last

month

a

truck

hauling

waste

to

PDC’s

DeWitt

County

Landfill

(a

listed

potential

recipient

of

the

proposed

delisted

EAF

dust)

overturned

just

outside

the

landfill’s

gates.

So

truck

accidents

and

spills

in

the

area

are

not

just

remote

hypotheticals,

but

fairly

regularly

occurring

events.

If

the

trucks

were

traveling

to

some

remote

location

far

from

the

city

limits

it

would

still

be

a

concern;

however,

PDC

No.1

sits

directly

on

the

edge

of

the

city

of

Peoria.Peoria

has

at

least

23

schools

and

five

daycare/preschools

within

3

miles

of

the

landfill.

OSF

and

Methodist

hospitals

are

approximately

three

and

a

half

miles

and

Proctor

hospital

is

just

over

four

miles

from

the

landfill.

53,000

citizens

live

within

three

miles

of

the

landfill,

and

largely

east

and

downwind

of

it.

A

spill

of

dusty

waste

on

a

breezy

day

would

send

clouds

of

dust

laden

with

lead,

hexavalent

chromium,

and/or

other

heavy

metals

drifting

over

and

into

some

of

the

most

densely

populatedneighborhoods

in

Peoria—

neighborhoods

that

arehome

to

some

of

our

most

vulnerable

citizens.

---

facility

knew

what

was

drifting

through

theirneighborhoods

and

public

parks

and

through

the

open

windows

of

their

homes,

schools,

and

nursing

homes—especially

considering

it

took

a

FOIA

request

for

us

to

discover

it?

Should

this

delisting

be

approved,

these

sorts

of

insults

to

the

systems

of

thousands

of

of

Peorians

would

be

repeated

indefinitely.

Not

only

must

we

have

clean

air

to

breathe,

but

we

also

need

clean

water

to

drink.

While

thedelisted

treated

EAF

dust

waste

is

not

proposed

to

be

landfilled

(by

and

large)

at

PDC

#1,

it

will

be

treated

there

and

held

for

testing

and

curing

there.

Activities

related

to

the

waste

treatment

facility

should

this

delisting

be

approved

will

only

make

aquifer

contamination

by

the

already-landfilled

hazardous

waste

more

likely.

In

the

Technical

Support

Document

for

their

delisting

proposal,

PDC

describes

how

the

treated

waste

will

be

moved

to

a

storage

area

in

25

cubic

yard

rolloff

boxes

or

168

cubic

yard

gondola-style

railboxes

to

await

testing,

or

(having

failed

initial

testing)

to

cure

for

a

period

of

time

before

retesting.

These

very

large,

very

heavy

containers

will

need

to

be

moved

by

very

large,

very

heavy

equipment.

The

storage

area

PDC

proposes

to

use

is

portions

of

landfill

cells

0-1,

0-2,

and

C-3.

According

to

PDC’s

estimates,

each

rolloff

box

holds

37.5

tons

of

treated

waste,

and

each

gondola

box

holds

252

tons

of

treated

waste.

With

an

anticipated

daily

output

of

treated

waste

of

300-450

tons

(again

using

PDC’s

own

numbers),

that’s

between

8

and

12

trips

across

the

closed

landfill

cells

hauling

a

37.5-ton

rolloff

container

every

day.

PDC

plans

to

transfer

the

waste

using

articulated

off-

road

trucks

when

gondolas

are

used

for

storage.

These

trucks

range

in

size

from

about

25

to

40

tons,

and

hold

about

as

much

as

they

weigh.

Therefore,

there

could

be

as

many

as

18

50-ton

trips

or

11

80-ton

trips

across

the

closed

cells

every

day.

I

am

very

concerned

about

the

repeated

compaction

and

wear

and

tear

to

the

landfill

cells

of

driving

these

heavy

machines

and

heavy

loads

back

and

forth

over

them

on

a

daily

basis.

This

does

not

even

go

into

the

loading-out

for

disposal

using

track-type

excavators

and

tractor-dump

trailers,

all

of

which

will

be

maneuvering

over

these

closed

landfill

cells.

I

am

also

concerned

about

the

additional

weight

of

the

stored

material

on

the

closed

cells.

From

the

Technical

Support

Document

it

appears

that

PDC

anticipates

successfully

treated

waste

being

in

storage

on-site

for

a

day

before

being

loaded

out

for

disposal

at

another

landfill.

However,

it

seems

they

anticipate

fairly

regularly

having

to

keep

batches

of

treated

waste

in

storage

for

further

curing

before

it

is

acceptable

for

landfilling—they

obtained

a

modification

of

their

operating

permit

from

the

IEPA

to

increase

the

amount

of

time

treated

waste

may

be

stored

prior

to

re-treatment

from

15

to

60

days.

There

does

not

seem

to

be

any

overall

storage

time

limit;

in

other

words,

it

appears

that

if

a

batch

requires

retreatment,

it

can

be

held

60

days

before

being

retreated,

then

held

again

for

60

days,

etc.etc.

So

at

a

bare

minimum,

there

would

be

1

day’s

output,

or

8-12

rolloff

boxes

or

1-2

gondolas

stored

on

the

closed

landfill

cells

every

day,

for

an

additional

weight

of

300-450

tons.

However,

there

are

quite

likely

to

be

more.

A

week’s

worth

of

treated

waste

waiting

to

cure

and

be

retested

would

be

40-60

rolloff

boxes

or

5-10

gondolas,

for

a

total

of

1,500-2,250

tons.

If

every

batch

stays

in

storage

for

45

---

that

PDC

had

encountered

a

sand

lens

digging

cell

C-i,

and

that

they

were

unable

to

find

the

bottom

of

it.

Sand

lenses

can

be

a

direct

route

into

the

aquifer

below.

Cell

C-I

was

built

over

two

sand

lenses

encountered

in

construction

of

the

cell.

Repeated

hauling

of

heavy

loads

backand

forth

across

this

already

compromised

area

only

increases

the

chances

of

a

breach

and

the

contamination

of

the

source

of

60%

of

Peoria’s

drinking

water.

A

map

showing

the

location

of

the

sand

lenses

is

enclosed

with

this

letter.

Because

it

has

been

stated

that

this

delisting

proposal

would

be

considered

separately

from

PDC’s

earlier

expansion

application

and

related

filings

and

arguments,

I

am

enclosing

with

my

letter

an

Evidentiary

Summary

prepared

by

Peoria

Families

Against

Toxic

Waste

in

response

to

that

expansion

application.

I

do

so

because

many

of

the

same

concerns

are

relevant

to

this

delisting

proposal,

in

particular

issues

involving

compatibility

with

the

surrounding

area,

airpollution

emissions,

and

potential

contamination

of

the

Sankoty

Aquifer.

This

summary

is

well-researched

and

fully

footnoted.

This

delisting

would

pose

a

long-term

threat

to

the

health

of

local

residents

through

both

air

and

water

pollution,

all

to

gain

profit

for

a

few

shareholders

of

Peoria

Disposal

Company

and

cost-reduction

for

companies

largely

outside

of

Peoria

County

(and

even

Illinois),

some

of

whom

are

owned

by

companies

outside

of

the

United

States.

The

tens

of

thousands

of

citizens

of

central

Illinois

who

depend

on

clean

air

to

breathe

and

clean

drinking

water

from

the

Sankoty

Aquifer

deserve

better

than

to

be

endangered

for

someone

else’s

profit.

We

are

depending

on

you

to

deny

this

delisting

request.

Sincerely,

Lisa

K.

Offutt

10629

N

Moss

Street

P0

Box

222

Mossville,

IL

61552-0222

end:

map

of

sand

lenses

beneath

Cell

C-i

Peoria

Families

Against

Toxic

Waste

Evidentiary

Summary

---

---

PEORIA FAMILIES

AGAINST TOXIC

WASTE

Evidentiary

Summary

March 27, 2006

---

(excerpt from the)

PEORIA COUNTY

BOARD STRATEGIC PLAN:

“The Strategic Plan includes avision

statement and guiding principles to

help

maintain focus on long-term goals. The incorporated

principles that guide our vision serve

as a checks and balances system

for

all policies, decisions, plans and actions.

If a policy does not meet the standards

set forth by our guiding piinciples, then the policy

does not refl ect our vision for the future and shall not

be

implemented.”

VISION

STATEMENT:

“Our residents live in a safe environment

and have an opportunityfor healthy living’

---

TABLE

OF

CONTENTS

Introduction

.4

Decision

Criteria

6

Criterion

1: The

facility

is

necessary

to

accommodate

the

waste

needs of the

area

it is

intended

to serve

7

Criterion

2: The facility

is

so designed,

located

and

proposed to

be

operated that the

public

health,

safety and welfare will

be protected

11

Criterion

3: The facility is located

so as to minimize

incompatibility

with

the character

of the

surrounding area

and

to minimize

the effect

of

the

value of surrounding

property

18

Criterion 4: The facility

is located

outside the boundary

of

the 100-year

flood plain

or

the

site is

flood-proofed

23

Criterion

5: The plan of

operations for the facility

is designed to

minimize

the

danger

to the surrounding area

from fire, spills,

or other operational

accidents

24

Criterion

6: The traffic

patterns

to

or from the facility

are

so designed as

to minimize

the

impact on existing

traffic flows

26

Criterion 7: 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

28

Criterion

8: The facility

is consistent with the

County

solid

waste management

plan

30

Criterion

9:

That

if

the facility will

be located within a regulated

recharge

area,

any applicable requirements

specified

by the Board for

such areas

have

been met

32

Previous operating

experience

and past record

38

EPA

Recommendations

40

Opposition

to the Landfill

Expansion

43

Conclusion

44

Glossary

45

References

and

Sources

47

PFATW

Evidentiary

Summary

Page 3 of 51

---

INTRODUCTION

Recently, Peoria

Disposal Company

(PDC)

filed for an expansion

of its hazardous

waste

landfill.

This expansion would

expand the current

32.4-acre

facility by eight additional

acres and

allow a

vertical

expansion of an additional

45 feet.

PDC’s

current

landfill

will reach capacity

in about four

years. Their

recent application for expansion

will extend

the

operation

of the facility

beyond that

by an additional

15 years

or

more.’

Peoria Families Against

Toxic Waste

(PFATW)

consists of a concerned

group of Peoria

County

citizens who care about

our

community.

We are

ordinary

people. We have

different backgrounds,

different

political

views and different

income levels,

but we are united

on one point—to

see that

the

PDC landfill local siting

measure

is not

approved

by the

Peoria County

Board.

We do not

make our

money

in the hazardous

waste business. Unlike

PDC, which

will make many

millions of dollars if this

measure

passes,

we will receive

no financial gain regardless

of the outcome

of this measure.

This Document

Peoria Families

Against Toxic Waste

(PFATW)

prepared

this document

to directly address

the

criteria that the county

board must evaluate

when deciding

this

issue.

We

have addressed each criterion

individually.

Each criterion

starts with a list of sourced

facts and

figures,

followed

by

a summarization of those

facts. Our conclusions

are

based on evidence

submitted

by

PFATW,

PDC, the

original PDC

application

and hearing testimony.

We realize that technical

terms like “TRI”

and “Recharge

Area” may

be new to some people

reading this document.

We have included

a glossary

to help

demystify

the language.

A lot

of this data overlap

the nine criteria.

Please

do not feel

the need to confine

a fact to a

particular

criterion, as it may also

apply

to others.

Our goal

was

to make the document

readable

and organize

the information

logically for you.

Our Concerns

Why

are we against this

measure? The document

goes into

detail on each point,

but we

summarize them

here in order of greatest

concern.

Health

(Criterion 2)—Our

primary concern

speaks to the

health issues related

to the site.

We share

the concern of Peoria’s

medical community

that the risk

is too great. Submitted

evidence

shows that

PDC’s

hazardous waste

facility puts our citizens’

health

at risk. PDC is

polluting our environment

and this

type

of pollution

has been shown

to

have

a damaging

effect on the

human body. The

risk is too great.

Groundwater Protection

(Criterion

9)—The Sankoty Aquifer

provides drinking

water to

264,000

people. Part of this

fragile water system

lies

directly beneath

the PDC landfill.

The

poor choice

of the

landfill

location

puts

a

heavy

burden on the

barrier

that

separates

our

drinking water

from the

thousands

of tons of

toxins that PDC accepts

annually.

As

you will

see,

experts disagree on how

long

this barrier

will be able

to

protect

our aquifer. No

one

disputes the fact

that the liner

will

fail.

Property Values (Criterion

3)—PDC

has claimed that

property values will not

be affected by

its

operations.

Industry experts,

history and common

sense disagree.

The fact that PDC

has

been

processing

hazardous

materials at its

site was largely

unknown to most of our

citizens.

But

that has changed

in recent months.

This new knowledge

that

an

active

hazardous waste

facility

operates within

a few miles from the majority

of homes

in Peoria will have

an

impact

on property values.

PFATW Evidentiary Summary

Page

4 of5l

---

These

are our

main

concerns,

but we

also

present

strong

cases

that

speak to

the other

criteria.

We

back up

our

views

with industry

experts

including

Dr.

G.

Fred

Lee.

Dr.

Lee is

a nationally

recognized

scientist

and

expert

in hazardous

waste

evaluation

and management.

He has

conducted

contract

and

grant

research

and prepared

affidavits/declarations

for hundreds

of

companies,

government

entities

and

organizations

in the

United

States

and

Canada.

Dr. Lee

talks

directly

to

technical

issues

regarding

this

expansion

proposal,

and his

analysis

highlights

weaknesses

in

PDC’s

plan.

Looking

Forward

We respect

the role

of the

county

board

in this

decision-making

process

and trust

that

you

will

make

your

decision

based

on the

best

interests

of the

constituency

that

elected

you.

vVe have

a

deep

concern

for

the people

and businesses

in this

community.

The

facts

are clear.

This

expansion

initiative

will be

bad

for our

county,

not

only in

the short

term,

but for

many, many

generations

to come.

Long

after

this

decision

is

made,

long after

PDC

No.

1 has

closed,

long after

the

liners

fail,

the

toxins

that

are being

buried

will still

be present

in

our community.

You can

change

this.

Peoria

County

can have

cleaner

air,

land,

and water.

This

can be a

healthier

place to

live. Industry

can thrive

here.

Property

in Peoria

can

be a desired

commodity.

We

can

hand

our future

generations

a

legacy they

will

be

proud

of.

Please vote

not only

with

your constituents

in mind

but

also

knowing

that

the

future

and

well-being

of your

children,

your

grandchildren

and

ours

is at

stake.

PFATW

Evidentiary

Summary

PageS

of

51

---

DECISION

CRITERIA

An applicant

for local siting

approval shall

submit sufficient details

describing

the proposed

facility

to

demonstrate

compliance, and

local siting approval

shall

be

granted only if the

proposed

facility meets

the following

criteria:

(1)

The facility is necessary

to accommodate

the waste needs

of the

area

it is intended to

serve.

(2) The

facility is

so designed,

located and

proposed to be operated

that

the

public health,

safety and

welfare will

be protected.

(3)

The

facility is located

so

as

to minimize

incompatibility

with the character of

the

surrounding

area and to

minimize

the

effect on

the

value

of the surrounding

property.

(4) The

facility is located outside

the

boundary

of the 100-year

floodplain, or the site is

flood-proofed.

(5) The plan

of operations for

the facility is designed

to

minimize

the danger to

the

surrounding area from

fire,

spills or other

operational

accidents.

(6)

The traffic

patterns

to or from the

facility are so designed

as

to minimize

the impact on

existing

traffic flows.

(7)

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.

(8) The facility is

consistent with

the county’s solid waste

management

plan.

(9)

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

or the

governing

body of

the municipality

may also consider

as

evidence

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 (2)

and

(5) under

this Section.

Local

jurisdictions, like Peoria

County, may

impose stricter

standards or require additional

criteria

to be met to achieve

local siting

approval,

as long as the additional

locally

imposed criteria

are not

inconsistent

with the Illinois Environmental

Protection

Act. One example

of this is Peoria

County’s requirement

that the

Applicant

provide detailed financial

planning

and technical

information

for the perpetual care of

the site after

closing.

Peoria County

Code Section 7.5-38(e).

This

is in effect the 10th criteria.

PFATW Evidentiary Summary

Page

6 of5l

---

CRITERION

1:

The

facility

is

necessary

to

accommodate

the

waste

needs

of

the

area

it

is

intended

to

serve.

What

is

the

“area

intended

to

serve”

and

how

well

is

PDC

meeting

its

needs?

PDC’s

Vice

President

of

Development

and

Operations,

Ron

Edwards

stated

in

his

testimony

that

the

intended

area

was

local.

He

says:

“Why

is

hazardous

waste

here?

Problem,

local

industry

such

as

Caterpillar,

Keystone,

International

Paper,

International

Harvester,

Sherex,

and

others

such

as

John

Deere,

had

a

problem,

our

waste

is

suddenly

being

regulated

and

we

have

nowhere

to

go,

who

will

take

care

of

it

for

us.

We

will

have

to

close

our

operations

or

at

best

haul

the

waste

for

long

distances.

Solution,

PDC

again

responded

to

its

customers

in

the

advancements

of

environmental

protection

in

Peoria

County.”

2

In

2004,

only

9.5

percent

of

all

hazardous

waste

that

PDC

accepted

came

from

Peoria

County,

with

the

trend

in

a

clear

downward

direction.

The

majority

of

the

remaining

90.5

percent

are

transported

from

other

states.

3

This

translates

into

approximately

107,300

tons

of

hazardous

waste

that

is

accepted

each

year

by

Peoria

County,

from

non-local

companies.

The

remaining

fraction,

11,250

tons,

is

generated

locally.

93.00%-

83.00%

-

7100%-

63.00%-

5300%-

43.00%

33.00%-

23.00%

13.00%

3.00%

Percentage

of

Local

and

Non-Local

l-azardouc

Waate

Accepted

at

PDC

No.

I

[

c

Peotia

County

Hazardoio

Waste

Hazardous

Waste

shipped

in

Irons

oidsicie

Peoria

County

What

about

distance

and

cost?

•

It

is

closer

for

Peoria

generators

to

go

to

Indiana,

Ohio

or

Michigan

than

it

is

for

a

significant

number

of

PDC’s

current

customers

to

come

to

Peoria

County.

4

•

Since

a

substantial

part

of

the

hazardous

wastes

that

PDC

has

been

accepting

and

proposes

to

continue

to

accept

is

from

non-local

(non-Peoria

County)

sources,

the

Peoria

County

public

is

being

exposed

to

hazardous

chemicals

that

more

appropriately

should

be

managed

in

the

vicinity

of

their

sources.

•

A

nearby

hazardous

waste

facility

in

Indiana

could

readily

accept

our

local

waste

for

an

additional

transportation

cost

of

$30

per

ton.

6

-

PDC

has

only

recently

offered

the

county

a

token

sum

of

$1

per

ton

as

con3pensation’—far

below

typical

industry

rates.

8

103

00%-

PFATW

Evidentiai-y

Summary

Page

7

of

51

---

PDC

has competitors!

•

Hazardous waste

facilities

in

Indiana and Ohio

recently received expansion

permits.

9

PDC

receives waste from

27 Indiana generators.’°

PDC accepted waste

from

Ohio, another

state with

its own

facility.H

•

Ron Edwards testified that

PDC could

look

to

different

business models toward

the

end of the

15 year expansion.’

2

PFATW

Evidentiary

Summary

Page

8

of5l

---

CRITERION I—SUMMARY

Is

PDC meeting

the waste

needs of the industries

in our county?

It appears that our local companies will be negatively

affected if this expansion

measure

passes.

Here’s why:

The lifespan

of the

current

landfill is four years.

The reason? PDC accepts a huge

percentage

of

waste from non-local sources. If non-local

waste is taken

out of the equation, the landfill’s lifespan

reaches

about 33 years -- without the expansion

approval. PDC expects the landfill

to

reach

capacity

in 19

years with

the expansion. This means

local business will lose roughly

another 14

years

of use if the

measure

passes. This is bad for

local industry.

Related to the previous point, PDC’s self-serving

“accommodation” or voluntary

restriction

number

7, to

guarantee

capacity of Peoria County waste

for 15 years, is illusory. The expected life

of the expanded facility is

just that—15 years.

Add

to

this

the

fact

that

the numbers clearly show that

the receipt of local hazardous waste

is on a

steady decline and the impact of the

expansion may be even worse. It

appears that local businesses

are doing their part to keep our environment

clean by reducing hazardous

waste production, and

PDC

is responding

by

reaching

out to new markets

to

increase

the amount of hazardous material

that it imports into our county. Each shipment

increases PDC’s profit

at the expense of Peoria

County.

A key point to remember is less than one tenth

of all hazardous materials that PDC

dumps in our

county isfroni local companies.

PDC downplayed

the

fact that Indiana has an operating

hazardous waste site, which charges

less

than PDC to accept waste. Their argument

that local businesses would

be charged

$30

per ton for

transportation did not take

into account the fact that the

competition may have lower rates. This

difference could

drive

the

$30

per ton figure

much lower.

PDC was merely speculating

on

a cost increase to local generators if

the expansion request is

denied. No total cost or total volume picture or

information was given by PDC at any time

during

the hearing or in its Application. For

“proprietary” reasons, PDC intentionally

kept any such

information out of the application

process. PDC did inject disposal

costs

into

the application

process - not

about PDC’s

own cost and volume structure,

but about that of others, especially

Keystone Steel and Wire. Speculative and

incomplete testimony was given

about potentially

increased

transportation

costs if the expansion request is refused.

But

there is no way to quantify

or prove a

total cost differential

(including transportation

costs) when no evidence on disposal

fees or disposal volumes is in the record.

It’s important to remember that the states

PDC intends to serve can

be

served well

by other

hazardous

waste landfills. And just like waste

producing companies in the

ten

states in question,

our

local companies will survive

without a hazardous landfill

in their own county. PDC failed to

establish in its Application or at the hearing

that there is an urgent need

to expand the PDC

facility

when other hazardous

waste landfills exist in the

Midwest.

PDC’s retained consultant, Sheryl Smith,

admitted that in the 24 times

she has been retained by

landfills

in a

siting application

process, she had always

found a need for the landfill

to

exist)

3

PDC, and Sheryl Smith, defined the

intended service area

to

exclude

Indiana, a state with a

hazardous waste disposal facility.

This is manipulative

at best given the fact that PDC accepted

significant quantities of hazardous waste,

non-hazardous waste and special

wastes from Indiana

during the

same 1999 to 2004

study period. Indiana

generated waste included electric arc furnace

dust from ISPAT Inland Steel and

Nucor

Steel, as well as 25 other Indiana

generators. PDC also

accepted waste from Ohio, another

state with its own facility.

PFATW Evidentiary Summary

Page

9

of

51

---

There was no testimony that Indiana, Michigan

or Ohio facilities would

be

incapable

of providing

disposal service for Peoria County generators,

or for that matter, any generator in the Applicant’s

defined intended service area. In Indiana

and Ohio, the hazardous waste

disposal facilities recently

received

expansion permits. There is no evidence

that regional facilities and disposal alternatives

other than PDC will cease to exist any time in

the future. It is closer for Peoria generators

to go to

Indiana, Ohio or Michigan than it is for a significant

number of PDC’s current customers to come

to Peoria County. Based on the existence

of significant, recently expanded and nearby capacity

on

a regional basis, there is no urgent need to expand

PDC’s Peoria County facility.

PDC would still have a role in hazardous

waste disposal even if the Application is

denied. Ron

Edwards testified that

upon

reaching capacity at the landfill,

PDC would transition into “other

ways of helping customers manage their

wastes

PDC’s expertise and brokerage capabilities

would enable them to still have a significant role in servicing

the hazardous waste disposal needs

of Peoria County generators.

Peoria County has done its share. Enough is

enough.

PFATW

Evidentiary Summary

Page 10 of 51

---

CRITERION

2:

The facility

is so designed, located

and proposed

to be operated that

the

public health,

safety and

welfare

will be protected.

Peoria

County is

actively

being

polluted.

Peoria

has

some of the worst

pollution scores in

the state and nation:

•

National:

Peoria

County

is

the third

worst county in

the United States for

cadmium.

14

•

National:

Peoria

County

is the

16” worst

county in the United

States for Toxic

Release

Inventory (TRI) chemical

releases.’

5

•

National: Peoria

County ranks

24th

in the nation

for lead TRI)

6

•

State:

Peoria County is

the No. 1 worst county

in

Illinois for

TRI chemical releases.’

7

•

State:

Peoria

County is the fifth

worst county in Illinois

for

TRI

air releases.’

8

This

pollution

affects our citizens’

health.

The

American

Cancer

Society

indicates

that Peoria

County

is

“significantly

higher

than

state

average” in

cancer

incidences)

9

From

1998 to

2002 there

has

been a

1073

percent increase

in total

cancer

risk

scores.

2

°

Studies have

shown a significant

increase

in the incidence

of birth

defects with proximity

to

a hazardous

waste landfill.

Sandra

Steingraber,

Ph.D.

is an internationally

recognized

expert

on

the

environmental

links

to

cancer and

threats to reproductive

health. She

states:

“As the

distance

between

waste

site and place

of

residence

increases, the

chances

of birth

defects

consistently

decreases.”

2

’

Dr.

Lee’s

report

mentions:

“An

issue

of

concern is

whether those who

live near

landfills show

evidence

of

adverse health

effects. It is known

from a number

of

studies

conducted

by the

Centers

for

Disease

Control and Prevention

(Anderson,

pers. comm.,

1999)

that

some

populations

living near

landfills

have

shown

a greater

incidence

of

some

diseases

22

OAvege 4818

15 percent of

Peoria

s children

have

been

diagnosed with

lead poisoning

the highest

in

the nation.

2

A recent

PJ Star article

about

lead

poisoning in Peoria stated:

“It’s likely

in your bloodstream.

It’s probably

in your child’s.”

24

There is no safe

threshold for

lead

levels in blood.

25

OSHA has recently

lowered

its Permissible

Exposure

Limits for workers

to hexavalent

chromium

by a factor of

100.26

U

Illinois

Incidence

Rates

by

County, 1996

— 2000

481.7

932

.;o

“45.16.

86.9

‘io

•,

-‘

383.9

485.6

;99.9

467.1

505.6

-

506.0

3526

-

5088

.275

.:79

.7

‘9

.$)1

i’;.3•

:

PFATW Evidentiary

Summary

Page 11

of5l

---

According

to recent EPA data, PDCis actively

pollutingthe county.

•

PDC brings toxins into our county.

•

PDC accepted 118,561 tons of hazardous

waste in

2004.27

•

Here is a small sample list of these

heavy metals and their pounds

in benzene-equivalents

accepted by PDC in

2002:28

o Cadmium Compounds—130,000

pounds

o

Chromium

Compounds—33,000

pounds

o Lead Compounds—2800 pounds

PDC’s pollution

scores

•

PDC is No. 1 in Peoria

County for TRI chemical releases.

29

• PDC is No. I in Illinois for TRI

chemical releases.

3°

•

PDC is the 1

9

th

top facility

for TRI chemical releases

in

the

United States.

•

Air Pollution: In 2003 alone, PDC

released 1,533 pounds of heavy metals

into the county’s

air.

In

addition

to 88 pounds of lead, they also

released chromium, copper; manganese

and

zinc compounds

31

• Toxins entering Peoria

County via PDC are increasing.

32

PDC

#1 TRI Releases in Pounds

21

.000,00O’

20,500,000 -

20,000,000-

19,500,000-

19,000,000-

1 8,500,000 -

18,000,000-

17,500,000-,

1999

2000

2001

2002

PFATW Evidentiary Summary

Page

12 of5l

---

PDC is the No. 1 polluter

in Peoria County,

according

to the recent 2002

EPA TRI data:

53

2002TR1Total

ReleaseBreakdownfor

Peoria Cousty

OPeona

Cicposal#1

cantraI I Iincisupht

Company

DACI,1

Dl<e

5

stnne

Wire

&

Clod

Eapuooal0olclnchm8t

Chemical

Corp

Dlerpillar Inc.

M

000ville

Plant

mrwr

rermentotion Prods Inc.

0 Caterpillar Inc.

M aplelon Plant

Lorza Goup

0ernpton Carp.

DF&lsris

Irds.

Ire.

DlmatnrjAmeoco

Corp

UMist

Mill

Cesice Co

calerpillar

Inc. RutdterPrecesdng

Facility

Cast Tech Inc

Lf3Nelonn Corp

In 4 of the

5 years from 2000 to 2004,

PDC reported

dangerous emissions

of PM-b

pollutants

into

our

air which

exceeded

the annual allowable

emissions

established

by permit for the

waste processing facility

by the Illinois

34

EPA. Indeed, PDC’s

PM-b emissions

have been

consistently

high

for the last five consecutive

years reported,

with 2004 being

the highest.

35

This

trend is especially concerning

given

the

known risks associated

with

PM-b.

PM1O

Air Pollution

Emissions

for

PDC #1

tltinnis PFA,

OloPsiop

of Air Pollirloo Conrrol. deAul 5rrrs5IOc55

Cepord Irnyorr cr1

P0cc

ernicciocc ecrded

fm’

2002.3003.70043

15.366000

16.374800

(tons/year)

(eons/year)

a

Concerns

about the PDC

hazardous waste site

19,077000

(tons/sear)

.442478

(torls/year)

II

C-

01.2

05

-t

C-

00

001

23

PFATW

Evidentiary

Summary

Page 13 of5l

---

•

The PDC proposed landfill

expansion includes

the

continued

acceptance of a wide variety of

hazardous waste tpes that

are a potential threat

to

public health,

groundwater resources and

the environment.

In addition to known,

regulated chemicals,

hazardous

wastes

of the type that PDC has been

accepting and proposes

to continue to accept contain a wide

variety of unregulated,

unmonitored hazardous

and deleterious chemicals that are a threat

to groundwater quality

and nearby air quality.

•

PDC has failed to inform Peoria

County and the public about

the long-term (effectively,

forever) threat that the hazardous wastes

represent to domestic water supplies that can

be

affected

by

landfill

releases of leachate

(soluble components of the deposited hazardous

wastes)

•38

•

The

PDC

landfill

represents a near-term and long-term

threat to public health, groundwater

resources and the environment

associated with releases of hazardous

and deleterious

chemicals from the landfill.

• HDPE liners

will deteriorate and leak.

4°

The PDC landfill rests on top of an interconnected and

interwoven finger of the Sankoty

aquifer system.

4’

•

Experts on both sides agree that low levels

of contaminants from PDC No. 1 have already

penetrated into the aquifer

system below it.

42

a

Contamination from

the PDC landfill can potentially affect the

health of the people

who

use

the Sankoty as their drinking water

source.

43

a

The materials that

PDC accepts in the future may present

even more health issues for our

community.

There is no governing or regulatory

body outside of PDC that can block the

acceptance of other types of hazardous

materials in the future.

44

°

•

Dr. Lee

calls attention

to the subset of pollutants for which

PDC tests versus the number of

hazardous substances potentially present

in leachate and air emissions.

46

a

Future legislation

may relax regulations on pollution controls.

Senator

Jim Jeffords, ranking

member of the Senate

Environment and Public Works Committee commented

in The New

York Times: “Now President Bush and the Environmental

Protection Agency want to weaken the

largely successful Toxics

Release Inventory program, which requires companies

to tell the

public

how they dispose of or release nearly

650

chemicals that

may harm human health and the

environment.”

47

a

PDC actively submits

proposals to and accepts waste from Superfund sites outside

our

county.

48

49

Where does the health community

stand on the issue?

•

The medical committees of all three Peoria hospitals representing

approximately 750 doctors,

citing health risks and the proximity

to a large population center, have spoken out against

PDC

landfill expansion.’°

•

Peoria Medical Society of the American Medical Association has

passed a resolution calling

for the prevention

of

hazardous waste

landfills

being placed over aquifers. This resolution is

being considered at the Illinois State Medical Society

and the American Medical Association.5’

a

PDC failed to provide

any medical testimony or evidence to support its claim that

the

landfill

expansion will not adversely

affect the population’s health.

52

PFATW Evidentiary Summary

Page 14 of 51

---

CRITERION

2—SUMMARY

Welcome

to

Peoria!

The bottled

water

business

is booming.

Children

undergo

routine,

mandatory

lead

testing.

We

rank

among

the

highest

in

the

state

for

cancer.

We

are consistently

in

the highest

group

for

air,

water

and

land

pollution.

We lead

the

nation

in

lead poisoning.

And

the

trends

show

that the

situation

is getting

worse,

not

better.

Truth

be

told, Peoria

County

is polluted.

PDC

is part

of the

problem,

not

the

solution.

The

fact

that a

major

hazardous

waste

facility

is

located

adjacent

to a

major

population

center

and over

an

aquifer

system

seems

more

like

a work

of bizarre

fiction.

But it

is our reality.

PDC

routinely

trucks

toxins

into

our community,

buries

them

in

our

soil and

in

the

process

pollutes

our air

with

heavy

metals.

All

of

this

occurs

on

top

of

our

water

supply

system,

which

is

protected

by

a

barrier

that

will degrade

in time.

PDC paints

a picture

of

local industry,

working

within

the

EPA

regulations,

filtering

out toxins

before

the

material

is

released

into

the environment.

This filtered

material

is shipped

to PDC

for

safe

disposal.

Indeed,

it is

a fine

picture.

But

something’s

not

working

here.

Our

residents

are ailing

from

health

conditions

like cancer

and lead

poisoning

at

significantly

higher

rates

than

other

areas.

It appears

that

the

EPA

regulations

are

failing

in

Peoria

County.

Remember,

this

criterion

talks to

the public

health,

not

adherence

to

the EPA

regulations.

Because

of our

county’s

pollution

rankings

and

health

crisis,

our

county

board

needs

to

hold Peoria

to a

higher

standard

than

the

EPA

regulations.

And

it should.

The medical

community,

whose

job

it

is

to

treat the

health

of

the

public,

has

spoken

out

loudly

against

this

expansion

measure.

They

are

directly

affected

by

anything

that

adversely

affects

our

citizens’

health.

For

the millions

of dollars

that

PDC

has

profited,

how

many

cases

or

lead

poisoning,

cancer,

leukemia,

etc.,

have

we endured?

Zero?

One?

Ten?

One

hundred?

One

thousand? More?

We

may

never

know.

The

future

may

be

even

more concerning.

PDC

currently

limits

its business

to certain

toxins.

This can

all

change,

without

any

oversight

outside

of

PDC.

Although

it currently

doesn’t,

the

landfill

can

accept

materials

such as

PCBs

and

dioxins.

These

items

would

add

a

whole

new set

of health

risks to

a community

already

struggling.

The only

thing

that would

prevent

PDC

from

bringing

these

toxins

into

Peoria

County

is

a

committee

made

up

of, and

paid

by,

PDC.

There

are

no

provisions

for

an independent

committee

to review

such

matters

in

the future.

There

is no

check

and

balance

for the

citizens

of

Peoria

County.

Since

a

major

part

of

the

health

issue

concerns

the possibility

of

groundwater

contamination,

we

encourage

you

to

review

our

concerns

on

the

ninth

criteria.

That

section

describes

the

fragility

and

importance

of the

Sankoty

aquifer

and

calls

out

problems

with

how

PDC

has

handled

the

challenge of keeping

our

water

supply

uncontaminated.

The

Peoria

County

Board

must

make

the

decision.

Decisions

about

the

protection

of

the

public

health,

safety

and

welfare

of

our

community

are solely

within

the

province

of

our

elected

representatives

on

the Peoria

County

Board.

PFATW

Evidentiary

Summary

Page

15

of 51

---

It is the

same

water we

drink. Complete protection

of

public water

supplies and

the groundwater

that feeds them

demands

a

heightened sensitivity

and thoroughly critical

review

of

the pending

Application.

The Peoria

County Board is entitled

under the

law to deny the Application

if

the

Board determines

that the proximity

of the landfill

expansion

to

the interconnected

Sankoty/Shelbyville

aquifer

creates a present or

future public health

concern,

even

if all technical

requirements

of the application

process are otherwise

met.

In its Application,

PDC

itself

agrees

that “protection

of the groundwater quality

is

one,

if

not

the

most importantfactor

in the

siting,

design and permitting

of any

landfill. This is particularly

true for

hazardous waste

landfills such

as the PDC No. 1 Landfill.”

3

PDC continues

by explaining why

it is

the most important

factor:

“The primary risk

to

groundwater comes

from landfill

leachate.

Leachate is water

(primarily from precipitation

infiltration)

that

seeps through

the landfill wastes.

As it

seeps

through

the wastes, various

leachable

constituents of the waste

dissolve

into

the

leachate. Ifsignificant

quantities

of leachate

were allowed

to infiltrate to groundwater,

such as has

happened at

some poorly located unlined

landfills, groundwater

quality

can

be impaired.”>

4

PDC

framed the issue

very

well, essentially:

Given

the proximity

of the landfill to the

Sankoty/Shelbyville

aquifei

is the design of the landfill

in

question

foolproof in every way to

protect

the public

health

from present

or future groundwater

and water

supply contamination? The

answer

is

NO!

PDC is not required

to report air emissions

data from their

separately permitted hazardous

waste

processing facility

as part of

their

Application. If they had,

the Peoria County

Board would surely

be

alarmed

by

the data. Thanks

only to requests

by

citizens

who

exercised the Freedom

of

Information Act, the County

may now

consider that PDC reported

dangerous

PM- 10 pollutants

in our air, for

example in 2002,

of 35 times the permitted

level

established

by the Illinois EPA.

5

Likewise,

for 2004, it was 43

times the permitted

level.

56 Indeed, PDC’s

recent

annual

PM-b

emissions have been

consistently

high, with

its

highest numbers

reported

in 2004.

This

trend

is

especially concerning

given

the known

risks associated with

PM-b.

“PM” stands for particulate

matter, which

is a complex mixture

of extremely

small particles and

liquid droplets.

“10” stands for

micrometers.

8

PM-b

particles are

of concern to the EPA because,

given

their tiny size, they can

be

inhaled and reach

deep

into our lungs,

and some can even

get

into our bloodstream.

Numerous

scientific studies have linked

particle

pollution

to a variety of

problems

including

increased respiratory

problems,

decreased lung function,

aggravated asthma,

chronic bronchitis, irregular

heartbeat,

non-fatal

heart

attacks,

and premature death in

people

with heart or lung disease.

59

PDC

did not disclose this information

during

the hearing process

or, to the best of

our

knowledge, in the

Application.

The

Peoria

County Board

should

consider

this to be a very serious

concern.

We hope IEPA is working

diligently

to

correct this serious health

concern in order

to

protect Peoria County

citizens for the

remaining life of the existing

landfill. The

County Board

now has an opportunity,

and responsibility,

to eliminate

this known health and

safety threat going

forward

by denying the PDC

expansion.

Without

the expansion of

the hazardous landfill facility,

the

processing plant emitting

the PM-b would

have nothing

to do.

One

of

the

greatest threats

to the public’s health

is the PDC

No.

1 barrel trench area. It’s

a much

older

part

of

the site where waste was

buried in steel

drums. The drums were

not designed for

long term storage

and there is only

a ten foot clay liner

that serves

as

a barrier. In his report,

Dr.

Lee provides a roadmap

to address the issues

concerning

the barrel trench area.

Little

testimony

was given

by

PDC about the pre-placement

treatment

(if any) of manufactured

gas plant (MGP) remediation

waste

disposed

in and comprising

a significant

quantity of landfill

capacity.

The dust created by

the disposal process

itself plus the wind

will result

in

easy

movement

of

this most toxic of substances

to neighboring

residential

properties, thus risking

their health and

safety.

PFATW Evidentiary

Summary

Page 16 of

51

---

PDC attempted

to

discount

the

TRI

numbers.

That

the

Toxic

Release

Inventory

(TRI)

includes

materials

deposited

in

the PDC

hazardous

waste

landfill

is

beside

the

point.

To the

public,

college

students,

and

those

looking

to move

families

or

businesses

to

Peoria

County,

looking

at the

TRI

numbers

is

shocking

- so

shocking

as to

dissuade

anyone

who

looked

at

them

from

locating

here.

In

addition,

the TRI

is a

good benchmark

of

how

many

toxic

chemicals

are being

stored

in

the

landfill

in

Peoria

County,

in

perpetuity,

just

waiting

for

the

“foolproof”

design

to

deteriorate

over

time.

As

stated

earlier,

the

Peoria

County

Board

is

entitled

under

the

law

to

deny

the Application

if the

Board

determines

that the

proximity

of the

landfill

expansion

to the

interconnected

Sankoty/Shelbyville

aquifer

creates

a present

or

future

public

health

concern,

even

if all

technical

requirements

of

the application

process

are otherwise

met.

On

this

criterion,

the

Peoria

County

board

is

free

to

weigh

the

science

with

public

policy.

In effect,

it

defines

what

steps

can

be taken

to

protect

the

health,

safety

and

welfare

of the

people

they

are

elected

to

serve.

As

board

members,

you

can decide

“how

safe

is safe?”

The

long

list

of constituents

who

oppose

this

measure

are counting

on

you to

consider

their

safety

when

making

this

decision.

Voting

against

this measure

is

a

strong

vote

of support

for our

community’s

health

and

well

being.

Not

only for

today,

but

for

many

generations

to come.

PFATW

Evidentiary

Summary

Page 17

of

51

---

CRITERION 3:

The facility is located so as to minimize incompatibility

with the character

of the surrounding area

and

to

minimize the effect of the value ofsurrounding

property.

The following

photos demonstrate that there has

been little or no regard to remain

compatible

with

the

surrounding residential area. Worse

yet, PDC plans to add an additional

45 feet (4.5

stories) to these mounds.

PFATW Evidentiary Summary

Page

18 of 51

!Jll

Pe,ria

Cøunty

.!

L

---

PDC

No.

I

affects

neighboring

properties.

PDC

has

failed

to properly

evaluate

the

airborne

releases

from

the

existing

landfill,

as

well

as

those

that could

occur

from

the landfill

expansion,

which

are

a

threat

to public

health

and

the

environment

in

the

vicinity

of the

landfill.

6

°

PDC

has

failed,

in developing

this

landfill,

to provide

adequate

PDC-owned

buffer

lands

between

where

hazardous

wastes

have

been

and

are

proposed

to

continue

to be

deposited,

and

adjacent

properties.

6

’

The

inadequate

buffer

lands

lead

to

a situation

where

airborne

releases

of regulated

and

currently

unregulated

hazardous

chemicals,

through

off-gases

and

volatilization,

have

limited

opportunity

for dispersion

on PDC

property

before

trespass

onto

adjacent

properties.

62

Property

values

will decrease.

PDC’s

claim

that

property

values

will

not

decrease

is fundamentally

flawed.

There

was no

evidence

that

the

buyers

or sellers

were

notified

of

the

existence

of

the

hazardous

waste

facility.

63

In

a recent

legal

case,

a property

owner

was

awarded

damages

because

a health

stigma

drove

down

property

values.

6

’

PDC

implied

that

there

is already

a

stigma

associated

with

their

landfill

when

they

stated

that

their

facility

has

been

compared

to

“Love

Canal,”

and

then

PDC

had

to educate

the county

board

as

to

the

differences.

65

PDC’s

consultant

on

property

values,

Gary

DeClark,

testified

about

property

values,

but...

•

Gary

DeClark

did

not even

attempt

to

analyze

the 52%

of the

land

to the

west

of

the

site

that

was

predominately

agricultural

or

vacant.

The

report

did

not cover

the

entire

“surrounding

property,”

it only

covered

half of

it, and

left

out

a

significant

piece

of

the

puzzle.

66

PDC

has

not satisfied

the valuation

impact

criteria.

•

Gary

DeClark

has

studied

valuation

and

impact

issues

relating

to

landfill

siting

on

four

(4)

prior

occasions,

and

on all

4, found

no

affect

on value

from

the

location

a

landfill.

The

effect

of the

landfill

on

valuation

was

not just

‘minimized,”

it

did

not exist.

67

•

Again,

Gary

DeClark

failed to

conduct

his

“impact

study”

on the

roughly

one-half

of the

land

predominately

to the

west

of the

site and

consisting

of vacant

or

agricultural

land.

He

initially

claimed

he did

not

do

such

a

study

because

of “insufficient

data”

of

sales,

etc.

68

•

Truth

be told,

however,

is that

Gary

DeClark

later

admitted

that

he

never

even

investigated

the

agricultural

land

on the

west

half

of the

site, never

even

considered

doing

a

study

on

it.

69

A

study

was

not

done

because

of

insufficient

data,

but

rather

because

PDC

and Gary

DeClark

only

wanted

to

give us

half the

picture.

•

Without

doing

a

study,

without

doing

any investigation

whatsoever,

Gary DeClark

still

gave

his

opinion

that there

would

be no

impact

on property

values

to

the west

side

of the

site.

This

opinion

was

based

on his

4

previous

landfill

studies,

none

of which

concerned

hazardous

waste

facilities.’

0

•

After

having

given

his

opinion

that there

is

no impact

on

property

values,

residential

to

the

east

and agricultural

to

the west,

Gary

DeClark

then

declared

that

every

real

estate

salesperson

had

a

duty

to disclose

the

existence

of

the landfill

to

their

clients

and

customers.

7

’

How

can

Gary

DeClark

declare

that

real

estate

salespeople

have

a

duty

to

disclose

the existence

of the

hazardous

landfill

to

potential

buyers,

and

then

still

declare

that

that disclosure

will

have

no

impact

on

valuation?

It defies

reality

and

common

sense.

Testimony and

report

by

PDC’s

Consultant,

Chris

Lannert,

was

not

credible:

•

The

written

conclusions

of

the Lannert

Group

(authored

by

Gregory

B. Stevens,

and

not the

testifying

witness,

Chris

Lannert)

failed

to find

any incompatibility

of

any

kind

whatsoever

between

the

hazardous

waste

disposal

facility

and

the residential

areas

directly

abutting

roughly

42

%

of the

site,

most

of it

being

located

in the

City

of Peoria.

72

No incompatibility

was found

by

Mr.

Lannert

even

though

some

residences

are a

mere

200

feet

away

from the

PDC

site.

73

•

It

also

concluded

that no

visual

detriment

to the

landscape

will be

created

by

adding

45 feet

in

elevation

to

the

site,

and

therefore,

there

is

no incompatibility.’

4

PFATW

Evidentiary

Summary

Page

19 of

51

---

Lannert Group

failed

to

analyze

the size of

population

living within

close proximity

(within

1500 feet) of landfill,

but acknowledged

a large

number

of

homes and apartment

buildings,

including

some ongoing new construction.

75

Lannert Group had never

seen an operating

hazardous

landfill this close

to a

major

residential

population center,

with the closest

they had ever

seen being in Joliet

and “a mile

or

so” away

from the nearest residential

units;

yet again, PDC’s landfill

was found to

be compatible with

its

surroundings.

76

No setback restrictions

or locational

requirements

were

even contemplated

by

Lannert

Group

where

they

did

not find anything

“incompatible” in the

first place.

Nonetheless,

he later

testified

that if the landfill

got

too high

or too close, “there

could

be some

negative

aspects,

you know, of that

type

of landfill

design.”

7

’

Vertical

expansion

computer

landform

models were purposely

manipulated

so

as to distort

and minimize the truly

massive

impact

another

45

feet vertical

expansion is going

to

have

on

adjacent

residential properties.

In

point of fact,

Proposed View

3 was taken from a

third-story

balcony

in

a

distant

apartment

(800

feet

back) to lessen the

modeled impact

78

,

a greater

distance away

than any other computer

modeled

photo created

by

Lannert

Group.

Mr.

Lannert

stated that the initial

picture forming the

basis for the

modeled image was taken

on

a

public access

cul-de-sac at ground

level, and implied

that the computer

use of aerial photos

made

it look like

the picture

had

been taken from

a higher vantage point.

79

Mr. Lannert

even

acknowledged

the impact

of his manipulation

when he answered

another question

by stating

that when one is closer

to a viewpoint,

“it tends to mask what

reality

°8

is.”

The “reality” is that

Lannert

Group

set out to

minimize the impact

of the photos taken

by

Peoria Families Against

Toxic Waste.

•

Mr. Lannert

testified that

“a

picture is worth a thousand

words.”

81

The

3-D photo image that

Lannert

Group manipulated

was the one with

a similar perspective to

the Peoria Families

Against Toxic Waste

photos included

at the beginning of this

section. Lannert

Group’s action

speaks louder

than

even

those thousand

words.

•

Mr.

Lannert

did

acknowledge

that the Peoria

Families Against Toxic

Waste photos at issue

represented “realistic pictures

in

terms

of relationship.”

82

Mr. Lannert,

a member

of the

American Planning

Association (APA),

was

unfamiliar with the

APA’s

Policy Guide on Solid

and

Hazardous

Waste Management dated

April

15, 2002,

and in

particular with Policy

6

which recommended

that environmental

protection

and

environmental justice

should be ensured

in every landfill

siting determination.

He agreed

with the policy, just not

as it applied

to

the PDC case.

83

In essence, Mr. Lannert’s

testimony on

compatibility

was: Since the landfill is

already there,

the

surrounding

uses

must be

compatible. On this

point he is wrong:

The

Application is

treated

as if it is a new pollution

control facility,

and compatibility standards

must

be applied

as

strictly to an expanded

facility

as to one not

yet

in

existence. He, and the

Lannert Group,

did neither,

and therefore their report

is insufficient

to meet Criterion

3.

Authorities

weigh in on the

topic of property

values...

“Everyone

is concerned about

property

values.

Very

few people would

buy a house near

an airport

or

highway

but

we are less

diligent when it comes

to

investigating

hazardous waste sites

near our

home. In the

case of hazardous waste

sites, the

best

form ofprevention is to avoid

them. Finding

the location

of current or potential

hazardous waste

sites is critical

before you purchase a home.

Sometimes they

may

be closer than you

think.

Proximity

to such sites should be considered

especially ifyou

acquire

your

drinking water from a iell.”

84

—The

Center for Environmental

Health, Home

Safety

“No one

wants

to buy-or

list-a house near an

environmental hazard.

“and “Homebuyers have

a

million details to manage,

from financing

their new homes

to checking out the quality

of nearby

schools. They shouldn’t

have

to worry about the air

they breathe or the

water they drink. Real

estate

professionals

can recommend

Scorecard.org

to help buyers evaluate

an area’s environmental

safety.

The

site

allows

users to identify

local environmental

hazards

and gauge

area pollution

levels. You

might also want

to check it out before

you list a toxic home

that could hurt your

reputation and possibly

e2cpose you to liability.”

8

—RealtorMag

PFATW Evidentiary

Summary

Page 20 of

51

---

“The results

of

the study

of residential

housing prices

of homes located in

the proximity

to

a

large

toxic

chemical waste landfill in

Toledo, Ohio,

area from 1986

to 1990 strongly suggests

a

distinct

negative impact on

sale

prices for homes

located within

2.6 miles of the existing

site

and a

diminishing

impact before

a

distance of 5.75 miles

is reached.”

86

—Department

of Finance at the University

of Toledo,

Ohio

“It is now so clear that

hazardous waste

condition should result

in

lower real

property tax

assessments

that an appellate court

has held

that an

upstate town had a

cause of action against

a

polluter for an alleged reduction

in tax revenue

for neighboring

properties whose assessments

were

reduced

because

of its alleged pollution.”

87

—Hazardous

Waste Conditions

and Real Estate

Taxes

Revisited,

William Siegel

PFATW Evidentiary

Summary

Page 21 of

51

---

CRITERION 3—SUMMARY

PDC expects people

to believe that their

business of disposal

of hazardous

waste and the

proximity

of

their site

to surrounding homes will

not

have

any

effect on property values.

It goes against logic to-assert

that

people

would choose to live next

to

an environmental

hazard. Even if

it were

just a perceived threat,

most

people

would

still choose not to

live near it.

PDC’s secret

is out. Now that the

community is

becoming aware of the issue,

expect to see

declines

in property values and

county tax revenues.

Until

this application was

submitted a few

months

ago,

most Peoria

County residents

were not

aware that

a

hazardous

waste dump

was in

our

midst.

This

hazardous waste

site has been largely

unknown.

It is certainly not

a business that our

community has publicized

when

attempting

to

attract talent

and

families to the area.

Many of the citizens

of Peoria County were

not aware of the

activities

that

were

being performed

behind the PDC

No.

1 security

gate. They know now. Now

that it is

public knowledge,

realtors

will

be

forced

to disclose

the fact that an active

hazardous

waste dump is operating

within miles

of the proposed house

sale. Property values

will decline.

The publicity of the dump

has caused

a recent increase in requests

to

the

Assessor’s

Office by

Peoria-area home

owners

to

decrease their property

taxes given their proximity

to a hazardous

landfill.

This will have a negative

effect

on

property values

overall.

PDC also

expects us to believe that

they have taken

care to minimize the

impact to the

surrounding areas. The

photographs

speak for themselves.

PFATW

Evidentiary Summary

Page 22 of

51

---

CRITERION

4:

The

facility

is located

outside

the

boundary

of

the 100-year

flood plain

or

the site

is flood-proofed.

The

“glacial

terrace”

upon

which

the

landfill

is

located,

although

not

in

a

flood

plain,

is

essentially

surrounded

by

floodplains

or

ravines/low

areas.

There

is

no room

for

error—if

waste

is

released

off of

site laterally

(leachate

runoff

from

the

sides

as

opposed

to

down

through

the

till)

it

will

immediately

get

into

the floodplain

and

the recharge

area.

Kickapoo

Creek

is a

significant

recharge

source,

as

are the

3 forks

of the

unnamed

creek

to

the

east

and

south

of the

site.

PFATW

Evidentiary

Summary

Page

23

of

51

---

CRITERION 5:

The plan

of

operations for

the facility is designed to minimize

the danger to the surrounding area

from

fire, spills, or other operational accidents.

Dr. Lee has specific comments that

talk to the hazards of the PDC

No.

1 site. We list some of

his issues below, but we

prefer you to his report and papers

for a more complete and in-depth

technical analysis of the matter.

•

The buffer area between the landfill operations

and adjacent

properties is inadequate for

safety. Dr.

Lee

discusses

the hazards of living near

a hazardous waste landfill.

88

•

Airborne releases will have little opportunity

to dilute before drifting

into

nearby

neighborhoods

and schoolyards.

89

•

Dr. Lee addresses the inadequacy

of PDC’s airborne emissions

monitoring, particularly

the number of potentially harmful

substances that are tested for.

9°

•

Seventy wells are within 1.5 miles

of the site; 11 are within

a mere 1,500 feet. Dr. Lee

details eventual

problems in this regard, including

inadequate

monitoring and the lack

of

a plan for replacing contaminated

water sources for the

surrounding area.

91

There have been at least four documented spills

at PDC No. 1 since

1994.92

PFATW

Evidentiary Summary

Page 24 of 51

---

CRITERION

5—SUMMARY

Spills

prove

accidents

happen,

and any

accident

puts

our citizens’

health

at risk.

There

have

been

at

least

four

documented

spills

from

the

PDC site

since 1994.

The

topic

of

undocumented

spills

was

not

addressed

in

the

hearing,

but questions

remain.

Any

spill

of toxic

material

is serious.

PDC

has a

history of

them.

Dr.

Lee’s paper

addresses

some

of the

hazards

that

exist with

the

PDC landfill

and

how

those

issues impact

the

people

and

resources

surrounding

it.

One

thing

is

sure.

Once

the

landfill

is closed,

the

possibility

of

such

occurrences

diminishes

significantly.

PFATW Evidentiary

Summary

Page

25

of

51

---

CRITERION 6:

The traffic patterns to or from the facility are

so designed as to minimize the impact on existing traffic

flows.

PDC has discussed increasing their area traffic,

including rail.

“The hazardous waste industry is shrinking,

so we will have to expand beyond our territory of the

Midwest

if

we want

to maintain

and/or

expand our disposal

volume at our Peoria hazardous

waste landfill. This entails the use of rail, which

gives us access into those other markets.

‘

—Chris Coulter

“Thinking outside of the

box

on

issues, such as rail transportation ofgarbage from across the

United States to our facilities and operating the

transfer stations we already have in place, will

help

us to grow.”

91—Matt Coulter

More traffic means more transportation

pollution and hazards.

•

90.5 percent of all hazardous material disposed

of at PDC No. 1 comes from outside our

county. This represents a significant increase in

traffic as well as transportation related

emissions and pollution

that would exist because such

a

high

percentage

of PDC’s

business

is

non-local.

•

Ron Edwards

himself

acknowledged the issue of transportation pollution

in

his

testimony.

95

•

Question:

“So

it’s not practical

to

have

a local generator bring the waste that is normally

done where the only thing

that has changed is instead of it being put in Trench C-5, it

would be packed up and shipped to Indiana or to

another then licensed

facility?”

•

Answer of Ron Edwards:

“Right, that certainly wouldn’t be economically practical. But,

you know, also just the transportation of that creates

many more

emissions

as well. I

mean, you know, if we’re looking out for the environment,

there’s a couple of reasons

there,

but certainly the economic impact

would be the most substantial for generators.”

PFATW Evidentiary Summary

Page 26 of 51

---

CRITERION

6—SUMMARY

Because

PDC

accepts

hazardous waste

from

non-local

industry,

its traffic

on our county

roads is

approximately

10

times higher

than

if

it

were just

local.

Approximately

nine out of

10 shipments

PDC

accepts

would not even

be

on

the road. This

significant

amount

of non-local

traffic greatly

increases

the chance

of accidents

and

spills.

Keep

in mind that

the entire

expansion

proposal

is based

on a business-as-usual

scenario.

PDC

may

elect to

double

or

triple

its shipments

without

oversight.

In addition,

this

application

does

not

address

potential

traffic

impact in the

event that

PDC

changes

management

or chooses

to

utilize

rail

transport.

PDC’s

voluntary

condition

number

2, to agree

not

to construct

a rail

spur,

may

be

beyond the

County

of

Peoria’s

ability

to enforce.

One

just

has to look

at the

Kellar

Branch

abandonment

application

being subject

to

other

regulatory

authorities

to

see

why.

PFATW

Evidentiary

Summary

Page 27 of

51

---

CRITERION

7:

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.

What about

a fire?

PDC acknowledges that

there exists the

possibility of a waste fire

at

its site.

96

•

In the case of

fire, the

Limestone

Volunteer

fire department will be the

only fire department

to

respond.

97

Ron Edwards

stated that he did not

know what

hazardous material training

the responding

fire department

has had.

98

The PDC application

makes no mention

of PDC employees

being trained

as

firefighters.

99

Part

of

PDC’s

property

extends into the city

of Peoria (referred

to as setback or buffer area).

The

PDC Application does

not include

coordination

with City

of Peoria emergency

services.’

00

PFATW Evidentiary

Summary

Page 28 of

51

---

CRITERION

7—SUMMARY

Besides

the

hazardous

waste

that PDC

No.

1

has on

its premises,

there

also exists

heavy

machinery,

buildings

and

other

structures

to support

the

handling

of

this

material.

These

items

are susceptible

to

fire.

In the

event of

fire, the

responding

volunteer

fire

department

may

not be

trained

on

how to

deal with

the

special

circumstances

that

exist

at

PDC

No.

1. Nor

are PDC

personnel

trained

on the

complexities

of

firefighting.

This

gap

will have

to

be

filled at

the time

of

an actual

emergency

when

seconds

may

affect lives.

In

addition,

part of

the PDC

No. 1

landfill

property

extends

into

the city

of

Peoria.

Despite

this,

there was

no

testimony

regarding

coordination

with the

City of

Peoria in

the event

of an

emergency.

Furthermore,

PFATW

has

contacted

several local

government

entities

in

an attempt

to

understand

our

community’s

readiness

in

the

event

of a toxin

release

at PDC

No.

1.

The majority

of them

did

not have

a

plan

in

place

to

deal

with

such an

emergency.

Remember,

in the

case of

a disaster,

natural

or otherwise,

if the

groundwater

is contaminated,

evacuation

may

not be limited

to

a few days.

A

contaminated

water

supply

may have

a

devastating

and

long

term

impact

on

the

county.

PFATW

Evidentiary

Summary

Page

29 of

51

---

CRITERION

8:

The facility is consistent with

the County solid waste mantigement

plan.

The current Peoria County Solid

Waste Management Plan is

silent on hazardous waste landfills.

Prior

versions

did

seek to reduce

generation and to facilitate recycling

of hazardous waste in the

county,

but were dropped

due to funding.

10’

Dr. Lee

points

out

issues regarding the long

term care of the site

PDC only proposes

to

provide postclosure

care (monitoring and maintenance) of the

landfill

for the

minimum

30-year period. This

approach does not conform

to

Peoria

County’s

requirement of “perpetual

care.”

•

PDC has established a postclosure

funding approach in the

form

of a Trust Fund, which will

provide

for minimal postclosure monitoring

and maintenance during

a

30-year

postclosure

care period.

•

Apparently, PDC’s

approach to postclosure funding

will require that Peoria County provide

postclosure funding beyond

this minimum 30-year postclosure

care period, for the effectively

infinite period

of time that the wastes in

the

landfill

will be a threat. The required

postclosure

funding will

represent a significant financial

burden and liability to the County.

Other

financial

concerns

•

Local businesses that do

not use PDC hazardous landfill are

being harmed through difficulty

in recruiting talent

to the area.’°2

03

•

Up to this point, Peoria County has received

little or no compensation for

the acceptance of

these toxins.’0’

•

According to the assessor, PDC paid

$23,065

for Landfill #1 in 2004 taxes.’°5

•

The Peoria Journal Star states: “It expects

to take in 150,000 tons yearly during the

15

additional years if the expansion

is approved, a total of

$180

million

in revenues at an average

rate of

$80

per ton.”°6

PFATW Evidentiary

Summary

Page 30 of

51

---

CRITERION

8—SUMMARY

Peoria

looks

out

for

its

own. The

county’s

solid-waste

plan

attempts

to

balance

the needs

of

the

community

with

the handling

of our

garbage.

The

financial

consideration

of

this

plan is

one

that

seeks

to

ensure

the fiscal

health

of our county

and

local

industries.

Let’s

look at

the

dollars

and

cents

of this

long

term.

PDC

will

stop

care

after

30 years

(assuming

release

of site

by IEPA

at that

time).

For the first

30

years

of

post-closure

care, PDC

will

be responsible

and

the trust

fund

will

grow

(and

will

not be

tapped

by

PDC),

according

to PDC’s

estimated

investment

returns.

PDC

valued

the

trust fund

at

$2,606,964

at

the 31st

year after

closure

(which

is

the

first

year

of post-closure

release

by

IEPA).

They

then

ran

the numbers

for

100 years,

and

assumed

that

only normal,

annual

care

costs

would

be

incurred.

So

PDC’s

numbers

run for

at least

130

years

from closure.

From the

time

the

facility

is

released

by IEPA,

the

county

will be responsible-

PDC

sets up

a trust

fund,

and

then

the

county

takes

it from there.

Weaknesses

abound,

but one

is

that

there is

no

guarantee

that the

whole

trust

fund

wont

be

blown

in the

35th

year,

or

the

50th

year,

or

worse

yet,

upon

a

default

by

PDC while

it

is still

in the

initial

30

year

post-closure

pre-release

period.

Does

Peoria

County

need to take

this

gamble?

The business

case

for local

industry

is weak.

Manufacturers

do

not

need

a hazardous

facility

in

their

county

to

operate

profitably.

If

they did,

there

would

be

hazardous

waste

sites in

most

every

county.

The

fact that

only 12

similar

hazardous

waste

landfills

exist in

the United

States

shows

that industry

can

thrive

while

having

one

not only

outside

its county,

but

outside

its state.

PDC

has

put

the interests

of Peoria

County

second

to its profit

margin.

Rather

than

reimburse

Peoria

for

the negative

effect

that

it

has on

the community,

it chose

to

offer

no compensation

for

its

unpopular

activities

until it

requested

this expansion.

If Peoria

County

accepts

hazardous

material

by

the

ton, and

therefore

the

risk,

why

does

it receive

little or

even

negative

benefit?

PFATW

Evidentiary

Summary

Page

31

of 51

---

.

a

•

aa

C

c,)

C

C

C’,

I

I

cic

C

•

a

:

())

H

,.0

:3

F

C’,

-1

C

—

t:rC

—0

o

(C

0

C

(C

0

(C

Q_

(C

(C

00

(C

‘-

0-

o

-

(C

-

(C

C

(ID

—

C

C)

Q)

0>

.r3

C,)

0

0

CD

z

0)

0

0)

>

0)

C),

0

-4’

CD

C

CD

0

(1

‘-4

0)

CD

C,)

0

(C

<

_(C

cC

0

0

C

—

0

0

cC

0

0-9

•

—

-

—

o

o•

—.

C,,

-

—

(C)

C-

-

(C

0

C

-

O

0

0o-

C,,

C,

CD

(C

C)

0

C)

C

0

-

C)

-*

(C

C)

C-

9.

(C

C

C-

(C

‘

(ID

C

CC

C-

•aI(ID

-H

0

I

(Cj

C

9

•-

.3Th

—

p-,(C

--1

•‘

z

C

iW

IC

‘j:

<

C-C

(C

(C

Hg

C--C

;•

0

C)

C_

-9

CC

C,,

(CC)

o:5•o

C.q

-

—C

c-9

CC

O(Cc

(C

C-C

C)C)

0-C

•-.i

(CçCJi

(C

(fD

C

C)_:_

0CC)

C

0

B

1I

I

CQC

C.

0-

0

-J

---

Serious

concerns regarding

the

safety

of the

Barrel Trench

burial area at PDC

No. 1 are:

There

is only a 10- foot clay

“liner”

below

the

barrels.”

6

The

barrels contain

solids and liquids including

organics.”

7

•

These barrels

were placed in the landfill

before environmental

regulations

for

treating

hazardous

waste existed.’

18

•

It has been over

20 years

since

the steel

barrels

were buried in the trench

and the barrels

were

intended

for transportation

and not for long-term

storage

of chemicals and

other hazardous

and non-hazardous

wastes.”

9

•

A 1983 EPA

report on the

PDC No. 1 site refers

to “contaminants

found

puddled

on soil from

leaking

drums”

2

°

•

“The Shelbyville

Outwash

(SankOty

Sand)

is

located stratigraphically

beneath the Illinoisan

Drift.

There

is

also

a

barrel

trench in the site which

has received hazardous

waste. Barrels

are no longer

being placed in the

trench.

However,

contaminated

soil is now being placed

in the trench to bring

it

to grade.”

12

’

—Project

Plan, Hazardous

Waste Ground

Water Task Force, PDC,

04/04/86

How reliable is the

liner

that protects

our water

source?

HDPE

liners

are permeable

even when intact.’

22

HDPE liners will

deteriorate and

leak.’

23

•

The PDC

landfill

liner

system,

consisting of plastic

sheeting

and

clay layers, will,

in time,

deteriorate in its ability

to prevent

hazardous

waste leachate

from penetrating

through

it,

which can lead

to the pollution of groundwaters

with

hazardous

and

deleterious chemicals.

This

will cause the groundwaters

to be a health

threat

to those

who

use them for

domestic

water

supply, and will

render the groundwaters

unusable for

domestic

and

many other

purposes.’

24

What

do the tests show about

PDC’s liner

system?

•

A report

prepared

for PDC

by

Environtech

Consultants

indicates

expected

leakage through

the

top

liner

of the PDC Environmental

Management

Facility,

Landfill cell C-i.’

25

•

PDC’s

witness confirmed

that toxins have already

been

found

in PDC leachate.’

26

PDC’s water

analysis reports

confirm

these findings.’

27

•

Experts on

both sides agreed that

low

levels of contaminants

from

Peoria

Disposal

Co.’s

hazardous waste landfill

already have

penetrated

the aquifer

below it.’

28

What about

the Pleasant Valley

report? Didn’t

that say that the PDC

No. 1 posed no danger?

The

Groundwater Protection

Needs Assessment

for Pleasant

Valley Public

Water District

(“Pleasant Valley”)

dated

September

24, 1992 concluded

with respect to the

PDC hazardous

waste landfill that

there is a “minimal

potential

hazard

presented

by this facility” to Pleasant

Valley.’

29

•

The Groundwater

Protection

Needs Assessment

did not

say the close

proximity of the landfill

to the Pleasant

Valley

wells was

hazard-free.

Furthermore, in coming

to its conclusion,

the

Groundwater

Protection

Needs

Assessment

heavily relied

on

PDC’s modeling of the

groundwater flow velocities

under

the PDC site.’

3

°

The facts

set forth in Criterion

9, below, cast doubt

about

the

validity

of the modeled

flow

velocity numbers created

by

PDC

as compared

to the actual

flow velocity numbers

during

1989, 1990 and 1991, the

same time period

when

the

Groundwater Protection

Needs

Assessment

was being formulated.

Monitoring performed

by PDC may

not be accurate.

•

PDC does

its own leachate

testing, except for one

annual

test by

the IEPA.’

3

’

•

PDC’s

current

and proposed groundwater

monitoring

system,

employing

vertical monitoring

wells spaced hundreds

of feet

apart, is inadequate

to detect leachate-polluted

groundwater

when

it first reaches the

point of compliance

for groundwater

monitoring.

This can lead

to

offsite

(adjacent property)

pollution

of groundwaters, without

this pollution

having

been

detected

by

the

monitoring

wells.’

32

PDC’s proposed approach

for monitoring/maintenance

of the landfill cover

will not prevent,

for as long as the

wastes

are a

threat, water from

penetrating through

the cover

and

entering

PFATW

Evidentiary

Summary

Page

33

of

51

---

the wastes

to generate

leachate

that will contain

hazardous

chemicals

at concentrations

that

threaten

to

pollute

groundwaters.’

33

Overall,

PDC’s

approach

toward

analyzing

the potential

threat that

the

hazardous

waste

landfill

represents

to pollute

groundwaters

is superficial

and

based on inadequate

evaluation

of the

long-term

characteristics

of the landfill

liner system

and the

flow

paths

by

which

leachate

that

penetrates

through

the liner system

can pollute

groundwaters

of the area.’’

4

•

Independent

auditing

of the

PDC

laboratory

which performs

water analysis

testing

documented

57

deficiencies.’

3

•

In 4

of the 5

years from

2000

to 2004, PDC

reported

dangerous

emissions

of PM-b

pollutants

into our

air

that exceeded

the annual

allowable emissions

established

by

permit

for the

waste

processing

facility by

the Illinois

EPAJ’

6

Indeed,

PDC’s PM-b

emissions

have

been

consistently

high

for

the last

five consecutive

years reported,

with

2004 being

the

highest.

137

This trend

is especially

concerning

given the known

risks associated

with

PM-b.

Peoria

has

had

earthquakes!

•

Disasters

such as earthquakes

or

tornadoes

may

cause a breach

of

the

barrier and

contamination

of the Sankoty.’

38

• PDC

stated in

their testimony

“only relatively

mild

ground shaking

would

happen in Peoria”

39

•

Earthquakes

in the

central

or

eastern United

States affect

much larger

areas

than earthquakes

of similar

magnitude

in

the western United

States.’

4

°

•

For example,

the San

Francisco,

California,

earthquake

of

1906

(magnitude

7.8) was felt

350

miles

away

in

the middle of

Nevada, whereas

the New

Madrid earthquake

of

December 1811

(magnitude

8.0)

rang

church bells

in

Boston,

Massachusetts,

1,000 miles

away.

•

The

probability for

an earthquake

of

magnitude

6.0 or

greater

is significant

in the near

future,

with a 90

percent

chance

by

the

year

2040142

PFATW

Evidentiary

Summary

Page 34

of

51

---

CRITERION

9—SUMMARY

There

are two

primary

ways that

toxins

can

reach the

people of

Peoria County

in

the event

ofa

release

of

hazardous

materials:

air

and

water. Common

sense

dictates that

to minimize

the

risk to

the community,

a

hazardous

waste

site should

not be located

over

public

drinking water

sources.

The IEPA

even requires

it.

Enter

PDC No.

1

Built

directly over

a part of the

Sankoty

Aquifer

system,

it places

a heavy

burden

on the

barrier

that

separates

the

toxins

and

our water

supply. That

barrier may

not

last as

long as PDC

would

like us

to

believe.

Some

of Dr. Lee’s

concerns

talk specifically

to

the

longevity

of the

liner

system

and

its role in

protecting

our

water supply.

He disagrees

with Dr.

Daniels

on

key points.

A

summary

of his findings

are located

in his

analysis

of the

PDC application.

Bottom line:

This

is a ticking

time bomb.

The

EPA states

that

water

contamination

can

be extremely

costly

to clean

up.

In some cases,

it

may

not even

be

possible.

The

very

fact that monitoring

and

testing must

be

done proves

that

contamination

is

possible;

otherwise,

why

test

at all?

All of the hydrogeological

consultants

who

testified

at the

hearing

agreed

that the

site proposed

for expansion

sits

on

top of an aquifer

system

known as

the Shelbyville

Outwash,

a deposit of

sand

which

is

hydraulically

interconnected

to

the

predominate

Sankoty.

Dr. Barrows,

on behalf

of

PDC,

testified

that the two

were actually

“interfingered”

at

the places where

they

meet.”

3

The

Sankoty aquifer

underlies

an area of

more

than 750

square

miles.’

44

The

base

of

the

existing

and proposed

expansion

of the PDC

landfill

is

hydraulically

connected

to a

complex

aquifer

system

that is an

important

source

of domestic

water

supply

for the Peoria

area.’

45

It supplies

many

irrigation

wells,

and

in the tn-county

area alone

furnishes

drinking water

to 264,000

people

in

39 communities.’

46

However,

no one

could

tell exactly

where

the

Shelbyville

sands stop

and where

the Sankoty

sands

begin

in relation

to the site.

Dr. Barrows

referenced

two known

wells

slightly

to the

southeast

and

northeast

of the

site as being

indicative

of Sankoty

sands.’

47

Dr. Barrows

then stated

at the hearing:

“Now,

where

exactly

you

hit

the Sankoty

on this,

I

don’t

know.”

This

uncertainty

alone creates

a

sufficiently

high

public

health

concern

to

warrant denial.

What

is certain is

that

wherever

the transition

does occur,

it is all

the same

water

we drink

- the

Shelbyville and

Sankoty

are interconnected

and

interfingered.’

48

PDC

itself

acknowledges

that

the Shelbyville

sands underneath

the

site

constitute

the “aquifer

of

concern.”

49

Thereafter,

however,

PDC

took

great pains

to

downplay

the

hydraulic

connection

by

stating that

the flow rates

of movement

of

the

water in

the aquifer

were

very low,

and for year

2003

under Area

C,

on

the order

of”approximately

0.017

feet per

day

(6.2

feet

per

year).”°

Dr.

Barrows himself

calculated

them

from PDC

supplied

data

to be about

eight (8)

feet

per year, after

taking

into

account

the

range of

velocities under

different

parts of the

site.’’

The

Shelbyville

sands

were said

by

PDC

to