Last night, the Peoria County Board voted 12-6 to deny Peoria Disposal Company’s (PDC) hazardous waste landfill expansion application. Opponents cheered, proponents were disappointed (if not a little bitter), PDC is planning to appeal to the Illinois Pollution Control Board.
But I think regardless of how the appeals come out, it’s time we all got on the same team and started seriously researching alternatives to burying hazardous waste. It can be done. I found this interesting piece of information (PDF) on Caterpillar’s website. On page 11 of this document, it says:
We can set the example for others to follow. In 1997, an employee team at our Sumter, South Carolina, facility set out to develop a process that would, for the first time ever, recycle 100 percent of hazardous waste and totally eliminate landfill. They succeeded. It cost half-a-million dollars to do it, but the new process also saves Caterpillar more than $400,000 every year. It was the right thing for the environment. It saved Caterpillar money as well.
The first thing that struck me was the fact that this happened in 1997 — that’s almost ten years ago. Has this process been refined/improved? Marketed? Is this something that PDC and other hazardous waste landfills could employ? Or that Keystone could employ?
The second thing that struck me is that it cost “half-a-million dollars to do it.” Converting that to 2006 dollars, that’s still only $631,000 (approx.). It doesn’t sound like it takes a tremendous amount of money to find these solutions, does it? Compare that to the million dollars PDC spent just on their expansion application — let alone how much it’s going to cost to appeal the board’s decision.
I don’t think one has to be a rabid environmentalist to see the value of recycling this waste versus encasing it in concrete and burying it in the ground. Even if you’re a proponent of the landfill expansion, wouldn’t you still rather live in a world where there’s no need for such landfills?
You have hit the nail on the head, my friend! This is one of the many points I have been talking about as an opponent. The technology exists. We don’t have to wish for it, to paraphrase Peoria Pundit. And if Cat is doing it, so can we all!
This is the way I think we all should all spin the situation, both sides. Start discussing alternatives. Think about the benefits (financially and socially) of promoting the alternatives that already exist and developing even more.
As an opponent, I have no fear and great confidence in dealing with the landfill as it exists. I do think we have some time before we’re at a critical situation with the current hazard, time to figure out how to move it, contain it, whatever the best solution is.
And one of the primary hazards – the air pollution emitted by the waste processing plant and the landfill itself – of the Pottstown landfill will go away once they close down (although me and my vague allergy symptoms will be first on board to close it down asap).
Thank you to all the people who supported the opposition. I hope I will be able to thank all the proponents of the landfill for their candor in working with us in the future to find a good solution for this dire problem.
Did it occur to you that this whole thing may have been a sham?
Upon appeal, the IEPA will probably approve the siting, because it makes more sense to expand an existing landfill than possibly create a new one, and because PDC has a good record and has shown good cause as to why their landfill is good for the Peoria economy.
So, maybe the big public meetings and the dramatic flair is just a way for the Peoria County Board to say “hey, we voted it down.”
Welcome to politics. It looks like everyone played their part well.
Nice idea Chris, but now that the enviromentalist have won their war on PDC, I doubt that we see any action to find an alternate method here locally.
Let’s hope PDC was just bluffing when they said they would have to close and layoff all their employees. If we can keep this up, why soon, Peoria won’t allow Cat, Ameren, or any of the un-healthy industries we ALL depend on directly or indirectly. Just think, we can all get around with candles and bicycles, use that new bike path the Rock Island Trail.
Tony & Cruise, if you really want to bury something toxic, try burying the hatchet.
I’m just saying that its not over, and the landfill will expand.
I personally am not a fan of “hazardous waste” but we all create it so something has to be done with it. My feeling all along has been it is better to expand than create a new one.
The Peoria area is well known for it’s ability to be against everything. This situation was no different.
I apologize for this CJ – but for three days now I have been unable to post to Peoria Pundit (despite having rebooted my computer numerous times as Bill himself suggested). And I have to reply to Tony or I’ll explode.
Tony, you obviously have no idea what the opposition groups submitted. I helped submit it – and our data provided far more information than anything PDC and Patrick Engineering put forth. The application PDC filed was so full of holes and things that weren’t monitored. OUr expert, Charles Norris, of Geo Hydro, tore apart Patrick Engineering’s hydrogeological information. Our expert, Dr. G. Fred LEe (a man with 40 years experience in landfill siting (both solid and hazardous waste) blew massive holes in the claims they make about the liners. And our third expert, Dr. Henry S. Cole, of a self-named engineering firm in Maryland, shredded their claims about minimal hazardous air polluting emmissions.
Or, think about it this way, the opposition groups hired three nationally recognized experts in hazardous waste management technology, and PDC hired local general engineering firm Patrick Engineering.
And now I would like to respond to everyone – CJ is right. You are all thinking about this in such an old-school manner. PDC’s technology is horse and buggy stuff. See CJ’s example above about Cat’s Sumter, SC plant. This is totally true and happened in 1997, 9 freakin’ years ago.
FYI, the European Union (22 member nations) has banned the landfilling of lead and mercury. Which means that companies that sell their wares in the EU can no longer put lead or mercury in ANYTHING that they want to sell there. Worldwide, if a manufacturer wants to sell their stuff in the EU – they can’t use lead or mercury in their stuff AT ALL!
SO if this one little landfill is so damn necessary to our economy, since we are producing so damn much hazardous waste, than how have 22 countries survived upon banning two toxic metals? Good God, the entire Illinois economy may collapse (if one were to think like you proponents).
Also, if you were paying attention, you would have noticed that the hazardous waste landfill in Calumet City closed not too long ago (I know this and have only resided in IL for 1.5 years). Chicago businesses haven’t shut down, have they? Chicago realizes that being voted the most polluted city in the US is NOT a good thing.
I’m on a roll.
And as to the IL EPA overturning the board’s expansion decision – legal precedent is on our side. In four other such cases, the IL EPA let the county/city board’s ruling stand. See Elaine H0pkins’ article in today’s paper.
And I’m hedging my bets that the IL EPA will look at the work done by PDC and Patrick Engineering, and then look at the evidence submitted by three nationally recognized experts in hazardous waste and landfills – and see exactly what I promise any of you would see if you took the time to read the evidence – that the landfill is miles from necessary economically, presents significant and profound risks RIGHT NOW (not some 100 years in the future), and will severely impact property values in this area.
The forward-thinking and intelligent choice is not to make a bad situation worse, just because “oh well, it’s already there” as the Journal STar would have us all do. But to start fixing the problem now. It’s in all our best interests.
The “well it’s already there” argument sounds a lot like folks who after the 2004 election, decided, well, Bush is already our president. SO I’ll just sit on my ass and watch the country go to hell in a corporately funded handbasket.
I for one am not willing to sit on my ass and accept things my elected leaders may wish to force feed me. I am not a sheep.
And, if you didn’t notice, the Journal STar gave opposition groups some mighty fine compliments in their editorial today, and they want us to stick around. So you may just have to get used to our progressive environmentalism. And say goodbye to your “that’s the way it’s always been” methodology.
In Germany, recycling is mandatory. Every week you put your trash out in 4 different colored cans. 1 for plastics, 1 for metals, 1 for biomass (like apple cores, melon rinds), and 1 for paper. Very little is landfilled. Complex or large items like TVs, couches… are collected twice a year and carefully broken down into their components.
Manufacturers have to provide for a means to recycle their product and the wastes generated in its manufacture or it won’t be allowed to market. Failure results in massive punative fines.
Mahkno: I would be a big supporter of mandatory recycling were it to be that the waste companies would pick up separate bins as you described. As with all people, it is just too easy for me to throw it away, rather than take the time to haul it up town to the recycling center. Isn’t that how we all are though, at least sometimes?
Cara: Please don’t explode over me. It does appear though that you are against all landfills, not just this specific one. That says a lot for your position. I am more of the type to take situations one at a time. While I don’t believe that the Peoria area will see any MAJOR economic damage due to the closure of a dump, I also don’t believe that 15 more years of well regulated landfilling will do MORE damage than what was done when regulations were almost nothing. The opposition hired experts to say what they wanted them to say. PDC also hired experts to do the same. By and large, the general public (and I have talked to quite a few people about this, not the vocal pros or cons, but just regular people) felt that there was no reason not to let it stay open for a few more years. Either way, the Landfill #1 will close and the evils of the 1970s will stay buried under years of increasingly regulated landfilling. Whatever damage was to be caused already happened.