Peoria Disposal Company is trying to woo Peoria County Board members into voting for their landfill expansion by making some concessions. Briefly, these concessions include (according to the Journal Star):
- agree not to expand over trench C-1 (oldest part of landfill)
- reduce the expansion area’s life to 12 years (down from 15)
- shift landfill operations to 275 feet from the eastern boundary
- agree to pay a yearly flat fee of $281,250 into a perpetual care fund
- allow County Board committee veto power over any new waste streams
- guarantee the Sankoty aquifer will not be polluted
- place earlier proposed conditions in a host agreement enforceable in circuit court
PDC’s attorney told the Journal Star “the concessions should meet all the concerns expressed by board members, the county’s staff and even opposition groups.” I think it meets some of the concerns expressed by those various people, but definitely not all.
In early April, the board voted down three of the nine criteria for approval of the expansion. PDC’s concessions may change some votes on two of those three criteria, but they don’t change anything regarding criterion number one: whether this expansion is needed to accommodate area waste. PDC still only needs this expansion so they can continue to receive waste from out of state. If the board didn’t feel that was needed three weeks ago, they’re not going to feel it’s needed next week.
If just one of the nine criteria isn’t met (in the judgement of the county board members), they have to vote against the expansion request.
Bill Dennis, a hazardous waste proponent, casts a cynical eye on the county board, saying, “If the county board rejects this now, it just provides proof they rejected the permit contrary to the evidence and were prejudiced against it from the start.” Of course, in reality there is evidence for both sides in this battle. A board member’s disagreement with Bill’s interpretion of the evidence does not prove anything except that two rational people can look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions.
Come on CJ… There is already a hazardous waste landfill there. If the Board rejects this, there will be no perpetual care fund. Please tell us how rejecting the expansion will help the citizens of Peoria County.
To be honest, I’ve never understood this line of reasoning: “Hazardous waste is already there, so the obvious course of action is to enlarge it.” Huh? That’s like someone turning their yard into a public toilet because a dog pooped in their garden.
I suppose the big selling point is the “perpetual care fund.” But why do we need that if the landfill is supposedly so safe that we needn’t worry about expanding it? They can’t have it both ways.
$281,000 a year for 12 yeats is pitance compared to what it might take to clean up the mess. How much did Love Canal cost?? I wonder what the yearly premium (payable every year, without end) for a good insurance policy would cost – or if any reputable insurance company would consider taking on such a risk?
How can they “guatantee” that they will not pollute the Sankoty aquifer? Realisticly they should say they will do their best to prevent that from happening. We really won’t know if the Sankoty is polluted until 10 years from now anyway. And then what happens? The PDC goes out of business and now it IS our problem. I’m with you mouse, it seems like not much money for a potentialy huge problem.
The rationale is easy. If you believe that the “hazardous materials” are truly dangerous, then the damage is already done, especially from the years of unregulated dumping. What is going on now is only called hazardous because that is how it is defined. Merle Widmer’s blog has pretty extensive information about what they do with the materials. It doesn’t sound in the least bit hazardous to me.
If they vote down the expansion, there is no perpetual care fund. When PDC closes the site, they monitor it for 30 years I believe I have heard. After that time, if there is a problem, it will be cleaned up on the backs of the citizens of Peoria County.
So, the damage is done and PDC is offering a way to finance any cleanup that may be needed. This should be looked at as a benefit to us.
What exactly are the “hazardous” products we are allowing at PDC, and from what are the wastes products from in the way of end product? Toothpaste? Soap? Perfume? Cell phones?
Inquiring minds would like to know if the waste we are taking in, is from products we just might be consuming…
Tony, per Illinois law, the definition of “hazardous waste” is:
Sounds pretty dangerous to me, especially when it’s over our water supply. I’m sure PDC is doing the best it can with our current technology and understanding to treat this waste. But technology and understanding change over time. The builders of the Titanic believed that ship was the pinnacle of technology and engineering — and it was for its time; it was so solid, so safe, it was deemed “unsinkable.” And then it sank. Engineers used to believe that buildings reinforced with welded steel moment-frames would sway and bend in an earthquake, but then in 2004 new tests and research showed they were more likely to fracture rather than bend. Lesson: don’t bet on technology, especially when exposed to the long-term effects of mother nature, and especially when some new technological advancement is promised to last for 500 years or some such nonsense. How can anyone believe that concrete and plastic are going to keep out mother nature forever?
The waste that’s already there, like you say, is damage already done. We’re going to have to monitor and most likely clean it up/move it someday. Why would we want to add another 15 years of waste to an already bad situation? I still say the logic is missing from that argument.
Cruise, yes, we’re all consumers of products that produce hazardous waste in their production. But Peoria isn’t producing or consuming all the products in a 10-state area. We should absolutely take care of the waste we produce/consume, and other cities/states should take care of their waste as well.
Part of the problem is the strict enviromentail laws that states have had enforced on them, if these laws would be less strict, then maybe those landfills could take in their own waste. Unfortunately, we have a landfill that was authorized to take other states waste because of their strict laws. It has to go somewhere.
C.J.
It’s hard to debate you on this site when so many of the facts are so screwed up. Because misleading information has been given out to the community in such large doses, the vote is sure to be “no” tommorrow night. Believe my blogs over an extended period of time have laid the truth at whosoever doorstep wants to have a sensible dialogue. Love Canal? Read my blogs on http://widmer-peoria-watch.blogspot.com for the truths on the landfill. I’ve done my researcha sat on the jury FULL time.
Thanks
I have looked at your site, Merle, and I recommend it to anyone who wants to hear the pro-expansion side of the story. You’ve obviously done your research, and I appreciate your viewpoint. However, I don’t believe that this issue is as black-and-white as you portray it. I think there’s room for honest differences of opinion on whether this expansion should be approved.