I went to my neighborhood’s association meeting tonight. Among other things, we had a presentation from a representative of Peoria Families Against Toxic Waste. There’s plenty of information about this topic out there, but tonight they handed out a letter written by Bill Cook, Professor of Chemistry at Illinois Central College, that I hadn’t seen before and was quite interesting. I reprint it here to kick off the first of what will probably be several posts about PDC’s plans to expand their landfill. Here it is:
The recent application by Peoria Disposal Company to extend their license and expand the landfill has definitely drawn the attention of many Peoria County residents. In a presentation at the Moss-Bradley meeting, I mentioned that when you begin to see both sides of an issue, then you’re really in trouble, because there are never only two sides. This appears to be one of those multi-faceted debates.
First, let me say that I know and have worked with many of the people in positions of authority at PDC and no finer and conscientious group of scientist[s] could be assembled. These are the people I would have chosen to watch over and protect our groundwater. These are well intentioned folk and believe in the technology that they incorporate.
I’m afraid, however, I cannot agree with their risk assessment. I personally find it difficult to accept assurances that this “state-of-the-art” landfill will never breach. Many landfills using the best technologies have said the very same thing and have eventually leaked. The low level radioactive waste facility operated by US Ecology in Sheffield, Illinois is a perfect example. In 1976, it was discovered that this “best-technology” landfill leaked radioactive tritium into the groundwater near the site. By 2002, Trout Lake, located a quarter mile from the landfill, contained levels of radiation 500 times higher than the EPA deems “safe.” There are reports of anomalous numbers of cancer cases in the surrounding area and US Ecology has abandoned the clean-up.
What makes our situation such an unfortunate circumstance is that the site of the PDC landfill places it over a channel of the San Koty aquifer, which represents the water supply for much of Peoria County. In my experience, when environmental concerns conflict with business interests, we have traditionally analyzed these situations on the basis of benefit versus risk. It is unfortunate, however that we often privatize the benefit, while we socialize the risk.
When we examine who would benefit from the expansion of the PDC Landfill, clearly the employees and owners of PDC, the companies who need a place to contain their hazardous waste, and indirectly, the consumers who buy the products from those industries would recognize a short-term benefit. But who would bear the burden of the risk? Well, the hundreds of thousands of people who depend on the San Koty aquifer for their drinking water. To me, this is no contest.
As I’ve discussed this with friends and family, I’ve begun to realize that many people have the misconception that eventually this hazardous waste will degrade and no longer be toxic. That is simply not the case. The toxic heavy metals such as mercury and hexavalent chromium that reside in this landfill have been on this planet since it cooled down and will always be here… until the end of time. Can we absolutely guarantee that we can keep them contained indefinitely?
Once a landfill breaches and heavy metal contaminants such as mercury or chromium escape, you can’t whistle and call them back. Once groundwater is contaminated, it is difficult or impossible to clean up. PDC has set aside money for the closure and monitoring of the landfill once it is eventually capped, however a breach and subsequent cleanup could be astronomically expensive. Remediation of a leak would far exceed any set-aside monies. Would this price tag also be “socialized”?
To quote Dr. Marvin Resnikoff, author of Living Without Landfills, “The bottom line of our waste management plan is eternal vigilance. We can no longer produce waste, place it in the ground, and hope the earth stands still. Waste will have to remain in sight and in mind. As waste containers and storage vaults degrade, future generations will need to repair and replace them. Waste must be stored in ways accessible to future generations.”
The current state of the landfill already leaves us with our fingers crossed hoping for the best. Let’s not throw caution to the wind. An alternative to this expansion must be found.
And Man created the plastic bag and the tin and aluminum can and the cellophane wrapper and the paper plate, and this was good because Man could then take his automobile and buy all his food in one place and He could save that which was good to eat in the refrigerator and throw away that which had no further use. And soon the earth was covered with plastic bags and aluminum cans and paper plates and disposable bottles and there was nowhere to sit down or walk, and Man shook his head and cried: “Look at this Godawful mess.” — Art Buchwald, 1970.
Peoria County has a portion of their website devoted to this issue. Whichever side of the fence you fall on this issue, you owe it to yourself and your family to be informed and, if necessary, to take action. I’ll be doing my part to educate myself and my readers.
This is a wonderful argument the existence of hazardous waste landfills. I have also heard wonderful arguments against littering. Lets all pass a law banning litter, and thus, all litter shall disappear, transported to another dimension by force of will.
Were wishing make it so.
Landfills shouldn’t exist. Fine. I get it. What are the alternatives? Be specific and be realistic. *Specifically* what will replace them. Give me numbers, give me locations. Give me the science that shows this yet-unnamed alternative is better than what we have now.
Until then, don’t bother me with childish whining about a fantasy world in which things we didn’t wish HAD to exist don’t.
And don’t bother me with the arguments that it needs to go “anywhere but here.” We produce the stuff here. It is infantile to expect them to bury the stuff anywhere *but* here.
We need to conduct our affairs like grown ups.
In Germany, and some other European countries, all manufacturers have to provide a means to unmake/recycle the goods they create. So, TV manufacturers have to provide a way to disassemble them and recycle the components. Soda manufactures use returnable bottles much like we used to do back in the 70s. The law goes a step further; if a company manufactures something, that company is responsible for its recycling.
For years, soda manufacturers have been trying to introduce plastic disposable bottles. These same manufacturers have all argued that to make those plastic bottles bottles and landfill them is cheaper, and more environmentally sound, than trying to reuse them. Well duh… if you don’t have to pick up tab on the other end it will be cheaper. Bottles take up space and don’t decay readily. To date the soda manufacturers have not prevailed.
Plastic bags. No stores offer you bags for free. You are expected to bring your own. People have cloth bags, baskets, and collapsable box crates. If you really must have a bag, they will gladly sell you one. As a result you see few bags among the litter outside.
Chemicals. There are chemical waste processing plants all over. Some of it can be incinerated, to be turned into electricity. Much of it has to be reprocessed into safer materials.
Here in America, we have a make it and forget it attitude toward manufacturing. This needs to change. Europe is waaay ahead of us in recycling technology, implementation and deployment.
“We produce the stuff here. It is infantile to expect them to bury the stuff anywhere *but* here.”
Bill, I’m willing to concede that point. However, PDC accepts toxic waste from 10 other states — and that accounts for 84% of the toxic waste in that landfill. That’s a lot of waste that we didn’t produce. I think it’s only fair that we expect those other states to take responsibility for their own toxic waste, don’t you?
Also, in conceding your point, I would still say that the toxic waste dump is misplaced, considering it sits over an aquifer that provides over half our drinking water in Peoria. You, as I recall, were very concerned over lead levels in Peoria and the health risks associated with them. PDC has buried over 2,800 pounds of lead right over that aquifer. Don’t you think the potential risk is too great to place the toxic waste dump in that spot?
Finally, there is technology that can be employed to eliminate the need for toxic waste landfills. But it’s expensive. According to a presentation I found on Caterpillar’s website:
“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.”
This kind of technology should be a high priority for development and deployment in this country so we can stop burying these substances where they pose serious health risks.