PeoriaStory

Demo women back County Board decision

PEORIA -- The Peoria County Democratic Women voted overwhelmingly on Thursday to support the Peoria County Board's decision last year to halt the expansion of the hazardous waste landfill at Pottstown.

The vote, at the special May 31 meeting, came after a contentious debate on whether the group should take positions on issues, and on the landfill issues.

Of 23 members in good standing eligible to vote, 19 voted to back the board's decision. No one voted "no" but one abstained and two didn't vote.

Several female members of the County Board are members of the group but did not attend the meeting, after the Peoria County State's Attorney advised them that attending might violate the Illinois Open Meetings Act.

A majority of a quorum of public officials cannot gather without notifying the public and press of the meeting in advance. This rule is often ignored for social events, but was enforced for this meeting.

The board last May decided not to site expansion of the Peoria Disposal Co. landfill at Pottstown, prompting PDC to appeal the decision to the Illinois Pollution Control Board. A decision from the PCB is expected on June 21.

PDC has also applied to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency for an extension of its current permit, and is seeking to expand that way, as well.

Some of the coalition of environmentalists who opposed the landfill expansion last year then shifted positions, and in February offered a compromise measure that would have allowed some expansion in return for a trust fund and other concessions. Negotiations began between county officials and PDC.

The compromise advocates then withdrew their support for a compromise measure. A compromise so far has not been discussed by the board.

The Democratic Women also voted to send a letter to the board about their vote, and will issue a news release.

--Elaine Hopkins

To comment, send an email.

Save the tree petition

PEORIA -- Bradley University employees are gathering signatures on a petition to save a large and lovely copper beech tree from bulldozers.

The ancient tree, at 815 N. Glenwood, stands in the path of a new $30 million recreation center.

Bradley officials recently told Peoria Journal Star columnist Terry Bibo that the tree will come down, but promised to plant more trees to take its place.

That's not good enough for Sharon Obery, who works in the Bradley University Library where the petition can be signed. "It's unusual and beautiful," she said of the huge tree.

She and others are encouraging people to sign the petition soon.

"We're concerned that it's urgent. We're not sure if it will do any good but we wanted to try," she said.

Those who cannot visit the library when it reopens after Memorial Day can send her an email at [email protected] and ask that their names be added to the list, she said.

Environmental activist Dave Pittman stated in an email that he has advised Bradley officials "this tree could become a powerful symbol of BU's commitment to historic preservation and environmental sensitivity.

"It is technically feasible to save this tree without moving the building foundation. The idea of planting replacement trees is insulting. Imagine replacing your great great grandmother with a handful of sperm and eggs. "

Pittman continued, "get out of your car. Walk to the tree. Put your hands, both hands on its trunk. Look at its scars, and thousands of lovely leaves. Feel its history, herstory, the thousands of students who have stood underneath it.

"This is a witness tree, a centurion, a symbol of something special.

"This tree can be saved for many years, if Bradley cares enough to spend the money and protect the remaining roots.

"This tree can be a centerpiece of the entrance way, a small oasis of green and a testimony to those who love the things that grow.

"We are motivated by what we can feel, and thus love for the environment encapsulates, shrinks into moments of awareness, of joy, and of pain. As we give to this tree we will receive from the effort a renewed commitment."

-- Elaine Hopkins

Email comments for future updates on this tree.

Haz Landfill Documents

THIS IS POSTED AS A SERVICE for the Peoria County Democratic Women

PEORIA -- The Peoria County Democratic Women will hold a forum at 6:30 p.m. on May 31, at the Labor Temple, 400 NE Jefferson.

They will discuss then vote on whether to support a compromise with Peoria Disposal Company to allow an expansion of the company’s hazardous waste landfill at Pottstown on the edge of Peoria, or whether to affirm the no-expansion vote of May 2006 from the Peoria County Board.

Only members of the Peoria County Democratic Women will be allowed to vote on the issue.

(To become a member, send $5.00 for an individual membership or $10 for a family membership (men are welcome) to Mary Harkrader, 1712 E. Shady Oak, Peoria 61614.

The check should be made out to Peoria County Democratic Women. The membership fee is used primarily to support women candidates running for political offices.)

BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTS:

After a lengthy public process required by law, the County Board voted in May 2006 not to site the landfill expansion.

PDC then appealed that decision to the Illinois Pollution Control Board. A decision is expected by June 7.

PDC has stated it will appeal an adverse decision to the Illinois Appellate Court.

Documents are available on the websites of Peoria County and the Pollution Control Board. Many statements both pro and con expansion are available on this latter site.

In February, two groups opposing the expansion, the Heart of Illinois Sierra Club and Peoria Families Against Toxic Waste held a news conference and offered a possible compromise that would allow PDC to expand in return for certain concessions that included limits on the waste and a trust fund to take care of future problems. Documents are on the Families website.

Negotiations between the county, PDC and these groups took place.

But some members of the environmental groups were opposed to any compromise proposal, and made their opinions known.

On May 10, the two groups, joined by a group of physicians, repudiated the compromise idea, but the county could still craft a deal with PDC.

Here are some statements and documents from opponents of any compromise and others involved in the issue, in no particular order:

I.From Jean Roach, a leader in the no-compromise coalition, in an e-mail to the pro-compromise coalition:

"1. All hazardous wastes buried in the older parts of the landfill without HDPE liners (Barrel Trench, Solid Waste Landfill, etc.) will be excavated and reprocessed. " (PFATW Feb. 2007 proposal)

My research shows that this proclamation of intent cannot be done at this time. PDC might say OK to seal a deal with you, but they know this will not be carried out. I am quite certain they have read the regs very carefully in order to operate.

IEPA sources are confirming for me that their engineers would not approve a ‘dig and move’ operation in these kinds of situations. The science of their position as dictated by the USEPA is that it can be more dangerous to dig the stuff up than simply leave it as is. They will monitor the situation, as they are with 3 wells in the legacy area, and only act when problems are detected. Any ‘maybe’ that a problem exists, or some perception or fear that a latent problem may suddenly become a reality, is not how policy is administered. Policy is based upon science and existing reality.

Lawyers on both sides can promise anything you wish to hear, even craft neat deals, but they ought to have begun with the strictures of existing regulations. A reality check dealing with what is possible under existing law/regulations is essential to making good decisions. While none of us like this, it is nonetheless an apparent reality. And IEPA's position is not nefarious, but rather a reflection of the stand of the USEPA. IEPA does not supersede the USEPA any more than the lawyers supersede the law.

Directing our energies toward making sure the existing laws/regulations are strictly enforced is a very worthwhile and feasible approach. Secondarily, working to strengthen them in Washington and Springfield is feasible. We don't have to allow one more ton of toxins in our community to do this. Please re-read your position papers from last March; they are brilliant and none of what you wrote has changed. Let's get back to NO MORE TOXIC WASTE. -30-

II. Jean Roach statement: CLEANING UP TOXIC RELEASES, THE LAW

All Toxic Release are a serious matter and are subject to all US Environmental Protection Agency regulations. All of this is under the control of what is called ‘RCRA’ meaning ‘Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.’ States which measure up to RCRA standards are permitted to administer their own equivalent regulations with the approval of the US EPA. This is the case with the IEPA, Illinois Environmental Agency.

All hazardous waste operators, including PDC, certainly are familiar with their obligations as spelled out by RCRA. Any party thinking about a compromise expansion for PDC, including the County Board Staff, must take care to remember these realities.

In the EPA publication ‘Hazardous Waste In Your Community’ there are substantial explanations for all of this, including a particularly important conclusion on ‘Cleaning Up Releases:’ “Under RCRA, owners and operators of hazardous waste facilities must clean up the contamination caused by their activities. This is commonly known as corrective action. EPA may require corrective action for any releases of hazardous waste…In addition, RCRA allows EPA to require cleanup of any waste management facility, including generator sites, if the Agency deems the release an imminent and substantial threat to human health and the environment.”

Fines for the worst recurrent transgressions can exceed $25,000 per day…If the violation is judged to be deliberate, the violator may receive up to 15 years in prison and be required to pay up to a $250,000.”

Tough language and regulations also exist for operators after they have closed.

For further info see: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/general/manag-hw/manag-hw.htm

CONTACTS FOR QUESTIONS ON REGULATIONS:
Mara Mcginnis, IEPA Community Relations, 217-524-3288
Stan Black, IEPA Hazardous Waste Site Cleanups, 217-785-1427
Doug Scott, IEPA Director, 217-782-9540 -30-

III. Statement from Elmo (Joe) Roach, Ph.D. A DEMOCRATIC MANIFESTO FROM A FIRE-BREATHING DEMOCRAT, NOT INCLINED TO MINCE WORDS.

It sure looks to some of us in the local Democratic trenches that some of you Democrats on the County Board don’t seem to have gotten several important memos from the Democratic National Committee, or from our history as a Party. Or, have chosen to ignore them.

ONE: The Democratic Party is committed to “Open Government”, that is “honesty and openness of government at all levels”. That just does not square with months of secret Board negotiations under the guise of “pending litigation”. You know it, we know it. What comes next, the State will know it? And, most importantly, you can’t blame this one on the GOP.

TWO: You “were elected to represent the people, not the powerful.” Democrats have the right to expect you to “serve the people’s interests, not special interests.” That means PDC in case you can’t make the connection!

THREE: You “are obligated to be good steward or our planet.” The “Democratic Party believes that it is our responsibility to protect America’s extraordinary natural resources.” The “health of our families and the strength of our economy depend on our stewardship of the the environment.” That means, among other things, the Sankoty aquifer. And take special note that “We reject the false choice between a healthy economy and a healthy environment. Farming, fishing, tourism, and other industries require a healthy environment. New technologies that protect the environment will create new high-paying jobs. A cleaner environment means a stronger economy.” A compromise with PDC is a false choice, so stop trying to convince us that it is a real choice.

Sources: FROM THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE.

Honest Government & Open Government

We will end the Republican culture of corruption and restore a government as good as the people it serves, starting with real ethics reform.

We are committed to immediate change to lead our country in a new direction, to put an end to Republican business as usual, and to make certain our nation's leaders serve the people's interests, not special interests. For us, this commitment spans our lifetime, as we were elected to represent the people, not the powerful.

Our goal is to restore accountability, honesty and openness at all levels of government. To do so, we will create and enforce rules that demand the highest ethics from every public servant, sever unethical ties between lawmakers and lobbyists, and establish clear standards that prevent the trading of official business for gifts.

Environment

The Democratic Party believes that it is our responsibility to protect America's extraordinary natural resources. The health of our families and the strength of our economy depend on our stewardship of the environment.

We reject the false choice between a healthy economy and a healthy environment. Farming, fishing, tourism, and other industries require a healthy environment. New technologies that protect the environment will create new high-paying jobs. A cleaner environment means a stronger economy.

Far too many Americans live with unhealthy air or water quality. Democrats will fight to strengthen the laws that ensure we have clean air to breathe and clean water to drink. And Democrats will make sure these laws are enforced.

April 20, 2007
Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean issued the following statement in celebration of Earth Day.

“This weekend, people around the world will celebrate Earth Day through acts of service, stewardship of the environment and by raising awareness of important issues such as climate change. I am especially proud that Democrats have taken the lead on conservationism and energy efficiency. Unfortunately the Bush Administration has continued to play politics with our environmental policy by working to discredit accepted science on global warming and by rolling back environmental regulations.

“Democrats believe we should be strengthening and improving our environment, not rolling back and gutting our clean air and water standards. Democrats also believe that we all have a moral obligation to be good stewards of our planet. Cleaning up and caring for our environment is one of the greatest challenges of our time and we must work together across party lines to ensure that we leave a better world to future generations.”

SO, WHAT DO WE DEMOCRATS EXPECT OUR COUNTY BOARD MEMBERS TO DO?

ONE: STOP THE SECRECY. IF IT IS TRUE THAT ONLY 3 COUNTY BOARD MEMBERS ARE ON RECORD IN EXECUTIVE SESSION OPPOSING THE SECRECY OF PDC NEGOTIATIONS. THAT LEAVES A WHOLE LOT OF YOU COMPLICIT. WE DON’T CARE TO KNOW WHO YOU ARE, BUT IT IS TIME TO CLEAN UP YOUR ACT.

TWO: PROTECT THE PEOPLE REGARDLESS OF THE COST, OR MAKE WAY FOR DEMOCRATS WHO ARE WILLING TO TOUGH IT OUT FOR THE CAUSES OF THE PEOPLE. FOR REAL DEMOCRATS, THIS IS A “COMMITMENT” WHICH SPANS THE HISTORY OF OUR PARTY, AND YOU ARE “ELECTED TO REPRESENT THE PEOPLE, NOT THE POWERFUL.” YOU ARE NOT ELECTED TO WORK OUT A DEAL FOR LOCAL BIG BUSINESS, FOR PDC. ONCE UPON A TIME IT WAS SAID THAT WOMEN AND PEOPLE OF COLOR COULD NEVER BE ALLOWED TO VOTE; BUT IT HAPPENED.

THREE: CATCH UP WITH THE NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC MOVEMENT, AND BEGIN TO CHALLENGE UNCOMPROMISINGLY THOSE WHO PROFIT FOR POLLUTION. YOU HAVE A “MORAL OBLIGATION TO BE GOOD STEWARDS OF OUR PLANET”, NOT MOUSY COMPROMISERS WITH PDC. THAT CERTAINLY MEANS NOT ALLOWING THEM TO POUR AN ADDITIONAL 1 MILLION TONS OF TOXIC WASTE INTO PEORIA COUNTY. DON’T TELL US THE COUNTY CAN’T AFFORD TO FIGHT PDC; WHY ELSE DOES COUNTY GOVERNMENT EXIST IF IT DOESN’T PROTECT OUR FUTURE AND THAT OF THOSE WHO COME AFTER US?

Elmo E. Roach, Ph.D.
USMC Veteran
Son of a Union Man. -30-

IV. Statement of Dr. Richard H. Lee, clinical assistant professor of neurology at the University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria, also with Neurological Associates, Peoria, as read to the County Board May 10, 2007:

RE: Peoria Disposal Company - Hazardous Waste Facility

I want to thank you for the opportunity to be able to express my thoughts and opinion concerning the Peoria Disposal Company and the proposal for further use of the area in this county. I am a physician who has practiced medicine in this area for 33 years and I would like to register my thoughts with regard to the present location and also the proposed changes and also the proposed settlement. My thoughts will be brief and I hope will be useful.

Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the United States of America has grown dramatically and has developed many new ways of living and adjusting to our environment. These things have changed and in many ways, have improved the quality and longevity of our lives in this country.

Over time we have also learned of some new and increased hazards because of the way that we have used natural resources in the 150 years or so. Science has been able to establish risk factors for things that we previously thought were nontoxic such as the use of asbestos and lead in paints. This is an ongoing scientific process which will continue for many, many years.

The local consideration has to do with maintaining a disposal company very close to a large metropolitan area which has potential for exposure to things that we don't understand as yet. Peoria County has a higher incidence of cancer than other regions in Central Illinois and also there is a higher incidence of other diseases such as multiple sclerosis.

Science has not at this point proven a cause and effect documentation for the presence of toxic waste causing these changes in health problems. To continue to have a toxic waste disposal service within the city of Peoria region is not in line with common sense especially with bringing in waste materials from other states in a large quantity.

To agree to this kind of a further development or concession to this enterprise is foolish and not in the best interest of the human beings who live in this area.

Even if the current federal guidelines are met, this does not mean that down the road there will not be problems will surface and cause further health issues.

A more reasonable approach would be to move the Peoria Disposal facility to a more remote area away from a large populated region and away from the water source for the Peoria inhabitants.

There was mention about the employees moving the facility and this would be reasonable and rational and they would still have a high number of Peoria residents who would be able to maintain their employment and possibly would need additional workers to help to keep the facility more remote from the populated region.

Considering the history of our modern-day society and the toxicity of many of the things that we have done and are doing now, it would be prudent for the Peoria Disposal Company to move their facility to a safer location and it would also be very reasonable and sensible for the county board to not approve of the current proposals which would continue to present a significant risk to local communities.

Having good scientific data for making decisions is always desirable and helpful in many health care situations; however, considering the human condition, the use of good judgment and avoiding potential risks is also an important part of preventative medicine and health care. Therefore, it would be prudent for the county board to vote against the location of the present facility and move the entire operation to a safer location. -30-

V. Statement from Joyce Blumenshine: Excerpted and edited from an article in the Heart of Illinois Group Sierra Club newsletter Tallgrass Sierran, May/June, 2007
By Joyce Blumenshine, Heart of Illinois Sierra Club.

As of May 11, 2007, No Vote Made by Peoria County Board on PDC Negotiations

The Peoria County website stated on April 13 that the County Board did not vote on a proposed settlement agreement with Peoria Disposal Company over the PDC Hazardous Waste Landfill expansion. The notice stated that if an agreement is proposed in the future, it would go before the full Board for a vote and the public would be notified well in advance. If there is a proposed agreement, the notice stated that interested parties would be allowed to review and comment on the proposal.

At the April 12 County Board meeting, members of Peoria Families Against Toxic Waste, HOI Sierra, noted area physicians, and concerned citizens filled the County Board meeting room to speak during public comments. Much of the concerns related to the negotiations between PDC and County staff that have been going on for over two months. No information had been made public about these meetings.

Near the end of January, 2007, PDC attended a Peoria County Health and Environmental Issues Committee meeting where PDC offered to discuss terms regarding the landfill expansion with the County. At that meeting two Peoria County Board members said that staff should talk with PDC, and a motion was made directing County staff to do so.

On February 23, 2007, Peoria Families and HOI Sierra held a press conference to present a proposal covering a full range of issues that need to be addressed at the PDC landfill. This was an effort to have whatever was being negotiated between PDC and the County be made public, and to point out the wide range of issues that should be considered. HOI Sierra participated in two informational meetings with PDC, where the company responded to a list of questions regarding their landfill.

On April 27, 2007, the Heart of Illinois Sierra Board voted to end discussions with with PDC. On May 10, 2007, Peoria Families Against Toxic Waste announced they would not proceed with meeting with PDC.

It is well known that PDC can reapply for another site expansion public hearing in 2008. The HOI Board respects that not all group members agree with proposing terms or considering what can be done at the PDC Hazardous Waste Landfill.

The issue of the ticking-time bomb of untreated hazardous waste in older parts of the landfill will not go away.

When members of Heart of Illinois Sierra and Peoria Families Against Toxic Waste met with the director and division members of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency on July 26, 2006, the IEPA made it clear that the PDC Hazardous Waste Landfill was in compliance with their regulations and that until there was a problem at the site, the IEPA does not intervene.

Individuals who are concerned about this site need to stay involved with the issue, and try to ensure that the best possible actions and protections can be obtained for the future health and safety of the citizens of Peoria. -30-

VI. Statement by activist Tom Edwards of River Rescue: TO HEAL OUR ENVIRONMENT: CLOSE TOXIC WASTE LANDFILL.

We are on the verge of a major environmental healing for the Peoria County and city area. But we are not there yet. The healing would be closure of the Peoria Disposal Co.'s hazardous waste landfill that takes in highly toxic wastes from 15 states, and sits on the west edge of the city off Rt. 8. Its state EPA permit allows 843 such chemicals to be dumped there, and PDC is applying to add one more, PCBs, a now banned chemical.

But not just closure. We must see to it that the Illinois EPA brings about a closure that not only seals away "forever" the couple of million tons of toxic chemicals already there, but also destroys or neutralizes the gaseous emissions that are constantly emanating from PDC's privately owned landfill into the air Peorians must breathe.

However, PDC is appealing to the Illinois Pollution Control Board the Peoria County Board's decision of a year ago not to issue a permit for PDC to expand its landfill, which requires its closure by next year. Arguments are to be in by June 7.

Our research has brought out that the PDC landfill is in by far the worst, most dangerous location of any of the nation's 16 still remaining toxic waste landfills.

1) Peoria has the only such landfill that not only sits right over its greater area water supply aquifer, but is even remotely close to a community water supply source.

2) We are also the only community with 54,000 living not only downwind of and within 3 miles of a toxic landfill's fumes, but also has housing crowded right up against its perimeter fence. Oregon, Ohio, has 43,500 within 3 miles of one -- but well away and not downwind. It is suing to block that facility's expansion. Two towns have just 2,000 and 4,000 residents within 3 miles; only 4 of the other 12 have even over 100.
Recent studies of people of people living in the vicinity of such landfillls elsewhere revealed 40% more birth defects, twice as many premature births in New Jersey, and 15% more adult strokes in New York state. In Illinois, Peoria has a higher cancer rate.

But now that we are finally aware, what will we, the state and federal governments do to "forever" remediate this grim situation? But more than that, make it an example of safe handling of toxic waste for the world to follow?

We can be a bell ringer for a new dawn of waste disposal and treatment. Otherwise we will eventually go the way of the dinosaurs because of our own misdeeds and inattention. Remember, we are just a fraction of an immense developing world — and most of it, in their desire to be as "wealthy" as us, dump their waste like there is no tomorrow.

The Peoria County Board took a crucial first step when it voted 12 to 6 a year ago not to issue a permit for expansion of the PDC landfill. The other six are listening and learning like all of us are. And their initial opposition has caused us to intensify our research and knowledge.

And with them we can take that knowledge to state and federal officials. Perhaps we will be among the world leaders in this. It will help with its salvation, probably vitally so. -30-

VII. Statement by Kim Converse. Peoria Families Against Toxic Waste Position Statement delivered to the Peoria County Board on May 10, 2007

My name is Kim Converse and I am representing Peoria Families Against Toxic Waste. I come to you tonight to share with you our official position regarding the PDC settlement discussions. I may go over the 2 minute limit but would respectfully as Chairman Prather if, since I’ll be the only Peoria Families member speaking that I be allowed to deliver it in it’s entirety.

About a month after the January 2007 meeting in which the County Board’s Health Committee directed the County Staff to discuss a settlement with PDC, our group proposed what we believed to be a very fair plan that would allow a limited expansion in exchange for strong safety measures. The key components of the plan included addressing the enormous risks associated with the older areas of the landfill, creating a true perpetual care fund, elimination of direct disposal waste streams like PCBs, and closure of the waste processing facility. There were other conditions in the plan which our group was prepared to negotiate on, if these key items were addressed to our satisfaction.

Over the last month we've met twice with PDC for informational meetings. These meetings were critical for us to gain a more complete understanding of the issues being discussed with the county. In lieu of a public meeting, the meetings were transcribed and posted on our website to make the entire process transparent to the community.

I have to say, our group has been grateful for PDC's willingness to answer our questions. These questions arose during the original expansion hearings and went unanswered in that process. For example, PDC provided scant evidence or testimony about their operational procedures for two critical waste streams – MGP and the toxic regulated substance known as PCBs. Through our independent investigation we learned that these were huge issues, and so we requested informational meetings to fill in the gaps that had been left open by PDC in the hearing process.

I want to particularly acknowledge Chris Coulter and Ron Edwards, as well as Brian McGinnis who spent a great deal of time with us answering our questions.

Peoria Families took a bold step in our original proposal, which was introduced only after the County began negotiations, in an attempt to find a solution that would work for all parties. We’ve been very clear and transparent about what we believe would safe and protective of the environment and of the community, while adding significant protections for the older legacy areas of the facility. Despite our best good faith efforts, some citizens are appalled at the idea of negotiating with PDC and would prefer to see the landfill closed down as soon as possible. Recently, the Sierra Club bowed out of settlement discussions with PDC and the county, which left us and the medical community as the sole hope for finding a settlement that would bridge the huge gap between citizen groups and the deal the County negotiated with PDC.

We learned Tuesday that our key issues of direct disposal wastes, legacy area remediation, perpetual care, waste stabilization facility and the role of the environmental committee have not been properly addressed in the current PDC proposal. We also learned that the plan has a lot of loopholes that pose a great risk to the community.

Despite the huge divide between our February proposal and the current state of PDC’s proposal, we felt it was worthwhile to pursue further discussions to see if a protective plan could be brokered. We had authorized our attorney, Dave Wentworth to schedule another meeting with PDC and the county.

This morning we learned that the medical community has determined that the wide gaps between our protective proposal and the one the County has brokered with PDC cannot be bridged and therefore they have withdrawn support for further negotiations. We also know that each of you were sent a letter this morning from a key OSF medical group which expressed that they cannot support an expansion in light of new information that’s come to light. Given the medical community’s and Sierra Club’s current stance, we do not see much hope for a global settlement at this time.

It shouldn’t come to anyone’s surprise that we have always supported this Board’s “NO” vote from last year and our efforts to have a voice in negotiations to ensure a highly protective plan are not at all in conflict with our full support of the board’s NO vote. We have always been clear that we can never support a compromise that doesn’t allow for complete protection of the community….and that simply doesn’t exist now, and is not likely to emerge given the huge gap in terms, and due to the lack of support from key community groups.

In the unlikely event that this case is remanded by the Illinois Pollution Control Board we respectfully ask that the County Board consider us full participants in any future settlement discussions should they occur.

We respect and appreciate the time that PDC, the county, the staff, the medical community and our members have put into this effort to date. Peoria Families, in partnership with Sierra Club, the medical community and hopefully the many other community groups who care about this issue, will obviously continue our efforts, and partner with you, as long as it takes to see this issue through to ensure our environment and our community is as safe as it can be for future generations.

Thank you for your time tonight. -30-

ADDED May 29, 2007:

STATEMENT FROM THE ILLINOIS STATE MEDICAL SOCIETY to the IEPA, April 4, 2007.

On behalf of the 13,000 physicians of the Illinois State Medical Society, I am writing to oppose the expansion of the Peoria Disposal Company's (PDC's) hazardous waste landfill. As you know, the landfill sits directly above the Sankoty aquifer - an essential source of water for Peoria residents. As a matter of health policy, ISMS opposes new or the expansion of existing hazardous waste landfills over aquifers.
According to your own agency's Division of Air Pollution Control Annual Emissions Report, the PDC landfill has repeatedly released air contaminants which exceeded the annual allowable emissions, as established by Illinois EPA. Furthermore, the threat to the public health, should ground contaminants reach the aquifer, is enormous.
We urge the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency to improve and protect the health of the citizens of Peoria by not only opposing the application to expand the PDC landfill, but by ensuring there is funding and infrastructure in place to adequately address the decomposition of holding containers and stop any leakage that would result.
Thank you for consideration of this health policy-related input. ISMS looks forward to EPA's decision, which will hopefully preserve and enhance the health of Peoria's populace.

--William E. Kobler, M.D., Chair, Board of Trustees -30-

STATEMENT OF JAMES McGEE, M.D., of OSF Saint Francis Medical Center, to the IEPA, May 8, 2007

I am the Chairman of the Cancer Committee at OSF Saint Francis Medical Center which is composed of cancer surgeons, oncologists, pathologists, radiation therapy physicians, nurses, cancer registrars and a layperson from the Peoria business community.

We discussed PDC's pending application to expand the hazardous waste disposal facility at PDC #1 in Pottstown. After reviewing the IDPH data on elevated cancer rates in Peoria County, the Committee members felt that continued operation of the PDC facility poses significant risk to the health of Peoria County residents.

During the discussion, it was agreed that no one is saying that PDC's operation is directly causing cancer. Rather, the concern was that it just does not make good sense to continue importing known carcinogenic hazardous waste from outside Peoria County and outside the state of Illinois, and burying it in a site so close to a populated area and over the aquifer, in a county with a documented high cancer burden.

The Cancer Committee therefore adds its voice to those of the Medical Staff of all three Peoria Hospitals, the Peoria Medical Society and the Illinois State Medical Society in opposing the expansion of the Peoria Disposal Company's Hazardous Waste Landfill at Pottstown.

Moreover, we urge the 1EPA to help us protect the health of Peoria County residents by addressing the cleanup of the closed, unprotected "legacy" areas of the landfill which existed prior to RCRA regulations.-30-

E-MAIL SENT TO ALL COUNTY BOARD MEMBERS, May 10, 2007:

The physicians who study and treat cancer in Peoria have weighed in on the PDC issue.

PDC was originally permitted for 10 years of operation by the IEPA in 1987. Whether by chance or ineptitude, the IEPA "forgot" to act on the 10 year permit renewal in 1997, effectively denying the opportunity for public comment at that time.

PDC has enjoyed 20 years of operation on a 10 year permit, and has done so well, as evidenced by industry awards for this operation. However, they have continued to add more and more hazardous waste streams from outside of Illinois to this facility which was poorly sited in the first place.

The location over the aquifer and close to residential neighborhoods would never be allowed by today's USEPA Standards. It should concern all of us knowing that the spoils from the cleanup of EPA Superfund Sites anywhere in the United States could be disposed of in Peoria.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! The health of Peoria County residents is more important than any benefits to PDC. They have had a great run, but knowing what we know today about cancer rates in Peoria and elevated blood lead levels in Peoria's children, the time to say NO MORE has arrived.

Please stand firm in your decision to deny the expansion.

Dr. G. Zwicky, Dr. T. Miller, Dr. J.L. McGee, Dr. D.L. Gorenz, Keith Steffen -30-

Landfill compromise axed

PEORIA -- Two environmental groups have dropped their efforts to develop a compromise that would allow expansion of the hazardous waste landfill at Pottstown on the edge of Peoria.

The Heart of Illinois Sierra Club and Peoria Families Against Toxic Waste first proposed a compromise in February that would allow Peoria Disposal Co. to expand the landfill.

The Peoria County Board last May refused to site the expansion, but PDC has appealed that ruling to the Illinois Pollution Control Board. A decision is expected in June.

The compromise opened the door to negotiations between the groups, the county and PDC, as well as a rift between environmental activists who remain opposed to any expansion.

The final compromise proposal reportedly was not acceptable to the environmental groups, and on May 10 they renounced it. Members were to inform the Peoria County Board at its evening meeting on May 10.

The issue was not on the board's agenda for a vote, and county officials had promised a public meeting on any compromise before a vote.

--Elaine Hopkins

It's always the money

PEORIA – Faced with the possible loss of their jobs, cafeteria workers in Peoria School District 150 have launched a preemptive campaign to save them, with signs around Peoria and informational picketing at school board meetings.

The workers, members of Peoria Federation of Support Staff Local 6099, are among the lowest paid in the school district. Here are pickets at the May 7 board meeting, as photographed by a union representative.

Part time workers earn less than $10 an hour and full time workers less than $20,000 yearly, said Lisa Uphoff, the union field representative.

When the workers last received a 3 percent raise, she said, the amount totaled only $65,000 for everyone.

“They pick and choose where they want to save money,” Uphoff said of District 150.

“They want us to give. I don’t think (workers) would mind if they thought the district was trying to save money,” Uphoff said.

District 150 last year spent nearly $1 million buying property in an abortive attempt to move Glen Oak School to Glen Oak Park. The controversial effort failed after the Peoria Park District nixed the deal.

One of the houses now has been demolished, removing it from the tax rolls. Others may be used to house teachers brought from China to teach Chinese, school officials have said.

Meanwhile, the union’s contract with District 150 expires on June 30. Options under consideration include continuing the current arrangement, with the management contractor Chartwells Schools Dining Services operating the food service with district employees, allowing Chartwells to take over the employees while maintaining the current staffing levels, or letting Chartwells set their own levels, Uphoff said.

The fourth option – going back to a district-managed operation, also could take place, she said.

That was the way the food service operated until a few years ago when the food service management was privatized, while the workers remained as District 150 employees, protecting their pensions and benefits.

Now their jobs, pensions and benefits are on the line, the workers believe.

School lunch programs are supposed to break even, not make a profit. They’re also supposed to provide nutritious breakfasts and lunches to children.

For some, the school food may be the primary meal of the day. Seventy percent of the pupils in District 150 are from low income homes and qualify for free or reduced price meals.

Schools receive government subsidies and commodities to support their lunch programs.

Uphoff said Chartwells has moved toward using more pre-packaged foods and fewer government commodities. They also cut back cereal for breakfast, though it’s available if children ask for it. Otherwise they get a donut, she said.

That can result in children eating a donut for breakfast and a cheeseburger for lunch as their main meals of the day, she said. “That’s not nutritious.”

District 150 also is facing a reported $1 million liability stemming from unfair labor practices filed by Local 6099 and the Peoria Federation of Teachers Local 780.

The Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board issued a ruling in favor of the unions last week. The District’s attorney reportedly missed some filing deadlines, but the labor board indicated the unions would win the cases anyway on their merits, said Tom McLaughlin, field representative for the teachers union.

The issue involves payment of health insurance premiums. The district increased the premiums without consulting the joint insurance committee which included the unions.

The district may have to refund a portion of the premiums to the union members, though the amount also could be bargained or a settlement reached.

Sources familiar with a discussion in a recent closed session of the board said the snafu may prompt a new look at the contract with board’s long time law firm.

Board critics have called on the board to bid legal services, though bidding is not required by Illinois law.

--Elaine Hopkins

To comment, send an email.

Eagles, artifacts, wetlands no barrier to strip mine, state says

See UPDATE below 5/10/07

BANNER – Improbable as it may seem, a wildlife area with eagles and ospreys as well as 20 Native American historic sites is on the brink of being turned into a strip mine.

It’s also prone to flooding, as this photo, taken on April 27, 2007, shows.

Environmentalists fighting to save the 643-acre site south of Banner in Fulton County may be losing their legal battles to save the area from strip mining.

“The mine area (currently) has three to four feet of water. It’s ridiculous that they’re trying so hard to secure a permit to mine an area that’s so unsuitable for mining,” said John Grigsby who lives nearby.

Two decades ago, Grigsby successfully fought to have Rice Lake declared unsuitable for mining. That site, adjacent to the Banner site, is now a state managed natural area. But a similar effort to have the Banner site declared unsuitable for mining has been rebuffed by state officials.

“If (this) land with artifacts, bald eagles (and flooding) doesn’t qualify (as unsuitable) no land in the state is unsuitable,” Grigsby said.

The Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Office of Mines and Minerals last week ruled that a petition to have the land declared unsuitable for mining was “incomplete and “untimely.”

The 31-page decision is signed by Joe Angleton, director of the DRN”s Office of Mines and Minerals.

Joe Angleton, 58, of DuQuoin, was appointed to the post in 2005, and is a former United Mine Workers and AFl-CIO official, hardly an objective observer with expertise in environmental issues.

The decision, likely written by a staff lawyer, is filled with legal jargon, as it sets forth reasons to reject the petition, even though considered untimely and incomplete.

In a nutshell, it argues that strip mining won’t last forever (though it may seem like forever to nearby residents), and eventually the site will be reclaimed.

Therefore a strip mine would not be incompatible with a Scenic Byways designation for Illinois Route 24, it says.

“Mining is a temporary land use,” it states, in rejecting the claim that wildlife viewing and tourism in the area would be harmed, and nearby property values lessened.

“While in the short term certain quality of life values may be impaired, these values can be restored at some point in the future,” it claims.

Blasting won’t disturb the eagles and ospreys near the mine site, it asserts.

It also says mining operations won’t disturb bald eagle roosts, because they are in nearby Rice Lake.

Grigsby, however, recently pointed out a bald eagle nest on the property. And on January 6, a bald eagle was found shot in the “Banner, Ill. area,” according to a DNR news release. It soon died.

The DNR has refused to release police reports on the exact location of the fallen eagle, saying the incident is still under investigation.

Was that inconvenient eagle shot to scare it away from the mine property?

Until the DNR decides to release the police report giving a location, that's anyone's guess.

There could be another reason the DNR refuses to release that report.

The agency says it's "unaware of any critical habitats of federally listed species which occur in or adjacent to the petition. Such habitats, if present, could be a basis to deny a permit,” it states.

“There are no documented eagle sites within the current petition area,” it states.

Three hundred acres of wetlands at the site also are no problem. Wetlands in the area will be mitigated, it says.

The DNR agrees the site is within the 100-year floodplain of the Illinois River, but says the site is in a fringe area, not in a floodway. So activities there would not increase flooding along the river itself.

As for the 20 native American sites identified on the mine property, some of which could be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, “this allegation lacks serious merit” because they can be excavated before they’re destroyed, it says.

The opinion brushes off the complaint that blasting could rupture wells or the sewage treatment plant at the village of Banner. “This allegation lacks serious merit,” it states.

The opinion is another blow to mine opponents, and obviously designed to discourage them. They filed suit to keep a township road, Prairie Lane Road, that crosses the property open, against the wishes of the township road commissioner who closed it. The mine cannot destroy an open road.

They lost but have appealed the decision to the Illinois Supreme Court.

The mine property is owned by the usual faceless corporations with some connections to the Crown family in Chicago.

According to news reports, Central Utility Coal Co. of Indiana, owns most of the land but the mining rights are controlled by Capital Resources Development Corp., which wants to mine 1.6 million tons of coal from the site. Freeman United Coal Mining Co., is a part of this operation.

General Dynamics Corp. of Falls Church, Va., the defense contractor, is Freeman’s parent corporation.

See its board of directors, complete with token woman and black man here.

--Elaine Hopkins

UPDATE: See this story in the LA Times on the plans to turn coal into liquid fuel, Barack Obama's support for that idea, and the environmental problems which neglect to mention coal mining itself.

Email comments for a future story.

A Kennedy on Women

PEORIA -- Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, oldest child of Robert Kennedy, niece of John F. Kennedy, a lawyer and former Lt. Gov. of Maryland, melded details from her own life with the aspirations of the women's movement in a candid and informal talk that delighted her audience.

She spoke to the Peoria YWCA Leader Luncheon on May 2, and met earlier with some of the audience.

She's supporting Hillary Rodham Clinton for president, she said.

"The 21st century could be the century for women," she told the audience. Women are winning higher offices throughout the world, she said. "We do have a serious woman running from Illinois."

When the audience was silent, she continued, "I know you have another candidate from that response. This is clear feedback." Laughter followed.

Women face challenges when they seek to become leaders, she said, because of the masculine traditions in war and religion. "It's a challenge when you think about women in power. Where are your guidelines?"

Despite that, women have been able to rise, she said. "When women work, they do a better job than the guys."

Circumstances have conspired to favor women, she said. "I think because the (Iraq) war is such a disaster, there will be a change. The course of history (will provide) women with leadership possibilities," she said.

"What do you feel about yourself? Where do you get your inner strength? What does society tell you?" she asked.

She told about growing up in the Kennedy family, where "women were not involved in public life."

Yet the Kennedy traditions of competition, sports and intellectual development were part of the heritage for her as well as for her brothers.

Her grandmother, Rose Kennedy, made her memorize great quotations, telling her she might use them in speeches. Rose Kennedy never attended college, but was still studying French and German at age 95, she said.

She told her granddaughter about prejudice against the Irish in Boston.

At the Kennedy dinner table, the children were quizzed about current events. They also were told they had an obligation to help the impoverished people that their father had met in Mississippi.

The day after JFK was assassinated, her father, Robert Kennedy, in the midst of grieving and planning the funeral, wrote her a note, she said, quoting it. "As the oldest of the Kennedy grandchildren, you have a special responsibility to be kind to others and work for your country. Love, Daddy.

"He wasn't bitter, angry or vengeful. He was talking about responsibility and kindness and working for his country."

She said she grew up as the women's movement gained momentum. "I went to law school because the women's movement said 'you can do that.' The doors were being opened for women. But there are still challenges."

She was turned down for jobs as a lawyer because she asked about time to care for her children, she said.

But by the time she ran for Lt. Gov., no one was asking why she wasn't staying home with the children, she said. "This is what happens. We prepare ourselves, and when the culture changes we can take advantage of it. But we do have to change the culture."

She proposed new laws against domestic violence, she said, and new help for caregivers who are mainly women.

"We have to be our sisters' keeper. You can make a difference. We think we're alone but we're not. We can build an alternative political movement."

--Elaine Hopkins