ENVIROW’4ENTAL

PROTECTIOM

AGERD ~

MR.

JAMES

RUBIN,

ASSISTANT

ATJORNEY

GENER~iL

APPEARED

ON

BEHALF

OF

COMPLAINANT

MESSRS

KEVIN

M~ FORDE

AND

T

THE000RE

MEYER

APPEARED

ON

BEHALF

OF

RESPONOEN~I

OPINION

AND

ORDRD

OF

THE

BOARD

‘BY

SAMUEL

~

IAWTON,

JR

sarr’

A

~a

iso.

Re

rd~r

~ns

aid

opera

~

a

thirtv~aore

sa,itare

)endfsI~

~Le(

a~ ab~ndoned

san2

aid

jra~s1

quatry

)n

Paos

HiIs,

Co

‘

~rt

rs

whicU

re

CIVOS

the

house~

id

and

a)

r

cO~

o

~r

03

~r

e~

2

0

02

ners

n~

0

Augus

,

L

nrc

‘a

P.o

eet~n

~e~i

C

rpi

ii

Li

A

r

e

s~r

al

p~

ovi

i~

~

r~

I

Op’~

oV

-

_~ci

is

—2

---

6.

The pollution of the waters of Illinois by leachate from

the landfill site in violation of Section 12(a)

of the

Act.

Public hearings were held on October

16,

1971 and on December 4,

1971.

On July

15,

1972,

the parties stipulated to certain facts

and stated their intention to propose a settlement and plan of abate-

ment,

pursuant to PCB Procedural Rule 333.

The Hearing Officer

afforded opportunity for public comment on the settlement as tenta-

tively proposed on July 15,

1972.

The parties reached final agree-

inent on a settlement on September 12,

1972,

which proposal contained

the additional provision of a system for the monitoring of drainage

from

the

landfill site.

Under the proposal which we approve,

the

site will be completely filled and stabilized within approximately

one year, will no longer be used for landfill operation and will

revert

to

the Forest Preserve District upon completion of the fill-

ing operation.

We approve the settlement and plan of abatement as proposed.

A discussion of the pollution caused by Respondent~slandfill, the

violations alleged and the reasons for the Board~sapproval of

the

settlement agreement are set forth below.

With

respect

to

the

alleged

violations,

the

stipulation

appears

to

provide

that

the

Board

should

determine

whether,

on

the

basis

of

the

evidence

introduced

at

the

hearing

on

October

16,

1971,

Respon-

dent

has

violated

Section

9(a)

of

the

Act.

While

the

parties

have

agreed

that

the

water

pollution allegations

will

be

withdrawn,

the

stipulation

recites

the

air

pollution

charges

and

Respondent~s

denial

of

them

and

stress

merely

that

the

parties

are

agreed

that

no

further

evidence

on

the

issue

of odors will he presented.

On

the basis of ample testimony that this site emits foul

and

nausea-

ting odors which disturb persons travelling on the highways adja-

cent to the site

(R.

51,

59,

62,

64,

69,

73,

76,

84,

91,

93, 198—

99,

204—05)

and disturbs persons who live in the vicinity of the

landfill

CR.

89,

168-69), we find

a violation of Section 9(a)

of the

Act.

Respondent admits violation of Section

21(b)

of

the Act and

of Rules 3.04,

4,03(a),

5.07 and 5.07(a)

of the Refuse Rules

(Stip-

ulation), pertaining to open dumping and the failure to provide

adequate cover and the failure to provide the required fencing.

Respondent denies the allegations of water pollution, and the Agency

has withdrawn these allegations in consideration of Respondent’s

Agreement to re-design the landfill in a manner so as to prevent

water pollution and to monitor ground water quality.

The plan to control water pollution from the landfill is based

on an engineering study which demonstrates that water flows south-

ward

from

the

site

to

the

Cal

Sag

Channel

at

the

rate of one—quarter

---

to

oie

JoeL

per

day

OL~ervaLion weas

drilled

a~ p~r’- of

t~e study

indicate some co.iIamina~iorof this

eater

(R.30

~30

Tb

rrovi~

sions

for

leachate

abatement

and

final

closi~

—‘-

of

he

Ian lull

are

specified

in

detail in the stipulation.

Since these pro

azone will

be incorporated

in

full

in

our order, they

are

set

forth

~

Lr

below

~‘

LEAC HATE

ABATEMENT

PROGRAM

A plan has been

devised

to

minimize

leachate

production

from the

landfill,

allow

the leachate which

is

produced

to

flow

through

areas

where its impact will be minimal,

provide

a system for emergency leachate collection,

and

establish

a

monitoring well system in

the

suspected

direction

of

leachate

movement.

Specifically, the plan involves:

1.

Establishment of a final refuse lift_to_create_slope

e entire len th of the Iandfill

This lift ~eil1oe carefully compacted and covered witi

two feet of earth.

The cover will be graded to conforir

with the fina

contours shown in F~gore2A,

of

the

stipulation

This a~tiorsI~ieminrmize or~cipiatao~runoff frLm the

t~

o~ the

l~nsri_~

there~y

do

r~

us

‘A

amoun~ of

eater

enternic

~

e

r

fuse

I

~

c

p~

u ~h

r

~s

nm

ar-u

wa

-~ra

~nn

am

‘-

~

~e

nruC

ular~

4~a

r

“

ra’~e~

~

nor~-J

~rr

s~

i~

a c~f~

Ce

re~

~?

:t

nrop

3

~o

c

~ata~

ret

r~ no

~a

~

:)o

c)~

~ vemnr

t~~o

at

a

nr

l~nula~ein

~

-,

-

Pc

os u

~

r

tb

-

T

-

aZe

1r~ w J

e

at -cc

ca

or

a)

arou

t~c

laid~m~,

ins

oa2

of

ro~d~

are

t~a~r~ iext

to

~rl/or

ir

o

toe

raru

a~ b

e

~nc

3.

Instailati n of an Imperrneaol~.oiay

~i

er it

~he east

~

~~Ey

TIl~

m:ni~~e~

~EII~

portion

~

____

____

This liner

will

prevent

normal

ground

water

movement

through

the

refuse

fill

and

virtually

eliminate

vertical

5

—

447

---

leachate seepage to the bedrock.

The liner has been

constructed under the direct supervision of Walter H.

Flood and Co.,

Inc.

of

Chicago.

The top elevation of the

liner along the east wall

is apprcximateiy 600 to 610

feet.

The liner

is a minimum of

$ feet thick

and probably

has a maximum permeability of 10-2 gpd/ft.2.

The floor at the southern end of the landfill

is

under-

lain

by

a minimum thickness of

8

feet, hut usually at

least 15 feet of undisturbed highly compacted clayey

or silty till.

Sand

above this

till

is

being removed

so that

the

refuse will rest directly on the highly un—

aermeable mater~a1.

The

south

and southwest walls of

the.

landfill will not

be

lined.

This will pe~it leachate to move from the

southern

section of the

fill

throucth

the

southern

and

western

outwash

sands.

By

thus

maximizing

the

cross—

aectional

area

throush

which

water

can

move

from

the

re’~

fused

the

appearance

oi

leachate

springs

will

:o~pre~

eluded.

Further,

widening

and

lengthening

the

:Leachate

f:Lo-,;rpath

will

permit

the

maximum

amount

of

leachate

terre—

vation

through

dilution,

dispersion

and

oxidation.

All

~eachate

generated

from.

a

:Landfil:L

of

this

design

will

originate

as

precipitation

infiltration,

Thus,

no

more

ieacioate

will

be

produced

with

out

liners

on

the

southwest

and

than

If

the

iandi ill

were

completely

lined.

However,

without

the

amer

r

toe

entire

tflicrne ss

of

the

refuse

will

be

flushed

through

the

southern

and

western

outwash

sands,

lowering

the

fluid

potential

at

the

southern

end

of

the

landfill.

This

will

induce

at

least

some

of

the

leachate

bottled

up

in

the

northern

and

central

sections

of

the

f:Lii to

drain

southward

rather

than

spilling

over

the

side

liners

into

the

outwash

sands.

4oththeas~et~in~-

finished sections of the south

and

west wails of the iand—

iii

These lines will consist

of perforated pipe with

a sand

covet and will both slope towards the southwest corner

of

the

pith

The drain

lines will both

be connected

to

a

riser

pipe at the

southwest corner,

The riser will

extend

above

the surface of the final landfill

cover.

This system will permit

leachate

to be drained from the

southern section of the landfill in

the future by

pump-

ing

from

the

riser

ripe.

Such

action

could

only

be

warranted in the unforeseen event that:

---

a.

Water levels

in the fill rise high enough that

leachate springs

appear; and

b.

the leachate contamination of adjacent ground

waters becomes unacceptable for land use.

5.

Installation of

a monitor well system in the path where

leachate movement is anticipated.

Monitor points mostly consisting of 1—1/2 inch diameter

plastic pipe with

4 foot screened inlets at locations

shown on Figure 2.

The wells at the corners of the

landfill property and south of 111th Street have been

constructed in pairs.

At each of these locations, one

well is finished in the outwash or floodplain material

above the drift, while the second extends to the top of

the dolomite.

‘Iwo

additional shallow wells will be drilled into the outwash

sand west of Mannheirn Road

(locations shown on Figure

2)

Well FPI will be flushed out to permit sampling, or it

will be redrilled.

This will permit monitoring of water

levels and water quality in the gaps which currently exist

along the section through which leachate movement is

anticipated.

In

summary,

the control program provides for the clay sealing

of the floor at the southern end of the site where filling

is still

in progress and of a portion of the walls of the landfill,

to reduce

the quantity of surface water entering and percolating through the

refuse area, and to prevent contaminated water from flowin9 out of

the area.

The floor seal

is to be constructed so that drainwater

leaching through and accumulating

in the site at the south end of the

landfill will be cleaned of its contaminants by gradually filtering

through the sand,

silts and clays naturally present in that area

(R.302-03).

The water, after this planned renovation, will drain

into the Cal Sag Channel.

In addition to reducing the side entry

of water into the site and controlling the subsurface drainage away

from the landfill, the plan calls for sloping the landfill surface

so that precipitation will not collect in pools,

thereby reducing

the opportunity

for rainfall to infiltrate the landfill.

The graded

surface,

over the completed portions of the landfill, will consist

of a two—foot compacted layer of impermeable clay capped with

a one-

foot layer of humus material to support vegetationç

(R.307) which

will

terminate

the

odor

nuisance

that

has

been

the

chief

source

of

complaint

by contiguous residents.

Pursuant

to the agreement, Respondent

is also to drill observa-

tion wells to monitor the quality of water flowing away from the

landfill.

—5—

---

The control program is to be finalized by the “fall of

1973”

upon the complete filling of the landfill.

(Stipulation,

p.

4).

Since the Board may not grant a variance in excess of one

year,

the proposed control program and monitoring wells are to be

completed before September 26,

1973 o~on the date of completion

of

the filling of

the landfill, whichever comes first.

Finally,

the stipulation leaves the issue of penalty

to Board resolution,

The evidence of the unlawful and unsanitary

operation of this landfill would normally call for a penalty far

in excess of the $2,500.00 we assess,

A

penalty is imposed to

assure that Respondent not profit from its pollutional-causing

activities and to deter others from violating the law.

Respondent

must not gain financially from its admitted failure

to apply the

required covering and stabllization and from the deferring of fence

construction necessary to control the scattering of debris. W~

are not unaware of the delay in compliance with the relevant

regulations and the degree of nuisance imposed on the community.

However,

in arriving at the penalty assessed, we do take into con-

sideration Respondent’s comprehensive implementation plan for ,abate-

ment of air and water pollution,

the installation and costs antici-

pated,

the monitoring program proposed and the prospective assurance

that

the Regulations will be

complied

with.

Since

this

program

is

total in concept and arrived at by agreement of the parties after

extended public hearings, we are not disposed to set it aside nor

to

conduct

further hearings on the

matter

of penalty.

Our assess-

ment

of

penalty

is

in

consideration

of

all

of

the

foregoing

factors

See

~

#70-34,

Opinion

dated

May

3,

1972,

We approve the stipulation and proposal for final settlement

as submitted,

the provisions of which will be incorporated in our

order,

A

penalty

in

the

amount

of

$2,500.00

is

assessed

for

the

causing

of

air

pollution

in

violation

of

Section

9(a)

of

the

Act

and

the

violation

of

the

Rules

and

Statutes

in

respect

to

open

dumping,

failure

to

cover, and

to

provide fencing,as

charged

in

the

complaint.

This

opinion

constitutes

the

findings

of fact and conclusions

of

law

of

the

Board.

IT

IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1.

The Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement of

the

parties is hereby approved and incorporated by

reference in full as paragraph 1 of this order.

2.

Respondent shall cease and desist all violation of

Sections 9(a) and 21(b)

of the Environmental Protection

Act and of Rules 3.04,

4.03(a),

5.07 and 5,07(a)

of

—6—

—

450

---

the

Rules

and

Regulations

for

Refuse

Disposal

Sites

and

Facilities

and

shall

completely

grade,

fill

and

cover

the

entire

refuse

site

with

a

two

foot

layer

of

impermeable

clay

capped

with

a

one-foot

layer

of

humus

material

to

support

vegetation.

3.

Respondent

shall

pay

to

the

State

of

Illinois

within

thirty-five

days

from

the

date

hereof,

the

sum

of

$2,500.00

as a penalty for the violations found in

this

proceeding.

Penalty

payment

by

certified

check

or money order payable to the State of Illinois shall

be made

-to:

Fiscal Services Division,

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency,

2200

Churchill

Drive,

Springfield,

Illinois

62706.

4.

Respondent

shall

complete

before

September

26,

1973

or

on the date of the complete filling of its landfill,

whichever

is

earlier,

construction

of

its

landfill

design

as

specified

in

Exhibit

“A”

of

this

proceeding and shall comply with all terms of

said

Exhibit

“A”.

5.

Respondent

shall

construct

and

maintain

observation

wells

at

its

landfill

as

provided

in

Exhibit”A”of

the

Stipulation

so

as

to

monitor

the

impact

of

drainage

from

the

landfill

on

the

ground

and

surface

waters

of

Illinois

and

shall

undertake

to

abate

any

pollution

of

the

waters

of

Illinois

from

said

drainage.

6.

Respondent

shall

file

with

the

Agency

monthly

reports

on

its

progress

toward

compliance

with

Parts

4

and

5

of

this

Order.

7.

Respondent

shall,

within

seven

days

of

the receipt of

this

Order,post

with

the

Agency

a

personal bond or

other

security

in

the

amount

of

$35,000.00,

to

be

sent

to

the

Fiscal

Services

Division,

Environmental

Protec-

tion

Agency,

2200

Churchill

Road,

Springfield,

Illinois

62706,

in

a

form

satisfactory

to

the

Agency

which

sum

shall

be

forfeited

to

the

State

of

Illinois

in

the

event

that

the

conditions

of

this

Order

are

not complied with.

1~r.

Dumelle

dissents.

I, Christan Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board,

certify

that

the

above

Opinion

and

Order

was

adopted

on

the

-

-

day of September,

1972, by

a vote of

-,1

to

,~‘

5

—

451