ILLINOIS POLLJTIONI CONTROL BOARD

~1arch 10, 1988

RICK MOORE, ELEAt’TOR MORRIS arid

LEONARD MORRIS,

Petitioners,

v.

)

PCB 88—24

WAYNE COUNTY BOARD and

DAUBS LANDFILL, INC.,

Respondents.

ORDER OF THE BOARD (by B. Forcade):

On February 22, 1988, the Board received a filing from the

Natural Resources Defense Council (“NRDC”) in this matter. That

filing asserts, “It has been brought to NRDC’s attention that the

Illinois Pollution Control Board is considering the issuance of a

permit to Daubs Disposal Service for the construction of a

landfill...t’ The attachments to that filing provide facts on

what constitutes adequate and inadequate landfill design.

NRDC misperceives the role of the Board in this

proceeding. This Board is not deciding whether to permit a

landfill. This Board is sitting as an appellate tribunal to

review an adjudicatory decision rendered by the Wayne County

Board (hereinafter “Wayne County’t). The Board must decide

whether the decision of Wayne County is against the manifest

weight of the evidence, based on facts which were presented to

Wayne County. In this case,the Board is not at liberty to accept

new factual information bearing on landfills in general, or this

landfill in particular. In certain limited circumstances the

Board may be able to review new factual information where there

is a claim that the material was lawfully presented to Wayne

County, by a proper participant in a timely and proper manner,

but Wayne County unlawfully rejected the information. No such

claim has been made by NRDC. In addition, the filing made by

NRDC contains no proof of service on counsel for the respective

parties.

The Board will temporarily docket the February 22, 1988,

filing as a public comment, with no determination on the

propriety of the filing. By today’s Order, the Board is

informing the parties that the information is available in the

Board’s oEfice for their review. The Board Orders that not later

than March 31, 1988, NRDC and all parties file comments or briefs

on what disposition should be made of the information filed by

NRDC. For clarity, the Board directs the Clerk of the Board to

87—31

—2—

include a copy of the Environmental Protection Act (hereinafter

“the Act”) in the service on NRDC, as well as a list of the

present attorneys of record. NRDC may wish to review Sections

40.1 and 39.2 of that Act, which governs the Board’s activity in

these review proceedings.

For NRDC’s benefit, the Board notes that the instant

proceeding involves the siting location approval for a landfill,

not its permitting. Permitting of landfills is done by the

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to the

provisions of Title 

V

and Title X of the Act. Those permitting

decisions must implement the Board’s substantive regulations

governing landfills. The Board’s substantive regulations

governing landfills are presently under review in regulatory

proceeding R88—7. If NRDC has comments on statewide regulatory

requirements governing the design and operation of landfills, the

comments would be best directed to docket R88—7.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify that the above Order was adopted on

the /~~‘dayof  

~7’)a-t.,~4’ 

1988, by a vote

of

____________.

Dorothy M. unn, Cle~’rk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

87—32

NOTE: ATTACHMENTS ARE IN THE CLERK’S FILE

\1atu

ral Re’~&ziic’s

)cf~’H~’

C’ctu,icil

22 East 42ud 

1H1t~.’

949~1Jo~

February 22. 1988

Illinois Pollution Control Board

State of Illinois Center           

PCB 88—24

100 West Randolph Street

Suite 11—500

Chicago, Illinois 60601

Dear Sirs:

I am a science associate with the Natural Resources Defense

Council Inc. (“NRDC”), a national, non-profit environmental

organization with a large staff of attorneys and scientists and

approximately 70,000 members. In recent years, NRDC has become

increasingly involved with solid waste management issues,

including efforts at the federal and state levels to upgrade

standards for municipal landfills.

It has been brought to NRDC’s attention that the Illinois

Pollution Control Board is considering the issuance of a permit

to Daubs Disposal Service for the construction of a landfill on a

180-acre tract near Boyleston, Illinois. We are alarmed that, to

the best of our understanding, the conditions of the permit do

not call for liners, leachate collection systems, ground water

monitoring and numerous other technologies and programs necessary

to prevent environmental contamination hazards. Based on recent

studies 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), such ~

facility could pose a significant environmental arid public health

hazard, particularly considering its size and siting in 

area

where the underground aquifer is used as a source of drinking

water.

Municipal landfills, the vast majority unlined and lacking

leachate collection systems1, constitute over twenty percent of

the facilities on the federal Superfund National Priorities List

(NPL). Another 2000 landfills, over twice the number of total

facilities on the current list, meet the criteria for inclusion

on the NPL. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has found

that 2,271 out of 9,284 municipal landfills, or approximately

one-quarter, had recorded violations involving releases to

1. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Subtitle D Report to

Congress, Final Draft, 

May

28, 1987, U.S. EPA, Office of Solid

Wastes Branch, 4-43.

7~•

J~.~ f J~ ~

51”

‘t~’

.\‘tZO

En~LmdOm~c    

T~t’~

135(I

A:~,\  

\czt’

.\1t~,:~’r~,

S50

Bosto~tPost

~t~i

l,~rntitto~i

Li’;c.

l~a~Jt:

i~1~

flC

SaL’

ia’t::~c~

CA 94 ItS   

S~ih~r~,

.\IA

V1~t~

U5.l

1-Alt

o4~-.\’!~L~C

3733

‘O~

-T~tl;~

415

~-t)22U

~1~44.3-ó3~)

212

~ST-cSt~2

—~

N~LI~

4 1988

Cj~~ftit~~

PJTION CONTROL BOARD

environmental media.2 Of the only 2,331 facilities with even

rudimentary ground water monitoring programs, 586, or one-

quarter, had ground water contamination violations.3 The number

of violations would undoubtedly be significantly higher if

frequent and comprehensive inspections or adequate monitoring

programs were the norm (for example, few current ground water

monitoring programs can detect organics). EPA has estimated that

“Depending on what assumptions are used, the percentage of

landfills posing risks greater than the 10—6 ranges from 17 to

40.”~ Greater than l0~ population risks are generally of Agency

concern.

Both EPA and a number of states have realized the urgent need to

upgrade permitting standards. EPA has developed a comprehensive

regulatory package to be proposed this spring that will to revise

federal criteria for municipal landfills. When finalized, these

will be, by federal law, minimum standards for state permitting

programs. I have attached a recent draft of the proposed

rulemaking. The package includes siting restrictions and

requirements for ground water and air monitoring, liquids

management, containment technologies (liners, leachate collection

systems, covers, run-on/run—off controls), and financial

responsibility. I should add that the current EPA proposals are

a watered-down version of earlier, far stronger proposals from

EPA working groups (see attachment for a more detailed discussion

of the development of the EPA regulations). A number of states,

including New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania, have

significantly stronger requirements than EPA is proposing. For

example, Pennsylvania requires double liners/double leachate

collection systems for all new facilities and will prohibit

siting of both new arid existing facilities within eight feet of

the water table. I have enclosed a copy of Pennsylvania’s

finalized regulations.

On behalf of our members in Illinois, NRDC respectfully requests

that the State of Illinois reconsider its standards for

permitting municipal landfills, in both the case of the Boyleston

site and all future landfill permits in the state. We urge the

State not to wait until EPA finalizes their regulations as the

Boyleston site, if constructed under current standards, clearly

2. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Subtitle D Report to

C~ngress, Final Draft, May 28, 1987, U.S. EPA, Office of Solid

Wastes Branch, 4-75.

3. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Subtitle D Report to

Congress, Final Draft, May 28, 1987, U.S. EPA, Office of Solid

Wastes Branch, 4-75.

4. From June version of draft of EPA report to Congress on

Subtitle D, as reported in Inside EPA, July 3, 1987, p.12.

2

87—34

poses a significant risk to water resources and the health and

welfare of the citizens in the surrounding community. Other

states, such as Pennsylvania and New York, upgraded their permit

standards in practice long before finalizing changes through a

rulemaking, prompted by an increasing awareness of the hazards we

have described in this letter.

Please call or write if you have any questions. Thank you for

your consideration of our concerns. I hope they will be of

assistance in your decision-making.

Sincerely,

Bradfor H. Sewell

Science Associate

cc: Mr. Robert Redford

Ms. Eleanor R. Morris, People Against Landfill Sites (PALS)

Rick Moore, PALS

Thomas L Kilbride

Leon S. Hosselton, Chairman, Wayne County Board

enc.

3

87—35