BEFORE THE
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
)
)
)
AS 05-02
)
(Adjusted Standard
—
Water)
)
)
)
NOTICE OF FILING
IN THE MATTER OF:
PETITION OF
THE VILLAGE OF
BENSENVILLE FOR AN ADJUSTED
STANDARD FROM
35
ILL. ADM. CODE 620.410
REGARDING CHLORIDE AND LEAD
To:
Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency
Attn:
Melanie Jarvis
Division ofLegal
Counsel
1021 North Grand Avenue East
Post Office Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois
62794-9276
~C~E
‘c;~W$~~
JUH 03
2005
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE
that today I have filed with the Office ofthe Clerk of
the
Pollution
Control
Board
SECOND
AMENDED
PETITION
FOR
ADJUSTED
STANDARD
FROM
GROUNDWATER
QUALITY STANDARDS
FOR
CHLORIDE
in
the above titled matter.
Copies ofthese documents are hereby served upon you.
VILLAGE OF BENSENVILLE
DATED:
June 3, 2005
MCGUIRE WOODS
LLP
David
L. Rieser
77
West
Wacker Drive, Suite 4100
Chicago, Illinois
60601
(312) 849-8100
BEFORE THE
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
PETITION OF
THE VILLAGE OF
)
AS
05-02
BENSENVILLE FOR AN ADJUSTED
)
(Adjusted Standard
-
Water)
STANDARD FROM
)
35
ILL. ADM. CODE 620.410
)
REGARDING CHLORIDE AND LEAD
)
PROOF
OF
SERVICE
I, David L. Rieser, an attorney, hereby certify that I caused the attached pleadings to be
served upon all parties listed on the attached Notice of Filing via first class U.S. mail from 77
West Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL,
on June 4, 2005.
David L. Rie~er
MCGUIREWOODS LLP
David L. Rieser
77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 4100
Chicago, Illinois
60601
(312) 849-8100
\\REA\254087,1
RECEIVED
BEFORE
THE
CLERK’S OFFICE
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
JUN
03
2005
STATE OF ILLINOIS
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
PoIIut~onContro’
Board
)
PETITION OF
THE VILLAGE OF
)
AS 05-02
BENSENVILLE FOR AN ADJUSTED
)
(Adjusted Standard
—
Water)
STANDARD FROM
)
35 ILL. ADM. CODE 620.4 10
)
REGARDING CHLORIDE
)
SECOND
AMENDED
PETITION FOR
ADJUSTED STANDARD
FROM
GROUNDWATER QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
CHLORIDE AT THE VILLAGE OF BENSENYILLE LANDFILL
The Village ofBensenville (“Bensenville”), by and through its attorneys
McGuireWoods, LLP, submits this second amended petition to the Illinois Pollution
Control Board (“PCB”) for adjusted groundwater standards for dissolved chloride at the
Village ofBensenville Landfill located in Bensenville,
Illinois.
Bensenville submits this
petitionpursuant to
Section 28.1 ofthe Illinois Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS
5/28.1)
and 35 Ill. Adm. Code
104, Subpart D.
These amendments are in response to the
PCB’s order dated January 20, 2005 requesting additional information.
These
amendments also respond to certain questions submitted by the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency (“IEPA”) after the filing ofthe original and the amended petition.
A
redlined copy ofthis Second Amended Petition, identifying the changes from the
Amended Petition is attached hereto and incorporated herein asExhibit
13.
The most significant ofthese changes is the withdrawal ofBensenville
‘
s request
for an adjusted standard related to lead. At the time Bensenville filed its original petition
current groundwater sampling data indicated that the groundwater quality standard for
lead was not being exceeded. Because ofpast exceedences, Bensenville included relief
for lead solely to provide additional
support for its request for certification ofrelease
from post closure care as described below.
Yet after further review ofthe data,
Bensenville determined that regulatory relief regarding lead is not necessary and that the
requestfor this reliefcomplicated its petition regarding chloride. For that reason,
Bensenville submits this revised petition.
Consistent with these revisions, and as
discussed below, Bensenville submits revised Exhibits
1
and 6
and withdraws Exhibit
10.
I.
INTRODUCTION
Bensenville seeks this relieffor the Village ofBensenville Landfill (“Site”)
located at the northwest corner ofGrand Avenue and County Line Road.
Bensenville
acquired the
Site, which was closed in 1989, from John Sexton Filling and
Grading
Contractors Corporation (“Sexton”) in 1997.
Since
1997, Bensenville has worked with
the IEPA to gainrelease from post closure care.
As will be described below, Bensenville
has resolved all groundwater-related issues with the IEPA except forthe current presence
ofelevated concentrations ofdissolved chloride.
Bensenville maintains and has
demonstrated that the elevated levels ofchloride are anthropogenic but not related to
landfill impacts.
The IEPA has taken the position that it cannot certify completion of
post closure care for the Site when groundwater on the Site exceeds the PCB
‘S
groundwater quality standards.
Bensenville seeks this relief in order to obtain its
certification ofcompletion ofpost closure care.
As stated in this Petition, Bensenville
believes this relief is justified because the conditions are different thanthose
2
contemplated by the Groundwater Quality Regulations,
because compliance is not
economically reasonable and because the conditions create no impact to
human health or
the environment.
II.
DESCRIPTION
OF
RELIEF
A.
Standard from Which Adjusted Standard is Sought.
(35
Ill. Adm.
Code
104.406(a)).
Bensenville seeks relief from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 620.4 10(a) solely as it sets out a
standard for chloride.
This regulation became effective November
25,
1991.
B.
Statute Which Regulation is Intended to Implement.
(35
Ill. Adm.
Code
104.406(b)).
The PCB adopted this regulation pursuant to the Illinois Groundwater Protection
Act,
415
ILCS
55/1
et seq. and not to implement the requirements ofthe statutes listed at
35 Ill. Adm. Code
104.406(b).
C.
Level ofJustification.
(35
Ill.
Adm. Code
104.406(c)).
The Groundwater Quality Regulations do not specify a level ofjustification for
seeking an adjusted standard ofan individual groundwater quality
standard, although they
do specify a standard for seeking the reclassification of a given groundwater.
35 Ill. Adm.
Codes 620.450.
PCB regulations applicable to landfills which continued to be in
operation after 1990 (and not applicable to the Site) containjustification for adjusted
groundwater standards at 35 Ill. Adm.
Code 811 .320(b)(4).
Although the Part 811
standards do not apply to this Site, the regulations for adjusting groundwater quality
standards provide a useful framework forjustifying this relief.
3
III.
DESCRIPTION OF PETITIONER’S ACTIVITY
(35
Ill. Adm. Code
104.406(d))
Bensenville attaches and incorporates as Exhibit
1
Groundwater Summary Report
prepared by Environmental Information Logistics, LLC (EIL), Bensenville’s
environmental consultant1.
The Site description and environmental information included
in this Petition is taken from that document and its attachments.
A.
Location ofSite.
The Site is located in the Village of Bensenville in DuPage County at the
northwest corner ofGrand Avenue and County Line Road.
The landfill covers
53
acres,
41 ofwhich are filled.
The landfill is bordered by the River Forest GolfClub to the west,
Grand Avenue and the Mount Emblem Cemetery to the south (City ofElmhurst), County
Line Road and Interstate 294 to the east (City ofNorthlake), and a residential area to the
north (Village ofBensenville).
A map showing the location ofthe Site is attached hereto
and incorporated herein as Exhibit 2.
The area east ofCounty Line Road and Interstate
294
is industrial and is located in the City ofNorthlake within Cook County.
There are
no
schools, hospitals, or churches located within the residential area north ofthe landfill.
The Village is served by a municipal drinking water supply that obtains water from Lake
Michigan.
B.
Past Operations.
Prior to operation as a landfill, the
Site, owned by John Sexton Filling & Grading
Contractors Corp.
(Sexton), was used as a borrow pit for materials utilized in the
construction ofInterstate 294.
From May 31,
1973 through July 24,
1987,
Sexton
operated the Site as a landfill, accepting demolition debris, concrete rubble, foundry
‘A revised version of the narrative portion of
this report
is attached hereto
and shouklbesubstituted for the
original narrative section of Exhibit
1.
4
sands, and logs, brush, and debris generally derived from the landscaping industry.
To
the best ofBensenville’s knowledge, Sexton did not design or construct any features such
as a liner, leachate collection system, or landfill gas control system but simply used the
existing borrowpit to dispose ofthe construction, demolition, and landscaping debris.
The Site also accepted ash generated by an on-Site, permitted air curtain destructor
(ACD) that operated intermittently from March 1974 to October
1985.
The ACD
consisted ofa subsurface rectangular structure with concrete walls used to bum
landscaping debris.
At no time was the Site authorized to accept either hazardous or
general domestic wastes.
C.
Closure/Post-Closure Care History
Sexton completed closure activities, including the decommissioning ofthe ACD,
on October 4,
1989.
Sexton submitted documentation ofthese activities to the IEPA on
October 30,
1989.
On January 29,
1990, the IEPA issued
Supplemental Permit No.
1989-
305-SP beginning the required five-year minimum post-closure care period.
On
March 27,
1997,
Sexton submitted a supplemental permit application (SPA) (IEPA Log
No. 1997-116) demonstrating that the post closure care requirements forthe facility had
been met.
Due to the thenpending transfer ofthe property to Bensenville, however,
Sexton requested that this
SPA be withdrawn in a letter received by the IEPA
November25, 1997.
The permit was transferred from Sexton to Bensenville by the IEPA on
December 23,
1997.
Bensenville acquired the
Site with a grant provided by the IEPA.
Bensenville sought the Site to
develop it for use as open space.
In accordance with the
5
IEPA’s grant, and consistent with its post-closure care permit, the Village constructed
a
golf course,
which was opened to the public in the spring of2003.
As stated above, Sexton did not install any pollution control equipment to control
leachate or landfill gas.
With respect to leachate control, pursuant to its post-closure care
permit, Sexton constructed a landfill cap consisting oftwo
feet ofclay and six-inches of
topsoil, with additional soil
and vegetation installed by Bensenville above the cap in
order to
support the golf course.
With respect to landfill gas, Bensenville submitted a
planto investigate landfill gas in August, 1998 and the Agency accepted the plan in
October of 1998.
In June, 1999, Bensenville submitted its report documenting that
landfill gas was not being generated in sufficient quantities to cause concern with regard
to landfill gas migration, greenhouse gas issues, or impacts to
humanhealth and the
environment.
During a meeting with Bensenville on February
17, 2000 the IEPA agreed
that the landfill gas concerns were satisfactorily addressed by the report.
A copy ofthis
report is
attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit
8.
The IEPA issued Supplemental Permit l998-166-SP on June 12,
1998 in response
to a SPA requesting placement ofsoils on the cap and that the landfill’s name be changed
from the “County Line Landfill” to the “Village of Bensenville Landfill.”
Bensenville’s
consultant, EIL, prepared and submitted a SPA on August 31, 2000 to satisfy the IEPA’s
request for further Site groundwater assessment.
After EIL responded to a draft denial,
the IEPA issued
Supplemental Permit No. 2000-321-SP on February
13, 2001
approving
the scope ofthe groundwater assessment monitoring plan.
EIL conducted the groundwater
investigation and submitted the results to the
IEPA as a SPA (Log No. 2001-174) on May 1, 2001, as required.
The results ofthe
6
investigation indicated that there were no organic compounds in Site groundwater.
The
results also indicated that there were some
inorganic constituents in Site groundwater,
including chloride, but at concentrations that were below permit-specified criteria or were
attributable to background or non-landfill anthropogenic conditions (see discussion at
pages
13-15).
The conclusion presented in the SPA, therefore, was that the landfill had
not caused any impacts to groundwater beneath the Site.
On this basis Bensenville again
requested that the IEPA release the Site from post-closure care.
From October, 2001, through September, 2004, Bensenville and the IEPA
exchanged correspondence regarding the completion ofpost closure care for the Site.
The IEPA submitted several draft denial letters and Bensenville answered the IEPA’s
concerns until the only remaining issues were the current presence of chloride in the Site
groundwater at concentrations exceeding its respective Illinois Class I groundwater
quality standards and not attributable to naturally occurring conditions.
No other
constituent concentration in Site groundwater currently exceeds Illinois Class I
groundwater quality standards.
Messrs. Michael Hirt and Jay Corgiat ofEIL met with Mr. Paul Eisenbrandt and
Ms. Gwenyth Thompson of IEPA on June 9, 2003 to discussthe May 9, 2003 IEPA draft
denial letter and the IEPA’s concern regarding the elevated chloride concentrations.
During the meeting EIL summarized the previously submitted documentation that
suggested an off-Site source of chloride (e.g., road salt) and presented the results ofnew
evidence (comparison of sodium to chloride molar ratios in groundwater and leachate)
that further strengthened the non-landfill chloride source argument.
7
The IEPA responded that because the sources ofchloride are believed to be
anthropogenic, non-landfill sources and not due to naturally occurring, background
variability, and because the current chloride concentrations in
Site groundwater exceeded
Illinois groundwater standards, the Village would have to obtain a Site-specific adjusted
standard for dissolved chloride from the PCB before the IEPA will agree to release
Bensenville from the requirements ofpost-closure care at the Site.
As a result,
Bensenville submitted this Petition in order to obtain this release.
IV.
DESCRIPTION OF GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
AND
LACK OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
(35
Ill. Adm.
Code
104.406(g))
A.
Geology
The near surface geology ofthis area is generally characterized by a varying
thickness ofglacially-derived soils overlying Silurian Age dolomite bedrock.
Based on
the findings ofinvestigations conducted whenthe facility closed, the glacially-derived
soils at the Site range in thickness from approximately 55
feet, below Addison Creek, to
over 70 feet.
These consist of, in descending order, an upper silty clay unit
(5
to 25 feet
thick), an upper water bearing unit comprised of silty sands (10 feet thick), a middle unit
consisting ofclayey till
(5
to 20
feet thick), a lower water bearing unit consisting of silty
sand
(5
to 20 feet thick), and at some locations a lower silt and clay unit
(5
to
15 feet
thick).
The lower water bearing unit is commonly referred to as a basal outwash, a term
that is based on its physical connection with the underlying Silurian Age dolomite
bedrock.
This basal outwash is the only water-bearing unit at the Sitethat the IEPA
requires to be monitored.
The results of more recent investigations suggest that the
glacially-derived soils overlying bedrock may be less than
60 feet thick outside the
8
perimeter ofthe landfill.
These glacially-derived soils tend to vary
significantly in
thickness, texture, and continuity in northern Illinois.
In fact, the glacially-derived
soils
completely “pinch out” approximately four miles to the southeast at the former Hillside
rock quarry and approximately two miles to
the southwest at the current Elmhurst rock
quarry (Piskin, K,
1975, Illinois State Geological Survey Circular 490,
Glacial Drift in
Illinois: Thickness and Character),
both ofwhich were/are used to mine Silurian Age
dolomite bedrock where it essentially outcrops at the ground surface (i.e., where there is
no glacially-derived soil overburden material).
Based on regional information, the
Silurian Age dolomite bedrock under the Site may be greater than 200 feet thick and
contains a relatively large amount offissures, fractures, and solution cavities.
B.
Hydrogeology
Groundwater in the upper and lower water bearing units generally occurs as a
function ofrecharge derived from vertical infiltration ofrunoffand precipitation from the
surface through the glacial deposits.
The upper water bearing unit is highly
discontinuous and heterogeneous across the Site based on existing borehole information.
As such, it yields minimal amounts ofgroundwater.
The IEPA previously allowed
groundwater monitoring in the upper water bearing unit to be
discontinued.
On a regional basis, the lower water bearing unit is discontinuous and is entirely
absent a few miles downgradient ofthe Site (Piskin, K,
1975,
Illinois State Geological
Survey Circular 490,
Glacial Drift in Illinois: Thickness and Character).
Groundwater
yield in the lower water bearing unit is generally related to the degree of connectivity
with the underlying Silurian Age dolomite bedrock.
The yield potentials tend to be much
9
higher at locations where the lower water bearing unit is in direct hydraulic connection
with the underlying Silurian Age dolomite bedrock (ISWS Circular 149,
1981).
The lower water bearing unit, or basal outwash, has been monitored during the
post closure care period since 1990 via a network ofsix monitoring wells.
Of these, one
well (Gi 14) is located hydraulically upgradient ofthe Site.
The remaining five wells
(G115/Rl15,
Gl16, G117, G1l8/R118, and Gl17/Rl17) are located downgradientofthe
landfill.
Depths to groundwater in the lower water bearing zone currently range from
approximately 20 feet to 35 feetbelow ground surface.
Horizontal groundwater flow in
the lower water bearing unit at the Site has been consistently from northwest to southeast.
Unretarded, horizontal groundwater flow rates are on the order ofapproximately four
meters per year, based on a calculated gradient of0.003
feet per feet (EIL, 2004,
Annual
Assessment ofGroundwater Flow and Hydraulic Gradients),
an estimated hydraulic
conductivity of 1
x
10 ~
cm/sec (Fetter, C.,
1980,
AppliedHydrogeology),
and an
assumed porosity of0.25 (Fetter, C.,
1980,
Applied Hydrogeology).
2
Chloride is a conservative constituent in terms ofits mobility in groundwater,
meaning that it generally travels unretarded in groundwater and, therefore, horizontal
travel times for chloride would be expected to
be on the
order offourmeters per year, or
1300
feet per
100 years.
Groundwater in the Silurian Age dolomite bedrock occurs in joints, fissures, and
solution cavities.
The groundwater yield within the bedrock varies considerably based on
the distribution and connectivity ofthe joints, fissures, and solution cavities, but tends to
be most productive in the upper portion ofthe bedrock where it is more densely fractured.
2
EIL believes that these values are conservative based
on field
experience,
including
the generally slow
recovery rate of the monitoring wells (four ofthe six wells, including G114, G116,
G117, and R121
are
typically bailed dry prior to sampling).
10
The Silurian Age dolomite bedrock is recharged directly from the overlying glacial
deposits, or directly from precipitation where the bedrock is exposed at the surface.
In
general, the Silurian Age dolomite bedrock is capable ofyielding significant volumes of
water compared to the lower water bearing unit.
For example, based on a 1981
Illinois
State Water Survey report (ISWS Circular
149,
1981), “Groundwater withdrawals from
the shallow aquifers in DuPage County averaged 36.7 mgd million
gallons per day
during the past 13 years; 34.3 mgd was from the Silurian
Age
dolomite and 2.4 mgd
was from the sand and gravel.”
As such, less than 10 percent ofthe DuPage County
groundwater budget was historically (from the late
1 960s through the early l980s)
provided by the unconsolidated glacially-derived units.
These numbers have likely
decreased in recent years with the increased availability ofmunicipally-supplied Lake
Michigan water.
Groundwater flow withinthe Silurian Age dolomite bedrock is generally from
west to east.
However, this flow is significantly affected on a local basis by dewatering
activities associated with numerous local rock quarries.
There is no Site-specific
groundwater flow information in the Silurian Age dolomite bedrock.
C.
Groundwater Quality
—
Silurian Age Dolomite Bedrock
Groundwater quality in the Silurian Age dolomite bedrock near the Site and
elsewhere in the region is well documented and is known to be high in chloride and other
inorganic constituents (ISWS Circular 149,
1981).
In general, concentrations oftotal
dissolved solids (TDS), hardness (as CaCO3), sulfate, chloride, sodium, and total iron are
high and, in many cases, several times higher than applicable drinking water standards.
The greatest concentrations ofthese constituents tend to be found in areas that are more
11
densely developed by human activity, such as near the Site (ISWS Circular 149,
1981).
These constituents include the highest total dissolved solid concentrations in the
LaGrange-McCook and the Elmhurst-Bensenville-Northlake areas, the highest chloride
concentrations in the Elmhurst-Berkley-Bensenville area, and the highest sodium
concentrations in the Elmhurst-Berkley-Bensenville and the Burr Ridge-Hinsdale areas.
Concentration contour maps ofchloride in the Silurian Age dolomite bedrock from ISWS
Circular
149 are included as Exhibit 3.
Revised contour maps showing the location ofthe
Site, Interstate 294, and O’Hare airport are attached as Exhibit 9.
In fact, chloride
concentrations in the Silurian Age dolomite bedrock near the Site were
observed to be
similar to those observed in Site groundwater collected from the lower water bearing unit.
The Illinois
State Water Survey attributed the high chloride concentrations in the
Silurian Age dolomite bedrock to heavy road salt applications along major roads,
including Interstate 294 (ISWS Circular 149,
1981), that infiltrates through the overlying
glacial units, including the lower water bearing unit.
Based on information provided by
the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority
(http://www.illinoistollway.com/portal/page?pageid=l 35,4131 4&dad=portal&_schema
=PORTAL), the Authority applied an average of56,665
tons ofsalt annually during the
past eight years to their 274
miles oftoll roads.
This is equivalent to 207 tons ofsalt per
mile of road per year, or 34.5 tons of salt per lane-mile for a six lane highway.
As
previously indicated, Interstate 294 runs north-south adjacent to the east boundary ofthe
Site.
In addition, Grand Avenue and County Line Road (which border the Site to the
south and east, respectively) are also salted during the winter months by both Bensenville
and DuPage County road crews.
12
In addition to surface infiltration of contaminants, significant dewatering
activities,
such as those associated with nearby rock quarries in Elmhurst (two miles
to
the southwest) and Hillside (four miles to the southeast), have changed the redox
conditions in the Silurian Age dolomite bedrock, resulting in increased concentrations of
some dissolved constituents (ISWS Circular 149,
1981).
D.
Groundwater Quality
—
Lower Water Bearing Unit
Groundwater quality in the lower water bearing unit at the Site is well
documented on the basis ofnearly
14 years of
quarterly
post closure care monitoring and
statistical reporting.
During the 14-year time period there have been no confirmed
detections oforganic compounds in Site groundwater.
Based on the information collected at the Site and on the regional information
regardingthe Silurian Age Dolomite bedrock, Bensenville can document that the
groundwater quality issues observed in the lower water bearing unit for which this
petition seeks relief are not landfill related.3
With respect to chloride, as discussed above,
the
1981
ISWS Circular identified regional chloride impacts in the Silurian Age dolomite
which are consistent with the impacts in the lower water bearing unit with which it is
connected at the Site.
Groundwater investigations at the Site indicated generally higher
chloride concentrations further from the landfill waste boundary, adjacent to the
roadways.
This is not consistent with a possible leachate release.
~Bensenville acknowledges that this conclusion has been the subject ofextensive discussion with the
IEPA.
While Bensenville asserts it can fully document and support its position, it also notes that the Board
can grant this relief without resolving this debate.
As is demonstrated below, identified control measures
would be economicallyunreasonable and there is no environmental impact associated withthe relief.
13
E.
Groundwater
Usage
In order to evaluate the impact ofthe proposed change, EIL evaluated
groundwater usage and monitoring wells within one half-mile ofthe Site.
Bensenville
previously obtained all ofits water from deep wells (ISWS Circular
149,
1981), and
currently
obtains its
water from Lake Michigan.
Bensenville also maintains a private
well use restriction (Bensenville Municipal Code 8-7-23), included as Exhibit 4, that
states:
“From and afterJuly 6,
1984,
it shall be
unlawfulfor any person to install a well,
cistern,
or other groundwater collection device to be used to supply any water
supply system
~f
a water main constituting apart ofthe Village ‘spublic water
supply system is within two hundredfeet (2007 ofthe nearest property line ofthe
property upon which the well,
cistern,
or other groundwater collection device
would be drilled or connected.”
Based on communications with personnel in the Bensenville public works
department
and DuPage County Public Health Department, well database
information obtained from
the Illinois State Geological Survey (ISGS) and the Illinois State Water Survey (ISWS),
and a reconnaissance performed on December 2, 2004, there are no known private wells
or monitoring wells in Bensenville located within one
half-mile ofthe Site that are
screened in the lower water bearing unit, with the exception ofthe Site monitoring wells.
Based on that same reconnaissance, there are no wells
screened in the lower water
bearing unit in the City ofNorthlake located adjacent to and east (downgradient) ofthe
Site.
Northlake, as shown in the map in Exhibit
5,
does not currently maintain a private
well use restriction.
The majority ofproperties located within one half-mile ofthe Site
14
are industrial/commercial in nature.
In addition, there is a small residential area located
due east of and within one half-mile ofthe Site.
Based on discussions with the Northlake
public works department, Cook County Public Health Department,
and a number of
residents in the residential area, well database information obtained from ISGS and
ISWS, and a reconnaissance performed on December 2, 2004, the various
industries/commercial operations within one half-mile downgradient ofthe Site obtain
their water from either deep bedrock wells or from Lake Michigan.
The homeowners
within the small residential area are connected to the Northlake municipal water supply
that
is sourced from Lake Michigan and there are no known private wells or monitoring
wells located in Northlake within one half-mile downgradient of the Site that are
screened in the lower water bearing unit.
There were, however, a fewmonitoring wells previously located within one half-
mile ofthe Site associated with a former Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) site
(Leon Parent Trucking, LUST incident number 961459).
Those monitoring wells were
abandoned based on discussions with the property owner and field observations during
the December 2, 2004 reconnaissance.
There was also a private well previously located
east ofthe Site on what is now property owned by National Trucking.
Based on ISGS
well records, the well was screened in the underlying Silurian Dolomite bedrock.
Company representatives ofNational Trucking indicated that the well was previously
abandoned.
The abandonment was evident during the December 2, 2004 field
reconnaissance.
The City of
Elmhurst,
located adjacent to and
south (downgradient) ofthe
Site,
maintains an ordinance (Elmhurst Municipal Code MCO-l-2003), included in Exhibit 4,
15
that prohibits the use ofgroundwater for potable use within the city limits except via well
points operated by
a city, those private wells in existence prior to the ordinance date (not
including those in need ofrepair), and private irrigation wells equipped with a backflow
prevention device.
The ordinance was approved subject to a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) between Elmhurst and the IEPA.
The MOU was completed on
December 4, 2003.
Elmhurst provides municipal water service sourced from Lake
Michigan to its residents.
Mt. Emblem Cemetery is the only property in Elmhurst that is located within one
half-mile downgradient (south to southeast) ofthe Site, as shown on the map included as
Exhibit
5.
There are no other industrial/commercial facilities or residential areas located
in Elmhurst within one half-mile downgradientofthe Site.
Based on communications
with personnel in the
Elmhurst
public works department, Mt. Emblem Cemetery, and
DuPage County Public Health Department, well database information obtained from the
ISGS and ISWS, and a reconnaissance performed on December 2, 2004, there are no
known private wells or monitoring wells in
Elmhurst
located within one half-mile
downgradient ofthe Site that are screened in the lower water bearing unit.
There were, however, a number ofmonitoring wells previously installed in Mt.
Emblem Cemetery that were associated with a LUST incident (LUST incident number
913205).
These wells have since been abandoned based on discussions with the Mt.
Emblem Cemetery property manager and observations during the December 2, 2004
reconnaissance.
In addition, there were a number ofprivate wells that were
located
approximately one half-mile south ofthe Site, likely within the confines ofthe cemetery.
However, based on well records obtained from the ISWS and ISGS, these wells were
16
screened in the underlying Silurian Age dolomite bedrock.
The Mt. Cemetery property
manager had no knowledge ofthe existence ofthese wells and there was no evidence that
they are still in existence based on the December 2, 2004 reconnaissance.
In summary, based on discussions with the public works departments of
Bensenville, Northiake, including some local residents, and Elmhurst, including
personnel at Mt. Emblem Cemetery, and with the DuPage and Cook County Public
Health Departments, well database information obtained from the ISGS
and ISWS, and a
reconnaissance ofthe area within a one half-mile downgradient ofthe
Site, there is no
evidence to suggest that the lower water bearing zone is used as a source ofdrinking
water in Bensenville downgradient ofthe Site, or the adjacent (downgradient)
communities ofNorthlake and Elmhurst within one half-mile ofthe Site.
These
communities obtain their public drinking water supplies primarily, or solely, from Lake
Michigan.
Some deep wells were identified from well logs as screened in the Cambrian-
Ordovician aquifers underlying the Maquoketa Formation that, in turn, underlies the
Silurian Age dolomite bedrock.
It is not known whetherthese wells are currently in use.
In any event, the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifers are physically and hydraulically isolated
from the Silurian Age dolomite bedrock.
V.
DESCRIPTION OF COMPLIANCE EFFORTS AND IMPACT
OF
EFFORTS TO COMPLY
(35 Ill.
Adm.
Code
104.406(e))
Bensenville evaluated the estimated costs for actions necessary to bring the
groundwater into compliance with the Board’s standards.
While it is not clear that any
action would achieve compliance
with the Board regulation, a basic approach would be to
construct a cut-offwall around the lower water bearing unit, to isolate Addison Creek
17
(which receives wastewater treatment plant and other discharges), to pump groundwater
with elevated chloride from the lower water bearing unit, and to treat this groundwater in
an on-Site treatment unit.
The costs, including hydraulic
isolation ofthe lower water
bearing unit around the Site, hydraulic isolation ofAddison Creek where it crosses the
Site, groundwater extraction, and construction ofan on-Site reverse osmosis treatment
facility to treat the affected groundwater would be
on the order of
$14,144,000.
These
costs are summarized in Exhibit 6~
and are discussed below.
The costs assume that hydraulic isolation ofthe lower water bearing unit would
be achieved through the installation ofa bentonite-soil slurry wall with “leap-frogging”
overlapping panels 2.4 meters in width.
The length ofthe wall would be 6,100 feet, the
approximate perimeter length ofthe property.
The depth ofthe wall is
assumed to
be 75
feet, 60 feet in soil overburden material and an additional
15
feet in the underlying
fractured Silurian dolomite bedrock to minimize potential
seepage.
The depth estimates
are based on current site information.
The estimated cost ofthe slurry wall would be
$10,350,000 based on discussions with Layne GeoConstruction out ofButler,
Pennsylvania, a qualified contractor with experience in the construction ofslurry cut-off
wall systems.
The bottom ofAddison Creek, a possible source of contaminants, is separated
from the top of the lower water bearing unit by approximately 25
feet ofsoil material.
Contaminants in Addison Creek could potentially migrate through these soil materials
and impact the lower water bearing unit.
Therefore, the cost estimate includes hydraulic
isolation of Addison Creek via a concrete bed liner along the approximately
1,600 length
~A revised version of Exhibit 6
is attached hereto and should be substituted for the Exhibit 6 attached to
the original petition.
18
of creek-bed
across the
Site.
The concrete bed liner would be six-inches thick and an
average of25 thick wide,
based on the current configuration ofthe creek.
The estimated
cost ofthe creek bed liner would be $200,300 based on the calculated volume ofconcrete
and estimated installation costs.
Groundwater extraction would
be
achieved via a series oftwenty extraction wells
installed on 300-foot centers and connected via a pipeline.
Each well would be installed
to
an
approximate depth of
65
feet and
would
be
fitted
with
a
submersible pump.
An
additional
well pair
would
be
installed adjacent to
each extraction well, one
inside the
cut-off wall and one outside the cut-offwall.
The purpose of the well-pairs would be to
monitor the performance
ofthe
cut-off wall.
The
total
estimated cost of the
extraction
system is $854,000, $625,000 ofwhich represents well installation costs.
Bensenville
recognizes
that
the
estimated
number
of
wells
is
based
on
the
assumed
hydraulic
properties of the lower
water bearing
unit,
specifically
a
hydraulic
conductivity of
1
x i0~cm/sec
and a porosity of 0.25.
Fetter
(Applied Hydrogeology,
1980) estimates
hydraulic
conductivity
for silty
and
fine sands to
range from
1
x i0~
cm/sec
to
1
x
10~cm/sec.
The calculated
horizontal flow velocity was based
on
an
assumed
conservative hydraulic
conductivity
of
1
x
10~cm/sec.
That is,
the
highest
potential contaminant migration rate was assumed.
This
hydraulic
conductivity
is a conservative
assumption because four of the
six
Site monitoring
wells
routinely draw down when manually purged
with
a
bailer.
It
is
highly unlikely that
a well could be bailed dry with a hydraulic
conductivity
around the
well
screen of
1
x
10~cm/sec.
Given
the relatively
fine grained nature of the lower
water bearing unit, it is more likely that the actual hydraulic
conductivity would be in the
19
1
x
10~ cm/sec
to
1
x
10~cm/sec
range.
Such
hydraulic
conductivities
are
also
consistent
with
a
well
that
can
be
bailed
dry
manually.
These
lower
hydraulic
conductivities would
result in calculated horizontal flow velocities often to
one hundred
times
slower
than the currently
assumed value of4 meters per year, or 0.4 to 0.04 meters
per year.
As
such, the number ofrequired extraction wells and, therefore, the total cost of
the extraction system would increase.
Fetter
(Applied Hydrogeology,
1980)
estimates porosity for glacial till
to
range
from
10
to
20
percent,
and
for mixed
sand and
gravel
to
range from
20
to
35
percent.
The estimated horizontal flow velocity included herein
is
based on an assumed
porosity
of 0.25,
a reasonable
estimate that
is
approximately midway between the
ranges
listed
above given that the
soil materials in the lower water bearing unit generally consist of a
mixture of silt and
sand.
Porosity
is
inversely related to
horizontal flow velocity
—
the
lower the porosity the higher the calculated horizontal flow velocity.
Even if the lowest
porosity in the range was assumed (0.10) the resulting calculated horizontal flow velocity
would only change from four meters per year to
10 meters per year.
In
summary,
therefore,
the
estimated
horizontal
flow
velocity
is
likely
significantly
overestimated with respect to hydraulic
conductivity,
and could be
slightly
underestimated with
respect to
porosity.
The net effect,
however, is
that
the calculated
horizontal
flow velocity
is
likely
somewhat
high
and
is,
therefore,
conservative with
respect
to
potential
contaminant
migration.
The actual
number of required
extraction
wells
is
inversely related to horizontal flow velocity
—
the higher the
calculated velocity
the
fewer
number
of
wells.
Since
field
measurements
would
likely
reveal
lower
hydraulic
conductivities,
the
required
number
of extraction
wells
and
corresponding
20
water
level
monitoring
well
pairs
would
increase,
thereby
increasing
the
cost
of the
extraction system.
However, the cost ofthe extraction well network currently represents
only about four percent ofthe estimated total remediation costs.
As such, the actual well
spacing
and,
by
extension,
the number of extraction wells
in the extraction network
do
not significantly affect the overall cost ofremediating Site groundwater.
The
estimated costs
are
also
based
on-Site
groundwater pre-treatment utilizing
reverse osmosis.
Such a system would cost approximately $25,000 and would be capable
of
achieving
the
anticipated
discharge
standards
required by
the
Metropolitan
Water
Reclamation District of Greater
Chicago
(MWRDGC).
Such
pre-treatment
discharge
standards would be established with the MWRDGC during the permitting process.
Engineering, permitting,
and construction quality
assurance costs associated with
the system elements described above were estimated to
be
15 percent ofthe capital costs,
or $1,714,000.
Finally,
the annual operation and
maintenance cost was estimated to be
$40,000.
This
includes assumed
annual
costs
to
replace one
extraction pump,
hourly
technician
costs to maintain the on-Site reverse osmosis unit, disposal
and required analytical costs
associated with discharge to the MWRDGC,
and
system power consumption.
The total
estimated operation
and
maintenance
cost
assuming
a
25-year
groundwater extraction,
treatment, and disposal period is $1,000,000.
The 25-year period is based on the assumed
horizontal flow velocity of4 meters per year (for chloride assuming no retardation) and
a
contaminated groundwater flow path of
100
meters from the
southeast quadrant of the
landfill near the southeast edge of waste to
the southeast property boundary.
Clearly, the
groundwater
extraction, treatment,
and
disposal
period
would
increase
dramatically if
21
Site
hydraulic
conductivities
were
found
to
be
lower
(a
strong
possibility)
and if the
theoretical landfill leakage was occurring,
or was assumed to
be
occurring,
somewhere
other than in the southeast corner of the landfill.
For example, the contaminant flow path
would increase
from
100 meters to
400 meters if the theoretical leakage was assumed to
be
from
the
middle
of the
landfill.
This
would
effectively
quadruple
the
estimated
operation and maintenance period and associated costs.
Such costs are economically unreasonable and not justified from any perspective.
The lack ofeconomic reasonableness is apparent from the facts described in this Petition.
There are no groundwater receptors or potential human health impacts since users within
one half-mile downgradient ofthe Site obtain their drinking water supplies from sources
other than the lower water bearing unit.
Further, despite the program outlined above,
Bensenville cannot control or eliminate the sources ofchloride.
Even if Bensenville
implemented some type ofgroundwater isolation, extraction, and treatment program, the
source of chloride is ongoing and not subject to
control by Bensenville.
State and county
highway departments apply the salt surrounding roads and Interstate 294 as a means of
ensuring driving safety during snow and ice events and these separate government
entities are expected to continue this application in the future.
As a result, Bensenville
cannot describe the conditions that would occur if it were to comply with the
groundwater standards
since the non-compliance is not as a result ofits actions and there
is no action itcan take which could result in compliance.
Although Bensenville, DuPage and Cook Counties, and the Illinois Department of
Transportation could, in theory, cease further road salting along the adjacent roads, the
potential health effects as they are related to
road safety would be significant.
In fact, a
22
significant increase in the frequency of automobile accidents, many resulting in severe
injury and some with resulting fatalities,
would surely be attributed to
increased road
hazards associated
with snow and ice ifthe application ofroad salt were to cease during
the winter months.
Road salt has long been the material ofchoice in northern Illinois
for
snow and ice meltingbecause ofits relative abundance, cost effectiveness when
compared with alternative materials, and minimal impact to the environment.
Furthermore, there are no known significanthealth risks associated with the
ingestion ofgroundwater with the current level ofchloride concentrations found in the
Site groundwater.
A Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) study concluded that the
major objection to high concentrations ofsodium and chloride in public water supplies
arises from the taste preference of consumers (Winters, et al.,
1985,
Environmental
Evaluation ofCMA,
Report
FHWA-RD-84-095,
FHWA, USDOT).
In other
words, the
consumption ofsuch groundwater would be objectionable to the consumer.
The Ohio
Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP), associated with the Federal Highway
Administration, Ohio Department ofTransportation, and the Ohio State University
reported that “Chloride from
road salt
affects taste, but has no effect on human
health
at the levels possible from road salt.” (Ohio LTAP Quarterly, 1998, Volume
13, No.
1).
Finally, the Environment Canada (Canada’s equivalent ofthe USEPA) foundthat,
although high chloride concentrations in groundwater could result in some
adverse
environmental effects to plant and
aquatic life, “The principal problem for humans from
road salt is its adverse effect on taste...”
and that “Road salts are not dangerous to
humans.” (Environment Canada, 2000,
Priority Substances Assessment Report: Road
Salts)
there are no known health risks associated with the ingestion ofgroundwater with
23
elevated chloride concentrations.
Therefore,
there would be no health and environmental
benefits associated with potentially meeting existing groundwater standards by stopping
the use ofroad salt.
VI.
JUSTIFICATION FOR RELIEF
(35 Ill. Adm. Code
104.406(h))
Again, while Bensenville is not bound by the standards of35 Ill. Adm.
Code
811 .320(b)(4), Bensenville will look to these standards as a useful framework for
justifying the relief it seeks here.
a)
The groundwaterfrom the lower water bearing unit does not presently
serve as a source ofdrinking water.
As described above, Bensenville has documented that the groundwater from the
lower water bearing unit does not serve as a source ofdrinking water for municipal or
private wells in Bensenville, or the downgradient communities ofNorthlake (to the east)
and Elmhurst (to the south)
withinone
half-mile downgradient ofthe
Site.
b)
The
change in standards will not interfere with or become injurious
to,
anypresent orpotential beneficial usesfor such waters.
As stated above, there are no
current beneficial uses being made ofthese waters
and municipal ordinances in Bensenville and Elmhurst would preclude the use ofthis
groundwater as a potable water source in the future in those communities.
More
significantly, the Village and the adjacent communities ofNorthlake and Elmhurst obtain
their drinking water supplies from Lake Michigan.
There are no known industrial
or
residential uses ofthe specific groundwater downgradient and within one half-mile ofthe
Site.
24
c)
The change is necessaryfor economic or social development.
The proposed change will advance economic and social development by allowing
Bensenville to complete the golf course contemplated by the IEPA grant encouraging
Bensenville to develop additional open space.
In addition, the change would relieve
Bensenville from a significant financial burden insofar as the required quarterly
assessment monitoring
and reporting are concerned.
These costs account for
approximately $35,000 to $40,000 per year (as documented in Exhibit
11), an amount
that could be allocated to beneficial community development, beautification, or
recreationprojects.
The proposed change will not affect human health because groundwater from the
lower water bearing unit is not utilized for human consumption within one half-mile
downgradientofthe Site.
d)
The groundwater does notpresently and will not in
thefuture serve as a
source ofdrinking water.
Although it is technically feasible to eliminate or reduce the chloride concentrations
in Site groundwater, it is not economically reasonable to eliminate or reduce the chloride
concentrations in Site groundwater because the cost is extremely high and there is no
evidence to suggest that Site groundwater is usedfor human consumption or any known
industrial purposes within one half-mile downgradient from the Site.
In order to ensure
that groundwater at the Site will not be used for potable purposes, Bensenville will record
an ELUC to preclude such use if so requested by the PCB.
There are no known human
health impacts associated with the consumption ofgroundwater with chloride
concentrations similar to those measured in Site groundwater,
It is also unlikely that a
25
person would willingly ingest such groundwater because ofits offensive taste associated
with the high chloride concentration.
Bensenville and adjacent communities obtain their
drinking water from Lake Michigan.
Since the groundwater is not used for human
consumption, it must be concluded that the
safety benefits to motorists ofusing road salt
(ice-free roads) far outweighany potentially beneficial impact ofreducing chloride
concentrations in Site groundwater by
eliminatingthe application ofroad salt to heavily
traveled Grand Avenue, County Line Road, and Interstate 294 adjacent to the
Site.
It is
possible, however, that existing groundwater quality will be maintained as a function of
the quantity ofroad
salt applied during upcoming years.
This Petition also meets the statutory requirements set out at Section 28.1(c) of the
Illinois Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS 5/28.1(c)) forjustifying
an adjusted
standard.
There are numerous factors which establish that the Bensenville situation is
substantially and significantly different from those the Board considered in adopting the
Ground Water Quality
standards.
First,
Bensenville has sought this change to complete
the project ofturning a private landfill into a public open space resource pursuant to
IEPA funding.
The groundwater issues represent conditions which originated from other
sources and which cannot be resolved by any reasonable action that Bensenville can take.
Finally there will be
no environmental impact associated with the Board’s granting ofthis
adjusted standard and no impact on public health since the public is not consuming this
groundwater and not likely to in the future for reasons which do not relate to the activities
for which the Petitioner seeks relief.
Finally, as is stated below, this relief can be granted
consistently with federal law.
For all these reasons, the adjusted standard sought by
Petitioner is justified.
26
VII.
THIS RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED CONSISTENT WITH FEDERAL
LAW
(35
Ill.
Adm. Code 104.406(i))
The closure ofthis Site is not controlled by any federal law and no federal law
sets standards
for groundwater which is not used as a potable water
supply.
Neither the
municipal solid waste landfill regulations nor the hazardous landfill regulations adopted
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 6901
et seq.) apply to this
Site.
Therefore, this relief can be granted consistent with federal law.
VIII.
STATEMENT
OF RELIEF REQUESTED
(35 Iii. Adm. Code
104.406(g))
Bensenville requests that the Board adopt the following adjusted standard:
The dissolved chloride standard in 35 Ill. Adm.
Code 620.4 10 shall be
adjusted from the existing standard of200,000 ug/L to
728,963
ug/L.
This
adjusted standard shall apply to groundwater within the lower water
bearing unit down to the top ofthe Silurian dolomite bedrock beneath the
former Village ofBensenville Landfill Site located at:
Address:
Northwest corner of Grand Avenue and
County Line Road,
Bensenville, Illinois.
Legal
Description:
Parcel
1
(Pin Number 03255200004):
That part ofthe northeast quarter
ofSection 25,
Township 40 North,
Range
11 East,
ofthe thirdprincipal
meridian described by commencing in the north line ofsaid section at a
point 1019.04feet east ofthe northwest corner ofsaid northeast quarter;
thence southeasterly along the easterly line ofproperty described in
document 388417,
1573.55 feet to the centerline ofGrandAvenue,
thence
easterly on the centerline of GrandAvenue
700.0feetfor aplace
beginning; thence
northerly 1602.1 feet to apoint in the section line which
is 1865.04 feet ofthe northwest corner ofsaid northeast quarter; thence
east along the north line ofsaid northeast quarter
768.8feet to the
northeast corner thereofi thence south along the east line ofsaid northeast
quarter 1641.55feet to the centerline ofGrandAvenue;
thence westerly
along the centerline of Grand Avenue 692.28feet to the place ofbeginning
(except therefrom the rights ofthe public all existing roads and streets),
in
DuPage County, Illinois.
27
Parcel 2 (Pin Number 0325200003):
That part ofthe northeast quarter of
Section 25,
Townsh4’ 40 North,
Range
11 East, of the thirdprincipal
meridian described by beginning in
the north line ofsaid section at apoint
1019.04feet east ofthe northwest corner ofsaid northeast quarter; thence
southeasterly along the easterly line ofproperty described in
document
388417,
1573.55feet to the centerline ofGrandAvenue;
thence easterly
on
the centerline ofGrandAvenue,
700feet; thence northerly 1602.1 feet
to apoint in the section line which is 846.Ofeet eastfrom theplace of
beginning; thence west 846.0feet to
theplace ofbeginning,
except
therefrom thatpart thereofdescribedasfollows:
the west 200feet (as
measuredalong the centerline ofGrand Avenue) north ofthe south 400
feet (as measured on the easterly line ofproperty described in document
388417) lying northerly of the northerly line ofGrand Avenue
(said
northerly line ofGrand Avenue being 40feet northerly ofandparallel
with the centerline ofGrand Avenue; in DuPage County, illinois.
Parcel 3 (Pin Number 0325200002):
The west 200feet (as measured
along the center-line of Grand Avenue) ofthe south 400feet (as measured
on the easterly line ofproperty described in document 388417) lying
northerly ofthe northerly line ofGrand Avenue (said northerly line of
Grand Avenue being 40feet northerly ofandparallel with the centerline
of GrandAvenue) ofthatpart ofthe northeast quarter ofsection 25,
Townsh4~’40 North,
Range 11,
east ofthe thirdprincipal meridian,
described by beginning in the north line ofsaid section at apoint 1019.04
feet east ofthe northwest corner ofsaid northeast quarter,’ thence
southeasterly along the easterly line ofproperty described in document
388417,
1573.55feet to the centerline ofGrandAvenue; thence easterly
on the centerline ofGrandAvenue,
700feet,
thence northerly 1602.lfeet
to apoint in the section line which is 846.0feet eastfrom theplace of
beginning; thence west 846.0feet to
theplace ofbeginning,
in DuPage
County, Illinois.
A map showing these boundaries has been attached hereto and incorporated
herein as Exhibit
12.
IX.
HEARING
WAIVER
(35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
104.406(j))
Bensenville conditionally waives a hearing for this Adjusted Standard.
Bensenville reserves the right to a hearing if the Agency chooses to recommend denial.
28
X.
CONCLUSION
The Village requests an adjusted standard for chloride in Site groundwater so that
the IEPA will release Bensenville from further post-closure care monitoring at the Site.
The Site
is currently used as a public golf course, and is located within a highly
developed area that consists primarily ofindustrial and commercial properties
downgradientofthe Site.
Bensenville and adjacent communities are served by municipal
water supplies that are sourced by Lake Michigan and, therefore, are not dependent upon
groundwater obtained from the glacial materials beneath the Site.
The request for the adjusted standards are supported by a significant amount of
Site-specific data, summarized herein, that demonstrates that the Site does not represent a
threat to human health or the environment.
The data indicate that an off-Site source,
probably road
salting on adjacentroads, is likely responsible for the relatively high
chloride concentrations observed in some Site groundwater from the lower water bearing
unit.
Reviews of regional studies indicate that both the glacial materials and the
underlying Silurian Age dolomite bedrock have been significantly influenced by human
activity, resulting in high chloride concentrations, among others.
However, human
consumption ofSite groundwater will not occur because the public drinking water in
Bensenville and the adjacent (downgradient) communities ofElmhurst and Northlake are
sourced from Lake Michigan.
Furthermore, Bensenville and Elmhurst maintain local
ordinances that restrict the private use ofgroundwater from the glacial materials,
including the lower water bearing unit.
29
WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated herein, the Village ofBensenville requests
that the Illinois Pollution Control Board grant this adjusted standard.
Date: June 3, 2005
David L. Rieser
McGuireWoods LLP
77 West Wacker Drive
Suite 4100
Chicago, Ii 60601
312-849-8249
\\REA\253488.2
OF BENSENVILLE
30
VILLAGE OF
BENSENVILLE
SECOND AMENDED PETITION FOR ADJUSTED STANDARD, AS
05-02
EXHIBIT
LIST
EXHIBIT 1
December 21, 2004 EIL Groundwater Summary Report
(Revised)
EXHIBIT 2
Site Map
EXHIBIT 3
Contour Maps Showing Area Chloride Levels
EXHIBIT 4
Municipal Well Ordinances
EXHIBIT
5
Map Showing Wells Within One HalfMile of the Site
EXHIBIT 6
Compliance Cost Summary (Revised)
EXHIBIT 7
Red-Lined
Amended Pleading
EXHIBIT 8
Landfill Gas Report
EXHIBIT 9
Revised
Chloride and Sodium Contour Maps
EXHIBIT
10
Lead Tables (Withdrawn)
EXHIBIT 11
Monitoring Costs
EXHIBIT 12
Site
Map Showing Boundaries
EXHIBIT
13
Red-Lined Second Amended Petition
EXHIBIT 1
December 21, 2004
EIL Groundwater Summary Report (Revised)
(Narrative attached.
See previously attached binders.)
Environmental
Information
Logistics, LLC
26W271
Durfee
Road
Wheaton,
IL
60187
Phone:
(630) 871-9855
Fax:
(630)
871-9821
Email:
jayceil@sbcglobal.net
December 21, 2004
Re:
Groundwater
Summary
Report
Regarding
Chloride
Concentrations
in
Landfill Groundwater
Village of Bensenville Landfill
0434140001
—
DuPage County
Permit No. 1973-35-DE
Log
No. 2001-174
To Whom It May Concern:
On behalfof the Village ofBensenville (Village), Illinois, the owner and operator ofthe
Village of Bensenville Landfill (Site), Environmental
Information Logistics,
LLC
(BIL)
has
prepared
this
Groundwater
Summary
Report
summarizing
the
results
of
investigations performed to
date regarding the source ofelevated chloride concentrations
in downgradient groundwater monitoring wells at the Site.
The Village
submitted a Supplemental
Permit Application (SPA) to the IEPA on May
1,
2001
(Appendix
1)
requesting a release from the requirements ofpost-closure care at the
above-referenced
Site.
Since that time, three addenda, (Appendices 2
through 4)
related
to
groundwater quality in the vicinity of the
Site were submitted to the IEPA in response
to
draft
denial
letters.
Currently,
the
IEPA
contends
that
the
current
chloride
concentrations
are
the
only
remaining
groundwater
issue
that
precludes
them
from
releasing the Site from the requirements ofpost-closure care.
This report summarizes the
information submitted to
the IEPA that
supports the Village’s position that
the chloride
concentrations are not landfill-related.
This report also includes descriptions ofthe Site’s
geologic
and
hydrogeologic
conditions,
the
groundwater
monitoring
network,
and
chloride analytical results, and an evaluation ofother potential chloride sources.
BACKGROUND
The Site
is
located in
DuPage County,
near the northwest
corner of the
intersection of
Interstate 294
and Grand Avenue
(Appendix 5), in the Village ofBensenville.
The
Site
covers
53
acres, 41
of which are filled, and is bordered by
the River Forest Golf Club to
the
west,
Grand
Avenue
and
the
Mount
Emblem
Cemetery to
the
south
(Elmhurst),
County Line Road and Interstate
294 to the east (Northiake), and a residential area to the
north.
The
area east
of Interstate
294
consists
primarily of commercial and
industrial
properties.
There are no
schools, hospitals, or churches located within the residential area
north of the Site.
The Site is bisected by Addison Creek.
Village of Bensenville Landfill
-
2
-
December 21, 2004
Log No.
2001-174
The Village,
including
the golf course
facility,
is
served
by
a municipal
drinking
water
supply.
Local
ordinance (8-7-23) prohibits the installation and use ofa private well if the
property
line upon
which the well
is to
be
located
is
within 200
feet ofan
underground
water
main.
Based
on
discussions with
the Village engineer,
this
restriction effectively
eliminates private
well
installation in almost the entire Village.
The Village
wastewater
treatment plant,
located approximately one mile north and upstream ofthe Site, routinely
discharges
treated effluent,
in
accordance
with
its
permit,
to
Addison
Creek.
Addison
Creek serves as a local source of irrigation water forthe golf course.
Prior
to
operation
as
a
landfill,
the
Site,
owned
by
John
Sexton
Filling
&
Grading
Contractors
Corp.
(Sexton),
was
used as
a
borrow
pit
for
materials
utilized
in
the
construction
of Interstate
294.
From
May
31,
1973
through
July
24,
1987,
Sexton
operated
the
Site
as
a
landfill,
accepting
demolition
debris,
concrete
rubble,
foundry
sands,
and logs,
brush,
and debris generally derived from the
landscaping industry.
The
Site also accepted ash generated by an on-site, permitted air curtain destructor (ACD) that
operated
intermittently
from
March
1974
to
October
1985.
The ACD
consisted
of a
subsurface rectangular structure with concrete walls used to bum landscaping debris.
The
Site was not authorized to accepthazardous or general domestic wastes.
GEOLOGIC AND
HYDROGEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
The near surface geology at the
Site is
generally characterized by a varying thickness of
glacially-derived soils overlaying
Silurian Age dolomite bedrock.
Based on the findings
ofinvestigations conducted when the facility closed, the glacially-derived soils at the Site
range in
thickness from
approximately
55
feet, below
Addison
Creek,
to
over
70
feet.
These consist,
in
descending
order,
of an
upper
silty clay unit
(5
to
25
feet thick),
an
upper water-bearing unit comprised of silty sands (10 feet thick), a middle unit consisting
ofclayey till (5 to 20 feet thick), a lower water-bearing unit consisting ofsilty sand
(5
to
20
feet
thick),
and
a
lower
silt
and
clay
unit
(5
to
15
feet
thick).
The
horizontal
component of groundwater flow within the
lower water-bearing unit at the Site is
to the
southeast, as shown on
Appendix 6.
The underlying Silurian Age dolomite bedrock is regionally extensive and is mined where
it outcrops near
the ground
surface,
such as
in
Hillside
(approximately
4
miles
south-
southeast
of the
Site)
and
in
Elmhurst
(approximately
2
miles
south-southwest
of the
Site).
The IEPA does not require the Village to monitor groundwater in the Silurian Age
dolomite bedrock.
At some
locations,
including the
Site, the lower water-bearing unit
is
in direct physical contact with the Silurian Age dolomite bedrock.
Groundwater
recharge
in both
the lower
water-bearing unit and the underlying Silurian
age
dolomite
is
generally derived
from
surface
infiltration
through
the
overlying
soil
materials.
The adjacent
community
south
of the
Site,
Elmhurst,
has
in
place
an
IEPA-approved
groundwater ordinance
(MCO-1-2003) prohibiting the private use of groundwater wells.
Village of Bensenville Landfill
-
3
-
December
21, 2004
Log No.
2001-174
Although the adjacent community
to
the
east, Northiake, has no such approved ordinance,
there are no known private well users
within their community
(personal correspondence
with Northlake office ofpublic works
and some homeowners).
As previously stated, the
Village has a local groundwater ordinance that prohibits the installation of private water
wells within 200 feet of any underground water main.
Based
on
discussions
with
the
Northlake,
Bensenville,
and
Elmhurst
public
works
departments,
DuPage
and
Cook
County
Public
Health
Departments,
personnel
at
Mt.
Emblem
Cemetery to
the
south,
a
number of residents
in
a
small
residential
area in
Northlake within one-half mile ofthe
Site, well database
information obtained from the
Illinois
State
Geological
and
Water
Surveys,
and
a
reconnaissance
performed
on
December 2,
2004, the various industries/commercial operations and the residential areas
located within one-halfmile downgradient ofthe Site obtain all oftheir water from either
deep bedrock wells or from Lake Michigan.
Although there were some monitoring wells
associated
with
Leaking
Underground
Storage
Tank
(LUST)
sites
that
were
likely
screened in
the lower
water bearing unit within one-half mile
downgradient of the
Site,
including
on
the
Mt.
Emblem
Cemetery
property
to
the
south
and
the
Leon
Parent
Trucking
Company
property
to
the
east-southeast,
those
wells
have
since
been
decommissioned
based
on
discussions
with
the
current
property
owners
and
visual
observations
during
the
December
2,
2004
reconnaissance.
Therefore,
there
is
no
evidence to
suggest
that
there
are existing
private
wells
or monitoring
wells
screened
within the
lower
water bearing
unit within one-half mile
downgradient of the
Site.
A
copy
of the
information
obtained
from
the
various
State
agencies/City
departments
discussed
above,
as
well
as
a
record
of telephone
discussions
with
those
agencies,
departments, and homeowners,
is
included in Appendix 7.
GROUNDWATERMONITORING
NETWORK
The upper
water-bearing unit was
monitored
from
1974
to
1990
using three wells.
In
1990,
as
part
of closure
activities,
the
IEPA
required
groundwater
monitoring
to
be
conducted
in
the
lower
rather
than
upper
water-bearing unit.
Since
1990,
therefore,
groundwater has been monitored only in the lower water-bearing unit via a network ofsix
monitoring
wells.
Of these,
one
well (Gi 14)
is
located hydraulically upgradient of the
Site.
The
remaining
five
wells
(Ri 15,
Gi 16,
Gi 17,
Ri 18,
and
R121)
are
located
downgradient ofthe
Site.
The locations ofeach ofthe six monitoring wells are shown on
Appendix
8.
CHLORIDE ANALYTICAL
RESULTS
The
chloride
concentrations
measured
in
lower
water-bearing
unit
groundwater
monitoring
wells
during
the
2001
groundwater
investigation
are
summarized
in
Appendix
9.
The
2001
groundwater investigation,
included as
Appendix
1,
was based
on
a
work
plan
submitted
to
and
approved
by
the
IEPA
and
included
soil
borings,
subsurface
electrical
conductivity
measurements,
and
the
collection
and
analysis
of
groundwater samples from
around
the perimeter
of the
Site.
The table
in
Appendix
9
includes
both total
and
dissolved
results.
This
is
appropriate
because
the
difference
Village of Bensenville Landfill
-
4
-
December 21, 2004
Log No.
2001-174
between total and dissolved chloride concentrations
in a solution is negligible
due to the
soluble nature of chloride.
In
other words,
the concentration of total
chloride in a given
solution
will
be
comparable
to
the
concentration
of
dissolved
chloride
in
the
same
solution.
This
was
addressed
in
detail
in
the
response
to
draft
denial
included
as
Appendix 4.
As
shown
in
Appendix
9,
the
chloride concentrations
are higher in
the
downgradient
monitoring
wells
than in
upgradient monitoring
well Gi
14.
Furthermore, the chloride
concentrations in monitoring wells Gil 7 and Gi 21
exceeded the numerical Illinois Class
I Groundwater
Quality
Standard of 200,000 ug/L promulgated as part of Title 35
Illinois
Administrative Code (IAC) 620.4 10.
DISCUSSION
Chloride is the most important indicator of landfill leachate impacts to groundwater in the
midwest United States because it is highly water soluble, does not degrade over time, and
migrates
readily.
Because
chloride
concentrations
in
leachate
are
usually
orders
of
magnitude
higher than those
found
in
uncontaminated
groundwater,
elevated chloride
concentrations are typically found at the forefront of a leachate plume.
Consequently,
a
rise in chloride concentrations in groundwater monitoring wells near a landfill is often the
first indication that leachate is impacting
groundwater.
While the presence ofchloride often indicates landfill leachate releases we believe it does
not do so at this site.
Landfill leachate typically contains elevated concentrations ofmany
other
naturally
occurring
constituents
as
well as
many
man-made organic compounds.
Since landfills do not selectively leak individual constituents, potential long-term leachate
impacts to
groundwater will be manifested by the presence or elevated concentrations of
constituents
in
addition
to
chloride,
possibly
including
man-made organic
compounds.
However,
during
the
last
14
years of post-closure groundwater monitoring,
there have
been
no
other
detected
constituents
that
are
not
attributable
to
naturally
occurring
background concentrations or to regional influences.
More significantly, there have been
no
confirmed
detections
of organic
compounds
in
groundwater
near the
landfill.
The
supporting analytical data and
the evaluation ofthese data are included in Appendices
1
through 4.
Comparison ofChloride to Boron Ratios in Leachate and Groundwater
In order to verify that chloride is not associated with leachate, EIL compared the levels of
chloride to the levels of other leachate constituents.
We compared the ratios of chloride
to total boron in
leachate to
the ratio of chloride
to total boron in
groundwater.
Boron
was chosen for this evaluation because, like chloride, it is
water soluble, mobile, and does
not degrade (i.e., it is
also a conservative leachate impact indicator).
In addition,
we had
historical data, included in Appendices 2
and
3, which included both chloride and boron
in both leachate and groundwater.
Based on the assumption that boron is as conservative
a leachate indicator as chloride, then one
would expect that the ratios of chloride to total
boron would be similar in both leachate and groundwater if the landfill were the cause of
Village ofBensenville Landfill
-
5
-
December
21, 2004
Log No. 200 1-174
the
elevated
chloride
concentrations
in
groundwater.
In
other
words,
the
groundwater
would also contain proportionate elevated concentrations of boron.
The
chloride
to
boron ratio
for
downgradient
monitoring
well
Gl2l
during
the
2001
groundwater investigation
is
shown in
Appendix
10.
As
indicated in
Appendix
10,
the
actual
concentration
of total
boron
in
groundwater
in
G121
was
approximately
three
times less than would be expected if the source ofthe chloride were landfill leachate.
Although
the
literature
supports
our
assumption
that
boron
is
comparably
mobile
to
chloride in
groundwater (detailed
in our response to
draft denial
included
as
Appendix
3), the IEPA did not concur with this
assumption.
The IEPA did not offer a
basis upon
which their non-concurrence was based.
However, given the length oftime that elevated
chloride concentrations have been present (approximately
11
years) and the proximity of
the wells to
the landfill, one would expect to
see
boron impacts in
groundwater by now
even if boron mobility
was retarded relative to chloride by a factor of three.
Therefore,
the degree of comparability between boron and
chloride mobility is
academic.
However,
it
should
be noted that
Groundwater
Impact Assessments
(GIAs) performed under
the
guidance
of
the
IEPA
at
landfills
in
Illinois
model
both
boron
and
chloride
as
“unretarded” and, therefore, the assumption in these GIAs
is that boron and
chloride are
equally mobile in groundwater.
Based
on
these
evaluations
of
groundwater
data
collected
from
the
groundwater
monitoring
network,
leachate
does
not
appear
to
be
the
source
of
the
chloride
in
groundwater.
There
are
significant
non-landfill
related
sources
of
chloride
in
the
environment
that
must
be
considered
when
evaluating
chloride
concentrations
in
groundwater.
The
most
ubiquitous source of anthropogenic chloride
in
groundwater
is
deicing salt used on roadways (herein referred to
as “road salt”).
Regional Chloride Concentration Study
The
Illinois
State
Water
Survey
completed
an
extensive
study
of the
Silurian
Age
dolomite
aquifer
in
DuPage
County
in
1981
(ISWS
Circular
149,
1981).
The
study,
included as
Appendix
11, was
aimed at
assessing the regional effects of over-utilization
of the
aquifer, evaluating concentrations of various naturally occurring parameters,
and
exploring possible
causes for regional
and
temporal
increases
in the
concentrations of
some
groundwater
constituents,
including
chloride.
The
study
specifically
identified
areas traversed
by
major
highways and roads
as
those
most
likely
to
be
affected
by
deicing salt application resulting in high chloride concentrations in
groundwater.
In fact,
this
study, conducted over twenty years ago,
documented that the chloride
concentrations
in
Silurian
Age
dolomite
groundwater
near
the
Site
approached
the
concentrations
detected in the lower water-bearing unit groundwater at the Site.
Specifically, the ISWS
paper states the following:
“The concentrations ofchloride in
the samples from
the dolomite
aquifer
rangedfrom 0
to 450 mg/L (Elmhurst) with
a median of22 mg/L.”
and,
Village of Bensenville Landfill
-
6
-
December 21, 2004
Log No. 200 1-174
“Another area of high
chloride
concentration in
the Silurian Dolomite
aqu~fer
is
located nearby
in
the
Lombard-Villa
Park-Elmhurst
region.
These areas are traversed by several major state and interstate
highways
such
as
Interstates
294,
55,
and
290.
Because of the high
densities
of
highways
in
this
area,
deicing
salt
application
and
storage
may
be
a
major cause ofthe high chloride concentrations in thisportion ofthe study
area.”
The concentrations ofchloride
in Site groundwater are typically within, or slightly above,
the
concentrations reported in
the
twenty-year
old
ISWS
study.
Since both
the
lower
water-bearing unit and
the
Silurian
Age dolomite are
recharged via surface infiltration
through the overlying soils, it must be assumed that the overlying soils are also influenced
by
road
salt.
Furthermore,
surface infiltration
would
result in
relatively
high
chloride
concentrations
near the
surface that
generally decrease
with
depth.
This
is
significant
because road
salt
impacts
in
the
Silurian
Age
dolomite
would,
in
theory,
be
less
than
those in the overlying lower water-bearing unit that is monitored at the Site.
Relationship ofSite Topography to Chloride Concentrations
As
shown on Appendix 9,
chloride concentrations in Site groundwater are highest in the
southeast
corner
of the
landfill
property.
The
setting
and
topography of this
area
is
conducive to road salt runoff affecting groundwater chloride concentrations.
Both Grand
Avenue
and
County
Line
Road,
two
major
roads
that
bound
the
Site,
decrease
in
elevation
to
the
east
and
south,
respectively,
to
a
point
where
they
intersect
at
the
southeast
corner of the
Site.
Both
roads
are
routinely
salted
by
Village
and
County
authorities during
the winter months.
Interstate 294,
locatedjust
a few hundred feet east
and
parallel to
County Line Road,
is
also
heavily
salted by
State
authorities during
the
winter
months.
Based
on
information obtained
from the Illinois
State
Toll
Highway
Authority, road
salt rates
during
the last eight years
have averaged
56,665
tons of salt
annually over their 274 miles oftoll roads.
This is equivalent to 207 tons of salt per mile
of road per year, or 34.5 tons ofsalt per lane-mile for a six lane highway.
The combined
salt load eventually finds
its way to
topographic
low areas during periods ofsnow
melt,
such as the southeast corner ofthe Site, where it ultimately infiltrates into the ground or is
discharged via stormwater control systems.
Comparison ofSodium to
Chloride Molar Ratios in Site Leachate and Groundwater
Road
salt
consists
of
equal
molar
ratios
of
both
sodium
and
chloride.
Therefore,
groundwater
impacted with
road
salt
would
be
expected
to
contain
near
equal molar
ratios of both
sodium
and
chloride
(i.e.,
sodium-chloride
molar ratio of approximately
one).
This
is
nicely
illustrated
in the
ISWS
study that
included
concentration
contour
maps
for both sodium and chloride for the study area.
The maps, included in Appendix
12,
show that the approximate
sodium and
chloride concentrations in the vicinity ofthe
Site were
100
mg/L
and
150
mg/L,
respectively,
a molar ratio of almost
exactly
one.
Landfill leachate,
on the
other
hand,
typically
contains
sodium-chloride molar ratios of
less
than
one
because
the
source
of
chloride
in
the
leachate
is
related
to
waste
Village ofBensenville Landfill
-
7
-
December 21, 2004
Log No. 200 1-174
decomposition,
not road
salt.
Therefore,
leachate
is
typically comparatively depleted in
sodium compared to chloride (or enriched in chloride compared to sodium).
As shown in Appendix
13, the results of recent leachate and groundwater analysis at the
Site
indicate that
the
sodium-chloride
molar ratio in
leachate
is
considerably
less
than
one,
as
expected,
since
leachate
is
typically
enriched
in
chloride
compared
to
sodium.
The
two
most
impacted
downgradient
wells,
G117
and
R121,
have
sodium-chloride
molar ratios of
1.27
and
0.75,
both of which
are much closer to
one than the
leachate
sample.
This
suggests that road
salt, with
the expected sodium-chloride molar ratio of
one,
is responsible for the elevated chloride concentrations in Site groundwater, and that
the landfill is not the source ofchloride in Site groundwater.
EIL provided a verbal report
ofthese results to the IEPA during the June 9, 2003 meeting.
Results ofGroundwaterAssessmentInvestigation
A groundwater assessment
investigation was conducted in March 2001
to supplement the
routine information collected permit-required groundwater monitoring in the lower water-
bearing unit at the
Site.
The investigation,
which was approved by the IEPA with
the
February
13,
2001
issuance
of Supplemental
Permit
No.
2000-321-SP,
consisted
of
advancing
seven
cone
penetrometer
(CPT)
soundings
in
which
temporary
polyvinyl
chloride
(PVC)
piezometers
were
installed.
Cone
penetrometer
(CPT)
technology
consists of specialized direct-pushtooling that provides a means to collect data, on a real-
time
basis,
which
are
used
to
evaluate
soil
stratigraphy
and,
to
a
limited
degree,
groundwater
quality.
The
locations
of
the
soundings
are
shown
in
Appendix
8.
Groundwater
was
collected
from each of the
temporary
piezometers
and
from
the
six
existing
Site
monitoring wells.
The
groundwater samples were
analyzed
for the
site-
specific
chemicals of concern (COCs),
which
included
chloride.
The chloride
results
from this investigation are shown in
Appendix 9.
Comparison ofChloride Concentrations in CPTSoundings and Monitoring Wells
Four of the temporary
piezometers were
installed between existing
Landfill monitoring
wells
and the adjacent roadways (CPT4,
CPT5,
CPT6,
and
CPT7).
At three of the four
locations,
the chloride
concentrations were
higher at the temporary piezometers (CPT4,
CPT5,
and CPT7), closer to the road, than those measured in the paired monitoring well.
At the fourth location (CPT6), the chloride concentration was similar to that measured in
the paired monitoring well.
These results are not consistent with a landfill-only source of
chloride.
Ifthe landfill were the source of chloride in groundwater from the lower water-
bearing unit in the southeastern portion ofthe
Site, then we would
expect the monitoring
wells to
have similar, or higher, concentrations of chloride when compared to the paired
temporary piezometers.
Results ofSoilElectrical Conductivity Profile Testing
Soil
electrical
conductivity
profile
data
were
collected
during
the
original
CPT
investigation.
Soil
conductivity
is
a measure of the ability ofthe
soil
matrix
to conduct
an electrical
charge.
This
ability is
directly proportional to
the concentration of ions
in
solution
(for groundwater),
or within
the
soil
matrix
pore
spaces.
As
such,
electrical
conductivity
is
typically
a
required
monitored
parameter
at
landfills
because
it
is
a
Village of Bensenville
Landfill
-
8
-
December 21, 2004
Log No. 2001-174
qualitative indicator of leachate impacts to groundwater.
Chloride is one of the primary
ions in groundwater and soil that can result in increased electrical conductivity.
The results of the
soil
electrical conductivity profile data,
shown in
Appendix
14,
show
near-surface electrical conductivity peaks at each ofthe four downgradient CPT sounding
locations
(CPT4,
CPT5,
CPT6,
and CPT7)
and at side-gradient location CPT1,
which
is
located adjacent to
County Line Road.
The peaks ranged in
depth from
approximately
five feet to
approximately 25 feet below ground surface, in each case above the saturated
zone.
Of greater significance was that the near-surface peaks exceeded in magnitude the
smaller peaks observed in the saturated zone (i.e., in the lower water-bearing unit).
These
near-surface
electrical conductivity
peaks
were
not
observed
at
either
of the
two
CPT
sounding
locations
that
were
located
away
from the major roads, or on topographically
high areas (CPT2 and CPT3).
These near-surface
electrical conductivity peaks
are evidence of a surface source ofions
that
are infiltrating
the
ground.
The proximity of the
CPT
soundings
that
have near-
surface electrical conductivity peaks to the roads suggests that chloride from road
salt is
the most likely source ofthese ions.
PROPOSED
ADJUSTED STANDARD
FOR
CHLORIDE
The Village
proposes a
Site-specific adjusted
groundwater standard for chloride
at the
Site that supersedes the Class
I ILGWQS for chloride of200,000
ug/L.
Specifically, the
Village proposes an
adjusted standard of 728,963
ug/L because, as demonstrated herein,
there
is
significant
evidence
to
suggest
that
an
off-Site
source
is
responsible
for
the
elevated chloride concentrations currently observed in Site groundwater.
The
proposed
adjusted
standard
of 728,963
ug/L
was
calculated
in
accordance
with
permit-approved methods
at the 99
confidence interval
using
all
ten current quarterly
data points from monitoring well R12l, beginning in
the second quarter 2002 and ending
with the third quarter 2004.
The data upon which the proposed adjusted standard is based
is
included in
Appendix
15.
SuMMARY
While
there
is
no
way
to
unequivocally
determine
the
source
of
the
chloride
or to
eliminate the possibility
that
some of the chloride
is
coming
from the landfill, we have
established,
as
best
we
can, that
the landfill
is
neither
the most likely
source
of, nor
a
major contributor to, the elevated chloride concentrations in the lower water-bearing unit
groundwater.
Sincerely,
ENVIRONMENTAL iNFORMATION LOGISTICS, L.L.C.
/
Village ~f Ben
envil1~
Landfill
-
8
.~
December 21, 2004
Log N~20O
1474
These near-surface
electrical conductivity peaks are evidence of a surface source of ions
that
are
infiltrating the
ground
The proximity
of the
CPT
soundings
that
have
near-
surface electrical condu~twitypeaks
to the roads suggests that chloride from road salt is
the most likely source ofthese ions.
PROPOSED
ADJUSTED STANDAIW
FOR
CHLORIDE
The Village
proposes a
Sate-specific adjusted
groundwater standard for chloride
at the
Site that supersedes the Class I ILGWQS for chloride of200,000 ug/L
Specifically,
the
Village proposes an
adjusted standard of728,963
ugfL because, as demonstrated herein,
there
is
significant evidence, to
suggest
that an.öff~Sitesource
is
responsible
for the
elevated chloride concentrations currently observed in Site..groiind~vater.
The
proposed.
adjusted
standard
of.~i2
8,963
tig/L
was
cal~tjlatedin
accordance
with
permit-approved methods at the 99
confidence,. interval using
au
ten current quarterly
data points from monitoring well R121, beginning in the secOnd quarter 2002 and ending
with the third quarter 2004k
The data upon which:the proposed adjusted standard is based
is included in Appendix 15.
SUMMARY
While
there
is
no
way
to
unequivocally
determine
the
source
of the
chloride
or
to
eliminate the possibility
that some of the chloride is
corning from
the landfill, we have
established,
as
best we can, that the
landfill
is
neither the most
likely
source
of, nor a
major contributor to, the elevated chloride concentrations in the lower water-bearing unit
groundwater.
Sincerely,
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION LOGISTICS, L.L.C.
diz~/~
T.
.2
A. Michael Hirt, P.G.
Senior Geologist
Jay Corgiat, Ph.D.
President
Attachments
cc:
Steve Marshall, Village ofBensenville, Director ofCommunity Development
David Rieser, MoGuireWoods LLP
Barbara Magel, Karaganis, White & Magel Ltd.
C/working files/vob/IPCI3 Application/groundwat~r
runimary
report
(Ver
3 draft 1)
EXHIBIT 6
Compliance Cost Summary (Revised)
Bensenville Landfill
Cut-Off Wall Construction,
Groundwater Extraction and Treatment,
and Operation
and Maintenance
Cut-OffWall
Total Length of Cut-Off Wall
Average Depth to Bedrock
Maximum Depth
to Bedrock
Minimum Depth
to Bedrock
Average Depth
to Top of Silt
Average Depth
to
Bottom of Silt
Average Depth
to Bedrock Tie-in
Maximum Depth
to Bedrock Tie-in
Quoted Cost of Cut-Off Wall Construction
Addison Creek Isolation
Creek
Bed Width
Depth
of Bed
Thickness
of Concrete
Cross Sectional Area
Length of Creek
Bed
Volume of Placed Concrete
Cost of Placed Concrete
Total
Cost to Line the Creek
GroundwaterExtraction
Extraction Well
Spacing
Number of Wells
Average Depth
of Well
Cost of Well
Cost of Pump
Pipeline to Treatment System
Cost of Pipeline
Monitoring
Well
Pair
Total Cost of Extraction Well System
Engineering, Permitting
& CQA
Engineering, Permitting
& CQA Cost
Total Estimated Construction
Cost
6100
ft
50
ft
60
ft
40
ft
35
ft
50
ft
65
ft
75
ft
6
inch
13
ft2
1600
ft
770.4
C.
Y.
$
260.00
$IC.Y.
65 ft
$
150
$/ft
$
2,000
$
7625
ft
$
30$/ft
15
$
1,714,357
$
$
13,143,403
Operation and Maintenance
Annual Operation
and Maintenance
Anticipated
Treatment Period
Total
O&M
$40,026
$/yr
25
yr
$1,000,650
Items
Units
Construction Cost
$
10,350,000
$
10,350,000
25ft
3ft
$
200,296
300
ft
20
$
$
$
Water Treatment
RO Unit
200,296
853,750
25,000
1,714,357
20
$
853,750
$
$
25,000
$
Total
Est. Construction
and
O&M
$14,144,053
Bensenville Landfill
System O&M
Item
Units
Annual Cost
Pump Replacement
I
per year
Pump Cost
$
2,000
Replacement Cost
$
2,000
per year
$
2,000
RO
Membrane
$
500
$
500
O&M Hours
2
per week
Technician Hourly Rate
$
54
O&M Costs
$
5,616
per year
$
5,616
Disposal
of
Brine to MWRD
$
0.001
$/gal
Reduction
Ratio
0.65
Total Process Water
1,356,319
gal/year
Disposal
Cost
$
1,356
per year
$
1,356
Sampling
and Analytical Cost
$
20,000
per year
$
20,000
Power Use
per I
HP
Pump
0.753
kw
Number of
Pumps
20
Power Cost
0.08
$/kwh
Total
Power Used
131925.6
kwh/year
Power Cost
$
10,554
$
10,554
Total
Estimated O&M Cost per Year
$
40,026
Estimated Number of Years to Treat
25
Total Estimated O&M
.
$1,000,659
Bensenville Landfill
Cut-off Wall Construction
Total Length of Wall
6100
ft
Average Depth
to Bedrock
50 ft
Maximum Depth
to Bedrock
60
ft
Minimum Depth
to Bedrock
40
ft
Average Depth to Top of Silt
35
ft
Average Depth to
Bottom of Silt
50
ft
Average Depth to Bedrock Tie-in
65
ft
Maximum Depth to Bedrock Tie-in
75
ft
Average Thickness
of Aquifer
30
ft
Ground Water
Flow Area
183000
ft2
Average Cut-off Wal Thickness
3 ft
Average Water Level
Differential Across Wall
0.5 ft
Gradient Across Wall
0.166667 ft/ft
Estimated Wall Hydraulic Conductivity
I .OOE-07 cm/sec
I.97E-07
ft/mm
Estimated
GW Flow into Landfill Area
6.OOE-03
ft3/min
4.49E-02 gpm
65
gpd
Area enclosed by wall
2206460
ft
51.8
Acres
Infiltration
1.5
in/year
Estimated infiltration
.
275808
ft3/year
5652
gpd
Total Water Pumped and Treated
5717
gpd
4.0
gpm
Estimated Linear Flow Velocity
4
rn/year
Flow path distance across site
660
m
Assumed flow path of impacted
gw
100
m
Estimate years to treat impacted gw
25
year
EXHIBIT
13
Red-Lined Second Amended Petition
BEFORE THE
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
PETITION OF
THE VILLAGE OF
)
AS
05-02
BENSENVILLE FOR AN ADJUSTED
)
(Adjusted Standard
-
Water)
STANDARD FROM
)
35 ILL. ADM. CODE 620.4 10
)
REGARDING
CHLORIDEAND LEAD
)
SECOND
AMENDED
PETITION FOR ADJ(JSTED
STANDARD
FROM GROUNDWATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR CHLORIDE
ANDLEAD
AT THE VILLAGE OF BENSENVILLE LANDFILL
The Village ofBensenville (“Bensenville”), by and through its attorneys
McGuireWoods, LLP, submits this second amended petitionto the Illinois Pollution
Control Board
(“PCB”) for adjusted groundwater standards for dissolved chloride and
total lead at the Village ofBensenville Landfill located in Bensenville, Illinois.
Bensenville submits this petition pursuant to Section
28.1 ofthe Illinois Environmental
Protection Act (415 ILCS
5/28.1)
and 35
Ill. Adm. Code
104, Subpart D.
These
amendments are in response to
the PCB’s order dated January 20, 2005 requesting
additional information.
These amendments also respond to certain questions submitted
by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (“IEPA”) after the filing ofthe original
and the amended petition.
A redlined copy ofthis S~cmidAmendedPetition,
identifying
the changes
from the Amended Petition
is attached hereto and incorporated
herein
as Exhibit ~713~,
I
The most sinnificant of these changes is the withdrawal of Bensenville’s
I
request for an adjusted standard related to lead. At the time Bensenville filed its
I
original
petition
current groundwater sampling data indicated that the groundwater
I
quality standard for lead was not
being exceeded. Because of past exceedences.
I
Bensenville included relieffor lead solely to provide additional sunnort for its
request for certification of release from post closure care as described below.
Yet
I
after further review of the data. Bensenville determined that regulatory relief
I
regarding lead is not necessary and that the request for this reliefcomplicated its
I
petition
regarding chloride. For that reason. Bensenville
submits this revised
I
petition.
Consistent with these revisions, and as discussed below. Bensenville
I
submits revised Exhibits
1
and 6
and withdraws Exhibit
10.
I.
INTRODUCTION
Bensenville seeks this relief forthe Village of Bensenville Landfill (“Site”)
located at the northwest corner ofGrand Avenue and
County Line Road.
Bensenville
acquired the Site, which was closed in
1989, from John Sexton Filling and Grading
Contractors Corporation (“Sexton”) in 1997.
Since
1997, Bensenville has worked with
the IEPA to eei4ify—eompletie+i-efgain
release
from
post closure care.
As will be
described below, Bensenville has resolved all groundwater-related issues with the IEPA
I
except for the currentpresence of elevated concentrations ofdissolved chloride and some
I
periodic,
historical elevated concentrations
oflead.
Bensenville maintains and has
I
demonstrated that the periodic, historic elevated concentrations oflead and
the elevated
levels ofchloride are anthropogenic but not related to landfill impacts.
The IEPA has
taken the position that it cannot certify completion of post closure care for the Site when
groundwater on the Site exceeds the PCB’s groundwater quality standards.
Bensenville
seeks this relief in order to obtain its certification of completion ofpost closure care.
As
stated in this Petition, Bensenville believes this relief is justified because the conditions
I
are different than those contemplated by the Groundwater Quality Regulations, because
I
compliance
i.s
not economically reasonable
and
because the conditions create no impact
I
to human health or the environment, and
because compliance is not economically
I
reasonable.
II.DESCRIPTION OF RELIEF
A.
Standard from Which Adjusted Standard
is Sought.
(35
Ill.
Adm. Code
104.406(a)).
Bensenville seeks relief from 35
Ill. Adm. Code 620.4 10(a) solely as it sets
out a
standard
for chloride and lead.
This regulation became effective November
25,
1991.
B.
Statute Which Regulation is Intended to Implement.
(35
Ill. Adm. Code
104.406(b)).
The PCB adopted this regulation pursuant to the Illinois Groundwater Protection
Act, 415 ILCS
55/1
et seq. and not to implement the requirements ofthe statutes listed at
35 Ill. Adm.
Code 104.406(b).
C.
Level ofJustification.
(35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
104.406(c)).
The Groundwater Quality Regulations do not specify a level ofjustification for
seeking an adjusted standard of an individual groundwater quality standard, although they
do
specify a standard for seeking the reclassification of a given groundwater. 35 Ill. Adm.
Codes
620.450.
~fhe-PCB~s
regulations
applicable to
landfills which continued to be in
operation after 1990 (and not applicable to the
Site) contain justification for adjusted
groundwater standards at 35
Ill. Adm. Code 81 1.320(b)(4).
Although the Part 811
standards
do not apply to this Site, the regulations for adjusting groundwater quality
standards provide a useful framework for justifying this relief.
A
III.
DESCRIPTION OF PETITIONER’S ACTIVITY
(35
Ill. Adm.
Code
104.406(d))
Bensenville attaches and incorporates as Exhibit
1 the-Groundwater Summary
Report dated December 21, 2004 prepared by Environmental Information Logistics, LLC
(EIL), Bensenville’s environmental consultant~.The Site description and environmental
information included in this Petition is taken from that document and its attachments.
A.
Location of Site.
The Site is located in the Village ofBensenville in DuPage County at the
northwest corner ofGrand Avenue and
County Line Road.
The landfill covers
53 acres,
41
of which are filled.
The landfill is bordered by the River Forest GolfClub to the west,
Grand Avenue and the Mount Emblem Cemetery to the south (City ofElmhurst),
County
Line Road and Interstate 294
to the east (City ofNorthiake), and a residential area to the
north (Village of Bensenville).
A map showingthe location ofthe Site is attached hereto
and incorporated herein as Exhibit 2.
The area east of County Line Road and Interstate
294
is industrial and is located in the City ofNorthlake within Cook County.
There are
no schools, hospitals, or churches located withinthe residential area north ofthe landfill.
The Village is served by a municipal drinking water supply that obtains water from Lake
Michigan.
B.
Past Operations.
Prior to
operation as a landfill, the Site, owned by John Sexton Filling & Grading
Contractors Corp. (Sexton), was used as a borrow pit for materials utilized in the
construction ofInterstate 294.
From May 31,
1973
through July 24,
1987, Sexton
1
A
revised version of the narrative nortion of this
renort
is
attached hereto and sh~ou1db~
siib~titu~ted
for the original narrative section of Exhibit 1.
operated the Site as a landfill, accepting demolition debris,
concrete rubble, foundry
sands, and logs, brush, and debris
generally derived from the landscaping industry.
To
the best ofBensenville’ s knowledge, Sexton did not design or construct any features such
as a liner, leachate collection
system, or landfill gas control system but simply used the
existing borrow pit to dispose ofthe construction, demolition, and landscaping debris.
The Site also accepted ash generated by an on-Site, permitted air curtain destructor
(ACD) that operated intermittently from March
1974 to October 1985.
The ACD
consisted ofa subsurface rectangular structure with concrete walls used to burn
landscaping debris.
At no time was the Site authorized to accept either hazardous or
general domestic wastes.
C.
Closure/Post-Closure Care History
Sexton completed closure activities, including the decommissioning ofthe ACD,
on October 4,
1989.
Sexton submitted documentation ofthese activities to the IEPA on
October 30,
1989.
On January 29,
1990, the IEPA
issued Supplemental Permit No.
1989-
305-SP beginning the required five-year minimum post-closure care period.
On
March 27,
1997,
Sexton submitted
a supplemental permit application (SPA) (IEPA Log
No.
1997-116) demonstrating that the post closure care requirements forthe facility had
been met.
Due to the thenpending transfer ofthe property to Bensenville, however,
Sexton requested that this SPA be withdrawn in a letter received by the IEPA
November
25,
1997.
The permit was transferred from Sexton to Bensenville by the IEPA on
December 23,
1997.
Bensenville acquired the
Site with a grant provided by the JEPA.
Bensenville sought the Site to develop it for use as open space.
In accordance with the
IEPA’s grant, and consistent with its post-closure care permit, the Village constructed a
golf course, which was opened to the public in the spring of 2003.
As stated above, Sexton did not install any pollution control equipmentto control
leachate or landfill gas.
With respectto leachate control, pursuant to
its post-closure care
permit,
Sexton constructed a landfill cap consisting oftwo
feet ofclay and six-inches of
topsoil, with additional soil
and vegetation installed by Bensenville above the cap in order
to support the golf course.
With respect to landfill gas, Bensenville submitted a planto
investigate landfill gas in August,
1998 and the Agency accepted the plan in October of
1998.
In June, 1999, Bensenville submitted its report documenting that landfill gas was
not being generated in sufficient quantities to
cause concern with regard to landfill gas
migration, greenhouse gas issues, or impacts to human health and the environment.
During a meeting with Bensenville on February
17,
2000 the IEPA agreed that the landfill
gas concerns were satisfactorily addressed by the report.
A copy ofthis report is attached
hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit 8.
The IEPA issued Supplemental Permit 1998-166-SP on June 12,
1998 in response
to a SPA requesting placement ofsoils on the cap and that the landfill’s name be changed
from the “County Line Landfill” to the “Village ofBensenville Landfill.”
Bensenville’s
consultant,
EIL, prepared and submitted a SPA on August 31, 2000 to satisfy the IEPA’ s
request for further Site groundwater assessment.
After EIL responded to a draft denial,
the IEPA issued Supplemental Permit No. 2000-321-SP on February
13, 2001
approving
the scope ofthe groundwater assessment monitoring plan.
EIL conducted the groundwater
investigation and submitted the results to the
IEPA as a SPA (Log No. 2001-174) on May 1, 2001,
as required.
The results ofthe
1
investigation indicated that there were no organic compounds in Site groundwater.
The
results also indicated that there were some inorganic constituents in Site groundwater,
including
chloride and lead, but at concentrations that were below permit-specified
criteria or were attributable to background or non-landfill anthropogenic conditions
(see
discussion at pages
13-15).
The conclusionpresented in the SPA, therefore, was that the
landfill had not caused any impacts to groundwater beneath the
Site.
On this basis
Bensenville again requested that the IEPA release the Site from post-closure care.
From October, 2001, through
September, 2004, Bensenville and the IEPA
exchanged correspondence regarding the completion of post closure care for the Site.
The IEPA submitted
several draft denial letters and Bensenville answered the IEPA’s
concerns until the
only remaining issues were the current presence ofchloride, and the
periodic
presence of lead in the Site groundwater at concentrations exceeding theifj~
respective Illinois
Class I groundwater quality standards and not attributable to
naturally
occurring conditions.
No other constituent concentration in Site groundwater currently
exceeds Illinois Class I groundwater quality standards.
Messrs. Michael Flirt and Jay Corgiat of EILmet with Mr. Paul Eisenbrandt and
Ms.
Gwenyth Thompson ofIEPA on June 9, 2003 to discuss the May 9, 2003 JEPA draft
denial
letter and the IEPA’s concern regarding the elevated chloride and lead
concentrations.
During the meeting EIL summarized the previously submitted
documentation that suggested an off-Site source of chloride (e.g., road salt) and presented
the results ofnew evidence (comparison of sodium to chloride molar ratios in
groundwater and leachate) that further strengthened the non-landfill chloride source
argument.
I
The IEPA responded that because the sources of chloride and lead are believed to
be anthropogenic, non-landfill sources and not due to naturally occurring, background
I
variability, and because the current chloride and periodic lead concentrations in Site
groundwater exceeded Illinois groundwater standards, the Village would have to obtain a
Site-specific adjusted standard for dissolved chloride and total lead from the PCB before
the IEPA will agree to release Bensenville from the requirements ofpost-closure care at
the Site.
As a result, Bensenville submitted this Petition in order to obtain this release.
IV.
DESCRIPTION OF GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
AND LACK OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
(35
Ill. Adm.
Code 104.406(g))
A.Geology
The near surface geology ofthis areais generally characterized by a varying
thickness of glacially-derived soils overlying Silurian Age dolomite bedrock.
Based on
the findings of investigations conducted when the facility closed, the glacially-derived
soils at the Site range in thickness from approximately
55
feet, below Addison Creek, to
over 70 feet.
These consist of, in descending order, an upper silty clay unit
(5
to 25 feet
thick), an upper water bearing unit comprised of silty sands (10 feetthick), a middle unit
consisting of clayey till
(5
to 20 feetthick), a lower water bearing unit consisting ofsilty
sand (5
to 20 feet thick), and at some locations
a lower silt and clay unit
(5
to
15
feet
thick).
The lower water bearing unit is commonly referred to as a basal outwash, a term
that
is based on its physical connection with the underlying Silurian Age dolomite
bedrock.
This basal outwash is the only water-bearing unit at the Site that the IEPA
requires to be monitored.
The results of more recent investigations suggest that the
glacially-derived soils overlying bedrock may be less than 60 feetthick outside the
perimeter ofthe landfill.
These glacially-derived
soils tend to vary significantly in
thickness, texture, and continuity in northern Illinois.
In fact, the glacially-derived soils
completely “pinch out” approximately four miles
to the southeast at the former Hillside
rock quarry and approximately two miles to the southwest at the current Elmhurst rock
quarry (Piskin, K, 1975, Illinois
State Geological Survey Circular 490,
Glacial Drift in
illinois: Thickness and Character),
both ofwhich were/are used to mine Silurian Age
dolomite bedrock where it essentially outcrops at the ground surface (i.e., where there is
no
glacially-derived soil overburden material).
Based on regional information, the
Silurian Age dolomite bedrock under the Site may be greater than 200 feetthick and
contains a relatively large amount offissures, fractures, and solution cavities.
B.
Hvdrogeologv
Groundwater in the upper and lower water bearing units generally occurs as a
function ofrecharge derived from vertical infiltration ofrunoff and precipitation from the
surface through the glacial deposits.
The upper water bearing unit is highly discontinuous
and heterogeneous across the Site based on existing borehole information.
As such, it
yields minimal amounts ofgroundwater.
The IEPA previously allowed groundwater
monitoring in the upper water bearing unit to be discontinued.
On a regional basis, the lower water bearing unit is discontinuous and is entirely
absent a fewmiles downgradient ofthe Site (Piskin,
K,
1975,
Illinois
State Geological
Survey Circular 490,
Glacial Drift in illinois: Thickness and Character).
Groundwater
yield in the lower water bearing unit is generally related to the degree ofconnectivity with
the underlying Silurian Age dolomite bedrock.
The yield potentials tend to be much
higher at locations where the lower water bearing unit is in direct hydraulic connection
with the underlying Silurian Age dolomite bedrock (ISWS Circular 149,
1981).
The lower water bearing unit, or basal outwash, has been monitored during the
post closure care period since
1990 via a network of six monitoring wells.
Ofthese, one
well (Gi 14) is located hydraulically upgradient of the Site.
The remaining five wells
(Gil5/Rl
15,
Gi 16, Gi 17, Gi18/Rl 18, and Gi 17/Ri 17) are locateddowngradient of the
landfill.
Depths to groundwater in the lower water bearing zone currently range from
II
approximately 20 feet to 35 feet below ground surface.
Horizontal groundwater flow in
the lower water bearing unit at the Site has been consistently from northwest to southeast.
Unretarded, horizontal groundwater flowrates are
on the order ofapproximately four
meters per year, based on a calculated gradient of0.003
feet per feet (EIL, 2004,
Annual
Assessment ofGroundwater Flow and Hydraulic Gradients),
an estimatedhydraulic
conductivity of 1 x 10-s cm/sec (Fetter, C., 1980,
Applied Hydrogeology),
and an
assumed
porosity of0.25 (Fetter, C.,
1980,
Applied Hydrogeology). ~
Chloride
is a conservative constituent in terms ofits mobility in groundwater,
meaning that it generally travels unretarded in groundwater and, therefore, horizontal
travel times for chloride would be expected to be on the order offour meters per year, or
1300
feet per 100
years.
Lead, however,
is significantly retarded compared to chloride.
Lead
is typically modeled in Illinois
as retarded by a factor of
18
(IEPA,Appendix
C to
LPC
PA2,
Instructionsfor the Groundwatcr Protection Evaluationfor Putrcsciblc and
Chcmical Waste Landfills,
rev.
10/21/92).
That is, lead is expected to migrate in
groundwater at a rate approximately 18 times slower than conservative constituents, such
as chloride.
As ~ch
horizontal travel times
for lead would be on the order of0.22
meters per year, or 75 feet per 100 years.
Groundwater in the Silurian Age dolomite bedrock occurs in joints, fissures, and
solution cavities.
The groundwater yield within the bedrock varies considerably based on
the distribution and connectivity ofthejoints, fissures, and solution cavities, but tends to
be most productive in the upper portion ofthe bedrock where it is more densely fractured.
The Silurian Age dolomite bedrock is recharged directly.from the overlying glacial
~
EIL
believes that these values are conservative based
on field-experience, including the generally slow
recovery
rate ofthe monitoring
wells (fourofthe six wells,
including
G114, G116, G117, and R121
are
typically
bailed dry prior to
sampling).
deposits, or directly from precipitation where the bedrock is exposed at the surface.
In
general, the Silurian Age dolomite bedrock is capable ofyielding significant volumes of
water compared to the lower water bearing unit.
For example, based on a 1981 Illinois
State Water Survey report (ISWS Circular
149, 1981), “Groundwater withdrawals from
the shallow aquifers in DuPage County averaged 36.7 mgd million
gallons per day
during the past13 years; 34.3mgd was fromthe Silurian Age
dolomite
and
2.4mgd
was fromthe sand and gravel.” As such, lessthan 10
percent ofthe DuPage County
groundwater budgetwas
historically (from the late
1960s through the early
l980s)
provided by the unconsolidated glacially-derived units.
These numbers have likely
decreased in recent years with the increased availability ofmunicipally-supplied Lake
Michigan water.
Groundwater flow withinthe Silurian Age dolomite bedrock is generally from
west to east.
However, this flow is significantly affected on a local basis by dewatering
activities
associated with numerous local rock quarries.
There is no Site-specific
groundwater flow information in the Silurian Age dolomite bedrock.
C.
Groundwater Quality
—
Silurian Age Dolomite Bedrock
Groundwater quality in the Silurian Age dolomite bedrock near the Site and
elsewhere in the region is well documented and is known to be high in chloride ‘and other
inorganic constituents (ISWS Circular 149,
1981).
In general, concentrations oftotal
dissolved solids (TDS), hardness (as CaCO3), sulfate, chloride, sodium, and total iron are
high and, in many cases, several times
higherthan applicable drinking water standards.
The greatest concentrations of these constituents tend to be found in areas that are more
densely developed by human activity, such as near the Site (ISWS Circular 149,
1981).
U
These constituents include the highesttotal dissolved
solid concentrations in the
LaGrange-McCook and the Elmhurst-Bensenville-Northlake areas, the highest chloride
concentrations in the Elmhurst-Berkley-Bensenville area, and the highest sodium
concentrations in
the Elmhurst-Berkley-Bensenville and the Burr Ridge-Hinsdale areas.
Concentration contourmaps of chloride in the Silurian Age dolomite bedrock from ISWS
Circular 149 are included as Exhibit 3.
Revised contour maps showing the location ofthe
Site, Interstate 294, and O’Hare airport are attached as Exhibit 9. In fact, chloride
concentrations in the SilurianAge dolomitebedrock near
the
Site were observed to be
similar to those
observed in Site groundwater collected from the lower water bearing unit.
The Illinois State Water Survey attributed the high chloride concentrations in the
Silurian Age dolomite bedrockto heavy road salt applications along major roads,
including Interstate294 (ISWS Circular 149,
1981), that infiltrates through the overlying
glacial units, including the lower water bearing unit.
Based on information provided by
the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority
(http://www.illinoistollway.comlportal/page’?pageid=1 35,41314&dad=portal&
schema
=PORTAL), the Authority applied an average of
56,665
tons ofsalt annually during the
past eight years to their 274 miles of toll roads.
This is equivalent to 207 tons of salt per
mile ofroad per year, or
34.5
tons ofsalt per lane-mile fora six lane highway. As
previously indicated, Interstate 294 runs north-south adjacent to the east boundary ofthe
Site.
In addition, Grand Avenue and
County Line Road (which border the Site to the
south and east, respectively) are also
salted during the winter months by both Bensenville
and DuPage County road crews.
L4
In addition to surface infiltration of contaminants, significant dewatering
activities, such as those associated with nearby rock quarries
in
Elmhurst (two miles to
the southwest) and Hillside (four miles
to the southeast), have changed the redox
conditions in the Silurian Age dolomite bedrock, resulting in increased concentrations of
some dissolved constituents (ISWS Circular 149,
1981).
D.
Groundwater Quality
—
Lower Water Bearing Unit
Groundwater quality in the lower water bearing unit at the Site is well
documented on the basis ofnearly
14 years ofquarterly post closure care monitoring and
statistical reporting.
During the 14-year time period there have been n
confirmed
detections oforganic compounds in Site groundwater.
Based on the information collected at the Site and on the regional information
regarding the Silurian Age Dolomite bedrock, Bensenville can document that the
groundwater quality issues observed in the lower water bearing unit forwhich this
petition
seeks relief are not landfill related.~With respect to chloride,
as discussed
above, the
1981
ISWS Circular identified regional chloride impacts in the Silurian Age
dolomite
which are consistent with the impacts in the lower water bearing unit
with
which
it
is
connected
at the Site.
Groundwater investigations
at the Site indicated
generally higher chloride concentrations further from the landfill waste boundary,
adjacentto the roadways.
This is not consistent with a possible leachate release.
Similarly,
the
concentrations
of
lead
do
not
reflect
landfill
impacts.
As
demonstrated
by
the
concentration
time
trends
for
total
and
dissolved
lead
in
~
Bensenville acknowledges that this conclusion has been the subject ofextensive discussion with the IEPA.
While Bensenville asserts
it can fully document and support
its position, it also notes that the Board can
grant this reliefwithout resolving this debate.
As
is demonstrated below, identified
control measures
would be economically unreasonable and there is no
environmental impact associated with the relief.
—
I
downgradient groundwater
monitoring
wells
in
Exhibit
10,
the
concentrations of total
lead
are
extremely
erratic
over
time,
and
exhibit
no
discernible
trend
that
would
be
typically
associated with
a release from
the landfill.
The widely varying concentrations
are generally indicative
of sample turbidity
in
the case of a
metal, such as
lead.
These
metals
adhere
strongly
to
minute,
suspended
soil
particles
that
are
contained in
turbid
groundwater samples typically associated with relatively fine grained, silty aquifers such
as the lower water bearing unit at the
Site.
Therefore, the total lead concentrations will
tend to vary directly with the groundwater sample turbidity, independent of and unrelated
to a possible landfill release.
The concentration ofdissolved lead
is a much better indicator ofleachate impacts
than total lead because dissolved lead concentrations are not as biased by the presence of
sediment/turbidity
in
the
sample.
As
shown
on
the
concentration
time
trends
for
dissolved lead, this parameter has only been detected a few times,
specifically during the
period between 2000
and
2001.
Since that time,
dissolved lead has not been detected.
Dissolved
lead has
never been detected in
Site leachate
and,
therefore,
it is improbable
that the source oflead in groundwater is
Site leachate.
The
total
lead
concentrations measured
in
groundwater
have
been higher than
those measured in
leachate.
For example, the total lead concentrations in leachate
well
L302
(also 1mo\~as L2),
which
is
located in the southeast corner of the Site closest
to
the monitoring wells
at which total
lead concentrations have exceeded Class
I standards
(see
Petition, Exhibit
1, Volume
3,
Attachment 2), ranged
from
14
to
17 ug/L,
less than
the
total
lead concentrations detected in nearby groundwater monitoring wells
G 117
(21
ug/L)
and
G121/R121
(23 ug/L).
If landfill leachate
were
the
source of the total
lead,
I
then
we
would
expect
that
landfill
leachate
would
contain
higher,
not
lower,
I
concentrations oftotal lead when compared to groundwater.
I
Finally, and
perhaps
most
tellingly,
the
CPT
boring
samples,
which
were
I
positioned between the
monitoring
wells and the adjacent roads, almost
all contained
I
significantly
higher
total
and
dissolved
lead
concentrations
than
their
respective
I
monitoring
well
pair
samples.
This
was
especially
apparent
for
the
total
lead
I
concentrations.
The
lead
concentrations
were
generally
higher
closer
to
the
roads
I
adjacent to
the landfill.
This
is
also
entirely inconsistent with
a landfill source
of lead.
I
Since
the
Site specific
data
suggests
that
the
“lead
gradient”
is
generall~from
the
I
adjacent
roads
towards the
landfill, we
believe this
is
strong
evidence
for
an
off Site
I
source of lead.
12
E.
Groundwater
Usage
In order to evaluate the impact ofthe proposed change, EIL evaluated
groundwater usage and monitoring wells
within one half-mile ofthe Site.
Bensenville
previously obtained all of its water from deep wells (ISWS Circular
149,
1981), and
currently obtains its water from Lake Michigan.
Bensenville also maintains a private well
use restriction (Bensenville Municipal Code 8-7-23), included as Exhibit 4, that states:
“From and after July 6,
1984,
it shall be
unlawfulfor any person to
install a well,
cistern, or other groundwater collection device
to be used to supply any water
supply system
~f
a water main constituting apart ofthe Village ‘spublic water
supply system is within two hundredfeet (200’) ofthe nearestproperty line ofthe
property upon which the well,
cistern, or other groundwater collection device
would be drilled or connected.”
Based on communications with personnel in the Bensenville public works department
and DuPage County Public Health Department, well database information obtained from
the Illinois
State Geological Survey (ISGS) and the Illinois State Water Survey (ISWS),
and a reconnaissance performed on December 2, 2004, there are no known private wells
or monitoring wells in Bensenville located within one half-mile ofthe Site that are
screened in the lower water bearing unit, with the exception ofthe Site monitoring wells.
Based on that same reconnaissance, there are no wells
screened in the lower water
bearing unit in the City ofNorthlake located adjacent to and east (downgradient) ofthe
Site.
Northlake, as shown. in the map in Exhibit
5,
does not currently maintain a private
well use restriction.
The majority of properties located within one half-mile ofthe Site
are industrial/commercial in nature.
In addition, there is a small residential area located
due east ofand
within one half-mile ofthe
Site.
Based on discussions with the Northlake
public works department, Cook County Public Health Department, and a number of
residents in the residential area, well database information obtained from ISGS and
ISWS, and a reconnaissance performed on December 2, 2004, the various
industries/commercial operations within one half-mile downgradient of the Site obtain
their water from either deep bedrock wells or from Lake Michigan.
The homeowners
within the small residential area are connected to the Northlake municipal water supply
that
is sourced from Lake Michigan and there are no known private wells or monitoring
wells
located in Northlake within one half-mile downgradient ofthe Site that are screened
in the lower water bearing unit.
There were, however, a few monitoring wells previously located within one half-
mile ofthe Site associated with a former Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) site
(Leon Parent Trucking, LUST incident number
961459).
Those monitoring wells were
abandoned based
on discussions with the property owner and field observations during
the December 2, 2004 reconnaissance.
There was also a private well previously located
eastof the Site on what is now property owned by National Trucking.
Based on ISGS
wellrecords, the well was screened in the underlying Silurian Dolomite bedrock.
Company representatives ofNational Trucking indicated that the well was previously
abandoned.
The abandonment was evident during the December 2, 2004 field
reconnaissance.
The
City of Elmhurst, located adjacent to and
south (downgradient) of the Site,
maintains an ordinance (Elmhurst Municipal Code MCO-1-2003),
included in
Exhibit 4,
that prohibits the use of groundwater for potable use within the city limits except via well
points operated by a city, those private wells in existence prior to
the ordinance date (not
including those in need ofrepair), and private irrigation wells equipped with a backflow
prevention device.
The ordinance was approved subject to a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) between Elmhurst and the IEPA.
The MOU was completed on
December 4, 2003.
Elmhurst provides municipal water service sourced from Lake
Michigan to
its residents.
Mt. Emblem Cemetery is the only property in Elmhurst that is
located within one
half-mile downgradient (south to southeast) ofthe Site, as shown on the map included as
Exhibit
5.
There are no other industrial/commercial facilities or residential areas located
in Elmhurst within one half-mile downgradient ofthe Site.
Based on communications
with personnel in the Elmhurst public works department, Mt. Emblem Cemetery, and
DuPage County Public Health Department, well database information obtained from the
ISGS and ISWS, and a reconnaissance performed on December 2, 2004, there are no
known private wells or monitoring wells in Elmhurst located within one half-mile
downgradient ofthe Site that are screened in the lower water bearing unit.
There were,
however, a number ofmonitoring wells previously installed in Mt.
Emblem Cemetery that were associated with a LUST incident (LUST incident number
913205).
These wells have since been abandoned based on discussions with the Mt.
Emblem Cemetery property manager and observations during the December 2, 2004
reconnaissance.
In addition, there were a number ofprivate wells that were located
approximately one half-mile south ofthe Site, likely within the confines ofthe cemetery.
However, based on well records obtained from the ISWS
and ISGS, these wells were
screened in the underlying Silurian Age dolomite bedrock.
The Mt. Cemetery property
manager had no
knowledge of the existence ofthese wells and there was no evidence that
they are still in existence based on the December 2, 2004 reconnaissance.
In summary, based on discussions with the public works departments of
Bensenville, Northlake, including some local residents, and Elmhurst, including
personnel at Mt. Emblem Cemetery, and with the DuPage and Cook County Public
Health Departments,
well database information obtained from the ISGS and ISWS, and a
reconnaissance ofthe area within a one half-mile downgradient ofthe Site, there is no
evidence to suggest that the lower water bearing zone is used as a source ofdrinking
water in Bensenville downgradient ofthe
Site, or the adjacent (downgradient)
communities ofNorthlake and Elmhurst within one half-mile ofthe
Site.
These
communities obtain their public drinking water supplies primarily, or solely, from Lake
Michigan.
Some deep wells were identified from well logs as screened in the Cambrian-
Ordovician aquifers underlying the Maquoketa Formation that, in turn, underlies the
Silurian Age dolomite bedrock.
It is not known whether these wells are currently in use.
In any event, the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifers are physically
and hydraulically isolated
from the Silurian Age dolomite bedrock.
V.
DESCRIPTION OF COMPLIANCE EFFORTS AND IMPACT OF
EFFORTS TO COMPLY
(35
Ill.
Adm. Code
104.406(e))
Bensenville evaluated the estimated costs for actions
necessary
to bring the
groundwater into compliance with the Board’s standards.
While it is not clear that any
action would achieve compliance with the Board regulation, a basic approach would be to
construct a cut-off wall around the lower water bearing unit, to isolate Addison Creek
(which receives wastewater treatment plant and other discharges), to
pump groundwater
a’
with elevated chloride and leadfrom the
lower water bearing unit, and to treat this
groundwater in an on-Site treatment unit.
The costs, including hydraulic isolation ofthe
lower water bearing unit around the Site, hydraulic
isolationofAddison Creek where it
crosses the Site, groundwater extraction, and construction ofan on-Site reverse osmosis
treatment facility to treat the affected groundwater would be on the order of
$19,150,000.
14.144.000.
These costs are summarized in Exhibit 6±
and are discussed
below.
The costs assume that hydraulic isolation ofthe lower water bearing unit would be
achieved through the installation ofa bentonite-soil slurry wall with “leap-frogging”
overlapping panels 2.4 meters in width.
The length ofthe wall would be 6,100 feet, the
approximate perimeter length of the property.
The depth ofthe wall is assumed to
be 75
feet, 60 feet in soil overburden materialand an additional 15 feet in theunderlying
fractured Silurian dolomite
bedrock to minimize potential seepage.
The depth estimates
arebasedon current site information. The
estimated cost ofthe slurry wall would be
$10,350,000 based on discussions with Layne GeoConstruction out ofButler,
Pennsylvania, a qualified contractor with experience in the construction of slurry cut-off
wall systems.
The bottom of Addison Creek, a possible source ofcontaminants, is
separated
from the top ofthe lower water bearing unit by approximately 25 feet ofsoil material.
Contaminants in Addison Creek could potentially migrate through these soil materials
and impact the lower water bearing unit.
Therefore, the cost estimate includes hydraulic
isolation ofAddison Creek via a concrete bed liner along the approximately
1,600 length
~
A
revised version of Exhibit 6
is
attached hereto and
should be-substituted-fur the Exhibit 6 attached
to
the orininal netition.
of creek-bed across the Site.
The concrete bed linerwould be
six-inches thick and an
average of 25 thick wide, based on the current configuration ofthe creek.
The estimated
cost of the creek bed linerwould be $200,300 based on the calculated volume ofconcrete
and estimated installation costs.
Groundwater extraction would be achieved via a series oftwenty extraction wells
installed on 300-foot centers and connected via a pipeline.
Each well would be
installed
to
an
approximate depth of
65
feet and
would
be
fitted
with
a
submersible pump.
An
additional
well pair would be
installed
adjacent to each extraction well, one
inside
the
cut-off wall and one outside the cut-off wall.
The purpose of the well-pairs would be to
monitor
the performance of the cut-off wall.
The total
estimated cost of the
extraction
system is $854,000, $625,000 of which represents well installation costs.
I
Bensenville
recognizes
that
the estimated
number
of wells
is
based
on the
I
assumed
hydraulic
pronerties
of
the
lower
water
bearing
unit.
specifically
a
I
hydraulic
conductivity of
1
x
10~cm/sec
and
a
norositv
of 0.25.
Fetter
(Applied
I
Hvdror’eoloL~v.
19801
estimates
hydraulic
conductivity
for
silty
and
fine
sands
to
I
range
from
1
x
10~ cm/sec
to
1
x
10~ cm/sec.
The
calculated
horizontal
flow
I
velocity was
based
on
an assumed
conservative
hydraulic
conductivity of
1
x
10~
I
cm/sec.
That is. the highest potential contaminant miffration rate was assumed.
I
This hydraulic
conductivity is
a conservative assumption because four of the
I
six Site
monitoring wells routinely draw down when manually purged with
a bailer.
I
It
is
highly unlikely
that
a well could
be
bailed
dry
with
a
hydraulic
conductivity
I
around
the well screen of 1
x 10~
cmlsec.
Given the relatively fine grained nature of
I
the lower water bearing unit. it
is
more
likely that the actual
hydraulic conductivity
I
would
be
in
the
1
x
10~ cm/sec
to
1
x
10~ cm/sec
range.
Such
hydraulic
I
conductivities are also consistent with a well that can be bailed
dry
manually.
These
I
lower hydraulic
conductivities would
result
in
calculated horizontal flow velocities
I
of ten to one hundred
times
slower
than
the currently assumed value of 4
meters per
I
year.
or
0.4
to 0.04
meters
per year.
As
such. the number of required extraction
I
wells and, therefore. the total cost of the extraction system would increase.
I
Fetter
~AppliedHvdro
geology.
1980) estimates porosity for glacial till to range
I
from
10
to
20
nercent.
and
for
mixed
sand
and
gravel
to
range
from
20
to
35
percent.
The
estimated
horizontal
flow velocity
included
herein
is
based
on
an
I
assumed
porositY
of
0.25.
a
reasonable
estimate
that
is
approximately
midway
I
between
the
ranges
listed
above
given
that
the
soil
materials
in
the
lower water
I
bearing unit
generally
consist of
a
mixture of silt
and
sand.
Porosity
is
inversely
I
related to horizontal flow velocity
—
the lower the porosity the higher the calculated
I
horizontal flow velocity.
Even if the lowest norositv in the range was
assumed (0.10)
I
the resulting calculated horizontal flow velocity would only
change from four meters
I
per year to 10
meters per year.
I
In
summary.
therefore.
the
estimated
horizontal
flow
velocity
is
likely
I
significantly
overestimated
with
respect
to
hydraulic
conductivity,
and
could
be
I
slightly underestimated with respect to porosity.
The net effect. however.
is
that the
I
calculated
horizontal
flow
velocity
is
likely
somewhat
high
and
is.
therefore.
I
conservative with respect to potential contaminant migration.
The actual number of
I
reuuired extraction wells
is
inversely related to horizontal flow velocity
—
the higher
I
the calculated velocity the fewer number of wells.
Since
field measurements would
I
24
I
likely
reveal lower hydraulic conductivities. the reouired number of extraction wells
I
and
corresponding
water
level
monitoring
well
pairs
would
increase,
thereby
I
increasing the cost of the extraction system.
Howeyer. the cost of the extraction well
I
network
currently
represents
only
about
four
percent
of
the
estimated
total
I
remediation costs.
As such. the actual well spacing and. by extension. the number of
I
extraction wells
in
the extraction network
do not siffnificantly affect the overall
cost
I
of remediating Site groundwater.
The
estimated
costs
are
also
based
on-Site groundwater pre-treatment
utilizing
reverse osmosis.
Such a system would cost approximately $25,000 and would be capable
of achieving
the
anticipated
discharge
standards
required
by
the
Metropolitan
Water
Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (MWRDGC).
Such pre-treatment discharge
standards would be established withtheMWRDGC
during the permitting process.
Engineering, permitting,
and
construction
quality assurance costs
associated
with
the system elements described above were estimated to be
15
percent ofthe capital costs,
or $1,714,000.
Finally, the annual operation and maintenance
cost was estimated to be
$40,000.
This
includes
assumed
annual
costs
to
replace
one
extraction
pump,
hourly
technician
costs
to maintain the on-Site reverse osmosis unit, disposal
and required analytical costs
associated with discharge to the MWRDGC,
and system power consumption.
The total
estimated operation and
maintenance cost assuming a 4-5~~-year
groundwater extraction,
treatment, and
disposal period is
$6,001,000.1.000.000.
The 4402~,-yearperiod is based
on the assumed
horizontal flow velocity of0~224meters per
year (for lead using
a flow
velocity of 4
meters per year and achloride assuming
no
retardation factor of 18) and
a
contaminated groundwater flow path of
100
meters
from the
southeast quadrant of the
landfill near the southeast edge ofwaste
to the southeast property boundary.
Clearly, the
groundwater extraction, treatment, and disposal period would increase dramatically if Site
hydraulic
conductivities
were
found
to
be
lower
(a
strong
possibility)
and
if
the
theoretical landfill
leakage was occurring,
or was assumed to
be
occurring,
somewhere
other than in the southeast corner ofthe landfill.
For example, the contaminant flow path
would increase from
100 meters to
400 meters if the theoretical leakage was assumed to
be
from
the
middle
of the
landfill.
This
would
effectively
quadruple
the
estimated
operation and maintenance period and associated costs.
Such costs are economically unreasonable and not justified from any perspective.
The lack ofeconomic reasonableness is apparent from the facts described in this Petition.
There are no groundwater receptors or potential human health impacts
since users within
one half-mile downgradientofthe Site obtain their drinking water supplies from sources
other thanthe lower water bearing unit.
Further, despite the program outlined above,
Bensenville
cannot control or eliminate the sources ofchloride and
lead. Even if
Bensenville implemented some type ofgroundwater isolation, extraction, and treatment
program, the source ofchloride is ongoing and not subject to control by Bensenville.
State and county highway departments apply the salt surrounding roads and Interstate 294
as a means of ensuring driving
safety during snow and ice events
and these separate
government
entities are expected to continue this application in the future.
The source of
lead has also been demonstrated to be from an anthropogenic, off Site, non point
source(s)
and is, therefore, beyond the ability of Bensenville to
control.
As a result,
Bensenville cannot describe the conditions that would occur if it were to
comply with the
groundwater standards since the non-compliance is not as a result of its actions and there
is no action it can take which could result in compliance.
Although Bensenville, DuPage and
Cook Counties, and the Illinois Department of
Transportation could, in theory, cease further road salting along the adjacentroads, the
potential health effects as they are related to road safety would be significant.
In fact, a
significant increase in the frequency ofautomobile accidents, many resulting in severe
injury and some with resulting fatalities,
would surely be attributed to increased road
hazards associated with snow and ice if the application ofroad salt were to
cease during
the winter months.
Road salt has long been the material ofchoice in northern Illinois
for
snow and ice melting because ofits relative abundance, cost effectiveness when
compared with alternative materials, and minimal
impact to the environment.
Furthermore, there are no known significant health risks associated with the
ingestion ofgroundwater with the current level ofchloride concentrations found in the
Site groundwater.
A Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) study concluded that the
major objection to high concentrations ofsodium and
chloride in public water supplies
arises from the taste preference of consumers (Winters, et al.,
1985, Environmental
Evaluation ofCMA,
ReportFHWA-RD-84-095, FHWA, USDOT).
In other words, the
consumption ofsuch groundwater would be objectionable to the consumer.
The Ohio
Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP), associated with the Federal Highway
Administration, Ohio Department ofTransportation, and the Ohio State University
reported that “Chloride from
road salt
affects taste, but has no
effect on human
health
at the levels possible from road salt.” (Ohio LTAP Quarterly, 1998, Volume
13, No.
1).
Finally, the Environment Canada (Canada’s equivalent ofthe USEPA) found that,
21
although high chloride concentrations in groundwater could result in some adverse
environmental effects to plant and aquatic life, “The principal problem for humans from
road salt is its
adverse effect on taste...” and that “Road salts are not dangerous to
humans.” (Environment Canada, 2000,
Priority Substances Assessment Report: Road
Salts)
there are no known health risks associated with the ingestion ofgroundwater with
elevated chloride concentrations.
Therefore, there would be no health and environmental
benefits associated with potentially meeting existing groundwater standards by stopping
the use of road salt.
There are commonly known health effects associated with the ingestion oflead.
The main target for lead toxicity is the nervous system, both in adults and in children.
Long term exposure of adults to lead has resulted in decreased performance in some tests
that measure functions ofthe nervous system.
Lead exposure may also cause weakness
in
fmgers, wrists, or ankles.
Some studies in
humans have suggested that lead exposure may
increase blood pressure.
Lead exposure may also cause
anemia.
At high levels of
exposure, lead can severely damage the brain and kidneys in adults or children (LJSEPA,
2001,
Health Effects ofLcad~.
In spite ofthe potentially toxic effects oflead exposure,
fhpyp’”~’
known ~
recentors
woula
unlikely
to
VI.
JUSTIFICATION FOR RELIEF
(35
Ill. Adm.
Code
104.406(h))
and,
ifthere
~
they
I
__________
ingest the water willingly
because ofthe poor taste associated with the high chloride
concentrations.
Again, while Bensenville is not bound by the standards of 35 Ill. Adm. Code
811 .320(b)(4), Bensenville will look to these standards as a useful framework for
justifying the reliefit seeks here.
a)
The groundwater from the lower water bearing unit does not presently
serve as a source ofdrinking water.
As
described above, Bensenville has documented that the groundwater from the
lower water bearing unit does not serve as a source of drinking water for municipal or
private wells in Bensenville, or the downgradient communities of Northlake (to the east)
and Elmhurst (to the south) within one half-mile downgradient ofthe Site.
b)
The change in standards will not interfere with or become injurious to,
any present orpotential beneficial usesfor such waters.
As stated above, there are no current beneficial uses being made ofthese waters
and municipal ordinances in Bensenville and Elmhurst would preclude the use ofthis
groundwater as a potable water source in the future in those communities.
More
significantly, the Village and the adjacent communities ofNorthlake and Elmhurst obtain
their drinking water supplies from Lake Michigan.
There are no known industrial or
residential uses ofthe specific groundwater downgradient and within one half-mile ofthe
Site.
c)
The change
is necessaryfor economic or social development.
The proposed change will advance economic and social development by allowing
Bensenville to complete the golfcourse contemplated by the IEPA grant encouraging
Bensenville to develop additional open space.
In addition, the change would relieve
Bensenville from a significant financial burden insofar as the required quarterly
assessment monitoring and reporting are concerned.
These costs account for
approximately $35,000 to $40,000 per year (as documented in Exhibit
11), an amount
that could be allocated to beneficial community development, beautification, or recreation
projects.
The proposed change will not affect human health because groundwater from the
lower water bearing unit is not utilized
for human consumption within one half-mile
-
downgradient ofthe Site.
d)
The groundwater does notpresently and will not in thefuture serve as a
source of drinking water.
Although it is technically feasible to eliminate orreduce the chloride and lead
concentrations in Sitegroundwater, it is
not economically reasonable to eliminate or
reduce the chloride and lead concentrations in Site groundwaterbecause the cost is
extremely high and there is no
evidence to suggest that Site groundwater is used for
human consumption or any known industrial purposes within one half-mile downgradient
from the
Site.
In order to ensure that groundwater at the Site will not be used for potable
purposes, Bensenville will record an ELUC to preclude such use if so
renuested by the
PCB.
There are no knownhuman health impacts associated with the consumption of
groundwater with chloride concentrations similar to those measured in Site groundwater.
While there are human health impacts associated with the ingestion of lead, its migration
rate would be on the order ofonly
0.22 meters per year (or approximately 75 feet per
100
years) and, therefore, it would take a few hundred years before lead impacted
groundwater from the Site would be expected
tn mi~rntenif
Site tn
the nenre~t
downgradient property.
It is also
unlikely that a person would willingly ingest such
groundwater because of its offensive taste associated with the high chloride
concentration.
Bensenville and
adjacent communities obtain their drinking water from
Lake Michigan.
Since the groundwater is not used for human consumption,
it must be
concluded that the safety benefits to motorists ofusing road salt (ice-free roads) far
outweigh any potentially beneficial impact of reducing chloride concentrations in Site
groundwater by eliminating the application ofroad salt to heavily traveled Grand Avenue,
County Line Road,
and Interstate 294 adjacent to the Site.
It is possible, however, that
existing groundwater quality will be maintained as a function ofthe quantity ofroad salt
applied
during
upcoming years.
This Petition also meets the statutory requirements set out at Section 28.1(c) ofthe
Illinois Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS
5/28.1(c))
forjustifying
an adjusted
standard.
There are numerous factors which establish that the Bensenville situation is
substantially and significantly different from those the Board considered in adopting the
Ground Water Quality standards.
First, Bensenville has sought this change to complete
the project ofturning a private landfill into a public
open space resource pursuant to IEPA
funding.
The groundwater issues represent conditions which originated from other
sources and which cannot be resolved by any reasonable action that Bensenville can take.
Finally there will be no environmental impact associated with the Board’s granting ofthis
adjusted standard and no impact on public health since the public is not consuming this
groundwater and not likely to in the future for reasons which do not relate to the activities
for which the Petitioner seeks relief.
Finally, as is stated below, this relief can be granted
consistently with federal
law.
For all these reasons, the adjusted standard sought by
Petitioner is justified.
VII.
THIS RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED CONSISTENT WITH
FEDERAL
LAW
(35
Ill. Adm. Code 104.406(i))
The closure ofthis Site is not controlled by any federal law and no federal law sets
standards for groundwater which is not used as a potable water supply.
Neitherthe
municipal solid waste landfill regulations nor the hazardous landfill regulations adopted
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C.
6901
et seq.) apply to this
Site. Therefore, this relief canbe granted consistent with federal law.
VIII.
STATEMENT
OF RELIEF REQUESTED
(35
Ill. Adm.
Code 104.406(g))
Bensenville requests that the Board adopt the following adjusted standard:
The dissolved chloride standard in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 620.4 10 shall be
adjusted from the existing standard of 200,000 ug/L to 728,963.
The total
lead standard in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 620.110 shall be adjusted from the
existing standard of7.5 ugfL to 17.8 ug,Q.
These adjusted
standards728.963 ugJL.
This adjusted
standard shall apply to
groundwater withinthe lower water bearing unit down to the top ofthe
Silurian dolomite bedrock beneath the former Village ofBensenville
Landfill Site located at:
Address:
Northwest corner ofGrand Avenue and County Line Road,
Bensenville, Illinois.
Legal Description:
Parcel
1 (PinNumber 03255200004):
That part ofthe northeast quarter
ofSection 25,
Township 40 North,
Range 11 East, ofthe thirdprincipal
meridian described by commencing in the north line ofsaid section at a
point 1019.04feet east ofthe northwest corner ofsaid northeast quarter;
thence southeasterly along the easterly line ofproperty described in
document 388417,
1573.55feet to the centerline of GrandAvenue,
thence
easterly on
the centerline of GrandAvenue
700.0feetfor aplace
beginning; thence
northerly 1602.1 feet to a point in the section line which
is
1865.04feet ofthe northwest corner ofsaid northeast quarter; thence
east along the north line ofsaid northeast quarter
768.8feet to
the
northeast corner thereofi thence south along the east line ofsaid northeast
quarter
1 641.55feet to the centerline ofGrandAvenue;
thence westerly
along the centerline ofGrand Avenue
692.28feet to theplace ofbeginning
(excepttherefrom the rights ofthepublic all existing roads and streets),
in
DuPage County,
Illinois.
Parcel 2
(Pin Number 0325200003):
That part ofthe northeast quarter of
Section 25,
Township 40 North,
Range 11 East, ofthe thirdprincipal
meridian described by beginning in the north line ofsaid section at a point
1019.04feet eastof the northwest corner ofsaid northeast quarter; thence
southeasterly along the easterly line ofproperty describedin document
388417,
1573.55feet to the centerline ofGrandAvenue; thence easterly
on the centerline ofGrandAvenue,
700feet; thence northerly 1602.1 feet
to apoint in
the section line which
is 846.0 feet eastfrom theplace of
beginning; thence west 846.0feet to
theplace ofbeginning,
except
therefrom thatpart thereofdescribed asfollows:
the west 200feet (as
measuredalong the centerline ofGrand Avenue) north ofthe south 400
feet (as measuredon the easterly line ofproperty described in document
388417) lying northerly ofthe northerly line of Grand Avenue (said
northerly line ofGrand Avenue being 40feet northerly ofandparallel
with the centerline ofGrand Avenue; in DuPage
County, illinois.
Parcel 3 (PinNumber 0325200002):
The west 200feet (as measured
along the center-line ofGrand Avenue) of the south 400feet (as measured
on
the easterly line
ofproperty described in document 388417) lying
northerly ofthe northerly line of Grand Avenue (said northerly line of
GrandAvenue being 40feet northerly ofandparallel with the centerline
of GrandAvenue) ofthatpart ofthe northeast quarter ofsection 25,
Township 40 North, Range 11,
east of the third principal meridian,
described by beginning in the north
line ofsaid section at apoint 1019.04
feet east ofthe northwest corner ofsaid northeast quarter; thence
southeasterly along the easterly line ofproperty described in
document
388417,
1573.55 feet to the centerline ofGrandAvenue; thence easterly
on the centerline ofGrandAvenue,
700feet,
thence northerly 1602.1 feet
to apoint in
the section line which is 846.0feet eastfrom theplace of
beginning; thence west 846.0feet to
theplace ofbeginning,
in DuPage
County, Illinois.
A Site-map showing these boundaries
ishas been
attached
hereto and
incorporated herein as Exhibit
12.
IX.
HEARING
WAIVER
-
(35
Ill. Adm. Code 104.406(j))
