BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARn
IN THE MATTER OF:
Petition for Adjusted Standard
from 35
III.
AnM. COnE 620.420
For Nobel Risley's Landfill #2
)
)
)
)
)
AS 08-003
(Adjusted
Standard-Water)
NOTICE OF FILING
To:
Ms. Carol Webb
Hearing
Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
1021 NOI1h Grand Avenue East
Post
Office Box 19274
Springfield, Illinois 62794
Mr. James Kropid
Division
of Legal Counsel, #21
Illinois Envirollinental Protection Agency
1021 N
0I1h Grand Avenue East
Post Office Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that today I have filed with the Office of the Clerk of the
Pollution Control Board a SECOND AMENDED PETITION FOR ADJUSTED STANDARDS TO
ADDRESS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD COMMENTS ON PREVIOUS AMENDED
PETITION and our CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE in the above-titled matter. Copies
of these
documents are hereby served upon you.
Respectfully submitted,
Nobel Risley
Br~IVING~STON
LeJIRM ,
'i-
~-,I'4~(
PENNI S. LIVINGSTON
.5.
vLL-v~~
#06196480
~
.
Attorney for the Petitioner
5701 Perrin Road
Fairview Heights, IL 62208
Telephone 618-628-7700
Fax 618-628-7710
DATED: February 28, 2008
Elctronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, February 28, 2008
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN
THE MATTER OF:
Petition for Adjnsted
Standard
from 35
Ill.
ADM. CODE 620.420
For Nobel Risley's Landfill #2
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
AS 08-003
(Adjusted
Standard-Water)
SECOND AMENDED PETITION FOR ADJUSTED STANDARDS
TO ADDRESS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD COMMENTS
ON PREVIOUS AMENDED PETITION
NOW COMES the Petitioner, Risley Landfill #2 ("Petitioner," "Risley" or "Landfill
#2"), by and through its attorneys
of the Livingston Law Firm, pursuant to Section 28.1 and
consistent with Section 27(a) ofthe Illinois Environmental Protection Act, 415 ILCS 5/28.1, 5/27(a),
and 35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.400,
et seq.,
and hereby files this Second Amended Petition requesting
that this honorable Illinois Pollution Control Board (hereinafter the "Board") allow for Adjusted
Standards to requirements contained in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 620.420 increasing the allowable limits
of chlorides under Class II Groundwater Standards from 200 mg/L to 600 mg/L and increasing the
allowable limits
of sulfates under Class II Groundwater Standards from 400 mg/L to 2,381 mg/L,
both for the Risley Landfill #2.
These requested Adjusted Standards allow the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(hereinafter "IEP
A")
to certifY closure of the Risley Landfill #2. In support of the request for
Adjusted Standards and in response to issues address in the Board'sOrder
ofJanuary 24,2008, the
Petitioner states
as follows:
1
Elctronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, February 28, 2008
Introduction
1. Consistent with Section 27 of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act, 415 ILCS
5/27, (hereinafter the "Act"), the Board
may adopt substantive regulations that make different
provisions as required
by circumstances for different contaminant sources and which may include
regulations specific to individual persons
or sites. Furthennore, in accordance with Section 28.1 of
the Act, 415 ILCS 5/28.1, after adopting a regulation of general applicability, the Board may grant
an Adjusted Standard for persons who
canjustif'ysuch an adjnstment consistent with Section 27 of
the Act. Petitioner will demonstrate to the Board that it meets the standards set forth in these
Sections
of the Act with respect to its request for Adjnsted Standards for chlorides and sulfates.
Most important, Petitioner will demonstrate that the requested
reliefwill not result in environmental
or health effects more adverse than those considered by the Board in adopting the rule of general
applicability. Petitionerbelieves that the requested Adjusted Standards
will not result in any adverse
environmental impacts as demonstrated
by the evidence in the Technical Reports attached to the
original Petition and the first Amended Petition previously submitted.
2. This Second Amended Petition is supported
by evidence gathered together in much
more detail in the reports prepared by Leggette, Brashears
&
Graham ("LBG"), the oldest and one
of the most respected groundwater consulting finns in the nation. The reports attached to the
original Petition are entitled "Technical Justification for an Adjusted Standard for Chlorides
in
Ground-water" and are herein adopted in full by reference in this Amended Petition. The report
attached to the first Amended Petition is entitled "Technical Justification for an Adjusted Standard
for Sulfates
in Ground Water". These reports were prepared for Mr. Nobel RisleyconcemingRisley
2
Elctronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, February 28, 2008
Landfill #2. The LBG report on Chlorides and responses to IEPA Connnents regarding the LBG
report with snpporting data and tables
aTe dated November 7, 2006 (to be labeled as Exhibit I to the
original Petition), and July
10,2007 (to be labeled as Exhibit 3 to the original Petition), respectively.
The reports
on chlorides were previously filed unlabeled with the Board on or about September 5,
2007, with the original Petition for Adjusted Standard.
3. The first LBGreport
on Sulfates is dated November 6, 2007, and was filed previously
with the first Amended Petition as Exhibit 2. Hereinafter, these reports are collectively referred to
as the "Technical Reports." The new issue addressed in this Second Amended Petition
per
comments by IEPA and the BOaTd has resulted in lowering the requested adjusted standard for
sulfates in order to account for the statistical analysis
ofthe downward trend for sulfates in Well G-
104 noted
by IEPA in their comments. The requested statistical analysis is contained in the attached
Supplemental Report (labeled Exhibit 8 for consistency
in exhibits). The previously submitted
issues and the remaining issues for this request for adjusted standards are addressed in the referenced
Technical Reports attached to the original Petition and the first
Amended Petition. Exhibits 4
through 7
of the first Amended Petition included documentation requested by the BOaTd and,
together with the Supplemental and Technical Reports, contain the entire
body ofwritten evidence
presented in support
of this Second Amended Petition.
4. Proper publication
ofthe Notice of Filing for Adjusted Standards for both chlorides
and sulfates was filed with the first amended petition,
contraTy to the chastising of the Board's
January 24,2008 Order. Such notice is again attached hereto. Given that the requested standard in
this Second Amended Petition is the same for chlorides, which the Agency has recOlmnended
3
Elctronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, February 28, 2008
granting, and is lower for snlfates to address the statistical analysis the Agency and Board think
appropriate, new notice was not published for this lowered number as the scope
ofreliefis the same,
although the number requested is lower.
If the Board feels otherwise, Petitioners will gladly do a
third publication.
LandfiII Description! Existing Physical Conditions/ Character of
the
Area
5. The site involved in this Second Amended Petition is a closed landfiII located in rural
Franklin County, Illinois, with an address
of 9957 River Bend Road, Benton, Illinois 628 I2. The
site is composed
of a main landfiIl, with a footplint of about eight acres with up to 20 feet of
thickness ofwaste which is centraIly situated on a 38-acre parcel ofland, and a smaIler trench-fiIled
area to the north, comprising
of approximately O.4-acres. The IEPA permit number is 1980-21-
DE/OP. The IEPA Site Number is 055 802 0005.
6. LandfiIl #2 was constructed by removing naturaIly occurring unconsolidated earth
materials
of glacial derivation which are present above a thick shale formation, leaving the shale
formation in place, then fiIling the excavation with non-hazardous municipal solid waste, and,
finaIly, placing cover material consisting
ofunconsolidated earth material.
7. Per the pennit requirements for site development set forth in the July 29, 1980, letter
from IEPA to Petitioner (Exhibit 6
of the first Amended Petition), construction of the landfiIl
required that all sand, silt, and other soil layers which are located between ground level and the shale
layer and have a penneability greater than I x
10 [to the] -7 crn/sec. be removed from the Sealing
Trench and replaced with clay having a maximum penneability
of I x 10 [to the] -7 cm/sec. and be
compacted in two-foot layers to a density of95% (Proctor method). In areas where clay is placed
4
Elctronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, February 28, 2008
directly on the shale layer, the clay had to be keyed at least two feet into the shale layer. A minimum
of! 0 feet of clay with a maximum penneability of I x 10 [to the] -7 em/sec. over the entire width
and length
of the Sealing Trench had to be laid. The Sealing Trench had to be certified as to
construction, penneability and density in 300-ft. long sections. The old well near B-6 had to be
backfilled with clay. Permanent markers extending
at least three feet above ground level had to be
placed at all breaks in the property line and at 300-ft. intervals over the SealingTrench. A vegetative
screen had to be maintained between the landfill site and the neighboring Edward Timberend
property.
8. According to the pennit, no liner was required for construction. Specific areas were
designated where the landfill would operate
by trenches. Area I began adj acent to the west property
line. The trenches in Area I ran north and south with the first trench being excavated along the west
property line with the operation moving in an easterly direction.
9. According to Attachment VII of the pennit application (Exhibit 6 of the first
Amended Petition), surface water pollution had to be controlled
by providing temporary ditching
around areas
ofoperation to prevent surface runofffrom flowing to operating portions ofthe landfill
and
by maintaining daily cover of the refuse.
10. Final cover construction began with the preparation ofthe subgrade by the stripping
and removal
of all vegetation, top soil, and deleterious material from the area. Any shallow
depressions were stripped, drained, and filled with structural fill to the level
of the surrounding
ground elevation. This fill was compacted to achieve 90%
ofthe maximum dry density (standard
Proctor method). Once the subgrade was prepared, a compacted clay layer was constructed over
5
Elctronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, February 28, 2008
the entire landfill area to achieve a minimum final cover thickness of two feet and to at least 90%
compaction. Further description
ofthe cap is provided in the August 1999 EMCON Report (Exhibit
4
of the first Amended Petition).
11. Landfill #2 began operations in Febmary 1981, ceased receiving non-hazardous
municipal solid waste in 1988, and closed both landfill areas between
May 11, 1999 and July 19,
1999, lasting a period
of approximately 18 years. According to Attachment VIII, Item C. 35, of
Petitioner's Landfill Application, the Landfill was required to have two full-time employees (a
supervisor and an equipment operator) and to hire additional personnel as needed on a part-time
basis (Please see Exhibit 6
ofthe first Amended Petition). At the time operations began, the Landfill
required four employees to operate and maintain the landfill. These employees consisted
of a
manager, pit person, bulldozer operator, and a mechanic.
When only maintenance was required,
particularly since closure, only one employee was present at the Landfill.
At this time, there are no
employees other than the owner. The landfill is closed.
12. The July 13, 2000, Supplemental Permit No. 1999-285-SP (Exhibit 7
of the first
Amended Petition), outlines the specific closure requirements for Landfill #2, including those
pertaining to groundwater monitOling. As to specific references to closure requirements cited
by the
Technical Reports, Sections 1.4, ofboth the Technical Justification for Chlorides, dated November
7, 2006, and the Technical Justification for Sulfates, dated November 6, 2007,
refer to
correspondence between IEPA and
LBG (on behalf ofPetitioner). Further, Exhibits 4 through 5 of
the first Amended Petition also address closure requirements set forth bypennit. Statistical analysis
for sulfates, resulting in a lower requested adjusted standard is contained
in Exhibit 8 attached
6
Elctronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, February 28, 2008
hereto.
13. As to any leachate and gas emissions ii'milLandfill #2, none were observed d11ling
a 4-year quarterly inspection period performed by EMCON/Shaw Enviromnental, Inc. (Exhibit 5 of
the first Amended Petition, Shaw/EMCON Janualy2005 Report, Appendices C and D). W11ile there
is no pollution control equipment at the landfill, there is an engineered cap that is
in place and
certified (Exhibit 4
of the first Amended Petition, EMCON August 1999 Report).
14. The surrounding area is rural and sparsely populated with light agricultural use. The
nearest town is Benton, Illinois, approximately two miles Northeast with a population
of 7,000.
There are two rural residences immediately next to the 38-acre parcel, one
on the east and one on
the west along the frontage road.
15. The Franklin County area obtains its public water supply from Rend Lake. There
are no private water wells located down gradient
ofthe landfilL The natural groundwater in the area
ofthe laJ1dfill is sporadic in occurrence and is significantly mineralized, thereby precluding its use
for drinking water or other purposes. This groundwater in this area is not capable
of supporting
sustained yield
of water given the limited horizontal area of the aquifer, the limited saturated
thickness, and the very low hydraulic conductivity. The groundwater at the landfill is unsuitable for
domestic use and is practically inaccessible.
16. The receiving body of any groundwater from the landfill area is the Big Mnddy
River. The average flow
of the Big Muddy River is 605 cubic feet per second. According to the
Teclmical Reports prepared for Nobel Risley, "[t]he change in chloride concentration
in the Big
Muddy River due to the inflow
ofimpacted groundwater is 3.33 x 10 [to the] -4 percent Thereason
7
Elctronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, February 28, 2008
for the extremely low impact to chlOlide concentration in the Big Muddy River is because the flow
is over 1.7 miIlion times greater than the groundwater flow emanating from the Landfill."
17. As
to sulfates, "[t]he change in the sulfate concentration in the Big Muddy River due
to the inflow
ofimpacted groundwater is 4.62 x 10 [to the] -6 percent. The reason for extremely low
impact to chloride concentration in the Big Muddy River is because the flow is over 5 miIIion times
greater than the groundwater flow emanating from the Landfill."
18. There is virtuaIly no practical scenario in which the groundwater down gradient of
LandfiIl #2 would be used for industrial, domestic, or agricultural use." Furthermore, as previously
stated, there are no private water weIls down gradient
of LandfiIl #2.
Issues
of Technical Feasibility and Economic Reasonableness
of Compliance Alternatives for Reducing Chlorides and Sulfates
Apparently Coming from the Closed Risley LandfIll
#2
19. The evidence makes clear that reducing the chlorides that showed up in two
monitoring weIls and sulfates that showed up
in six monitoring weIls from this old landfiIl is
technicaIly infeasible and economicaIly unreasonable. FuIl analysis is found in the supporting
evidence to this Petition (Exhibits 1 and 3
ofthe original Petition and Exhibit 2 ofthe first Amended
Petition). Treatment options considered to comply with the standard inclnde pumping and
dewatering the landfiIl and treating the effluent for a cost
ofabout $615,000 with an annual operation
and maintenance cost
of $81,000 per year. A second option is a possible groundwater trenching
system with treatment
of groundwater for a cost of $583,000 with an annual operation and
maintenance cost of$78,000. The final and most expensive option is to relocate the landfiIl for a
cost
of about $17.5 miIIion. While developing treatment options was considered with all
8
Elctronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, February 28, 2008
seriousness, Mr. Risley, who recently had a kidney transplant and is unable to continue to work for
a living, is not in a financial position to pay any
of these costs.
20. Please see Appendix N
ofthe Chlorides Teclmical RepOli (Exhibit 1 ofthe original
Petition) for details on treatment option costs.
Substantially Different Factors
21. The landfill at issue in tlris case has been closed for years and cannot obtain
certification
of closure without these Adjusted Standards. Mr. Risley would like to obtain
certification
ofclosure now that the landfill has met its post-closure care obligations. Although there
have been measurements
ofchlorides in the leachate ofthe landfill as high as 680 mg/L, the average
chloride concentration in monitoring wells around the landfill is 26 mg/L,
much lower than the
allowable standard. This average, as shown
by the monitoring data, the geological and hydraulic
data, and the modeling, indicates that there is virtually
NO IMPACT on the Big Muddy River as the
receiving water. As to sulfates, there is even less
of an impact to the Big Muddy River.
Furthennore, any health effects due to the concentration
of sulfates emanating from the site are
essentially non-existent.
Petitioner Seeks Adjustment from Class II Groundwater Standards
Under 35
Ill.
Adm. Code 620.420(a)
22. The regulation at issue in this Petition is found at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 620.420(a).
Section 620.420 establishes Class
II requirements for general groundwater quality standards to be
met in waters ofthe State in order to protect groundwater. Section 620.420 (a)(2) establishes limits
for chlorides at 200 mg/L and sulfates at 400 mg/L.
9
Elctronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, February 28, 2008
23. The
"Technical Justification for an Adjusted Standard for Chlorides in Ground-
Water"
prepared by LBG in November 7, 2006, lists the Groundwater Classification as "Class I:
Potable Resource Groundwater". However, as pali ofwork perfonned to address IEPA comments
to the LBG November 7
"TechnicalJustification"
report, hydraulic conductivityvalues derived from
slug tests
of monitoring wells at the site indicate groundwater does not meet criteria for a Class I
groundwater (i.e., hydraulic conductivity values are less than IE-04 em/sec; see Page 5
ofthe LBG
report
"Technical Justificationfor an Acijusted Standardfor Chlorides in Ground-Water, Response
to IEPA Comments,"
dated July 10, 2007). Therefore, the groundwater classification for the
Adjusted Standards for both chlorides and sulfates should be "Class
II:
General Resource
Groundwater", in accordance with
35 Ill. Adm. Code 620.250.
Proposed Adjusted Standards
24. Risley petitions the Board to adopt the following language to establish the requested
proposed Adjusted Standard:
The concentrations
of dissolved chlorides shall not exceed 600 mg/L and the
concentrations
of dissolved sulfates shall not exceed 2,381 mg/L in the
groundwater at the Risley Landfill #2 (IEPA Site Number is 055 802 0005,
IEPA permit number is 1980-21-DEIlOP) located at 9957 River Bend Road,
Benton, Illinois 62812. The horizontal boundaries within which the Adjusted
Standards apply shall be the property boundaries. The vertical boundaries are
defined
as all the groundwater that occurs below the surface and above the first
occurrence
of shale, the latter ofwhich is shown on Figure 8 of the "Teclmical
Justification for an Adjusted Standard for Chlorides in Ground-Water" Report
dated November
7, 2006. The Class
II
Groundwater Standards for dissolved
chlorides and dissolved sulfates
as set forth at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 620.420 shall
not apply to the groundwater at the Risley Landfill #2.
10
Elctronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, February 28, 2008
The legal description for the property is as follows:
Part
ofthe South One-Half(S
Y»
ofthe Southwest One-Fourth (SW 1/4) ofthe
Southeast One-Fourth (SE 1/4)
of Section 22, Township 6 South, Range 2 East
in Franklin County, Illinois, approximately eight (8) acres.
The North One-Half (N
Y»
of the Northwest One-Fourth (NW 1/4) of the
Northeast One-Fourth (NE 1/4) and the Southeast One-Fourth (SE 1/4)
of the
NOlihwest One-FoUlih (NW 1/4)
of the Northeast One-Fourth (NE 1/4) of
Section 27, Township 6 South, Range 2 East in Franklin County, Illinois,
approximately thirty (30) acres.
Justification For Adjusted Standards
25. For dissolved chlorides, Petitioner proposes an Adjusted Standard of 600 mglL
instead
of a lower level that reflects the statistically valid range of chloride levels observed at the
down gradient monitoring well GI03. While 516 mglL in well
GI03 was interpreted to be an
outlier, it was done so in accordance with statistical reporting protocol. Given the potential for
spatial and temporal variation, and bearing in mind there are no exposure routes for groundwater or
health concerns associated with readings at 600 mglL, a concentration
of 600 mglL is appropriate.
26. As to dissolved sulfates, Petitioner now proposes an Adjusted Standard of2,381
mglL which reflects the statistically valid range
of sulfate levels observed in the down gradient
monitoring wells. The maximum sulfate concentration
of 3,290 mglL in well G104 was observed
in January 2000. While sulfate concentrations in well GI04 have never exceeded 3,000 mglL since
that time, the range
ofsulfate concentrations in well G104 has been highly variable, with a minimum
concentration
of 1,430 mglL and an average of 2,161 mglL over the 9-year period. Given the
potential for spatial and temporal variation
ofsulfate data, and bearing in mind there are no exposure
routes for groundwater and no health concerns exist, the Petitioner previously requested an adjusted
II
Elctronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, February 28, 2008
standard of 4,500 mg/L to be on the safe side to not ever violate regulatory standards. However,
based on concerns raised
by the IEPA and the Board, a statistic analysis was perfonned and is
attached herein
as Exhibit 8, which shows two methods ofstatistical analysis. The Petitioners chose
the lower
of the two numbers for request of this adjusted standard.
27. The sole purpose
of requesting Adjusted Standards is to obtain Certification of
Closure from IEPA. The entire justification for this request is contained in the referenced Technical
Reports and suppOliing data including Exhibit 8 attached hereto. The most compelling reasons for
granting these Adjusted Standards are that there is no adverse impact on the enviromnent or human
health from this long since closed landfill and the options for treatment to reduce two constituents
of negligible impact to the quality of groundwater in the area are cost-prohibitive.
It
is also
important to consider that a request for remediation
ofthe Landfill has never been made by IEPA.
Requested Adjustments Will Not Result
In Adverse Environmental or Health Effects
28. As previously stated and shown in more detail in the Technical Reports, no private
water wells are used down gradient
of this landfill. Furthennore, the Big Muddy River, as the
receiving water, will not experience any negative impact due to migration
ofthe landfill'schlorides
and sulfates. As stated in the Technical Reports, the reasons for the extremely low impact to
chlOlide and sulfate concentrations in the Big Muddy River are because the flow
ofthe river is over
1.7 million times greater than the groundwater flow
ofchlorides emanating from the landfill and over
5 million times greater than the groundwater flow
of sulfates emanating from the landfill. There is
no practical scenario in which the groundwater down gradient
of the landfill would be used for
12
Elctronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, February 28, 2008
industtial, domestic, or agricultural use.
29. For greater detail on these issues, please review the Technical Reports'
nanatives
for chlOlides (Exhibits 1 and 3 ofthe original Petition) and sulfates (Exhibit 2 ofthe first Amended
Petition and Exhibit 8 attached to this Second Amended Petition), paliicularly Section 4 entitled
"Impact to Receiving Water" and Section 5 entitled "Toxicology"
ofExhibits I and 3 ofthe original
Petition and Exhibit 2
of the first Amended Petition. For supporting evidence of the nan'ative
assessment on chlorides, see Exhibit 1 Appendix
J ofthe original Petition entitled "USGS Surface-
Water Daily Statistics for Illinois" including Table J-I showing Average Flow calculations;
Appendix K entitled "Chloride Concentration in the Big
Muddy River" which includes an IEPA
Chloride Data Table, Sample Location Map, and
Sa111ple Location Identity Table; Appendix L
entitled "Calculators for Impact to Receiving Water"; and Appendix M entitled "World Health
Organization Chloride in Drinking Water" (all within Exhibit 1
of the original Petition). Note that
any changes to these documents on chlorides, based on an IEPA review and
C0111111ents to the LBG
technical report, are provided in LBG's
"Response to IEPA Comments"
letter report (Exhibit 3 of
the original Petition).
30. For supporting evidence
of the nanative assessment on sulfates, see Appendix A
entitled "Sulfate Concentration in the Big Muddy River" which includes an IEPA Sulfate
Data
Table, Sample Location Map, and Sample Location Identity Table; Appendix B entitled "Sulfate
Concentrations in Monitoring Wells"; and Appendix C entitled "World Health Organization, Sulfate
in Drinking Water" (Exhibit 2
of the first Amended Petition). All of these documents, along with
the sampling results at the landfill, show that Risley Landfill #2 meets the requirements for obtaining
13
Elctronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, February 28, 2008
the Adjusted Standards requested.
The Proposed Adjusted Standards and Existing Conditions
do not Warrant an Institutional or Environmental Land Use Control
31. As clarified above in Paragraph 22 et. seq., the applicable groundwater classification
is Class
II General Resource Groundwater and not Class I Potable Resource Groundwater. Due to
the fact that the groundwater is no longer classified as "potable" and considering that it would be
highly unlikely,
ifnot improbable, that future landowners would install a potable water well on the
site, an institutional or enviromnentalland use control prohibiting the use
ofgroundwater for potable
purposes is not warranted. Further, potable water from the County'swater system is available along
the common shared roadway at the south end
of the property.
32. Even more so, the existing conditions make it impracticable for any water wells to
be installed either in unconsolidated or consolidated material. Per the requirements
of77
m.
Adm.
Code 920.60, the minimum casing requirement for a
dlilled water well in unconsolidated matelial
is 20 feet. Consideling that the thickness ofthe water-bealing unconsolidated earth matelial at the
site is between five and 30 feet, the maximum open interval for a shallow water well would be only
10 feet.
It
is highly impractical that a registered water well dliller (a requirement for
drilling/installation
ofpotable water wells) would recommend a water well in such a shallow setting.
The minimum casing requirement for a drilled water well in consolidated materials is a depth
of40
feet below ground level (77
Ill.
Adm. Code 920.70). Given the fact that the start of consolidated
material beneath the property and surrounding area (i.e. bedrock shale) is 25 feet, the construction
and installation
of a water well under these conditions is highly impractical.
14
Elctronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, February 28, 2008
33. Furthennore, the City of Benton enacted an ordinance prohibiting the installation
ofdrilling ofwells to use groundwater as a potable water supply (Ordinance 05-16 enacted June 27,
2005). Given the geological and hydrogeological characteristics
of the area, it is logical that such
construction would be prohibited. Although this ordinance only applies within the City
ofBenson's
corporate limits, the Risley Landfill #2 in close proximity and the same rationale would apply.
Granting Adjusted Standards
is Consistent with Federal Law
34. The Board, acting for the State of Illinois, has the primary authority and
responsibility to establish water quality standards for the groundwater at Risley Landfill #2
in
accordance with the Federal Clean Water Act. 33 USC 1251,40 CFR 131.4(a). The Clean Water
Act sets the policy
ofCongress "to recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and
rights
of States to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution [and] to plan the development and use .
. .
ofland and water resources ..." 33 USC 1251. With respect to revised standards, the Clean
Water Act anticipates that "The Governor
of a State or the State water pollution control agency of
such State shall from time to time ... hold public hearings for the purpose of reviewing applicable
water quality standards and, as appropriate,
modifYing and adopting standards." 33 USC 1313(c)(1).
While this last cited provision appears to
be applicable to navigable waters, it is clear from the Clean
Water Act that each State has the authority and responsibility to designate appropriate uses for the
waters
of the State and the criteria to protect those uses.
35. The National Secondary Drinking Water Standards are non-enforceable gnidelines
regulating contaminants that may cause cosmetic effects or aesthetic effects in drinking water.
15
Elctronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, February 28, 2008
Chlorides and snlfates are of this type of constituent. There are no specified enforceable federal
standards for chlorides or snlfates. However, for a discussion
ofthese Federal Guidelines, please
see Section 1.5
of the Technical RepOli on Chlorides (Exhibit 1 of the original Petition).
36. The natural groundwater at the closed Risley Landfill #2 is not suitable for use as
potable water as it is sporadic in occurrence and is significantly mineralized, thereby precluding its
use for drinking water or other purposes. Furthem10re, there are no private water wells located down
gradient
ofthe landfill. This groundwater in this area is not capable of supporting sustained yield of
water given the limited horizontal area ofthe aquifer, the limited saturated thickness, and the very
low hydraulic conductivity. As stated in the Technical Reports: "There is virtually no practical
scenario in which the groundwater down gradient
of the Landfill would be used for industrial,
domestic, or agricultural use." Discussion
of the receiving body, fue Big Muddy River, is found in
Paragraphs 15 through 18 above where it is explained that the reasons for fue extremely low impacts
to the chloride and sulfate concentrations in the Big Muddy River are because the flow is over 1.7
million and 5 million times greater, respectively, than the groundwater flow emanating from the
landfill.
37. Furthennore, the provisions
of Section 104.420 ofthe Board'sregulations, 35 lAC
104.420, giving any person a right to request a hearing in this proceeding and the provisions of 35
lAC 104.408 regarding Pnblication
of Notice advising any person of a right to request a public
hearing, fully
satisfY the mandate of the Clean Water Act with respect to public participation as
found in
33 USC 1251 (e). ProofofNotice of Filing and the declaration ofthe rights thereunder for
any person are attached hereto and have been previously provided to the Board as publication in the
16
Elctronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, February 28, 2008
newspaper of general circulation in the geographic area of the Risley Landfill.
38. For these reasons and those stated in the supporting documentation, the requested
Adjusted Standards are protective
ofpublic health and welfare. The Adjusted Standards requested
by Petitioner comply with all applicable Federal requirements.
Petitioner Does Not Waive Hearing
39. Proof of Notice of Filing and the rights thereunder for any person to request a
hearing were provided
as publication in the newspaper ofgeneral circulation in the geographic area
of Risley Landfill #2.
In
the original Petition filed with the Board on September 5, 2007,
Petitioner agreed to waive hearing
in this matter as permitted by Section 104.406
provided the
Illinois EPA does
not have a contrary recommendation to the requestedadjustedstandard
(emphasis
added).
It
should be restated that Petitioner anticipates IEPA having a favorable recommendation
as
to the request for the Adjusted Standards (as the agencyhas recommended in favor ofthe adjusted
standard for chlorides and Petitioner has modified the request with respect to sulfates to address
concerns by the Agency with an adjustment downward according to the statistical analysis as
recommended but does
not
waive its right to a hearing.
WHEREFORE,
for all of the reasons stated above as more fully addressed in the
Technical Reports prepared by Leggette Brashears
&
Graham and documents requested by the
Board, the Petitioner respectfullyrequests that this honorable Board
GRAt'lT
the Petitioner'srequest
for an Adjusted Standard for chlorides
in groundwater from 240 mg/L to 600 mg/L and an Adjusted
17
Elctronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, February 28, 2008
Standard for sulfates in groundwater from 400 mg/L to 2,281 mg/L after finding that:
(1)
The factors relating to the Petitioner are substantially and significantly
different from the factors relied upon by the Board in adopting the general applicability regulation;
(2)
The existence ofthese factors justifies Adjusted Standards for chlorides and
sulfates;
(3)
The requested Adjusted Standards will not result in environmental or health
effects more adverse than those considered
by the Board in adopting the rule ofgeneral applicability;
(4)
The Adjusted Standards are consistent with federal law; and
(5)
The Adjusted Standards are necessaryand appropriate
by American standards
ofjustice and faimess in order to avoid extreme economic unreasonableness of implementation of
any technical remedy to eliminate chlorides and sulfates that have virtually no impact on the
receiving water body from this 8-acre landfill which stopped receiving municipal solid waste in
1988.
Respectfully submitted,
Nobel Risley
By:
----!i~~L~'____:';&-~Cl::'J::::~;Llu
PENNI S. LIVINGSTON #06196480
Attomey for the Petitioner
penni@livingstonlaw.biz
5701 Perrin Road
Fairview Heights, IL 62208
Telephone 618-628-7700
Fax 618-628-7710
DATED: February
27,2008
18
Elctronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, February 28, 2008
Elctronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, February 28, 2008
SUBMITTAL CERTIFICATION
Risley Landfill #2
Franklin Connty, Illinois
Permit #1980-21-DE
Supplemental Pel'mit#1996-324-SP
Technical Justification for an Adjusted
Standard
for Sulfates in Ground Water, in Response to IPCB Order of January 24, 2008
by
John
L.
Bognar, PG
Senior Associate
Leggette,
Brashears and Graham, Inc,
February 26, 2008
I attest that all geologic interpretations and work that are the subject
of this report
were performed under my direction. This document, figures and attaclmlents were
prepared under
my direction and reviewed by me, and, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, the report has been completed in accordance with generally accepted practices,
and the
infol111ation presented is accurate and complete.
Professional Geologist License No. 196-000175
Expiration Date: 03/31/09
J h
L.
Bognar, P.G.
Senior Associate
February 26, 2008
Date
LEGGETTE, BRASHEARS
&
GRAHAM, INC.
Elctronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, February 28, 2008
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS rOLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE
MATTER OF:
retition for Adjusted Standard
from 35
Ill.
ADM. CODE 620.420
For Nobel Risley's Landfill #2
)
)
)
)
)
AS 08-003
(Adjusted
Standard-Water)
CERTIFICATE OF rUBLICATION
Pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.408 and 104.410, Nobel Risley's Landfill #2
("Risley"), by and through its attorney, Nick
M.
San Diego, of the Livingston Law Firm, files its
certificate that the appropriate public notice was filed with a newspaper
ofgeneral circulation within
14 days ofthe filing ofits Amended Petition for Adjusted Standards. The Certificate ofPublication
issued
by the Benton Evening News, a newspaper ofgeneral circulation in the Benton, Illinois, area,
is attached hereto and incorporated herein
as Exhibit A.
Respectfully submitted,
Nobel Risley
By:
LIVINGSTON LAW FIRM
NICK M. SAN DIEGO #6293689
Attorney for the Petitioner
nick@livingstonlaw.biz
5701 Perrin Road
Fairview Heights,
IL 62208
Telephone 618-628-7700
Fax 618-628-7710
DATED: December
19,2007
Elctronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, February 28, 2008
12/19/2007 12:50
5184352413
BENTON EVENING NEWS
PAGE 02
A.D. 20
A.D. 20
AD.
20 __
BENTON EVENING NEWS
by
Terra Kerkemever
.
That a notice of which the annexed slip is
a
true copy, was published
-<:;«,0;:;...
_
times in said BEnton Evening News, on the
following dates, to-wit:
Liberty Group Publishing, a corporation
organized and existing under and by virtue
of the law of the State of Illinois, does
hereby certify that it is the publisher of the
Benton Evening News.
That ,said Benton Evening News is
iJ
secular
newspaper and has been publi'3hed daily in
the City of Benton, County of Franklin and
State
of
Illinois, continuously for more than
six months prior to, and on and since
tile
date of the first publication of the notice
hereinafter referred
to
alld is of general
circulation throughout sai.d County
and
State.
In
witness whereof, the undersigned, £he
said Benton Evening News Compauy,
has
caused this certificate to be signed by
Teg:.\
Kcrkemeyer1Puhlisher at Benton this_
IJ
_
day of
AJ'"<
A,D.20
(17
/
,r)
rJ.
I}'
::J
Publication Fcc $
-1...__,--1
'--"e'-.PJ..'-._
standards but submits
that the area is nol
capable of supporting
sustained yield of water
and is not suitable for
use as potabie water.
Further
r
there are no
prlvale water wells
located down-gradient
of the landfill. Treating
the groundwater to
mE!st
the
~tandards
would be technically
infeasible
and
e con
0
m Ic a II.y
unreasol)llble. Risley is
asking the Board to
increase
the
groundwater
quality
standards so thai the
currsnt levBls arB In
compliance with the
Board,s regulations.
Any
person
may cause a pUblic
hearing to be held in
the
ebove-descrlbed
adjusted
standard
prOCeeding by filing a
hearing request with
the IlIino;s ,. POllut!;";;.
Contiol Board witl1in
2' .
days aher the date of.
the publication of this
nollce, .The hearing
request should clearly
indicate the docket
number of the adjusted
standard proceedingr
as found In this notice,
and must be mailed to
the Clerk of the Board,
Illinois POllution Comrol
Board,
100
W.
Randolph StrMt, Suite
1 , -500,
Cl1lcago,
Illinois
60601.
PUblished In
the Benton Evening
News on Dscember 7
&
8, 2007.
.
12/07,12/08/2007
. PUBliC NOTICE
NOTICE
OF
PETITION
BY
THE
RISLEY LANDFILL
#2
FOR
. ADJUSTED
STANDARDS BEFORE
THE
ILLINOIS
POL LU T ION
CONTROL BOARD
The
Nobel
Risley Landfill
#2 (9957
River
Bend
Road,
Benton, Illinois
62612)
filed
an
Amended
Petition for Adjusted
Standards With the
Illinois Pollution Control
Board on November
30, 2007,
in which the
Amended Petition is
docketed as AS-OB-
003.
This Amended
Petition seeks Adjusted
Standards from the
Board,s groundwater
qualny standards (35 III.
Adm, Code
620.420)
as
they apply to levels 6f
dissolved chlorides and
dis,Solved sulfates in
groundwater under the
landfill. The footprint of
the landfill is about
eight acres with up to
20
feet of thickness of
waste.
The landnll
stopped receiving non-
hazardous municipal
solid waste in 1988 and
has completed its post.
closure cafe perIod.
Risley has documented
that levels of chloride In
two of nine monitoring
wells are higher than
the .
applicable
groundwater
quality
standards but SUbmits
that
the
area
groundwater ;s
not
capable of supporting
sustained yield of water.
and Is not suitable for
use as potable water.
Risley has documented
that levels of sulfates in
some of Its monitoring
wells are higher than
the
applicable
groundwater
quality
CERTIFICATE OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF ILLINOIS, Franklin County -
ss.
Elctronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, February 28, 2008
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN
THE MATTER o.F:
Petition for Adjusted Standard
from 35
Ill.
ADM. CODE 620.420
For Nobel Risley's Landfill #2
)
)
)
)
)
AS 08-003
(Adjusted
Standard-Water)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, certify that I have served the attached AMENDED SECOND AMENDED
PETITION FOR ADJUSTED STANDARDS TO ADDRESS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
COMMENTS ON PREVIOUS AMENDED PETITION and NOTICE OF FILING,
by U.S. FIRST
CLASS MAIL to the following persons:
Ms. Carol Webb
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
1021 North Grand Avenue East
Post Office Box
19274
Springfield, Illinois 62794
Mr. James Kropid
Division
of Legal Counsel, #21
Illinois Enviromnental Protection Agency
1021 North Grand Avenue East
Post Office Box
19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794
Respectfully submitted,
Nobel Risley
By:
LIY~GSTON
LAW FI
.--1~~~
S.
~.~
PENNI S. LIVINGSTON #0619648
Attorney for the Petitioner
5701 Perrin Road
Fairview Heights, IL
62208
Telephone 618-628-7700
Fax 618-628-7710
DATED: February 28,2008
Elctronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, February 28, 2008
