My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
R2015-103 APPROVING A CONSENT ORDER TO SETTLE ALL CLAIMS IN A CITIZENS' COMPLAINT
COD
>
City Clerk
>
RESOLUTIONS
>
2015
>
R2015-103 APPROVING A CONSENT ORDER TO SETTLE ALL CLAIMS IN A CITIZENS' COMPLAINT
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/30/2015 9:09:17 AM
Creation date
9/30/2015 9:09:15 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Resolution/Ordinance
Res Ord Num
R2015-103
Res Ord Title
APPROVING A CONSENT ORDER TO SETTLE ALL CLAIMS IN A CITIZENS' COMPLAINT FILED WITH THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD BY THE CITY AND OTHER UNITS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGAINST CLINTON LANDFILL, INC.
Department
Legal
Approved Date
9/8/2015
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
ANSWER: Yes, a detailed leachate monitoring progam is required by the permit: pages <br /> 33- 47. Leachate monitoring is required to continue through at least the thirty year post <br /> closure time period. http://www.epa.state.il.us/communitv-relations/fact-sheets/clinton- <br /> 3/permit-modification-2014-07-31.pdf <br /> (�UESTION: The chemical waste unit was formerly going to be tested monthly for <br /> PCBs, why not MGPs? They are more mobile and destructive? Are there any engineering <br /> studies that predict the effect of a clay cap over half the chemical waste unit that will <br /> theoretically deflect all the rain/leachate from 22 acres to just 50% of the leachate <br /> collection system? Will it cause accelerated clogging of leachate collection system? Will <br /> it overwhelm the one half without the additional cap? Won't millions of tons of waste <br /> dumped on top of what would normally be a final cover cause cracking of this clayey <br /> cap? Can you provide us with the engineering studies? Is there anything other than the <br /> IEPA unproven statements available that says this will work? <br /> ANSWER: The above concerns basically question whether the MGP wastes previously <br /> disposed in the chemical waste unit can safely remain in place and why they aren't being <br /> removed as part of this Order. <br /> The detailed, 84 page permit governs the current and future operation of the site. <br /> http://www.epa.state.il.us/community-relations/fact-sheets/clinton-3/permit-modification- <br /> 2014-07-31.pdf Per paragraph c, on page 2 of the permit, the chemical waste unit has a <br /> gross air space of 2.529 million cubic yards. A yard of waste equates to approximately <br /> one ton of material. The permit provides that the chemical waste unit is anticipated to <br /> accept 75,000 tons of waste per year for 34 years. To date, the chemical waste unit has <br /> accepted a bit less than 30,000 tons of MGP waste which represents 1.18 % of the <br /> permitted amount of 2, 529,000 tons. <br /> Through the diligent efforts of many, acceptance of MGP wastes at the chemical waste <br /> unit have ceased, never to resume. The chemical waste unit was designed, constructed <br /> and permitted to be operated without any environmental consequence, day in and day out, <br /> for 34 years, with a total volume of over 2.529 million tons. As we have previously <br /> expressed, the technical staff at IEPA and the USEPA have reviewed the chemical waste <br /> unit . In fact, on March 1, 2011, the USEPA issued a draft approval for the chemical <br /> waste unit to accept PCB wastes. <br /> http://www.epa.gov/re�ion5/waste/clintonlandtill/PDFClintonLFChemicalWaste USEP <br /> AAp�lication/cl 037.pdf The IEPA issued the 84 page permit linked above. <br /> On January 26, 2011, the USEPA also prepared a detailed review and analysis addressing <br /> the concern that the chemical waste unit might impact the Mahomet Aquifer. Its <br /> conclusion: <br /> 1. The hydrogeologic characteristic, engineering design and the Groundwater <br /> Impact Assessment indicates that the Clinton Landfill No. 3 is appropriate for the <br /> development of a Chemical Waste Unit if approved design and construction plans, <br /> monitoring and operating plans are adhered to. , <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.