Criticism of Army Proposal To Leave Landfill 7 Next To 

Lake Michigan

NEWS!

HOW WAS LANDFILL 7 CREATED?

IS CONTAINMENT PROTECTIVE OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT?

HOW HAZARDOUS IS LANDFILL 7?

WHY IS BLUFF EROSION SUCH A THREAT?

WHAT IS THE CURRENT LEGAL STATUS OF THE CLEANUP?

WHO IS STEVEN POLLACK AND HOW CAN YOU HELP?

FORT SHERIDAN PHOTO GALLERY

Summary - The Army created a hazardous waste landfill on the shore of Lake Michigan at Fort Sheridan.  Now they are trying to pass the property off to developers without having fully cleaned it according to federal environmental standards.  Worse still, the US EPA has indicated it will not sign off on the remedy because the Army contractors did not implement the protective devices as designed.  So instead of fixing the landfill, the Army has rewritten the law so that US EPA concurrence is not required.

Steven B. Pollack, a local resident, has filed a citizen suit in Federal Court to stop the transfer of property until all federal laws are complied with.  In response, the government has filed a motion to dismiss arguing that Federal Courts do not have jurisdiction to hear challenges to ongoing cleanup actions until the cleanup is complete.

Pollack notes the irony that the government is invoking the ongoing cleanup as a bar to judicial review while the same ongoing cleanup is a bar to transfer of contaminated federal property that is the basis for his suit.  The question for the court is whether the challenge to the transfer represents a challenge to the cleanup. 

If so, then the case is barred until the cleanup is final.  Pollack insists that because the transfer was not part of the remedy then his is not a challenge to the remedy and the court is free to pass judgment on whether the government has fulfilled all of its obligations prior to transfer and redevelopment.

The United States Army conducted operations at Fort Sheridan between 1887 and 1993.  The geological setting of Fort Sheridan is tableland above a 70-foot high erodible bluff[1] in an area cut by deep ravines.  The bluff overlooks Lake Michigan and the ravine creates an open face in the bluff at the beach’s edge.  Seven such ravines cut across the base, and, over the years, the Army filled them in with waste generated by operations.  Apparently, a decision was made to place the most toxic waste in the Wells Ravine, now called Landfill 7.  This can be inferred because Landfill 7 is the only site at Fort Sheridan that the US EPA considers to be “Superfund National Priorities List (NPL)-caliber.”[2]

The Army never operated the landfill by using what could be considered environmentally sound methods.[3]  No high-density plastic containment liner was placed between the ravine and the waste.  No IEPA permit was ever issued while the landfill was operating.  The landfill never benefited from regulatory oversight until the State of Illinois commenced litigation in 1979.  An operating permit was issued two months after the landfill ceased operations.[4]  Landfill 7 might be better described as a dump rather than a landfill.[5]  This distinction is important because it differentiates the practices of two eras and informs decision makers of the true nature of the facility.

The Army then applied for a closure permit and installed a leachate collection system and placed a clay cap over Landfill 7 in 1979.  By 1982, the cap had failed due to ponding of water and the failure of the leachate collection system to collect any leachate.  The Army claims the cap failure was caused by its failure to maintain the cap.  Even if that is true, it still begs the question of cap permanence in this geologic environment, and what type of maintenance the Army could, or would have been able to do in this short time frame.

Fort Sheridan was slated to be closed in the first round of base closures in 1989.   In the 17 years since then, the Army has been evaluating what remedy will be selected to permanently close Landfill 7.  Because Landfill 7 had been dispensing14,000 gallons of leachate per day into Lake Michigan , and the leachate was above state environmental effluent standards, CERCLA allowed the Army to implement an interim remedy prior to deciding on the permanent remedy.  The Army chose to construct a $16 million cap, even though less expensive means could have been used on a temporary basis.[6]   Public comments for this interim action were almost universal in their opposition to the cap.[7] The majority of the comments focused on the failure of the Army to adequately characterize the type of waste in the landfill, the geologic instability of the ravine/bluff environment, and the proximity to Lake Michigan from which local drinking water is drawn. 

The Army’s responses to these comments were dismissive as either premature because this was only an interim solution or irrelevant because the cap remedy was assumed to be an effective method for containment of the waste.  The Army never analyzed catastrophic failure due to shore and bluff erosion in the Remedial Investigation (RI), Risk Assessment (RA), Feasibility Study (FS), or response to public comments.  Catastrophic bluff failure is a common Great Lakes issue, which has been analyzed extensively by the US Geologic Survey, Army Corps of Engineers, FEMA, and coastal municipalities.

After the interim containment remedy was selected on April 22, 1997 ,[8] the Army brought in Dr. Shabica  to evaluate the shore protections as part of the design phase.  Amazingly, he informed the Army, on December 2, 1997 that the cap, as designed, would fail because of erosion.  He then proceeded to sell the Army a system of his company’s design.[9]  So after an accumulated 8 years of CERCLA mandated study, the Army’s refusal to assess the potential for catastrophic containment failure was proved wrong after the decision was already made.

The interim cap was completed in June of 2004, and the Army will at some point propose to make capping the final remedy, based on the same analysis that supported the interim action. 

Erosion is an unforgiving force affecting the North Shore bluffs that cannot be stopped,[10] yet the Army went forward under the assumption that the containment engineering of Landfill 7 would succeed. The decision to cap Landfill 7 as the final remedy is arbitrary and capricious because it goes against the express and un-contradicted conclusions of the geological community. 

The Army is the lead agency in determining what cleanup alternative should be selected.    The conflict of interest in having the polluter and financially responsible party frame, analyze, and select the alternatives is clear. The analysis of alternatives found in the RI, RA, and FS was skewed in favor of the Army’s preferred, and less expensive remedy.[11]

If you want to know what you can do, stand up and being counted! Let your legislators know your feelings. You don't have to be a resident of Highland Park or Lake Forest to be concerned about this landfill.  Lake Michigan is a critical national fresh water resource.

Send your congressman an e-mail! Send your senator an e-mail!

Send Governor Blagojevich e-mail! Send the president an e-mail!

by Steven Pollack
Concerned Citizen

You can become a part of the good fight by helping cover the cost of advocacy in this matter.  While not tax deductible, 100% of your donation will go towards either litigation expenses or the cost of publicizing this issue.  

Please e-mail me to let me know your views!

This website launched 5/30/97
Last Updated 3/07/08