Is Containment Protective?

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

o       The location of Landfill 7 in a geologically unstable area, in a regulatory floodplain, next to a large freshwater resource does not meet current landfill requirements.  Even though current landfill regulations do not apply to landfills closed prior to 1979, the year the Army chose to close Landfill 7 (imagine that), the landfill could be brought into compliance with the excavation option.

§         Current RCRA siting standards– Landfill 7 would not be granted an operating permit under current landfill siting laws and should not be allowed to remain in place because of  a grandfather clause when a reasonable excavation alternative exists in the current remedy selection process.  No landfill operator could get a RCRA permit to operate a municipal solid waste landfill much less a hazardous waste landfill on the eroding shores of Lake Michigan .  RCRA requires new landfills be sited in geologically stable areas to be eligible for an operating permit.  RCRA does not, however, apply to older landfills like Landfill 7 that were closed prior to 1979.  Because older landfills typically do not meet current regulations, CERCLA uses different standards to achieve regulatory closure.  There is some justification to be more lenient for older landfills that did not have liners installed prior to receiving waste or failed to use daily soil fill during operation because it is impossible to remedy these flaws retroactively.  Siting a landfill in a geologically unstable area, however, is not the kind of current regulation that should be ignored under this new/old landfill dichotomy, especially when the cost of failure due to geologic instability will be to the contamination of drinking water for 60,000 members of the Chicago North Shore .  RCRA geologic stability requirements should be applicable under CERCLA, especially when one of the closure remedies being evaluated is excavation to a properly permitted RCRA landfill.   It is hard to imagine an argument that could justify applying the RCRA grandfather clause to a landfill that will fail based on known geological characteristics like shore erosion.  Landfill 7 is sited inside a geologically unstable former ravine inside an eroding bluff that is subject to continuous erosion and catastrophic mass land failures. 

§         Floodplains – New landfills are not allowed to be sited in 100 year floodplains under current RCRA regulations. Because RCRA does not apply to landfills closed prior to 1979, however, Landfill 7 will remain within a 100 year floodplain unless the excavation option is chosen.  Other regulations do apply to construction within this type of floodplain.  The shoreline of Lake Michigan is designated on FEMA maps as a regulatory 100 year floodplain.  The Army argued in an internal memo that no Illinois Department of Natural Resources permit was required to build the erosion controls into the lake  because they are an inseparable part of the landfill and therefore CERCLA pre-empts this state regulation.  So by the Army’s own admission the erosion controls, and therefore the landfill extend into the 100 year floodplain. The erosion controls, however, were only designed to withstand 30 year wave values because the Army erroneously applied a thirty year limit to what constitutes a permanent remedy under CERCLA.

§         National fresh water resource-Leaving Landfill 7 next to Lake Michigan puts the 60,000 users of Highwood’s and Highland Park ’s water treatments plants vulnerable to hazardous waste constituents.  Landfills are not typically created or managed next to sources of public water supplies.  In fact, there are no other hazardous waste landfills on the shore of the Great Lakes . The water treatment plants along the Great Lakes filter for bacteria but not the heavy metals and other hazardous constituents in Landfill 7.  Therefore, leaving the hazardous waste inside Landfill 7 to hang precariously above the lake from which these treatment plants draw local water supplies is an act of lunacy.  This would never be approved in a new facility and can only be achieved in an existing landfill by ignoring the obvious dangers and making bald assertions that current engineering prowess can overcome powerful erosion processes.

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 03/07/08