Illinois Official Reports 

Appellate Court

D&L Landfill, Inc. v. Illinois Pollution Control Board, 2017 IL App (5th) 160071

Appellate Court 

Caption

D&L LANDFILL, INC., Petitioner, v. THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION 

CONTROL BOARD and THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondents.

District & No. Fifth District

Docket No. 5-16-0071

Rule 23 order filed

Motion to publish

granted

Opinion filed

August 3, 2017

September 19, 2017

September 19, 2017

Decision Under 

Review

Petition for review of order of Pollution Control Board, No. 15-137.

Judgment Affirmed.

Counsel on

Appeal

Patrick D. Shaw, of Springfield, for petitioner.

Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, of Chicago (David L. Franklin, 

Solicitor General, and John P. Schmidt and Christopher M.R. Turner, 

Assistant Attorneys General, of counsel), for respondents.

Panel JUSTICE WELCH delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

Presiding Justice Moore and Justice Overstreet concurred in the 

judgment and opinion.
- 2 - 

 OPINION 

¶ 1 This is an action for administrative review of a final decision and order of the respondent 

Illinois Pollution Control Board (Board). The petitioner, D&L Landfill, Inc. (D&L), applied to 

the respondent Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) for certification that D&L 

had completed post-closure care of a sanitary landfill. The IEPA denied the certification 

because the groundwater beneath the site contained levels of contaminants that exceeded 

levels allowed by the Board’s groundwater quality regulations. D&L appealed to the Board, 

and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The Board granted the IEPA’s 

motion and denied D&L’s motion. On administrative review, D&L asserts that, as a matter of 

law, it is only required to monitor the landfill for 15 years after completing final cover; that it 

abated the damage to the final cover, which was the only abatable problem identified; and, in 

the alternative, the groundwater quality standards that it allegedly violated are not applicable to 

this landfill. For the following reasons, we affirm. 

¶ 2 In 1967, this Greenville, Illinois, property contained a city dump regulated by the Illinois 

Department of Public Health. In 1970, the Illinois General Assembly passed the Illinois 

Environmental Protection Act (Act), which created the IEPA and the Board. 415 ILCS 5/1 

et seq. (West 2012). Thereafter, the Board created its own solid waste landfill regulations in 

the Illinois Administrative Code (Code), commonly known as the part 807 regulations. 35 Ill. 

Adm. Code 807 et seq.

¶ 3 On May 13, 1974, D&L received its first IEPA permit, authorizing it to dispose of general 

municipal waste and a small volume of dewatered sewage sludge. The landfill operated as a 

“Part 807” landfill.

¶ 4 In 1990, the Board amended the landfill regulations and enacted comprehensive 

regulations for the development, construction, and operation of landfills. Under the new rules, 

existing facilities could remain open and meet the new requirements or close within a certain 

time frame. On August 7, 1992, D&L notified the IEPA that it intended to close, thereby 

avoiding the new landfill requirements. 

¶ 5 On February 15, 1991, the IEPA approved D&L’s initial plan to close the landfill. It issued 

D&L a supplemental permit with plans for the landfill’s closure, post-closure care, and 

groundwater monitoring. The closure/post-closure plan included specifications for covering 

the landfill with final cover and for maintaining the site for 15 years. This plan was used to 

develop cost estimates for the amount D&L needed to post as a performance bond, which 

ensured that closure and post-closure care conformed with the Act. 

¶ 6 On August 10, 1992, D&L submitted a modified closure/post-closure care plan that 

included revised cost estimates, and the IEPA approved the modification on September 18, 

1992. Over the next several years, the IEPA issued other supplemental permits dealing with 

closure requirements, including groundwater monitoring. On January 21, 1997, the IEPA 

approved closure activities at the landfill and identified August 31, 1996, as the beginning of 

the “15 year minimum post-closure care period” for the site.

¶ 7 On December 31, 2012, D&L filed a supplemental permit application to end post-closure 

care at the site. The application indicated that the 15-year post-closure care period had been 

completed, and it addressed landfill gas, leachate, groundwater, and stormwater management. 

Concerning groundwater, D&L acknowledged that analytical results for 2012’s third quarter 
- 3 - 

showed that some chemical levels in the groundwater exceeded naturally existing values and 

the values set forth in part 620 of the Board’s regulations, which contains groundwater quality 

standards. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 620 et seq., amended at 36 Ill. Reg. 15206 (eff. Oct. 5, 2012). The 

application stated: 

“Considering the number of non-detects, the percentage of non-exceedences, the 

decreasing concentrations of compounds, and the low number of organic exceedances, 

it appears the facility is not having a negative impact on local groundwater quality. 

Thus, it is proposed [that the] groundwater monitoring associated with the groundwater 

detection monitoring system at this site be discontinued.”

¶ 8 On January 18, 2013, the IEPA inspected the site. The inspection report stated that erosion, 

settling, ponding water, and significant ongoing leachate collection were present on the site. 

Additionally, in February 2013, the IEPA analyzed groundwater monitoring data from wells at 

the site. It determined that the levels of many substances in the groundwater, including ethyl 

ether, tetrahydrofuran, chlorobenzene, total arsenic, total organic halogens, and dissolved 

boron, exceeded naturally existing values and the values set forth in part 620. 

¶ 9 The IEPA sent a draft denial letter to D&L on February 26, 2013. The letter stated that 

D&L “[had] failed to provide proof that granting this permit would not result in violations of 

the [Act].” The letter stated that the IEPA inspector found several eroded and ponded areas 

around the landfill and that the final cover needed to be repaired. The letter also noted the many 

unaddressed groundwater limit exceedances. 

¶ 10 On August 14, 2013, D&L submitted additional information in response to the IEPA’s 

draft denial letter. The submittal indicated that the erosion had been corrected to the 

satisfaction of the IEPA inspectors. The submittal also addressed the groundwater 

exceedances, stating: 

“The overall trend of inorganic parameter concentrations at the downgradient 

detection monitoring well locations is downward. A few organic parameters (TOX, 

chlorobenzene, ethyl ether, tetrahydrofuron) have been identified at specific well 

locations. The concentrations of these parameters have generally remained constant 

and/or have decreased over time. In some areas (e.g., chlorobenzene at G106 and 

tetrahydrofuron at G112) parameters are either no longer detected or the parameters are 

not routinely detected at the well location. 

 As noted in Section VII above, Class IV groundwater standards were established 

for this facility by the IEPA. Historical data and corresponding trend analyses suggest 

groundwater quality at downgradient detection monitoring well locations is generally 

trending downward, thus constituent concentrations are below existing concentrations 

of constituents in groundwater.”

¶ 11 On December 3, 2014, IEPA representatives met with D&L representatives to explain that 

D&L’s submissions did not address the ongoing groundwater exceedances at the site. 

Thereafter, the IEPA granted several extensions of the decision deadline. 

¶ 12 On December 29, 2014, the IEPA denied D&L’s application for certification of completion 

of post-closure care. The IEPA stated in its letter that, under section 807.524 of the Board’s 

regulations, the IEPA must certify that post-closure care has ended only if it determines “[t]hat 

the site will not cause future violations of the Act or this Part.” 35 Ill. Adm. Code 807.524(c) 

(1985). The letter stated that, because of the numerous unaddressed groundwater exceedances 
- 4 - 

existing at the site, the IEPA could not determine that the site would not cause future violations 

of Board regulations codified at sections 807.313 and 807.315 of Title 35 of the Code. Section 

807.313 states that “[n]o person shall cause or allow operation of a sanitary landfill so as to 

cause or threaten or allow the discharge of any contamination into the environment.” 35 Ill. 

Adm. Code 807.313 (2011). Section 807.315 states that “[n]o person shall cause or allow the 

development or operation of a sanitary landfill unless the applicant proves to the satisfaction of 

the [IEPA] that no damage or hazard will result to waters of the State because of the 

development and operation of the sanitary landfill.” 35 Ill. Adm. Code 807.315 (2011). The 

letter explained that, “[d]ue to the exceedances described below, the affidavit fails to 

adequately demonstrate that the D&L Landfill has not impacted the groundwater. Therefore, a 

determination that 35 [Ill. Adm. Code] 807.313 and 807.315 will not be violated cannot be 

made.” The IEPA listed specific exceedances that had not been addressed. 

¶ 13 D&L filed a petition for review of the IEPA’s decision with the Board. The IEPA and D&L 

filed cross-motions for summary judgment, responses to the other party’s motions, and replies 

in support of their motions. 

¶ 14 Section 22.17(a) of the Act states that “[t]he owner and operator of a sanitary landfill site 

*** shall monitor gas, water and settling at the completed site for a period of 15 years after the 

site is completed or closed, or such longer period as may be required by Board or federal 

regulation.” 415 ILCS 5/22.17(a) (West 2012). D&L argued that this provision provides for a 

15-year post-closure care period and the only way to extend the period is by Board or federal 

regulation. It asserted that the Board never increased the post-closure care period for part 807 

landfills. D&L also alleged that sections 807.313 and 807.315 do not apply to part 807 landfills 

after post-closure because those regulations explicitly refer to the “operation of a sanitary 

landfill” and D&L is closing, not proposing to operate a sanitary landfill. D&L additionally 

argued that compliance with part 620 groundwater quality standards is not a condition of 

completing post-closure care of a part 807 landfill. 

¶ 15 The IEPA argued that section 22.17(a) of the Act provides a minimum period for 

post-closure care and that it specifies that applying other Board regulations may result in a 

longer period. The IEPA asserted that applying section 807.524(c) of the Board’s regulations 

may result in a longer post-closure care period if the IEPA cannot certify, 15 years after 

closure, that the facility will not cause further violations of the Act or part 807. The IEPA 

argued that certifying the end of D&L’s post-closure care would have been inconsistent with 

the section 807.524(c) requirement because of the unaddressed groundwater exceedances at 

the site. 

¶ 16 In its January 21, 2016, order, the Board granted the IEPA’s motion for summary 

judgment, denied D&L’s motion, and affirmed the IEPA’s denial of a certificate of completion 

of post-closure care to D&L. The Board found that, although the facility may not be 

“operating,” the operation of the landfill during its waste-accepting years resulted in 

exceedances. The Board found that it is possible to violate sections 807.313 and 807.315 even 

if the facility has ceased accepting waste. The Board also found that section 807.524 of the 

Board’s regulations, cited in the IEPA’s denial letter, provides a two-prong test for the IEPA to 

use before issuing a certification: (1) that the post-closure plan has been completed and (2) that 

the site will not cause future violations of the Act or part 807. Based on the monitoring data, the 

Board agreed the prior operation of the landfill resulted in exceedances of the groundwater 

quality standards and, as a result, future violations of part 807 were possible. 
- 5 - 

¶ 17 The Board found that the language in section 22.17(a) of the Act was not to be read as 

narrowly as D&L suggested. The Board concluded that section 22.17(a), requiring the owner 

of a sanitary landfill site to monitor gas, water, and settling for 15 years post-closure, “or such 

longer period as may be required by Board or federal regulation,” refers to any regulation that 

would require further monitoring beyond 15 years, not a single regulation. Section 807.524(c) 

specifically requires that the IEPA establish that the site will not cause future violations of the 

Act or part 807 before it may issue a certificate that post-closure care is complete, and the 

regulation contains no language indicating that the IEPA must issue the certificate after 15 

years even if potential violations exist. The Board determined that section 22.17(a)’s 15-year 

post-closure period was a minimum time period. 

¶ 18 The Board also concluded that the part 620 groundwater quality regulations apply to part 

807 landfills. The Board noted that when it adopted the part 620 standards, it was aware of 

facilities that were closing under part 807, and yet nothing in part 620 provides an exemption 

from its standards for part 807 landfills. The Board also pointed to a prior case, Hayden 

Wrecking Corp., Ill. Pollution Control Bd. AS 04-03 (Jan. 6, 2005), slip op. at 1, wherein the 

Board specifically found that a part 807 landfill was required to demonstrate compliance with 

part 620 regulations. The Board affirmed the IEPA’s denial of a certification of D&L’s 

completion of post-closure care. D&L petitions for administrative review. 

¶ 19 Before this court, D&L asserts that (1) as a matter of law, it is only required to monitor the 

landfill for 15 years after completing final cover, as the plain language of the Act requires 15 

years of post-closure care unless a longer period is required by regulation, and the legislative 

history supports the legislature’s expectation that the Board should engage in rulemaking to 

extend the post-closure care period beyond 15 years, (2) it abated damage to the final cover, 

the only abatable problem identified, and (3) alternatively, part 620 groundwater standards are 

not applicable to part 807 landfills. 

¶ 20 The IEPA responds that (1) section 22.17(a) of the Act and section 807.524(c) of the 

Board’s regulations require extension of a sanitary landfill’s post-closure care beyond 15 years 

if there would otherwise be future violations of the Act or part 807 regulations, (2) sections 

807.313 and 807.315 of the Board’s regulations apply to D&L, and (3) part 620 groundwater 

regulations apply to part 807 landfills. We will address these arguments in turn. 

¶ 21 Interpretation of a statute is a question of law; in cases involving an agency’s interpretation 

of a statute that the agency is charged with administering, the agency’s interpretation is 

considered relevant but not binding on the court. Branson v. Department of Revenue, 168 Ill. 

2d 247, 254 (1995). If the language of the statute in issue is clear and unambiguous, the court 

must interpret the statute according to its terms without resorting to aids of construction. Id.

The central issue raised before this court is the proper construction of section 22.17 of the Act, 

a question of law requiring de novo review. See id. 

¶ 22 Section 22.17(a) of the Act states: 

“The owner and operator of a sanitary landfill site that is not a site subject to subsection 

(a.5) or (a.10) of this Section shall monitor gas, water and settling at the completed site 

for a period of 15 years after the site is completed or closed, or such longer period as 

may be required by Board or federal regulation.” 415 ILCS 5/22.17(a) (West 2014).

¶ 23 A court should construe the Act liberally to effectuate its purposes, which are “to restore, 

protect and enhance the quality of the environment, and to assure that adverse effects upon the 

environment are fully considered and borne by those who cause them.” 415 ILCS 5/2(b), (c) 
- 6 - 

(West 2014). Statutory provisions should be read in concert and harmonized, and in giving 

meaning to the words and clauses of a statute, no part should be rendered superfluous. Hartney 

Fuel Oil Co. v. Hamer, 2013 IL 115130, ¶ 25. In interpreting a statute, our courts presume that 

our legislature did not intend absurd, inconvenient, or unjust results. Citizens Opposing 

Pollution v. ExxonMobil Coal U.S.A., 2012 IL 111286, ¶ 23. The rules that govern statutory 

construction also apply to the construction of administrative regulations. Kean v. Wal-Mart 

Stores, Inc., 235 Ill. 2d 351, 368 (2009). 

¶ 24 D&L argues that no specific amendment states that post-closure care extends beyond 15 

years. In support of its argument, D&L points to regulations that have specifically extended the 

post-closure care period for new landfills that remained open past 1994.1 It also notes that 

section 807.318(a) of the Board’s regulations (stating that a sanitary landfill owner “shall 

monitor gas, water, and settling at the completed site for a period of three years after the site is 

completed or closed” (35 Ill. Adm. Code 807.318(a) (2007))), while superseded by section 

22.17(a), demonstrates that “the General Assembly understood what a specific regulatory 

period looked like since it incorporated the Board’s existing regulatory language,” and later 

statutory changes to the time period are rendered meaningless if the IEPA always had the 

independent authority to extend post-closure care beyond the specified term. 

¶ 25 The Board maintains that the post-closure care period can be extended by Board 

regulations that do not specifically create an extended period, so long as future violations may 

occur. It points to the language of section 22.17(a), which explicitly provides that there are 

circumstances under which the post-closure care of a sanitary landfill may last longer than 15 

years with the proviso “or such longer period as may be required by [the] Board or federal 

regulation.” Thus, if a Board regulation requires monitoring for a period longer than 15 years, 

then section 22.17(a) does as well. 

¶ 26 The IEPA points to section 807.524(c) as the Board regulation that allows for extension of 

D&L’s post-closure care timeline. It states: 

“(c) The Agency shall certify that the post-closure care had ended when it 

determines: 

 (1) That the post-closure care plan has been completed; and, 

 (2) That the site will not cause future violations of the Act or this Part.” 35 Ill. 

Adm. Code 807.524(c) (1985). 

¶ 27 The IEPA argues that this regulation contains no exceptions; it is prohibited from 

certifying that D&L’s post-closure care had ended unless it determines that the site will not 

cause future violations of the Act or part 807. The IEPA also points out that this result is 

consistent with section 39(a) of the Act, which requires the IEPA to issue a permit only “upon 

proof by the applicant that the facility *** will not cause a violation of this Act or of 

regulations hereunder.” 415 ILCS 5/39(a) (West 2014).

¶ 28 We conclude that D&L’s interpretation is inconsistent with the Act’s purposes and fails to 

harmonize the statutory provisions relating to post-closure care. D&L construes section 

 

1D&L cites section 258.61(a) of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, which states that 

“[p]ost-closure care must be conducted for 30 years” (40 C.F.R. § 258.61(a) (2013)), and section 

811.319(a)(1)(A) of Title 35 of the Code, which requires groundwater monitoring “for a minimum 

period of 15 years after closure, or in the case of [municipal solid waste landfill] units, a minimum 

period of 30 years after closure.” 35 Ill. Adm. Code 811.319(a)(1)(A) (2013). 
- 7 - 

22.17(a)’s “or such longer period as may be required by Board or federal regulation” narrowly, 

to mean a particular regulation that specifically amends the minimum years required for 

post-closure care. This construction ignores the related Board and federal regulations that 

would come into conflict with this reading of section 22.17(a) if a landfill were to threaten the 

environment even after 15 years of post-closure care. D&L’s interpretation results in the 

15-year period being a maximum, but this reading results in section 22.17(a) superseding, 

rather than harmonizing with, the Board’s part 807 regulations.

¶ 29 Section 807.524(c) explicitly prohibits the IEPA from granting certification for 

post-closure care to a facility if it determines that future violations of the Act are possible. As 

we are to interpret statutory provisions to give every section meaning and to avoid illogical 

results, we find section 22.17(a)’s qualifier “or such longer period as may be required by Board 

or federal regulation” anticipates that environmental impact issues may arise during the 

post-closure care period that must be addressed by the landfill and therefore allows for a longer 

post-closure care period in those circumstances. Construing the Act liberally to effectuate its 

purposes, we decline to interpret section 22.17(a) as narrowly as D&L suggests. 

¶ 30 Before addressing D&L’s next argument, we confirm that sections 807.313 and 807.315 of 

the Board’s regulations apply to D&L. 2

 Though these sections refer to operation and 

development, in its order, the Board found that, even though D&L was not “operating,” its 

operation during its waste-accepting years resulted in groundwater exceedances. The Board 

found it is possible to violate sections 807.313 and 807.315, even if the facility has ceased 

accepting waste. We agree with this interpretation. 

¶ 31 D&L next asserts that it abated damage to the final cover, which was the only abatable 

problem identified. However, the IEPA’s denial letter stated that, because of the numerous 

unaddressed groundwater exceedances existing at the site, pursuant to section 807.524(c), the 

IEPA could not determine that the site would not cause future violations of Board regulations 

codified at sections 807.313 and 807.315 of the Board’s regulations. Thus, the IEPA ordered 

continued groundwater monitoring. D&L asserts that “there was no abatement directed 

because there was nothing to do,” as the trend of groundwater quality had been improving over 

time. We disagree with this assessment, as the IEPA has the authority, pursuant to section 

22.17(a) of the Act and section 807.524(c) of the Board’s regulations, to determine that D&L 

was required to monitor groundwater exceedances until they reach the acceptable levels as 

determined by the Board’s regulations. Thus, the groundwater exceedances were a problem 

identified by the IEPA, and the IEPA’s denial of certification of post-closure care for this 

reason was consistent with section 22.17(a) of the Act and section 807.524 of the Board’s 

regulations. 

¶ 32 Finally, D&L maintains that the part 620 groundwater standards are not applicable to part 

807 landfills. However, we find that the Board correctly concluded that the part 620 standards 

may be properly applied to a part 807 landfill. 

 

2

For clarity, we will repeat the regulations here. Section 807.313 states that “[n]o person shall cause 

or allow operation of a sanitary landfill so as to cause or threaten or allow the discharge of any 

contamination into the environment.” 35 Ill. Adm. Code 807.313 (2011). Section 807.315 states that 

“[n]o person shall cause or allow the development or operation of a sanitary landfill unless the applicant 

proves to the satisfaction of the [IEPA] that no damage or hazard will result to waters of the State 

because of the development and operation of the sanitary landfill.” 35 Ill. Adm. Code 807.315 (2011). 
- 8 - 

¶ 33 First, we note that there is no language in part 620 exempting sanitary landfills from its 

groundwater standards, and a court should not read into a statute exceptions or conditions not 

expressed by the authors. People ex rel. Glasgow v. Carlson, 2016 IL 120544, ¶ 17. Section 

620.401 states that “[g]roundwaters must meet the standards appropriate to the groundwater’s 

class as specified in this Subpart and the nondegradation provisions of Subpart C.” 35 Ill. Adm. 

Code 620.401 (2012). Section 620.201 contains the designations of the groundwaters of the 

State: 

“All groundwaters of the State are designated as:

 (a) One of the following four classes of groundwater in accordance with 

Sections 620.210 through 620.240: 

 (1) Class I: Potable Resource Groundwater; 

 (2) Class II: General Resource Groundwater; 

 (3) Class III: Special Resource Groundwater; 

 (4) Class IV: Other Groundwater; 

 (b) A groundwater management zone in accordance with Section 620.250; or 

 (c) A groundwater management zone as defined in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 740.120 

and established under 35 Ill. Adm. Code 740.350.” 35 Ill. Adm. Code 620.201 

(1997). 

¶ 34 D&L’s groundwater is classified as Class IV groundwater, and it is undisputed that the 

levels of many chemicals at the landfill site exceeded the values set forth in part 620 of the 

Board’s regulations. Indeed, in D&L’s December 31, 2012, application to end post-closure 

care, it acknowledged that, in determining if a significant change in groundwater quality 

occurred, the values for each well were evaluated against “[t]he applicable groundwater 

quality standards as listed in Subpart D of 35 [Ill. Adm. Code], Part 620.” D&L stated that 

“[a]s noted within 35 [Ill. Adm. Code] 620.240, groundwater within a zone of attenuation is 

considered Class IV groundwater. Therefore, Part 620 values for Class IV groundwater were 

utilized to assess groundwater conditions at the site.”

¶ 35 In support of its position, D&L relies on Environmental Protection Agency v. Jersey 

Sanitation Corp., 336 Ill. App. 3d 582 (2003). In Jersey Sanitation, the IEPA approved a 1993 

landfill closure plan for Jersey Sanitation Corporation (Jersey). Id. at 584. In 1999, Jersey 

sought a supplemental permit for a certificate of closure, and the IEPA granted the 

supplemental permit with conditions. Id. Jersey filed a petition for review of the permit 

conditions with the Board and later filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the 

conditions were unnecessary to meet the requirements of part 807 or the Act. Id. The 

challenged conditions included specific requirements for groundwater monitoring during 

post-closure care. Id. The Board granted Jersey’s motion in Jersey Sanitation Corp., Ill. 

Pollution Control Bd. Op. 00-82 (June 21, 2001) (Jersey Sanitation I). The appellate court 

affirmed the Board’s finding that neither the Act nor part 807 specifically requires any 

particular standard beyond section 22.17(a) of the Act (requiring a landfill operator to monitor 

gas, water, and settling at the site for 15 years after the site is closed or longer as required by the 

Board). Jersey Sanitation, 336 Ill. App. 3d at 594. The Board noted that Jersey had provided a 

plan for monitoring the groundwater, which was to be evaluated against general water quality 

standards. Id. The Board concluded that the conditions were unnecessary, and the appellate 

court found that this determination was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Id. 
- 9 - 

¶ 36 D&L asserts that Jersey Sanitation concludes that “had Part 807 landfills been required to 

meet Part 620 groundwater quality standards, the landfill would have been required to monitor 

pursuant to that standard,” and that “[n]either the Act, nor the Board’s regulations, were found 

to require Part 807 landfills to assess groundwater quality based upon Part 620 standards.” 

¶ 37 However, the Board in the case before us found that the Jersey Sanitation I Board’s finding 

was not so comprehensive, pointing out that, although the Board struck the groundwater 

monitoring conditions in the appeal of Jersey’s post-closure care permit, it did so because 

Jersey’s post-closure plan included groundwater monitoring; the landfill was therefore 

required to monitor groundwater and report the findings. The Jersey Sanitation I Board found 

that comparing parameters to the general water quality standards was sufficient in that case, 

and thus, the imposition of additional conditions was unnecessary to meet the Act’s 

requirements and the Board’s regulations. See Jersey Sanitation I, Op. 00-82, at 13. 

¶ 38 For the same reasons, we agree with the Board that D&L’s reading of this case is overly 

broad. Additionally, the IEPA correctly points out that the Board, in a subsequent enforcement 

case against Jersey, concluded that Jersey’s part 807 landfill did violate part 620 groundwater 

regulations and therefore violated sections 807.313 and 807.315 of the Board’s regulations. 

Jersey Sanitation Corp., Ill. Pollution Control Bd. Op. 97-2, at 16-22 (Feb. 3, 2005) (Jersey 

Sanitation II). D&L argues that Jersey Sanitation I is more applicable than Jersey Sanitation II

because the former is a permit appeal and the latter is an enforcement action, which are 

different proceedings with different burdens of proof. However, in reading the cases together, 

it appears that the Board intended that groundwater monitoring be a requirement of the permit 

and that, if exceedances of groundwater quality standards occurred, it was a violation of the 

Act. Therefore, the unaddressed groundwater exceedances in this case provided a sufficient 

basis for the IEPA’s denial of post-closure certification and the Board’s affirmation of that 

decision. 

¶ 39 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Board’s decision upholding the IEPA’s denial of 

D&L’s post-closure care certification. 

¶ 40 Affirmed.