SOLAR REUSE ASSESSMENT
Yeoman Creek Landfill Site in Waukegan, Illinois
FINAL
NOVEMBER 2013
Lake Michigan
OVERVIEW
Cleanup is complete at the Yeoman Creek Landfill Superfund site, in
Waukegan, lllinois.Today, site owners, the City ofWaukegan and the
Yeoman Creek Remediation Group (YCRG) are interested in redeveloping
portions of the 72-acre site into a solar renewable energy facility.The
Waukegan Community School District owns the majority of the site and is
a member of the YCRG, along with the City ofWaukegan and two private
corporations.
The EPA Region 5 Superfund Redevelopment Initiative sponsored a solar
reuse assessment to support stakeholders in evaluating solar energy reuse
options for the site.
REUSE GOALS
In 2010, the Waukegan Community School District, which owns the
majority of the site and YCRG, formally endorsed solar energy development
as a desirable future use of the site and identified the following reuse goals:
•	Site reuse should provide a positive benefit to YCRG and the
community;
•	Public access to the site is not desirable due to security concerns;
•	Solar energy development at a secure site can provide benefits such
as meeting on-site electricity needs, generating revenue to defray site
operation and maintenance costs and power costs for the community,
reducing carbon fuel use and creating jobs.
This solar reuse assessment provides a summary of the following topics:
p. 2
Solar Resource Availability
p. 3-5
Site Suitability
p. 6-7
Solar Suitability Zones
p. 8
System Size and Cost Considerations
p. 9
Renewable Energy Incentives
p. 10-1 1
Ownership Scenarios
p. 12
Summary
Figure I. Site Context
Waukegan, IL
Sponsored by the EPA Region 5 Superfund Redevelopment Initiative
Region 5 Renewable Energy
Reuse Assessments
For over 10 years, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Superfund
Redevelopment Initiative has been working with
communities nationwide to improve the process
of returning Superfund sites to beneficial
uses. As part of this program, EPA Region 5
has provided resources to evaluate potential
for renewable energy generation at select
Superfund sites.

-------
RESOURCE AVAILABILITY
The most important requirements for a renewable energy project are the availability of a suitable renewable energy resource,
site suitability (such as relatively flat land) and transmission access. This section describes the suitability of the Yeoman Creek
Landfill site for solar generation.
RESOURCE AVAILABILITY
The Yeoman Creek site is located in an area well-suited
for solar power generation. The National Renewable
Energy Laboratory (NREL) solar radiation estimates
indicate that the state of Illinois has a relatively good
solar resource. Solar irrandiance levels of 4.25 kWh/m2/
day are found across the central and southern portions
of the state. Solar irradiance levels of 6 kWh/m2/day are
considered excellent. Altitude, latitude, time of daytime of
year and local weather conditions all affect the available
solar radiation levels at a location. Based on the available
solar resources in this area, it is likely that the Yeoman
Creek site is suitable for solar generation.
INFRASTRUCTURE
Access to infrastrucuture is a key factor in determining
the viability of a solar project. Proximity to an electric
substation and transmission lines are important location-
based considerations.
The electric utility, Commonwealth Edison, operates a
substation and transmission lines in the vicinity of the
site. An active substation is located on Lewis Street,
approximately 500 feet west of the Yeoman Creek Landfill.
The utility's high voltage transmission lines run west-east
across the site, separating the Yeoman Creek and Edwards
Field Landfill Units (see Figure 3).
Figure 2. Illinois Solar Radiation Map
(Source: U.S. DOE, NREL, September 2007)
Yeoman Creek Landfill Site Solar Reuse Assessment
Utility-scale solar PV systems generate electricity that is distributed via
transmission grid. These systems require access to a substation and
transformer to step up the voltage for distribution via high-voltage
transmission lines.
Commmonwealth Edison Substation on Lewis Avenue
Solar Tracking Array
Inverter
and
Transformer
Sunlight

-------
SITE SUITABILITY
LANDFILL UNITS
The Yeoman Creek Landfill site consists of five non-
contiguous landfill units, including:
Yeoman Creek Landfill - East (44 acres)
Yeoman Creek Landfill - West (7.5 acres)
Edwards Field (10 acres)
North Rubloff (2.5 acres)
South Rubloff (2 acres)
PARCELS AND OWNERSHIP
The site is primarily owned by public entities; the
Waukegan School District andWaukegan Parks District
collectively own 60 acres at the site. Parcel configurations
are fragmented by the Commonwealth-Edison
transmission corridor.
1. YCL East
(44 acres)
12. YCL West [
I (7.5 acres) |
°dU	qj
/	iii
13. Edwards Field « —.J' /
I (10.5 acres)
4. North Rubloff
• (2.5 acres)
' n IS j
L 5. South Rubloff
(2 acres)
1
Dc!
Yeoman Creek Landfill Units
Landfill Unit Boundaries
Parcels
Surface Water
» Arterial Road
! Collector Street
Gated Access Point
- Transmission Line
Q Electric Substation
	 Green way Trail
Figure 3. Landfill Units Map
anrai
Western

.Greenwayjrai^
s
But rick	I m 			|
City of Waukegan
0.2 acres
(ID# 0808400021)
unity
ill..!
I j (ID# 0808403028)
¦j /-Z. aoi Co
r (ID# 0808400022) ||
Yeoman Creek
Lorraine
Lewis
-~ir
I Waukegan CD
! Parks District
15.7 acres jl£	
(ID# 0817200002) j
L	Q
Q Electric
Subscaion
Yeoman
Parcel 2, LLC.;
kacres
(ID# (1817200052) I
\ r*-* !

re
u
o
U_ Judge
Lorraine
Westmoreland
Property Ownership











|Feel
i—J
A


Note: This map is for planning purposes only
all boundaries arid locations are approximate
Public
Parks District
Private
Utilities
		Site Parcels
Other Parcels
Landfill Units
Greenway Trail
©
o
Arterial Road
Collector Street
Gated Access Point
Surface Water
Transmission Line
i	Electric Substation
Figure 4 Property Ownership Map
November 2013
3

-------
SITE SUITABILITY
REMEDIAL FEATURES
Potential solar renewable energy development at the site will need to take into account the site's existing remedy.The landfill
cover and remedial systems constructed in 2005, include: Landfill Cover System; Landfill Gas Collection System; Leachate
monitoring wells; Ground water monitoring wells; and Fencing. The landfill cap (depth, composition and grading) and gas
collection system are key factors that influence the size and location of a potential solar PV system.
^*aP	Gas Collection System
The site's five landfill units have capped cover systems consisting of: Two types of |andfiN gas co||ection (LFG) systems are in
•	Vegetative cover over a 3-foot frost protection layer
•	Tire chip drainage layer
•	Polyethylene liner over a 2-3 ft. compacted clay liner
•	Tire chip gas ventilation layer
place at the site:
•	Active LFG system in place atYCL East & West
landfill units
•	Passive LFG system in place at Edwards Field &
North Rubloff landfill.
Capped Areas '2
Extent of Landfill Cap
(cap depth: approx. 6 ft.)
-	3 ft. frost protection layer
-	Geomembrane liner
-	2 ft. compacted clay
-	Tire chip gas venitlation layer
Landfill Gas Collection System
¦ Blower Building/Flare Station2
0 Control Valve
o Condensate Trap
® Passive Gas Vent
— Gas Collection System
(subsurface lines/trenches
5-6' below ground surface)
Additional Remedy Components
® Leachate Monitoring Well
® Groundwater Monitoring Well
Landfill Unit Boundaries
—	Drainage Channels
—	Site Access Road
© Gated Access Point
Other Features
Parcels
Arterial Road
Collector Street
Transmission Line
Electric Substation
Figure 5. Site Remedy Components Map
Source Notes: This map is for planning
purposes only; all boundaries and
locations are approximate. 1) Cap depth
and composition based on Preliminary
Closeout Report (9/2005). 2) Capped areas
and landfill gas collection sustem features
are based on As-Built Documentation for
Yeoman Creek Superfund Site (prepared
byTJ Lambrecht Construction, Inc., 4/1/04;
and Yeoman Creek Landfill Superfund Site
Record Drawings (prepared by McLure
Engineering Associates, Inc., 1/25/2006)
Active landfill gas vent	Drainage swale	Capped area
4	Yeoman Creek Landfill Site Solar Reuse Assessment
Larsen
Nature
Preserve
Yeoman
LPG system.
modification
oi>going
Yeoman Creek
Lorraine
Lewis
Electric
Substation

-------
SITE SUITABILITY
GRADES
Topography arid aspect (slope direction) are also key factors that will influence the location and size of a solar PV system.
Grades of 10 percent or less are generally considered suitable for solar PV. Figure 6 characterizes the site's grades into
three categories: 3-5 percent, 5-10 percent and greater than 10 percent.
Slopes at theYCL East (I) ,YCLWest (2) and Edwards Field (3) landfill units are generally less than 10 percent. Level
areas located away from structures or trees at these landfill units are well-suited for solar PV.
Drainage features including Yeoman Creek and internal drainage channels for stormwater control are not suitable for
solar PV.
Key
Grades
Grades < 5
Grades 5-10%
Grades >10%
Contours
(1-foot interval)
+ 663' Spot Elevations
Drainage
		 On-site Drainage
Surface Water
Other Features
	« Site
Access Road
A Gated Access Point
_®_ Landfill Unit
Boundaries
Parcels
Arterial Road
Collector Street
Transmission Line
Electric Substation
Larsen
Nature
Preserve
Yeoman
Yeoman Creek
Lorraine
Elmwood
Lewis
Electric
SubstatioTr^'
Figure 6. Site Grades Map
Note: This map is for planning purposes only;
all boundaries and locations are approximate.
1-foot Contours based on LiDar elevation survey;
provided by Lake County GiS (2007);
Interior portions of landfill units are generally flat with View of level area at Edwards Field (Landfill Unit 3) from North Rubloff (Landfill Unit 4)
moderate slopes around perimeter
November 2013
5

-------
SOLAR SUITABILITY ZONES
SOLAR SUITABILITY
The solar reuse zones on Figure 7 identify several opportunities for solar development at the Yeoman Creek site. Areas suitable
for solar reuse (A-I.A-2 and A-3) encompass approximately 45 non-contiguous acres. Areas with remedial or physical limitations
cover approximately 23 acres that are not likely suitable for solar reuse.
Larsen
Nature
Preserve
Yeoman
LFQ system
modification
ongoing
Jfeoman Creek
Lorraine
Elmwood
Lewis
Electric
Substation
Solar Reuse Suitability
A Areas suitable for solar reuse
(45 acres)
-	Grades <10%
-	Above base flood elevation
-	Good access
-	Remedy, ICs, O&M considerations
B Remedial limitatations
(1.5 acres)
-	Remedy modification on-going
C Areas with physical iimiations
(20.5 acres)
-	Grades >10%
-	Riparian areas, flood zones,
drainage channels
Figure 7. Solar Suitability Zones Map
+ 663' Spot Elevations
Base Flood Elevation Contour
(100-yr Flood Zone)
Transmission Line
Electric Substation
Site Remedy Components
¦I Blower Building/Flare Station
Control Valve
° Condensate Trap
Passive Gas Vent
Gas Collection System
(subsurface lines/trenches
5-6' below groun surface)
Leachate Monitoring Well
® Groundwater Monitoring Well
©
Landfill Unit Boundaries
Drainage Channels
Site Access Road
Gated Access Point
Arterial Road
Collector Street
6
Yeoman Creek Landfill Site Solar Reuse Assessment

-------
SOLAR SUITABILITY ZONES
REMEDY COMPATIBILITY
Any future development will need to be consistent with the site's remedy and institutional controls to ensure the
long-term protectiveness of the site's remedy. Table I provides an overview of remedy compatibility and solar reuse
considerations that would need to be addressed in order to ensure protectiveness of the site's remedy. Development
activities at the site should be consistent with remedial documents and done in coordination with EPA and YCRG.
Reuse Zone
Zone A (45 acres)
Areas suitable for solar PV
development
Zone B (1.5 acres)
Areas with remedial limitations
Site Remedy Considerations
•	Maintain integrity of cap, landfill gas collection lines and extraction wells.
•	Maintain drainage features to manage stormwater runoff and prevent ponding or
erosion of cap.
•	Ensure long-term access to above ground remedy components for operation &
maintenance (O&M).
•	Consider ballasted anchoring system that uses above grade footings for solar PV
arrays to protect existing cap and ensure compatibility with O&M requirements
and institutional controls.
•	The on-going modification of the landfill gas collection system at Lovinger
property may preclude solar reuse opportunities.
Zone C (20 acres)
Areas with physical limitations
The protective measures in place for erosion prevention (e.g., rip rap) would
likely prevent solar reuse.
Table I. Solar Reuse and Remedy Compatibility Considerations
A Solar PV project in place at the East Hampton Landfill in western Massachusetts is an example of a solar project designed for compatibility
with an existing remedy. Solar PV arrays are mounted on ballasted foundations that rest on top of the landfill cover system (above left); the
configuration of the site's solar PV network is designed to allow for access to existing remedy components, such as landfill gas collection wells
(above right).
November 2013
7

-------
SYSTEM SIZE AND COST CONSIDERATIONS
POTENTIAL SOLAR PV GENERATION AND COST CONSIDERATIONS
Based on remedy components, physical features and grades, approximately 45 acres at the site are potentially suitable
for solar PV. Reuse Zones A-1 (YCL-East), A-2 (YCL-West) and A-3 (Edwards Field) highlighted in orange on Figure 7
are likely well-suited for solar PV development. A range of potential solar PV system size, generation and cost estimates
corresponding to these zones are listed in Table 2 below The estimated installed costs do not factor in potential
incentives or solar PV system ownership and financing options but are intended to provide a baseline overview of the
upfront capital costs associated with designing and building various sized systems that may be feasible at the site.
Reuse Zone
Available Acreage
Estimated Project Size
Estimated Output
Installed Costs
Zone Al
(YCL - East)
32
5 MW - 6 MW
5,850 MWh - 7,050 MWh
$17.5 M -$20 M
Zone A2
(YCL - West)
4
0.65 MW - 0.8 MW
725 MWh - 925 MWh
$2.3 M - $3.3 M
Zone A3
(Edwards Field)
1.5 MW-I.7MW 1,750 MWh - 1,950 MWh $5.2 M - $7.5 M
Assumptions
System Costs:$3.50 - $5.00/Watt installed
O&M Costs: $ 10/kW/Year
Area needed: 5-6 acres / MW
MWh=l000 kilowatthours (kWh)
Output estimates based on average crystalline silicon PV system
Costs do not include potential incentives
Table 2. Potential Solar PV System Size and Cost Estimates
8
Yeoman Creek Landfill Site Solar Reuse Assessment

-------
RENEWABLE ENERGY INCENTIVES
INCENTIVES AND FINANCING OPPORTUNITIES
Identifying and leveraging applicable incentives and grants is an important part of making PV systems cost effective.
Incentives are available at the state and federal level and include both policy-based incentives (e.g., renewable portfolio
standards) and financial incentives (e.g., tax credits and rebates). A number of policies and incentives, such as those
outlined below, could help facilitate the development of larger scale solar energy projects.
Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS)
•	Under the state's RPS, 25 percent of the state's power production must come from renewable resources by 2025.
Renewable generation goals will be met with yearly phase-in targets out to 2025.
•	In addition, the RPS contains a solar carve out - 1.5 percent of electricity must come from solar systems by 2025.
Solar Renewable Energy Credits
•	The solar requirements of the state's RPS will be met through solar renewable energy credits (SREC). Each SREC
represents the environmental attributes associated with I megawatt-hour of energy.
•	SREC rates are negotiated with Commonwealth Edison (ComEd) based on their procurement processes.
Solar and Wind Energy Rebate Program
•	Funded through the State's Renewable Energy Resources Program (RERP),the rebate is designed to encourage
utilization of smaller-scale solar projects. Projects must be at least I kW in size.
•	RERP offers a solar panel rebate of $2.50/Watt up to 30 percent of project costs, with a maximum incentive of
$30,000 for governmental entities.
Community Solar and Wind Grant Program
•	Offered by the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity (DCEO),this grant is designed to
support the development of community scale solar projects. Solar systems must be new and have over $100,000
in totals costs to be eligible. Preference is given to projects that have an innovative design, technology or financing
approach.
•	DCEO offers a solar panel grant of $2.60/Watt up to 40 percent of project costs, with a maximum incentive of
$250,000 for governmental entities.
Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Project Financing
•	The Illinois Finance Authority (IFA) is an issuer of tax-exempt bonds and credit enhancement in Illinois.
•	IFA is authorized to provide funding via issuance of tax-exempt bonds for renewable energy projects.
•	Host entities must meet strict eligibility criteria and demonstrate that projects will provide a significant public
benefit.
Net Metering
•	Investor-owned utilities in Illinois are required to offer net metering under state law. In Illinois, an electricity provider
may choose to allow meter aggregation for community-owned solar projects. Com-Ed does not currently allow for
net meter aggregation.
•	For systems up to 40 kW in size, net metering credits would be a one-to-one retail rate credit. For systems bigger
than 40 kW up to 2 MW in size, net metering credits would be equal to the utility's avoided cost for excess
generation.
The financial viability of a renewable energy project at the Yeoman Creek Landfill site will depend on the ability of the
project to take advantage of as many of these funding opportunities as possible either directly as a project owner/developer
or through partnerships or other financial arrangements reached with potential solar energy developers who are eligible
for the incentives listed above.
November 2013
9

-------
OWNERSHIP SCENARIOS
OWNERSHIP AND PROJECT DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS
In addition to capital costs and available incentives, the type of solar PV project and arrangement between the land owner or
host, project developer, investor and utility can have a significant impact on the financial viability of a project.Table 3 below
outlines the benefits and limitations of three ownership options identified by the City ofWaukegan and School District as the
most desirable scenarios for municipal entity to host a solar project at the site.
Key Ownership and Financial Considerations
•	Land Lease: A land lease approach would be expected to provide the least amount of financial risk to a public entity. A
solar developer will be responsible for all aspects of project development, assume financial risk and claim project revenue.
The value of the land lease will vary by developer and site, so having clear revenue goals under a land lease scenario will be
important during project negotiation.
•	Third-Party Power Purchase Agreement (PPA): A third-party ownership PPA may be the most viable way for a system
to be financed and installed on a site. Private financing and ownership of a solar system can be a hedge against long-
term electricity prices and will generally be economically viable if a project can be developed with a PPA price that is
competitive with utility electricity rates (current rates; projected rate increases).
•	Ownership Flip: A variation on the Third-Party PPA with an option to purchase may offer an opportunity for a public
entity to acquire the system at a discount. The viability of an ownership flip approach will depend on the final negotiated
"fair market value" of a system and whether the public entity will continue to be able to sell output from the system once
it assumes ownership.
Solar PV Project Ownership Scenarios
Scenario
Overview
Benefits
Limitations
Land Lease In a land lease scenario, a public entity
selects a developer to design, finance, build,
own, operate and maintain a system at a
municipally owned site.
The developer is responsible for all
aspects of project development, assumes
all risks, and claims most project revenue
and owns project RECs. In exchange, the
project developer/owner negotiates a land
lease with the host municipality.
The value of the land lease will vary by
developer and project site. In some cases,
a PPA may also be negotiated with the
host, separate from the lease payment, or
lease included as part of a PPA.
Lease payments can be fixed ($X per acre
or PV system size) or based on revenue
generation from the system.
A fixed lease payment
approach can be a low-risk
option - payment is generally
made to the public entity
regardless of whether a PV
system operates or not.
Project developer is
responsible for all aspects
of financing, building and
operating a system and
assumes project risk.
No need to select equipment
or work with vendors.
Project developer claims most
(if not all) project revenue.
Bundling lease with a PPA can
lower the price of electricity
purchased by a public entity
from a project.
A revenue-based lease
structure will fluctuate
based on the amount of
power actually generated
by the system.
Ongoing site access
required for system
operation and
maintenance.
Project developer or
owner owns the RECs.
Lease payments generally
made only once a power
purchase agreement has
been negotiated.
Table 3. PV Project Ownership Scenarios
10
Yeoman Creek Landfill Site Solar Reuse Assessment

-------
OWNERSHIP SCENARIOS
Solar PV Project Ownership Options (continued)
Scenario
Overview
Benefits
Limitations
Third-Party
Power
Purchase
Agreement
(PPA)
A public entity (municipality) hosts and
purchases power from a PV system but
does not own it.
The "third party" ownership model is
a long-term contract that requires a
separate, taxable entity (i.e., the investor
/ owner of the PV system) to finance and
sometimes build and operate the system
on a site owned by the host.
The system owner is often a third-party
investor who provides investment capital
for the project in return for tax benefits.
Developers are separate legal entities
from investors. Developers will develop
and operate solar projects using their
experience and sources of tax equity
financing and debt capital.
Typically, the developer will sell electricity
to the site host or the local utility via a
long-term contract (a PPA).
•	No/low up-front cost to
public entity.
•	Public entity can avoid dealing
with complex system design
and permitting processes.
•	No PV system operation and
maintenance responsibilities
or costs.
•	Public entity can benefit by
either receiving competitively
priced electricity via a PPA or
land lease revenues for making
the site available to the solar
developer via a lease payment:
•	Predetermined and
predictable cost of electricity
with a PPA.
•	PPA negotiation can be
lengthy and costly.
•	Limited control over
project design and
operation.
•	Legal expertise and
contracting experience
needed to ensure
municipality's interests are
well represented.
•	Ongoing site access
required for system
operation and
maintenance.
•	Typically, project developer
or investor owns the
RECs.
•	Some PPAs require host
to purchase the system
at end of contract if PPA
term is less than the useful
life of the system.
Ownership
Flip
A variation of the third party ownership
model, where ownership of the PV
system would "flip" to the developer (or
a public entity) after the investor has fully
monetized the tax benefits of a project
(typically five or six years, but can be
longer).
This type of flip arrangement is typically
negotiated up front and the terms of a flip
included in a PPAThe public entity (host)
would have the option to buy out all or
most of the owner's interest in a project
at the fair market value of the PV system.
If an ownership transfer model is desirable,
it should be considered during the Request
for Information (RFI) development phase.
•	Similar benefits to third
party PPA in terms of pre-flip
benefits.
•	A public entity could have the
option to purchase the system
and take full ownership after
RECs and depreciation are
realized by the investor.
•	Potential opportunity, upon
owning the system, for the
public entity to continue to
sell electricity and/or RECs to
a utility or replace electricity
purchased from the grid.
•	Similar limitations to third
party PPA in terms of pre-
flip challenges.
•	Model often implemented
as a partnership-flip,
where developer
and lender create a
partnership in the form of
a special purpose entity
(SPE) and then share pre-
negotiated percentages
of the income, incentives
and depreciation of the
system.
Table 3. PV Project Ownership Scenarios
November 2013

-------
SUMMARY
RESOURCES
Region 5 Superfund Redevelopment
www.epa.gov/region5superfund/redevelop
Superfund Redevelopment Initiative
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recycle
Re-Powering America Best Practices for Siting Solar
Photovoltaics on Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
http://www.epa.gov/renewableenergyland/docs/best_
practices siting solar photovoltaic flnal.pdf
Re-Powering America Renewable Energy Interactive
Mapping Tool
http://epa.gov/renewableenergyland/mapping_tool.htm
Siting Clean and Renewable Energy on
Contaminated Lands and Mining Sites
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response. September 2008.
Solar Energy Industries Association
http://www.seia.org
Database of State Incentives for Renewables &
Efficiency (DSIRE)
http://www.dsireusa.org
DOE Solar Energy Technologies Program
http://www I .eere.energy.gov/solar
National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) Solar
Research
http://www.nrel.gov/solar
NREL Renewable Energy Resource Maps
http://www.nrel.gov/renewable_resources
NREL Solar Advisor Model
https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/sam
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The following organizations and entities contributed to
the findings of the Yeoman Creek Solar Reuse Assessment:
•	Yeoman Creek Remediation Group
•	Waukegan School District
•	City ofWaukegan
•	EPA Region 5
Reuse assessment prepared by Skeo Solutions
SOLAR REUSE CONSIDERATIONS
Solar Reuse Suitability
The site offers 45 acres suitable for direct use and utility-scale
solar PV development. With suitable acreage divided among
three landfill units, the site offers the flexibility to accommodate
system sizes ranging from 0.65 MW to 6 MW.
Remedy Compatibility
Solar PV development is likely compatible with the existing
remedy. PV arrays would need to be configured around remedy
features, PV array installation using a ballasted anchoring
system could ensure minimal disturbance of the cap surface.
Modifications to certain institutional controls in the form of
restrictive covenants at Edwards Field may be needed to allow
for solar PV development.
Phasing
Solar PV arrays could be installed in phases at the site. 9 acres
at Edwards Field can accommodate a 1.5 to 2 MW solar project.
Located in close proximity to an existing substation with few
physical and remedial constraints, this area is likely well-suited for
an initial phase of solar development. 32 acres atYCL-East could
support a 5-6 MW project in a later phase. A phased approach
would offer the opportunity to test remedy compatibility at a
small scale.
Ownership and Development Options
The City and School District are evaluating a range of potential
ownership options for a solar project including: I) Direct
Ownership, 2) Land lease, and 3) Third-party PPA. The land lease
option presents the least financial risk to the School District and
City ofWaukegan.
Engaging Renewable Energy Developers
As an initial step, the City ofWaukegan and School District could
issue a Request for Information (RFI) to determine whether
sufficient renewable energy developer interest exists to support
the desired range of project development scenarios under
consideration.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Syed Quadri, EPA Region 5, Remedial Project Manager:
(312) 886-5736 | quadri.syed@epa.gov
Tom Bloom, EPA Region 5, Superfund Redevelopment
Coordinator: (312) 886-1967 | bloom.thomas@epa.gov
Sponsored by the ERA Region 5 Superfund Redevelopment Initiative
12
Yeoman Creek Landfill Site Solar Reuse Assessment

-------