ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

January 30, 1973

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY,

Complainant,

vs.

)

PCB 72—4

BESSIE LENZ and RICHARD A. LENZ,

individually and d/b/a

CHARLES LENZ

DISPOSAL COMPANY,

)

Resoondents.

Nicholas G. Dozoryst, II, Assistant Attorney General for the EPA

Bernard ~4cDevitt

Attorney for Respondents

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Henss)

Respondents 

are the owners of 19 acres in Palos Hills, Cook

County, Illinois which had been used as a refuse disoosal site for

a number of years.

The Environmental Protection Agency has alleged

that Resoondents operated the refuse disposal site without an EPA

permit; allowed the open dumping of garbage and refuse; allowed

refuse to be deposited in standing water; and are guilty of a number

of housekeeping violations,

including inadecuate fencing of the site

and failure to provide adenuate shelter, heating, lighting, water

and toilet facilities

for employees.

The principal charge is that

Respondents have failed to provide adequate daily and final cover

for the material deposited on the site.

The violations were alleged

to have occurred on August 3, 1970, September 11, 1970, October 14,

1970, January 11, 20 and 21, 1971, February 25, 1971, June 7 and 8,

1971 and December 28, 1971.

Respondents 

alleged that the Village of Palos Hills had licensed

them to operate the landfill,

that they had operated it with a proper

control of rodents and pests and had closed the landfill operation

on February 18, 1972. They claimed that their application for a State

registration had not been acknowledged by the State.

When the

case 

was called for hearing in June 1972 the

attorneys

submitted documents showing that the land had not been used for

refuse disposal since February 18, 1972, that large quantities of

fill dirt had been hauled. onto the property during the spring, and

that it was anticipated that another 12,000-15,000 cubic yards of

dirt would be brought onto the property during the following five

months for the purpose of applying final cover. An EPA inspection

—

625

—2—

report showed that cover which had been applied was of inadequate

depth. The parties agreed that if later inspection revealed com-

pliance in the application of final cover, the recommended fine

would be $1500.

It seems to us that the parties should have, at that point,

been ready to submit the case to us for our decision and an order

that final cover he applied. They chose not to do so but postponed

further hearing until after the October 31, 1972 inspection date.

When that inspection by the EPA revealed that final cover had not

been completed, the agreement regarding penalty was rescinded. The

matter then proceeded to a hearing on the merits.

The EPA submitted inspection reports showing that the violations

had in fact occurred on the dates alleged. Photographs taken by

Agency inspectors support the Agency’s contention that there was a

gross amount of uncovered garbage and refuse on Respondents site.

The later photographs indicated that Respondents were making a better

effort to cover the debris but the cover was still inadequate. There

is clear evidence that Respondents allowed the open dumping of garbage

and refuse.

Respondents had submitted an Application to register the landfill

site, hut because of the violations, the Agency rejected the Appli-

cation. On August 14, 1970 and again in October 1970 the Environmental

Protection Agency notified Respondents to immediately cease all depo-

sition of materials at this site. Respondents did not comply with

this order until February 18, 1972.

The site was not used for refuse disposal purposes following

February 18, 1972. Large quantities of fill dirt were brought onto

the property but because of adverse weather conditions final cover

was not completely applied by the agreed October 31, 1972 deadline.

The Agency witness testified that the summer of 1972 had been unusually

wet and that the weather condition would interfere with the proper

application of the cover. Inspection on October 31, 1972 revealed

that 95 of the site had some cover and that about 50 of the site had

the required two feet of final cover. There was no leachate, no rats

or mosquitoes and no litter.

Respondent submitted weather service reports showinci the precipi-

tation during 1972 to be: July 2.86”, August 6.19”, September 5.75”,

October 3.62” and November 3.18”. Rain occurred on more than one-half

of the days in each of those months. Respondent requested that he be

permitted to complete the work in May 1973.

We find that the violations were serious, that Respondents

ignored the EPA demand that they cease operations for a number of months

and that the penalty originally agreed upon by the parties in the

—

626

—3—

amount of $1500 is entirely justified by the evidence. We further

find that Respondent’s failure to apply final cover by the desired

date was due to circumstances beyond his control and that the request

for an extension of time to May 1973 for the application of final

cover is reasonable. We will, therefore, impose a monetary penalty

in the amount of $1500, order Respondents to cease and desist from

all operations and to close the site and apply final cover by May 15,

1973.

ORDER

It is ordered that:

1. Respondents shall pay to the State of Illinois

by March 9, 1973 the sum of $1500 as a penalty

for the violations found in this proceeding.

Penalty payment by certified check or money

order payable to the State of Illinois shall be

made to: Fiscal Services Division, Illinois EPA,

2200 Churchill Drive, Springfield, Illinois 62706.

2. Respondents immediately cease and desist from all

the violations found in this proceeding and

immediately cease the deposition of refuse or

garbage materials at the site.

3. That final cover be applied by May 15, 1973.

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order was adopted this

‘3ca4~ day of ~~M4?~.’  1973 by a vote of 

to

—

627