ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    September 15,
    1994
    SANGANON COUNTY,
    )
    Complainant,
    )
    v.
    )
    AC 94—16
    (Administrative Citation)
    LEROY DONLEY and DONLEY,
    INC.,
    )
    an Illinois Corporation,
    )
    Respondents.
    ROBERT SMITH, ASSISTANT STATE’S ATTORNEY, SANGAMON COUNTY,
    APPEARED
    ON
    BEHALF
    OF
    COMPLAINANT;
    DELNAR
    DONLEY
    APPEARED
    ON
    BEHALF
    OF
    RESPONDENT
    DONLEY,
    INC.
    INTERIM
    OPINION
    AND
    ORDER
    OF
    THE
    BOARD
    (by
    R.C.
    Flemal):
    This matter comes before the Board on an administrative
    citation complaint filed March 21,
    1994 pursuant to Section 31.1
    of the Environmental Protection Act
    (Act)
    (415 ILCS 5/31.1
    (1992)) by Sangamon County.
    The citation alleges that respondent
    Leroy Donley, the present owner of the property, and respondent
    Donley,
    Inc., violated the open dumping provisions of the Act
    (415 ILCS 5/21), specifically as those provisions relate to the
    occurrence of litter and open burning at the site.
    Donley,
    Inc. filed a petition for review on April
    4,
    1994.
    Accordingly,
    a hearing was
    held on June 29,
    1994 before hearing
    officer Deborah L.
    Frank.
    Sangamon County presented one witness,
    Mr. Brian Wood,
    a solid waste inspector for Sangamon County,
    Department of Public Health.
    Delmar Donley testified on behalf
    of Donley,
    Inc.
    The filing of post-hearing briefs was waived,
    and no briefs were filed.
    MOTION FOR DEFAULT
    At the hearing, the attorney for Sangamon County moved that
    the Board enter a default judgment against Leroy Donley,
    stating
    that Leroy Donley hasn’t appeared at hearing and did not file a
    petition for review of the citation.
    (Tr. at 21.)
    Our review of the record indicates that Leroy Donley has not
    been properly served with the administrative citation.
    Although
    Sangamori County
    State’s
    Attorney’s letter of April
    6,
    1994 to the
    Clerk of the Board states that service was had upon Leroy Donley
    and Donley,
    Inc.,
    only a single, signed certified mail receipt
    solely addressed to Donley,
    Inc. was attached to the letter as

    2
    proof of service.
    The Board finds that since service was not had
    upon Leroy Donley, the administrative citation should be
    dismissed as against Leroy Donley.
    Today’s order will include
    this dismissal.
    Accordingly,
    the motion for default judgment
    against Leroy Donley is hereby denied.
    This finding regarding
    Leroy Donley does not affect the service which was made upon
    Donley,
    Inc.
    We next turn to the merits of findings of violation as
    alleged in the administrative citation against respondent Donley,
    Inc.
    APPLICABLE LAW
    The administrative citation issued against respondents Leroy
    Donley and Donley,
    Inc., alleges violation of subsections
    (1) and
    (3)
    of Section 21(p)
    of the Act.
    Section 21(p)
    provides that no
    person shall in violation of Section 21(a)
    of the Act:
    cause or allow the open dumping of any waste in manner
    which results in any of the following occurrences at
    the dump site:
    1.
    litter;
    *
    *
    *
    3.
    open burning;
    Where a petition for review has been filed as was filed by
    respondent Donley,
    Inc.,
    Section 31.1(d) (2) of the Act states
    that if, based on the record, the Board finds the alleged
    violation occurred, then the final order issued shall include a
    finding of violation as alleged in the citation, and shall impose
    the penalty specified in subdivision
    (b) (4)
    of Section 42,
    i.e.,
    $500 per violation.
    Section 31.1(d) (2)
    further provides that if
    the Board finds the violation resulted from uncontrollable
    circumstances,
    it shall adopt a final order which makes no
    finding of violation and which imposes no penalty.
    Thus,
    a two-
    part inquiry is required:
    first,
    the Board must determine
    whether there was a violation based on the record in this case,
    and if so, the Board must then determine whether the violation
    was caused by uncontrollable circumstances.
    BACKGROUND
    The subject property consists of 8.33 acres and is located
    at the corners of Sandhill Road and Peoria Road in Springfield
    Township.
    The location is designated with Illinois Environmental
    Protection Agency site code no.
    1678220075.
    Ownership of the
    property is recorded as belonging to Leroy Donley and Illinois
    National Bank under a specified trust number.

    3
    At hearing, Brian Wood testified that he first inspected the
    property on September 20,
    1993,
    and observed smoke and flames
    coming from a pile of railroad ties.
    He stated that the pile
    also contained what appeared to be the metal coils of
    a box
    spring mattress.
    (Tr. at 6-7; See also Compl.
    Exh.
    3, photos
    19
    and 20.)
    He stated that he also observed a second pile of
    railroad ties that was not burning,
    a pile of broken wooden
    pallets, and two to three unmounted truck tires.
    (Tr. at 6—7,
    Compi.
    Exh.
    3 photos.)
    He testified that subsequent to the
    September 20 inspection,
    the Department of Public Health sent an
    inspection report and administrative warning notice to Leroy
    Donley, which noted alleged violations of open dumping, and of
    causing and allowing open burning and litter.
    (Tr. at 7; Compl.
    Exh.
    3.)
    Donley,
    Inc. responded to the administrative warning
    notice by letter dated December
    3,
    1993.
    The letter stated that
    the pallets would be cleaned up, the tires removed, and the
    burning discontinued.
    (Compl.
    Exh.
    4.)
    On January 31,
    1994,
    Mr.
    Wood again inspected the property and found the remains from the
    pile of burning railroad ties (charred wood) that appeared to
    have been pushed over a slope into a ravine area.
    (Tr.
    at
    9,
    11;
    Compl.
    Exh.
    5, photos
    14 and 15.)
    The tires were no longer at
    the site.
    (Tr. at 9.)
    The second pile of railroad ties was at
    the site and the broken pallets were still at the site.
    (Tr. at
    9,
    11;
    Conipl.
    Exh.
    5, photos
    13 and 16)
    The inspector testified
    that he considered the pallets to be litter because they were
    broken, unorganized, and appeared to be waste material.
    (Tr. at
    14.)
    Delmar Donley testified that the site is used as a storage
    yard and that a previous tenant had used the site as a storage
    yard.
    Regarding the railroad ties,
    he stated that they had been
    neatly stacked, but were set on fire by someone.
    He said that
    the fire department came out and the burning ties were pushed out
    of the way of the other ties so they would not all burn.
    He said
    that he sells the railroad ties so he did not want to burn them.
    (Tr. at 15.)
    He further testified that there was no further
    burning after the fire department came out and that there was no
    further burning after the letter was sent to Sangamon County.
    (Tr. at 16.)
    He did not state any dates when the fire department
    came out, only mentioning that the pictures show the “remains of
    the original time that they were set on fire”
    (Tr. at 16).
    He
    testified that there is a gate on the property to keep intruders
    out, and that he does not know who set the railroad ties on fire.
    (Tr. at 17-18.)
    Concerning the present condition of the railroad
    ties,
    he stated that there continues to be a pile of stacked ties
    on the property, and that the five or six ties remaining from the
    fire are still down the bank of the ravine.
    (Tr.
    at 17.)
    Regarding the pallets, Delmar Donley stated that there are
    only eight to fifteen pallets on the property, and that these
    pallets were used to block off one of the roads so that truck
    drivers would know which road to use.
    (Tr.
    at 16.)
    Pallets have

    4
    been used in this manner for probably two years.
    (Tr. at 17.)
    He said there are two or three pallets remaining on the property.
    These he still uses to block off the road.
    (Tr. at 16-17.)
    DISCUSSION
    The Board must first determine whether on January 31,
    1993,
    respondent caused or allowed open dumping on the site which
    resulted in litter and open burning.
    It is the complainant’s
    burden to make this showing to the Board.
    (IEPA v. Lakewood
    Homes
    & Development Co..
    Inc.
    (March 25,
    1993),
    AC 92-41,
    _____
    PCB
    ______;
    Section 31. 1(d) (2) of the Act.)
    Section 3.24 of the Act defines “open dumping” as
    “the
    consolidation of refuse from one or more sources at a disposal
    site that does not fulfill the requirements of a sanitary
    landfill”.
    (415 ILCS 5/3.24
    (1992).)
    Section 3.31 of the Act
    defines “refuse” as “waste” which is defined in the Act as,
    inter
    alia,
    “garbage
    *
    *
    *
    or other discarded material, resulting from
    industrial,
    commercial, mining and agricultural operations,
    *
    *
    *‘~~
    (415
    ILCS
    5/3.53
    (1992).)
    The Fifth District Appellate Court in Illinois Environmental
    Protection Agency v. Illinois Pollution Control Board
    (5th Dist.
    1991),
    219 Ill.App.3d 975,
    579 N.E.2d 215,
    162 Ill.Dec.
    401,
    in
    reviewing an administrative citation involving consolidated
    refuse at a demolition area, presented an analysis of whether
    open dumping is happening at a site.
    The court focused on
    whether disposal was occurring at a location, citing the
    definition of disposal in the Act at 415 ILCS 5/3.08
    (1992):
    “Disposal” means the discharge, deposit,
    injection,
    dumping, spilling, leaking or placing of any waste
    *
    *
    *
    into or on any land or water or into any well so that
    such waste
    *
    *
    *
    or any constituent thereof may enter
    the environment or be emitted into the air or
    discharged into any waters,
    including ground waters.
    The Board finds that based on the record the stacked
    railroad ties were not refuse since they were not discarded
    material, but were stored for future sale.
    Sangamon County did
    not rebut Delmar Donley’s testimony here.
    However, there is no
    evidence that at the time of the January 31,
    1993 inspection the
    previously burned railroad ties were being stored for future
    sale.
    In fact, they had been pushed into the bank of a ravine.
    The Board finds that these charred ties constitute a
    consolidation of refuse at a disposal site that does not meet the
    requirements of a sanitary landfill.
    Therefore, the complainant
    has shown that respondent Donley,
    Inc. caused or allowed open
    dumping as was found by inspection on January 31,
    1993.

    5
    Regarding the pallets, the Board finds that using refuse or
    waste,
    i.e., discarded material,
    to block
    a road constitutes
    disposal under the definition in the Act.
    Since the use of waste
    material to block a road is a method of disposal at a site that
    is not a sanitary landfill, the Board finds that respondent
    Donley,
    Inc. caused or allowed open dumping at the site.
    In St. Clair County v. Louis Mund (August
    22,
    1991), AC 90—
    64,
    125 PCB 381, the Board adopted the definition of litter
    contained in the Litter Control Act:
    “litter” means any discarded, used or unconsumed
    substance or waste.
    “Litter” may include, but is not
    limited to,
    any garbage, trash,
    refuse, debris
    *
    *
    *
    abandoned vehicle
    *
    *
    *
    or anything else of an
    unsightly or unsanitary nature which has been
    discarded, abandoned or otherwise disposed of
    improperly.
    (415 ILCS 105/1.)
    The Board finds that the open dumping of waste on the
    property resulted in litter.
    The pallets and charred railroad
    ties observed on the property were discarded materials
    constituting litter.
    Open Burning
    There
    is no evidence that the railroad ties were discarded
    material and not stored for future sale at the time of the
    September 20,
    1993 inspection.
    However, the photographs and the
    testimony indicate that other debris, including a mattress box
    spring was on the property and burning at the time of the
    September 20,
    1993 inspection.
    Complainant does not contest that
    the burning occurred at the site on this occasion.
    Evidence of
    this past burning remained on the property at the time of the
    January 31,
    1994 inspection.
    Therefore, the Board finds that
    respondent Donley,
    Inc. caused or allowed open dumping that
    resulted in open burning occurring at the site.
    Respondent
    Donley,
    Inc. can be found to have allowed the open burning even
    though its agents may not have performed the burning and may have
    attempted to secure the property by a gate.
    See Illinois
    Environmental Protection Agency v. Gordon (2/7/91), AC 89-156,
    118 PCB 309,
    312, citing Freeman Coal Mining Corp. v. Pollution
    Control Board
    (1974),
    21 Ill.App.3d 157,
    313 N.E.2d 616:
    TJhe
    fact that the discharges were unintentional, or
    occurred despite efforts to prevent them,
    is not a
    defense.
    The owner of the property that creates the
    pollution has
    a duty,
    imposed by the legislation, to
    take all prudent measures to prevent the pollution.
    The efforts by the landowner to control or treat the
    pollution go to the issue of mitigation, not to the

    6
    primary issue of liability.
    citations
    omitted.
    (Gordon at 312.)
    In summary, the Board finds that Sangamon County has met its
    burden of proof that the alleged violations occurred.
    Based on
    the facts and law presented in this case,
    the Board concludes
    that Donley,
    Inc. did cause or allow the open dumping and open
    burning that occurred on the property.
    Therefore,
    Donley,
    Inc.
    is in violation of Section 21(p)3 of the Act.
    The Board further
    concludes that Donley,
    Inc. did cause or allow the open dumping
    and litter that occurred on the property.
    Therefore, Donley,
    Inc.
    is in violation of Section 2l(p)1 of the Act.
    INTERIM ORDER
    1.
    This administration citation is hereby dismissed as against
    respondent Leroy Donley only.
    1.
    Respondent Donley,
    Inc.,
    is hereby found to have violated
    415 ILCS 5/21(p) (1) and
    (3)
    (1992).
    2.
    Sangamon County is hereby directed to file a statement of
    its hearing costs, supported by affidavit, with the Board
    and with service on respondent Donley,
    Inc., within 14 days
    of this order.
    Within the same 14 days, the Clerk of the
    Board shall file a statement of the Board’s costs,
    supported
    by affidavit and with service upon respondent Donley,
    Inc.
    3.
    Respondent Donley,
    Inc.
    is hereby given leave to file a
    reply to the filings ordered in paragraph 2 within
    14 days
    of receipt of that information, but in no case later than 40
    days after the date of this order.
    4.
    After the deadline for filing such information and reply
    thereto has expired, the Board will issue a final order
    assessing the statutory penalty, and making the appropriate
    award of costs.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify that the above interim opinion and order
    was adopted ~n the
    /i’~.day of
    _________________,
    1994, by
    a vote of
    L~
    c
    .
    /~
    ~
    !
    ~
    ~
    /
    ~-
    ~
    .
    Dorothy M.
    G~n,
    Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board

    Back to top