ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    October 22,
    1981
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    Complainant,
    v.
    )
    PCB 79—256
    ESL, INC., AND
    WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS,
    INC.,
    )
    Respondents.
    INTERIM ORDER OF THE BOARD (by J.
    Anderson):
    This matter comes before the Board on the complaint filed
    November 19,
    1979 by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
    (Agency) against Environmental Sanitary Landfill, Inc. (Environ-
    mental)
    and Waste Management of Illinois (Waste Management).
    Pursuant to leave of the Board, an amended complaint was filed
    December
    6,
    1979,
    substituting ESL,
    Inc.
    (ESL)
    for Environmental
    as the proper co—respondent.
    The six—count complaint alleges
    violations of the Environmental Protection Act
    (Act) and of Chapter
    7:
    Solid Waste arising from the operation of a solid waste
    management site located at Laraway Road in Joliet, Will County.
    Hearing was held on August 18,
    1980 at which time a
    Stipulation and Proposal
    for Settlement was entered into the
    hearing record (Joint Ex.
    1).
    Several members of the public
    there present objected to the stipulation’s proposed $7000 penalty,
    raised questions concerning possible drinking water contamination,
    and testified concerning adverse health effects resulting from
    severe odor problems.
    On September 18, 1980, the Board rejected
    the stipulation, and remanded the case for further development of
    the record in the above mentioned areas.
    A second hearing was held May 18,
    1981.
    No amendment to the
    original stipulation was proposed, although further information
    in the form of an Exhibit F to the stipulation was introduced.
    Citizen hearing participants again asked questions and criticized
    the proposed penalty.
    Exhibit F (containing an analysis of soil borings and
    monitoring wells
    for the site,
    as well as nearby private wells),
    strongly indicates that the pollution of the upgradient private
    wells probably is not caused by the ESL site,
    and that the drinking
    water problems testified to by various citizens appear to be
    attributable to other sources.
    The severe odor problems which
    plagued the area surrounding the ESL site appears to have been
    43—507
    2
    abated by the summer of 1980,
    after the cleaning out of the
    lagoons.
    However,
    the bulk of the citizen testimony presented
    at both hearings, but particularly that of August,
    1980, disputes
    the appropriateness and effectiveness of the proposed remedial
    action and the penalty of “only”
    $7,000.
    Three of the six counts in this action allege long term
    (1975—1979)
    violations involving either failure to obtain permits,
    or substantial operational deviations
    from the conditions of those
    permits which had been received.
    The odor pollution and water
    pollution hazard alleged in two of the remaining counts flow from
    these deviations.
    The permit system is the “first line” of defense against the
    various environmental and social problems which may flow from land
    burial of waste.
    The Board intends to give close and strict
    scrutiny to any cases alleging permitting violations,
    in order to
    insure that the nature and extent of the actual violation,
    if any,
    is
    fully delineated, and that an appropriate relief order is
    framed and penalty imposed,
    if necessary.
    The Board believes
    that such action on its part is essential as an aid both to the
    enforcement of the Act and the permit regulations,
    and to
    generation of public confidence in the integrity and efficacy
    of the enforcement process itself.
    In this case, based on the unsworn citizen testimony
    contained in the admittedly abbreviated record before the Board,
    lack of compliance with permitting requirements and conditions
    would seem to have been the cause of a major public health
    threatening
    event in Joliet.
    However, the stipulation in this
    case does not contain a full stipulation of all material
    facts
    pertaining to the nature,
    extent, and causes of the alleged
    violation.
    The stipulation contains,
    in the main,
    only repre-
    sentations of what each party would anticipate proving at hearing.
    The representations, being neither admitted facts or proven facts,
    are insufficient to allow the Board to properly adjudicate the
    allegations of violations, or to intelligently assess a fine
    (if
    necessary) r~asonablyrelated to the extent of environmental or
    other harm involved.
    The Board believes that this action is one which cannot be
    properly resolved by stipulation.
    Hearing shall be scheduled
    within 60 and held within 90 days of the date of this Order.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    Board members Dumelle and Werner dissented.
    I, Christan L.
    Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Control Board, hereby certify th t the above Interim Order was
    adopted on the
    ~
    day of
    ,
    ,
    1981 by
    a vote of~-a
    Christan
    L. Mofféy’~/Clerk
    Illinois Pollutithi~ontro1 Board
    43—508

    Back to top