ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BAORD
    October 10,
    1991
    PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
    Complainant,
    PCB 90—112
    V.
    )
    (Enforcement)
    )
    CHICAGO HEIGHTS REFUSE DEPOT,
    INC.,
    Respondent.
    DISSENTING OPINION
    (by J.D. Dumelle);
    My dissent is based upon two points.
    First, Count
    I alleges
    that this condition was violated:
    All monitoring points shall
    be maintained
    such that a sample may be obtained.
    The key word here
    is
    “maintained”.
    The witnesses for the
    respondent pointed out under oath that the groundwater wells were
    not clogged with rocks and were thus “maintained” correctly.
    The
    complainant is obviously construing the word “maintained” to mean
    “construct” or to mean “construct to a water bearing depth”.
    One has to use plain meanings of words.
    The meaning of “the
    bridge was maintained”
    is far different from the meaning of “the
    bridge was constructed”.
    And no one would give both meanings to
    either operative word used alone.
    The
    second
    point
    is
    that
    the
    IEPA
    according
    to
    sworn
    testimony,
    wanted the
    respondents groundwater wells
    to be sunk
    deeper in order to monitor the adjacent abandoned Fitz-Mar landfill
    site.
    See
    R.
    141
    in the December
    17,
    1990 hearing.
    Collin W.
    Gray, the respondent’s witness, testified that this was stated to
    him by
    J.
    Stephen Van
    Hook,
    the
    IEPA
    official
    concerned with
    monitoring
    at
    this
    site.
    No refutation
    of Van Hook’s
    alleged
    statement appears
    in the record.
    Thus we have a permit condition which was given overly broad
    meaning and an unrefuted sworn
    statement that IEPA was
    in
    fact
    trying to monitor the Fitz—Mar site’s groundwater when demanding
    that the respondent’s wells be deepened.
    The complainant did not carry its burden on this charge and
    thus
    I dissent.
    Please note that the environment is not at risk
    because the respondent will have to satisfy the closure and post—
    126—445
    closure regulations of the Board by filing an acceptable plan as
    a permit modification.
    1~u~j~
    ~
    Eacob
    D.
    Dumelle, P.E.
    Board Member
    I,
    Dorothy M.
    Gunn,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board,
    hereby certify~~atthe
    above~~bise
    g
    opinion
    was
    submitte~don the
    _________
    day of
    ________________,
    l99),~.
    ~
    ~
    /~
    Dorothy M. G~tn,C erk’
    Illinois Po~9/utionControl Board
    126—446

    Back to top