ILLINOIS POLUJTION CONTROL BOARD
September 17, 1987
JOHN DALEY, WILLIAM 0. LIPINKSI,
TIMOTHY DEGNAN, and PATRICK HUELS
for themselves and on behalf of
the residents of the 21st
Representative District, the 5th
Congressional District, and the
11th Senatorial District of the
State of Illinois, and the 11th
Ward of the City of Chicago,
Complainants,
V.
)
PCB 87—132
THE CITY OF CHICAGO, a Municipal
Corporation,
Respondent.
ORDER OF THE BOARD (by J. Anderson):
On August 26, 1987, the Complainants, John Daley, William 0.
Lipinksi, Timothy Degnan and Patrick Huels, filed a Complaint
against the Respondent, the City of Chicago, and a Motion for
Expedited Hearing and Other Relief. On September 8, 1987, the
Respondent filed a Response in opposition to Complainants’
motion. On September 11, 1987 the Complainants filed a Reply to
the Respondent’s Response To The Motion For Expedited Hearing and
Other Relief, which the Board accepted by Order of September 11.
The Complainants charge the City with various violations of
the Act and the Board’s regulations governing disposal and
manifesting of non—hazardous waste. The site at issue is a
sanitary landfill, commonly known as “Steam’s Quarry”, located
at 29th and Halsted St;eets (2900 South Poplar). The site is
located within the respective legislative district served by each
complainant. The complaint alleges various failures to comply
with operating requirements, including those dictating a) the
manner of placement, spreading, and compacting of refuse, b)
employment of dust suppression techniques c) maintenance of
sufficient equipment and personnel at the site d) placement and
depth of daily and intermediate cover. The complaint also
alleges that special waste——incinerator ash——was accepted at the
site without a manifest, and that copies of manifests for all
loads of incinerator ash were not submitted to the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency (Agency).
S1—2~7
In the motion which accompanied the complaint, complainants
assert that:
“The circumstances described in the Complaint
pose substantial immediate dangers to the
environment and to the public health of
residents surrounding Steam’s Quarry.
As a result of the aforesaid danger, the
public interest requires a hearing before the
Board on an expedited basis.
ln the alternative, the subject sanitary
landfill sho~d he sealed to prevent tne
continued contamination of the environment
and/or dangers to the public health.”
The August 26 complaint and motion contained no factual
information in support of complainant’s various allegations.
However, in their September 11 reply to the City’s September 8
response, complainants provided some documentary support for
their claims that activities at Steam’s Quarry present
“substantial immediate dangers to the environment and to the
public health of nearby residents.” This supporting
information consists of photocopies of what appear to be results
of Agency analyses of the cadmium and lead content of samples of
incinerator ash and leachate taken from the Steam’s Quarry site
on May 8, 1987. These indicate lead levels in the ash (but not
the leachate) of 22.00 rng/l, which is in excess of the EP
Toxicity Value of 5.0 mg/i; cadmium levels in both the ash and
the leachate are below the 1.0 mg/i EP Toxicity Value for
cadmium. Complainants have also presented a summary sheet which
purports to show results of 5 other tests of ash from the
Northwest Incinerator for lead and cadmium performed by either
USEPA or the Agency between 1981 and 1987.
In its response to the complainants’ motion, the City
submitted information concerning the history and operations of
the site by way of the affidavit of John 3. Halpin, Commissioner
of the City’s Department of Streets and Sanitation. Also
provided were copies of City’s 1975 application for permit, the
1975 permit issued by the Agency, and an August 7 letter from the
Agency to Commissioner i~aipin listing “apparent violations” noted
by the Agency in an August 6, 1987 inspection of the Steam’s
Quarry site.
In 1975, the City received a permit from the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency to operate Steam’s Quarry as a
sanitary landfill for the disposal of incinerator ash and non—
combustible construction rubble and debris. The City asserts
that it ceased to dispose of construction debris at the site on
or about June 1, l987 However, since 1975, the Steam’s Quarry
81—298
—
site has continuously served as the sole depository of the ash
from the City’s Northwest incinerator Plant. The City notes that
the incinerator processes household refuse from 19 of the City’s
wards, which represents at least 25 of the refuse collected by
the Department. The Incinerator also disposes of refuse required
by federal law to be incinerated: refuse generated on
international flights landing at O’Hare Airport, and contraband
seized by a federal agency. Steam generated as a result of waste
combustion at the Incinerator is provided, by contract, to the
nearby Brach’s candy factory for generation of power to supply
the factory’s needs; use of fuel gas to generate the required
steam would cost the City at least $9,000 per day.
Disposal of the ash from the Incinerator at alternative
disposal sites would cost the City an estimated $4 million for
the remainder of 1987, and an estimated $15 million for calendar
year 1988. The City has not estimated costs for alternative
landfill disposal of wastes attendant upon even a temporary
closure of the Incinerator It notes, however, that the 1,500
tons of refuse brought daily to the Incinerator represents the
daily collection of over 200 garbage trucks, and asserts that
even a short disruption of service “would have a ripple effect
that would impair garbage collection for a vast segment of the
City of Chicago”.
The City asserts that the instant complaint “copies” the
“apparent violations” noted in the Agency’s August 7 letter. The
City states that until August 7, 1987 the Agency “had not
objected to the procedures used at Steam’s Quarry”. The City
iurther states that in response to the Agency’s concerns, that it
is in the process of letting a contract (on an expedited basis)
to an engineering firm for the purpose of reviewing and
implementing various Agency recommendations, that it has been
covering its ash—hauling trucks since September 2 to prevent
spillage, and that it recognizes the need for dust abatement at
the site. The City further reports that it will implement a
“comprehensive testing protocol at the Steam’s Quarry and
Northwest Incinerator sites” to complement testing already
performed at both sites; the City notes that analysis of soil
samples gathered at Steam’s Quarry prior to August 7 will be
completed and available by the end of September.
The essence of the City’s response to complainants
alternative motions is that:
“The City is committed to insuring the safety
and health of residents living around the
Steam’s Quarry. The discussions currently
occurring between the City and IEPA will
result in implementation of procedures con-
forming to state regulations. The admin-
istrative complaint of the Petitioners merely
81— 2 99
—4—
repeats the problems previously noted by IEPA
and is dependent upon further analysis by IEPA
of the listed “apparent violations”. Given
the fact, an expedited hearing in this pro-
ceeding is unnecessary. Indeed, postponing
any hearing until the issues here are clar-
ified by IEPA would be the prudent course.
The necessity of any hearing may well be
obviated by a cooperative plan between IEPA
and the City correcting the apparent problems
at issue here.
Naturally, Petitioner’s
proposed alternative relief of sealing
Steam’s Quarry pending hearing is totally
unjustified and would wreak havoc with the
City’s garbage collection procedures,
potentially endangering many more people than
are purported to be at risk by Petitioners.
The Board reminds the parties that the sole facts before it
in this case are those which have been introduced into this
record by them; any information which may exist in the files of
the parties, the AQency, or the USEPA is outside the Board’s
knowledge unless and until it is introduced into this record
accompanied by sworn testimony. None of the “information”
supplied by the complainants is supported by affidavit, or other
indicia of accuracy. The respondent’s information is supported
by affidavit and, therefore, must be afforded greater weight.
Based on the record before the Board, the Board denies
complainant’s least—favored and alternative relief request: that
the site be “sealed” or the respondent otherwise ordered to cease
operations pending a hearing in this matter. The uncontested
information supplied by the City leads the Board to conclude that
disruption of its program for collection and disposal of 25 of
the garbage daily generated by the City could have a major
economic impact on the City. However, and more importantly, such
disruption would pose an immediate threat to the public health of
the City’s residents, as uncollected and/or improperly stored
garbage provides a harborage for potentially disease—carrying
vectors such as rats.
The Board does not, however, discount the complainants’
concerns for the welfare of their constituents or their
observations that operations at the Steam’s Quarry site must be
conducted in an environmentally sound manner consistent with the
provisions of the Act and Board regulations. The Board will
accordingly direct its Hearing Officer to expedite the scheduling
of hearing in this matter.
in so doing, the Board wishes to make some practical
observations. Title VIII of the Environmental Protection Act,
Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 111 1/2, pp. 1030—1034, provides that
hearings in enforcement actions must be preceded by a 21—day
notice of hearing via newspaper as well as individual mail notice
to specified individuals. To allow for administrative processing
8 1-300
—5—
of required notices, the Board needs a minimum 30—day “lead time”
before the date of the hearing scheduled by the Hearing Officer
after consultation with the parties.
The Board also observes that in citizens’ enforcement
actions, such as this one, the pre—hearing discovery process may
be more than usually crucial, if for no other reason than the
fact that citizen complainants often do not otherwise have access
to witnesses and documentation which they need to bear their
burden of proving each of its allegations. As each case differs,
the Board cannot make any accurate “guesstimate” at this stage of
the proceedings as to what co~urseany discovery must take.
For these reasons, the Board will not at this time specify
any date by which hearing must be scheduled and held. The Board
will, however, direct its Hearing Officer to begin to confer with
the parties no later than September 21, 1987 for the purpose of
establishing a reasonable, but expedited, schedule for discovery
and hearing, and to enter an Order setting such dates no later
than October 2, 1987.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Board Member Bill S. Forcade concurred.
I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above Order was adopted on
the 17~~Z~day of ~
;~~
,
1987, by a vote of ~
‘
/
~~_I~/
)~.
~
Dorothy M. c’unn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
Si —301