ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
October
12,
1984
ILLINOIS
ENV:CRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION
AGENCY~
Complainant
)
PCB 80—125
)
A
J
WEL IN
)
Respondent~
MR.
GERHARDT
BRAECKEL,
ASSISTANT
ATTORNEY
GENERAL,
APPEARED
ON
BEHALF
OF
THE
COMPLAINANT
PEDDERSON,
MENZIMER,
CONDE,
STONER
&
KILLOREN
(MR.
CLIFFORD
E.
STONER,
OF
COUNSEL)
APPEARED
ON
BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT.
SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION AND
ORDER
OF THE BOARD
(by W~J.
Nega):
The original Complaint in this case was filed on July
i,
1980 by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency)
and
alleged that Respondent Allen
J, Welin
(Welin):
(1)
allowed open
dumpinq~ (2) failed to obtain the requisite waste
site develop-
ment and operating permits,
and
(3)
failed to provide final cover
on
a triangular—shaped, 2.83 acre, vacant lot (the ~‘site”)owned
by him and located across the street from his home north of the
City
of Belvidere on Poplar Grove
Road
in Boone County~ Illinois
in violation of Rules 201,
202(a),
301,
and 305(c)
of Chapter
7:
Solid Waste Regulations
and
Section 21(a)
of the Illinois
Environmental Protection Act (Act).
On. March 13,
1981, the Agency filed
a Motion for Leave
to
File
an Amended Complaint and
an Amended Complaint to join the
National Division of the Moline Corporation as a party-respondent.
On April
27,
1981, the Hearing Officer denied the Agency’s motion
to amend the Complaints
On May
14,
1981, the Board upheld the
Hearing Officer’s ruling on the Agency’s motion to amend.
On
May
28,
1981,
the
Agency filed
a Motion for Consolidation of this
case
with
PCB
81-88,
IEPA v. National Division of Moline Corporation
which the Board denied on Jun,e
10,
1981,
Hearings
were
held
on October 9,
1981,
October 29,
1931,
and
November
10,
198L
On May
13,
1982,
the Board adopted
an Opinion and Order
which made findings of violation; ordered the Respondent to cease
and desist from further violations;
and ordered Welin to place
60-229
final cover on the site and to take all steps necessary to
adequately police the site to prevent open dumping.
(See:
IEPA
v.
A. J~_Welin,PCB 80-125,
47 PCB 07, Opinion and Order of
May 13,
1982 and IEPA v,
A.
3, Welin, PCB 80—125,
47 PCB
15,
Dissenting Opinion by 3. D~Dumelle and N.
E.
Werner dated
May 13,
1982 and filed September
1,
1982).
On June 18,
1982, the Respondent filed a Motion to Vacate,
for Rehearing, or Modification of Final Order and Other Relief.
The Agency filed its response to this motion on August 16,
1982.
On. August 18, 1982,
the Board entered an Order which granted
rehearing and reopened the record on the issue of alternative
relief in lieu of two feet of cover over the entire site,
In its
August 18,
1982 Order, the Board noted that:
“The merits of the decision are not at issue; the
Board’s findings of violation contained in the May 13,
1982 Opinion and Order remain unchanged. The rehearing
shall be confined to a demonstration that an alternative
to the two feet of cover required by the Board’s rules
and regulations is sufficient to correct the
environmental
harm posed by this site,
The record is reopened and
rehearing on this issue is hereby granted.”
(See:
IEPAv.
A.
3,
Welin,
PCB 80-125,
47 PCB 525, Order
of
August 18,
1982),
In reference to the requirement that the Respondent place
two feet of additional cover costing up to $60,000 on a vacant
lot with an assessed valuation between $2,000 and $3,000 and a
market value of approximately $10,000 to $12,000, the Dissenting
Opinion in IEPA v.
A.
3. Welin,
PCB 80—125,
47 PCB 15, May 13,
1982 stated that:
“...
the existing material has
already
revegetated and
is thus an adequate cover,
The new cover required
by
the majority would be quite expensive and is thus
unnecessary
...
The exhibits, especially Exhibits 15D
and 15E,
show luxurious growths of grass
and. a ‘hayfield’
appearance.
These grasses and vegetation prove that
the foundry sand is not toxic
...
The majority has
required two feet of additional cover costing up to
$60,000.
That new cover,
if placed, would
be for
the
purpose of raising vegetation upon it. Vegetation now
grows
in a luxurious manner
(Exhibits 1~Dand
15E)..
The additional cover
is simply not needed and much too
costly.”
60~230
C i
Jul3~12,
1984,
a hearing on the issue of an alternative
to te
;io fest of final cover was held and the parties submitted
a St1p~iLitJMnand Proposal for Settlement
(Stip.)
in this matter,
(R. 3~4~
‘rh~settlement proposal indicated that:
(1) On May 31,
1983
~
P~po~dentpaid the $500 penalty imposed by the Board,
and
~r~v inspections during August,
1983 and December,
1983
reve~ ~ Inst
~‘.,,
most of the filled area was covered with
thick
ve~ei~L~n
ohoot two feet high
there were a few small barren
~a~no~
~ee
~
which appeared to be clay covered
...
on most of
t-h~x~
~.
a,ea there appeared to be at least some thin soil
co~ier
dzen~of cottonwood seedlings were becoming established,”
Ac~~ordingly,the Agency concluded that appropriate seeding
and the
‘Jd~tioiiof a few inches of soil to the top of the filled
arca ~rd the addition of one foot of soil on the slopes of the
filled area whidh face the river)
should produce vegetation. with
good root strutrcur~sfor the retardation of runoff and the
preven’zon of erosion,
(Stip.
3),
Additionally, the Agency
believes that “access to the site can easily be restricted and
the sits posted” with permanent signs to deter dumping.
(Stip.
3
The proposed settlement agreement provides that the
Respondent Welin and the Respondent in the interrelated case of
~
PCB 81—88,
jointly and severally shall:
(1) place one foot of soil cover
on
the two slopes of the elevated filled—in area of the site which
face the river
and
(2)
seed the top and slopes of the site with
fesci ~
or
a similarly appropriate seed.
(See:
Opinion and
Order of October
12, 1984
in
IEPA v, National Division
of Moli~Coro!ation, PCB 81-88),
Additionally, as part
of
the
remeul
tI program for the site,
Respondent Welin shall place two
inches ~f soil cover on top of the entire filled—in area of the
site.
All such remedial measures shall be accomplished and
completed within six months of the date of the Board Order in
this case,
(Stip. 3—4).
After evaluating
all the facts and circumstances of this
ease,
the Board finds the proposed settlement agreement
acceptable under
35
111. Adm. Code 103.180 and will order
Respondent Welin to follow the agreed—upon compliance program.
this Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter,
*
Fescue
is a tufted perennial grass
(genus Festuca) with
panicled spikelets.
60-231
—4—
ORDER
It is the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board
that:
1.
Within
6 months of the date of this Order, Respondent
A.
3. Welin
and the Respondent in the case
of IEPA
v.
National
Division 2L!9iineCororati2~, PCB 81—88,
jointly and severally
shall:
(a)
Place one foot of soil cover on the two slopes of the
elevated filled-in area of the site which face the
river,
and
(b)
Seed the top and slopes of the site with fescue or a
similarly appropriate
seed.
2.
Within
6 months of the date of this Order,
Respondent
A,
3. Welin
shall place two inches of
soil cover on top of the
entire filled-in area
of
the
site,
3.
The May 13,
1982 Board
Order
in
IEPA
V.
A.
3,
Welin,
PCB
80-125,
47 PCB 07 is hereby modified to the extent that the
alternate compliance plan specified in
items
#1 and
#2
of the
Order herein is substituted for the
original compliance
plan.
4.
The Respondent shall
comply with all
the
terms
and.
conditions of the Stipulation and
Proposal for
Settlement filed
on July
12,
1984, which is incorporated by
reference
as if
fully set forth herein,
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
Board
Member 3. Theodore Meyer dissented.
I,
Dorothy
M.
Gunn,
Clerk
of
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board,
hereby
certify
that
the
above
Opinion
and
Order
was
adopted
on
the
~~~‘day
of
~
1984
by
a
vote
of
~M,~nn,clerk
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
60~232