ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
March
3
,
1977
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
)
Complainant,
)
v.
)
PCB 75—401
GEORGE
D.
GILLEY, JOHN S. GEUSS,
JOSEPH
C.
SZABO, NORMAN WILTON
)
and GM WRECKING COMPANY,
)
Respondents.
Mr. James
L. Dobrovolny, Assistant Attorney General, appeared
on behalf of Complainant.
Mr. Dennis C. Gilley appeared on behalf of Respondents.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Dr. Satchell):
The original complaint in this matter was filed Octo-
ber 14, 1975 by the Environmental Protection Agency (Agency).
Subsequently amended complaints were filed adding or changing
Respondents.
The third amended complaint filed January 26,
1976 alleges that Respondents Gilley, Geuss, Szabo and Wilton,
beginning on or about July
27, 1974 and continuing to the filing
of the complaint have caused or allowed the use or operation of
a parcel of land as
a solid waste management site without an
operating permit issued by the Agency
in violation of Rule 202(b)
of
the Solid Waste Regulations
(Regulations) and hence, Sections
21(b)
and 21(e)
of the Environmental Protection Act
(Act). Count
II
allecjes that Respondent,
GM Wrecking Company,
has disposed of
refuse
at
the
same site in violation of SecLion 21(f)
of the Act.
The site in question
is a parcel of land located to the south-
west
of the intersection of Sauk Trail Road and Burnham Avenue,
in
the East 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section
30, Township 35
North,
Range
15
East,
in Cook County,
Illinois.
At a hearing on December 10,
1976 the four individual
Respondents and the Agency submitted a stipulation for the
Board’s approval.
Respondent GM Wrecking did not appear at
the hearing.
25
—
17
—2—
The stipulated background facts include that the Central
National Bank of Chicago, as a trustee under Trust No.
18889,
at all times pertinent hereto, has been the legal owner of
the site.
The beneficiaries of this trust are George
D. Gilley,
John S. Geuss,
Joseph
C. Szabo and Norman Wilton.
On July
9,
1975 an investigation of the site was conducted by
R.
F. Thiesen,
mayor of Sauk Village, and his assistant,
Mr. Theodore,
in
response to a phone call made by an area resident.
The mayor’s
observations were forwarded to the Agency.
After an Agency
inspection of the site on July 16, 1975 a warning letter was
sent to Mr. Gilley.
In response Mr. Gilley confirmed Mayor
Thiesen’s observation that Mr. Martin of GM Wrecking
(Stip.
4)
placed refuse on the site.
(Ex. D states
.
.
.
“Mr. James
Martin of Martin Trucking
.
.
.“).
Agency inspections were made
on August
12,
1975, September
2, 1975, February 19,
1976 and
June
30, 1976.
On these occasions refuse and garbage had been
dumped;
there was
inadequate cover; litter,
flies and rats
were observed; plus there was inadequate site preparation and
facilities
(Ex.
B,
F, J).
On July 22, 1976 Mr. Gilley met with an Agency represen-
tative.
Mr. Gilley indicated his willingness to remedy the
situation.
He indicated he would make arrangements with a
heavy equipment
contractor to properly close the site within
sixty days.
On October 20,
1976 inspection of the site indi-
cated the site was closed and covered.
Additionally, a trench
had been dug and a berm erected at the site entrance in order
to restrict access thereto.
The
terms of the stipulated agreement are that Respondents
Gilley, Geuss, Szabo and Wilton admit to allowing since July 27,
1974 the use or operation of a refuse disposal site at the
aforesaid location without an operating permit in violation of
Rule 202(b)
of the Regulations and Section 21(b)
of the Act.
These Respondents do contend that this operation occurred with-
out their knowledge.
Respondents further agree that should
they desire
to reopen the site they would obtain all necessary
operating permits.
The issue of a penalty was expressly left
to the discretion of the Board.
The Board has previously held that a Rule 202(b) violation
does not constitute an open dumping violation under Section 21(b)
of the Act, EPA v.
E
&
E Hauling, Inc.,
16 PCB 215
(1975).
The
allegation of violation of Section 21(b)
of the Act is dismissed.
The
Board does find the stipulation acceptable under Procedural
Rule 333.
The Board finds
on the basis of the
facts
stipulated
that
Respondents are in violation of Rule 202(b)
of the Regu-
lations and Section 21(e)
of the Act.
Concerning the penalty
25
—
18
—3—
the Board must consider Section 33 (c)
of the Act.
No formal
presentation of these facts was made, however, some factors
are obvious.
The injury in a situation such as is presented
here is the presence of vectors, rats and flies, which are
nuisances and bearers of disease.
There
is also the possi-
bility of leachate forming and polluting streams and ground-
water supplies.
The situation here has been corrected which
does show compliance
is technically practicable and economi-
cally reasonable.
No social or economic value of
the pollution
source has been shown.
No site is suitable for open dumping.
The question of whether a permitted landfill would be suitable
to the site has not been addressed.
In this situation the
Board
finds a penalty is necessary to discourage others from
allowing open dumping or allowing the operating of a solid waste
management without a permit.
The Board finds that the above
Respondents shall be jointly and severally assessed a fine of
$500.
Respondent GM Wrecking did not appear.
The Agency did
present evidence concerning their alleged violations.
Mayor
Theisen testified that the day of his investigation there were
large trucks dumping at the site and that these were GM Wreck-
ing trucks CR.
8,
9).
He further stated that on that same day
he had public works personnel dump a couple of loads of clay
across the temporary access road and that inspection the fol-
lowing day revealed that the access had been reopened
(R.
12).
Mr. Gilley stated that when contacted by the other respon-
dents GM Wrecking did clean up the site
(R.
3).
The Board has
been given no other information.
Procedural Rule 320 states
that failure of a party to appear at the hearing shall consti-
tute default and that the Board shall enter such order as is
appropriate based on the evidence adduced at the hearing.
GM
Wrecking was served with notice of the complaint involved.
On
the basis of the information given at the hearing the Board
finds that GM Wrecking has disposed of refuse at a site that
does not meet the requirements of the Act or of the regulations
thereunder in violation of Section 21(f)
of the Act.
Again
prior to determining a penalty the Board must consider the
factors of Section 33(c)
of the Act.
This analysis would be
the same
as related to the other respondents.
The injury is
not only the eye sore it makes but the potential for the breed-
ing of disease carrying vectors and the formation of leachate
which could flow into the waters of the State.
There is no
social value in open dumping.
The economic value to GM Wreck-
ing
is an economic detriment to those who suffer the consequences
and must clean up the site.
The value of the site as a permitted
25
—
19
—4—
landfill and its priority of location were not addressed.
Compliance has been attained and is feasible.
The Board
finds that
in the case of GM Wrecking as with the other
Respondents that a fine is necessary to aid the enforcement
of the Act.
Flies and rats were observed at the site
(R.
10,
Ex.
B,
F, J).
GM Wrecking has no right to promote breeding
grounds for vectors at the public expense or at the expense
of unknowing landowners.
In mitigation GM Wrecking did
remove
the waste.
For these reasons and to discourage other
would be violators the Board assesses a penalty of $1,000.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact
and conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
It
is the order of the Pollution Control Board that:
1.
Respondents Gilley, Geuss, Szabo, and Wilton are
found to be in violation of Rule 202(b)
of the
Solid Waste Regulations and Section 21(e)
of the
Environmental Protection Act.
The Section 21(b)
allegation of violation is dismissed.
2.
Respondent GM Wrecking is found to be in default
and in violation of Section 21(f)
of the Act.
3.
Respondents
shall refrain from any future operation
of the site without the proper operating permit.
4.
Respondents Gilley, Geuss, Szabo,
and Wilton shall
jointly and severally pay a fine of $500.
Respon-
dent GM Wrecking shall pay a fine of $1,000.
All
fines will be paid within 35 days of this order.
Payment shall be by certified cheek or money order
payable
Lo:
State of Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency
Fiscal Services Division
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois 62706
Mr. Jacob D. Dumelle concurred.
25
—
20
—5—
I, Christan
L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby certify the above Opnion and Order
were adopted on the
~
day of
__________,
1977 by a
vote of
~
ristan L. Moff~~Clerk
Illinois PollutioW~ControlBoard
25
—
21