ILLINOIS POLLUTION

CONTROL BOARD

May

26, 1977

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

)

Complainant,

)

PCB 75—317

JOHN

SEXTON

CONTRACTORS,

INC.,

)

Respondent.

Mr. Marvin

I.

Medintz,

Assistant

Attorney General, appeared

on behalf

of the Complainant.

Mr.

Harry M.

Brostoff

appeared on behalf of the Respondent.

OPINION

AND ORDER OF THE

BOARD

(by Dr. Satchell):

This

action

was

brought by the Attorney General of Illinois

on behalf

of the

People of the State of Illinois.

The complaint

filed August 14,

1975

alleges that Respondent has owned and

operated a

landfill

at

123rd Street and California Avenue,

in

the City of

Blue Island,

Cook County, Illinois.

The complaint

further

alleges that

Respondent’s facility has been operated

in such

a

manner as

to emit odors sufficient to unreasonably

interfere

with

the enjoyment of life and property of neigh~-

boring citizens so as to cause or tend to cause air pollution

in violation of Section 9(a)

of the Environmental Protection

Act

(Act).

A hearing was held in

this

matter on April 4, 1977.

At

this

time

a stipulation and proposal for settlement was

presented for Board approval.

No testimony was given and

no interested citizens were present.

The agreement describes the site and the general mode

of operation.

It also points out that the facility has been

operating since 1965

and

has received the proper permits from

the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

(Agency).

Odor

control

prior

to this action consisted of what

Sexton considered to be a combination of good operating and

good housekeeping practices

(Stip.

¶8).

After initiation

25

—

553

---

of this

case Respondent voluntarily inaugurated an organized

program

of procedures for prompt detection of odors and the

elimination thereof

(Stip.

¶8).

This program was

instituted

at all Respondent’s sites

(Stip.

¶8).

The parties agreed

that

Sexton has the general reputation

as being a superior

operator

of sanitary landfills

(Stip,

¶8).

This

case was filed in response to several complaints

in the latter

part of 1975 of odors from the facility

(Stip,

¶9).

These complaints were from persons residing

near the

facility; the nearest residence of a complaining

citizen is

approximately one—half mile

(Stip.

¶9),

Paragraph

10 of the stipulation provides:

“Sexton denies that it is the cause

or source

of

the odors complained of, and attributes the odors

complained

of to industrial plants in the area.

The parties agree that proper operating and house-

keeping practices,

combined with an odor detection

and

abatement program as described below, can best

minimize

or prevent odors from escaping from

a

landfill

sit.e,

Methane detection will be used

as an indicator of potential odor problems.

The

parties agree that if methane escape can be pre-

vented

or detected early, odor prevention or

abatement can more readily and quickly be accom-

plished.”

After several meetings between the parties Sexton

insti-

tuted a

program by which Respondent has and shall

continue

to:

A.

Have available at all times a portable

instrument for the detection and measurement

of methane gas emitted.

The specifications

and model number of this instrument shall be

furnished to the office of the Complainant,

attention Howard

0.

Chinn,

P. E., Chief

Engineer,

188 West Randolph Street, Suite

2315,

Chicago, Illinois 60601.

B.

Implement a routine surveillance program

at

the site which will include an inspection of the

perimeters of the site,

as well as the areas

over

the placement of the refuse.

These inspections

will consist of visual and olfactory observations,

and the use of the instrument referred to

in “A~

above.

The visual observations will include a

25

—

554

---

—3—

check

for

fissures

and

other

openings

in

the

cover material

and

will

also

note

the

dryness

in

the

cover

aaterial.

These

insoections

shall

occur whenever Sexton

receives

a

complaint

either from a resident in

the

neighborhood

or

from

a

regulatory

agency

such

as

the

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency

or

the

Attorney

Genera1~s office.

At

all

other

times,

the

inspections

shall

occur

at

least

once

each

week

from

May

1

through

October

31

and

once

a

month

from

November

1

through

April

30,

These

inspections

shall

be

conducted

during

the

early

morning

with

winds

less

than

2

mph.

or

late

in

the

afternoon

after

the

facility

has

closed

its

gates

to

additional

refuse

bearing

vehicles.

In

the

event

of

an

ozone

alert

by

the

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency

or

other

authorities

having

jurisdiction,

the

above

inspections

shall

be

conducted

twice

daily.

C.

Upon

the

confirmation

of

an

odor

emanating

from the site,

Sexton

shall

immediately

institute an

abatement

program

which

shall

at

least

include

one

or

more

of

the

following

as

necessary:

a.

Place

additional

earth

cover

over

the

affected

area

and

compact

to

minimize

permeability.

Cover

material

so

used

shall

have

low

permeability

properties.

b.

Spray

existing

cover

with

water

and

fill

in any

fissures

and

other

openings.

c.

Construct

a

new

cell

over

the

affected

area

and

cover

with

a

low

permeability

material.

d,

Install

vent pipes

to

relieve the local

pressure build

up

within the affected

refuse cell.

The

gases

shall

be

flared

or chemically

treated

to

eliminate

the

odor.

Masking

agents

shall not be used.

25

—

55~

---

data

‘J

s.~

bee

‘~(

~i)

Fri.

th

c. ~

‘atological

a

eke

u~

ie~ Oaragraph

C

shall

~

of

L~

facility.

o~

~xte~

tential

and

Correc-

f

z

ri

a

file

for

~

hese

fori.

E.

AiJo

cay

0r,1

ttori7ed

re~r?sentatives

of the

Attczuey

or~r~l e

off

iCe

the

rIght

to

inspect

tne site ~.cttr~ ~id File of

s.

vev forms

at

any reasonabie ~im~ curing rorma

business hours.

Respondent shall cooperate

~tl these instruc-

tions by ar.s~eringany rca

re~Ia questions relevant

to the procedural operatior

r tt~irsite and the

odor prevention program.

F.

Direct a

I

communications to tne Attarrey General’s

office as foliows~

Hov’ard

0.

China

P.~.

f

Engineer

E

i

ronmentirl Control D~vision

188

.fest Rancolph, S~ite2315

Ch~oago,Illinois 60601

The agree lent further states tna~

parties

agree

that

the

public inLeress

N~

1 be best served

~ resolving this con-

troversy

pursuant to the settlement ag a went and the Board’s

Procedural

Rule 3~r. The a~reeme~sac

~liy provides that

Respondent does not

ii

an; wrongd

c r

folation

of

any

law,

rule,

ox reguiatr~ of the State

I

~nois

or

any

of

its agencies.

by tue temns o

th-~agr

ant Sexton will main-

tain and impie LCII

i

rd

de~eo.’ r

and aba ~ement plan

described

Ca~

1C.

~

a~on

Ia.

c~aec~t~pay a sum of $1,500

to the F_at

ct TI

1s

ii

~~ta

ice of this settlement

by the Bot d

~go~ c~p~er~o

a stip

s~ionit is agreed

the

cau”~ w~

be

s

ed

TheE

under

Procecu

General s~the~.

good as to

ire

the effort

piete

and

a

a

3.

o

~ec

•

to

be

acceptable

~

s;~n

a

Assistant

Attorney

f

-

~3~rei

~.ac proposed

plan

so

~c

~a

v

1

tion

not

worth

3

3

Ic

~d

tin

proposed

plan

corn—

c~

i

udin

.tes

in

the

25

556

---

at

t

t

Lust in

actual

controversy.

The

B

~.

i a

as set

out in the

Stipulation

This cause is

dismissed with

IrfJuci

C

~‘sthe Board’s

findings of fact

Pollution Control

Board that:

id

Proposal

for

Settlement

eatter is accepted.

id

by certifred

check or money

by Respondent

within

35 days

v ces Division

I

Protection

Agency

ill Road

Illinois

62706

r

ssed conditioned

upon

compliance

this matter with

all

terms and

3lerk

of the

Illinois

Pollution

Co

c

ti

y

the

above

Opinion

and

Order

w

day

of

~

1977

by

a

C

ristan

L.

Mo

e

C er

Illinois Pollutio