ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
August 12, 1976
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
)
Complainant,
)
v
)
PCB 76—22
)
CITY OF CHICAGO HEIGHTS,
a
)
municipal corporation,
)
)
Respondent.
Mr. James L. Dobrovolny, Assistant Attorney General, appeared
on behalf of Complainant; and Mr. Thomas McCabe appeared
for Complainant pursuant to Rule 711 of the Supreme Court
Rules.
Mr. James F. Creswell appeared on behalf of Respondent.
OPINION
AND
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Dr.
Satchell):
This matter comes before the Pollution Control Board
(Board)
upon a complaint filed by the Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency)
on January 21, 1976.
The complaint alleges that the
City of Chicago Heights, Illinois owns and operates a refuse
disposal site on the north side of Sauk Trail, one-third mile
east of East End Avenue in Cook County,
Illinois without an
operating permit in violation of Rule 202(b)
of the Solid
Waste Rules and Regulations
(Regulations) and of Section 21(b)
and
21 (e)
of the Environmental Protection Act
(Act).
The
complaint further alleges that on nine separate dates from
February 14,
1974 to October
29, 1975 Respondent has failed
to place a compacted layer of not less than two feet of cover
over the entire surface of the final
lifts, and that as of
the date of the complaint refuse and debris remained exposed
at the site in violation of Rule 305(c)
of the Regulations
and hence a violation of 21(b)
of the Act.
The Board has often held that a violation of Rule 202(b)
of the Regulations does not constitute a violation of Sec-
tion 21(b)
of the Act.
Therefore,
the portion of the complaint
alleging violation of Section 21(b) will be dismissed.
23
—
301
—2—
The Agency filed a Request for Admissions on February 2,
1976.
Respondent did not reply within 20 days anc~under
Procedural Rule 314(c)
all requests for admissions of matters
of fact and genuineness of document are normally deemed admitted.
In this case Respondent claims not to have received the Request.
The Board finds
it unnecessary to rule in this matter as the
facts submitted at the hearing are adequate to resolve the case.
The hearing in this matter was held on May
10, 1976.
The Agency witness Mr. Rene Van Someren had visited the
site in question on March 13, 1974, May 24, 1974,
September 25,
1974, August 19,
1975, October
29, 1975 and November 18, 1975
(R.
15,
46).
On all these visits the facts were substantially
the same.
The gate was locked on three occasions and was un-
locked the other three occasions
(R. 17,
21,
24, 29, 40, 47).
On all occasions the fence was knocked down and Van Someren
went into the area where the fence was down
(R.
17,
21, 24,
29,
40,
47).
On all occasions there was uncovered refuse
(R.
17,
21,
24,
29,
40, 47).
The type of refuse was similar.
On
March 13,
1974 Van Someren observed asphalt, concrete, brick-
bats,
a water heater,
a mattress and exposed wood
(R.
17).
On
May 24, 1974 he saw concrete, asphalt bricks and some wood
(R.
21).
On September 25, 1974 Van Someren observed a greater
portion of asphalt than before
(R.
24).
Part of the site was
at final
lift but remained uncovered
(R.
18, 19).
This condition
remained, the same on all his visits
(R.
22,
25, 30,
41,
47).
On
no occasion did Mr. Van Someren witness anyone actually dumping
(R.
18,
22,
24,
29,
41,
47).
After the September
25, 1974 visit a letter was sent to
the Corporation Counsel for the City of Chicago Heights from
the Agency
(R.
26, 27).
This letter notified the City of
the Investigation and the possible violations
(Coup.
Ex.
2).
A second letter was sent after the August 19, 1975 visit
(Comp.
Ex.
5).
On August 22, 1975 a coirplicance conference was held in
Aurora,
Illinois, concerning the City’s municipal landfill
(R.
37,
38).
At this meeting the refuse site in question was
discussed.
The City Superintendent of Streets and Public
Improvement, Ernest Molyneaux, and the Chief Health Inspector,
Robert Shambo, indicated they had been unaware of the situa-
tion and would look into the matter
(R.
39).
Subsequently,
Mr. Molyneaux visited the site and determined that the City
did own it and that there was no permit for the site
(R.
76).
At that time, the third week in August, he chained the gate
shut
(R.
77).
On one occasion in September or October a
23
—
302
—3—
City contractor did dump some concrete there
(R.
77).
Other than this Mr. Molyneaux knows of no other dumping
at the site
(R.
77).
Mr. Molyneaux stated that he was
first able to get the fill necessary for cover in February
of 1976
(R.
78).
Respondent proceeded to enter photographic
exhibits showing the final fill being applied in February
and the site as
it was the morning of the hearing
(Resp.
Ex.
1—6, 8—10)
There
is no question that the refuse site was being
used as a landfill without a permit and that no final cover
was being applied to the final lifts.
The Board finds the
City of Chicago Heights in violation of Rule 202(b)
of the
Regulations and Section 21(e)
of the Act;
and in violation
of Rule 305(c) and Section 21(b) of the Act.
In considering the factors required by Section 33(c)
of the Act the Board observes that there is no social or
economic value of an open dump such as the one in this case,
particularly when the City has another municipal landfill
that is adequate for the City’s needs.
The site, under
consideration, is in an industrial-commercial area which is
more suitable for sanitary landfills than residential areas
(R.
65).
However,
the site is also visible from the road
(R.
66).
The City has now covered the site and there is no
question that compliance is feasible.
The site had remained uncovered for several years.
An
open refuse site allows leachate to form and eventually
pollute streams and water supplies.
The City had received
two letters of notice and the problem was presented in con-
ference.
From the conference in August 1975,
it took six
months for the City to act.
It appears that the area may now
be in compliance although it was not stated that the cover
placed on the area was two feet of compacted material.
No
injury has been alleged in this matter, although unless cover
is properly applied pollution could still occur.
The purpose
of the regulations and the permit system is to prevent pollu-
tion before it happens.
This is to no avail if the system is
ignored.
Because there is no apparent damage and the City
has acted to come into compliance, the Board finds that a
large penalty is not warranted.
A penalty of $750 is assessed
to aid enforcement of the Act.
The City will also allow the
Agency to determine the adequacy of the final cover.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact
and conclusions of law.
Mr. Dumelle concurs.
23
—
303
—4—
ORDER
It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that:
1.
The City of Chicago Heights was in violation of
Rule 202(b)
of the Solid Waste Regulations and
Section 21(e)
of the Act; and of Rule 305(c)
and
Section 21(b) of the Act.
2.
The allegation of violation of Section 21(b)
in
connection with the violation of Rule 202(b)
is
dismissed.
3.
The Agency will verify that the final cover is
adequate within 90 days of the date of this Order.
4.
Respondent will cease and desist from future
violations of the Regulations and the Act.
5.
Respondent shall pay a penalty of $750.
Payment
shall be by certified check or money order payable
to:
State of Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency
Fiscal Services Division
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois 62706
Payment shall be within 35 days of this Order.
I, Christan
L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, here~ycertify the abov
Opinion and Order were
adopted on the
‘~
day of~La~464)C
,
1976 by a vote of
ç~L
~hristanL. Moffetk/J/çlerk
Illinois Po11ution~?itrol Board
23
—
304