June 13, 1975

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Complainant,

vs.

)

VILLAGE OF PALATINE, a municipal

WILLIAM LITTLEJOHN, Attorney for Respondent

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Mr. Henss):

The Environmental Protection Agency alleges that the

Village of Palatine,

as owner and operator of

a waste manage—

:uent ~sitein Cook County,

Illinois, has violated Rule 202(b)

(1)

of

the

Solid Waste Regulations and Sections

21(b)

and 21(e)

af

the

Environmental Protection Act.

The violations are alleged

to have occurred from July 27, 1974 to October

25,

1974.

A

~uhiic

hearing on this matter was held in February 1975.

:~ennethBechely,

an Agency employee, testified that he

visit:ed

Respondent~swaste management site on three

occasions.

On these visits he noted

a small amount of refuse at

the

site

hut

“there

wasn’t

much

going on~ (R.

5).

He

did

not

observe

any :~fusebeIng dumped

at

the

site.

After

Bec:ielv’s

first

visit,

he

telephoned

Palatine’s

village

Manager

Anton

Earwig,

to

inquire

about

operations at

the

site.

As

3echeiy

recalled the

August

2,

1974

conversation,

Earwig

indicated

that Respondent

was

operating

the site on a

limited

basis and that an application for a permit was

being

prepared.

A

check of Agency

files

by Bechely on

August

8,

1974

disclosed that Respondent had not applied for a permit at that

time.

Respondent was granted a development permit on January 20,

1975

(Respondent Exhibit #1).

Under conditions imposed by the

development permit, Respondent

is

permitted to dispose of broken

concrete and asphalt, wood chips, street sweepings and clay only.

Bechely testified that he observed only materials allowed by the

permit during his visits to the site.

17

—313

---

—2—

Harwig testified that he became Village Manager on April

1,

1974.

The previous Village Manager had resigned in August 1973

causing the Village affairs to be handled by an Acting Village

Manager.

Harwig first became aware of the permit requirement on

May

1, 1974 when he received a letter from Mr. Clark, Manager of

the Agency’s Surveillance Section, Division of Land Pollution

Control

(R.

12).

Earwig consulted with the former Acting

Village Manager and learned that the Village did not have the

necessary permit application papers.

He then telephoned the

Agency to request the necessary permit application forms,

The

forms were not received following

this

request

CR.

14).

On June 4,

1974 Harwig received another letter from Clark

advising that no permit for the site had been issued by the

Agency.

Earwig wrote

to Clark that same day requesting permit

application forms

(R.

14).

Upon receiving the permit appli—

cation forms on June 19,

1974, Respondent found it necessary to

hire outside help to complete a required topographical survey.

This survey was delayed because a “swamp kind of

a situation”

prevented the surveyors from getting into the site.

The com-

pleted

permit

application form was forwarded to the Agency on

November 18, 1974

(R.

15).

Special condition *2 of the development permit states:

“The site shall be in complete compliance with the general re-

quirements of the Environmental Protection Act and Rules and

Regulations prior to the issuance of an operating permit.”

Special condition ~3 of the development permit states:

“Inasmuch

as the deadline for existing sites to obt~inoperating permits

is now fully five months past, you are expected to request,

in

writing,

a pre-operational inspection from this office not more

than

30

days from the date of this letter.”

Earwig

testified

that

he thought the January

20, 1975

permit

was an operating permit

(R.

19).

Bechely testified that

Respondent has not obtained an operating permit for the waste

management site

(R. 7).

On

the

record

presented,

the Board finds that Respondent

has violatedRule 202(b) (1)

of the Solid Waste Regulations and

Section 21(e)

of the Environmental Protection Act.

Nothing in

the record shows

that these violations

iniured or interfered with

the protection of the health, general welfare or physical property

of the people of Illinois.

Neither the social or economic value

of the site nor the suitability of the

site

to the area in which

is is located is discussed in this record,

Since

the Agency

granted a development permit for the site,

it would

seem

17

—

314

---

—3—

reasonable

at this point to conclude that suitability of

location is not a major consideration in this proceeding.

Likewise, the fact that Respondent was able to secure the

development permit without apparent difficulty would indi-

cate that it was both technically practicable and economically

reasonable for Respondent to comply with the Statute and

Regulations.

There

can

be no finding of violation regarding Section

21(b)

of

the

Environmental

Protection Act since there is

nothing in the record which purports to show that Respondent

engaged in the practice of open

dumping

of

refuse.

The Board recognizes that Respondent’s administrative

changes mitigate these violations.

Some weight will

also be

given to testimony showing that the Agency did not respond to

Respondent’s initial request for permit application forms and

that the surveyor had some difficulty

in obtaining access to

the site because of the “swamp” conditions.

Another mitigating

fact is that any monetary penalty here will ultimately be

paid by the taxpayers,

those same individuals who suffer the

environmental damage resulting from inaction of their officials.

However, the violations cannot go entirely unpunished.

The permit system is vital to pollution control efforts in

Illinois,

If the permit system could be ignored with impunity

the State would be greatly hampered in its attempt to protect

the public health, determine suitability of the disposal site

and feasibility of compliance with the Regulation,

Having considered all aspects of this case,

it is the

finding of the Pollution Control Board that Respondent shall

pay a monetary penalty of $100 for the violations

found in

this proceeding.

In addition, Respondent will be required to

secure the long over~dueoperating permit within 120 days of

the date of this Order or properly close its waste management

site.

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions

of law of the Illinois Pollution Control Board.

ORDER

It is the Order ofthe Pollution Control Board that:

1.

Village of Palatine shall pay to the State of

Illinois by June

30, 1975 the sum of $100 as a penalty

for the violations of Rule 202(b) (1), Solid Waste

17

—

315

---

—4-.

Regulations,

and Section 21(e), Environmental Protection

Act found in this proceeding.

Penalty payment by

certified check or money order pay~ableto the State of

Illinois shall be made to:

Fiscal Services Division,

Illinois EPA,

2200 Churchill Road,

Springfield, Illinois

62706.

2.

Respondent shall properly close its waste manage-

ment site in Cook County, Illinois

for this site has not been obtained within 120 days of

3.

The allegation that Respondent violated Section

21(b)

of the Act is dismissed.

I,

Christan

L.

Moffett,

Clerk

of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order were adopted

on

the

~day

of

~

1975 by

a vote of

~

Christan L. MoffetL

~lerk

Illinois

Pollution

ófitrol

Board

17

—