ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

October 24,

1972

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

~72—67

VILLAGE

OF PORT BYRON

Mr.

Prescott Bloom,

for

the Environmental

Protection Agency

Mr.

Julius Lytton,

for

the Village

of Port Byron

Opinion

& Order

of

the

Board

(by Mr.

Currie):

Complaint was filed on February 22,

1972, against the

Village of Port Byron

(“Respondent”) alleging numerous vio-

lations

of

the

Illinois Environmental Protection Act,

Ill.

Rev.

Stat., Ch, 111 1/2,

(“Act”)

and the Rules and Regula-

tions for Refuse Disposal Sites and Facilities

(“Land Rules”)

at Respondent’s Rock Island County landfill site.

Hearing

was held on May 8,

1972.

Evidence indicated that there

is uncovered combustible

and putrescible material at the site

(R.

13, 17—19; EPA,

Ex.

~#3-9).

An Agency witness testified that,

“it appeared

they attempted to make

a landfill.

.

.

but they had allowed

the face of

the

fill to get too high,

too steep; therefore,

they couldn’t cover all the refuse.”

CR.

18).

But several

witnesses for Respondent testified that the Village had quit

using the site as

a garbage dump or landfill many years ago

CR.

65,

74),

The Village Clerk stated that even though the Village

had stopped using the site,

“approximately Aug.

21,

1971,

Cand)

we hadn’t used

it

before that anyway,” there were some

people that would

“go in there and dump but not with Village

knowledge.”

(R.

65,

66).

He added that the Respondent has

had contracts with various scavenger services for over

seven

years

to pick up, haul and dump

the Village’s refuse at a

site

in

Rock Island

CR.

66,

67),

andthat people from

both

within and without

the

Village

“probably” dump

at

the

site

in question

(R.

67).

A Village Trustee confirmed these re-

marks

CR. 74-76), and both witnesses noted that the Village

had posted signs indicating that the dump was closed to the

public after having been notified by the~ency of the alleged

violations

CR.

68,

69,

76).

Indications are that conditions

at the site are now “practically the same”

as they were at

the

time of the Agency’s investigation

CR.

51)

,

and that while

---

.

.