ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

November 14, 1972

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY

)

)

v.

)

 #72—159

CITY

WOODSTOCK

and

WILLIAM

GAULKE

)

Richard

Cosby,

Assistant

 Attorney General,

 for the

Environmental

Protection

Agency

William

 I. Caldwell, Jr.,for the City of Woodstock

Opinion and Order of the Board

 (by Mr.

Currie):

Complaint was filed on April 18, 1972 charging numer-

ous violations of the Illinois Environmental Protection

Act (“Act”) and the RuleS and Regulations for Refuse

Disposal Sites and Facilities

 (“Rules”) had occurred at a

landfill site in McHenry County on various dates from

December 1,

 1970 through February 17,

 1972.

 The complaint

stated that William E. Gaulke

owned

 the site, and that the

City of Woodstock (“City”) operated and was the contract

purchaser of the site from Mr. Gaulke.

 Public hearing was

held on September 26, 1972.

 Mr. Gaulke was not present

and was not represented at the hearing; no testimony what-

soever related to his involvement in the case and he is

therefore dismissed as a party to these proceedings.

The Agency first

 charges that thecity was operating

the facility without having obtained a permit to do so from

the State, and this is admitted

(R.

 158) •l

 The City Manager

1.

 As originally adopted,

 the landfill rules

 (now PCB Regs.,

Ch.

 7, Rule 1.03)

 required permits only for sites opened

after the effective date of the regulations

 (1966); existing

sites required only registration (id., Rule 1.01).

 However,

~ 21(e)

 of the Environmental Protection Act, effective

July 1,

 1970, requires a permit for all disposal operations,

with an exception not here pertinent, “after the Board

has adopted standards for the location, design, operation,

and maintenance of such facilities.”

 The landfill rules,

now PCB Regs., Ch.

 7, Part II, clearly establish such

standards,

and

they

became

regulations

 of this Board upon

adoption

the

Act,

provided

*

49(c).

Thus

operation

statute

 permits

have

since

July

1970

been

required

for

existing

well

new

landfill

operations.

The amended regulations

now

under

consideration

the

Board

 (IR 72—5) will clarify this requirement.

6—217

testified

that

had

decided

that

since

the

landfill

had

been

operation

since

1935,

and

had

been

rceistercd

with

the

Department

Public

health,

rio

further

state

permit

was

necessary

(P.

123—125).

But

Seoteriber,.

1970,

the

City

learned

permit

was

necessar’~

arid

 souaht

the

assistance

of)

civil

engineering

firm

(P.

116—117)

The

firm

 neipee

prepare

plans

the

site

substantial

cost

the

City

(P.

116)

and

studied

the

facilities

 determine

the

amount

time

the

site

could

used.

The

apolication

for

permit

was

submitted

the

Acencv

but

was

returned

because

lacked

certain

additional

information

(P.

6—12,

116—118)

unclear

whether

not

the

City

has

 since

reaupsied

6cr

its

permit.

The

complaint

further

alleqes

the

ocen

dumpine

of

garbage

on

five

separate

dates

and

 the open dumping

of

re-

fuse

eleven

dates.

The

evidence

indicates

that

two

areas

were

used

for

dumping:

one

for

brush,

wood

and

other

com-

bustible

materials;

and

the

other

for

~qarhaqe

and

eutresciblo

materials.

The

Agency’

witness

testified

that

observed

food

products

and

household

garbage

dumped

on

the

 site

on

February

23,

1971;

March

31,

1971;

January

20,

1972;

Feb--

ruary

and

17,

1972

(P.

66)

and

his

reports

indicated

that

 several

these

occasions

the

materials

were

not.

adequately spread

and

compacted.

Further

testimony

seemed

indicate

that

the

wood

produces

and

refuse

disposal

area

was

nore

frequently

uncovered

than

the

garbage

disposal

area,

hut

that

both

parts

of)

the

fill

 were

from

time

unsaread,

uncompacted,

and

 uncovered;

both

these

conclusions

were

admitted

the

City

(P.

158-159)

The

City

also

 charged with having

 deposited

liquids

and

 hazardous materials

on

the

site

 on December

1,

 1970,

October

and

1971

without

first

 havino obtained

permit

from

the

Agency,

and,

fri

char’ae

with

having

caused,

 tnreatened

 or allowed

 the discharqe

 of con~

taminants

into

the

environment

 seas

 cause

cend

cause

water

pollution

111 inn). s

Evidence

indica

ted

that

this

liquid

was

line

slutiqe

1mm

the

jacent

water

tree t~

merit

ulant

(R.

53~56,

83,

07)

hut

 the Clay’s Director

ci

Pub i Ic Works

 costiticid

 that

 if non

I

 a as been meco~omenncd

the

 State

ci)

 illinois

 icr ‘sees

 :i:crmbrano sealer

~

lencliall.s since

 l0~:6 (~±r~~

 l~~b)

the

au~ine

oc:ncr

to

keec

 leachril:c from catering

 the actor

 t:wle.

 eccnte:c~

die

i:or:.7

.5 opres

entoil

mad a

~rz

.t annoy

arid

:ro

~

or

OSt

I

—

nazarciocs due

 to either

the

 riurriti t~‘aiosent

or

the

inane

 which

it.

was

a~1l:..aci,

 ‘f’

 crrr,

 tea one

 v:iolafii.nr~ we

r’

)

(

con

itch

..~

 I :hn:11.ti e

 ter:Lo.

 ar~ the

si

i::

ow iTheat:

.1

r. rat

cibtairiet

 aritton

 aporawal

 I ran

 Cbs:

taco.

—3—

The City is also charged with failing to provide a

proper shelter for its landfill personnel, but the Agency’s

witness testified that not only was there a shelter of sorts

on the site

(R.

 65), but also that the sewage treatment

plant adjacent to the site was equipped with sanitary

facilities accessible to personnel from the landfill

(R. 58-59), and it was later revealed that employees at the

site were in fact given keys to the gate allowing

 then

to

enter the property of the plant and use its facilities.

Tharefore, we find the proof insufficient to support an

alienation of violation of law in this regard.

In December,

 1971, the City hired a new Director of

Public Works who had previously worked for nine years in

the Bureau of Solid Wastes of the Department of Health,

Kducation and Welfare, establishing guidelines and operation-

al procedures

 for sanitary landfills.

 In addition, he has

also operated a landfill site of his

own

 in Montgomery County,

Maryland.

 Immediately upon assuming his new post, he re-

placed the chief operator of the City’s site, and instituted

several commendable changes in the operation of the site,

in the manner in which cover is applied,

 the amounts and

times materials will be accepted for deposit at the site,

and the system by which adherence with Agency guidelines will

 be assured

 (R. 142-156).

 A good deal of additional cover

material has been excavated and stockpiled

 (R. 150), and the

life expectancy of the site,, due to the substantial im-

provements already made, has been increased to another

twenty years

(R.

 153); and the use of lime sludge as a

membrane sealer at the bottom of the site was apparently

commenced at his direction

(R.

 157).

 The City has purchased

a tractor at a cost in excess of $18,000; a drag-

line for over $12,000; a trailer with sanitary facilities

for use cm the site at a cost of $1,500; and

has

 spent

over S7,000 for renting equipment to assist in the moving

and ultimate covering of trees at the site

 (R. 132—133).

In summary, the evidence substantiates the allegations

of open dumping of garbage and refuse on several occasions,

the deposition of liquid at the site without prior written

approval, failure to adequately spread, compact or cover

on certain occasions, and operation of the site without a

permit.

 But the evidence also indicates a substantial good

faith effort on the part of the municipal leaders to correct

deficiencies at the site as soon as possible.

 It would

appear that many of the problems at the site have already

been corrected, and that the

new

Director

Public

Works

has the knowledge, background, skill and determination

 to correct the others.

 Therefore, we will impose a nominal

penalty for past violations,

 a cease and desist order to

assure that operation of the site will in the future comply

with applicable

 law, and an order directing the City to

obtain

necessary

permits

for

the

continued

operation

the

site.

6—219

—4—

This opinion constitutes the findings of fact and

conclusions of law of the Board.

IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that:

1.

 Except as provided in paragraph 3 of this order, Respondent,

City of Woodstock,

 shall forthwith cease and desist the

operation of the landfill site in violation of the Illinois

Environmental Protection Act and the Rules

 and Regulations

For Refuse Disposal Sites and Facilities;

 Penalty in the amount of $100 is assessed against

Respondent, City of Wood~tock, for the violations

found herein.

 Payment shall be made

within

 days

of receipt of this Order by certified check payable

to the State of Illinois,

 and sent to:

 Fiscal Services

Division, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,

2200 Ciurchill Road,

 Springfield,

 Illinois 62706,

3.

 Respondent, City of Woodstock,

 shall

immediately take

whatever steps are necessary to secure the appropriate

permits

 from the Agency to operate the landfill site in

the manner in which it

 is presently being operated, in-

cluding such written approval as

 is necessary for the

continued deposition of lime sludge, or any other liquid

material,

 at the site.

I,

 Christan Moffett, Clerk of the Pollution Control Board,

certify that the Board adopted the above OpiniolA

 & Order

this 14th day of November,

 1972, by

 a vote of

~5—O

6

—

220