ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    January
    23,
    1Q73
    :NvIRON~EN:AL
    PROTECTION
    AGENCY,
    Conplainant,
    vs.
    )
    PCB
    72—201
    C~S
    ChIRILLO,
    d,’b/a/
    THOMAS
    )
    OhIRILLO
    CO~1PANY,
    )
    Respondent.
    Fer~an
    R.
    Tavins, Assistant Attorney General
    for the EPA
    Jar-CS
    A.
    Recas, Attorney for Resuondent
    OPINION
    AND
    ORDER
    OF
    TF:E
    BOARD
    (by
    Mr.
    Henss)
    Res~cr~entoperates a refuse disposal site occupying about
    48
    acres
    near Interstate Route 94 and 130th St., Chicago,
    Illinois.
    The
    EPA
    alleges that Respondent’s refuse disposal operation was
    conc~ucted without
    a
    permit
    and
    that
    Respondent
    was
    guilty
    of
    the
    ~cllc~ing:
    open
    dumping
    of
    garbage,
    open
    dumping
    of
    refuse,
    open
    burriinc
    of
    refuse,
    failure
    to
    provide
    adequate
    fencing,
    failure
    to
    confine
    dumping
    to
    the
    smallest
    practical
    area,
    permitting
    the
    un-
    loading
    of
    refuse
    without
    supervision,
    failure
    to
    spread
    and
    compact
    refuse,
    failure
    to
    apply
    adequate
    daily
    or
    final
    cover
    and
    allowing
    refuse to be deposited in standing water.
    The violations are
    alleged to have occurred on August 23 and 24,
    1971, September 7 and
    8,
    1971,
    September 17, 1971 and February 29,
    1972.
    This matter is submitted to us upon an Agreed Statement of
    Facts.
    The attorneys did not make opening or closing arguments.
    No
    photographs
    or
    EPA investigative reports were offered in evidence.
    Some
    testimony was
    offered,
    for
    the
    purpose
    of
    mitigating
    penalty,
    that Respondent had complied with regulations subsequent to the dates
    of
    the alleged violations.
    It appears from
    the
    Stipulation
    of
    Facts that the landfill in
    rmestion is one mile from the nearest residential area and about
    six-tenths of
    a mile from the nearest industrial or commercial area.
    The
    property is adjoined
    by
    another landfill and by a lock and dam.
    Respondent has operated the refuse disposal site solely for his own
    trucks and not for the use of any other refuse hauler.
    He brought
    an average of
    8 to 10 truckloads of refuse to the site daily.
    6
    593

    —2—
    On the dates in question, refuse not exceeding
    30 yards of
    materials,
    or approximately one truckload, was found to contain
    garbage from one of the industrial accounts serviced by the Re-
    spondent.
    The Stipulation does not say that Respondent failed to
    cover the garbage, but it is clearly stipulated that a similar
    quantity of refuse not exceeding one truckload of materials was
    allowed to be dumped without providing an adequate daily cover.
    We,
    therefore,
    find that Respondent did permit the open dumping of refuse.
    An area of approximately 20 square feet emits a vapor type
    smoke from a long smoldering fire which has been covered by the
    required amount of
    fill.
    This area was covered about January
    16,
    1969 pursuant to the terms of an agreement entered into with the
    Illinois Department of Public Health and a Decree entered by
    Judge Donald J. O1Brien in Case No.
    69 CH 1345, Circuit Court of
    Cook County, County Department, Chancery Division.
    At the time of
    the entry of this Decree all parties acknowledged the presence of
    this smoldering fire and agreed that
    a reasonable period of time
    should be allowed to pass to determine whether the fire would
    eventually extinguish itself.
    The smoldering fire has diminished
    in area from approximately 200 square feet to an area of approxi-
    mately 20 square feet.
    This is not a large fire but we believe
    Respondent should have taken the necessary steps to have it extin-
    guished long ago.
    Surely the agreement to allow
    a “reasonable
    period of time”
    in January 1969 did not contemplate a three year
    delay in extinguishment of the fire.
    We,
    therefore,
    find that
    Respondent has permitted the open burning of refuse as alleged in
    the Complaint.
    It
    is further stipulated that Respondent allowed refuse
    to be
    deposited in an area of accumulated rain water approximately 50 feet
    square in violation of the Refuse Rules; that Respondent permitted
    refuse to be dumped without being immediately spread and compacted,
    although it was spread and compacted at the time cover was applied;
    that Respondent would cause refuse to be dumped into two separate
    locations on the site, instead of one location, depending on the
    content of the refuse being dumped;
    that Respondent failed to provide
    adequate fencing during the period in question but later complied
    fully with the fencing regulation.
    These conclusions were not sup-
    ported by any further details and appear to be an agreement that
    there were minor housekeeping violations.
    The Stipulation further
    states that all of the unloading of refuse was done by employees of
    the Respondent and that there was a full-time supervisor on the
    premises as well as a night—time security service.
    This appears
    to
    us to be adeauate supervision for the unloading of the refuse.
    On April
    24,
    1969
    Respondent submitted to the Illinois Department
    of Public Health, Division of Sanitary Engineering,
    an Application for
    Registration of the Refuse Disposal Site.
    The Department of Public
    Health acknowledged receipt of
    this registration form in May 1969.
    6— 594

    —3—
    The Respondent was under the impression that this registration with
    the Illinois Department of Public Health was all that was required
    for his operation of the refuse disposal site.
    He failed to obtain
    a permit from the Environmental Protection Agency
    as is required by
    Section 21(e)
    of the Environmental Protection Act.
    Respondent may
    not have had wrongful intent in the matter, but he did violate the
    Statute by operating the refuse disposal site without a permit.
    These violations are not substantial.
    For violations of this
    nature we believe
    a monetary penalty of $300 is adequate.
    The Re-
    spondent in addition to paying the penalty, shall obtain a permit
    from the Environmental Protection Agency and shall cease and desist
    from the said violations
    of the Environmental Protection Act.
    ORDER
    It is ordered that:
    1.
    Respondent shall pay to the State of Illinois by
    March
    1,
    1973
    the sum of $300
    as a penalty for the
    violations found in this proceeding.
    Penalty
    payment by certified checks or money order payable
    to the State of Illinois shall be made to:
    Fiscal
    Services Division, Illinois EPA,
    2200 Churchill
    Drive,
    Springfield, Illinois 62706.
    2.
    Respondent shall immediately cease and desist from
    all violations found in this proceeding;
    except that
    Respondent shall have a period of time as specified
    in Paragraph
    3
    of this Order
    within which
    to
    obtain
    a permit for the operation of the landfill.
    3.
    Respondent shall have six months from the date of
    this Order within which to obtain a permit from the
    Illinois Environmental Protection Agency for the
    operation of his refuse disposal site.
    If Respondent
    has failed to obtain a permit within that period of
    time the refuse disposal site shall be closed and
    final cover applied under the supervision of the EPA.
    I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Boards certify that the above Opinion and Order was adopted on the
    c~3~
    day ~
    ,
    1973, by
    a vote of
    3
    to
    ~
    6—
    595

    Back to top