CITY OF CHICAGO DEPARTMENTOF ENVIRONMENT, Respondent.
Not only has Respondent not contradicted this
I Despite Respondent's statement to the contrary in its Post-Hearing Brief (Resp.
Post-Hearing Br.
at -,r 9.
With respect to the charge
ofwaste standing in water pursuant to Section 21(p)(4), Respondent's counsel admits that"[w]hen the snow melted, the site was full of mud and water." Id.
7,2002). A
complainant must show that the alleged open dumper had control over the source or siteofpollutiono [d. As set forth in CDOE'sPost-Hearing Brief, Respondent had extensivecontrol over the movement oftrucks, people and materials onto and offofthe Site. Responden...
Allowed
Adobe Portable Document Format (.pdf) - application/pdf
... 
