ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
December 12, 1972
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY,
)
)
Complainant,
vs.
)
WILL
COUNTY
LANDFILL,
INC., a
)
corporation, BEN HESLINGA, and
LEWIS
COLLEGE,
a
corporation,
)
Res~ondents,
)
and
)
PCB
72—13
)
WILL
COUN2Y
LANDFILL,
INC.,
)
an
Illinois
corporation,
and
)
BEN
HECLINGA,
)
wonca:~ts and
Third-Party
)
..cmplainants,
)
)
vs.
)
)
~S2ATE OF PATRICK D. FAHEY, Deceased,)
)
and
SPIRLEY
FAREY,
EXECUTOR,
)
flUrd-Party
Rosoondent.
)
)
and
)
)
LET-uS COLLEGi,
a corporation,
)
)
Third--Party
Complainant,
)
)
vs.
)
ESTATE
OF
PATRICK
D.
FAIIEY,
Deceased,)
)
and
SHIRLEY FAHEY and NORMAN CODO,
)
EXECUTORS,
)
)
Third Party Respondents.
)
Douglas Moring, Assistant Attorney General for the EPA
Oscar R. Kuehn, Attorney for Will County Landfill, Inc.
and
Ben
Heslinga
Daniel L. Kennedy, Attorney for
Lewis
College
Thomas
C.
Moran
and
Alec
Bond,
Attorneys
for
Patrick
Fahey
Estate,
Shirley
Fahey
and
Norman
Codo
6—427
OPINION AND ORDER OF
THE
BOARD
(by Mr. Henss)
Lewis Colleae owns land in Lockport, Illinois upon which a
landfill
has
been operoted for a rumber of years.
The land was
leased
tc
Patrick
Fahev,
who
in twr~leased to Will County Land-
fill,
Inc.,
the current onerator
ci
the
landfill.
Ben
Heslinga,
an
employee of Will County Landfill,
Thc.
is alleged to be the rnanacrer.
The Environmental Protection Agency charecs
that Resuondents,
the current onerators
and owner of the premises
have
been guilty
of open dumnica of
aarba~e
and refuse,
and failure to confine
dumninc
of refuse to the smallest przctical ar~a.
The
EP
also
or:ces
the
crorators,
Yil.i
Cc’unt~’ Lanafill,
Inc.
and
Ben
Eesl.inoa,
with failure to cover
the
refuse
or:.
a
dcliv
basis,
discharqing
sewaae without a permit, failure
to
spread
and compact refuse and
a number
of
:eousekeepina
violations,
i.e.
failure
to
supervise
unloadiag,
failure
to
nrcvide
portable
fencing
to
reduce
the blowing
of
litter,
failure
to police
the
area
and
provide
adequate
eauipr~ent
and
failure
to
prevent
scavenging.
Further,
it
is
alleced
that
the
landfill
is
being
operated
without
a
mermit
in
violation
of Section 21(e)
Illinois Environmental Pro-
toctlTn Act.
All Ru~pondentshove filed Third-Party Complaints against the
state of Patrick
D. Fahev~deceased and the Executor of
the
Estate
recuestinc indemnity under
the
terms of
a lease or alleging that
Fahe~breached the terms of the lease.
Fahey
moves
to dismiss the
:hi~h-Party
Complaints
on
jurisdictional grounds and for a number of
reasons
which
would
involve
a
consideration
of
the
terms
of
the
lease.
Ye entertain jurisdiction over the Fahey Estate solely because
the
Fahey
Estate
may
have
a right of possession to the site under
certain circumstances.
Ye
do
not determine the rights of the parties
for indemnit:, under the lease or for a breach of contract.
For a
determination of these issues the parties must resort
to a court of
law.
We assert jurisdiction only to decide those issues relating
to
the muality of our environment.
Upon
trial
the
EPA submitted testimony of its
inspectors
alona
with
a
numJ~er of
inspection
reports
and
ohotographs
of
the
landfill
site.
It appears that on
a number of occasions there was inadequate
daily cover.
There was
also
a rather frequent finding of blowing
litter
at the
site.
The testimony revealed
that there are
two
tractors
available and they were
kept
in
operation
for
ten
hours
a day,
six
days
a week during
good,
weather
for
the
purpose
of
covering
the
refuse,
hut
in
spite
of
this
the
cover
was
not
always
adeouat::.
The Director of Environmental Health for the Will County Health
Denartnent, Robert Murray,
testified that the over all operation of
the landfill was good.
He stated that the only problem was an
occasional shortage of cover material.
The refuse was generalJu’
cornacted when
it was received and the majority of
the
arca was covered.
6
—
428
—2
-
There was also evidence that liquid wastes and sludge were
deposited at the landfill,
however, we do not find
this to be
a
violation since it was anparently done with permission
of the EPA
and
at
the request of the Will County Department of Public Health.
A letter signed by the Director of the Environmental Protection
Agency,
authorized the landfill operator to accept liquid wastes.
This letter had been written only after a site inspection by the
Chief of the Bureau of Land Pollution Control, Environmental Pro-
tection Agency.
This permission for the dumping of liquid wastes
was later withdrawn, but the President of the landfill company,
Van Heslinga, testified that he then terminated the receipt of
limuid waste~
The landfill operator introduced into evidence letters from
the EPA stating
that the site was being operated in general compliance
with the requirements of the Agency and the Environmental Protection
Act.
We find, however, that there were violations from time to time
of
a housekeeping nature,
i.e. blowing litter, failure
to prevent
a:.onging and in particular the failure to apply adequate daily
L.
The crinciple problem
in this
case is
that the landfill
is being
operated wi..hout
a permit.
Will County
Landfill,
Inc.
in February,
1972
did
anuly for a permit to operate
a landfill,
and,
at the request
of
the EPA,
submitted. an engineering study.
Based upon that engineering
data
the EPI
in September
1972 denied a permit.
The landfill site is located in an old gravel pit with terrain
that slopes toward the Des Plaines River.
Test borings indicated
that some of the refuse in years past had been devosited on the bed’-~
rock and some on thin layers of waste sand—gravel material lying
over the bedrock.
The test also indicated that li”uid would pass
through the waste sand~-gravellayer at the rate of
ai:cut 25 de3t per
day.
Ground water
flows toward the river at
a rate of about 0,2 feet
per day.
Shallow wells are located between the landfill and the river.
The permit was denied because of the
good. possibility which exists
that the ground water could become contaminated resulting in pollution
of the wells and the river,
No evidence of collution from leachate
had actually been submitted
but
the EPA indicated
that
the hazard did
exist.
The rejection of the permit included a statement that the
Agency would be glad
to review additional engineering if provided.
This landfill serves approximately lOO..000 people located in
seven municipalities.
Around thirty or forty truch orerators use
the facility.
Replacing such
a facility could take
a considerable
amount of time.
This fact along with the lack of any evidence of
immediate water pollution persuades us that the landfill operator
should have
a reasonable
period, of time to
ake an additional effort
at producing the reciuired engineering data for the issuance of a
permit.
We
will allow until May
1,
1973 for this purpose.
If
a
6
—
429
—3—
permit has not been issued within that time or any extensions thereof
the landfill shall be closed and final cover applied along with appro-
priate grading.
For the violations found in this Opinion we will impose
a penalty
in the amount of $1,000 against Will County Landfill,
Inc.
Other
Respondents were apparently not active in the operation of the land-
fill and we will not impose a monetary penalty upon them.
ORDER
It is ordered that:
1.
Respondents cease and desist from their violations
of the Environmental Protection Act found herein.
2.
Respondent Will County Landfill,
Inc.
shall close
the landfill site and apply final cover and appropriate
grading subject to EPA approval if an EPA permit for
the operation of the landfill has not been issued by
May
1,
1973.
This Order for closing shall also apply
to all parties who may have a right of possession and
shall apply to Lewis College as owner of the premises.
3.
Will County Landfill,
Inc.,
a corporation,
shall pay to
the State of Illinois by January 20, 1973 the sum of
$1,000 as
a penalty for the violations found in this
proceeding.
Penalty payment by certified check or
money order payable to the State of Illinois shall be
made to:
Fiscal Services Division, Illinois EPA,
2200 Churchill Drive, Springfield,
Illinois
62706.
4.
All Third—Party claims for indemnity or breach
of
contract are dismissed without prejudice.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of
the Illinois Pollution Control
Board hereby certify the above Opinion and Order was adopted this
/~4’tday of December,
1972 by
a vote of
‘1
to
O
.~
~
I
Christan L. Moffett,
Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
6
—
430