ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

March 15,

1979

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY,

Complainant,

v.

)

PCB 78-29

I.

D. CANNON, d/b/a

CANNON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,

Respondent.

MR. REED W, NEUMAN, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON BEHALF

OF THE COMPLAINANT.

MR.

I.

D.

CANNON APPEARED PRO SE.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Mr. Werner):

This matter comes before the Board on the February

6,

1978

Complaint brought by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

(“Agency1’).

On March 14,

1978, the Complainant requested

leave to

file an Amended Complaint,

and the Board granted this motion on

March 30,

1978.

On April

11,

1978, the Complainant requested leave

to file a Second Amended Complaint, and the Board granted this

motion on April

27,

1978.

Count

I of the Second Amended Complaint

alleged that,

from November

3, 1976 until the date of filing of the

Second Amended Complaint, the Respondent operated a solid waste

management site

(the “site”) without the requisite Agency Operating

Permit in violation of Rule

202(a)

of the Chapter

7:

Solid Waste

Regulations and Section 21(e)

of the Illinois Environmental

Protection Act

(“Act”)

,~

Count

II alleged that,

from November

3,

1976 until the date of filing of the Second Amended Complaint

(including 10 specified dated during this time period), the

Respondent failed to place adequate daily cover on all exposed

refuse in violation of Rule 301 and Rule 305(a) of Chapter

7: Solid

Waste Regulations and Section 21(b)

of the Act.

Count III alleged

that,

from November

3, 1976 until the date of filing of the Second

Amended Complaint

(including

5

specified dates during this time

period), the Respondent failed to place adequate final cover over

portions of the site in violation of Rule 301 and Rule 305(c)

of

Chapter

7:

Solid Waste Regulations and Section

21(b)

of the Act.

A hearing was held on August

7,

1978.

*Count I of the Second Amended Complaint erroneously charges the

Respondent with a violation of Solid Waste Rule 202(a).

Rule 202(a)

is only applicable to new solid waste management sites.

The Respondent

has,

in a prior Variance Proceeding

(PCB 77-57), obtained a Variance

from Solid Waste Rule 202(b)

and it

is clear that the site

is an existing

one.

Hence, Count

I

is fatally defective and is hereby dismissed.

33—10 1

---

—2—

At this hearing, Complainant’s Group Exhibits

1,

2, and

3 were

admitted into evidence.

Complainant’s Group Exhibit

1

is entitled

“First Request for Admission of Facts and Genuineness of

Documents”

and is dated April

4,

1978.

The Respondent did not respond to this

request for admissions, and thus each of the matters of fact and

the genuineness of each document therein is hereby deemed to be

admitted under Rule 314(c) of the Board’s Procedural Rules.

Complainant’s Group Exhibit

2 is a return receipt requested,

certified mail card, and Complainant’s Group Exhibit

3 consists of

various Agency inspection reports pertaining to the Respondent’s

site.

The Respondent operated a solid waste management site in

Adams County, Illinois on which demolition wastes such as brick,

lumber and concrete were &posited.

At the hearing,

the Complainant’s

only witness was Mr. John Taylor,

an Agency employee whose duties

include the inspection of solid waste disposal sites.

Mr. Taylor

testified that he visited the Respondent’s site in the Quincy area

on five different occasions.

(R,

10),

Mr. Taylor indicated

that the first time he visited the site on January

3,

1977, there

was some uncovered demolition waste consisting of boards,

bricks,

and building debris located on less than half an acre of the

property.

(R.

10-11).

However,

the most recent time that

Mr. Taylor visited the site, he noticed only “a relatively small

area of uncovered refuse.”

(R.

12).

It was also noted that

only demolition debris was observed on the property (i.e., no

other type of refuse was on the site), and that no streams or other

bodies of water were near the Respondent’s site.

(R.

12-13).

Mr.

I.

D. Cannon was called as a witness on his own behalf.

He

testified that he operates the Cannon Construction Company with two

other partners and is engaged in the demolition of existing

structures in the Quincy area.

(R.

18-21).

On August

18, 1977,

the Board granted the Respondent a Variance from the Board’s

Solid Waste Regulations in PCB 77-57,

subject to the condition that

he obtain a permit application and submit a properly completed

application form to the Agency.

Mr. Cannon stated that his engineer

advised him not to cover anything until he got the permit application,

so that the engineer would know about the trenching and other

vital details.

(R.

17).

Mr. Cannon testified that “We asked

for a permit application in April of

‘77.

We received it in

September of

‘77 at which time the weather was bad.

We didn’t get

anything done.

Now, we would like to finish the landfill, cover

it, quit operations altogether.”

(R.

17-18).

33—102

---

—3—

Moreover, Mr. Cannon testified that he wants to properly cover

and close the site, and perhaps sell the property.

Any demolition

debris generated from his construction operations will be hauled to

an Agency-authorized landfill.

(R.

19-26).

The Respondent

stated that the cost of placing final completion cover on his site,

as estimated by the last engineer he talked to, will be

substantial by the time the equipment and fencing is obtained.

(R. 20).

The Agency’s position

is that the Respondent’s

plans to cover and close the site are acceptable, provided that a

plat map is filed pursuant to Rule 318(c)

of Chapter

7:

Solid Waste

Regulations.

(R.

29).

In evaluating this enforcement action, the Board has taken into

consideration all the facts and circumstances in light of the

specific criteria delineated in Section 33(c) of the Act.

Thus,

the

Board will require tha~the Respondent promptly place suitable final

cover on the site; properly close the site;

and file the requisite

plat map in accordance with the Board’s Solid Waste Regulations and

the Act.

The Board finds that the Respondent has violated Rules

301,

305(a)

and 305(c)

of Chapter

7:

Solid Waste Regulations

and Section 21(b)

of the Act.

The Board hereby imposes a penalty

of $300.00 against the Respondent.

This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and

conclusions of law in this matter.

ORDER

It is the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board that:

1.

The Respondent has violated Rules 301,

305(a) and

305(c)

of Chapter

7: Solid Waste Regulations and Section 21(b)

of the Act.

2.

Count

I of the Second Amended Complaint is hereby dismissed.

3.

The Respondent shall immediately cease and desist all

further violations.

4.

Within

90 days of the date of this Order, the Respondent

shall place suitable final cover on the site; properly close the

site; and file the requisite plat map in accordance with the Board’s

Solid Waste Regulations and the Act.

5.

Within 45 days of the date of this Order,

the Respondent

shall pay a penalty of $300.00

,

payment to be made by certified

check or money order to:

State of Illinois

Fiscal Services Division

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

2200 Churchill Road

Springfield, Illinois

62706

33—103

---

—4—

I, Christan L. Moffett,

Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, her~b~certify the abov9 Opinion and Order were

adopted o~the

IS

day of

_________________,

1979 by a

vote of

S~’—O

Illinois

trol

Board

33—104