ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    March 25,
    1976
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    )
    Complainant,
    v.
    )
    PCB 75—405
    I
    JAMES
    BOYLES,
    )
    Respondent.
    Mr.
    Anthony
    B. Cameron, Assistant Attorney General, appeared
    on
    behalf
    of
    complainant.
    Mr.
    James
    Boyles
    appeared
    pro
    Se.
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by Dr. Satchell):
    This case comes before the Board upon a complaint filed
    by the Environmental Protection Agency
    (Agency) on October
    17,
    1975.
    The Agency alleged that James Boyles
    (Respondent)
    owns
    and operates a refuse disposal site
    in violation of Sections
    21(b)
    and 21(e)
    of the Environmental Protection Act,
    Ill.
    Rev.
    Stat.
    Ch.
    111 1/2 §1021
    (1973)
    and the Pollution Control
    Board’s Solid Waste Regulations, Chapter
    7, Rule 202(b) (1).
    At the hearing a Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement
    was introduced.
    There was no testimony or citizen comment
    of any kind.
    The background facts of the agreement are as follows.
    Respondent operates
    a refuse disposal site located near
    Nauvoo,
    Illinois, in the Northwest Quarter of Section 29
    of Township 7 North, Range
    8 West of the Fourth Principal
    Meridian in Hancock County,
    Illinois.
    The site was first
    operated in 1962 under a previous owner.
    In September 1973
    it was purchased by Respondent.
    An application for a
    developmental permit was received by the Agency on April 26,
    1974.
    The permit was denied for lack of information.
    Addi-
    tional information was supplied and permit No. 1974-69-DE
    was granted
    in August 1974 to allow Respondent to develop
    his site.
    The site was in poor condition at the time of purchase.
    Much of the work necessary under the permit conditions had
    been done when Respondent began being troubled by a physical
    problem
    which
    made
    it impossible for him to operate the
    landfill
    equipment.
    Respondent underwent back surgery in
    November,
    1974.
    By
    April,
    1975
    he
    was
    able
    to
    operate the
    equipment but only for
    15 minute periods.
    During this time
    Respondent’s wife, brother and son operated the equipment
    as best they could.
    Some problems arose and little develop-
    ment occurred.
    The
    Agency cdmplaint was filed on October 17,
    1975.
    On or about this same date settlement discussions
    were begun.
    In November Respondent requested inspection
    to determine whether the site was eligible for an operating
    permit.
    The site was found to be satisfactory and an operating
    permit issued November 21,
    1975.
    The site is open only on Saturdays and accepts less than
    100 cubic yards
    of refuse per week.
    Net taxable income from
    the operation was very low in 1974.
    Gross income for the
    site in 1975 declined by more than one fourth.
    Total monthly
    expenditures exceed the gross monthly receipts.
    Respondent
    was laid off his job during his disability and now contracts
    for custom bulldozer work when possible on weekdays.
    The
    Agency verified Respondent’s financial position by reviewing
    his 1973 and 1974 tax returns and his financial records for
    1975.
    The stipulated facts are the Respondent did cause or
    allow the operation of his refuse disposal site without an
    operating permit and that this constitutes violations of
    Rule 202(b) (1)
    of the Solid Waste Regulations and Section
    21(e)
    of the Act.
    Respondent did have a development permit
    and he did obtain an operating permit on November 21, 1975.
    It was also stipulated that there is no alternate solid
    waste management site with an operating permit in Illinois
    within a 40-mile radius of Respondent’s site.
    Since Respondent has obtained an operating permit and
    is in compliance and that
    his
    previous failure to get an
    operating permit was at least partially due to his physical
    injury a penalty would not be an aid to enforcement.
    Also
    Respondent’s financial condition mitigates against imposition
    of a penalty.
    The Board finds that Respondent Boyles was in violation
    of the Solid Waste Rules and Regulations 202(b) (1)
    and
    Section 21(e)
    of the Environmental Protection Act.
    The Board
    also finds the stipulated agreement acceptable.
    It is agreed
    that with the Respondent’s physical condition, his prompt
    compliance when able and his financial dilemma mitigates
    against a penalty.
    —3—
    The allegation of violation of Section 21(b)
    of
    the Act is dismissed for lack of prosecution.
    See
    E.P.A.
    v.
    E.
    & E. Hauling, Inc., PCB 74—473
    (1975).
    This constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions
    of law of the Pollution Control Board.
    ORDER
    It is the order of the Pollution Control Board that:
    1.
    Respondent James Boyles by operating a solid waste
    management site without an operating permit was in
    violation of Rule 202(b) (1) of the Board’s Solid
    Waste Rules and Regulations and of Section 21(e)
    of
    the Environmental Protection Act.
    2.
    The portion of the Complaint alleging violations
    of 21(b)
    of the Act is dismissed.
    Mr. Jacob Dumelle concurred.
    I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Control Board, here~ycertify the abov
    Opinion and Order
    were adopted the
    S’~
    day of
    ______________,
    1976 by a
    vote of
    4_~
    4~1/I~
    Christan L. Moffet~1erk
    Illinois Pollution~5ntrolBoard

    Back to top