I:::NC:S

?C::yTION

OON?RCL

BdARP

~amber

21,

97

~

RCNNENTAL

?RCTECTI

ON

A0T~NCY

~77_344

C.

PEsT

ECMES

CORPORATION

11am

C.

Pcwen,

Assistant

Attorney

Ceneral,

for

the

Environ-

mental

Stotectian

Acencv

P.

Ronaid

Ealv,

for

W.

2.

Pest

Nones

Coreoration

Cethion

ci

the

Scarf

1h~’hr.

Currie)

P.

Eest

:icmes

Corocration

(“Resoondent”)

is

charged

by

the

nvironmental

Protection

~c~nc-~

‘AgerL7’

with

numerous

o~at~ors

of

toe

~~roorie~tal

Protectito

\ct

~Cn

111

1/2,

~01

at

sea.

,

Ill.

Rev.

Stat.

,

1971)

,

and the Rules for Re-

fuse Cis~csa

Sites

and

Facilities

(‘Rules”)

on

eleven

separate

fates

at

its

Effincham County refuse

disposal

site.

Specifi—

tally,

Restcr:dent

is accused of committing

all

of

the

following

violations on August

12,

1970; Au~ust3,

1971;

Seetember

27

and 23,

1971;

November

10 and 11,

1971; January

11 and

12,

1972;

March

21 and

22,

1972;

end June 12,

1972:

open dumping

of refuse,

failure

to confine dumeing to the smallest practic-

able area,

failure

to provide sufficient equipment in opera-

tional condition to permit oneration according to the approved

elan,

failure

to oroperly spread and compact the refuse,

failure to provide daily cover, causing

or

allowing the

fecosition of refuse in standing water, and the disposal of

refuse

at

a

site

or

facility

which

does

not

meet

the

recuire—

ments

of

the

Environmental

Protection

Act

(hereinafter

called

the

“Act”)

and

the

Rules.

With very few exceptions, we find

all of

the

allegations

eroved

on all of the dates cited

in

the complaint,

except Aegust

12,

1970 for which no evidence was offered.

Respondent makes modular homes, and uses

a portion of its

eroperoy to dispose

of construction materials and reFuse~

Sometime

in 1969,

Respondent either donated or sold some fill

from

the area behind its plant to a new industry just moving

into

the Effingham area,

and began to

dump

its refuse into

the pit that had been created

(P.

204)

.

Rain

and

surface

waters

ran into the hole,

which measured some 100 feet wide by 300—

500

feet

lc1ng by

15—20

feet

deep

(P.

26—27,

156,

172,

205),

and

Respondent apparently continued

to dump

its refuse both

on the land and in

the

water-filled

pit.

The

Respondent had

6

—

281

---

—2—

a permit to

operate

a landfill site which was issued in 1969

by

the

Illinois

Department

of

Public

Health

(R.

29)

,

but was

specifically

conditioned

upon

Respondent’s

observation

of

and

compliance with

the

applicable

rules

and regulations for such

operations,

and the de-watering of the pit

(R.

29—31)

Oral testimony, written inspection reports and photographs

all dramatically attested to the numerous violations which occurred

at this site.

Refuse, generally consisting of wooden blocks,

construction scrap materials, aluminum items, window frames,

and even a truck body, was observed in an unspread, uncom—

pacted and uncovered condition,

and even floating in the pit,

on August

3,

1971

CR.

33—35); September

27 and 28, 1971

CR. 41—46,

54)

;

November 10 and 11,

1971

CR.

62—68)

;

January

11 and 12, 1972

CR. 75—78, 172—177); March 21 and 22,

1972

CR.

83—91,

155—165)

;

and June 12, 1972

CR. 178—180)

.

On

two separate occasions,

the same items observed in an un—

covered condition on one visit by Agency inspectors were

observed in the same condition nearly two months later,

although somewhat more weather-beaten

CR.

50,

68); equipment

capable of properly spreading,

compacting or covering the

materials was not seen at the site except on November 11,

1971,

and on March

22,

1972, when

a caterpillar tractor was

observed pushing refuse into the water

CR.

84, EPA Ex.

Sd).

On one visit, Agency representatives were informed that the

site had not been covered in at least six days

(R.

86)

and that

a contractor had been retained to apply cover

only on Tuesdays and Thursdays

CR. 90-91).

Respondent’s

Production Manager confirmed this arrangement

CR.

216)

and when asked

if he was aware of the requirement to apply

daily cover, replied:

“I

was

aware of

it, but under the

circumstances

of

cost,

.

.

we tried to do our best

to

keep

it pushed in as often as possible.”

CR.

217).

And

Respondent’s President admitted that the site was not

covered on a daily basis

CR.

270-271)

Respondent’s representative testified that on March

5,

1970 Respondent had purchased a pump to use in dc-watering

the pit

CR. 205-206)

,

and that it was used to periodically

pump water out of

the

pit and onto nearby cornfields through

the

following August

CR.

206-210)

.

Agency Sanitarian

Badding said that on his September

27, 1971 visit he took

a sample of the water in the pit to determine whether it was

so contaminated as to warrant treatment before being pumped

and discharged onto nearby farmland

(R.

55—58)

.

The sub-

sequent report noted that a black, odorous liquid with

anaerobic action had been observed in the pit along with

refuse consisting of wood,

fiber board, paper and other

building materials;

that the pumped liquid was

going

to

an un-

named

tributary of the Little Wabash River; and that

6

—

282

---

—3—

the sides of the pit were black where the water

level had

dropped

(EPA Ex. 7).

Readings noted on

the sample report

were:

430 COD;

510 hardness;

390 alkalinity;

6.8 pH;

10

Chloride; and 956 TS/EC

Ctotal solids as measured by elec-

trical conductivity)

indicating that the water in the

pit

was grossly contaminated,

Mr. Badding stated that he

“suggested”

that pumping cease until the dumping problem

could be alleviated

CR.

133)

,

and Respondent claims that

it immediately removed

the

pump pursuant to what it construed

Mr.

i3adding’s “recommendation”

to be

(R.

210).

The pump had,

until

that point, been used to fe-water the pit, and to assist

in extinguishing an underground

fire at

the site

CR.

98-99,

208-209, 228-231).

Respondent sought the results of the

sample

(Resp. Ex,

8), but apparently was never told.

As the

Production Manager said,

“You couldn’t pump water out so

,

we

continued

to dump and fill,”

(R.

212),

Testimony also revealed that the landfill site is now

completely covered

CR.

147,

237).

The President and General

Manager of Respondent testified that although the site

still had a useful life-expectancy of at least four to six

months, he “couldntt find anyway’

to comply

withthe

applicable

regulations, and had taken the initiative to order the

site closed by October

1, 1972

CR.

256).

Respondent’s

action in covering and closing the site saves us the

trouble of ordering that such steps be taken, but we

find

this action to have been long overdue.

Respondent has knowingly, willfully and deliberately

violated a variety of laws and regulations applicable

to land-

fill sites;

it has dumped its waste materials indiscriminately

onto the land and into standing water in violation of the

law and in direct disregard of the terms of its

permit;

it has knowingly, willfully and deliberately pumped badly

contaminated water onto nearby farmlands and in mitigation

offers the feeble excuse that it simply “couldn’t find

anyway”

to comply.

One of the ways it could have tried

was simply to stop dumping refuse in standing water,

not to mention contracting to have the refuse that was

dumped properly spread, compacted and covered on a daily

basis as the law requires it to be.

For the violations we have found herein, we will

require the Respondent to pay a penalty to the State

of Illinois in the amount of $3,000, which amount could easily

have been a great deal more had the Respondent not already

decided to close the site.

We will also order Respondent not

to reopen its landfill facilities until the proper permits

6

—

283

---

—4—

have first been obtained and unless

it then operates the

site in full compliance with all applicable laws and regu-

lations.

ORDER

1.

Respondent shall pay to the State of Illinois within

thirty-five

(35)

days from the date of receipt hereof,

the sum of $3,000.00

as a penalty for the violations

found herein.

Payment shall be made by certified

check or money order payable to the State of Illinois,

and shall be sent to “Fiscal Services Division, Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency,

2200 Churchill Road,

Springfield,

Illinois 62706.”

2.

Respondent shall close its landfill site

until

such

time as it has secured the appropriate permits to

reopen same from the Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency, and shall forthwith and henceforth cease and

desist violating the Environmental Protection Act and

Rules at said site.

I, Christan Moffett, Clerk of the Pollution Control Board,

certify

that

the

Board adopted the

above

Opinion

this

~

day

of

~

~

,

by

a

vote

of

~

~‘

~

6

—

284