ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    October 28,
    1971
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    v.
    )
    PCB 71—89
    ELI AMIGONI
    Prescott Bloom, attorney for the Environmental Protection Agency
    Eli Amigoni, appeared pro se
    Opinion and Order of the Board
    (by Samuel
    R. Aldrich):
    A complaint was filed against Eli Axnigoni by the Environmental
    Protection Agency
    (“Agency”),
    alleging that he allowed the open burning
    of refuse,
    the open dumping of refuse,
    the disposal of refuse in
    standing water, and scavenging at his refuse disposal
    site in
    Woodford County,
    Illinois.
    The alleged acts constitute violations of
    various provisions of the Environmental Protection Act
    (“Act”)
    and
    of
    the Rules and Regulations
    for Refuse Disposal Sites and Facilities
    (“Land Rules”).
    The Amigoni landfill has been the subject of
    a previous complaint
    (EPA v.
    Eli Amigoni, PCB 70-15, February
    17,
    1971).
    In that case we
    found that Amigoni had illegally operated
    a refuse disposal facility
    and had allowed open burning of refuse.
    Amigoni had
    also filed
    a
    petition
    for variance, requesting
    90
    days
    in which to continue violating
    rules
    and regulations with respect to compacting and covering.
    The
    variance was denied
    (EPA v.
    Eli Amigoni,
    supra).
    Amigoni was ordered
    to cease and desist violations of the regulations
    and to pay a penalty
    of $1500.
    In the event he decided to cease operations on the site,
    Amigoni was to provide final cover within six months of the final
    placement of refuse, pursuant to Rule
    5.07(b)
    of
    the Land Rules,
    In its present complaint the Agency alleges that Amigoni has violated
    the terms of that order by continuing
    to pollute
    the air, land and
    water in the area.
    The Agency asks for the entry of
    a new order
    permanently closing the
    site, requiring complete cleanup and final
    cover,
    and assessing a money penalty.
    The comp~int alleges violations of the regulations on specified
    dates in March,
    1971, only.
    At the hearing an Agency witness also
    testified
    as to his observations on July 29 and
    30,
    1971.
    The
    hearing officer correctly ruled that his observations with regard to
    the latter dates were outside the scope of the complaint and refused
    to accept them as evidence,
    The testimony was received only as
    an
    offer of proof.
    The admission of such testimony as evidence would
    clearly deprive Amigoni of his right to adequate notice.
    We will not
    consider testimony offered by
    the Agency with regard to the dates of
    July
    29 and
    30,
    1971.
    2
    71~5
    The first allegation concerns the open burning of refuse in violation
    of Section 9(c)
    of the Act and of Rule
    3.05 of the Land Rules.
    Agency
    inspectors testified that on March
    31,
    1971, they observed a
    “small”
    amount of smoke rising from the ground
    (R.
    9,
    42).
    No flame was
    observed, nor was there any other evidence
    of open burning
    (R.
    43,
    10).
    Granted that the presence of smoke is clear evidence of burning,
    the
    extent of such burning in the instant case was slight and the problem
    would appear to be
    a minor one.
    The evidence
    is insufficient
    to
    warrant our finding
    a viojation of the regulations with regard to
    open burning.
    The complaint next alleges the open dumping of refuse in violation
    of
    Section 21(b)
    of
    the Act and of Rules
    3.04,
    5.02,
    5.06 and 5.07 of
    the Land Rules.
    The Agency submitted a number of photographs taken
    March
    30
    and 31,
    1971,
    purportii~gto show that refuse at the Amigoni
    site had not be~nproperly spread and compacted or covered
    (EPA Ex.
    2-6),
    Amigoni testified that upon being denied
    a variance by the Board in the
    previous
    case he had attempted
    to close
    the landfill site
    (R.
    70).
    He
    stated that no putrescible wastes had been received since the first of
    the year
    CR.
    78).
    Amigoni asserted that the refuse was receiving final
    cover
    at about the time
    the Agency inspectors visited and photographed
    his
    site
    (R.
    71).
    Furthermore, Amigoni testified that the refuse
    depicted in some of the photographs was not on his property but on that
    of his neighbor who also operates
    a landfill
    (R.
    71).
    This was
    not
    refuted by the Agency.
    Under the circumstances we do not feel
    the
    Agency has proved its case.
    Certainly the terms of our previous order
    allowed Amigoni six months
    in which to provide final cover
    in the
    event he decided
    to close
    the site.
    Amigoni had reason to expect that
    he would be allowed
    a reasonable amount of
    time
    in which to either
    comply with the rules or cease operations.
    We note, however,
    that
    a considerable amount of refuse which Amigoni admitted was
    on his
    property had not been
    covered at the time
    the photographs were taken
    (EPA Ex. 3~5).
    We will require that all refuse receive final covering
    in accordance with the rules.
    The Agency further alleges that Amigoni caused or allowed refuse to
    be dumped into standing water,
    in violation of Rule 5.12(c)
    of the Land
    Rules,
    An Agency witness testified that he observed refuse
    in standing
    water on both the north
    and south sides of
    the access road
    (R.
    42).
    Photographs submitted by the Agency clearly show refuse in standing
    water
    (EPA Ex.
    3-5),
    However, Ami~onitestified that the water
    impounded on the north
    side of the road was not on his property
    (R.
    75).
    He further stated that
    the water on
    the south side of the road was
    present only after
    a rain
    (R.
    76),
    There is no evidence in the record
    that the water was present before the i~efusewas dumped.
    We find no
    violation of Rule 5.12(c).
    Respondent
    is also alleged
    to have caused or permitted scavenging at
    the landfill
    site
    in violation of Rule
    5.12(a)
    of the Land Rules.
    Agency witnesses testified
    that on one occasion they saw two persons
    sorting through refuse at the fill face
    CR.
    16,
    35),
    A picture of
    these persons was submitted
    as evidence
    (EPA Ex.
    lB).
    The picture,
    however,
    indicates that the scavengina was occurring in an area which
    Am.igoni testified was not his property
    (R.
    78),
    a statement which the
    Agency did not contest.
    We
    find that no violation has been proved.
    2
    716
    In summary, we find
    that none of the charges alleged by the Agency is
    established by the evidence.
    Amigoni is
    of course still bound by our
    earlier
    order.
    The complaint
    is dismissed
    for want
    of proof.
    This opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of
    fact and conclusions
    of law.
    I, Regina E.
    Ryan,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board,
    certify that the Board adopted the above opinion and order this
    28__day of
    October
    ,
    1971.
    2
    —
    717

    Back to top