ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
March 2,. 1972
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
v.
)
PCB 71—339
CENTRAL ILLINOIS LANDFILL, INC.
Prescott E. Bloom, Attorney for the Environmental Protection Agency
Richard N. Leiken, Attorney for Central Illinois Landfill, Inc.
Opinion and Order of the Board (by Mr. Aldrich):
On October 29, 1971, the Environmental Protection Agency (“Agency”)
filed a complaint against Central Illinois Landfill, Inc., alleging
numerous violations of the Environmental Protection Act (“Act”) and
of the Rules and Regula~ions for Refuse Disposal Sites and Facilities
(“Land Rules”). Respondent operated a refuse disposal site located
in Kappa, Illinois, during the period of time cited in the complaint.
The complaint first alleges that Respondent operated its refuse
disposal site without obtaining a permit from the Agency in violation
of Section 21(e) of the Act. It is further alleged that on or about
August 25, 1970, August 26, 1970, October 6, 1970, October 7, 1970,
and April 19, 1971, Respondent caused or allowed open dumping of
refuse in violation of Sections 21(b) and 21(f) of th& Act and
Section 3.04 of the Land Rules. Respondent is also alleged to have
caused or allowed open burning of refuse on or about August 25, 1970,
and August 26, 1970, in violation of Section 9(c) of the Act and
Section 3.05 of the Land Rules. Finally, the complaint alleges
that since July 1, 1970, and in particular on August 26, 1970,
October 6, 1970, and April 19, 1971, Respondent operated its refuse
disposal site in violation of Sections 4.03(a), 5.05, 5.07(a),
5.08 and 5.12(a) of thc Land Rules.
The record indicates that Central Illinois Landfill, Inc. was formed
by Burton Nevius and Bert Jackson in 1968, with the hope of acquiring
a contract to handle refuse from the City of Bloomington (R.lOl, 120).
The Corporation’s bid was rejected, however, in favor of a competitor.
As a result, Mr. Jackson was no longer interested in the Corporation
and severed his relationship with it. According to Mr. Nevius, the
Corporation was then dissolved (R.l02). Mr. Nevius subsequently
contracted to purchase 10—15 acres of land from James Young to use
as a refuse disposal area. Mr. Young was to receive full payment
for the land at the end of two years (R.103). However, full payment
was never made as Mr. Young chose to discontinue the contract.
3 —
691
As a consequence the landfill was closed toward the end of June, 1971
(R.104). As partial conpensation for terminating the contract
Mr. Young assumed the cost of cleaning up the site. According to
Mr. Nevius, between $1000 and $1500 was spent by Mr. Young for this
purpose (R.108). Mr. Nevius testified that as of July 1, 1971, he
no longer operated the landfill and presently has no interest in
the property (R,l04, 105).
At the hearing, counsel for Respondent contended that any action
against Respondent would be improper because the Agency failed to
notify Respondent of any violations prior to filing the complaint and
because the complaint was filed after operations had been discontinued
(R.146, 147). This argument is clearly without merit. Section 31(a)
of the Act does not require that notice
be
given prior to the filing
of a complaint but requires only
that
a written notice together
with a formal complaint be served upon the person complained of.
We note further that Respondent was informed by a letter dated
September 16, 1970, that inspecticn had disclosed possible violations
of the Act (Comp. Ex. 8). Neither does the Act require that a complaint
be filed prior to cessation of the alleged violations. We will,
therefore, consider the evidence as to the violations alleged in the
complaint.
Respondent is alleged to have operated the refuse disposal site
without obtaining a permit from the Agency in violation of Section
21(e) of the Act. Mr. Nevius testified that the State had conducted
tests at the site in question and had approved its use as a landfill
(H. 114). That Respondent did apply for a permit from the Agency
is clear (Comp. Ex. 27). The record contains a letter dated October 16,
1968, from C. N. Klassen, then Chief Sanitary Engineer of the Department
of Public Health, to Mr. Nevius stating that upon reviewing the appli~
cation, the Department was “in a position” to approve the proposed
landfill site (Comp. Ex. 22). We hold that Respondent did comply with
the permit requirements of the Act and that no violation of Section 21(e)
was shown.
The complaint alleges open dumping in violation of Sections 21(b)
and 21(f) of the Act and of Rule 3.04 of the Land Rules. Open
dumping is a general term which embraces a number of specific violations
of the rules alleged elsewhere in the complaint. As in EPAv. Clay
Products Co. et al., PCB 71—41 (June 23, 1971), our findings on the
specific violations make a determination of open dumping unnecessary.
The Agency alleges that Respondent caused or allowed open burning of
refuse in violation of Section 9(c) of the Act and Rule 3.05 of the
Land Rules. Violations were clearly shown. On both August 25, and
August 26, 1971, witnesses for the Agency observed wood and construction
materials burning (R.ll, 24). On neither occasion did anyone attempt
to extinguish the fire.
3
—
692
Respondent is also alleged to have violated Rule 4.03(a) of the
Land Rules, which Rule requires that the site he adequately fenced,
with an entrance gate that can be locked, and that the hours and
days of operation be clearly shown. The record indicates that the
site in question is fenced so as to prohibit vehicular access and
that a cable was used as a gate (R.43, 73). The gate was observed
to be locked on several occasions (R.82, 85, 55). We find that the
site was adequately fenced. There is evidence that access to the
site was permitted at times when operating personnel were not present
(R.43,44,53,l16) but the complaint makes no allegation to this effect.
Charles Clark, Acting Manager of the Agency’s Division of Land
Pollution Control, testified that he observed no sign or other indication
of hours of operation during his visit to the site on August 26, 1970
(R.26). Mr. Nevius testified that he contracted with commercial concerns
to handle construction wastes only. No one was permitted to deposit
4~rbagein the landfill (R.lll, 122). He added that a sign was posted
at the site indicating that dumping was not allowed (R.ll6). We feel
that such a sign satisfies the provisions of Rule 4.03(a) in that it
informs the general public that refuse may not be brought to the site
at any hour. It is unclear from the record whether Mr. Clark observed
this sign or was refer~ringonly to the absence of a sign indicating
specific hours of operation. We find the evidence as presented is
insufficient to establish a violation of Rule 4.03(a).
The Agency further alleges that sufficient equipment was not available
at the site to permit proper operation of the landfill, in violation
of Rule 5.05 of the Land Rules. Althoughthe record clearly indicates
that the landfill was operated improperly at times, there is no
evidence that insufficient equipment was available to do the job.
A witness for the Agency testified that two ‘machines” were operating
during his visit to the site (R.81). Mr. Nevius indicated that a
tractor was kept on the site (R,ll6), We find that the Agency has
failed to sustain its burden of proof and that no violation was shown.
Respondent is alleged to have violated Rule 5.07(a) of the Land
Rules by failing to provide cover for all exposed refuse at the end
of each working day. A witness for the Agency testified that refuse
observed October 6, 1970, was observed uncovered the following day
(R.42). There is also evidence that some refuse remained uncovered
more than six months after the site had been closed (R.56). We
find that a violation has occurred. we note in passing that conditions
at the site have now been somewhat improved. Witnesses for the
Agency indicated that by January 17, 1972, approximately two-thirds
of the refuse at the site had received an adequate cover (R.73,96)
Respondent is also alleged to have violated Rule 5.08 of the Land
Rules, which Rule prohibits the deposition of liquids at a landfill
without written approval. On two occasions witnesses for the Agency
observed a small amount of oil flowing down the face of the fill(R,41,62).
Mr. Nevius testified that the source of the oil was a number of oil
filters that had been deposited on the site
(R.ll2)
.
Respondent
thus allowed materials which emitted a liquid to be placed in the
landfill without having written approval to do so. We hold that this
constitutes a violation of Rule 5.08.
3
—
693
The final allegation concerns the violation of Rule 5.12(a) of the
Land Rules. Said Rule prohibits all scavenging operations at a land-
fill site, On April 19, 1971, an Agency inspector observed a man
picking up material from the dumping area (R.68). According to the
inspector, the man claimed he had permission to do so. This was
denied by Mr. Nevius who testified that no one was given permission
to conduct scavenging operations ~R.1l5). Mr. Nevius admitted,
however, that people frequently did pick up materials at the site
without his permission. Such activity is expressly prohibited by
Rule 5.12(a). Clearly, it was the responsibility of Mr. Nevius to
see that no scavenging occurred at the landfill site. We find
that a violation did occur.
In summary, we find violations with regard to open burning, provision
of daily cover, deposition of liquids and scavenging. We shall assess
a penalty fbr past violations of ~20O. In order to assure that the
landfill site will not te used further we shall order that no further
infractions of the rules occur. We shall also order that the site
not be reopened unless and until a valid permit is obtained from the
Agency in accordance with the rules governing new landfill sites.
We note frrther that, according to Agency inspectors, approximately
one-third of the refuse at the site remained uncovered as of January 17,
1972 (R.93,96). The efforts of Mr. Young to have the site cleaned
up after it was closed have clearly been insufficient. Rule 5.07(a)
of the Land Rules requires that a compacted layer of at least two
feet of material be placed over the entire surface of all completed
portions of the landfill within six months following the final
placement of refuse. Failure to provide adequate final cover for
the landfill in question evidently stems in part from the fact that
refuse was deposited in a gully which was too steep for the refuse
to be compacted and covered (R.l44). Charles Clark testified that
the only way to fill the gully properly would be to grade the slope
off from the top. Obviously this must be done if the present
deplorable conditions are to be rectified and the site brought into
compliance with the rules. We feel that responsibility for providing
proper final cover must rest with Respondent which operated the site
until its closing June 30, 1971. We have no basis for recognizing a
purported informal agreement between Mr. Nevius and Mr. Young for
paying for the cost to properly close the site.
This opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and conclusions
of law.
ORDER
1. Central Illinois Landfill, Inc. shall cease and desist from violations
of the Rules and Regulations for Refuse Disposal Sites and Facilities
and of the Environmental Protection Act.
2. The refuse disposal site operated by Central Illinois Landfill, Inc.
in Kappa, Illinois, shall not be reopened unless and until a valid
permit is obtained from the Environmental Protection Agency
pursuant to Rule 1.03 of the Rules and Regulations for Refuse
Disposal Sites and Facilities.
3. Central Illinois Landfill, Inc. shall by May 1, 1972, provide
a proper final cover the landfill site at Kappa, Illinois, pursuant
to Rule 5.07(b) of the Rules and Regulations for Refuse Disposal
Sites and Facilities.
4. Central Illinois Land~i11, Inc. shall, within 35 days of the entry
of this order, pay to the State of Illinois the sum, in penalty,
of $200.00. Penalty payment by certified check or money order
payable to the State of Illinois shall be made to the Fiscal
Services Division, Environmental Protection Agency, 2200 Churchill
Road, Springfield, Illinois 62706.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Pollution Control Boar1, certify
that the Board adopted the aboye opinion and order this~~_dayof
_____
1972, by a vote of
q—o
._....I........~.
:~...
3 —
695