ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
January 23, 1973
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
V.
)
PCB 72-87
JOHNSON BLACKWELL
MAURICIO DOMINGUEZ, SPECIAL ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL, ON BEHALF
OF COMPLAINANT
JOHNSON BLACKWELL, PRO SE, ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (BY SAMUEL T. LANTON, JR.):
Complaint was filed by the Environmental Protection Agency
against Johnson Blackwell, owner and operator of a landfill
located three miles southeast of the City of Centralia. The
complaint alleges violations of Section 21(e) of the Environ-
mental Protection Act (Ill. Rev. Stat., Ch. 111-1/2, Par. 1021(e)),
and the Rules and Regulations for Refuse Disposal Sites and
Facilities as follows:
1) Respondent has caused or allowed open burning on said landfill,
in violation of Section 9(c) of the Act and of Rule 3.05
of Rules and Regulations For Refuse Disposal Sites and
Facilities:
March 13, 1967
April 23, 1970
June 17, 1970
June 2, 1971
2) Respondent caused or allowed the dumping of garbage in said
landfill, in violation of Section 21(a) of the Act:
August 13, 1971
September 15, 1971
January 10, 1972
September 9, 1971
October 14, 1971
September 14, 1971
November 4, 1971
3) Respondent caused or allowed open dumping of other refuse at
his landfill in violation of Section 21(b) of the Act:
October 20, 1970
August 13, 1971
September 15, 1971
October 21, 1970
August 24, 1971
October 14, 1971
January 4, 1971
September 9, 1971
November 4, 1971
June 2, 1971
September 1~, 1971
January 10, 1972
6
—
587
—2—
4) Respondent failed to prohibit open dumping at the landfill
in violation of Rule 3.04 of the Rules:
March 13, 1967
April 23, 1970
June 17, 1970
October 20, 1970
October 21, 1970
January 4, 1971
June 2, 1971
August 13, 1971
August 24, 1971
September 9, 1971
September 14, 1971
September 15,
1971
January 10, 1972
5) Respondent failed to spread and compact refuse properly in
violation
of
Rule 5.06:
March 13, 1967
April 23, 1970
June 17, 1970
October 20, 1970
October 21, 1970
November 23, 1970
December 16, 1970
January 4, 1971
August 13, 1971
August 24, 1971
September 9, 1971
September 14, 1971
September 15, 1971
October 14, 1971
November 4, 1971
January 10, 1972
6) Respondent failed to provide proper daily cover in violation of
Rule 5.07(a) of the Rules:
March 13, 1967
April 23, 1970
June 17, 1970
October 20, 1970
October 21, 1970
November 23, 1970
December 16, 1970
January 4, 1971
August 13, 1971
August 24, 1971
September 9, 1971
September 14, 1971
September 15, 1971
October 14, 1971
November 4, 1971
January 10, 1972
7) Respondent failed to provide proper final cover at his landfill
in violation of Rule 5.07(b) of the Rules:
March 30, 1971
June 2, 1971
August 13, 1971
August 24, 1971
September 9, 1971
September 14, 1971
September 15, 1971
October 14, 1971
November 4, 1971
January 10, 1972
8) Respondent failed to provide adequate vector control in vio-
lation of Rule 5.09 of the Rules:
September 9, 1971
September 14, 1971
September 15, 1971
October 14, 1971
November 4, 1971
January 10, 1972
9) Respondent caused or allowed the deposition of refuse in stand-
ing water invjolatjonof Rule 5.12(c) of the Rules:
June 17, 1970
October 20, 1970
October 21, 1970
November 23, 1970
December 16, 1970
January 4, 1971
March 30, 1971
June 2, 1971
August 13, 1971
August 24, 1971
September 9, 1971
September 14, 1971
September 15, 1971
October 14, 1971
November 4, 1971
January 10, 1972
March 13, 1967
April 23, 1970
June 17, 1970
October 20, 1970
October 21, 1970
November 23, 1970
December 16, 1970
January 4, 1971
August 13, 1971
August 24, 1971
6—
588
—3—
For violations alleged to have occurred prior to August 13,
1971 the Agency called only one witness other than Respondent. The
witness testified that material burning on Respondent’s property aggra—
vated his breathing problem (emphysema). (R.6-7). He recorded the
dates when burning took place. The dates were, in 1970: February 19,
February 20, February 27, April 11, and May 27. (R. 70-10). None of
the dates correspond with those in the Complaint. Respondent admits open
burning in 1968 and 1969. (R. 28), He denies having personally engaged
in burning at the site subsequently, but was aware that “people” burned
material there. (R.28-29). Respondent has generally admitted the other
violations charged in the Complaint. This includes: failure to prohibit
open dumping (R.25-26); failure to spread and compact refuse properly
(R.29); failure to provide proper daily cover (R.30); failure to pro-
vide adequate vector control (R. 30-31); and allowing the deposition
of refuse in standing water (R.31-32,40)
.
As to causing or allowing
the dumping of garbage or other refuse, the record is inadequate to
determine whether Respondent admitted the allegations or merely offered
some justification for his unsuccessful attempts to control other1s
actions (R. 27). We impose a penalty only for those violations for
which there are allegations in the complaint. No penalty will be imposed
for gratuitous admissions made by the Respondent.
The Agency has alleged violations occurring as early as 1967 but
the majority in 1971 and 1972. Violations as stated above were testi-
fied to by a Sanitarian for the Agency. He inspected the site on
August 13, 1971 and on those dates subsequent. On each occasion, there
had been no change from the initial observations (R. 38-42)
“Q. Cou~1youdescribe for the record what change, if any,
you can recall from visit to visit?
A. Well, on all of these visits the major part of the
material remained constant. The fiberglass was still
there. The amounts of cans and bottles bordering the
creek was still there. There was still material in the
creek. There was still fiberglass and other material
dumped in the ponded area that Mr. Blackwell mentioned
earlier. There was also fiberglass along a small hill.
It appeared that there had been dumping there.
In other words, there had been no change, no cover, in my
opinion no attempt to spread this material out and compact
it in any way or no attempt was made to provide
daily cover
or final cover.”
(R. 42—43)
Respondent is not unfamiliar with the Regulations.
He has adthitted
conferences with members of the Agency (R. 23, 32-34).
His only
method
of prohibiting access to the subject area was to string cable between
fenceposts CR.
26).
Respondent has been aware
since at least 1970
of
the necessity of obtaining a permit but has not attempted to obtain it,
6
—
589
—4—
instead having “just quit” (R. 33).
Respondent has stated
that his
business is a small one, serving only one residential,
and
several
com-
mercial and industrial
customers (R. 14-17).
He also testified that
since 1970, he has not dumped or burned refuse on the property in question
(R. 21). Respondent stated that the greatest cause of his problems
was vandalism that he was unable to control (R. 23-26)
If we accept as true all that Respondent has stated, we still
must find that he is responsible for the violations alleged in the
complaint. We believe Respondent has attempted to ignore his legal
duties with respect to the landfill. Respondent’s acquiescence in
the dumping by others is in violation of the Statute and Regulations
asRockwe
Islandhave
previouslyand
PacificheldRailwayin
EnvironmentalCompany,
#72-136Protection(SeptemberAgency12,v. 1972),Chicago1
5 PCB
.
The photographs entered into evidence make clear that a
distressing situation exists at this site. (Complainant’s Exhibits 5
through 8). The site presents a health hazard needing immediate atten-
tion. We order Respondent to spread, compact and provide final cover
for his landfill within 45 days. Respondent shall immediately post
conspicuous signs and limit access to the site, and take the other
affirmative steps necessary to prevent the unlawful dumping of refuse
and debris by others at this site.
For the violations admitted by Respondent, including those testi-
fied to by witnesses, we assess a $200 penalty. We believe Respondent
is responsible for not controlling chronic incidents of promiscuous
dumping. If we had been persuaded that Respondent had been continuing
an active landfill operation, the penalty would have been far greater.
Unless and until Respondent is in compliance with all statutory and
regulatory provisions relating to landfill operations he shall immediatelY
cease and desist all landfill operations at this site, including all
activities found in the complaint.
This opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of
law of the Board.
IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that:
1. Respondent shall
pay to the State of Illinois, within
35~days from the date of this Order, the sum of $200
as penalty for the violations found in this Order. Pay-
ment shall be made by check or money order payable to
the State of Illinois, and shall be sent to Fiscal
Services Division, Environmental Protection Agency, 2200
Churchill Drive, Springfield, Illinois 62706 by February 28,l97
2. Respondent shall spread, compact and provide final cover
for his landfill within 45 days from the date of this Order.
3. Respondent shall immediately post conspicuous signs and
limit access to the landfill site, and take the other affir-
mative steps necessary to prevent the unlawful dumping of
refuse and debris by others at this site.
6
—
590
—5—
4.
Respondent shall immediately cease and desist all land-
fill operations at this site, including all activities
found in the complaint, unless and until he is in com-
pliance with
all statutory and regulatory provisions re-
lating to landfill operations, subject to the provisions
of paragraphs 2 and 3 above.
I, Christan Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution ~ontrol Board,
certify that the above Opinion was adopted on the o~&3R day of
______________,
1973, by a vote of
3
to p
6
—
591