I

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

May 22, 1975

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Complainant,   

)

U

vs.

)

PCB 74-435            

U

JERRY WIGGS,            

)

Respondent.    

)

•

FREDRIC BENSON, Assistant Attorney General for the EPA

J. C. MITCHELL, Attorney for Respondent

OPINION 

AND

ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Henss):

Respondent Jerry Wiggs is charged in a Complaint filed

by the Environmental Protection Agency with operating a solid

waste management site in Franklin County, Illinois without

permit in violation of Section 21(e) of the Environmental        

U

Protection Act and Rules 201 and 202(a) of the Solid Waste

Regulations. The violations are alleged to have occurred

every day of operation from August 7, 1974 to November 20,

1974, the date of filing of Complaint. Public hearings on

this matter were held in January and March 1975.

At the March 1975 public hearing the parties submitted

a Stipulation of Facts and Settlement Proposal. The Board ~s

asked to approve a compliance proposal contained in the

Stipulation.

The brief stipulated history of this case shows that ‘m

July 28, 1974 Respondent submitted to the EPA an applIcatLi       

I

to develop a new solid waste management site. This application

was found to be lacking certain information, and Respondent was     

I

informed of permit denial on September 16, 1974.

Respondent was notified by letter dated August 28, l97’.~

that his site was being operated without a permit in apparent

violation of the Act and the Solid Waste Regulations. Additional

letters in September, October and November 1974 advised

Respondent that his refuse disposal site did not have a permit

The Agency issued Respondent a development permit on February 19,

1975.

I

I

I

17— 111

I

I

I

—2—

I

Wiggs “admits that he has violated Section 21(e) of the

Act and Rules 201 and 202(a)” of the Regulations “in the          

I

manner specified in the Complaint”. Respondent argues, however,

that his actions were “not the result of a callous disregard        

I

for environmental regulations”.

I

In April 1974 Respondent was considering bidding on a

contract to be let by Franklin County for refuse hauling. The       

I

contract then in effect, held by Vise Brothers, was to expire

on July 31, 1974. Respondent contacted one c. Rice, owner of        

I

the disposal site leased to the Vise Brothers, to determine if

Rice would lease the property to Respondent should Respondent’s       

I

bid be successful. Rice mistakenly believed the 

Vise 

Brothers

lease terminated prior to August 1, 1974 and therefore gave

Respondent an affirmative answer. Respondent then submitted        

I

his bid to the County.

U

In May 1974 Respondent was informed that his bid was

acceptable pending submission of a satisfactory bond. The        

U

required bond was submitted in June 1974, but it was not im-

mediately accepted by the County because of a problem relating       

U

to the form employed. Several weeks later Respondent first

learned thatVise Brothers had a one year option clause in its       

U

lease with Rice. On July 10, 1974 Respondent met with Vise

Brothers, Rice, and Rice’s attorney at which time 

Vise 

Brothers      

U

exercised its option to extend the lease. Negotiations with

Vise Brothers for its lease were not successful.

U

Upon first learning of the Vise Brothers’ option, Respondent

and an engineer named Sagaser began looking for another site.        

U

After Vise Brothers exercised its option, Respondent obtained

an oral commitment on a lease of property from one Lyndell Minor.     

U

On July 20, 1974 the County signed the refuse hauling contract

with Respondent. Within two days Respondent secured a written       

U

lease with Minor. Sagaser began preparing the necessary permit

application.                                 

U

An incomplete permit application was submitted on July 29,       

U

1974. Three days later, fully aware that he did not have a

permit and that such actions were illegal, Respondent commenced

operation at his refuse disposal site. Respondent submits that      

U

he had to start operations on August 1, 1974 or breach his

contract with the County thus leaving the County with no place       

U

to dispose of refuse.

U

It is stated that any undue delays in completing the permit

application were due solely to the action or inaction of Re-        

U

spondent’s engineer and that despite repeated inquiries to the

engineer, Respondent 

was

unable to get him to speed up the work.      

U

U

U

U

U

17—112

U

—3—

Respondent also states that he could not have commenced

engineering work at any earlier date because he did not want

to become obligated for expenditures of large sums of money

until the contract had been signed.

Clearly Respondent created his own dilemma. He signed

a contract with the County fully aware that he did not have

a permit to develop or operate a waste management site. He

was surely aware that it would take more than twelve days to

secure the necessary data and information for a complete

permit application, prepare and submit that permit application

and receive the required permit.

It was Respondent’s decision to commence operations at

the site without the required permit and to continue operating

the site without a permit for another 6 1/2 months. He admits

that he did so fully aware of the illegality of his actions.

The parties submit that Respondent’s willingness to pay

a penalty in the amount of $600 and insure the proper closure

of his site in the event an operating permit is not obtained

within 120 days satisfies all interests concerned.

The Board finds the agreement acceptable. Respondent

failed to commit to a disposal site at an early date, partly

Decause he did not want to become obligated for financial ex-

penditures. Caution in business affairs is often commendable

but this benefit to Respondent was at the expense of the en-

vironmental laws. It is appropriate that a monetary penalty

now be imposed for violation of those environmental laws.

The EPA has not shown a specific environmental degradation

beyond the general harm to our system which arises from any

failure to comply with permit requirements. The $600 penalty

seems adequate to us.

The Board finds that Respondent Jerry Wiggs, did operate

a solid waste management site without permit, as charged, and

that a monetary penalty of $600 and agreement for possible

closure of the site are appropriate in this case.

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and con-

clusions of law of the Illinois Pollution Control Board.

ORDE-R

It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that:

1. Jerry Wiggs shall pay to the State of Illinois

17

—

113

—4—

by June 19, 1975 the sum of $600 as a penalty for the

violations admitted in this proceeding. Penalty

payment by certified check or money order payable to

the State of Illinois shall be made to: Fiscal

Services Division, Illinois EPA, 2200 Churchill Road,

Springfield, Illinois 62706.

2. Respondent shall properly close his waste

disposal site in Franklin County, Illinois if an

operating permit for this site has not been obtained

within 120 days of the date of this Order.

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, he;~y certify the above Opinion and Order were adopted

this 

day of May, 1975 by a vote of 

0

Christan L. Mof~4~/~~Clerk

Illinois Pollut&6f(Control Board

17— 114