ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
January 29
,
1976
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Complainant,
v.
)
PCB 75—157
AAA DISPOSAL SYSTEMS, INC.,
)
Respondent.
Mrs. Joan C. Wing, Assistant Attorney General, Attorney for
Complainant
Mr. Gary L. Ecklund and Mr. Gregory E. Barrett, Schleuter &
Ecklund, Attornies for Respondent
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Young):
AAA Disposal Systems, Inc. is charged in a Complaint filed
April 14, 1975, by the Environmental Protection Agency with
operating a waste management site near Roscoe in Winnebago County,
Illinois without an operating permit. Respondent is alleged to
have operated this site from July 27, 1974 through April 14, 1975
in violation of Rule 202(b) (1) of the Illinois Solid Waste Regu-
lations and Section 21(b) and (e) of the Environmental Protection
Act. A public hearing was held on this matter on July 21, 1975.
In lieu of testimony at the hearing the parties read into
the record a Stipulation of Facts and Proposal for Settlement.
This. Stipulation and Proposal is submitted in resolution of the
enforcement proceeding and the Board is asked to approve the
settlement conditions therein. No members of the public presented
testimony at the hearing.
Stipulated facts show that Respondent began operating the
waste management site on November 1, 1973 “for a ten week period”.
Materials to be disposed of included brick, coal, ash, bank run
gravel, pea gravel and/or coarse sand and broken concrete. After
receiving letters from the Agency concerning inspections at this
site, Respondent wrote the Agency on December 27, 1973 stating that
it intended to fill the area involved so as to convert it to usable
land for a future building and parking lot. Respondent requested
a temporary permit to complete the filling process. On January 3,
1974 the Agency responded by sending Respondent one copy each of
19
—
755
—2—
the Solid Waste Regulations and instructions for completing a
permit application and three copies of the permit application.
Respondent submitted a permit application dated January 5,
1974 to the Agency. In a letter dated January 9, 1974 the
Agency informed Respondent of deficiencies in this permit appli-
cation and that the permit was denied pending receipt of additional
information. The permit application was subsequently returned to
Respondent on February 1, 1974 marked incomplete. Respondent did
not resubmit its permit application.
When an Agency representative visited the site on March 5,
1974 he noted that the site was closed but final cover had not
been provided. This observation was conveyed to Respondent by
letter dated March 18, 1974 along with instructions for applying
final cover and a request that the Agency be notified upon completion
of final cover application. Respondent replied to this letter
stating that final grading had been completed but, with Agency
approval, a low area was to be filled with sand, covered and seeded
to prevent surface runoff. The Agency approved of the filling on
condition that the sand used be clean and not core sand.
Thereafter, the Agency visited the site at least six times
between April 1974 and February 1975. In reports sent to Respondent
about these visits, Respondent was informed that Agency investigators
had observed a number of possible violations. Observations included
the open dumping of refuse, unsatisfactory intermediate cover, accep
tance of septic tank pumpings, failure to restrict access to the
site, acceptance of foundry sand, acceptance of waste oil, acceptance
of barrels containing a highly hazardous liquid, failure to provide
final cover and failure to obtain an operating permit.
Group Exhibit 1 to the Stipulation indicates that Respondent
replied to some of the Agency letters. Others were apparently
ignored. Respondent stated in one letter that waste oil was used on
roads to control dust but none was actually dumped at the site. In
another, Respondent stated that the refuse observed consisted of
pallets removed from a roll off container in order to weld the con-
tainer. On the septic tank waste, Respondent stated that he had
contacted the Environmental Protection Agency and local health
officials with the “general concensus” being that a permit was not
required to dispose of such waste since the material consisted of
60 to 90 water. As to the barrels containing liquid, Respondent
wrote that a small number of such barrels were placed at the site
from time to time while awaiting transportation to a chemical company.
In a letter dated November 8, 1974 Respondent stated that sand
filling had been completed and “the site is in the final covering
stages and will be soon finished”. However, in a letter dated over
four months later Respondent indicated that final grading had not
been completed. In fact, at least 50 of the site still had not
19
—
756
—3—
received proper final cover although application of final cover
was in process on that date.
In settlement, Respondent admits violations of Rule 202(b) (1)
of the Solid Waste Regulations and Section 21(e) of the Environ-
menta~. Protection Act and for these violations agrees to pay a
monetary penalty of $500.00. Further, Respondent agrees to
permanently close its landfill and “upon closing of the site” to
apply two feet of final cover in accordance with Rule 318 of the
Solid Waste Regulations.
Since Respondent had been recalcitrant in securing the re-
qu~redpermit, several matters must be discussed in support of our
deoision on this case. It is very clear from the record that the
Agency made every reasonable effort to assist Respondent in achieving
voluntary compliance. After the initial permit application was
denied, Respondent apparently chose to forego any additional effort.
A monetary penalty is clearly required here, not as a punitive
measure, but rather to insure that others are not encouraged to
follow Respondent’s dilatory example.
From certain items in Group Exhibit 1 it would appear that
Respondent was engaged in the open dumping of several types of
refuse, some of which might be hazardous. However, with the ex-
ception of septic tank waste, Respondent has explained the reasons
why certain materials were at the site. In the absence of any
serious Agency rebuttal, the Board is inclined to accept these
explanations in mitigation. The fact that most of the material
disposed of at this site consists of nonputrescible waste mitigates
these violations. It in no way, however, diminishes the statutory
and regulatory obligations Respondent has ignored.
On the basis of the foregoing and the Stipulation and Proposal
for Settlement, which constitutes the entire record in this matter,
we find that AAA Disposal, Inc. did violate Rule 202(b) (1) of the
Solid Waste Regulations and Section 21(e) of the Act by operating
a landfill from July 27, 1974 through April 14, 1975 without the
necessary operating permit. A penalty of $500.00 is assessed for
these violations.
The alleged violation of Section 21(b) of the Environmental
Protection Act is dismissed for lack of prosecution.
This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions
of law of the Illinois Pollution Control Board.
ORDER
IT IS THE ORDER OF
THE
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD that:
19
—
757
—4—
1. Respondent, AAA Disposal Systems, Inc., is found to have
violated Rule 202(b) (1) of the Solid Waste Regulations and Section
21(e) of the Environmental Protection Act, and shall pay the sum
of $500.00 as a penalty for these violations. Penalty payment
by certified check or money order payable to the State of Illinois
shall be made within 35 days of this Order to: Fiscal Services
Division, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, 2200 Churchill
Road, Springfield, Illinois, 62706.
2. Respondent shall permanently close its landfill site
within 35 days of the date of this Order if an operating permit
has not been secured from the Agency.
3. Respondent shall fully comply with the requirements of
the Solid Waste Regulations upon closing this site.
4. The alleged violation of Section 21(b) of the Environ-
mental Protection Act is dismissed for lack of prosecution.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereb certify the above Opinion and Order were
adopted on the c~9 day of
,
1976
by a vote of ~
ChristanIllinois
°
PollutionL.
Moff~’~~Board
k
19—758