ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

April 27, 1978

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY,

Complainant,

vs.

)

PCB 77—284

JACK THOMPSON d/b/a

WARREN DISPOSAL SERVICE,

Respondent.

MS. JUDITH S. GOODIE, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON

BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT.

MR. WILLIAM A. KELLY OF NACK, RICHARDSON AND NACK, APPEARED

ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Dr. Satchell):

This matter comes before the Board upon a complaint filed

by the Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) on~November 2,

1977. The complaint alleges that Jack Thompson d/b/a Warren

Disposal Service has caused or allowed the operation of a solid

waste management site within the north half of the northeast

quarter of the southwest quarter of section 19, Township 29

north, Range 5 east of the fourth principal meridian in Jo Davies

County, Illinois without an operating permit in violation of

Rule 202(b) of Chapter 7: Solid Waste Regulations (Chapter 7)

and Section 21(e) of the Environmental Protection Act (Act);

that Respondent is in violation of Rule 305(a) of Chapter 7 and

Section 21(b) of the Act, Rule 305(b) of Chapter 7 and Section

21(b) of the Act, Rule 303(a) of Chapter 7 and Section 21(b)

of the Act, Rule 303(b) and Section 21(b) of the Act, Rule 306

of Chapter 7 and Section 21(b) of the Act, Rule 304 of Chapter 7

and Section 21(h) of the Act, and Rule 308 of Chapter 7 and

Section 21(b) of the ACL. On December 30, 1977 the parties

filed a stipulation incorporating by reference the entire tran-

script and all exhibits from a hearing on October 31, 1977 in

the matter of Jack Thompson d/b/a

Warren

Disposal

Service vs.

EPA, PCB 76-249, a variance proceeding. The site and thi parties

Ti~the present proceeding and in PCB 76-249 are identic~1.

On January 18, 1978 a hearing was held and additional

testimony was taken. No interested citizen testimony was re-

ceived. At the January hearing the complaint was amended to

conform to the proof pursuant to Procedural Rule 326. Respondent

had no objection to the amendment.

30-97

---

In PCB

the

Responde

acre site be

potential

for e ir~n~rien

this case

that ~ ~Lcoupsu.

without a

permit; 1is J~~

(January R. 83

1°18) this Board

denied

I

ctC~es

of

this nineteen

f haidship

and the high

there

is

no question in

~i~1 ~

a refuse

disposal site

~ri by

Respondent’s

attorney

Mr. Thomp~~na~be

u.

~ this site since

October of

1966 (October R. 6). Hts

~

~

~es 1~5 to

150 compacted

cubic yards of ref

i~

pci ~ec~

~ ia~ce

never exceeds 200

cubic yards per eJ~

~)c~t.

Under

Mr.

Thompson’s

management some da~~ ic ~e

~cJ at all

(October R. 13),

On the days the ~ Ic n~e

~iL

bring

in a-load

of

refuse,

empty

tic truck ther

j

r~r

~~re refuse (October R.

13). After

the nate

i.

ceup1

~

up

the operator will

“get out the

ti-~.L~

c~ u

~

refuse” (October R. 13).

This may occu

ctny t~uc ruu

.

~o

8:00 P.M. (October

R, 14).

Agency

incpc. toi~

ire

sions.

On

Ma~ 2 ~9

7

P~

I

measured the ~ tr ~

and final

co~c r

&~lI

~-?

~rci

that

required

te i~ii

r

inches of

cov~..

inches of

cove ~ct~b r

Mr.

Steadmari

r~ T

received

fjflal

~rd ~ntnrred~

adequate (Ocr ~ P

E~t~

Other

In~pe~

uncompacteb i~fus~

day shortly Le~ c

than 200 cubic ~

~ ±

(January

R. 15

At a

cubic yards pe.i veck

t(c c

cover had not occurr~.~

snow

cover, as it d

OflCC’

aga in 1

J(.

~

Only

ponLion~ o Li

~i

~‘

On Septembc

~i

nor was there

ii

i~di. It

spection. Th cc

garbage (Janua ~ P

2~, I

in the trash is d~snx~~1

restriction; hr~eJer tie ax~

open in and of

it~it ~

lack of personi

this is

scavenging. ~I v sea e.

materials mus* oc intended

from the

site L~~eevrdei~c

is

the case. Consea e ~it1yti

alleging a via ~icr 1 kuI-~

~u: on

several

occa—

~cncy

inspector,

brnrci daily intermediate

u~Lber R. 155). Areas

ni~aJe of only four

i~~ ~nIy

six to eight

~nL~n 7, 1975

~p

at

which areas had

fond the

depth in-

a’- Jily

22,

1976 there was

h~

14,

15). Also that

i?~

~a

an

the

site greater

~

rem

5~0 cubic yards

en ~xceeds receiving

200

Ii roild

indicate daily

x

~.

3.

1377 the refuse had a

a ~

Co

~nty that day

d (trlflUflry

R. 2 5—27)

ac

I cinu

compac

ted

re

no

peisonnel on

the site

~ me open during the in-

a

irescnt

playing in the

mae of

children playing

dencc of inadequate site

~ti

cnildien on

a site not

~u

to make

a finding of

~

sufficient

to prove

iiolation discarded

c~:~c,edor

actually removed

..~It

does

not indicate this

~ e.i11 dismiss Count VIII

prohibiting

scavenging.

---

—3—

Litter was observed on the site on several occasions

including September 10, 1975, July 22, 1976, and May 2, 1977

(October R. 144, 154, January Coma. Ex. 3). The Board finds

that there is sufficient evidence to find violations of all

the alleged counts but count number VIII. These violations

would be of Rule 202(b) of Chapter 7 and Section 21(e) of the

Act and Rules 305(a)

,

305(b)

,

303(a)

,

303(b)

,

304 and 306 of

Chapter 7 and Section 21(b) of the Act. The violation of

Rule 304 is based on the fact that since the other violations

exist obviously there is not sufficient supervision at the

site to comply with the Regulations and the Act.

In formulating a remedy the Board must consider Section 33(c)

of the Act. Mr. Thompson does provide disposal service for the

communities of Warren, Apple River, Scales Mound, Nora and

Waddams Grove and Apple Canyon State Park. However, as noted

in the variance proceeding the lack of an impermeable material

covering the bedrock at the site (October Resp. Ex. G.) and the

lack of available cover material at the site (October R. 194)

provides a high potential for water pollution. Respondent was

aware since August of 1974 that the Illinois State Geological

Survey had expressed concern about the potential for water

pollution at the site (October Resp. Ex. A., R. 64). There are

other landfills in the area (October

R.

19). Petitioner has

not made any progress toward finding a new site (January R. 68).

Respondent has not changed or attempted to improve his mode of

operation during the variance proceeding or this enforcement

(January R. 67). He has made no

effort

to utilize the one acre

of his nineteen that the Agency had stated could possibly be

considered for a site (January R. 66-68). No doubt Mr. Thompson’s

disposal service is of some social and economic value; however,

this is greatly undermined by the potential for water pollution

in the area.

Since Mr. Thompson has been lookina for a new site since

the filing of his original variance petition on October 4, 1976

with no showing of progress the Board has no choice but to

order Mr. Thompson to cease and desist his violations of the

Chapter 7: Solid Waste Regulations and the Act. Respondent

has financially benefitted since at least June 19, 1975 by not

running his landfill site in an environmentally sound manner

or by not obtaininy a better site for waste disposal. However

the record does indicate Mr. Thompson’s operation is relatively

small. Therefore the Board shall assess a penalty of $750.00 to

aid the enforcement of the Act.

This opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact

and conclusions of law in this matter.

30—99

---

ORDER

1. Jack Thompson d/b/a Warren Disposal Service is found

to be in violation of Rule 202(b) of the Chapter 7:

Solid Waste Regulations and Section 21(b) of the

Environmental Protection Act and Rules 305(a),

305(b), 303(a), 303(b), 304, and 306 of Chapter 7

is dismissed.

3. Respondent shall cease and desist all further

4. Respondent shall pay a penalty of $750.00 within

35 days of this order. Payment shall be by certified

Fiscal Services Division

Environmental Protection Agency

Springfield, Illinois 62706.

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

Control Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order

were adopted on the

~74~

day of

___________,

1978

byavoteof ~p

3Ldtr~~

~Eristan L. Moff~~~’)Clerk

Illinois Po1lutith(~Contro1Board