ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL ROARfl
October 4, 1978
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
)
Complainant,
)
v.
)
PCB 77—290
)
FRANK
RECORD,
)
Respondent.
MR.
JOHN VAN
VRANKEN, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON
BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT.
MR. JAMES D. REYNOLDS, ATTORNEY AT LAW, APPEARED ON BEHALF
OF
THE RESPONDENT.
OPINION
AND
ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Dr. Satchel?):
This matter comes before the Board upon a complaint filed
on November 7, 1977 by the Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency). The Agency alleges that Respondent, Frank Record,
has violated Rule 202(b) (1) of the C!~apter7: Solid Waste
Rules and Regulations (Chapter 7) and Section 21(e) of the
Environmental Protection Act (Act); and Rule 305(c) of
Chapter 7 and Section 21(b) of the Act. A hearing was held
in this matter on May 17, 1978.
The Board must make determinations on two offers of
proof prior to considering the case. The Board will accept as
exhibits Complainant Request to Admit Facts. No foundation
is necessary under Procedural Rule 314 other than proof of
service. Under the same Rule if no response or objection is
received within twenty days after service the facts requested
to be admitted are deemed admitted. In this case the facts
requested to be admitted are deemed admitted. The second
offer of proof concerns inspection reports made by Gilbert
Stauffer submitted as Complainant’s Exhibits 3—7. These
exhibits were submitted as business records based on a
foundation of testimony of Terry G. Ayers, an employee of
the Agency. The Supreme Court Rules of Practice, Rule 236
provides that writing or record made in the regular course
of business at the time of the event or within a reasonable
time thereafter is admissible as evidence. The Rule further
provides other circumstances-—including lack of personal
knowledge by the entrant or maker may be shown to affect its
weight, but shall not affect its admissibility. The Board
finds that Complainantts Exhibits marked 3-7 should be ad-
mitted as evidence.
31—581
—2—
Mr. Record stated that he had run a landfill
at this site
from 1958 to June 1977 CR. 15,16). He also stated that he has
never had a permit for the site CR. 17). Respondent quit using
the site in June 1977 (R. 16). At that time he had cover applied
but he doesn’t know how deep it was; he
presumes
two or three
feet (R. 17, 18).
On August 5, 1977 a total of
14 borings were taken every 20
yards along the east central and west central areas of the site
(Comp. Ex. 7).
Of these borings,
10 had adequate cover (Comp.
Ex.
7). The remaining borings showed six inches to one and one
half feet of cover (Camp. Ex. 7). Two
areas remained uncovered
(Comp. Ex. 7).
On May 15, 1978 an inspection was made CR. 25).
It appeared cover had been recently applied; there was some
surface litter CR. 25). Three borings were taken
in the north-
western portion of the site and two were taken in the eastern
Section CR. 26). The cover was from six inches to one and one
half feet deep CR. 26).
The Board finds that the admissions alone would be sufficient
to find a violation of both operating without a permit in violation
of Rule 202(b) (1) of Chapter 7 and Section 21(e) of the Act and
failure to apply final cover in violation of Rule 305(c) and
section 21(b) of the Act; however, the evidence presented at the
hearing further substantiates
both violations. The record does
not provide much information concerning Section 33(c) of the Act.
It is difficult to discern to what extent Mr. Record used the site
in recent years. He states he takes the majority of his refuse to
the city-county landfill in Peoria County or to the Fulton County
Landfill (R. 16). According to Complainant’s ~xhibit 7, approx-
imately five to six acres of an eight acre site have been filled.
Mr. Record refers to the area as “a couple acres, two or three
acres” (R. 20). No one establishes if this is the entire area
used since 1958 or since July 27, 1974, the time the allegations of
the complaint begin. The area is an old strip mine CR. 19).
Leachatè was otserved falling from the north face into the strip
mine pit and in one other area CR. 26). No geological information
is provided.
It is apparent that an unlicensed landfill has been run here
for a number of years. Respondent did know of the existence of
the Agency and that there were prescribed rules concerning how to
run a sanitary landfill (R. 18). Respondent has quit using the
site and has made some attempt to place final cover; however, there
is still work that needs to be done. The Board will require that
Respondent either acquire the proper Agency operating permit or
submit to the Agency a proper closure plan within 60 days of this
order which shall be implemented within 90 days after Agency
approval.
The Board will also assess a penalty of $250 to aid the
enforcement of the Act.
31—582
—3—
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
It is the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board that:
1.
Frank Record is found in violation of Rule 202(b) (1)
of Chapter 7: Solid Waste Regulations and Section 21(e)
of the Act and of Rule 305(c) of Chapter 7 and Section
21(b) of the Act.
2. Respondent shall either obtain the proper Agency
operating permit within 90 days of this order or
submit to the Agency within 60 days of this
order
a proper closure plan which shall be implemented
within 90 days of Agency approval.
3. Respondent shall pay a penalty of $250 within 35
days of this order.
Payment shall be by. certified
check or money order payable to:
Fiscal Services Division
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois 62706
I, Christan L.
Moffett, Clerk of the
Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby certify the aboye Opinion and Order were
adopted on the
___________
day of
~&&.)
,
1978 by a
vote of ~
~hristan L. Moffe~’,./’~lerk
Illinois Pollution C~ntro1 Board
31—583