BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
CLERK’S OFFICE
JUN 1$
2Ot~4
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
by LISA MADIGAN, Attorney General ofthe
State ofIllinois,
V.
Complainant,
EDWARD PRUIM, an individual, and
ROBERT PRUIM, an individual,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
PCB No. 04-207
STATE OF IWNOIS
PoUution Control Board
NOTICE OF FILING
TO:
Ms. Dorothy Gunn, Clerk
illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
100W. Randolph Street, 11-500
Chicago, IL 60601
Mr. Christopher Grant
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Bureau
188W. Randolph,
20th
Floor
Chicago, IL 60601
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on June 18, 2004, we filed with the Clerk ofthe Illinois
Pollution Control Board an original and nine copies of RESPONDENT
ROBERT PRUIM’S
MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO
ANSWER
THE COMPLAINT OR TO
OTHERWISE PLEAD,
a copy ofwhich is attached and herewith served upon you.
Mark A. LaRose
Clarissa C. Grayson
Attorney No. 37346
LaRose & Bosco, Ltd.
200 N. LaSalle Street
Chicago, IL 60601
(312) 642-4414
Fax (312) 642-0434
Attorney for Respondent
(N
~ -~r ‘~‘C
~C fl (\ ~ LI i.
L’
L
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
q ~
~ ;.J
~J
L~~l
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
sT~:IEO~~LUNO1S
by LISA MADIGAN, Attorney General of the
)
POUUUOn Control
Board
State of Illinois,
)
)
Complainant,
)
)
PCB No. 04-207
v.
)
)
EDWARD PRUIM, an individual, and
)
ROBERT PRUIM, an individual,
)
)
Respondents.
)
RESPONDENT ROBERT PRUIM’S MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF
TIME
TO
ANSWER THE COMPLAINT OR TO OTHERWISE PLEAD
RESPONDENT, ROBERT
PRUIM,
by and through his attorneys LAROSE & BOSCO,
LTD .hereby moves the Board foran extensionoftime to answerthe complaint or to otherwiseplead
in the above matter, and in support thereof, states as follows:
1.
Pursuant to Section 101.506 ofthe Illinois Pollution Control Board procedural rules
(35
Ill. Adm. Code 101-130), “All motions to strike, dismiss, or challenge the sufficiency ofany
pleading filed with the Board must be filed within 30 days after the service of the challenged
document,-.uniess.the-Board deterrnines4hatnaterial~prejudicewouidresuit”
2.
Respondent ROBERT PRUIM was served with the complaint on May 28, 2004.
Accordingly, the complaint is to be answered by June 28, 2004, 30 days after it was served.
3.
RespondentROBERT PRUTM then mailed the complaint to his attorney. However,
Respondent’s attorney did not receive the complaint until June 11, 2004.
1
4.
The complaint is fifty
(50)
pages in length and contains nineteen (19) counts and will
require a significant amount oftime to prepare a response. A copy ofthe complaint is attached as
Exhibit A and incorporated herein. Respondentwill suffer material prejudice if the Board doesnot
grant him an extension oftime to answer or to otherwise plead to the complaint.
5.
The Board has the authority to grant Respondent’s request for an extension oftime
pursuant to Section 101.522 of the Illinois Pollution Control Board rules
(35
Ill. Adm. Code
101.522)which reads: “The Board orhearing officer, for good cause shown on a motion afternotice
to the opposite party, mayextendthe time for filing any document or doing any actwhich is required
by these rules to be done within a limited period, either before or after the expiration oftime.”
WHEREFORE, RespondentROBERT PRUIIM respectfullyrequests that the Board grant him
an extension oftime to answer or otherwise plead to the within complaint, until August 6, 2004.
Respectfully submitted,
One ofRespondent’s attorneys
Mark A. LaRose
Clarissa C. Grayson
LAROSE & BOSCO, LTD.
200 North LaS alle Street
Chicago, IL 60601
(312) 642-4414
Fax (312) 642-0434
Attorney No. 373346
2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned, an attorney, on oath states that she caused to be served a copy of the
foregoing
RESPONDENT ROBERT PRIJIM’S MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME
TO ANSWER THE COMPLAINT OR TO OTHERWISE
PLEAD to the following parties of
record, by placing same in U.S. Mail, postage prepaid this 18th day ofJune, 2004:
Ms. Dorothy Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
100 W. Randolph Street
Chicago, IL 60601
Mr. Christopher Grant
Environmental Bureau
Assistant Attorney General
188 West Randolph Street, 20th Floor
Chicago, IL 60601
Attorney for Respondent
Mark A. LaRose
Clarissa C. Grayson
Attorney No. 37346
LaRose &~.Bosco~.Ltd
.
...
200 N. LaSalle Street
Suite 2810
Chicago, IL 60601
(312) 642-4414
Fax (312) 642-0434
-.
•
.
RECERJED
CLERKS OFFICE
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
MAY
212004
•
STATE OF ILLINOIS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
.
Pollution Control Board
by. LISA MADIGAN, Attorney
)
General of the State of Illinois,
Complainant,
-vs-
.
.
)
PCB No.
(Enforcement)
EDWARD PRUIM, an individual, and
ROBERT PRUIM, an individual,
)
Respondents.
NOTICE OF FILING
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE. that we have today, May 21, 2004, filed
with the Office of the Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board an original and nine copies of our Complaint, a copy of
which is attached herewith and served upon you.
Failure to file an answer to this complaint within 60 days
may have severe consequences. Failure to answer will mean that
all allegations in the complaint will be taken as if admitted for
purposes of this proceeding. If you have any questions about
this procedure, you should contact the hearing officer assigned
to this proceeding, the Clerk’s Office or an attorney.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
.Attorn~yLISA
M4DIGAN
Genera/i
/
of the
S~~e/ffIllin/is
BY:
______
•CH~STOPHER GRANT
As~1stant Attorney
General
Eiiv’ironmental Bureau
188 W. Randolph St.,
20th
Flr.
Chicago, IL 60601
(312) 814-5388
111T
I”
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLU~’IONCONTROL
BOARD
I~E~
MAY2 12004
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
•
STATE OF ILLIN
by
LISA
MADIGAN, Attorney
.
)
POlILItjOi’i Control Bo~d
General of the State of Illinois,
)
.
.
r
Complairiant,
PCB No.
(Enforcement)
EDWARD PRUIM,
an individual, and
ROBERT PRUIM, an individual,
Respondents.
COMPLAINT
Complainant, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, by LISA MADIGAN,
Attorney General of the State of Illinois, on her. own motion,
complains of Respondents, EDWARD PRUIM, an individual, and ROBERT
PRUIM, an
individual, as follows:
•
COUNT I
FAILURE TO ADEQUATELY MANAGE REFUSE AND,LITTER
1. This count is brought on behalf of the PEOPLE OF THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS,. by LISA MADIGAN, Attorney General of the State of
Illinois, on her own motion, pursuant to Section 31 of the Illinois
Environmental Protection Act (“Act”), 415. ILCS 5/31 (2002)
2. Respondent EDWARD PRUIM is an Illinois resident.
3.
Respondent ROBERT PRUIM is
an Illinois resident.
4. At all times relevant to this Complaint, the Respondents
managed, operated and co-owned Community Landfill Company(”CLC”), an
Illinois corporation. CLC is the permitted operator of the Morris
Community Landfill, 1501 Ashley Road, Morris, Grundy County,
Illinois, (“landf ill?! or
IlsiteTi)
.
5.. The landfill consists of approximately 119 acres within
I
the Northwest 1/4 of Section 2 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 3,
Township 33 North Range 7 East, and in the Southeast 1/4 of Section
34 and ‘the Southwest 1/4 of Section 35, Township 34, North Range 7
East, Grundy County, Illinois.
6. The landfill is divided into two parcels, designated
Parcel A and Parcel B.
7. Parcel A is approximately 55 acres in size, and is
currently. accepting waste.
8. Parcel B is approximately 64 acres in size.
9. At all times relevant to the Complaint, Edward Pruim and
Robert Pruim were responsible for, and did, sign and submit all
permit applications •and reports to the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency (“Illinois EPA”) ‘related to the landfill, jointly
directed and managed CLC’s landfill operations, caused and allowed
the deposit of waste in the landfill, negotiated and arranged for
surety bonds and letters of credit relating to the landfill, and
were responsible for ensuring CLC’s compliance with pertinent
environmental laws and regulations.
• ,
10. Section 3.185 of the Act,’ 415 ILCS 5/3.185 (2002)
provides the following definition:
•
.
“DISPOSALT’ means the discharge, deposit, injection,
dumping, spilling, leaking or placing of any waste or
hazardous wast.e into or on any land or water or into any
well so that such waste or hazardous waste or any
constituent thereof may enter ‘the environment or be
emitted into the air or discharged into any waters,
including ground waters.
‘
‘
.
11. Section 3.270 of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/3.270 (2002),
provides the following definition:
“LANDSCAPE WASTE” means all accumulations of grass or
2
shrubbery, cuttings, leaves, tree limbs and other
~materials accumulated as the result’ of the care oflawns,
shrubbery, vines and trees.
12. Section 3.315 of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/3.315 (2002),
provides the.following definition:
“PERSON” is any individual, partnership, co-partnership,
firm, company, limited liability company, corporation,
association, joint stock company, trust estate, political
subdivision, state agency, or any other legal entity, or
their legal representative, agent or assigns.,
13. The Respondents are “persons.” as that term is defined
by Section 3.315 of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/3.315 (2002)
14. Section 3.445 of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/3.445 (2002),
provides the following definition:
“SANITARY LANDFILL”
means a facility permitted by the
Agency for the disposal of waste on land meeting the
requirements of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act, P.L. 94-580, and regulations thereunder, and without
creating nuisances or hazards to public ‘health or safety
by confining the refuse to the smallest practical volume
and covering it with a layer of earth at the conclusion
• of each day’s operation, or by such other methods and
intervals as the Board may provide by regulation.
15. Section 3.535 of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/3.535 (2002),
provides the following definition:
• “WASTE” means any garbage, slud9e from a waste treatment
plant, or air pollution control facility or other
discarded material, including solid, liquid, semi-solid,
or contained gaseous material resulting from industrial,
commercial, mining and agricultural operations and from
community activities, but does not
include solid or
dissolved material in domestic sewage, or solid or
dissolved materials in irrigation return flows, or cOal
combustion
by-products as defined in Section 3.94, or
industrial discharges which are point sources subject to
permits under Section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, as now or hereafter amended, or source,
‘special nuclear, or by-product materials as defined by
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (68 Stat. 921)
or any solid or dissolved material from any facility
subject to the Federal Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-87) or the rules and
3
regulations thereunder or any law or rule or regulation
adopted by the State of Illinois pursuant thereto.
16.
Section 21(d) (2) of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/21(d) (2) (2002)
provides, as follows:
•
No person shall:
***
d. Conduct any
waste-storage, waste treatment, or
waste- treatment, or waste-disposal
operation:
*.
,*
*
2.
In violation of any regulations or standards
adopted by the Board under this Act; or
***
17. On at least the following dates, the Illinois EPA
conducted an inspection of the site:
April 7, 1994, March 22, 1995,
May 22, 1995, March 5, 1997, July 28, 1998, NOvember 19, 1998, March
31, 1999, May 11, 1999 arid July 20, 1999.
‘
‘‘
18. During the’ April 7, 1994, inspection,
litter was observed
in the perimeter
drainage ditch at the southwest portion of Parcel B
and on the southwest slope of Parcel B.
‘ ‘
19.
During ‘the March 22, 1995, inspection,
the Illinois EPA
inspector observed refuse in a perimeter ditch and in a retention
pond at the, landfill.
‘
‘ • ‘
20. During the May 22,
1995, inspection, the Illinois EPA
inspector observed refuse and litter in the perimeter ditches.
2l.
Also during the May 22, 1995~inspection,
the Illinois EPA
inspector pbserved three eroded areas where leachate seeps had
exposed previously covered refuse.
“
‘
22. During the July 28, 1998 inspection,
there was uncovered
4
waste from previous operating days in parcel A’.
23.
On November 19, 1998 and March 31, 1999, the landfill
was
accepting waste, and on March 31, 1999, there was uncovered refuse
on Parcel B, and blowing uncovered litter on Parcel A.
24.
On May 11, 1999, the landfill was accepting waste, and
there was uncovered waste at the site.
25.
On July 20, 1999, the landfill was accepting waste in
Parcel A, and there was uncovered refuse on Parcel B.
26.
Section 21(o) of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/21(o) (2002),
provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
No person shall:
*
*.
‘
*
‘
o. Conduct a sanitary landfill operation which is
required to have a permit under subsection (d) of
this Section in a manner which results in any of the
following conditions:
1. refuse in standing or flowing waters;
*
**
5.
uncovered refuse remaining from any previous
operating day or at the conclusion of any
operation day, unless authorized by permit;
*.
.*
*
‘
12.
failure to collect and contain litter from the
site by the end of each operating day.
27.
Section 807.306 of the Illinois Pollution Control Board’s
(“Board’s”) Waste Disposal
Regulations, 35 Ill. Adm. Code 807.306,
provides, as follows:
,
All litter shall be collected from the sanitary landfill
site by the end of each working day and either placed in
the fill and compacted and covered that day, or stored in
5
a covered container.
28. Litter an’d refuse are waste as that term is defined in
Section 3.535 of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/3.535 (2002)
29.
The site is a sanitary landfill that requires a permit
under Section 21(d) of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/21(d) (2002)
30. By, failing to remove, or cause ethployees to remove refuse
in perimeter ditches and the retention pond
on March 22, l9.95~ and
by allowing refuse to remain in perimeter ditches on May 22, 1995,
the Respondents have violated Section 21(o) (1) of the Act, 415 ILCS
5/21(o) (1) (2002).
31. By allowing leachate seeps to erode areas of the landfill
and expose previously covered refuse, at least on May 22, 1995, the
Respondents have violated Section 21(o) (5) of the Act, 415 ILCS
5/21(o) (5) (2002).
32.
By allowing litter and refuse to remain exposed,
uncontairied, and uncovered, around various areas of the site on
April 7, 1994, March 22, 1995, May 22, 1995, July 28, 1998,
March
31, 1999, May 11, 1999 and July 20, 1999, the Respondents violated
Sections 21(o) (5) and (12) of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/21(o) (5) and (12)
(2002), and Section 807.~306 of the Board Waste’ Disposal Regulations,
35 Ill. Adm. .Code 807.306, and thereby also violated Section
21(d) (2) of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/21(d) (2) (2002)
WHEREFORE, Complainant, PEO’PLE’OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
respectfully requests that the Board enter an order against
Respondents EDWARD PRUIM, and ROBERT PRUIM, with respect to Count I:
1. Authorizing a hearing in this matter at which time the
Respondents will be required to answer the allegationsherein;
.6
4
2.,
Finding that the Respondents have caused or allowed
violations of Section, 21(d) (2), 21(o) (1)’, (5), and (12) of the Act,
and 35 Ill. Adm. Code 807.306;
3.
‘
Ordering the Respondents to cease and desist from any
further violations
of Sections 21(d) (2), 21(o) (1), (5) and (12), and
35111. Adm. Code 807.306;
4.
Assessing a civil penalty of rifty Thousand Dollars
($50,000.00) against the Respondents, jointly and severally, for
each viclation, and an additional civil penalty of Ten Thousand
Dollars ($10,000.00) for each day of violation;
5.
‘
Requiring the Respondents to pay
all costs, including
expert witness, consultant and attorney fees, expended by the State
in its pursuit of this action; and
6. Granting such other relief as the Board deems
appropriate.
‘
,
COUNTIl
,
FAILURE TO PREVENT
OR
CONTROL LEACHATE FLOW
1-17. Complainant realleges and incorporates by reference
herein paragraphs 1 through 17 of Count I as paragraphs .1 through 17
of this Count II~asif fully set forth herein.
18. During the April
7, 1994, inspection, the Illinois EPA
inspector observed five leachate seeps ‘along’ the northwest perimeter
of Parcel B.
19. During the March 22, 1995, inspection, the Illinois EPA,
inspector observed numerous leachate seeps at the
northwest
peri’meter of the landfill.
. .
20.
During the May 22, 1995, inspection,
the Illinois EPA
inspector observed numerous
leachate seeps along the north slope of
7
C
the landfill,andin
the north perimeter
ditch which eventually
drains into the Illinois River.
21. Section 21(o) of’the Act’,,
415 ILCS 5/21(o) (2002),
provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
No person shall:
*
*
‘
*
‘0.
Conduct
a sanitary landfill operation which is
required to have a
permit under subsection (d) of
this Section, in a manner which results in any of
the following conditions:
*,
*
*
2. leachate flows entering waters of the State;
3. leachate flows exiting the landfill confines
(as determined by the boundaries established
for the landfill ‘by a permit issued by the
Agency);
***
‘‘
/
22. Section 807.314(e) of the Board’s Waste Disposal
Regulations, 35 Ill. Adm. Code 807.314(e), provides as follows:
Except as otherwise authorized in writing by the Agency,
no person shall cause or allow the development or,
operation of a sanitary
landfill which .does not provide’:
**
*
e)
Adequate measures to monitor and control leachate;
23. Section3.550 of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/3.550 (2002),
contains the following definition:
“WATERS” means’all accumulations of water, surface and
underground, natural and artificial, public and. private,
or parts thereof, which are wholly or partially within,
flow through,
or border upon the State.
24. The Illinois River is a “water” of
the State of Illinois,
as that term is defined in Section 3.550 of the Act, 415 ILCS
8
5/3.550 (2002)
.
‘
‘
25. ‘The Respondents failed to take sufficient
action, or
direct their employees to’take sufficient action, to prevent
leachate seeps from exiting the landfill.
26.
By allowing leachate seeps to exit the ,landf ill
boundaries and enter waters of the State, and by failing to control
leachate flow, the Respondents have violated Sections 21 (d) (2), and
21(o) (2) and (3) of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/21(d) (2) and 21(o) (2) and
(3) (2002), and Section 807.314(e) of the Board’s Waste Disposal
Regulations, 35
Ill. Adm. Code 807.314(e).
WHEREFORE, Complainant, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
respectfully requests that the’
Board enter an order against
Respondents EDWARD PRtJIM, and ROBERT’ PRUIM, with respect to Count
II:
1.
Authorizing a hearing in this matter
at which time the
Respondents will be required to answer the allegations herein;
2.
Finding that the Respondents have caused or allowed
violations of Sections 21(d) (2), 21(o)(2) and (3), and 35 Ill. Adm.
Code 807.314(e);
3. Ordering the Respondents to cease and desist from an~
further violations of Sections 21(d) (2), 21(o) (2) and (3), and 35
Ill. Adm. Code 807.314(e);
4.
Assessing a civil penalty of Fifty Thousand Dollars
($~0,000.00) against the Respondents, jointly and severally, for
each violation,
and an additional civil penalty of Ten Thousand
Dollars ($10,000.00) for each day of’violation;
5. Requiring the Respondents to pay all costs, including
9
expert witness, consultant and attorne~/fees, expended by the State
in its pursuit of
this action; and
6.
Granting such other relief as the Board deems
appropriate.
, ‘
‘
COUNT ‘III
FAILURE TO PROPERLY DISPOSE OF LANDSCAPE-WASTE
1-16. Complainant realleges and incorporates by reference
,herein p’aragraphs 1 through 16
of,
Count I as paragraphs 1 through
16
of this Count III as if fully set forth herein.
17.. Section 22.22(c) of the Act’, 415 ILCS 5/22.22(c) (2002),
provides as follows:
‘
c. Beginning July 1, 1990, no owner or operator ‘of a
sanitary landfill shall accept landscape waste for
final disposal, except that landscape waste
separated from municipal waste may ‘be accepted by a
‘sanitary landfill if (1) the landfill provides and
maintains for that purpose separate
landscape waste
•
composting facilities and composts all landscape
waste, and (2) the composted waste is utilized, by
the operators of the landfill or by any other
person, as part of the final
vegetative cover for
the,landfill or such other uses as soil conditioning
material.
18. On August 18, 1993 and April 7, 1994; the Illinois EPA
conducted inspections of the site. During these in~pections, the
Illinois EPA inspector observed that’the landscape waste had been
deposited in the landfill area.
19. On July 28, 1998, the Respondents were causing and
allow.ing the landfilling of landscape waste at the site in Parcel A.
20. By causing and allowing the landfilling of landscape
waste, the Respondents violated Section 22.22(c) of the Act, 415
ILCS 5/22.22(c) (2002).
‘
‘
WHEREFORE, .Complainant PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
10
respectfully requests that the Board enter an order against
Respondents, EDWARD PRUIM, and ROBERT PRUIM, with respect to Count
III:
1. Authorizing a hearing in this matter at which time the
Respondents will be required to answer the allegations herein;
2. Finding that the Respondents have caused or allowed
violations of Section 22.22(c) of the Act;
,
3. Ordering the Respondents to cease and desist from any
further violations of Section 22.22(c) of the Act;
4. Assessing a civil penalty of Fifty Thousand Dollars
‘($50,000.00) against theRespondents, jointly and severally, for
each violation, and an additional civil penalty of Ten Thousand
Dollars ($10,000.00) for each day of violation;
5. Requiring the Respondents to pay all costs, including
expert Witness, consultant and attorney fees, expended by the State
in its pursuit of this action; and
6. Granting such other relief as the Board deems
appropriate.
‘ ‘
COUNT IV
FAILURE TO PROVIDE AND MAINTAIN ADEQUATE FINANCIAL ASSURANCE
PURSUANT TO THE APRIL 20, 1993,PERMIT
1-16. Complainant realleges and incorporates by reference
herein paragraphs 1 through 16 of Count I as paragraphs 1 through 16
of this Count IV as if fully set forth herein.
17. Section 21.1(a) ‘of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/21.1(a) (2002),
provides as follows:
a. Except as provided in subsection (a.5) no person
other than the State of Illinois, its agencies ‘and
institutions, or a unit of local government shall
11
conduct any waste disposal operation on or after
March 1, 1985, which requires a permit under
subsection (d) of Section 21 of this Act, unless
such person has ‘posted with the Agency a performance
bond or other security for the purpose of insuring
closure of the site and post-closure care in
accordance with this Act and regulations adopted
thereunder.
‘
18. Section 807.601(a) of the Board’s Waste Disposal
Regulations, 35111. Adm. Code 807.601(a), ‘states as follows:
No person shall conduct a waste disposal operation or
indefinite storage operation which requires a permit,
under Section 21 (d) of ‘the Act unless such person has
‘provided financial assurance ,in accordance with this
Subpart.
a) The financial assurance requirement does not apply
to the State of Illinois, its agencies and
institutions, or to, any unit of local government;
provided, however, that any other persons who
conduct such a waste disposal operation on a’ site
which may be owned or operated by such a government
entity must provide financial, assurance for closure
and post-closure care of the site.
19. Section 807.603(b) (1) of the Board’s Waste Disposal
Regulations, 35 Ill. Adm. Code 807.603(b) (1), provides as follows:
b) The operator must increase the total amount of
financial assurance so as to equal the current cost
estimate within 9,0 days after any of the following:
1) An increase in the currentcost estimate;
***
20. Item 3 of CLC’s supplemental permit dated April 20, 1993,
provided that financial assurance was tO be maintained in an amount
equal to $1,342,500.00.
‘
21. Item 3 of CLC’s supplemental permit dated April 20, 1993,
approved the Respondents’ current cost estimate for $1,342,500.00.
22.’ Respondents Edward Pruim and Robert Pruim failed to
arrange financing and increase the total amount of CLC’s financial
12
assurance to $1,342,500.00, within 90 days after the Agency approved
its cost estimate on April 20, 1993.
23. Respondent’s arranged for and provided a performance bond
for CLC on June 20, 1996.
‘
‘
24. By continuing to allow acceptance o~waste a the Site
from July 13, 1993 until .June 20, 1996, and by failing tO provide
adequate ‘financial assurance, the Respondents violated Section
21.1(a) of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/21.1(a) (2002), and Section
807.601(a) of the Board’s Waste Disposal Regulations, 35 Ill. Adm.
Code 807.601(a)
. ‘
‘
25. By failing to adequately increase the financial
assurance amount by. July 19, 1993 (90 days after the Agency approved
its cost estimate on April 20, 1993), the Respondents have violated
Section 21(d) (2) of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/21(d) (.2) (2002)
,
and Section
807.603(b) (1) of the Board Waste DUsposal Regulations, 35 Ill. Adrn.
Code 807.603(b) (1).
26. Respondents caused and allowed CLC to be out of
compliance with Section 21.1(a) of the Act, 415 ILCS.
5/21.1(a) (2002), 35 Ill. Adm. Code 807.601(a) and 807.603(b) (1) from
July 19, 1993 until June 20, 1996;
WHEREFORE, Complainant, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
respectfully’requests that the Board enter an order against
Respondents EDWARD PRUIM, and ROBERT PRUIM, with respect to Count
IV:
1. Authorizing a hearing in this matter at which time the
Respondents will be required to answer the allegations herein;
2. Finding that the Respondents have violated Sections
13
21(d) (2) and 21.1(a) of the Act, and 35 Ill. Adm. Code Sections
807.601(a) and 807.603(b) (1);
3. Ordering the Respondents to cease and desist from any
further violations of Sections 21(d) (2) and 21.1(a) o’f the Act,’and
35 Ill. Adm. Code Sections’807.60l(a’) and 807.603(b) (1);
4. Assessing a civil ~ena1ty of Fifty Thousand Dollars
($50,000.00) against the Respondents, jointly and severally, for
each violation, and an additional civil penalty of Ten Thousand
Dollars ($10,000.00) for each day of violation;
5. Requiring the Respondents to pay all costs, including
expert witness, consultant and attorney fees, expended’by the State
in its pursuit of this action; and
6. Granting such other relief as the Board deems
appropriate.
COUNTV
FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE THE REQUIRED
APPLICATION FOR A SIGNIFICANT MODIFICATION
1-16. Complainant realleges and incorporates by reference
herein paragraphs 1 through 16 of Count I as paragraphs 1 through 16
of this Count V as if fully set forth herein.
17. Section 814.104 of the Board’s Waste Disposal
Regulations, 35 Ill. Adm. Code 814.104, provides as follows:
a.
All owners or operators of landfills permitted
pursuant to Section 21(d) of the Environmental
Protection Act (Act) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 111
~,
par. 1021(d) 415 ILCS 5/21(d) shall file an
application for a significant modification to their
permits’ for existing units, unless the units will be
closed pursuant to Subpart E within t~oyears of the
effective
date of this Part.
‘
b. The owner or operator of an existing unit shall
submit information required by 35 Ill. Adm. Code 812
14
to demonstrate compliance with Subpart B, Subpart C
or Subpart D of this Part, whichever is appliOable.
c. The application shall be filed within 48 months of
the effective date of this Part, or at such earlier
time as the Agency shall specify in writing pursuant
to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 807.209 or 813.201(b)
d. The application shall be made pursuant to the
procedures of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 813.
18. The Respondents failed to cause CLC to file the required’
significant modification for Parcel B by June 15, 1993.
19.. The Respondents finally filed CLC’s significant
modification on August 5, 1996, pursuant to a prospective variance
issued by the Board.
20. By failing to file, CLC’s required significant
modification for Parcel B by June 15, 1993, the Respondents have
violated Section 21(d) (2) of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/21(d) (2) (2002), and
Section 814.104 of the’Board’s Waste Disposal Regulations, 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 814.104.
‘
‘ .-‘ ‘
WHEREFORE, Complainant, PEOPLE OF, THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
respectfully requests that the Board enter an.order against
Respdndents’EDWARD PRUIM, and ROBERT PRUIM, with respect to Count
V:
1. Authori~inga hearing’in this matter at which time the
Respondents will be required to ‘answer the allegations herein;
2. Finding that the Respondents have. violated Section
21(d) (2) of the Act and Section 814.104 of the Board’s Waste
Disposal Regulations;
3. Ordering the Respondents to cease and desist from any
further violations of Section 21(d) (2) of the Act or Section
15
814.104 of the Board’s Waste Disposal Regulations;
4. Assessing a civil penalty of Fifty Thousand Dollars
($50,000.00) against the Respondents, jointly and severally, for
each violation, and an additional civil penalty of Teni Thousand
Dollars ($10,000.00) per day of violation;
5. Requiring the Respondents to pay all costs, including
expert witness, consultant and attorney fees, expended by the State
in its pursuit of this action; and
6. Granting such other relief, as the Board deems
appropriate.
COUNT VI
WATER POLLUTION
1-21.
‘
Complainant realleges and incorporates by reference
herein, paragraphs 1 through 21 of Count I. as paragraphs 1 through
21 of ‘this’ Count VI as if fully set forth herein.
22.. During the May 22, 1995, inspection, the Illinois ‘EPA
inspector observed leachate in the north perimeter ditch, which
eventually drains into the Illinois River.
‘
23. Section 12(a) of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/12(a) (2002),
provides as follows:
No person shall:
‘ ‘
a.
Cause or threaten or allow-the discharge of any
contaminants in any State so as to cause or tend to
cause water pollutiOn in Illinois, either’ alone or
in combination with matter from other sources, or
so as to’ violate regulations or standards adopted
by the Pollution Control Board under this
Act;
24. Section 807.313 of the.Eoard’s Waste Disposal,
Regulations, 35 Ill. Adm. Code 807.313, provides as follows:
No person shall cause or allow operation of a sanitary
16.
landfill so as to cause or threaten or allow the
discharge of any contamination into the environment in
any State so as.to cause or tend to cause water pollution
in Illinois, either alone or in combination with matter
from other sources, or so as to violate regulations or
standards adopted by the Pollution Control Board under
the Act.
‘
25. Section 3.165 of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/3.165 (2002),
defines “contaminant” as “any solid, liquid, or gase’ous matter, any
odor, or any form of energy, fron’i whatever source.”
26.
The leachate the Illinois EPA inspector observed in the
north perimeter ditch is a contaminant as. that term is defined at
Sectioii 3.165 of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/3.165 (2002)
27. Section 3.550 of the Act, 4l6ILCS 5/3.550 (2002),
defines water~ as “all accumulations of water, surface and
underground, natural, and artificial, public and private, or parts
thereof, which are wholly or partially within, flow through Or
border upon this State.”
28. The Illinois River into which leachate from the north
perimeter ditch located on the site eventually drains, is a water’
of the state ‘of Illinois as that term is. defined at Section 3.550
of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/3.550 (2002)
.
, ‘
29. Section 3.545 of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/3.545 (2002),
defines “water pollution” as follows:
‘,
‘
“Water pollution” is such alteration of the physical,
thermal, chemical, biological or radioactive properties
of any waters of the State, or such discharge of any
contaminant into any waters of the State,’ as will or is
likely to create a nuisance or render such waters harmful
or detrimental or injurious to public health, safety or
welfare, or to domestic, commercial, industrial,
agricultural, recreational, or other legitimate uses”, or
to livestock, wild animals, birds, fish, or other aquatic’
life.
17
30. Causing or allowing leachate, a contaminant, to flow into
the north perimeter ditch which eventually drains or discharges
into the Illinois River constitutes water pollution as that term is
defined at Section 3.545 of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/3.545 (2002)
31.
The Respondents failed to take sufficient action, or
direct their employees
to take sufficient action,
to prevent.
leachate from flowing off-Site to the Illinois River. By allowing”
leachate to flow off-site to the Illinois River, the Respondents
have violated Sections 12(a) and 21(d) (2) of the’Act, 415 ILCS
5/12(a) and 21(d) (2) (2002), and Section 807.313 of the Board’s
Waste Disposal Regulations, 35 Ill. Adm. Code 807.313.
WHEREFORE, Complainant, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
respectfully requests that the Board enter an order’ against
Respondents EDWARD PRUIM, and ROBERT PRUIM, with respect to Count
VI:
1. Authorizing a hearing in this matter at which time the
Respondents will be required to answer the allegations herein;
2. Finding that the Respondents have violated Sections’ 12 (a)
and 21(d) (2) of the Act and 35 Ill. Adm. Code 807.313;
3.
‘
Ordering the Respondents to cease and desist from any
further violations of Sections 12(a) and 21(d) (2), of the Adt and 35
Ill. Adm. Code 807.313;
•
4.
‘
Assessing a civil penalty of Fifty Thousand Dollars
($50,000.00) against the Respondents, jointly and severally, for
each violation, and an additional civil penalty of Ten Thousand
Dollars ($10,000.00) for each day of violation;
5. Requiring the Respondents to pay all costs, including
18.
‘
expert witness, consultant and attorney fees, expended by the State
in its pursuit of this action’; and
6. Granting such other relief as the Board deems
.appropriate.
,
-
COUNT VII
DEPOSITING WASTE IN UNPERMITTED
PORTIONS OF A LANDFILL
1-15. Complainant realleges and incorporates by reference
herein, paragraphs 1 through 15 of Count I as paragraphs 1 through
15 of this “Count VII as if fully set forth herein.
16. On June 5, 19ë9, supplemental development permit number
1989-005-SP’ was issued to CLC for the vertical expansion of Parcel
A and Parcel B.
‘
17. Supplemental developmental permit number l989-005-SP,
specifically incorporated, as part of said permit, the final plans,
specifications, application and supporting documents that were
submitted by the Respondents and approved by the Illinois.EPA.
18. ‘The Respondents’ ‘supplemental development permit
application, incorporated as part of supplemental development
permit’ number 1989-005-SP,.provides the maximum elevation for the
landfill ‘as 580 feet above mean sea level.
19. Respondents,’ who managed and controlled the deposit of
waste at the landfill, were therefore required not to allow the
landfill elevation to exceed 580 feet above mean sea level.
20. On or about January 17, 1995, the Respondents submitted a
Solid Waste Capacity Certi’fication to Illinois EPA, signed by
Respondent Edward Pruim, reporting that there was no remaining
capacity in Parcel B as of January 1, 1995.
,
19
‘
21. Despite having reported no’rernaining capacity in Parcel B
at the site, the Respondents continued to cause and allow the
deposit of waste in Parcel B after January 1, 1995.
22.
On or about Januar.y 15, 1996, the Respondents submitted a
Solid Waste Landfill Capacity Certification to Illinois EPA, signed
by Respondent Robert Pruim, reporting that the Respondents had
received over 540,000 cubic yards for deposit in Parcel B between
January 1, 1995 and
December
31, 1995.
23. On August 5, 1996, the Respondents caused CLC to file
with the Illinois EPA, an application for significant modification
of parcel’ B. The application contained a map which shows the
curren’t condition of parcel, B.
24. The map referenced’ in parag~aph23 above, shows the
‘current elevation for parcel B to be at least 590 feet above mean
sea level, a ten feet increase ‘over the permitted elevation.
25. On April 30, 1997, the Respondents caused CLC to submit
to the Illinois EPA, a document titled:
“ADDENDUM
TO THE.
APPLICATION FOR SIGNIFICANT MODIFICATION TO PERMIT MORRIS COMMUNITY
LANDFILL
-
PARCEL B.” The information contained therein showed,
that in excess of 475,000 cubic yards of waste was disposed of
above the permitted landfill height of 580 feet above mean sea
level.
.
.
‘
26. On information and belief, to the date of filing this
amended complaint, portions of Parcel B continue to exceed, 580 feet
above mean sea level.
27. Section 21(o) (9) of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/21(o) (9) (2002),
provides as follows:
‘
‘
20
No person shall:
,
Conduct a sanitary landfill operation which is required
to have a permit under subsection (d) of this Section, in
a manner which results in any of the following
conditions:
‘
9. deposition of refuse in
any unpermitted portion of
the landfill.
‘
28. Refuse is waste as that term is defined at Section 3.535
of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/3.535 (2002).
‘
‘
29.
On and before August 5, 1996, or a date better known to
Respondents. and continuing until the filing of this Amended’
Complaint herein, the Respondents caused. and allowed the deposit of
refuse in unpermitted portions of parcel B.
‘30.
By causing and allowing’ the deposit of refuse or waste in
portions of parcel B above its permitted elevation, the Respondents
violated Section 21(o) (9) of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/21(o) (9) (2002)
WHEREFORE, Complainant,’ PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
respectfully requests that the Board enter an order against
Respondents
EDWARO
PRUIM, and ROBERT PRUIM, with respect to Count
VII:
1.
Authorizing a hearing in this matter at which time the
Respondents will be required to answer the allegations herein;’
2.
‘
Finding that the Respondents have caused’ or. allowed
violatiOns of Section 21(o) (9) of the Act;
3. Ordering the Respondents to cease and de’sist from any
further violations of Section 21(o) (9) of the Act;
4. Assessing a civjl penalty of Fifty Thousand Dollars
,
($50,000.00) against the Respondents, jointly and severally, for
each violation,’ and an addition, civil penalty of Ten Thousand
21
‘
‘
Dollars ($10,000.00) for each day of violation;
5.
Requiring the Respondents to pay all costs, including
expert witness, consultant ‘and attorney fees, expended by the State
in its pursuit of this action; and
6.
Granting such other relief as the Board deems
appropriate.
‘ ‘ , ‘
‘
COUNT VIII
CONDUCTING A WASTE DISPOSAL OPERATION WITHOUT A PERMIT
1-26. Complainant realleges and incorporates by reference
herein paragraphs 1 through 26 of Count VII as paragraphs 1 through
26 of this Count VIII as if fully set forth herein.
27. Section 21(d) (1) of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/21(d) (1) (2002),
provides as follows:
No person shall:
‘
Conduct any waste-storage, waste-treatment, or waste-
disposal operation:
1. without a permit granted by the Agency or in
violation of any conditions imposed by such permit,
including periodic reports and full access to
adequate records and the inspection of facilities,
as may be necessary to ensure compliance with this
Act, and with regulations and standards adopted
thereunder.
28. Refuse is waste as that term is defined ,at Section 3.535.
of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/3.535 (2002)
.
29. By causing or allowing refuse or waste to be deposited in
Parcel B at the landfill above the permitted elevation of 580 feet
above mean sea level, unpermitted areas of the, landfill, the
Respondents conducted a waste-storage or waste-disposal operation.
30. Neither the Respondents nor CLC have a permit for the
disposal of waste above an elevation of 580 feet above mean sea
22
level.
31. Since at least August 5, 1996, or a date better known ,to
the Respondents, and continuing until the filing of this Amended
Complaint, the Respondents have caused and allowed the deposition
of waste in unpermitted portions of Parcel B of the landfill in
violation of’ Section 21(d) (1) of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/21(d) (1)
(2002)
WHEREFORE, Complainant,
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
respectfully requests that the Board enter an order
against
Respondents
EDWARD PRUIM, and ROBERT PRUIM, with
respect to Count
VIII:
.
.
1. Authorizing a hearing in this matter at whic’h time the
Respondents will be required to answer the allegations herein;
2. Finding that ‘the Respondents have caused or allowed
violations of Section 21(d) (1) of the Act;
3.
‘
Ordering.the Respondents to cease and desist from any
further violations of Section 21(d) (1) of the ‘Act;
4. Assessing a civil penalty of Fifty Thousand Dollars
($50,000.00)’ against the Respondents for each violation, and an
additional civil penalty of Ten Thousand ($10,000.00) for each day
of violation;
‘
‘
5.’ Requiring the Respondents to pay all costs, including.
expert witness, consultant and attorney fees, expended by the State
in its pursuit of this action; and
6. Granting such other relief as the Board deems
appropriate.
23
COUNT IX
OPEN DUNPING
1-26. Complainant realleges and incorporates by reference
herein paragraphs 1 through 26 of Count VII as paragraphs 1 through
26 of this Count IX as if fully set fo,rth herein.
27. Section 21(a) of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/21(a) (2002),
provides as follows:
No person shall:
a. Cause or allow the open dumping of any waste.
28. Section 3.305 of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/3.305 (2002),
provides the following definition:
“OPEN DUMPING” means the consolidation of refuse from one,
or more sources at a disposal site’that does not fulfill
the requirements of a sanitary landfill.
29. Sections 3.385 and 3.460 of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/3.385,
3.460 (2002), provides the following definitions, respectively:
“’REFUSE” means waste.
-
“SITE” means any location, place,’ tract of land, and
facilities, including, but not limited to building, and
improvements used for purposes subject’ to regulation or
control by this Act or regulations thereunder.
30. The landfill is a “disposal site” as those terms are
defined in the Act.
31. Since at least August 5, 1996, or a date better known to
the Respondents, the Respondents caused or allowed the consolidation
of refuse at the site, above the permitted elevation of 580 feet
above mean sea level.
.
‘ ‘
32. The consolidation of refuse at the site on Parcel B above
the permitted elevation of 580 feet above mean ‘sea level, disposal
areas that do not fulfill the requirements of a sanitary landfill,
24
constitutes “open dumping” as that term is defined in Section 3.24
of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/3.24 (2002).
33.
The Respondents, by their conduct as described herein,
have violated Section 21(a) of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/21(a) (2002).
WHEREFORE, ‘Complainant,
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
respectfully
requests that the Board enter an order against
Respondents EDWARD PRUIM, and ROBERT PRUIM, with respect to Count
IX:
1.
Authorizing .a hearing in this matter at which time the
Respondents will be required to answer the allegations
herein;
2. Finding that the Respondents ‘have’caused or allowed
violations of Section 21(a) Of the Act;
3. Ordering the Respondents to cease and desist from any
‘further violations of Section 21(a) of the Act;
4. Assessing a civil penalty of Fifty Thousand Dollars
($50,000.00) against the Respondents for e,ach violation, and an
additional civil penalty of Ten Thousand iJollars ($10,000.00) for
each day. of violation;
‘ ‘ ‘
5. Requiring-the Respondents to pay all costs, including
-
expert witness, consultant and attorney fees, expended by the State
in the pursuit of this action; and
6. Granting such other relief as the Board deems
appropriate.
COUNT X
VIOLATION OF STANDARD CONDITION 3
1-26. Complainant realleges and incorporates by reference
‘
herein, paragraphs 1 through 26 of Count VII as paragraphs 1 through
-
25
26 of this Count X ‘as if fully set forth herein.
27. Section 21(d) (1) of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/21(d) (1) (2002),
provides as follows:
‘‘
‘
No person
shall:
.
Conduct any waste-storage,
waste-treatment,
or waste-
disposal operation:
1. without a permit granted by the Agency or in
violation of any conditions imposed by such permit,
including periodic reports and full access to
adequate records and the’ inspection of facilities,
as may.’ be necessary to ensure compliance with this
Act, and with regulations and standards adopted
thereunder.
. . .
28. Refuse is waste as
that term is defined at Section 3.535
of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/3.535 (2002)
.
29. Standard condition
number
3 of supplemental development
permit number 1989-005,-SP which’was issued to CLC on June 5, 1989,
provides as follows:
‘There shall be no deviation from the approved plans and
specifications
unless a written request for modification
of
the project, along with plans and specifications
as
required, shall have been submitted to the Agency and a
supplemental written permit issued.
30.
Standard condition number 3 of supplemental development
permit number l989-005-SP, required the Respondents to obtain a
supplemental permit for CLC in order to increase landfill elevation
above 580 feet above mean sea level.
‘31.
Since at.least August 5,1996, or a date better known to
the Respondents, and continuing ‘until the filing of this Complaint,
the Respondents failed to obtain a supplemental permit for CLC to
increase the permitted elevation of the landfill before depositing
waste therein, above 580 feet above mean sea level.
26
32. The Respondents, by their
conduct as described herein,
violated standard condition number 3 of supplemental development
permit number l989-005-SP,
and the~eby, also violated Section
21(d) (1) of the. Act, 415 ILCS 5/21(d) (1) (2002)
WHEREFORE, Complainant, PEOPLE OF THE ‘STATE OF ILLINOIS,
respectfully requests that the Board enter an order against
Respondents EDWARD PRUIM, and ROBERT PRUIM, with respect to Count X:
1. Authorizing a hearing in this matter at which time the
.Respondents will be required to answer the allegations herein;
2. Finding that Respondents have caused or allowed
violations of Section 21(d) (1) of the Act and standard condition
number 3 of permit number ‘1989-005-SP;
‘
3. Ordering the Respondents to cease and desist from any
further violations of Section 2l(~)(1) of the Act and standard
condition number 3 of permit number l989-0005-SP;
4. Assessing a civil penalty of Fifty Thousand Dollars
($50,000.00) against the Respondents, jointly and severally, for
each violation,, and an additional civil penalty of Ten Thousand
Dollars ($10,000.00) for each day,of v.iol~tion;
‘
5. Requiring the Respondents ‘to pay all costs, including
expert witness, consultant and attorney fees, expended by the State
in the pursuit of this action; and
‘ ‘
6. Granting such other relief as the Board deems
appropriate.
‘
27
COUNT
XI
‘
CONDUCTING A WASTE DISPOSAL OPERATION WITHOUT A PERMIT
1-25. Complainant realleges and.incorporates by reference
-
herein paragraphs 1 through 25 of Count I as paragraphs 1 through 25
of this Count XI as if fully set forth herein.
26. Section 21(d) (1) of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/21(d) (1) (2002),
provides as follows:
No person shall:
Conduct any waste-storage, waste-treatm’ent, or waste-
disposal operation:
1.
‘
without a permit granted by the Agency or in
violation of’any conditions imposed by such permit,
including ‘periodic reports and full access to
adequate records and the inspection of facilities,
as may be necessary to- ensure compliance with this
Act, and with regulations and standards adopted
thereunder.
. .
27. Refuse is waste as that term is defined at Section 3.535
of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/3.535(2.002).
28.. The enactment of Part 814 of the Board’s waste disposal
regulations required, pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 814 Subpart
D, that non-hazardous waste landfills initiate closure by September
18, 1997 if they cannot demonstrate, through a significant
modification permit application and Illinois EPA inspection,
compliance with the more stringent requirements of 35 Ill. Adm. Code
Part 814 Subpart C.
29. Subpart C of Part 814, 35 Ill. Adm. Code 814.301-302,
specifically, 814.301(a), allows a permitted facility that meets the
requirements of that Subpart’ to stay open past September 18, 1997.
30. In order to meet the requirements of Subpart C of Part
814, a facility must comply with the requirements of 35 Ill. Adm.
28
Code: Subtitle G, Part 811,. including, but not limited to the,
requirements of 811.704.
Section 811.704 of 35 Ill. Adm. Code
requires the post-closure cost estimates shall be “based on the
assumption that the Agency will contract with a third party to
implement the closure plan”.
31. A facility which accepted waste after.’l992 that fails to
meet the requirements of Subpart C is subject to
the
requirements of
Subpart D.
‘
32. Subpart D of Part 814, 35 Ill. Adm. Code 814.401-402,
requires a facility regulated under this. Subpart to close and’ shop
accepting waste within seven (7) years of the effective date of Part
814.
Part 814 became effective on September 18, 1990.
33. Section 814.105(b). of the Board’s Waste Disposal
Regulations, 35 Ill. Adm. Code 814.105(b), provides temporary relief
from this closure requirement for facilities that timely file their
application for significant modificatio~iand reads as follows:
b)
An operator who has timely filed a notification
pursuant to Section 814.103 and an application for
significant permit ‘modification pursuant to Section
814.104 shall con~tinue operation under the terms of
its existing permits until final determination by
the Agency on its application and any subsequent
appeal to the’ Boardpursuant to Section. 40 of the
Act. During this time, the operator will be deemed
to be in compliance with all requirements of this’
Part.
34. Section 814.104 of the Board’s Waste Disposal
Regulations, 35 Ill. Adm. Code 814.104, provides, in pertinent part,
as follows:
‘
(a) All operators of landfills permitted pursuant to’
Section 21(d) of the Environmental Protection Act,
(Act) (Ill. Rev. Stat. .1989,ch. 111
~,
par.
29
1.021(d)) now 415 ILCS 5/21(d) (2Q02) shall file an
application for a significant modification to their
permits for existing units, unless the units, will be
closed pursuant to Subpart E within two years of the
effective date of this Part.
*
*
‘
*
(c) The application shall be filed within 48 months of
the effective date of this Part, or at such earlier
time as the Agency shall specify in writing pursuant
to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 807.209 or 813.201(b)
35. Forty Eight (48) months from the effective date of Part
814 was September 18, 1994.
36. The Illinois EPA specified to the Respondents, in
writing, that CLC was to submit ‘its.application for significant
modification of its ‘permit by June 15, 1993.
37.
..
Respondents’ failed to’ cause CLC to submit the application
by June 15, 1993.
,
‘
‘
38. On April 26, 1995, the Respondents filed a petition for
variance with the Board.
‘
.
39. On June’17,’ 1996, the Appellate Court entered an Order
Overturning the Board’s variance denial and ordered the “Illinois
Pollution Control Board to immediately issue a prospective variance
to Community Landfill Corporation allowing it to file its
significant modification application within 45 days”.
40. In a subsequently issued written opinion,, the Appellate
Court noted that it did not award CLC the extraordinary relief of a
retroactive variance.
‘
41. Respondents caused CLC to file an application for
significant modification on August 5, 1996, within the 45 days
allowed by the prospective variance.
‘
30
42. Among other defects, as part of its application for
significant modification, the Respondents did ‘not provide the
Illinois ‘EPA with post-closure cost estimates “based on the
assumption that the Agency will contract with a third party to
implement the closure plan”.
43. By failing to demonstrate CLC’s ability to comply with
Part ‘811 of the Board’s Waste Disposal Regulations, the Respondents
did not. meet the requirements of 814 Subpart C, and therefore are
subject to the requirements of Subpart D including the requirement
that it initiate closure of the site by September 18, 1997.
44.
.
By failing to file a timely application for significant
modification, neither the Respondents, nor CLC, had legal authority
‘to continue accepting waste at the facility past September 18, 1997..
45..’ By accepting waste in’ Parcel A after September 18, 1997,
the Respondents violated Section 21(d) of the Act, 415 ILCS
5/21(d) (2002), and 35 Ill. Adm. Code 814.301(b) and 814.401.,
WHEREFORE, Complainant, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
respectfully requests that the Board enter an order against
Respondents EDWARD PRUIM, and ROBERT PRUIM, with respect to Count
XI:
‘
1.
.
Authorizing a hearing in this matter at which time the
Respondents will be required to answer the allegations herein;
2. Finding that Respondents have caused or allowed
violations of Section’21(d) of the Act and 35 Ill. Adrn. Code 814.301
and 814.401;
3.. Ordering the Respondents to cease and desist from any
further violations of Section,21(d) of the’ Act and 35 Ill. Adm. Code
31
814.301 and 814.401
.
‘
‘
4. Ordering the Respondents to cease and desist from
accepting waste at the site, until such time as i.t is permitted to
accept waste;
.
‘
‘
5.
Assessing a civil penalty of Fifty Thousand Dollars
($50,000.00) against the Respondent~, jointly and severally,
for
each violation, and an additional civil penalty of Ten Thousand
($10,000.00) for each day of violation;
6. Requiring the Respondents to pay all costs, including
expert witness, consultant and attorney fees, expended by the State’
in its pursuit of this action; and
7. Granting ~such other relief as the Board deems
appropriate.
COUNT
XII
IMPROPER DISPOSAL OF USED TIRES
1-15. Complainant real.leges and incorporates by reference
herein, paragraphs 1 t’hrough 10, paragraphs 12 through 15, and
paragraph 17, of Count I as paragraphs 1 through 15 of this Count
XII as if fully set forth herein.
16. Section 55(b-1) of the-Act, 415 ILCS .5/55(b-l) (2002),
provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
b-i Beginning January 1, 1995, no person shall knowingly
mix any used or waste tire,.either whole or cut,
wi’th municipal waste, and no owner or operator of a
sanitary landfill shall accept any used or waste
tire for final disposal; except that used or waste
tires, when separated from other waste, may be
accepted if: (1) the sanitary landfill provides and
maintains a means for shredding, slitting, or
chopping whole tires and so treats whole tires and,
if approved by the Agency in a permit issued under
• this Act, uses the used or waste tires for
alternative uses, which may include on-site
32
practices such as lining of roadways with tire
scraps, alternative daily cover, or use in a
leachate collection system or (2) the sanitary
landfill, by its notification to the Illinois
Industrial Materials Exchange Service, makes
available the used or waste tires to an appropriate
facility for reuse, reprocessing, or converting,
including use as an alternative energy fuel.
17. On July 28, 1998, the Respondents were allowing .the
mixing of waste tires with municipal waste and placement of the
mixed waste in the active area o’f Parcel A of the landfill for
disposal.
18. By the actions described herein, Respondents have
violated Section 55(b-1) of the Act.
WHEREFORE, ‘Complainant, PEOPLE OF’ THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
respectfully requests that the Board enter an order against
Respondents EDWARD PRUIM, and ROBERT PRUIM, with, respect to Count
XII:
1. Authorizing a hearing.in this matter at which time the
Respondents will be required to answer the allegations herein;
2. Finding that the Respondents have caused or allowed
violations of Section 55(b-l) of the Act;
3. Ordering the ~.espOndents to cease and desist from any
further violations of Section 55(b-1) of the Act;
4.
‘
Assessing a civil penalty of Fifty Thousand Dollars
($50,000.00) against the Respondents for each violation, and an
additional civil penalty of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00)for
each day. of violation;
‘
5. Requiring the Respondents to pay all costs, including
expert witness, consultant and attorney fees, expended by the State
33
in the pursuit of this action; and
6.
‘
Granting such other relief as the Board deems
appropriate.
COUNT XIII
VIOLATION OF PERMIT CONDITION
1-22. COmplainant realleges and incorporates by reference
he’rein, paragraphs 1 through 22 of Count I as paragraphs 1 through
22 of this Count XIII, as if fully set forth herein.
23. Section ‘21(d) (1) of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/21(d) (1) (2002)
provides as follows:
No person shall:
Conduct any waste-storage, waste-treatment, or waste-
disposal operation:
1.
‘
without a permit granted by the Agency or in
violation of any conditions imposed by such permit,
including periodic reports and full access ,to
adequate records and the inspection of facilities,
as may be nec’essary to ensure compliance with this
Act, and with regulations and standards adopted
thereunder.
.
24. Refuse i’s waste as that term is. defined at Section 3.535
of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/3.535(2002).
25. Special condition number 13 of supplemental development’
permit number. 1989-005-SP which was issued to Respondent CLC on June
5, 1989, provides as follows:
Movable, temporary fencing will ‘be used to prevent
blowing litter, when the refuse fill is at a higher
elevation than the natural ground line.
25. Special condition number 13 of CLC’s supplemental
development permit number l989-005-SP, required the Respondents to
utilize movable fencing to prevent blowing litter wh~enthe refuse
fill is at a higher elevation than’ the natural ground line.
34
26. On March, 31, 1999, a windy day, no movable fencing was
present, ‘even though the fill was at a higher elevation than the
natural ground line, and litter was blowing all over the’ landfill.
27. The Respondents, by their acts and omissions as described
herein, caused and allowed violations of special condition number 13
of CLC’s supplemental development permit number 1989-005-SP, and
thereby, violates ,Section 21(d) (1) of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/21(d) (1)
(2002)
.
WHEREFORE, Complainant, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
respectfully requests that the Board enter an order agai’nst
Respondents EDWARD PRUIM, and ROBERT PRUIM, with respect to Count
XIII:
‘
1. Authorizing a hearing in this matter at
which
time the
Respondents will be required to answer the allegations.herein;
2. Finding that the Respondents have caused or allowed
violations of Section 21(d) (1) of t’he Act and special condition
number 13 of permit number 1989-005-SP;
3. Ordering .the Respondents to cease and desist from any
further violations -of Section 21(d) (1) of the Act and special’
condition number 13 of permit ‘number 1989-005-SP;
-
4.’ Assessing a civil penalty of Fifty Thousand Dollars
($50,000.00) against the. Respondents, jointly and severally, for
each violation, and an additional civil penalty of Ten Thousand
Dollars ($10,000.00) for each day of violation;
5. Requiring the Respondents to pay all costs, including
expert witness, consultant and attorney ‘fees, expended by the State
in the pursuit of this action; and
35
‘
6. Granting such other relief as .the Boar.d deems
appropriate.
COUNT XIV
VIOLATION OF PERMIT CONDITION
1-23. Complainant realleges and incorporates by reference
herein, paragraphs 1 through 23 of Count I as paragraphs 1 through
23 of this Count XIV as i.f fully set forth herein.
‘24. Section 21(d) (1) of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/2l(d)(1) (2002),
provides as follows:
No person shall:
Conduct any waste-storage, waste-treatment, or waste-
disposal operation:
1. without a permit granted by the Agency or in
violation of any conditions imposed by such permit,
including periodic reports and full access’ to
adequate records and the inspection of facilities,
as may be necessary to ensure compliance with this
Act, and with regulations and standards adopted
thereunder.
. .
25. Refuse is waste as that term is defined at Section 3.535
of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/3.535 (2002)
26.’ Special condition number 1 of supplemental development
permit number 1996-240-SP which was issued to Respondent CLC on.
October 24, 1996, provides as follows:
This permit allows the development and construction of an
active gas management system’and a gas flare. Prior to
operation of the gas control facility, the applicant
shall provide’to the Agency the following information,
certified by a registered professional engineer.
a) “as built” construction plans;
-
b) boring logs for the gas extraction wells;
c) any changes to the operation and maintenance of the
system;
‘
d)
contingency plan describing the emergency procedures
that will be implemented in the event of a fire or
explosion at the facility; and
‘
36
Respondents EDWARD PRUIM, and ROBERT PRUIM, with respect to Count
XV:
1. Authorizing a hearing in this matter at which time the
Respondents will be.required to answer the allegations herein;
2. Finding that Respondents have caused or allowed
violations of SectiOn 21(d) (1) of the Act and special condition
number
9 of permit number l996-240-SP;
3. Ordering the Respondents to cease and desist from any
further violations of Section 21(d) (1) of the Act and special
condition number 9 of permit. number l996-240-SP;
.4. Assessing a civil penalty Of Fifty Thousand Dollar’s
($50,000.00) against the Respondents, jointly and severally, for
each violation, and an additional civil penalty of Ten Thousand,
Dollats ($10,000.00) for each day of violation;
5. Requiring the Respondents to pay all costs, including
expert witness, consultant’ and a,tt~rneyfees, expended by the State
in the pursuit of this action; and
6. Granting such other relief’as the Board deems
appropriate.
COUNT XVI
VIOLATION OF PERMIT CQNDITION
1-23. Complainant realleges and incorporates by reference
herein, paragraphs 1 thrOugh 23 of’ Count I as’ paragraphs 1 through
23 of this Count XVI as if fully set forth herein.
‘
24. Sectio’n 21(d) (‘1) of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/21(d) (1) (2002),
provides as follows:
No ‘person shall:
‘
40
2.5. Refuse is waste as that term is defined at Section 3.535
of the Act, 415. ILCS 5/3.535 (2002)
26. Special condition number 9of suppiemental’development
permit number l996-240-SP, provides as follows:.
While the site is being developed or operated as a gas
control or extraction facility, corrective action shall
‘be ‘taken if erosion or ponding are observed, if cracks
greater than one inch wide have formed, if gas, odor,
vegetative or vector problems arise, or if leachate
popouts or seeps are present in the areas disturbed by
constructing this gas collection facility.
27. Respondents were required by special condition number 9
of supplemental development permit number l996-240-SP, to take
corrective action when there was. erosion, ponding, and cracks
greater than one ‘inch wide at the facility.
28.
‘
On or about March 31, l999,on Parcel A, there was
erosion, ponding and’ cracks Over one inch wide at the facility, no
vegetative cover, and no corrective action was being taken.
29. On July 20, 1999, there was not a vegetative cover over
the entire Parcel B of the landfill.
30. The Respondents failed to take any action, or authorize
and, direct their employees to take any action, to prevent erosion,
‘ponding, and crack in the landfill cover, and failed to provide for
proper vegetative cover at the Site.
31.
.
Respondents, by the conduct described herein, violated
special condition number 9 of its supplemental development permit
number 1996-240-SP, and thereby, also violated Section ‘21(d) (1). of
the Act, 415 ILCS 5/21(d) (1) ‘(2002)
WHEREFORE, Complainant, PEOPLE’OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
‘
respectfully requests’that the Board enter an order against
39
number 1 of permit number 1996-240-SP;
3. Ordering Respondents to cease and desist from any further
violations of Section 21 (d) (1) of ‘the Act and special, condition
number
1 of permit number 1996-240-SP;
4. Assessing a civil, penalty of Fifty Thousand Dollars
($50,000.00) against’ the Respondents, jointly and severally, for.
each violation,’ and an additional civil penalty of Ten Thousand
Dollars ($10,000.00) for each day of violation;
5... Requiring the Respondents to pay all costs, including
expert witness, consultant, and attorney fees, expended by the State
in the pursuit of this action; and
‘6. Granting such other relief as the Board deems
appropriate.
COUNT XV
VIOLATION OF PERMIT CONDITION
1-23. Complainant realleges and incorporates by reference
herein, paragraphs 1 through 23 of Count I as paragraphs 1 through
.23 of this. Count XV a’s if fully set forth herein.
-
24. Section 21(d) (1) of the Act, 415’ ILCS 5/21(d) (1) (2002),
provides as follows:
‘
‘ ‘
No person shall:
•
Conduct any waste--storage, waste-treatment, or waste-
disposal operation:
1. without a permit granted by the Agency or in
violation of any conditions imposed by such permit,
including periodic reports and full access to
adequate records and the inspection of facilities,
as may be necessary to ensure compliance with this
Act, and with regulations and standards adopted
thereunder.
. . .
‘
38
e) permit numbers from the Agency’s. Bureaus of Air and
Water.
This information shall be submitted in the form of a
permit application.
‘
27. The Respon’dents were required by special condition number
1 of supplemental development permit number l996-240-SP, to provide
the Illinois EPA with the abovementioned information, before
operating its gas control facility.
28.. On or about March 31, 1999, or on a date or dates better
known to the Respondents, the Respondents allowed commencement of
operation of the gas control facility at the site without having
first providing the necessary information to the Illinois EPA.
29. On May 5, 1999, the Illinois EPA received Respondents’
submittal regarding an operating authorization request for the
landfill gas management system.
‘
30. The Respondents, by their acts and omissions as
described herein, violated special condition ‘number 1 of CLC’s
supplemental development permit number l996-240-SP, and thereby,
also violated Section 21(d) (1) of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/21(d) (1)
(2002)
WHEREFORE, Complainant, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
respectfully requests that the Eoard.enter an order against
Respondents EDWARD PRUIM, and ROBERT PRIJIM, with respect to Count
XIV:
1. Authorizing a hearing in this matter at which time the
Respondents will be required to answer the allegations herein;
2. Finding that Respondents have caused or allowed
viblations, of ‘Section 21(d) (1) of the Act and special condition.
37
Conduct any waste-stora~e, waste-treatment, or waste,-
disposal operation:
1.
.
without a permit granted by the Agency or in
violation of.any conditions imposed by such permit,
including periodic reports and full access to
adequate records and the inspection of fac~lit±es,
as may be necessary to ensure compliance with this
Act, and with regulations and standards adopted
thereunder.
. ‘. .
‘25. Refuse is waste as that term is defined at Section 3.535
of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/3.535 (2002)
.
‘
26. Special condition number 11 of supplemental development
permit number 1996-240-SP, provides as follows:
Condensate’from the gas accumulations system, and
leachate pumped and removed from the landfill ‘shall be
disposed at. an IEPA permitted publically owned treatment
work’s, or a cOmmercial treatment or disposal facility.
The condensate shall be analyzed to determine -if
hazardous waste characteristics are present. ,A written
log showing the volume of liquid discharged to the
treatment facility each day by the landfill will be
maintained at the landfill. This log will also show the
hazardous waste determination analytical results.
27. The Respondents were required by special condition number
11 of ‘supplemental development permit number 1996-240-SP, to dispose
of leachate pumped from the cells at a permitted, publically owned
treatment works, or a commercial treatment or disposal facility.
28. ‘On or. about March 31, 1999 and July 20, 1999, the
Respondents caused and allowed leachate to be pumped from ‘the
landfill into new cells for added moisture and did not dispose of it
at a permitted facility:
29. The Respondents, by the conduct described herein,
violated special condition number 11 of supplemental development
permit number 1996-240-SP, and thereby also violated Section
21(d) (1) of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/21(d) (1) (2002)
41
,
i—
WHEREFORE, Complainant, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
respectfully reques’ts that the Board enter an order against
Respondents EDWARD PRUIM, and POBERT PRUIM, with respect to Count
XVI:
‘
1. Authorizing a hearing in this matter at which time the
Respondents will be required ‘to answer the allegations ‘herein;
2. Finding that Respondents have caused or allowed
violations of Section 21(d) (1) of the Act and special condition
number 11 of permit number l996-240-SP;
3. Ordering the Respondents to cease and desist from any
further. violations of Section 21(d) (1) of the Act and special
condition number 11 of permit number. l996-240-SP,’ including,~ but not
limited to the improper use or disposal of leachate;
4. Assessing a”civil penalty of Fifty Thousand Dollars
($50,000.00) against the Respondents, jointly and severally, for
each violation, and an additional civil penalty of Ten Thousand
Dollars ($10,000.00) for each day of violation;
5. Requiring the Respondents to pay all costs, including
expert witness, consultant and attorney fees, expended by’ the State
in the pursuit of this action;’ and
6. Granting such other relief as the Board. deems
appropriate..
COUNT XVII
FAILURE TO PROVIDE AND MAINTAIN ADEQUATE
FINANCIAL ASSURANCE PURSUANT TO
THE OCTOBER 24, 1996 PERMIT
,
‘
1-23. Complainant realleges and. incorporates by reference
herein, paragraphs 1 through 23 of Count I as paragraphs~1 through
42
‘
23 of this’ Count XVII as if fully set forth herein.
24. Section 21(d) (1) of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/21(d) (1) (2002),
provides as follows:
‘
‘
No person shall:
Conduct any waste-storage, waste-treatment, or waste-
disposal operation:
1. without a permit .granted by the Agency or in
violatiOn of any conditions imposed by su’ch permit,
including periodic reports and full access to’
adequate records and the inspection of facilities,
as may be necessary to ensure compliance with this
Act, and. with regulations and standards adopted
thereunder.
. .
25. Refuse ‘is waste as that term,is, defined at Section 3.53
of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/3.53 (2002).
26. Special condition number 13 of supplemental development
permit number l996-240-SP, dated October 24, 1996, provides as
follows:
Financial assurance. shall be maintained by the operator
in accordance with 35 Ill. Adm. Code, Subtitle G, Part
807, Subpart F in an amount equal to the current cost
estimate for closure and post closure care. The current
cost estimate is $1,431,360.00 as stated in Permit
Application, Log No; 1996-240. Within 90 days of the
date of this permit, the operator shall provide financial
assurance in the amount of the current cost estimate as
required by 35 Ill. Adm. Code 8,07.603(b) (1). (Note: prior
to the operation of the gas extraction system in
‘
accordance with Special Condition l.of this permit, the
operator shall provide financial assurance in the amount
of $1,439,720.00)
27. The Respondents were required by special condition number
13 of supplemental development permit number 1996-240-SP, to arrange
financing for CLC to p±’ovide $1,431,360.00 in financial assurance
within 90 days from October 24, 1996 (January 22, 1997) and to
increase this -amount to $1,439,720.00 prior to the operation of the
43
gas extraction system.
28. The Respondents did not increase CLC’s financial
assurance to $1,431,360.00 by January 22, 1997 (90 days from ‘October
24, 1996)
29. The Respondents did not provide for CLC’s financial
assurance in the amount of $1,439,720.00 prior to the operation of
the gas extraction system.
‘
30. The Respondents caused CLC to provide to the Illinois EPA
‘a rider to the existing performance bond that increased the amount
of financial assurance to $1,439,720.00 on September 1, 1999.
31. The Respondents, by the conduct described herein, caused
or allowed violations of special condition number 13 of ‘supplemental
development permit number 1996-240-SP, and thereby, also violated
Section 21(d) (1) of the Act, 4,15 ILCS. 5/21(d) (1) (2002).
32. The Respondents were out of compliance with special
condition number 13 of supplemental development permit number 1996-
240-SP and Section 21(d) (1) of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/21(d) (1) (2002)
from January 22, 1997 until September 1, 1999.
WHEREFORE, Complainant, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
respectfully requests that the Board ‘enter an order against
Respondents, EDWARD PRUIM, and ROBERT PRUIM, with respect to Count
XVII:
1. Authorizing a hearing in this matter at which time the
Respondents will be required to answer t.he allegations herein;
2. Finding that Respondents have caused or allowed
violations of Se’ction 21(d) (1) of the Act and special condition
number 13 of permit number l996-240-SP;
-
44
‘
.
‘
•
I
“t’
~
3. Ordering the Respondents to cease and desist from any
further violations of Section 21(d) (1) of the Act and special
condition number 13 of permit number l996-240-SP;
4. Assessing a civil penalty of Fifty Thousand Dollars
($50,000.00) against Respondents, jointly and severally, for each
violation, and an additional civil penalty of Ten Thousand Dollars
($10,000.00) for each day of violation;
5. Requiring the Respondents to pay all costs,.including
expert witness,, consultant and attorney fees, expended by the State
in the pursuit of this action; and
6.
.
Granting such other relief as the Board deems’
appropriate.
.
.
COUNT XVIII
VIOLATION OF PERMIT
CONDITION
1-23. Complainant realleges and incorporates by reference
herein, parag±aphs 1 through 23 of Count I as paragraphs’l through
23 of this Count XVIII as. if fully set forth herein.
24. Section 21(d)(1) of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/21(d) (1) (2002),
provides as follows:
No person shall:
‘Conduct any waste-storage, waste-treatment, or waste-
disposal operation:
1. without a permit granted by the Agency or in
violation of any conditions imposed by such permit,
including periodic reports and full access to
adequate records and the inspection of facilities,
as may be necessary to ensure compliance with this
Act, and with regulations and standards adopted
thereunder.
. .
25. Refuse is waste as that’ term is. defined at Section 3.53
of the Act, 415 .ILCS 5/3.53 (2002).
.
45
‘
26. Special condition number 17 of supplemental development
permit number l989-005-SP, provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
Prior to placing waste material in any Area, a registered
professional engineer shall certify. that the floor and/or
•
sidewall liner or seal has been developed and donstructed
in accordance with an approved plan and specifications.
Such data and certification shall be submitted to the
Agency prior to placement of waste in the areas
referenced above. No wastes shall be placed in those
areas until the Agency has approved the certifications
and issued an Operating Permit.
27. The Respondents were required by special condition number
17 of supplemental development permit number 1996-240-SP, to obtain
CLC’s’ Operating Permit and Illinois EPA approval based on a
professional engineer’s certification before placing any waste
materials in an area that, did not yet have this approval.
28. On March 31, 1999, and July20, 1999, the Respondents
caused or allowed placement of leachat’e, a waste, in areas tha.t had
not been certified or approved by the Illinois EPA.
29. The Respondents, by the conduct described herein,
violated special condition number, 17 of supplemental development
permit number l989-005-SP, and thereby, also violated Section
21(d).(l) of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/21(d) (1) (2002)
WHEREFORE, Complainant, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
respectfully requests that the Board enter an order against
Respondents EDWARD PRUIM, and ROBERT PRUIM, with ‘respect to Count
XVIII:
‘
‘
1.
.
Authorizing a hearing in this matter at which time the
Respondents will be required to’ answer’ the allegations herein;
2. Finding that Respondents have caused or allowed
violations of Section 21(d) (1) of the Act’ and special condition
46
•I
~
~
number 17 of permit number 1989—00,5-SP;
3. Ordering the Respondents to cease and desist from any
further violations of Section 21(d) (1) o.f the Act and special
condition number 17 of permit number l989-005-SP;
4. Assessing a civil penalty of Fifty Thousand Dollars
($50,000.00) against the’Respondents, jointly and severally, for
each violation,’ and an additional civil penalty of Ten Thousand
Dollars ($10,000.00) for each day of’ violation;
5. Requiring the Respondents to pay all costs, including
expert witness, consultant and attorney fees, expe,nded by the State
in the pursuit of this action; and
6.
‘
Granting such other relief as the Board deems
appropriate.
COUNT XIX
FAILURE TO PROVIDE REVISED COST ESTIMATE
BY
DECEMBER 26, 1994
1-16. Complainant realleges and incorporates by ref erence-
herein paragraphs 1 through 16 of Count I as paragraphs 1 through 16
of this ,Count XIX as if fully set forth herein.
17,. Section 21.1(a) of the,Act, 415 ILCS 5/21.1(a) (2002),
provides as follows:
a.
Except as’ provided in subsection (a.5) no person
other than the State of Illinois, its agencies and
institutions, or
a
unit of local government shall
conduct any waste disposal operation on or after
March 1, 1.985, which requires a permit under
subsection (d) of Section 21 of this Act, unless
such person has posted with the Agency a performance
‘bond or other security for the purpose of insuring
closure of the site and post-closure care in
accordance with this Act and regulations adopted
thereunder.
18. Section 807.601(a) .of the Board’s Waste Disposal
47
Regulations, 35 Ill. Adm. Code 807.601(a), states as follows:
No person shall conduct a waste disposal operation or
indefinite storage operation which requires a permit
under Section 21(d) of the Act unless such person has
provided financial assurance in accordance with this
Subpart.
a) The financial assurance requirement does not apply
to the State of Illinois, its agencies and
institutions, or t.o any unit of local government;
provide.d, however, that any other persons who
conduct such a waste disposal operation on a site
which may be owned or operated by such a government
-
entity must provide financial assurance for closure
and post-closure care of the site.
19. Section 807.623(a) of the Board”s Waste Disposal
Regulations, 35 Ill. Adm. Code 807.623(a), provides as follows:
a. The operator must revise the current cost estimate
at least:.once every two.years. The revised current
cost estimate must be filed on or before the second
anniversary of the filing or last revision of the
current cost estimate.
20. Item 9 ,of the CLC’s supplementalpermit dated April 20,
1993, provided that. the next revised cost estimate was due by
December 26, 1994.
‘ •
21. Respondents failed to cause CLC to provide a revised cost
estimate by December 26, 1994.
22. On July 26, 1996, theRespondentssubmitteda
Supplemental Permit Application for the gas collection and recovery
system and included a revised cost estimate in the amount of
$1,431,360.00.
23. By failing to revise the cost estimate by December 26,
1994, as required by the April 20, 1993,’ supplemental permit, the
Respondents have violated Section 21(d) (2) of the Act, 415 ILCS
5/21(d) (2) (2002), and Section 807.623(a) of the Board’s Waste
48’
‘
k
,
‘-I’,’
~‘
Disposal Regulations, 35 Ill. Adm. Code 807.623(a)
24. The Respondents were out of compliance with Section
21(d) (2) of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/21(d) (2) (2002), 35 Ill. Adm. Code
‘807.623(a) from December 26, 1994 until July 26, 1996.
WHEREFORE, Complainant, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
respectfully requests that the Board enter an order against.
Respondents
EDWARD PRUIM, and ROBERT PRUIM, with
respect to Count
XIX:
1. Authorizing a hearing in this matter at which time the
Respondents will be required to answer the allegations herein;
2. Finding that Re’spondents have violated Sections 21(d) (2)
of the Act, and Section 807.623(a), of.the ~oard’s Waste Disposal
Regulations;
3. Ordering the Respondents to cease.and desist from any
further violations of Sections 21(d) (2) of the Act, and Sections
807.623(a), of the Board’s Waste Disposal Regulations;
4. Assessing a civil penalty of. Fifty Thousand Dollars
($50,000.00) against the Respondents, jointly and severally, for
each violation, and an additional civil penalty of Ten Thousand
Dollars ($10,000.00) for each day of violation;
‘
5. Requiring the Respondents to pay all costs, including
expert witness, consultant and attorney fees, expended, by the State
in its pursuit of this action; and
,
6. Granting such other relief as’ the Board deems
appropriate.
49
r~’
j~”
PEOPLE. OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
by LISA MADIGAN, Attorney
General of the State of Illinois
MATTHEW J. DUNN, Chief
Environmental Enforcement/Asbestos
Litigation Division
By:
7(4~
r1~
~
ROSEMA~I~~A~U, Chi’e
Environmental B~~”
‘A~sistantAttorney General
OF COUNSEL:
Christopher Grant,
Assistant ..Attorney General
100 West Randolph Street, 11th Floor
Chicago, IL 60601
(312) 814-5388
50
