~1~1NAL

CLERK’S OFFICE

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

JAN

042005

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

by LISA MADIGAN, Attorney General ofthe

State of Illinois,

)

)

Complainant,

)

)

PCB No. 04-207

)

(Enforcement)

)

EDWARD PRUIM, an individual, and

)

ROBERT PRUIM, an individual,

Respondents.

)

NOTICE OF FILING

TO:

Ms. Dorothy Guim,

Clerk

Mr. Christopher Grant

Illinois Pollution Control Board

Assistant Attorney General

James R. Thompson Center

Environmental Bureau

100

W.

Randolph Street,

11-500

188 W. Randolph, 20th Floor

Chicago,IL

60601

Chicago,IL

60601

Mr. BradleyHalloran

Hearing Officer

Illinois Pollution Control Board

100W. Randolph Street, Suite 11-500

Chicago, IL

60601

PLEASE

TAKE NOTICE that on January 4, 2005,

we filed with the Clerk ofthe Illinois

Pollution Control Board

an

original and nine

copies of RESPONDENT EDWARD

PRUIM’S

ANSWER

TO COMPLAINT AND

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, 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, Suite 2810

Chicago, IL 60601

(312) 642-4414

Fax

(312) 642-0434

)

)

V.

STATE OF ILLINOIS

Pollution

Control Board

)

)

CQJ~

C.

Attorney for Respondent

THIS FILING IS

SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

---

ORIGINAL

CLERK’S OFFIr’F

BEFORE THE ILLiNOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

JAN

0

4

2005

PEOPLE OF THE

STATE OF ILLINOIS,

)

by LISA MADIGAN, Attorney General ofthe

)

PoHution Control

State ofIllinois,

)

)

Complainant,

)

PCB No. 04-207

v.

)

(Enforcement)

)

EDWARD PRUIM, an individual,

and

)

ROBERT PRUIM, an individual,

)

)

Respondents.

)

RESPONDENT EDWARD PRUIM’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Respondent, EDWARDPRUIM, by and through his attorneys LaRose & Bosco, Ltd.,hereby

presents his Answer to Complaintand Affirmative Defenses and in support thereof, state as follows:

COUNT I

FAILURE TO ADEQUATELY MANAGE REFUSE AND LITTER

1.

This count is brought on behalfofthe PEOPLE

OF THE

STATE OF ILLiNOIS, by

LISAMADIGAN, AttorneyGeneral ofthe State ofIllinois, on her own motion, pursuant to Section

31

ofthe Illinois Environmental Protection Act (“Act”), 415 ILCS

5/31 (2002).

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRJH\’I,

admits that this

Count was brought on

behalfofthe PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,by LISAMADIGAN,

Attorney General ofthe State of Illinois, on her own motion and pursuant to

Section

31 ofthe Act.

2.

Respondent EDWARD PRUIM

is an Illinois resident.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, admits the allegations ofParagraph

1

---

2 ofCount I ofthe Complaint.

3.

Respondent ROBERT PRUIM

is an Illinois resident.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM,

admits the allegations of Paragraph 3

of

Count I ofthe Complaint.

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 ofthe Morris Community Landfill,

1501

AshleyRoad,

Morris, Grundy County, Illinois,

(“landfill” or “site”).

ANSWER:

Respondent,EDWARD PRUIM, admits that

he is a co-owner ofCommunity

LandfillCompany(“CLC”),an Illinois Corporation. Respondent,EDWARD

PRUIM, admits that CLC is thepermittedoperator ofthe Morris Community

Landfill,

1501

AshleyRoad, Morris, Grundy County, Illinois.

Respondent,

EDWARDPRUIM, deniesthe remainingallegationsofParagraph4 ofCount

I ofthe Complaint.

5.

The landfill consists ofapproximately 119 acres withinthe Northwest 1/4 ofSection

2 ofthe 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 ofSection

35,

Township 34 North Range 7 East, GrundyCounty,

Illinois.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM,

admits the allegations ofParagraph

5

of

Count I ofthe Complaint.

6.

The landfill is divided into two parcels, designated Parcel A and Parcel B.

ANSWER:

Respondent,

EDWARD PRUIM,

admits the allegations ofParagraph 6 of

2

---

Count I ofthe Complaint.

7.

Parcel A

is approximately

55

acres in size, and is currently accepting waste.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, admits

that Parcel A is approximately

55

acres in size and denies the remaining allegations ofParagraph 7 ofCount I

ofthe Complaint.

8.

Parcel B is approximately 64 acres in size.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD

PRUIM,

admits the allegations ofParagraph

8 of

Count I ofthe Complaint.

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.

ANSWER:

Respondent,

EDWARD PRUIM,

denies the allegations of Paragraph 9 of

Count I ofthe Complaint

10.

Section 3.185 ofthe Act, 415 ILCS 5/3.185(2002), provides the followingdefinition:

“DISPOSAL”

means

the

discharge,

deposit,

injection,

dumping,

spilling, leaking orplacingofany waste orhazardous waste intooron

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.

ANSWER:

Paragraph

10 of Count I ofthe Complaint states a legal

conclusion to which

3

---

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, makes no answer.

11.

Section 3.270 oftheAct, 415 ILCS 5/3.270(2002), provides the following definition:

“LANDSCAPE

WASTE”

means

all

accumulations

of

grass

or

shrubbery,

cuttings,

leaves,

tree

limbs

and

other

materials

accumulated as the result ofthe care oflawns, shrubbery, vines and

trees.

ANSWER:

Paragraph 11 ofCount I ofthe Complaint states a legal conclusion to which

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, makes no answer.

12.

Section 3.315 oftheAct, 415 ILCS 5/3.315(2002), provides the followingdefinition:

“PERSON”

is

any

individual,

partnership,

co-partnership,

firm,

company, limited liability company, corporation,

association, joint

stock company,trust estate, political subdivision, state agency, orany

other legal entity, or their legal representative, agent or assigns.

ANSWER:

Paragraph 12

ofCount I ofthe Complaint states a legal conclusion to which

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, makes no answer.

13.

The Respondents are “persons”

as that term is defined by Section 3.315 ofthe Act,

415 ILCS

5/3.3 15

(2002).

ANSWER:

Paragraph 13 ofCount I ofthe Complaint states a legal conclusionto which

Respondent, EDWARD

PRUIM, makes no answer.

14.

Section 3.445 ofthe Act, 415 ILCS 5/3.445(2002), provides the followingdefinition:

“SANITARY LANDFILL”means a facilitypermittedby 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 orsafetyby confiningtherefuse to the smallest practical

volume and covering itwith a layerofearthatthe conclusionofeach

day’s operation, orby such other methods and intervals as the Board

mayprovide by regulation.

4

---

ANSWER:

Paragraph

14 ofCount I ofthe Complaint states a legal conclusion to which

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, makes no answer.

15.

Section

3.535

of

theAct,

415

ILCS 5/3.535(2002), provides the followingdefinition:

“WASTE” means any garbage, sludge from a waste treatment plant,

orair pollution control facility orother discarded material, including

solid, liquid, semi-solid, orcontainedgaseous material resulting from

industrial, commercial, mining and agricultural operations and from

communityactivities, but doesnot include solid ordissolved material

in domestic sewage, orsolid ordissolved materials in irrigationreturn

flows, or coal combustion by-products as defined in Section 3.94, or

industrial discharges which arepoint sources subjectto permits under

Section 402 ofthe Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as now or

hereafter amended, orsource, special nuclear, orby-productmaterials

as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (68 Stat.

921) orany solid ordissolved material from any facility subjectto the

Federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (P.L.

95-87)

or the rules and regulations thereunder or any law or rule or

regulation adopted by the State of Illinois pursuant thereto.

ANSWER:

Paragraph

15 ofCount I ofthe Complaint states a legal conclusion to which

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, makes no answer.

16.

Section 21(d)(2) ofthe Act, 415 ILCS

5/21(d)(2)

(2002), provides, as follows:

No person shall:

*

*

*

d.

Conduct anywaste-storage, waste treatment, orwaste-

treatment, or waste-disposal operation:

*

*

*

2.

In

violation

of

any

regulations

or

standards

adopted by the Board under

this Act; or

*

*

*

ANSWER:

Paragraph

16 ofCount I ofthe Complaint states a legal conclusion to which

5

---

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, makes no answer.

17.

On at least the following dates, the Illinois EPA conducted an inspection ofthe site:

April

7,

1994, March 22,

1995,

May22,

1995, March

5,

1997, July 28,

1998, November 19, 1998,

March31,

1999, May11, 1999 andJuly2o,

1999.

ANSWER:

Respondent,

EDWARD

PRUIM,

admits

that

the

Agency

conducted

inspections on these dates.

18.

During the April 7,

1994, inspection, litter was observed in the perimeter drainage

ditch at the southwest portion ofParcel B and on the southwest slope ofParcel B.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARDPRUIM, has insufficientknowledge to form a belief

as to the truth or falsity of the allegation

in Paragraph

18 ofCount

I, and

demands strict proofthereof.

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.

ANSWER:

Respondent,EDWARD PRUIM, has insufficientknowledge to form a belief

as to

the truth or falsity of the allegation

in Paragraph

19 of Count I, and

demands strict proofthereof.

20.

During theMay22,

1995,

inspection, the Illinois EPA inspectorobserved refuse and

litter in the perimeter ditches.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, has insufficientknowledge to form a belief

as to

the truth or falsity ofthe allegation in Paragraph 20 of Count I, and

demands strict proof thereof.

21.

Also during the May22, 1995, inspection, the Illinois EPAinspector observed three

6

---

eroded areas where leachate seeps had exposed previously covered refuse.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARDPRUIM, has insufficientknowledge to form a belief

as to the truth or falsity of the allegation

in Paragraph 21

of Count I, and

demands strict proof thereof.

22.

During the

July 28,

1998

inspection,

there was

uncovered waste

from

previous

operating days in Parcel A.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, hasinsufficient knowledge to form a belief

as to

the truth or falsity of the allegation

in Paragraph 22 of Count

I, and

demands strict proofthereof.

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.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD

PRUIM, admits that Parcel A was accepting waste

in November 1998 and March 1999.

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, has

insufficient knowledge

to

form

a belief as to

the truth

or falsity

of the

remaining allegations in Paragraph 23

of Count I, and

demands strict proof

thereof.

24.

On May 11,

1999, the landfill was accepting waste, and there was uncovered waste

at the site.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, admits that Parcel A was accepting waste

in May 1999.

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, has insufficient knowledge

to form

a belief as to

the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations in

7

---

Paragraph 24

of Count I, and demands strict proof thereof.

25.

On July 20,

1999,

the

landfill

was accepting waste

in

Parcel

A,

and

there was

uncovered refuse on Parcel B.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, admits that Parcel A was acceptingwaste

in July 1999.

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, has insufficient knowledge

to form a belief as to

the truth or falsity ofthe allegation in Paragraph 25 of

Count I, and demands strict proofthereof.

26.

Section 21(o) ofthe Act,

415

ILCS

5/21(o)

(2002), provides,

in pertinent part, as

follows:

No person shall:

*

*

*

o.

Conducta sanitarylandfill operation which is required

to have a permit under subsection (d) ofthis Section

in

a

maimer 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.

ANSWER:

Paragraph

26

states a

legal

conclusion to

which

Respondent,

EDWARD

8

---

PRUIM, makes no answer.

27.

Section 807.306 oftheIllinois Pollution ControlBoard’s(“Board’s”) Waste Disposal

Regulations,

35

Ii!. Adm.

Code 807.306, provides,

as follows:

All

litter shall be

collected from the sanitary landfill site by the end

ofeach working day and either placed in the fill and compacted and

covered that day, or stored in a covered container.

ANSWER:

Paragraph

27

states a

legal

conclusion to

which

Respondent,

EDWARD

PRUIM, makes no

answer.

28.

Litter and refuse are waste as that term is defined in Section 3.535

ofthe Act, 415

ILCS

5/3.53 5

(2002).

ANSWER:

Paragraph

28

states a legal

conclusion to

which Respondent,

EDWARD

PRUIM, makes no answer.

29.

The site is a sanitarylandfill that requiresa permit under Section 21(d)ofthe Act, 415

ILCS

5/21

(d)(2002).

ANSWER:

Respondent,

EDWARD

PRUIM,

admits

the

allegations

contained

in

Paragraph 29 ofCount I ofthe Complaint.

30.

By failing to remove, or cause employees to remove refuse in perimeterditches and

theretention pond on March 22,

1995,

and by allowing refuse to remain in perimeterditches on May

22, 1995, the Respondents have violated Section 21(o)(l) ofthe Act, 415 ILCS

5/21

(o)(1) (2002).

ANSWER:

Respondent,

EDWARD

PRUIM,

denies

the

allegations

contained

in

Paragraph 30 ofCount I ofthe Complaint.

31.

By

allowing leachate

seeps

to

erode

areas

of the landfill

and

expose

previously

coveredrefuse, at least onMay22, 1995, the Respondents haveviolated Section 21

(o)(5)

oftheAct,

9

---

415 ILCS

5/21

(o)(5) (2002).

ANSWER:

Respondent,

EDWARD

PRUIM,

denies

the

allegations

contained

in

Paragraph 31

ofCount I ofthe Complaint.

32.

By allowing litterand refuse to remain exposed, uncontained, and uncovered, around

various areasofthe site on April 7, 1994, March 22, 1995, May22,

1995, July 28,

1998, March 31,

1999, May

11, 1999 and July 20,

1999, the Respondents violated Sections 21 (o)(5) and

(12) ofthe

Act,

415

ILCS

5/21(o)(5)

and

(12) (2002),

and

Section

807.306 of the Board

Waste Disposal

Regulations,

35111. Adm. Code 807.306, and thereby also violated Section 21(d)(2) ofthe Act, 415

ILCS

5/21(d)(2) (2002).

ANSWER:

Respondent,

EDWARD

PRUIM,

denies

the

allegations

contained

in

Paragraph 32 ofCount I ofthe Complaint.

WHEREFORE:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, respectfully requests that the Board enter an order in this

matter against Complainant, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

ILLINOIS, with respect to

Count I as

follows:

A.

Authorizing a hearing in this matter atwhich time the Complainant will be required

to prove the allegations alleged in Count I;

B.

A

finding

that

Respondent,

EDWARD

PRUIM,

has

not

caused

violations

of

Sections 21(d)(2), 21(o)(1),

(5),

and (12), and 35

Ill. Adm. Code 807.306;

C.

In the alternative, denying Complainant’s request fora cease and desist order based

on

a finding that the alleged violations have been corrected;

D.

In

the event

the Board

finds

that

Respondent,

EDWARD PRUIM,

violated

any

10

---

provisions ofthe law cited by the Complainant in Count I,to assess a nominal penalty

against EDWARD PRUIM foreachviolationbased on the limitedand isolated nature

ofthe violations alleged and the fact that:

(1)

the alleged violations havebeen voluntarilycorrected;

(2)

the alleged violations are not ongoing orrepetitious;

(3)

the alleged violations were limited in duration and of

relatively minor gravity;

(4)

there was

no

substantial

savings

to

Respondent

or

substantial harm to the environment or to the People

ofthe State ofIllinois; and

(5)

othermitigating factors regardingpenalty assessment.

E.

Denying any request by the Complainant that Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, pay

all ofits costs

including expert witness,

consultant and

attorney

fees expended in

pursuit ofthis action; and

F.

Granting such other relief as this Board deems appropriate.

COUNT II

FAILURE

TO PREVENT OR CONTROL LEACHATE FLOW

1-17.

Complainant realleges and incorporates by referencehereinparagraphs

1 through 17

ofCount I as paragraphs

1

through 17 ofthis Count II as if fully set forth herein.

ANSWER:

Respondent,

EDWARD

PRUIM,

realleges and

incorporates

by reference

herein his

answers to

Paragraph

1

through

17 of Count I as Paragraphs

1

through

17 of this Count II as if fully set forth herein.

11

---

18.

During the April 7,

1994, inspection, the Illinois EPA inspector observed five

leachate seeps along the northwest perimeter ofParcel B.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, has insufficientknowledge to form a belief

as to

the truth or falsity ofthe allegation in Paragraph

18 of Count II,

and

demands strict proof thereof.

19.

Duringthe March22, 1995, inspection, the Illinois EPA inspectorobserved numerous

leachate seeps at the northwest perimeter ofthe landfill.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, has insufficientknowledge to form a belief

as to

the truth or falsity of the allegation in Paragraph

19 of Count II, and

demands strict proof thereof.

20.

During theMay22, 1995, inspection, the Illinois EPA inspectorobserved numerous

leachate seeps along the north slopeofthe landfill and in the north perimeterditch which eventually

drains into the Illinois River.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, has insufficientknowledge to form a belief

as to

the truth or falsity ofthe allegation in Paragraph 20 of Count II, and

demands strict proofthereof.

21.

Section 21(o) ofthe Act, 415

ILCS

5/21(o)

(2002), provides, in pertinent part, as

follows:

No person shall:

*

*

*

o.

Conduct a sanitarylandfill operation which is required

to have a permit under subsection (d) ofthis Section,

in

a

manner which

results

in

any of the

following

12

---

conditions:

*

*

*

2.

leachate

flows entering waters ofthe

State;

3.

leachate

flows

exiting

the

landfill

confines

(as

determined

by

the

boundaries established for the landfill

by a permit issued by the Agency);

*

*

*

ANSWER:

Paragraph

21

of Count

II states

a

legal

conclusion to

which

EDWARD

PRUIM makes no answer.

22.

Section 807.314(e) ofthe Board’s Waste Disposal Regulations, 35 Ill.

Adm.

Code

807.314(e), provides as follows:

Except as otherwise authorized in writingby 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;

ANSWER:

Paragraph 22 ofCount II states a legal conclusionto which EDWARDPRUIM

makes no answer.

23.

Section 3.550 ofthe 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, orparts thereof,

which are wholly orpartiallywithin, flow through, orborder upon the

State.

ANSWER:

Paragraph23 ofCount IIstatesa legal conclusionto which EDWARDPRUIM

13

---

makes

no answer.

24.

The Illinois Riveris a “water” ofthe State ofIllinois, as that term is definedin Section

3.550 of the Act, 415 ILCS

5/3.550

(2002).

ANSWER:

Paragraph 24 ofCount IIstates a legal conclusionto which EDWARDPRUIM

makes no answer.

25.

The Respondents

failed to take sufficient

action, or direct their employees to take

sufficient action, to

prevent leachate seeps from exiting the landfill.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM,

denies the allegations of Paragraph 25 of

Count II ofthe Complaint.

26.

Byallowing leachate seeps to exit thelandfillboundaries and enterwaters ofthe State,

and by failing to control leachate flow, theRespondents 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 807.3 14(e) ofthe

Board’s Waste Disposal Regulations,

35 Ill. Adm.

Code 807.314(e).

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM,

denies the allegations of Paragraph 26 of

Count II ofthe Complaint.

WHEREFORE:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, respectfullyrequests that the Board enter an order in this

matter against Complainant, PEOPLE

OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, with respect to Count II as

follows:

A.

Authorizing a hearing in this matter at which time the Complainant will be required

to prove the allegations alleged in Count II;

B.

A findingthat Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, has not causedviolations ofSections

14

---

21(d)(2), 21(o)(2) and (3), and

35 Ill. Adm.

Code 807.3 14(e);

C.

In the alternative, denying Complainant’s request for a cease and desist order based

on a finding that the alleged violations have been corrected;

D.

In the event the Board finds that Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, violated any

provisions ofthe law cited by theComplainant in Count II,to assess a nominal penalty

against EDWARD PRUIM foreach violationbased on the limited and isolated nature

ofthe violations alleged and the fact that:

(1)

the alleged violations have been voluntarilycorrected;

(2)

the alleged violations are not ongoing or repetitious;

(3)

the alleged violations were limited in duration and of

relatively minor gravity;

(4)

there

was

no

substantial

savings

to

Respondent

or

substantial harm to the environmentorto the Peopleof

the

State ofIllinois;

and

(5)

othermitigating factors regarding penalty assessment.

E.

Denying any request by the Complainant

that Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, pay

all ofits

costs including expert witness, consultant and attorney fees expended in

pursuit ofthis action; and

F.

Granting such other relief as this Board deems appropriate.

COUNT

III

FAILURE TO PROPERLY DISPOSE OF LANDSCAPE WASTE

1-16.

Complainant realleges and incorporates by reference herein paragraphs

1

through 16

15

---

of Count I as paragraphs

1

through 16 ofthis Count III as if fully set forth herein.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARDPRUIM, reallegesand incorporatesbyreferenceherein

his answers to

Paragraph

1 through

16 ofCount I as paragraphs

1

through 16

ofthis Count III as if fully set forth herein.

17.

Section 22.22(c) ofthe 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 maybe acceptedby a sanitary landfill

if

(1)

the

landfill

provides

and

maintains

for

that

purposeseparate 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.

ANSWER:

Paragraph

17 ofCount III ofthe Complaint states a legal conclusion to which

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, makes no answer.

18.

On August 18, 1993

and April 7, 1994, the Illinois EPA conducted inspections ofthe

site. Duringthese inspections, the Illinois EPA inspector observed that the landscape waste had been

deposited in the landfill area.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, admits that theAgency conducted inspections

on these dates.

Respondent,

EDWARD PRUIM, has insufficient knowledge

to form a belief as to

the truth or falsity ofthe remaining allegations in

Paragraph

18 ofCount III, and demands strict proof thereof.

19.

On July

28,

1998,

the Respondents

were

causing

and

allowing the

landfilling of

landscape waste at the site in Parcel A.

16

---

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, has insufficient knowledge to form a belief

as to the truth or falsity ofthe allegation in Paragraph 19 ofCount III, and

demands strict proofthereof

20.

By causing and allowing the landfilling oflandscape waste, the Respondents violated

Section 22.22(c) ofthe Act, 415 ILCS

5/22.22(c) (2002).

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, denies the allegations of Paragraph 20 of

Count III ofthe Complaint.

WHEREFORE:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, respectfully requests that the Board enter an order in this

matter against Complainant, PEOPLE OF

THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, with respect to

Count III as

follows:

A.

Authorizing a hearing in this matter at which time the Complainant will be required

to prove the allegations alleged in Count III;

B.

A findingthat Respondent, EDWARDPRUIM, has not causedviolations ofSections

22.22 (c) of the Act;

C.

In the alternative, denying Complainant’s request for a cease and desist order based

on a finding that the alleged violations have been corrected;

D.

In the event the Board finds that Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, violated any

provisions ofthe law

cited by the Complainant in Count III, to

assess a nominal

penalty against EDWARDPRUIM foreachviolationbased on thelimited and isolated

nature ofthe violations alleged and the fact that:

(1)

the allegedviolations havebeen voluntarily corrected;

17

---

(2)

the alleged violations

are not ongoing or repetitious;

(3)

the alleged violations were limited

in duration and of

relatively minor gravity;

(4)

there

was

no

substantial

savings

to

Respondent or

substantial harm to the environment orto the Peopleof

the State ofIllinois;

and

(5)

othermitigating factors regardingpenalty assessment.

E.

Denying any request by the Complainant that Respondent,

EDWARD PRUIM, pay

all ofits costs including expert witness,

consultant and attorney fees expended in

pursuit ofthis action; and

F.

Granting such other relief as this

Board deems appropriate.

COUNT IV

FAILURE TO

PROVIDE AND MAINTAIN ADEQUATE FINANCIAL ASSURANCE

PURSUANT TO

THE APRIL

20g

1993

PERMIT

1-16.

Complainant realleges and incorporates by reference herein paragraphs

1

through 16

ofCount I as paragraphs

1

through

16 of this Count

N

as if fully set forth herein.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, reallegesand incorporatesbyreferenceherein

his answers to paragraphs

1 through

16 ofCount las paragraphs

1 through 16

ofthis Count

N

as if fullyset

forth herein.

17.

Section 21.1(a) ofthe 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 ofIllinois, its agencies and institutions,

or a unit oflocal government shall conduct any waste

disposal

operation on

or after March

1,

1985,

which

requires a permit under subsection (d) ofSection 21 of

18

---

this

Act,

unless

such

person

has

posted

with

the

Agency a performance bond or other security for the

purpose ofinsuring closure ofthe site and post-closure

care

in

accordance

with

this

Act

and

regulations

adopted thereunder.

ANSWER:

Paragraph

17 ofCount

N

states a legal conclusion to

which Respondent,

EDWARD PRUIM, makes no answer.

18.

Section 807.601(a) of the Board’s Waste Disposal 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) ofthe

Act unless suchpersonhasprovided financial assurancein accordance

with this Subpart.

a)

The financial assurance requirement does not applyto

the State ofIllinois,

its agencies and institutions, orto

any unit oflocal government; provided, however, that

any other persons who conduct such a waste disposal

operation on a sitewhich maybe owned oroperated by

such

a

government

entity

must

provide

financial

assurance forclosure and post-closure care ofthe site.

ANSWER:

Paragraph

1 ofCount IV states a legal conclusion to

which Respondent,

EDWARD PRUIM, makes no answer.

19.

Section 807.603(b)(1) ofthe 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 90 days after anyofthe following:

1)

An

increase

in

the

current

cost

estimate;

19

---

*

*

*

ANSWER:

Paragraph 19 ofCount

N

states a legal conclusion to which Respondent,

EDWARD PRUIM, makes no answer.

20.

Item 3 ofCLC’s

supplemental permit dated April 20,

1993, provided that financial

assurance was to be maintained in an amount equal to

$1,342,500.00.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARDPRUIM, admits theallegationscontained in Paragraph

20

ofCount

N

ofthe Complaint.

21.

Item3 ofCLC‘s supplemental permit datedApril 20, 1993, approvedthe Respondents’

current cost estimate for $1,342,500.00.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, admits theallegations containedin Paragraph

21 ofCount IV ofthe Complaint.

22.

Respondents Edward Pruim and RobertPruim failed to arrange financing and increase

the total

amount of CLC’s

financial assurance to

$1,342,500.00, within 90

days after the Agency

approved its cost estimate on April 20,

1993.

ANSWER:

Respondent,

EDWARD

PRUIM,

admits

the

allegations

contained

in

Paragraph 22 of Count

N

ofthe Complaint.

23.

Respondents arrangedforand provideda performance bond forCLC on June 20, 1996.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARDPRUIM, admits theallegationscontained in Paragraph

23 ofCount IV ofthe Complaint.

24.

By continuing to allow acceptance of 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) oftheAct, 415 ILCS 5/21.1(a) (2002), and Section 807.601(a) oftheBoard’s WasteDisposal

20

---

Regulations, 35 Ill. Adm.

Code 807.601(a).

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM,

denies the allegations ofParagraph 24 of

Count IV ofthe Complaint.

25.

By failing to adequatelyincrease the financial assuranceamountby July 19,

1993 (90

days afterthe 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) ofthe Board

Waste Disposal Regulations,

35

Iii. Adm.

Code 807.603(b)(1).

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, denies the allegations of Paragraph 25 of

Count

N

ofthe Complaint.

26.

Respondents caused and allowed CLC to be out ofcompliance with Section 21.1(a)

ofthe Act, 415 ILCS. 5/21 .1(a)(2002), 35111. Adm. Code 807.601(a) and 807.603(b)(1)from July19,

1993 until June 20,

1996.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, denies the allegations ofParagraph 26 of

Count

N

ofthe Complaint.

H

WHEREFORE:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, respectfully requests that the Board enter an

order in this

matter against Complainant, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, with respect to

Count

N

as

follows:

A.

Authorizing a hearing in this matter at which time the Complainant will be required

to prove the allegations alleged in Count IV;

B.

A finding that Respondent, EDWARDPRUIM, has not causedviolations ofSections

21

(d)(2) and 21.1

(a) ofthe Act and

35111. Adm.

Code Sections 807.601(a) and

21

---

807.603(b)(1);

C.

In the alternative, denying Complainant’s request for a cease and desist order based

on a finding that the alleged violations have been corrected;

D.

In the event the Board finds that Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, violated any

provisions ofthe law cited by the Complainant

in Count IV, to

assess a nominal

penalty againstEDWARD PRUIM for eachviolationbased on thelimited and isolated

nature of the violations alleged and the fact that:

(1)

the alleged violations have beenvoluntarilycorrected;

(2)

the alleged violations are not ongoing or repetitious;

(3)

the alleged violations were limited

in duration and of

relatively minor gravity;

(4)

there was

no

substantial

savings

to

Respondent

or

substantial harm to the environmentorto the People of

the State ofIllinois; and

(5)

othermitigating factors regarding penalty assessment.

E.

Denying any request by the Complainant that Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, pay

all ofits costs including expert witness, consultant and

attorney fees expended in

pursuit ofthis action; and

F.

Granting such other relief as this Board

deems appropriate.

COUNT V

FAILURE TO

APPLICATION FOR A SIGNIFICANT MODIFICATION

1-16.

Complainant realleges and incorporates by reference hereinparagraphs

1 though

16

22

---

ofCount I as paragraphs

1

through

16 ofthis Count V as if fully set forth herein.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARDPRUIM, reallegesand incorporatesby referenceherein

Paragraphs

1

through 16 of Count I as Paragraphs

1

through 16 ofthis Count

V as if fully set forth herein.

17.

Section 814.104 ofBoard’s Waste Disposal Regulations,

35111. Adm. Code 814.104,

provides as follows:

a.

All owners oroperatorsoflandfills permitted pursuant

to Section 21(d) of the Environmental Protection Act

(Act) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 111

1/2,

par.

1021(d) 415

ILCS 5/21(d)

shallfile an application for a significant

modification to theirpermits for existing units, unless

the units will be closed pursuant to

Subpart B within

two

years ofthe effective date ofthis Part.

b.

The owner oroperator ofan existing unit shall submit

information

required by

35

Ill.

Adm.

Code

812

to

demonstrate compliance with Subpart B, Subpart C or

Subpart D of this Part, whichever is applicable.

c.

The application shall be filed within 48 months ofthe

effective date ofthis Part, or at such earlier time as the

Agency

shall

specif~’in

writing pursuant

to

35

Ill.

Adm.

Code 807.209 or 813.201(b).

d.

The

application

shall

be

made

pursuant

to

the

procedures of35 Ill. Adm.

Code 813.

ANSWER:

Paragraph

17 of Count V states a legal conclusion to

which Respondent,

EDWARD PRUIM, makes no answer.

18.

The Respondents failed to cause CLC to file the required significant modification for

Parcel B by June 15,

1993.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM,

admits that CLC did not file a Significant

23

---

Modificationapplication byJune 15, 1993 but deniesthe remainingallegations

contained in Paragraph

18 ofCount V ofthe Complaint.

19.

The Respondents

finally filed CLC’s significant modification

on August

5,

1996,

pursuant to a prospective variance issued by the Board.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARDPRUIM, admits that CLC filedtherequired Significant

ModificationforParcelB on August

5,

1996.

Further Respondent, EDWARD

PRUIM, states that CLC was allowedto filesame on August

5,

1996 pursuant

to the Appellate Court Order in

Community Landfill Company v. Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency and Illinois Pollution Control Board, No.

3-96-0182

(June 17,

1996).

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) ofthe Act, 415 ILCS 5/21(d)(2)

(2002), and

Section 814.104 ofthe Board’s Waste Disposal Regulations, 35 Ill. Adm.

Code 814.104.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, denies the allegations of Paragraph 20 of

Count V of the Complaint.

WHEREFORE:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, respectfully requests that the Board enter an order in this

matter against Complainant, PEOPLE OF

THE STATE OF

ILLINOIS, with respect to Count V as

follows:

A.

Authorizing a hearing in this matterat which time the Complainant will be required

to prove the allegations alleged in Count V;

B.

A findingthat Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, hasnot causedviolations ofSections

24

---

21

(2)(2) ofthe Act and

8 14.104 ofthe Board’s Waste Disposal

Regulations;

C.

In the alternative, denying Complainant’s request for a cease and desist order based

on a finding that the alleged violations have been corrected;

D.

In the event the Board finds that Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, violated any

provisions ofthe law cited by the Complainant in Count V,to assess a nominal penalty

againstEDWARD PRUIM foreach violationbased on the limited and isolated nature

ofthe violations alleged and the fact that:

(1)

the allegedviolations have been voluntarilycorrected;

(2)

the alleged violations are not ongoing or repetitious;

(3)

the alleged violations were

limited in duration and of

relatively minor gravity;

(4)

there

was

no

substantial

savings

to

Respondent or

substantial harm to the environment orto the Peopleof

the State of Illinois;

and

(5)

other mitigating factors regardingpenalty assessment.

E.

Denying any request by the Complainant that Respondent,

EDWARD PRUIM, pay

all ofits

costs including expert witness, consultant and attorney fees expended in

pursuit ofthis action; and

F.

Granting such other relief as this Board deems appropriate.

COUNT VI

WATER POLLUTION

1-21.

Complainant realleges and incorporates by reference herein, paragraphs

1 through 21

25

---

of Count I as paragraphs

1

through 21

ofthis Count VI as if fully set

forth herein.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, realleges and incorporatesbyreferenceherein

his answers to Paragraphs

1 through 21

ofCount las Paragraphs

1 through 21

ofthis Count VI as if fully set forth herein.

22.

DuringMay22,

1995, inspection, the Illinois EPA inspectorobserved leachate in the

north perimeter ditch, which eventually drains into the Illinois River.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, has insufficient knowledge to form a belief

as to

the truth or falsity ofthe allegation

in Paragraph

22 of Count VI,

and

demands strict proofthereof.

23.

Section

12(a) ofthe 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 matterfrom other sources, or soas to

violate

regulations

or

standards

adopted

by

the

Pollution Control Board under this

Act;

ANSWER:

Paragraph 23 of Count VI contains a legal conclusion to which Respondent,

EDWARD PRUIM, makes no answer.

24.

Section

807.3 13

of the

Board’s Waste

Disposal

Regulations,

35

Iii.

Adm.

Code

807.3 13, provides as follows:

No person shall cause or allow operation ofa sanitary landfill so as to

cause orthreaten orallow the discharge ofany contamination into the

environment

in

any

State

so

as

to

cause

or tend

to

cause

water

pollution in Illinois, either alone orin combination with matter from

other sources, or so as to

violate regulations or standards adopted by

the Pollution Control Board under the Act.

26

---

ANSWER:

Paragraph 24 ofCount VI contains a legal conclusion to which Respondent,

EDWARD PRUIM, makes no answer.

25.

Section 3.165 ofthe Act, 415 ILCS

5/3.165

(2002), defines “contaminant” as “any

solid, liquid, or gaseous matter, any odor, or any form ofenergy, from whatever source.”

ANSWER:

Paragraph 25 ofCount VI contains a legal conclusion to which Respondent,

EDWARD PRUIM, makes no answer.

26.

The leachate the Illinois

EPA inspector observed

in the north

perimeter ditch

is

a

contaminant as that term is defined at Section 3.165 ofthe Act, 415 ILCS

5/3.165 (2002).

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, has insufficient knowledge to form a belief

as to the truth or falsity ofthe allegation in Paragraph 26 of Count VI,

and

demands strict proofthereof

27.

Section

3.550

of

the

Act,

416

ILCS

5/3.550

(2002),

defines

waters

as

“all

accumulations ofwater, surface and underground, natural, and artificial, public and private, orparts

thereof, which are wholly or partially within, flow through orborder upon this State.”

ANSWER:

Paragraph 27 ofCount VI states a legal conclusion to which Respondent,

EDWARD PRUIM, makes no answer.

28.

The Illinois River into which leachate from the north perimeter ditch located on the

site eventually drains, is a water ofthe state ofIllinois as that term is defined at Section 3.550 ofthe

Act, 415

ILCS

5/3.550

(2002).

ANSWER:

Paragraph 28 of Count VI contains a legal conclusion to which Respondent,

EDWARD PRUIM, makes no answer.

29.

Section

3.545

of the Act,

415

ILCS

5/3.545

(2002), defines “water pollution” as

27

---

follows:

“Waterpollution” is suchalterationofthephysical, thermal,chemical,

biological or radioactive properties ofany waters ofthe State, or such

discharge ofany contaminant into any waters ofthe State, as will or is

likely to createa nuisance orrendersuch waters harmfulordetrimental

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.

ANSWER:

Paragraph 29 ofCount VI ofthe Complaint states a legal conclusionto which

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, makes no answer.

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 ofthe Act, 415 ILCS

5/3.545

(2002).

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD

PRUIM,

denies that CLC or he caused or allowed

water pollution.

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 flowoff-siteto the Illinois River, the Respondents have violated Sections 12(a) and 21 (d)(2) ofthe

Act,

415

ILCS

5/12(a)

and

21(d)(2) (2002), and

Section 807.3 13 of the Board’s Waste Disposal

Regulations,

35111. Adm.

Code

807.3 13.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, denies the allegations of Paragraph

31

of

Count VI of the Complaint.

WHEREFORE:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, respectfullyrequests that the Board enter an order in this

matter against Complainant, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, with respect to Count VI as

28

---

follows:

A.

Authorizing a hearing in this matter at which time the Complainant will be required

to prove the allegations alleged in Count VI;

B.

A findingthat Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, hasnot caused violations ofSections

12(a) and 21(b)(2) ofthe Act and 35 Ill.

Adm.

Code 807.3 13;

C.

In the alternative, denying Complainant’s request for a cease and desist order based

on a finding that the alleged violations have been corrected;

D.

In the event the Board finds that Respondent,

EDWARD PRUIM, violated any

provisions ofthe law cited by the Complainant in Count VI, to assess a nominal

penalty against EDWARD PRUIM for each violationbased on the limited and isolated

nature ofthe violations alleged and the fact that:

(1)

the allegedviolations have been voluntarily corrected;

(2)

the alleged violations are not ongoing or repetitious;

(3)

the alleged violations were limited in duration and of

relatively minor gravity;

(4)

there

was

no

substantial

savings

to

Respondent

or

substantial harm to the environment orto the People of

the State of Illinois; and

(5)

other mitigating factors regarding penalty assessment.

E.

Denying any request by the Complainant

that Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, pay

all of its costs including expert witness, consultant and attorney fees expended in

pursuit ofthis action; and

29

---

F.

Granting such other relief as this Board deems appropriate.

COUNT VII

DEPOSITING WASTE

PORTIONS OF A LANDFILL

1-15.

Complainant realleges and incorporates by reference herein,paragraphs

1 through 15

of Count I as paragraphs

1

throughls ofthis Count VII as if fully set forth herein.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, realleges and incorporates byreferenceherein

Paragraphs

1

through 15 ofCount I as Paragraphs

1

through 15 ofthis Count

VII as if fully set forth herein.

16.

On June

5,

1989, supplementaldevelopment permit number 1 989-005-SP was issued

to

CLC for the vertical expansion ofParcel A and Parcel B.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM,

admits the allegations ofParagraph

16 of

Count VII ofthe

Complaint.

17.

Supplemental developmentalpermit number

1 989-005-SP, specifically incorporated,

as part ofsaid permit, the final plans, specifications, application and supporting documents that were

submitted by the Respondents and

approved by the Illinois EPA.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD

PRUIM,

admits

that

supplemental developmental

permit number

1 989-005-SP wassubmitted.

Respondentdeniestheremaining

allegations in Paragraph

17 ofCount VII ofthe Complaint.

18.

TheRespondents’ supplemental developmentpermit application, incorporatedaspart

ofsupplemental developmentpermit number 1 989-005-SP, provides the maximum elevation forthe

landfill as 580 feet above mean sea level.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, admits that supplemental developmentpermit

30

---

number 1989-005-SP provides themaximum elevation for the landfill as 580

feet above mean sea level.

Respondent denies the remaining allegations in

Paragraph

18 ofCount VII ofthe Complaint.

19.

Respondents, who managed and controlled the deposit ofwaste at the landfill, were

therefore required not to allow the landfill elevation to exceed

580 feet above mean sea level.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM,

denies the allegations of Paragraph

19 of

Count VII ofthe Complaint.

20.

On or about January 17,

1995,

the Respondents submitted

a Solid Waste Capacity

Certification

to

Illinois

EPA, signed

by

Respondent Edward

Pruim,

reporting that

there was

no

remaining capacity in Parcel

B as ofJanuary

1,

1995.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM,

admits that CLC

submitted a Solid Waste

Capacity Certification to Illinois EPAand statesthat the application speaks for

itself

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, denies the remaining allegations of

Paragraph 20 of Count VII ofthe Complaint.

21.

Despitehavingreportedno remaining capacityin Parcel B at the site,the Respondents

continued to cause and allow the deposit ofwaste in Parcel B afterJanuary

1,

1995.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, has insufficient knowledge to form a belief

as to the truth or falsity ofthe allegation in

Paragraph 21

of Count VII, and

demands strict proofthereof

22.

On or about January

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

31

---

and December 31,

1995.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, admits that CLC submitted

a Solid Waste

Landfill Capacity Certification to the Illinois EPA and

states that the

certification speaks for itself.

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM,

denies the

remaining allegations ofParagraph 20

ofCount VII ofthe Complaint.

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 current condition ofparcel B.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, admits that CLC filed an application for

significant modification ofParcel B on August 5,

1996 and states that the

applications speaks for itself

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM,

denies the

remaining allegations ofParagraph 23 ofCount VII ofthe Complaint.

24.

The map referenced in paragraph 23

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.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, has insufficient knowledge to

form a belief

as to

the truth or falsity ofthe allegation

in Paragraph 24 ofCount VII, and

demands strict proof thereof.

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 of475,000 cubic yards ofwaste was disposed ofabove the permitted

landfill height of580 feet above mean sea level.

32

---

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, admits that CLC submitted a document to

the Illinois EPA titled “Addendum to the Application for Significant

Modificationto Permit Morris Community Landfill

-

ParcelB” and statesthat

the document speaks for itself

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, denies the

remaining allegations of Paragraph 25 ofCount VII ofthe Complaint.

26.

On information and belief,

to the date offiling this amended complaint, portions of

Parcel B continue to exceed 580 feet above mean sea level.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, has insufficient knowledge to form a belief

as to the truth or falsity ofthe allegation in Paragraph 26 ofCount VII,

and

demands strict proof thereof.

27.

Section 21(o)(9) of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/21(o)(9)

(2002), provides as follows:

No person shall:

Conduct

a

sanitary landfill

operation

which

is

required

to

have

a

permit under subsection (d) ofthis Section, in a manner which results

in any ofthe following conditions:

9.

deposition ofrefuse in any unpermittedportion ofthe

landfill.

ANSWER:

Paragraph 27 ofCount VIIofthe Complaint states a legal conclusionto which

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, makes no answer.

28.

Refuse is a waste as that termis defined at Section 3.535 ofthe Act, 415 ILCS 5/3.535

(2002).

ANSWER:

Paragraph 28 ofCount VIIofthe Complaint states a legal conclusionto which

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, makes no answer.

33

---

29.

Onand before August

5,

1996, ora datebetter knownto Respondents, and continuing

until the filing ofthis Amended Complaint herein, the Respondents caused and allowed the deposit

ofrefuse in unpermittedportions ofparcel B.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, is without sufficient knowledge to

admit or

deny theallegations containedin Paragraph 29 ofCount VII ofthe Complaint.

Further answering, Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, states ifrefuse was

deposited in unpermitted portions ofParcel B, samewas done so without any

specific knowledge or intent.

30.

By causing and allowing the deposit ofrefuse orwaste in portions ofparcel B above

its permitted elevation, the Respondents violated Section 21(o)(9) ofthe Act, 415 ILCS 5/21(o)(9)

(2002).

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, is without sufficient knowledge to admit or

deny the allegations containedin Paragraph30 ofCount VII ofthe Complaint.

Further answering, Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, states if refuse was

deposited in unpermitted portions ofParcel B, same was done so without any

specific knowledge or intent.

WHEREFORE:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, respectfully requests that the Board enter an order in this

matter againstComplainant, PEOPLE OF THE

STATE OF ILLINOIS, with respect to Count VII as

follows:

A.

Authorizing a hearing in this matter at which time the Complainant will be required

to prove the allegations alleged in Count VII;

34

---

B.

A findingthat Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, has not caused violations ofSection

2 1(o) ofthe Act;

C.

In the alternative, denying Complainant’s request for a cease and desist order based

on a finding that the alleged violations havebeen corrected;

D.

In the event the Board finds that Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, violated any

provisions ofthe law cited by the Complainant in Count VII, to

assess a nominal

penalty againstEDWARD PRUIMfor each violationbased on thelimited and isolated

nature ofthe violations alleged and the fact that:

(1)

the alleged violations have been voluntarilycorrected;

(2)

the alleged violations are not ongoing or repetitious;

(3)

the alleged violations were limited in duration and of

relatively minor gravity;

(4)

there was

no

substantial

savings

to

Respondent

or

substantial harm to the environment orto thePeopleof

the State ofIllinois; and

(5)

other mitigating factors regarding penalty assessment.

E.

Denying any request by the Complainant that Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, pay

all ofits costs including expert witness, consultant and

attorney fees expended in

pursuit ofthis action; and

F.

Granting such otherrelief as this Board deems appropriate.

35

---

CONDUCTING A WASTE DISPOSAL OPERATION WITHOUT

A PERMIT

1-26.

Complainant realleges and incorporates by reference hereinparagraphs

1 through 26

ofCount VII as paragraphs

1

through 26 ofthis Count VIII as if fully set forth herein.

ANSWER:

Respondent,EDWARD PRUIM, reallegesand incorporates byreferenceherein

his answers to Paragraphs

1 through 26 of Count I as Paragraphs

1 through 26

ofthis Count VIII as if fully set forth herein.

27.

Section 21(d)(1) ofthe 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 grantedby 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.

.

ANSWER:

Paragraph 27 ofCount VIIIofthe Complaintstates a legal conclusionto which

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, makes no answer.

28.

Refuse is waste as that term is defined at Section 3.535 ofthe Act, 415 ILCS

5/3.535

(2002).

ANSWER:

Paragraph

28 of Count

VIII of the

Complaint states a

legal

conclusion to

which Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, makes no answer.

29.

By causingor allowing refuse orwaste to be depositedin ParcelR atthe landfill above

the permitted

elevation of 580

feet above mean sea level,

unpermitted areas of the

landfill, the

36

---

Respondents conducted

a waste-storage or waste-disposal operation.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM,

is without sufficient knowledge to

admit or

denythe allegations containedin Paragraph29 ofCount VIIIoftheComplaint.

Further answering, Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, states if refuse was

deposited in unpermittedportions ofParcel B, same was done so withoutany

specific knowledge or intent.

30.

Neither the Respondents nor CLC have a permit for the disposal ofwaste above an

elevation of580 feet above mean sea level.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM,

admits the allegations ofParagraph 30 of

Count VIII ofthe Complaint.

31.

Since at

least

August

5,

1996,

or a date

better

known

to

the

Respondents,

and

continuing until the filing ofthis Amended Complaint, the Respondents have.caused and allowedthe

deposition ofwaste in unpermittedportions ofParcel B ofthe landfill in violation of Section 21 (d)(1)

ofthe Act, 415 ILCS 5/21(d)(1) (2002).

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, is without sufficient knowledgeto admit or

deny theallegations containedin Paragraph 31 ofCount VIIIoftheComplaint.

Further answering, Respondent,

EDWARD PRUIM, states ifrefuse was

deposited in unpermitted portions ofParcel B, same was done so without any

specific knowledge or intent.

WHEREFORE:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, respectfully requests that the Board enter an order in this

matter againstComplainant, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLiNOIS, with respect to Count VIII as

37

---

follows:

A.

Authorizing a hearing in this matter at which time the Complainant will be required

to

prove the allegations alleged in Count VIII;

B.

A finding that Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, has not caused violations ofSection

21(d)(1) ofthe Act;

C.

In the alternative, denying Complainant’s request for a cease and desist order based

on a finding that the alleged violations have been corrected;

D.

In the event the Board finds that Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, violated any

provisions of the law

cited by the Complainant

in Count VIII, to assess

a nominal

penalty againstEDWARD PRUIM foreachviolationbased on thelimited and isolated

nature ofthe violations alleged and the fact that:

(1)

the allegedviolations have beenvoluntarily corrected;

(2)

the alleged violations are not ongoing orrepetitious;

(3)

the alleged violations

were limited in duration and of

relatively minor gravity;

(4)

there

was

no

substantial

savings

to

Respondent

or

substantial harmto the environmentorto thePeople of

the State ofIllinois;

and

(5)

other mitigating factors regarding penalty assessment.

E.

Denying any request by the Complainant that Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, pay

all of its costs including expert witness, consultant and attorney fees expended in

pursuit ofthis action; and

38

---

F.

Granting such other relief as this Board deems appropriate.

COUNT IX

OPEN DUMPING

1-26.

Complainant realleges and incorporates by reference herein paragraphs

1 through 26

of Count VII as paragraphs

1

through 26 ofthis Count IX as if fully set forth herein.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, realleges and incorporatesby referenceherein

his answers to Paragraphs

1

through 26 Count VII as Paragraphs

1 through 26

ofthis Count IX as if fully set forth herein.

27.

Section 21(a) ofthe Act, 415 ILCS

5/21(a) (2002), provides as follows:

No person shall:

a.

Cause or allow the open dumping of any waste.

ANSWER:

Paragraph 27 of Count IX ofthe Complaint contains a legal conclusion to

which Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, makes no answers

28.

Section 3.305 oftheAct, 415 ILCS 5/3.305 (2002), provides the following definition:

“OPEN DUMPING” means the consolidation ofrefuse from one or

more sources at a disposal sitethat doesnot fulfill the requirements of

a sanitary landfill.

ANSWER:

Paragraph 28 ofCount IX ofthe Complaint contains a legal

conclusion to

which Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, makes no

answer.

29.

Sections 3.3 85

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

39

---

purposes subject to

regulation or control by

this

Act

or regulations

thereunder.

ANSWER:

Paragraph 29 ofCount IX of the Complaint contains a legal

conclusion to

which Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, makes no answer.

30.

The landfill is a “disposal site” as those terms are defined in the Act.

ANSWER:

Paragraph 30 ofCount IX ofthe Complaint contains a legal conclusion to

which Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, makes no answer.

31.

Since

at

least August

5,

1996,

or

a

date better

known

to

the

Respondents,

the

Respondents

caused orallowed the consolidation ofrefuse at the site, above the permitted elevation

of 580 feet above mean sea level.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, is without sufficient knowledge to

admit or

deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 31 ofCount IX ofthe Complaint.

Further answering, if refuse was consolidated at the site above the permitted

elevation of 580 feet above mean sea level,

same was done

so without any

specific knowledge or intent.

32.

Theconsolidationofrefuse atthe site on Parcel B abovethepermitted elevationof580

feet above mean sea level,

disposal areas that do not

fulfill the requirements ofa

sanitary landfill,

constitutes

“open dumping” as

that term is

defined in

Section

3.24 of the Act,

415

ILCS

5/3.24

(2002).

ANSWER:

Paragraph 32 ofCount IX of the Complaint contains a legal conclusion to

which Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, makes no answer.

33.

The Respondents, by their conduct as described herein, have violated Section 21(a)

40

---

ofthe Act, 415 ILCS

5/21(a)

(2002).

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, is without sufficient knowledgeto

admit or

deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 33 ofCount IX ofthe Complaint.

WHEREFORE:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, respectfully requests that the Board enter an

order in this

matter against Complainant, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLiNOIS, with respect to Count IX as

follows:

A.

Authorizing a hearing in this matter at which time the Complainant will be required

to prove the allegations alleged in Count IX;

B.

A findingthat Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, has not causedviolations ofSection

2 1(a) of the Act;

C.

In the alternative, denying Complainant’s request for

a cease and desist order based

on a finding that the alleged violations have been corrected;

D.

In the event the Board finds that Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, violated any

provisions ofthe law cited by the Complainant in Count IX, to assess a nominal

penalty against EDWARDPRUIM foreachviolation based on thelimited and isolated

nature ofthe violations alleged and the fact that:

(1)

the alleged violations have been voluntarily corrected;

(2)

the alleged violations are not ongoing or repetitious;

(3)

the alleged violations were limited in duration and of

relatively minor gravity;

(4)

there

was no

substantial

savings

to

Respondent

or

41

---

substantial harm to the environment or to the People of

the

State of Illinois; and

(5)

other mitigating factors regarding penalty assessment.

E.

Denying any request by the Complainant that Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM,

pay

all ofits costs including expert witness, consultant and attorney fees expended in

pursuit of this action; and

F.

Granting such other relief as this Board deems appropriate.

COUNT X

VIOLATION OF STANDARD CONDITION 3

1-26.

Complainant realleges and incorporates by referenceherein, paragraphs

1

through 26

ofCount VII as paragraphs

1

through 26 ofthis Count X as if fully set forth herein.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARDPRUIM, realleges and incorporates byreferenceherein

his answers to Paragraphs

1 through 26 ofCount VIIas Paragraphs

1

through

26 ofthis Count X as if fully set forth herein.

27.

Section 21(d)(1) ofthe 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.

ANSWER:

Paragraph27 ofCount XoftheComplaintcontains a legal conclusion to whith

42

---

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, makes no answer.

28.

Refuse is waste as that termis defined at Section 3.535 ofthe Act, 415 ILCS 5/3.535

(2002),

ANSWER:

Paragraph 28 ofCount X ofthe Complaintcontainsa legal conclusion to which

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, makes no answer.

29.

Standard condition number3 ofsupplementaldevelopment permit number 1989-005-

SP which was issued to CLC on June

5,

1989, provides as follows:

There shallbe no deviation from the approvedplans 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.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM,

admits

the allegations in Paragraph 29 of

Count X of the Complaint.

30.

Standardcondition number3 ofsupplemental developmentpermit number 1989-005-

SP, required the Respondents to

obtain a supplemental permit for CLC in order to increase landfill

elevation above 580 feet above mean sea level.

ANSWER:

Respondent,

EDWARD PRUIM, admits

the allegations in Paragraph 30 of

Count X of the Complaint.

31.

Since

at least

August

5,

1996,

or a

date better

known to

the Respondents,

and

continuing until the filing ofthis Complaint, the Respondents failed to obtain a supplemental permit

forCLC to increase the permitted elevation ofthe landfillbefore deposition waste therein, above 580

feet above mean sea level.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, is without sufficient knowledge to admit or

43

---

deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 31 ofCount X ofthe Complaint.

Further answering, EDWARDPRUIM states that if a supplemental permit to

increase the elevation of the landfill was not obtained,

same was done

so

without any specific knowledge or intent.

32.

The Respondents, by their conduct as described herein, violated standard condition

number

3

of supplemental

development permit number

l989-005-SP, and

thereby, also

violated

Section 2l(d)(1) ofthe Act, 415

ILCS 5/21(d)(l).

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, is without sufficient knowledge to admit or

deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 32 ofCount X ofthe Complaint.

Further answering, EDWARDPRUIM states that ifa supplemental permit to

increase the elevation of the landfill was not

obtained,

same was done

so

without any specific knowledge or intent.

WHEREFORE:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, respectfully requests that the Board enter an order in this

matter against Complainant,

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, with respect to Count X as

follows:

A.

Authorizing a hearing in this matter at which time the Complainant will be required

to prove the allegations alleged in Count X;

B.

A findingthat Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, has not caused violations ofSection

21(d)(1) ofthe Act and standard condition number 3 ofpermit number l989-005-SP;

C.

In the alternative, denying Complainant’s request for a cease and desist order based

on a finding that the alleged violations have been corrected;

44

---

D.

In the event the Board finds that Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM,

violated any

provisions ofthe law citedby the Complainant in CountX, to assess a nominal penalty

againstEDWARD PRUIM for eachviolation based on the limited and isol-ated nature

ofthe violations alleged and the fact that:

(1)

the alleged violations havebeen voluntarily corrected;

(2)

the alleged violations are not ongoing or repetitious;

(3)

the alleged violations were limited in duration and of

relatively minor gravity;

(4)

there was

no

substantial

savings

to

Respondent

or

substantial harmto the environment orto the People of

the

State ofIllinois;

and

(5)

other mitigating factors regarding penalty assessment.

E.

Denying any request by the Complainant that Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, pay

all ofits

costs including expert witness,

consultant and attorney fees expended in

pursuit ofthis action; and

F.

Granting such other relief as this Board deems appropriate.

COUNT XI

CONDUCTING A WASTE DISPOSAL

OPERATION WITHOUT A PERMIT

Count

XI

was

Dismissed by the Illinois

Pollution

Control Board

pursuant

to

its order of

November 4, 2004 and therefore requires no

answer by Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM.

COUNT

XII

IMPROPER DISPOSAL OF USED TIRES

1-15.

Complainant realleges and incorporates by referenceherein, paragraphs

1 through 10,

45

---

paragraphs 12 through 15, and paragraph

17, ofCount I as paragraphs

1

through 15 ofthis Count XII

as if fully set forth herein.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIIVI, reallegesand incorporatesby referenceherein

his answers to Paragraphs

1 through 10, Paragraphs

12 through

15, and

Paragraph

17, of Count I as Paragraphs

1

through

15 ofthis

Count XII as if

fully set forth herein.

16.

Section

55 (b-i) ofthe Act, 415 ILCS

5/55

(b-i) (2002), provides, in pertinent part,

as follows:

b-i

Beginning January

1, 1995, no person shallknowingly

mix any used or waste tire, either whole or cut, with

municipal

waste,

and

no

owner

or

operator

of

a

sanitary landfill shall accept any used orwaste tire for

final disposal;

except that

used or waste tires, when

separated from other waste, maybe acceptedif: (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 included on-site

practices such as lining ofroadways with tire scraps,

alternative daily cover, or use in a leachate collection

system or (2) the sanitarylandfill, 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 alternativeenergyfuel.

ANSWER:

Paragraph 16 ofCount XII ofthis Complaint contains a legal

conclusion to

which Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, makes no answer.

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 of Parcel A ofthe landfill for

46

---

disposal.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, has insufficient knowledge to

form a belief

as to the truth or falsity of the allegation in Paragraph 17 ofCount XII, and

demands

strict proofthereof

18.

Bythe actions described herein, Respondents have violatedSection

55(b-

1) ofthe Act.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, has insufficient knowledge to form a belief

as to the truth or falsity of the allegation in Paragraph

18 of Count XII,

and

demands strict proof thereof

WHEREFORE:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, respectfully requests that the Board enter an order in this

matter against Complainant, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, with respect to Count XII as

follows:

A.

Authorizing a hearing in this matter at which time the Complainant will be required

to prove the allegations alleged in Count XII;

B.

A finding that Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, has not caused violations of Section

55(b-1) ofthe Act;

C.

In the alternative, denying Complainant’s request for a cease and desist order based

on a finding that the alleged violations have been corrected;

D.

In the event the Board

finds that Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, violated any

provisions ofthe law cited by the Complainant in Count XII, to assess a nominal

penalty againstEDWARD PRUIM foreach violationbased on thelimited and isolated

nature ofthe violations alleged and the fact that:

47

---

(1)

the alleged violations have been voluntarily corrected;

(2)

the alleged violations

arenot ongoing or repetitious;

(3)

the alleged violations were limited in duration and of

relatively minor gravity;

(4)

there

was

no

substantial

savings

to

Respondent

or

substantial harm to the environment orto the People of

the

State ofIllinois;

and

(5)

othermitigating factors regardingpenalty assessment.

E.

Denying any request by the Complainant that Respondent,

EDWARD PRUIM, pay

all ofits

costs including expert witness, consultant and attorney fees expended in

pursuit ofthis action;

and

F.

Granting such other relief as this Board deems appropriate.

COUNT XIII

VIOLATION OF PERMIT CONDITION

1-22.

Complainant realleges and incorporates by referenceherein, paragraphs

1 through 22

ofCount I as paragraphs

1

through 22 ofthis Count XIII, as if fully set forth herein.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARDPRUIM, reallegesand incorporatesby referenceherein

his answers to Paragraphs

1 through 22 ofCount I as Paragraphs

1 though 22

of this Count XIII as if fully set forth herein.

23.

Section 21(d)(l) 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:

48

---

(2002).

ANSWER:

ANSWER:

Paragraph 24 ofCount XIII of this Complaint contains a legal conclusion to

which Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, makes no answer.

Special condition number 13 ofsupplemental developmentpermit number1989-005-

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.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, admits

the allegations in Paragraph 25 of

Count XIII ofthis

Complaint.

25.

Special

condition number

13

of CLC’s

supplemental development permit number

1 989-005-SP, required theRespondents to utilize movable fencingto preventblowing litter whenthe

refuse fill

is at a higher elevation than the natural ground line.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, admits the allegations in Paragraph 25

of

Count XIII ofthis Complaint.

26.

On March 31,

1999, a windy day, no movable fencing was present, even though the

without

a permit granted by theAgency 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.

Paragraph 23

of Count XIII ofthis Complaint contains a legal

conclusion to

which Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, makes no answer.

24.

Refuse is waste as that term is defined at Section 3.535 ofthe Act, 415 ILCS

5/3.535

25.

SP which was

49

---

fill was at a higher elevation than the natural ground line, and litterwasblowing all over the landfill.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, has insufficient knowledge to form a belief

as to the truth or falsity ofthe allegation in Paragraph 26 ofCount XIII, and

demands strict proofthereof.

27.

The Respondents, bytheir acts and omissions as describedherein, causedand allowed

violations ofspecial condition number 13 of CLC’s supplemental developmentpermit number 1989-

005-SP, and thereby, violates Section 21(d)(1) ofthe Act, 415 ILCS 5/21(d)(l)

(2002).

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, has insufficient knowledge to form a belief

as to the truth or falsity ofthe allegations in Paragraph 27 ofCount XIII, and

demands strict proofthereof.

WHEREFORE:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, respectfully requests that the Board enter an order in this

matter againstComplainant, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, with respectto Count XIII as

follows:

A.

Authorizing a hearing in this matter at which time the Complainant will be required

to prove the allegations alleged in Count XIII;

B.

A findingthat Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, has not caused violations ofSection

21 (d)(1) ofthe Act and special condition number 13 ofpermit number

1 989-005-SP;

C.

In the alternative, denying Complainant’s request for a cease and desist order based

on a finding that the alleged violations have been corrected;

D.

In the event the Board finds that Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, violated any

provisions

of the law cited by the Complainant in Count

XIII, to

assess

a nominal

50

---

penalty againstEDWARD PRUIM for eachviolationbased on thelimited and isolated

nature ofthe violations alleged and the fact that:

(1)

the allegedviolations have beenvoluntarily corrected;

(2)

the alleged violations are not ongoing or repetitious;

(3)

the alleged violations were limited

in

duration and of

relatively minor gravity;

(4)

there

was

no

substantial

savings

to

Respondent

or

substantial harm to

the environment or the People of

the State of Illinois; and

(5)

other mitigating factors regarding penalty assessment.

E.

Denying any request by the Complainant that Respondent,

EDWARD PRUIM, pay

all ofits costs including expert witness, consultant and attorney fees expended in

pursuit ofthis action; and

F.

Granting such other relief as this Board deems appropriate.

COUNT XIV

VIOLATION OF PERMIT CONDITION

1-23.

Complainant realleges and incorporates by referenceherein, paragraphs

1 through 23

ofCount I as paragraphs

1

through 23

of this Count XIV as if fully set forth herein.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, reallegesand incorporatesbyreferenceherein

his answers to Paragraphs

1 through 23 ofCount I as Paragraphs

1 through 23

of this Count XIV as if fully set forth herein.

24.

Section 21(d)(l) ofthe Act, 415 ILCS 5/21(d)(1)

(2002), provides as follows:

51

---

No person shall:

Conduct

any

waste-storage,

waste-treatment,

or

waste-disposal

operation:

1.

without apermit granted by the Agency or in violation

of any conditions imposed by such permit,

including

periodic reports and fullaccess to adequaterecords and

the

inspection of facilities,

as

may

be

necessary

to

ensure compliance with this Act, and with regulations

and standards

adopted thereunder....

ANSWER:

Paragraph 24 ofCount XIV ofthis Complaint contains a legal

conclusion to

which Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, makes no answer.

25.

Refuse is waste as that term is defined at Section 3.535 ofthe Act, 415 ILCS

5/3.535

(2002).

ANSWER:

Paragraph 25 ofCount XN ofthis

Complaint contains a legal conclusion to

which Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, makes no

answer.

26.

Special condition number

1 ofsupplemental developmentpermitnumber

1 996-240-SP

which was issued to Respondent CLC on October 24,

1996, provides as follows:

This permit allows the development and construction ofan active gas

management

system and

a gas

flare.

Prior to

operation of the gas

controlfacility, the applicant shallprovide to theAgency thefollowing

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)

contingencyplandescribingthe emergencyprocedures

that

will

be

implemented

in

the

event of a

fire or

explosion at the facility;

and

e)

permit numbers from theAgency’s Bureaus ofAir and

Water.

52

---

This

information

shall

be

submitted

in

the

form

of

a

permit

application.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, admits

the allegations in Paragraph 26 of

Count XIV ofthe Complaint.

27.

The Respondents

were

required

by

special

condition

number

1

of supplemental

development permit number 1996-240-SP,

to

provide the Illinois

EPA with the abovementioned

information, before operating its gas control facility.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, admits the allegations in Paragraph 27 of

Count XIV ofthe Complaint.

28.

On or about March 31,

1999, oron a date or dates better known to the Respondents,

the Respondents allowed commencement ofoperation ef the gas control facilityat the site without

having first providing the necessary information to the Illinois EPA.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, has insufficient knowledge to form a belief

as to the truth or falsity ofthe allegation in Paragraph 28 ofCount XIV, and

demands strict proofthereof

29.

On May

5,

1999,

the

Illinois

EPA received Respondents’

submittal regarding an

operating authorization request for the landfill gas management system.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, has insufficient knowledge to form a belief

as to

the truth or falsity ofthe allegation in Paragraph 29 ofCount XIV, and

demands strict proofthereof

30.

The Respondents, by their acts and omissions as described herein, violated special

condition number

1 ofCLC’s supplemental developmentpermit number 1 996-240-SP, and thereby,

53

---

also violated Section 21(d)(1) ofthe Act, 415 ILCS

5/21(d)(l) (2002).

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, has insufficient knowledge to form a belief

as to

the truth or falsity ofthe allegation in Paragraph 30 ofCount XIV,

and

demands strict proofthereof

WHEREFORE:

Respondent,

EDWARD PRUIM,

respectfully requests that the Board enter an order in this

matter against Complainant, PEOPLE OF

THE STATE OF

ILLINOIS, with respect

to Count XIV

as

follows:

A.

Authorizing a hearing in this matter at which time the Complainant will be required

to prove the allegations alleged in Count XIV;

B.

A findingthat Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, has not caused violations ofSection

21(d)(1) ofthe Act and special condition number

1 ofpermit number 1996-240-SP;

C.

In the alternative, denying Complainant’s request for a cease and desist order based

on a finding that the alleged violations have been corrected;

D.

In the event the Board finds that Respondent, EDWARD

PRUIM, violated any

provisions ofthe law

cited by the Complainant in

Count XIV, to

assess

a nominal

penalty against EDWARD PRUIM for eachviolation based on thelimited and isolated

nature ofthe violations alleged and the fact that:

(1)

the alleged violations have been voluntarily corrected;

(2)

the alleged violations are not ongoing or repetitious;

(3)

the alleged violations were limited in duration and of

relatively minor gravity;

54

---

(4)

there

was

no

substantial

savings

to

Respondent

or

substantial harm to the environment orto the People of

the State ofIllinois; and

(5)

other mitigating factors regarding penalty assessment.

E.

Denying any requestby the Complainant that Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, pay

all ofits costs including expert witness, consultant and attorney fees expended in

pursuit of this action; and

F.

Granting such other relief as this Board deems appropriate.

COUNT XV

VIOLATION OF PERMIT

CONDITION

1-23.

Complainant realleges and incorporates by referenceherein, paragraphs

1 through 23

of Count I as paragraphs

1 through 23 ofthis Count XV as if fully set forth herein.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, reallegesand incorporatesby referenceherein

his answers to Paragraphs

1 through 23 ofCount I as Paragraphs

1 through 23

ofthis Count XV as if fully set forth herein.

24.

Section 21(d)(1) ofthe 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.

withouta permit grantedby the Agency orin violation

of any conditions imposed by such permit, including

periodic reports and full access to adequaterecords and

the

inspection of facilities,

as may be

necessary

to

ensure compliance with this Act, and with regulations

and standards adopted thereunder.

55

---

ANSWER:

Paragraph 24 ofCount XV ofthe Complaint contains a legal

conclusion to

which Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM,

makes no answer.

25.

Refuse is waste as that term is defined at Section 3.535 ofthe Act, 415 ILCS

5/3.535

(2002).

ANSWER:

Paragraph 25 of Count XV ofthe Complaint contains a legal conclusion to

which Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, makes no answer.

26.

Special condition number9 ofsupplemental development permit number 1996-240-

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 orvectorproblems arise, orif leachate

popouts or seeps arepresentin the areas disturbedby constructing-this~

gas collection facility.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, admits the allegations in Paragraph 26 of

Count XV of the Complaint.

27.

Respondents

were

required

by

special

condition

number

9

of

supplemental

development permit number 1 996-240-SP, to takecorrectiveaction when therewaserosion, ponding,

and cracks greater than one inch wide at the facility.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, admits the allegations in Paragraph 27 of

Count XV ofthe Complaint.

28.

Onor aboutMarch 31, 1999, on Parcel A, therewas erosion, ponding and cracks over

one inch wide at the facility, no vegetative cover,

and no corrective action was being taken.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, has insufficient knowledge to form a belief

56

---

as to the truth or falsity ofthe allegation in Paragraph 28 ofCount XV, and

demands strict proofthereof

29.

On July 20,

1999,

there was not a vegetative cover over the entire Parcel B

of the

landfill.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, has insufficient knowledge to form a belief

as to

the truth or falsity ofthe allegation in Paragraph 29 of Count XV, and

demands strict proofthereof.

30.

The Respondents failed to take any action, or authorize and direct their employees to

take any action, to prevent erosion, ponding, and crackin the landfill cover, and failed to provide for

proper vegetative cover at the Site.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, has insufficient knowledgeto

form a belief

as to

the truth or falsity ofthe allegation in Paragraph

30 of Count XV, and

demands strict proof thereof.

31.

Respondents, by the conductdescribed herein, violated special condition number9 of

its

supplemental

development

permit

number

l996-240-SP,• and

thereby,

also

violated

Section

21(d)(l) ofthe Act, 415 ILCS 5/21(d)(l) (2002).

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, has insufficient knowledge to form a belief

as to the truth or falsity ofthe allegation in Paragraph 31 ofCount XV, and

demands strict proofthereof

WHEREFORE:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, respectfully requests that the Board enter an order in this

matter against Complainant, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, with respect to Count XV as

57

---

follows:

A.

Authorizing a hearing in this matter at which time the Complainant will be required

to prove the allegations alleged in Count XV;

B.

A findingthat Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, has not caused violations ofSection

21(d)(1) ofthe Act and special condition number 9 ofpermit number 1996-240-SP;

C.

In the alternative, denying Complainant’s request for a cease and desist order based

on a finding that the alleged violations have been corrected;

D.

In the event the Board

finds that Respondent,

EDWARD PRUIM, violated any

provisions ofthe law cited by the Complainant in Count XV, to assess a nominal

penalty againstEDWARDPRUIM foreachviolation based on the limitedand isolated

nature ofthe violations

alleged and the fact that:

(1)

the alleged violations have been voluntarily corrected;

(2)

the alleged violations are not ongoing orrepetitious;

(3)

the alleged violations were limited

in

duration and of

relatively minor gravity;

(4)

there was

no

substantial

savings

to

Respondent

or

substantial harm to the environment orto thePeople of

the State ofIllinois; and

(5)

other mitigating factors regarding penalty assessment.

E.

Denying any request by the Complainant

that Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, pay

all

ofits

costs including expert witness, consultant and attorney fees expended in

pursuit ofthis action; and

58

---

(2002).

ANSWER:

F.

Granting such other reliefas this Board deems appropriate.

COUNT XVI

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 ofthis Count XVI as if fully set forth herein.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIIM, reallegesand incorporatesby referenceherein

his answers to Paragraphs

1 through 23 ofCount I as Paragraphs

1 through 23

ofthis Count XVI as if fully set forth herein.

24.

Section 2l(d)(1) of the Act, 415 ILCS

5/21(d)(l) (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 adequaterecords and

the

inspection

of facilities,

as

may be

necessary

to

ensure compliance with this Act, and with regulations

and

standards adopted thereunder....

Paragraph 24 of Count XVI ofthe Complaint contains a legal conclusion to

which Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, makes no answer.

25.

Refuse is waste as that termis defined at Section 3.535 ofthe Act, 415 ILCS 5/3.535

ANSWER:

Paragraph 25 ofCount

XVI ofthe Complaint contains a legal

conclusion to

which Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, makes no answer.

26.

Special condition number 11 ofsupplemental development permit number 1996-240-

59

---

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

works,

or

a

commercial

treatment

or

disposal facility.

The condensate shall be

analyzed to

determine if

hazardous waste characteristics are present. Awritten log showingthe

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.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD

PRUIM,

admits

the allegations in Paragraph 26 of

Count XVI ofthe Complaint.

27.

The Respondents

were

required by

special

condition number

11

of supplemental

development

permit

number

1 996-240-SP,

to

dispose of leachate

pumped

from

the

cells

at

a

permitted, publically owned treatment works, or a commercial treatment or disposal facility.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, admits the allegations in Paragraph 27 of

Count XVI ofthe Complaint.

28.

On or about March31, 1999 and July20,

1999, the Respondents caused and allowed

leachate to

be pumped from the landfill into new cells for added moisture and did

not dispose ofit

at a permitted facility.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, has insufficient knowledge to form a belief

as to the truth or falsity ofthe allegation in Paragraph 28 ofCount XVI, and

demands strict proof thereof

29.

TheRespondents, bythe conductdescribed herein, violated special condition number

11

of supplemental development permit

number 1996-240-SP,

and thereby also

violated Section

21(d)(1) ofthe Act, 415 ILCS

5/21(d)(1) (2002).

60

---

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, has insufficient knowledge to form a belief

as to the truth or falsity ofthe allegation in Paragraph 29 ofCount XVI,

and

demands strict proofthereof

WHEREFORE:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, respectfully requests that the Board enter an order in this

matter against Complainant,

PEOPLE OF

THE STATE OF

ILLINOIS, with respect to

Count XVI

as

follows:

A.

Authorizing a hearingin this matter at which time the Complainant will be required

to prove the allegations alleged in Count XVI;

B.

A finding that Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, has not causedviolations ofSection

21 (d)(1) ofthe Act and special condition number 11 ofpermit number 1 996-240-SP;

C.

In the alternative, denying Complainant’s request for a cease and desist order based

on a finding that the alleged violations have been corrected;

D.

In the event the Board finds that Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, violated any

provisions of the law cited by the Complainant in Count XVI, to assess

a nominal

penalty against EDWARDPRUIM for eachviolationbased on thelimited and isolated

nature of the violations alleged and the fact that:

(1)

the alleged violations have beenvoluntarily corrected;

(2)

the alleged violations are not ongoing orrepetitious;

(3)

the alleged violations

were limited in duration and of

relatively minor gravity;

(4)

there was

no

substantial

savings

to

Respondent

or

61

---

substantial harm to the environmentorto the People of

the State ofIllinois; and

(5)

other mitigating factors regarding penalty assessment.

E.

Denying any request by the Complainant that Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, pay

all ofits costs including expert witness, consultant and attorney fees

expended in

pursuit ofthis action; and

F.

Granting such other relief as this Board deems appropriate.

COUNT XVII

FINANCIAL ASSURANCE PURSUANT TO

THE OCTOBER 24,

1996 PERMIT

1-23.

Complainant realleges and incorporates by reference herein, paragraphs

1 through 23

ofCount I as paragraphs

1

through 23 ofthis Count XVII as if fully set forth herein.

ANSWER:

Respondent,EDWARD PRUIM, realleges and incorporatesby referenceherein

his answers to Paragraphs

1 through 23 ofCount I as Paragraphs

1 through 23

ofthis Count XVII as if fully set forth herein.

24.

Section 21(d)(l) ofthe 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 fullaccess to adequaterecords and

the

inspection of facilities,

as may be

necessary

to

62

---

ensure compliance with this Act, and with regulations

and standards adopted thereunder.

ANSWER:

Paragraph 24 ofCount XVII of the Complaint contains a legal conclusion to

which Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, makes no answer.

25.

Refuse is waste as that term is

defined at Section

3.53 ofthe Act, 415

ILCS

5/3.53

(2002).

ANSWER:

Paragraph 25 of Count XVII ofthe Complaint contains a legal conclusion to

which Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, makes no answer.

26.

Special condition number 13 ofsupplemental developmentpermit number 1996-240-

SP, dated October 24,

1996, provides as follows:

Financial assurance shallbe maintained by the operato-r 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 ofthis

permit, the operator shallprovide financialassurance in the amount of

the

current

cost

estimate

as

required

by

35

Ill.

Adm.

Code

807.603(b)(1).

(Note: prior

to

the operation of the gas extraction

system in

accordance with

Special

Condition

1

of this

permit,

the

operator

shall

provide

financial

assurance

in

the

amount

of

$1,439,720.00)

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD

PRUIM,

admits the allegations in Paragraph

26 of

Count XVII ofthe Complaint.

27.

The

Respondents

were required by special

condition number

13

of supplemental

development permit number 1996-240-SP, to arrange financing for CLC to

provide $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 ofthe gas extraction system.

63

---

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, admits the allegations in Paragraph 27 of

Count XVII ofthe Complaint.

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).

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, has insufficient knowledge to form a belief

as to the truth or falsity ofthe allegation in Paragraph 28 ofCount XVII, and

demands strict proofthereof

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.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, has insufficient knowledge to form a belief

as to the truth or falsity ofthe allegation in Paragraph 29 ofCount XVII, and

demands strict proofthereof

30.

The Respondents caused CLC to

provide to the Illinois EPA a rider to the existing

performance bond that increased the amount offinancial assurance to

$1,439,720.00 on September

1,

1999.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, has insufficient knowledge to form a belief

as to the truth orfalsity ofthe allegation in Paragraph 30 ofCount XVII, and

demands strict proofthereof

31.

The Respondents, by the conduct described herein, caused or allowed violations of

special condition number 13 ofsupplemental development permit number 1 99-240-SP, and thereby,

also violated Section 21(d)(l) ofthe Act, 415 ILCS 5/21(d)(1) (2002).

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, has insufficientknowledge to form a belief

64

---

as to the truthor falsity ofthe allegation ofParagraph 31 and Count XVII, and

demands strict proofthereof

32.

The

Respondents

were

out

of compliance

with

special

condition

number

13

of

supplemental development permit number 1996-240-SP

and Section 21(d)(l) ofthe Act, 415 ILCS

5/2i(d)(1) (2002) from January22,

1997 until

September

1,

1999.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, has insufficientknowledge to

form a belief

as to the truth or falsity ofthe allegation in Paragraph 32 of Count XVII, and

demands strict proofthereof.

WHEREFORE:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, respectfully requests that the Board enter an order in this

matter against Complainant, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, with respect to Count XVII

as

follows:

A.

Authorizing a hearing in this matter at which time the Complainant will be required

to prove the allegations alleged in Count XVII;

B.

A finding that Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, has not caused violations ofSection

21(d)(1) oftheAct and special condition number 13 ofpermit number 1996-240-SP;

C.

In the alternative, denying Complainant’s request for a cease and

desist order based

on a finding that the alleged violations have been corrected;

D.

In the event the Board finds that Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, violated any

provisions ofthe law cited by the Complainant

in Count XVII, to assess a nominal

penaltyagainst EDWARDPRUIM for eachviolationbased on the limited and isolated

nature ofthe violations alleged and the fact that:

65

---

(1)

the alleged violations havebeen voluntarily corrected;

(2)

the alleged violations are not ongoing or repetitious;

(3)

the alleged violations were limited in duration and of

relatively minor gravity;

(4)

there was

no

substantial

savings

to

Respondent

or

substantial harmto the environment orto the People-of

the

State ofIllinois; and

(5)

other mitigating factors regarding penalty assessment.

E.

Denying any request by the Complainant

that Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, pay

all ofits

costs including expert witness, consultant and attorney fees expended in

pursuit ofthis action; and

F.

Granting such other relief as this Board deems appropriate.

COUNT XVIII

VIOLATION OF PERMIT CONDITION

1-23.

Complainant realleges and incorporates by referenceherein, paragraphs

1 through 23

of Count I as paragraphs

1

through 23 ofthis Count XVIII as if fully set

forth herein.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, realleges and incorporates byreferenceherein

his answersto Paragraphs

1

through 23 ofCount I as Paragraphs

1 through 23

ofthis Count XVIII as if fully set forth herein.

24.

Section 21(d)(1) ofthe Act, 415 ILCS

5/21(d)(l) (2002), provides as follows:

No person shall:

Conduct

any

waste-storage,

waste-treatment,

or

waste-disposal

66

---

operation:

1.

without a permit granted by the Agency or in violation

ofany conditions imposed by such permit,

including

periodic reports and full accessto adequaterecords and

the

inspection of facilities,

as

may be

necessary to

ensure compliance with this Act, and with regulations

and standards adopted thereunder....

ANSWER:

Paragraph 24 ofCount XVIII ofthe Complaint contains a legal conclusion to

which Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, makes no answer.

25.

Refuse is waste as that term

is defined at Section

3.53 ofthe Act,

415

ILCS

5/3.53

(2002).

ANSWER:

Paragraph 25 ofCount XVIII ofthe Complaintcontains a legal conclusion to

which Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, makes no answer.

26.

Special condition number 17 ofsupplemental developmentpermit number 1989-005-

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 constructed in accordancewith 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.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM,

admits the allegations in Paragraph 26 of

Count XVIII ofthe Complaint.

27.

The Respondents

were

required by

special

condition

number

17 of supplemental

development permit

number

1 996-240-SP,

to

obtain

CLC’s

Operating

Permit

and

Illinois

EPA

approvalbased on a professional engineer’s certificationbefore placing anywaste materialsin an area

67

---

that did not yet have this approval.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, admits the allegations in Paragraph 27 of

Count XVIII of the Complaint.

28.

OnMarch 31, 1999, and July20, 1999, the Respondents causedorallowedplacement

of leachate, a waste,

in areas that had not been certified or approved by the Illinois EPA.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, has insufficientknowledge to form a belief

as to the truth orfalsity ofthe allegation in Paragraph 28 ofCount XVIII, and

demands strict proofthereof.

29.

The Respondents, by the conductdescribedherein, violated special condition number

17 ofsupplemental development permit number

1 989-005-SP,

and thereby, also violated Section

21(d)(1) ofthe Act, 415 ILCS

5/21(d)(1)

(2002).

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, has insufficient knowledge to

form

a belief

as to the truth or falsity ofthe allegation in Paragraph 29 ofCount XVIII, and

demands strict proof thereof

WHEREFORE:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, respectfully requests that the Board enter an order in this

matteragainst Complainant, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

ILLINOIS, with respect to Count XVIII

as

follows:

A.

Authorizing a hearing in this matter at which time the Complainant will be required

to prove the allegations alleged in Count XVIII;

B.

A finding that Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, has not caused violations ofSection

21 (d)(1) ofthe Act and special condition number

17 ofpermit number

1 989-005-SP;

68

---

C.

In the alternative, denying Complainant’s request for a cease and

desist order based

on a finding that the alleged violations have been corrected;

D.

In the event the Board finds that Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, violated any

provisions ofthe law cited by the Complainant

in

Count XVIII, to

assess a nominal

penalty againstEDWARD PRUIM foreach violationbased on the limited and isolated

nature of the violations alleged and the fact that:

(1)

the alleged violations have beenvoluntarily corrected

(2)

the alleged violations are not ongoing or repetitious;

(3)

the alleged violations were limited in duration and of

relatively minor gravity;

(4)

there was

no

substantial

savings

to

Respondent

or

substantial

harm to the environment or the People of

the State of Illinois; and

(5)

other mitigating factors regarding penalty assessment.

E.

Denying any request by the Complainant

that Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, pay

all ofits costs including expert witness, consultant

and attorney fees expended in

pursuit of this

action; and

F.

Granting such other relief as this Board deems appropriate.

COUNT XIX

FAILURE TO

PROVIDE REVISED COST ESTIMATE

1994

1-16.

Complainant realleges and incorporates by reference hereinparagraphs

1 through

16

ofCount I as paragraphs

1

through 16 of this Count XIX as if fully set forth herein.

69

---

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARDPRUIM, reallegesand incorporates byreferenceherein

his answers to Paragraphs

1 through 16 ofCount las paragraphs

1 through 16

ofthis Count Xlix as if fully set forth herein.

17.

Section 21.1(a) ofthe Act, 415 ILCS

5/21.1(a) (2002), provides as follows:

a.

Except as provided in subsection(a.5) no personother

than the State ofIllinois, its agencies and institutions,

or a unit oflocal government shall conduct any waste

disposal

operation on or after March

1,

1985,

which

requires a permit under subsection (d) ofSection 21 of

this Act, unless suchperson hasposed with the Agency

a performance bond orother security forthepurposeof

insuring

closure

of the

site and post-closure care in

accordance

with

this

Act

and

regulations

adopted

thereunder.

ANSWER:

Paragraph

17 of Count XIX ofthe Complaint contains a legal conclusion to

which Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, makes no answer.

18.

Section

807.601(a) of the Board’s Waste Disposal

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) ofthe

Act unless suchpersonhasprovided financialassurancein accordance

with this Subpart.

a)

The financial assurance requirement does not applyto

the

State ofIllinois,

its agencies and institutions, orto

any unit oflocal government; provided, however, that

any other persons who conduct such a waste disposal

operation on a site which maybe owned oroperated by

such

a

government

entity

must

provide

financial

assurance for closure and post-closure care ofthe

site.

ANSWER:

Paragraph

18 ofCount XIX of the Complaint contains a legal conclusion to

which Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, makes no answer.

70

---

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 ofthe filing or last revision of the current

cost estimate.

ANSWER:

Paragraph

19 ofCount XIX ofthe Complaint contains a legal conclusion to

which Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, makes no

answer.

20.

Item 9 ofthe CLC’s supplemental permit dated April 20, 1993, provided that the next

revised cost estimate was due by December 26,

1994.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM,

admits the allegations in Paragraph 20 of

Count XIX ofthe Complaint.

21.

Respondents failed to cause CLC to providea revisedcost estimate by December 26,

1994.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, has insufficient knowledge to form a belief

as to the truth or falsity ofthe allegation in Paragraph 21 ofCount XIX, and

demands strict proof thereof

22.

On July 26, 1996, the Respondents submitted a Supplemental Permit Application-for

the

gas collection

and

recovery

system

and

included

a

revised

cost

estimate in

the

amount of

$1,431,360.00.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, has insufficient knowledge to form a belief

as to the truth or falsity ofthe allegation in Paragraph 22 ofCount XIX,

and

demands strict proofthereof

71

---

23.

By failing to revise the cost estimate by December 26, 1994, as required by the April

20, 1993, supplementalpermit, the Respondents haveviolated Section 21 (d)(2) ofthe Act, 415 ILCS

5/21(d)(2) (2002), and Section 807.623 (a) ofthe Board’s Waste Disposal Regulations, 35 Ill. Adm.

Code 807.623(a).

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, has insufficientknowledge to form a belief

as to the truth or falsity ofthe allegation in Paragraph 23 ofCount XIX, and

demands strict proofthereof

24.

The Respondents were outofcompliance with Section 21 (d)(2) ofthe Act, 415 ILCS

5/21(d)(2) (2002), 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 807.623(a) from

December 26,

1994 until July 26,

1996.

ANSWER:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, has insufficient knowledge to

form a belief

as to the truth or falsity ofthe allegation in Paragraph 24 ofCount XIX, and

demands strict proofthereof

WHEREFORE:

Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, respectfully requests that the Board enter an order in this

matter against Complainant, PEOPLE OF THE

STATE OF ILLINOIS, with respect to

Count XIX

as

follows:

A.

Authorizing a hearing in

this matter at which time the Complainant will be required

to prove the allegations alleged in Count XIX;

B.

A finding that Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, has not causedviolations ofSection

21 (d)(2) ofthe Act and Section 807.623(a)oftheBoard’sWaste Disposal Regulations;

C.

In the alternative, denying Complainant’s request for a cease and desist order based

on a finding that the alleged violations have been corrected;

72

---

D.

In the event the Board finds that Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, violated any

provisions of the law

cited by the Complainant in

Count XIX, to

assess a nominal

penalty against EDWARD PRUIM for eachviolationbased on thelimited and isolated

nature ofthe violations alleged and the fact that:

(1)

the alleged violations have been voluntarilycorrected;

(2)

the alleged violations are not ongoing or repetitious;

(3)

the alleged violations were limited in duration and of

relatively minor gravity;

(4)

there

was

no

substantial

savings

to

Respondent

or

substantial harm to the environment or to the Peopleof

the

State ofIllinois;

and

(5)

other mitigating factors regarding penalty assessment.

E.

Denying any request by the Complainant that Respondent, EDWARD PRUIM, pay

all ofits

costs including expert witness, consultant and attorney fees expended in

pursuit ofthis action; and

F.

Granting such other relief as this Board deems appropriate.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE

DEFENSE

This Complaint is barred because it is prejudicial to Respondent, is not timely filed and the

allegations in the Complaint arenearly identical to the allegations contained in the Second Amended

73

---

Complaint, oftherelated case, People v. Community Landfill Company, PCB 97-197 (Enforcement).

The allegations in this

Complaint are based on

documents that have been in the possession ofthe

Illinois

Environmental

Protection Agency

since

1993,

1995,

and

1996.

The allegations in

this

Complaint were knownto the Complainant whenthe 1997 Complaint was filed.

Respondents

have

been the

owners

of CLC

since the

inception of the

1997

Complaint.

All

facts alleged

in

this

Complaint were known to Complainant since the related Complaint was filed in

1997.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

This Complaint is barredbecause Complainant has failed to- stateaclaimforpersonal liability

under

the

Act

by

failing

to

allege

sufficient

facts

establishing

that

Respondent

had

personal

involvement oractive participationin the actsresulting in liability.

Complainant hasmerely set forth

allegations ofRespondent’s

involvement and participation in the management ofthe corporation,

which are insufficient to

establish personal liability under the Act.

Respectfully Submitted,

73?zd

One of Respondent’s Attorneys

Mark A. LaRose

Clarissa C. Grayson

LaRose & Bosco, Ltd.

200 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2810

Chicago, IL

60601

(313) 642-4414

AttyNo. 37346

74

---

CounLyof~~y~k,

Stuteot

ILi~i~Uois

~FPJ

OAVQQ~J~ftj~RU

(,I~dward

Pruirn,

on

oath and

alffrrna(jan

hereby dcpos~

and

State as follows:

~.

I

am

a Respufl(f~)~

iq

PCB

04-207

(l~flfbrcctn~)

2.

1

am

WithoLit

sufflcicj~knowIc(J~c

to

form

a

belief as

to

thq

truth

or

fmdsity ol

allegations cornajned in Coui~~

I. U, UI,

v,

Vi,

V1~,

VIII, IX,

X, XII,

XIII, XIV,

XV,

XVI,

Xvii

XVIII. XIX

of tho

Complaint arid

demand

stricL

proofLhe~uC

Fw’thcr

alYlant

saycth

n~iughL

Signed and

sworn to

this~thy otJunuary, 2005

Notary

“OFFICIAL SEAL”

NANCY E CRAVENS

COMMISStON

EXPIRES 07/09/07

fly

---

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned,

an attorney,

on

oath states

that she

caused to

be

served a copy of the

foregoing

RESPONDENT

EDWARD

PRUIM’S

ANSWER

TO

COMPLAINT

AND

AFFIRMATIVE

DEFENSES

to the following parties ofrecord, by hand delivery this

4th

day of

January, 2005:

Mr. Christopher Grant

Mr. Bradley Halloran

Environmental Bureau

Hearing Officer

Assistant Attorney General

Illinois Pollution Control Board

188 West Randolph Street, 20t~~

Floor

100 W. Randolph Street, Suite 11-500

Chicago, IL 60601

Chicago,IL

60601

Ms. Dorothy Gunn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

100

W.

Randolph Street,

11-500

Chicago, IL

60601

~

Attorney for Respondent

Mark A. LaRose

Clarissa C. Grayson

AttorneyNo. 37346

LaRose

& Bosco, Ltd.

200 N. LaSalle Street

Suite 2810

Chicago, IL 60601

(312) 642-4414