fLL~OIS

?OLLJTION

2ONTROL

3OARD

V(~/

~973

~NV1RONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY

v.

PCB

72-508

‘/1~.LAGE OF

ALLENDALE

~MlON

AND

QRD73R

THE

BOARD

(by

Mr.

Dumelle)

This

nfor:ement

action

alleging

numerous

violations

Envi~ronmen~i:~i

~c~~on

Act

and

 the Rules

 and Regulations

Refuse

Disposal

Sites

 and Facilities.

 Hearing was held on

~ehruarv

20,

 1973.

 Allendale has a population of 425.

The

ccmptair1t

 alleges

 that the Village has been operating

~ts

 4-acre landfill without an Agency permit,

 in violation of

section

21(e)

the

Act.

The

president

 the Village

Board

admitted

nct

havtng

permit,

find

that

this

 violation

dc~~exist.

‘Th.~ tomptaint

alleges

that

numerous

specified

 dates the

J~.lage

ctu~ed cr

allowed

open

dumping

 of both garbage and refuse,

~oiat:~n

Sections

21(a)

and

21(b)

the

Act

 respectively

anJ

iule

3.04

the

Rules.

The

 Agency inspectors testified that

)fl

 :~edates

 of their visits to the sites

 there was abundant

~videnceof open dumping.

 There were pits

 that were just filled

~vi

 materials which had been dumped.

 We find that the open dumping

aticns

 did occur on September 17,

 1970,

 January

 5, 1971,

~:Lruarv

2~,

1971,

 April l6~1971, July

26,

 1971, August

26,

 1971,

.~ost

7,

 1971,

 September

27,

 1971, September 28,

 1971, December 8,

~JT’1,December 9,

 1972, January

18,

 1972,

 February,

 1972, February

2,

2.

 April

18,

 1972,

 June

1,

1972,

 August

3,

1972,

 January 4,

 1973,

anuar~11,

 1973,

 January

 1973 and February

16,

 197:3,

It

 is alleged that on numerous dates the

 Village caused or

~Ilowedthe open burn:ng of refuse,

 in violation of Section 9(c) of the

Act

and

 Rules

 3.05 and 5.12(d).

The

 inspectors testified to burning

and

 smoldering

 tires,

 trees

and

 other debris on September 17,

 1970,

January

 4, Januar” ~

1973,

 January 15,

 973 and February 16,

 1973.

:n

 iact,

 there was a.s Ian

posted

which

 actually encouraged the

~‘urtifl~.

find

 that

 the viclat:cns did occur on those dates.

The complaint alleges that the Village failed

 to install an

entrance gate at the site that can be. locked,

in

violation of

Rule 4.03

 (a).

 The only date upon which we

 find this violation

is September 17,

 1970.

 It appears

 that

 a gate was installed,

thereafter.

It

 is alleged that the Village failed

to confine

 the dumping

 to the smallest practical area,

 in violation of Rule 5.03.

 Accor-

ding to the testimony of one Agency inspector,

 the refuse was

too

spread out and could have been confined to

 a smaller area on

July 26, August

 26, August

27,

September

27,

September

2C,

December

8,

 December 9,

 1971, January 18,

 February 1,

 February

2,

April

 18, June

 1, August

3,

 1972, January

 4, January 11, January 15,

and February 16,

 1973.

 We find that

 the violation did occur on

those dates.

The complaint alleges that the Village failed

 to provide

portable fencing

 to prevent blowing litter and also failed to

police the area to collect all scattered material,

 in violation

of Rule 5.04.

 The inspectors testified that there was no portable

fence or policing on September 17,

 1970, July 26, August

 26, August

27,

 September 27, September 28, December

 8, and December

9,

 1971,

January 18, February

 1, February 2, April

 18, June

1,

 and August

3,

1972, January

 4, January

 11, January

15

 and February 16,

 1973.

We

find that the violations did occur on those dates.

It

 is alleged that the Village failed

 to provide sufficient

equipment in operational condition to permit the operation of the

landfill according to the approved plan,

 in violation of Rule 5.0.

The inspectors testified that there was

 no equipment at the site

on September 17,

 1970, April

 16, July 26, August

 26, August

27,

September 27, September 28, December

8,

 and December

9,

 1971,

January 18, February

 1, February

 2, April 18, June

 1, August

3,

 1972,

January

4,

January 11, January 15, February 16,

 1973.

We

find that

these violations occurred also.

The complaint alleges that the Village failed

 to properly spread

and compact refuse,

 in violation of Rule

 5.06.

 The testimony shows

that there was no spreading or compacting done on July

 26, August 26,

August

 27, September 27, September

 28, December 8,

 December 9,

 1971,

January 18,

 February 1,

 February 2, April

 18, June

 1, August

3,

1972, January

 4, January 11, January 15 and February 16,

 1973.

We

find that these violations

 also occurred.

It

 is alleged that the Village failed to provide daily cover,

 in violation of Rule 5.07(a).

 The inspectors testified that

there was no cover used on September 17,

 1970, January 5,

 February

26, April

 16, July

 26, August

 26, August

27,

 September 27,

September 28, December

8,

 and December 9,

 1971, January

 18, February

1,

February

 2, April

 18, June

 1, August

3,

 1972, January

4,

January 11,

January

 15 and February 16,

 1973.

 We find that these violations

also occurred.

7— 684

-3-

The complaint finally alleges

 that the Village failed to

prohibit the deposition of refuse in standing water,

 in violation

of Rule 5.12(c).

 The testimony shows

 that this was done on

July 26, August

 26, August

 27, September 27,

 September 28,

December

 8 and December

9,

 1971, January 18, February

1,

 February

2, April

 18, June

 1, August

3,

 1972, January

 4, January 11, January

15 and February 16.

 The standing water has become discolored with

a scum and oily film on its

 surface.

 We find these violations

occurred also.

The inspectors’

 testimony concerning their observations

 at the

site was corroborated by numerous photographs also showing the viola-

tions.

 In addition, the Village did not present any evidence to

contradict or refute

 the Agency’s proof.

 There were also many

personal contacts and letters from the Agency to the Village putting

them on notice that their landfill was

 in violation.

Th.e testimony did show that there

 is no fee charge made for the

use of the landfill.

 For that reason we will not assess

 as high

a penalty as we would

if

 it were being operated for profit.

 Hnwever,

the Village must apply for

 a permit within

 30 days from today.

Furthermore, all of the other violations

 found in this opinion must

be corrected within

 a very short time.

 The penalty will be $100.

This opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and

conclusions

 of law.

ORDER

1.

 The Village of Allendale shall cease

 and desist from all viola-

tions found in this opinion.

 It need not close down its operation

but must apply for

 a permit within 30

 days.

2.

The

Village

 shall, within 30 days of this order, submit to the

Board and Agency

 a full and complete plan for correcting the

existing violations.

 All violations shall be corrected within

90 days of this order.

3.

 The Village shall pay to the State of Illinois by June 15, 1973

 the sum of $100

as

 a penalty.

 Penalty payment by certified

check or money order payable to the State of Illinois shall be

made to:

 Fiscal Services Division, Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency,

 2200 Churchill Drive, Springfield, Illinois

62706.

—

685

-4-

I, Christan L. Moffett,

 C3er~:of too

 IIiinc:~ Jo: ut~c~i

Control Board, hek~by

certify

 the above ~ipinionand

 ~c~ai

V~eTO

adopted on the

day

uS

•

 19l.~~

a

vote

of

 ‘~/ ~

~J~f

~

—

Christan

~v~ou1.:~t

Illinois Pollution Contr~biBears