ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

February

7,

1980

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Cornolainant,

v.

?CB 78-28

DARREL

SLAGER,

d/b/a

RAPID

LIQUID

WASTE AND RUBBISH

REMOVAL,

)

Respondent,

MS.

ANNE

K.

MARKEY,

ASSISTANT

ATTORNEY

GENERAL,

APPEARED

ON BEHALF

OF

THE

COMPLAINANT.

MESSRS.

WILLIAM

C.

LATHAM

AND

JOHN

L.

PARKER,

JOHN

L.

PARKER

&

ASSOCIATES,

LTD.,

APPEARED

ON

BEHALF

OF

THE

:RESPONDENT.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Dr.

Satchell)

This matter comes before the Board upon

a complaint filed

on February

2,

1978 by the Environmental Protection Agency

(Agency)

An amended complaint was filed on March

10,

1978,

substituting

Darrel Slager, d/b/a/ Rapid Liquid Waste and Rubbish Removal

as

Respondent.

The amended complaint alleges Respondent has disposed

of refuse at a solid waste disposal site which fails to meet the

requirements

of the Environmental Protection Act

(Act)

arid, regu-

lations thereunder in violation of Section 21(f)

of the Act.

Hearings were held on May

1,

1978, May 24,

1978, September 21,

1978 and November

1,

1978,

Respondent

is alleged to have dumped liquid wastes at the

Paxton Landfill located between 116th Street

and. 120th Street

and.

Oglesby Avenue on the far south side of the City of Chicago.

Paxton Landfill did have a valid operating permit issued by the

Agency

CR,

311,

312).

The original site

(Paxton No.

1)

was

corn--

pleted in early 1976

(R,

312),

However, operations proceeded into

an

adjacent land

area that had not been included in the original

permit nor was the site included in any new permit

(R,

312).

The

new site

(Paxton No,

2)

did receive

an operating permit in the

fall of 1978, after the time period

covered. in the amended com-

plaint

(R,

310)

Respondent’s trucks were seen disposing of liquid wastes at

the Paxton No.

2 site on several occasions;

these include February

28, 1977, March

1,

1977,

October 14, 1977 and February

9,

1978

:37—28 1

---

—2—

(R.

29,

46,

58,

65),

On these dates observations

of

violations

of

the regulations were made,

Refuse was not being deposited at

the toe of the fill but was being spread

and. compacted~downhill

(R.

31,

60).

This

is not in accordance with Rule 303 of Chapter

7:

Solid Waste Regulations

(Chapter 7).

Operational roads were

in unsatisfactory condition,

a violation of Rule 314 of Chapter

7

(R.

33).

Liquid wastes and sludges were being disposed of at

the site

CR.

33).

Liquid wastes are only allowed to be disposed.

of if authorized by permit.

As Paxton No.

2 had no permit, there

could be no authorization;

a violation of Rule 310 of Chapter

7.

On February 9,

1978 there was inadequate daily cover over a portion

of the fill and there was in fact virtually no cover——a violation

of Rule 305 of Chapter 7

(R,

64),

The fact that the Paxton site was operating in violation of

the Act and the regulations was made known

to Respondent

in a

letter from the Agency dated July 17, 1977

(Comp. Ex,

12),

Respondent attempted to make a defense

at the hearing on the

basis that “liquid”

is not defined by the regulations or the Act

and consequently Agency employees would be incapable of deter-

mining what a “liquid” waste would be.

It is accepted practice

that words that are not defined in an act or a regulation are given

their plain

and

ordinary meaning,

Webster’s New Twentieth Century

Dictionary,

Unabridged. 1976 Edition defines liquid as

“a substance

that, unlike a solid,

flows readily, but unlike a gas, does not

tend to expand indefinitely.”

The Board finds that there is

sufficient evidence in the Agency observations and exhibits to

determine that Respondent was disposing of liquid wastes.

The Board finds that there is sufficient evidence to determine

that Respondent did dispose of refuse at a site which failed to meet

the requirements of the Act and of regulations thereunder.

Before

determining what penalty should be assessed the Board must consider

the factors enumerated in Section 33(c)

of the Act.

The character

and degree of injury cannot be definitely ascertained.

Liquid

waste, because of its form,

can spread faster than solid waste.

As

the components are unknown it is impossible to determine the hazard,

This

is precisely why special authorization is required to dispose

of liquid wastes and hazardous wastes.

If the components are known

in advance, mixing of wastes with unfortunate results can be avoided.

Certainly there

is social and economic value

to

being able to dis-

pose

of

unwanted

wastes and by—products but these are diminished

when

there

is a lack of planning for the disposal of the wastes.

The

site

ultimately did get an Agency permit;

however, whether or

not these particular liquids should have been deposited there was

not determined at hearing.

Respondent was barred from presenting

evidence of financial condition at the hearing because of Respond-

ent’s refusal to comply with the Hearing Officer’s discovery order.

37—282

---

—3—

The Agency did supply the Respondent with the names of properly

licensed landfills in the area in

the

Agency’s letter of July

13,

1977

(Comp. Ex.

12),

Technically and economically it appears

compliance was feasible,

Considering all of

these factors, Respondents continued

disposal of liquid wastes at this site after notice of the

site’s

violations

is

a blatant violation of the Act,

Liquid wastes,

because

of their nature, are a particularly great and unknown hazard

to future generations.

The Board finds that a penalty of $1000

will be assessed to aid the enforcement of the Act.

This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and

conclusions of law in this matter.

ORDER

It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that:

1.

Respondent, Darrel Slaqer, d/b/a Rapid Liquid Waste

and Rubbish Removal is found to have violated Section

21(f)

of the Environmental Protection Act.

2.

Respondent shall, by certified check or money order

payable to the State of Illinois, pay a civil penalty

of $1000 whIch

is to be sent to:

Environmental Protection Agency

Fiscal Services Division

2200 Churchill Road

Springfield,

Illinois 62706

Mr. Werner abstains.

I, Christan L. Moffett,

Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, he~ebycerify

the above Opinion and Order were

adopted on the

fl~

day of

1980 by a vote of

3_O

Illinois Polluti

Board