ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
May 9,
1991
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Complainant,
AC 90—79
)
(EPA No.
369-90-AC)
v.
)
(Administrative Citation)
)
AL SPRINGMAN,
)
Respondent.
MR.
WILLIAM
SELTZER
APPEARED
ON
BEHALF
OF
THE
ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.
MR.
AL SPRINGMAN APPEARED PRO SE.
OPINION
AND
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by J.
C.
Marlin):
This matter comes before the Board upon a petition for review
of an administrative citation
(“citation”)
filed by Al Springman
on October
2, 1990.
The citation was issued on August 31,
1990 by
the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(“Agency”)
pursuant
to Section 31.1(d)
of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act
(“Act”)
(Ill. Rev.
Stat.
1989,
ch.
111 1/2, par.
1001 et seq.)
Hearing was held
on January
4,
1991
at the Jersey
County
Courthouse,
Jerseyville,
Illinois.1
No
members
of
the
public
attended.
The Agency presented one witness, Allyn Colantino, field
investigator for the Agency.
Mr. Alan Woahi testified on behalf
of Mr.
Springman, who also testified in his defense.
The Agency
filed its brief on February 13,
1991.
Mr.
Springinan did not file
a
brief.
The
Hearing
Officer,
Joseph
Kelleher,
filed
his
Memorandum of Hearing and Order on December 19,
1990.
The Order
stated that Respondent’s credibility was at issue in this case.
BACKGROUND
The citation was issued to Springman as the owner of a tract
of land located in Piasa Township, Jersey County,
Illinois.
The
tract
carries site code number 0838060005
by the Agency and
is
known
to
the
Agency
as
Piasa
Township/Springman.
It
is not
a
permitted landfill.
The 80 acre site is flatland in agricultural
use but contains
a
rolling wooded
area
(R.37).
The site also
contains
a
drained
pond,
which
is
abutted by
a
ravine
on
its
1 The transcript is cited as
“R.
—.
122—147
2
southern side.
A small rental house is situated on the back of the
site.
On the basis of an inspection conducted by Allyn Colantino on
July
7,
1990,
the Agency determined that Springman had operated
the site in violation of Section 21(q) (1),
(q) (4) and
(q) (5) of the
Act
and requested the
Board
to
impose
a
penalty
of
$1,500.00.
Springman filed a timely Petition for Review.
APPLICABLE
LAW
Section 21(q)
of the Act states:
No person
shall
in violation of subdivision
(a)
of
Section
21,
cause
or
allow
the open
dumping of any waste in a manner which results
in any of the following occurrences at a dump
site:
1.
litter;
4.
deposition
of
waste
in
standing
or
flowing
waters;
5.
proliferation of disease vectors;
Penalties in actions of this type are $500 for each provision,
plus any hearing costs incurred by the Board and the Agency.
Ill.
Rev.
Stat.
1989,
ch.
111 1/2, par.
1042(b) (4).
DISCUSSION
The Agency
initially inspected Mr.
Springinan’s property
on
July 7,
1990.
At that time, the inspector noted what he considered
to
be
several
violations,
three
of
which
were
cited
in
the
administrative citation.
A site sketch and numerous photographs
were introduced in support of the inpsector’s testimony.
The Agency based their allegation of open dumping resulting
in
litter upon the presence of
“white goods”,
refuse and sewer
sludge.
According to the inspector’s testimony the “white goods”,
e.g., porcelain coated objects such as refrigerators,
stoves and
utility items, stood next to an outbuilding (R.39-40)
alternately
referred to as a rental property.
A nearby area contained what the
Agency inspector termed an “open dump site” measuring approximately
150 feet by 150 feet.
This dump site contained white goods, tires,
car parts,
a motorcycle,
landscape waste, clothes, wire,
fencing,
122—148
3
couches,
chairs,
T.V.s,
a piano,
toys,
paper,, cardboard,
windows
and
frames,
rugs,
glass,
pipe,
•lawn
mowers,
lumber,
dry
wall,
treated sewage,
garbage, used diapers,
food containers,
bottles,
cans
and
food waste
(R.14).
A
neighbor
purportedly
told
the
inspector that Mr. Springman dumped on his property once a week on
the average and that the dumping had been going
on for
13 years
(R.35).
The
Agency
also
charged the
Respondent with
open
dumping
resulting
in
the
deposition
of
refuse
in
standing
or
flowing
waters.
Parts
of
the
waste
and
debris
described
above
were
deposited into standing or flowing water..
The standing water was
contained in a ravine described as twelve feet deep
(R.23).
This
ravine was located
south
of’ a
dam
in the pond area
(R.40—41).
Various appliances,
plastic, tires,
lumber, wind—blown debris and
paper were in the water
(R.24).
Colantino also testified that treated sewer sludge had been
deposited
on the premises
(R.lO).
Mr.
Cruthis
of the Brighton
treatment plant told the inspector that approximately 150 tons per
year
were
annually deposited
on
the Springman
property at
the
owner’s request.
Mr. Springman does not have a permit to accept
such
sludge
or to
operate
a
sanitary
landfill
on his property
(R.11).
The inspector testified that he was told that the sludge was
being used for agronomic purposes as a fertilizer substitute.
If
applied at agronomic rates,
•the inspector testified, no permit is
required.
If
incorporated
into
the
ground
by
“knifing”
or
injecting,
the Agency considers the application to be agronomic,
he stated.
The inspector testified that this sludge, however, “was
just being dumped”
(R.l3).
A subsequent phone conversation with
Mr. Springman revealed that Mr. Springman was not incorporating the
sludge into the soil
at that site
as
it would destroy the crop
necessary for the set—aside program
(R.22).
The
final
charge
against
Mr.
Springman
concerned
the
proliferation of disease vectors.
The inspector observed a rat at
the
site
(R.25).
The inspector testified that
it was the first
time he had seen a rat at a facility
(R.34).
Some of the waste
deposited was raw garbage, which could be eaten,
and clothing and
rags,
which
could
be
used
for
nesting
by
rats
(R.36).
The
inspector also testified that neighbors complained that the area
was infested with rats.
(Id.)
The neighbors were not produced as
witnesses at hearing.
Mr.
Alan Woahi,
a tenant
farmer
on the land Mr.
Springman
owns, testified in Mr. Springman’s behalf.
He has farmed this site
for
14
years.
With regard
to the
Agency’s
charge
concerning
disease vectors, he testified that it would not be unusual to see
rats on a farm
(R.49).
Concerning the sludge application, Woahl
stated
that the sludge was
not
put on the
farm by him and he
122—149
4
suspects
“Brighton”
did
so.
In his
opinion,
knifing
in of the
sludge would not be good for the crop
(R.51).
Woahi also testified concerning the charge that refuse was
left in standing or flowing waters.
He testified that he has never
observed water
in the pond
(R.54)
or
in the ravine
(R.55).
He
admitted, however, that he “never got far enough over the edge of
the ravine
to see if there was rubbish in
it
(R.56).
Finally
Woahl
rebutted the allegation that
open dumping
occurred.
He
couldn’t
say
if more rubbish
is
there
now than when
he
began
farming the property
(Id.).
He stated that the refuse in Agency
photographs had not been there for 14 years, in his opinion (R.57).
Moreover, he had not seen anyone dispose of refuse on the property
(R.59—60).
Al Springman testified that he resides at 300 Murray Street,
Godfrey,
Illinois.
He bought the land
in question
in 1960.
He
attended
the University
of
Illinois
in
1940
and
was granted
a
degree in 1947.
He is now retired.
Mr.
Springman
admitted
that
the
sludge
is
placed
on
his
property.
He stated he does not charge for Brighton to place the
sludge there
(R.70).
He stated that when he began accepting it he
told Al Cruthis of the Brighton Water Department he didn’t want to
make out reports, be subject to inspections or “nothing like that.”
He expected Brighton to take care of the details
(R.70-71).
When examined by the Agency,
Mr.
Springman stated that the
city had delivered sludge for two years.
He was not aware that you
needed to fill out any forms or permits for it and would not have
taken it if he had known
(R.77-78).
He admitted that nothing was
done with the sludge after it was dumped
(R.78).
He stated that,
“after this”,
he doesn’t
intend to allow any more sludge
to be
placed on the ground.
Concerning the charge or open dumping Mr. Springman testified
that “most” of the rubbish seen in the pictures was site—generated.
The rubbish, he stated, came from tenants.
The little rubbish not
site—generated came from rental houses (R.82—84).
Whatever needs
to be disposed of “goes out the door”, he testified (R.72).
Regarding the
charge concerning
refuse
in
standing
water,
Springman testified that both the pond
and
the ravine
are dry
(R.71).
He admitted, however, that the ravine would contain water
after a rain
(R.80).
But,
Mr. Springman asserted, only an “item
or two” of material was in the ravine, he stated
(R.74).
Mr.
Springman
testified
that
following
the
inspection
he
attempted to remedy the alleged violations.
All
of the refuse
material seen in the pictures was placed under two and a half feet
of ground (R.73).
Moreover, the sludge has been allowed to dry out
and “kicked up over four acres” to remove it (R.75).
122—150
5
Mr.
Colantino testified
in rebuttal
of
Mr.
Springman.
He
reiterated
his
opinion
that
the
dumping
of
sludge
without
incorporation constitutes open dumping.
He also testified that he
revisited the site November 8, 1990 and December 14, 1990 and found
exposed refuse on the southwest face of the open dump.
The cover
dirt appeared to be less than two feet deep and the refuse had been
mixed with the dirt to cover the dumping (R.93-94).
Dirt had been
pushed over the debris.
It thinned out until at the far edge no
dirt
at all covered the refuse
(R.98).
A
tire pile which
was
present at the original inspection was also not affected by the
cover—up.
At hearing upon a
Petition for Review of an administrative
citation two statutory defenses are available to a Respondent:
(a)
to prove that the violation did not occur or
(b) that it occurred
but was due to uncontrollable circumstances.
Ill. Rev. Stat.
1989,
ch.
111
1/2,
par.
1031
(d)(2).
Neither has
been
successfully
asserted by Mr.
Springman.
A subsequent “cleanup” of the site is
not a statutory defense.
The evidence adduced at hearing and the photographs submitted
as exhibits show that dumping occurred on Mr. Springman’s property.
Some of this was household trash and rubbish, including white goods
and treated sewage or sludge.
The record is clear that the sludge
was placed on the site at Mr.
Springman’s request.
It was not
being used at agronomic rates.
While Mr. Springman asserts that
he would not have allowed
it to be placed there had he known it
required a permit, his lack of knowledge does not provide a defense
to the administrative citation.
Nor is his hope that the City of
Brighton sewer plant manager would do so enough to relieve him from
a finding that a violation occurred.
We find that Mr. Springman
caused or allowed open dumping on his property in a manner which
resulted in litter,
in violation of Section 21(q)(1).
We
also
find that
the Agency
has
proven
that refuse
was
allowed to accumulate in standing water.
The inspector’s testimony
was that he observed refuse in water in the ravine.
Mr. Springman
allowed that water
may flow through the ravine
at
times.
Mr.
Springman’s testimony also did not rebut the presence of refuse in
the~ravine
but
merely
contended
that
the
amount
was
small.
Therefore,
the
Agency
has
also
proven
a
violation
of
Section
21(q) (4).
Finally, we believe that the Agency has proven that the open
dumping Observed has led to the proliferation of disease vectors.
A rat was observed at the site.
While we understand that many
farms contain rats, the conditions exhibited here are not part of
a normal farming operation.
Our examination of the documentary
evidence and testimony shows that
a habitat for reproduction of
rats was provided by the dumping
of
clothing,
rags,
refuse and
white goods.
A food supply was supplied by the household trash and
122—15
1
6
garbage evi&ent in pictures and testimony.
Therefore, we find the
Agency has p:roven a violation of Section 21(q) (5)
of the Act.
ORDER
1.
R~spondentis hereby found to have been in violation on
July 7,
199(1 of Ill. Rev. Stat.
1989, ch. 111 1/2, pars. 1021(q) (1)
and (q)(4) and
(q)(5).
2.
Within
45
days
of
this
Order
Respondent
shall,
by
certified cb~eckor money order, pay a civil penalty in the amount
of $1,500 p~yab1eto the Illinois Environmental Protection Trust
Fund.
Such ~paymentshall be sent to:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Fiscal Service Division
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield,
Illinois 62706
Respondent ~ha1l
also place his Federal Employee Identification
Number or So~cialSecurity Number upon the certified check or money
order.
Any such penalty not paid within the time prescribed shall
incur intere~stat the rate set forth in subsection
(a)
of Section
1003 of Illinois Income Tax Act,
(Ill. Rev.
Stat.
1989,
ch.
120,
par. 10-1003), from the date payment is due until the date payment
is received..
Interest shall not accrue during the pendency of an
appeal, during which payment of the penalty is stayed.
3.
Dc~cketA in this matter is hereby closed.
4.
Within
30 days
of this
Order,
the Agency shall
file
a
statement
of.
its hearing
costs,
supported by an affidavit,
with
the Board amd with service upon Al Springman.
Within the same 30
days,
the
Clerk
of
the
Pollution
Control
Board
shall
file
a
statement of the Board’s costs,
supported by affidavit and with
service upon Al Springman.
Such filings shall be entered in Docket
B in this matter.
5.
Respondent
is
hereby
given
leave
to
file
a
reply/objection to the filings as ordered in paragraph
4 of this
Order withim 45 days of this Order.
Section
41
of
the Environmental Protection Act,
Ill.
Rev.
Stat.
1989,
ch.
111 1/2, par.
1041,
provides for appeal of final
Orders of
the
Board within 35 days.
The Rules of the Supreme Court
of Illinois establish filing requirements.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
122—152
7
I, Dorothy M.
Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order was adopted
on the
___________
day of ______________________,
1991 by
a vote of
7—o
Dorothy N. G4~1n, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
122—153