ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
October 14, 1976
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
)
Complainant,
)
v.
)
PCB 76—29
)
RONALD E.
CARLSON,
)
)
Respondent.
Mr. Steven Watts, Assistant Attorney General, appeared on
behalf of the Complainant.
Mr. Bufford W. Hottle,
Jr.
and Mr. William E, Nolan appeared
on behalf of the Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Dr.
Satchell):
This matter comes before the Pollution Control Board
(Board) upon a complaint filed by the Environmental Protection
Agency
(Agency)
on January 29, 1976.
The complaint alleges
that Ronald E. Carlson operates, or causes to be operated, a
solid waste management site located near Oquawka,
Illinois
in
Section 35, Township 12 North, Range
5
West of the Fourth
Principal Meridian, in Henderson County, Illinois, consisting
of 39,7 acres, more or less.
The complaint further alleges
that Respondent operated or caused to be
operated
the solid
waste management site before, on, and at
all times after
July 27,
1974 up to and including the date of filing
including
eight named dates or, alternatively the Saturday next pre-
ceding each of the
named dates, respectively, without an oper-
ating permit in violation of Rule 202(b)
(1)
of the Board’s
Solid Waste Rules
arid Regulations
(Regulations)
and Section
21(e)
of the Environmental Protection Act
(Act).
A hearing was held in this matter on June 17,
1976 at
Oquawka, Illinois.
At the hearing Respondent requested a
variance
CR.
74).
This
is not the proper procedure for a
variance.
To request a variance Respondent must file a
petition fulfilling the requisites of Procedural Rule 401.
Mr. Carlson testified that he had run a landfill in
Henderson County since 1971
(R.
9).
The landfill has been
at the present site for approximately ten years
(R.
9).
—
29
—2—
Mr. Carison collects refuse in the general area of the site
(R.
10).
Besides himself he employs one man part time
CR,
10).
People bring refuse out to the site in other vehicles on
Saturday mornings
(R,
10,
11).
Respondent takes in approxi-
mately fifty
(50)
cubic yards
of refuse a week and has been
doing so since July of 1974
(R.
11),
Mr.
Carison was still
operating at the date of the hearing
(R,
11),
Respondent
first became aware of the need for a permit about two years
ago
(R.
12).
Mr. Carlson’s first application for a permit
was rejected as incomplete
(R.
12)
The application was
resubmitted and finally rejected because
the
soil in the
area of the site is a sandy loam and is unsuitable for a
landfill
(R,
12,
23).
Mr. Carison was not aware of develop-
ment permits
CR.
13).
The land underneath the refuse is
mostly sand
(R.
23, 24).
Respondent uses soil
he
moved to
place the refuse for cover
(R,
23),
After Respondent opens
his site to the public for three hours
on Saturday
morning,
he covers the refuse deposited in a
hole prepared
at the
site
(R.
73).
On occasion people ask
to dump
their trash
during the evening during the middle
of the week
(R.
73).
Because Respondent must use his back hoe
on
another job to
make it pay for itself he can’t always
cover evening
deposits
immediately
(R.
73).
Usually Respondent
is at the site for
portions of two or three days a week;
he
does h~aveanother
business
(R.
74)
There are nine wells within a
quarter
to a
half mile
of the site
CR.
19, Comp.
Ex.
4).
Only
one is
to the east,
all the others are to the west
(R,
18).
J~you go more than
a half mile west you are at the Mississ~p~:
(R,
19),
Agency Witness John Diefenback has visited the site six
to eight times
(R.
30).
On two of these occasions Novem-
ber 13, 1974 and August
6,
1975 he observed uncovered refuse,
some thin daily cover, and some thin final cover
(R.
31,
33).
On November
13,
1974 the need for a permit was discussed
(R.
32)
John Taylor, another Agency witness, was at the site on
February 19,
1976 and April 20, 1976
(R,
46).
The site was
in fairly good shape with the exception
of a pile
of de-
molition waste in the southeast corner
(R,
46)
These state-
ments were objected to as beyond the scope of the complaint
filed January
29, 1976,(R,
47).
The Board finds that this
information is not revelant to the finding of a violation,
but it is relevant to fashioning a remedy
for a
site not in
compliance.
24
—
30
—3—
The Board finds that Respondent has operated a solid
waste management site without a permit in violation of
Rule 202(b) (1)
of the Regulations and Section 21(e)
of the
Act.
The Board must consider Section 33(c)
of the Act
prior to fashioning a remedy.
Respondent’s site is located on sandy soil which is
very permeable.
The possibility of water leaching through
the refuse and contaminating the nearby weLls
is high; how-
ever,
there has been no evidence of actual pollution in the
record.
Apparently a monitoring well was constructed at the
site
(Comp.
Ex.
3).
Mr. Hinshaw of the Department of Con-
servation has had wells to the north of the site for nine
years with no finding of impurity.
There is no specific
reference as to which way the water drains from the site; how-
ever, the agreed upon general direction of water flow was to
the west toward the Mississippi
(R. 112).
The location
is
not a good site for a landfill due to the soils and the poten-
tial for water pollution.
The Agency has stated it could
possibly be that the site would never receive a permit
(Comp.
Ex.
10).
But the situation is complicated by the fact that
this is the only landfill in Henderson County
(R.
71,
87,
100).
It is used by the Department of Conservation for refuse
from recreation areas
(R.
82).
Respondent also picks up from
the Village of Oquawka, Kirkwood and Gladstone
(R.
69, 70).
The closest alternative sites are 45
to 65 miles from the present
site at Oquawka
(R.
75, 102).
Respondent is unable finan-
cially to buy a new site
(R.
63).
He is heavily in debt for
new equipment and does not have much additional credit
CR.
62,
63).
Within a week of the hearing Respo~3.’~nthad located a
site he hoped to lease;
however no agreement had been finalized
(R.
65).
His permit application was turned down on March
3,
1976 after which he started to look for a different site
CR.
64).
Respondent has gone to the Henderson County Board of Supervisors
to ask for aid in relocating the site but the supervisors
preferred not to get into the situation themselves
(R.
67,
100)
The County also has contracts with Mr.
Carison.
There
is a
possibility that the refuse could be taken to Rock Island;
however,
no one has investigated this alternative
(!~. 72,
87).
The Board finds the site is not suitable for a landfill.
Respondent has been somewhat dilatory in providing information
for the permit application which was first initiated in 1974.
However, since the denial Respondent has shown willingness to
attempt to find a different site to remedy the situation.
The Board finds that in this situation a penalty of $100 is
sufficient to aid the enforcement of the Act.
Respondent shall
close the site and place final cover in compliance with the
Regulations within 60 days of this Order.
Respondent shall
also cease and desist from further violations.
24
—
31
—4—
This Opinion constitutes the Board~sfindings
of fact
and conclusions of law.
ORDER
It
is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that:
1.
Respondent
is found to be in violation of Rule
202(b) (1)
of the Solid Waste Regulations and
Section 21(e)
of the Environmentail Protection Act.
2.
Respondent shall close the present site and place
final cover in compliance with the Solid Waste
Regulations within sixty
(60)
days of this Order.
3.
Respondent shall cease and desist further
violations.
4.
Respondent shall pay a penalty of $100 for the
aforementioned violations within
:35 days of
this Order.
Payment shall be by certified
check or money order payable
to:,
State of Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency
Fiscal Services Division
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield,
Illinois
62106
I,
Christen L.
rvloffett,
Clerk of the il1inoi~Pollution
Control Board, herç~ certify the ~oye
Opinion and Order were
adopted on the
/4/
day of
~
1976 by a vote
of
______________
Illinois Pollution
24
—
32