ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROl BOARD
September
21,
1978
ENVIRONZ’IENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
)
Complainant,
)
)
PCB 77—147
)
C.M.
FORD,
)
Respondent.
MR.
JEFFREY
S. HERDEN,
ASS
I STANT
ATTORNEY
GENERAL,
APPEARED
ON BEHALF OF THE
COMPLAINANT.
MR. CHARLES
0.
HENRY
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 by the Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency) on
June
1,
1977.
The complaint alleges that Respondent,
C.
M.
Ford, owns and operates a solid waste management site located
in Section
31, Township 31 North,
Range
11 East of the Third
Principal Meridian in Kankakee County,
Illinois, without an
operating permit in violation of Rule 202(b) (1) of
the
Chapter
7:
Solid Waste Regulations
(Chapter
7)
and Section
21(e)
of the Environmental Protection Act
(Act).
A hearing
was held in this matter on January 20, 1978.
(Because the
first transcript had many typographical errors,
a second
transcript was submitted to the Board.
All page references
will be to the second transcript.
The landfill in question lies six miles west and one—half
mile north of the City of Kankakee
(R.
73).
The legal de-
scription on page five of the
:transcript does not correspond
with that alleged in the complaint; however, Exhibit
1,
a
real estate contract, which was admitted without objection
has a legal description that is the same as that alleged in
the complaint.
Respondent,
C. N. Ford, purchased the land
from Waste Management of Illinois, Inc. in June 1975
(Ex.
1,
R.
8,
9).
Waste Management formerly operated a landfill on
the site
(R.
26).
Mr. Ford has brought paint barrels and
landscape waste onto his property allegedly for salvage and
to hold washouts
(R.
61,
63).
Charles Grigaluaski, an Agency inspector, visited the site
on several occasions
(R.
28,
31, 36).
Pictures taken on those
days clearly show that Mr. Ford was
accepting
refuse
on
the
site
(Ex.
3,
5,
7).
In addition to the landscape waste there
are other forms of waste——small cans and assorted trash
(Ex.5).
31—441
—2—
The paint barrels Respondent claims are salvage for the paint
and the barrels
(R.
62) were tipped over with paint running
on the ground
(Ex. 7).
The Board finds the evidence sufficient
to find that Respondent has been accepting refuse and operating
a waste management site without a permit in violation of
Rule 202(b) (1)
of Chapter
7 and Section 21(e)
of the Act.
Mr. Ford claims he doesn’t want to run a landfill
(R. 73).
Respondent cannot claim ignorance of the Board’s Rules and
Regulations.
The Board takes notice that Respondent has
appeared before the Board on two previous occasions concerning
violations of the Rules and Regulations for Refuse Disposal
Sites, PCB 71—307,
3 PCB 503
(1972)
and PCB 72—230,
6 PCB 165
(1972).
Although these cases concerned a different site,
Respondent certainly has knowledge that the rules for the
disposal of solid waste must be followed.
Respondent has
apparently made some effort to improve the situation
(R.
66).
Mr. Ford did request a meeting to find
a solution regarding
the site
(R.
43,
44).
Some refuse was buried and some dirt
was placed and graded
(R.
66).
However, Respondent’s pictures
attempting to show compliance are of such poor quality they
are not much aid to the Board
(Resp.
Ex.
1,
2).
In making a final determination the Board must consider the
factors of Section 33(c)
of the Act.
A poorly run landfill
has the potential to pollute water supplies and attract disease
bearing vectors; the permit system was created to protect the
public from such injury.
No great injury has been shown in
this case; however, no great social or economic value ~is~shown
either.
Clearly the site is of value to Mr. Ford but the
general public has nothing to gain from a poorly run landfill.
The fact that a properly
run
site had existed on Respondent’s
land indicates the site is suitable and that compliance is
technically and economically feasible.
It appears Respondent would like the benefits of running a
landfill without calling it a landfill.
This is contrary to
the Environmental Protection Act and the Board’s Solid
Waste
Regulations.
Respondent certainly is aware of the Rules.
The
Board finds that a penalty of $1000 is necessary to aid the
enforcement of the Act in this instance.
This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and con-
clusions of law of the Board in this matter.
ORDER
It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that:
1.
Respondent,
C.
M. Ford is in violation of Rule 202
(b) (1)
of the Chapter
7:
Solid Waste Regulations
and Section 21(e)
of the Environmental Protection
Act.
3~-442
—3—
2.
Respondent shall cease
and
desist all further
violations.
3.
Respondent shall pay a penalty of $1000.00 within
35 days of this order.
Payment shall be made by
certified check or money order payable to:
State of Illinois
Fiscal Services Division
Environmental Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Road
Springfirld, Illinois
62706
Mr. Nels Werner concurred.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board,
hereby certify the above Opinion and Order were
adopted on the
~
~
day of
~,
1978 by a vote
Christan L.
Mo~ft7tt,Clerk
Illinois Po1lu~bn
Control Board
31—443