ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
November 16,
1978
PEOPLE OF THE STATE
)
OF ILLINOIS,
Complainant,
)
v.
)
PCB 77—263
LEONARD
C.
TRIEM,
Respondent.
~1S, JUDITH
S.
GOODIE,
ASSISTANT
ATTORNEY
GENERAL,
APPEARED ON
BEHALF
OF
THE
COMPLAINANT.
YLETN,
THORPE AND JENKINS,
LTD., ATTORNEYS AT LAW
(MR.
E.
KENNETH
IKER,
OF
COUNSEL), APPEARED
ON
BEHALF OF
THE
RESPONDENT.
OPINION
AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr. Werner):
This matter comes before the Board on the October
5,
1977
Complaint brought by the People of the State of Illinois.
Count
I
of the Complaint alleged that the Respondent, Mr. Leonard C.
Triem,
had
operated his solid waste management
site in such a manner as to
violate Rules 303(b),
303(c),
304,
305,
305(a),
305(b),
306 and 313
of Chapter
7:
Solid Waste Regulations and Section 21(f)
of
the
Illinois Environmental Protection Act
(“Act”).
Count II of the
Complaint alleged that violations of Section 9(a)
of the Act
occurred.
Count III of the Complaint alleged violations of Rule
310(b)
of Chapter
7:
Solid Waste Regulations and Section 21(e)
of
the
Act.
On
November
23,
1977,
the Complainant filed
a motion
for
leave
to
file
an
Amended
Complaint.
On
December
8,
1977,
the
Board,granted
the
Complainant’s
motion.
The
Amended Complaint
spec:Lfied
the
dates
on
which
the
alleged
violations
occurred;
provided more details on the nature and extent of the alleged
violations;
and
added
an
alleged
violation
of
Solid
Waste
Rule
314(c)
to
Count
I
of
the
original
Complaint.
A
hearing
was
held
on
April
28,
1978.
The parties filed a Stipulation and Proposal
for Settlement on April
28, 1978.
I.
The
Facility Involved
Between 1971 and January
1,
1978,
Respondent Leonard C.
Triern
owned
and operated a solid waste disposal site consisting of 182
‘32—75
—2—
acres
located near Goodenow Road,
north of Beecher, Illinois
in
WIll
County.
The
property
was
used
for farming prior
to
its
development
by
the
Respondent
as
a
solid
waste
disposal
site,
During
the period
relevant to the
Complaint,
a
great
majority
of
the
site
which
was
not
yet
needed
for
landfill
purposes
was
leased
out for farming.
itis
located
just
south
of
the developing
area of southern Cook
Ccunty,
near
the
intersection
of
two
highways
(I,e.,
Illinois
:r
and US
394).
The
site
is
bounded
on
the
east
by
tracks
of the
Chicago and
Eastern
Illinois
Railroad
(now
part
of
the
Missouri
Pacific);
on
the
north
by
the
unincorporated
community
of Goodenow;
and on the
west
and
south
by
farmland.
A
small
stream,
Plum
Creek,
~:uns
through
the
property;
but
at
a
distance
from the area
presen
Li
beinq used
for
landfill
purposes.
There
was
considerable
opposition
to
development
of
the site
ion
Landfiii
purposes
from
the
citizens
of
Goodenow.
However,
the
Aqenny
Felt
that:
the
site
was
suitable
and
Permit
No.
1971—24 was
issued on June
28,
1971.
The
Permit
provided
that
the
site
was
to
handle
solid
waste
from
a
population
of
approximately
133,000;
and.
that no
pumpable
liquid
wastes
were
to
be
accepted.
However,
the
~-~y
subsequently
issued
numerous
supplemental
permits
for
liquid
r’aste
disposal,
subject
to
the
condition
that
liquid
and solid
wastes
would
be
received
in
a
ratio
such
that
there
would
be
sufficient
solid
material
to
absorb
the
liquid.
(Stipulation,
p.2)
~I,
The
Nature
and
Extent
of
Alleged
Violations
The
People
have
alleged
the
following
violations:
1.
On
August
5,
1977,
August
25,
1977,
and
September
1,
1977,
Respondent
caused
or
allowed violations of Rule
313
of
Chapter
7:
Solid Waste
Regulations;
in
that
on
those
dates
he
caused,
threatened,
or
allowed
the
discharge
of
contaminants
into
the
environment
in
Illinois
so
as,
either
alone
or
in
combination
with
matter from
other
sources,
to
cause
or
tend
to
cause
water
pollution
in Illinois
(Count
I,
Paragraph
3).
Throughout
July
and
August~
1977,
he caused or allowed emission of odors which have unreasonably
interfered with the enjoyment of life or property
(Count III),
And on August
5,
1977, August
25,
1977,
and September
1,
1977,
Respondent caused or allowed violations of Solid Waste Rule 310(h)
and Section
21(e)
of the Act;
in that on those dates liquid wastes
were accepted
at
the
site
of
such
a
character
of
in
such
a
manner
as
was not
authorized
by
permit
(Count
III).
These
violations
all relate to the acceptance at the landfill
of liquid wastes without.
sufficient
accompanying
solid
material to
32—76
—3—
be absorbed.
Pursuant to Supplemental Permit 77—689, Respondent
was authorized to accept approximately 200,000 gallons of sludge
from the Municipal Sanitary District of Homewood.
This
sludge
was to be incorporated into the daily operating fill face, with
lime slurry available
(Supplemental Permit 77—689, Section
III B).
But inspections by Henry Cobo of
the Agency on August
5, 1977,
August 25,
1977,
and September
1,
1977 found that those procedures
were not being followed.
As a result,
the sludge was standing on
the site,
seeping into trenches,
and causing unreasonable odors at
neighboring residences;
in violation
of the aforesaid regulations,
(Stipulation,
p.
3-4).
Copies of the Agency inspection reports for August
5,
1977,
2\ugust
25,
1977,
and September
1,
1977, which indicate these
conditions,
are attached to the Stipulation and Settlement
Agreement.
If a full hearing were conducted in this matter,
Complainants would present,
in addition to these reports, testimony
by Mr. Henry Cobo of the Agency and by citizens of the Goodenow
area regarding,
respectively, the improper sludge disposal and the
resulting odor.
(Stipulation,
p.
4)
Respondent points out that the sludge disposal problem was
corrected during September
1,
1977;
and that these problems did
not recur through January
1,
1978, when the site was transferred
to a new owner.
2.
On March 19,
1975, August 12,
1975, January 28,
1976,
November 19,
1976,
August
5,
1977,
August 25,
1977,
and September
1,
1977,* Respondent caused or allowed violations of Solid Waste Rule
305(a) by failing to place adequate daily cover on exposed refuse.
3.
On March
3,
1976,
August
5,
1977, August 25,
1977,
and
September
1,
l977,* Respondent caused or allowed violations of
Solid Waste Rule 303(c),
in that the slope of the working face was
maintained at a ratio greater than two horizontal to one vertical.
4.
On August 12,
1975, March
3,
1976, May
4,
1976, August
5,
1977, August 25, 1977,
and September
1,
l977,* Respondent caused
or allowed violations of Solid Waste Rule 305(b)
in that suitable
intermediate cover was not provided.
*Copies of Agency inspection reports for these dates have
been attached to and incorporated into the Stipulation and
Settlement Agreement,
and the Agency has indicated that if a full
hearing were conducted in this matter,
the testimony of various
Agency personnel pertaining to their observations
of conditions at
the site would be presented.
32—77
—4—
5.
On March 19,
1975,
January 28,
1976, March
3,
1976,
and
May
4,
l976,* Respondent caused or allowed violations of Solid
Waste Rule 303(a)
in that on those dates refuse was not deposited
into the toe of the fill.
6.
On March
3,
1976,
and August
5,
l977,* Respondent caused
or allowed violations of Solid Waste Rule 303(b)
in that on those
dates refuse was not spread and compacted
in layers within the
cell, not exceeding a depth of two feet as rapidly as deposited at
the
toe
of the
fill.
7.
On August
5,
l977,* Respondent caused or allowed
violations of Solid Waste Rule 304,
in that sufficient equipment
was not available at the site
(i.e.,
no standby equipment was
available)
to ensure that operations comply with the operating
permit,
the Act,
and the Regulations.
8.
On March 19,
1975, November 19,
1975, August
5,
1977,
and
September
1, 1977,* Respondent caused or allowed violations of
Solid Waste Rule
306,
in that all litter was not collected from
the site by the end of the working day and either placed in the
fill and compacted and covered or stored in a covered container.
9.
On August
5,
l977,* Respondent caused or allowed
violations of Solid Waste Rule
305;
in that improper material was
used for cover
(i.e.,
there was improper use of shingles as cover)
10.
On September 24,
1977,
Respondent caused or allowed
violation of Solid Waste Rule 314(c)
in that on that date the
gates
to control access to the site were not maintained.
If a full hearing were conducted in this matter,
Complainants would present testimony that on September 24,
1977,
at
approximately 4:00 A.N.,
a tanker truck driver used
a key in his
possession to enter the site and dump a load of waste when no one
was on duty at the site.
(Stipulation,
p.
8).
11,
On January 28,
1976,
and March
3,
1976,
Respondent
caused or allowed violations of Solid Waste Rule 310(b)
and
Section
21(e)
of the Act,
in that liquid wastes were accepted at
the site of such a character as was not authorized by permit.
These violations consist of the acceptance at the site on
the specified dates of liquid pharmaceutical waste from Inolex
Pharmaceuticals;
after the expiration of supplemental Permit No.
75-6 which has previously authorized their receipt.
32—78
—5—
III.
Present Status of the Site
The parties agree that during the fall of 1977 the problems
at the site were corrected by the Respondent.
Effective January
1,
1978, ownership and control of the site was transferred from
Respondent to John Sexton Contractors,
Inc.
Since that date,
Mr.
Leonard
C.
Triem has had no control of or interest in the site or
the operation of the site.
(Stipulation,
p.
8),
The Stipulation also indicates that “John Sexton Contractors,
Inc.,
is not a party to this action;
and this Stipulation and
Settlement Agreement shall have no application and no effect
whatsoever on the duties of John Sexton Contractors,
Inc.
in the
operation of the site subsequent to January
1,
1978,
or
the
powers
and duties of the People of the State of Illinois or the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency regarding the said operation.
(Stipulation,
p.
8—9).
IV.
Penalty
In settlement of the alleged violations,
the parties have
agreed that a stipulated penalty of $1,000.00 to be paid by the
Respondent, Mr. Leonard C.
Triem,
is appropriate.
(Stipulation,
p.
9).
In evaluating this enforcement action and proposed settlement,
the Board has taken into consideration all the facts and circurn-
stances in light of the specific criteria delineated
in Section
33(c)
of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act.
Incinerator,
Inc.
v.
Illinois Pollution Control Board,
59
Ill.
2d 290,
319
N.E.
2d 794
(1974)
The Board finds that the Respondent, Mr. Leonard
C. Triem,
operated his Will County solid waste management site on the
previously specified dates
in such a manner as to violate Rules
303(a)
,
303(b)
,
303 (c)
,
304,
305 305(a)
,
305(b)
,
306,
310(b)
313,
and 314(c)
of Chapter
7:
Solid Waste Regulations and Section
9(a)
and Section 21(e)
of the
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Act.
Accordingly,
the
Board
hereby
imposes
the
stipulated
penalty
of
$1,000.00
against
the
Respondent,
Mr.
Leonard
C.
Triem.
This Opinion constitutes the Board~s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
It
is the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board that:
32—7 9
-6—
1.
The
Respondent,
Mr. Leonard
C.
Triem,
has
violated
Rules
303(a)
,
303(b)
,
303(c),
304,
305,
305(a)
,
305(b)
,
306,
310(b),
313,
and
314(c)
of
Chapter
7:
Solid
Waste
Regulations
and Section 9(a)
and Section 21(e)
of the Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Act.
2.
Within 45 days of
the
date
of
this
Order,
the
Respondent,
Mn,
Leonard
C.
Triem,
shall
pay
the
stipulated penalty of
$1,000.00
,
payment to be made by certified check
or
money
order
to:
State of Illinois
Fiscal Services Division
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
AgencY
2200
Churchill Road
Springfield,
Illinois
62706
3,
The
Respondent,
Mr.
Leonard
C.
Triem,
shall
comply
with
all
the
terms and conditions of the
Stipulation
and
Proposal
for
Settlement
filed April
28,
1978, which is
incorporated by
reference
as
if
fully
set
forth
herein.
I4~
Control
adopted
vote
of
Chr.istan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Board, hereby certify the above 0 inion and Order were
on the
~
day of
,
1978
by a
Illinois Pollution
Board
32—80