ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
May
12,
1977
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
Complainant,
)
v.
)
PCB 76—292
CHARLES JANSON, d/b/a BARTONVILLE
)
DISPOSAL,
Respondent.
Mr. John Van Vranken, Assistant Attorney General, appeared for
the complainant.
Mr~John E.
Cassidy and Mr. Richard D. Price, Jr. appeared for
the respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Dr. Satchell):
This matter comes before the Pollution Control Board
(Board)
upon a complaint by the Environmental Protection
Agency
(Agency)
filed on November
12,
1976.
The complaint
alleges that Respondent operates or causes to be operated
a solid waste management
site located in Section 13, Town-
ship
8 North, Range
7 East of the Fourth Principal Meridian
in Peoria County, Illinois.
The complaint alleges ten counts
of violations
of the Board’s Solid Waste Rules and Regula-
tions
(Regulations)
and the Environmental Protection Act
(Act)
including Rule 202(b) (1)
and Section
21(e)
of the Act; Rule
303(a)
and Sections 21(a)
and 21(b)
of the Act; Rule
303(b)
and Sections 21(a)
and 21(b)
of the Act;
Rule 305(a) and
Section 21(a)
of the Act;
Rule 305(b)
and Sections
21(a)
and
21(b)
of the Act;
Rule 305(c)
and Sections 21(a)
and 21(b)
of the Act;
Rule 314(e)
and Sections
21(a)
and
21(b)
of the
Act;
Rule 314(f)
and Sections 21(a)
and 21(b)
of the Act;
Rule 313 and Sections
21(a)
and 21(b)
of the Act; and Rule
311 and Sections 9(c),
21(a)
and 21(b)
of the Act.
A hearing was held in this matter on January
26,
1977.
At the hearing Respondent’s attorneys entered an appearance
for the purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction of the
Board in this matter.
Other than this objection Respondent
did not participate in the hearing process.
Respondent’s
objection is based on the claim that the Circuit Court of
25
—
459
—2—
Peoria County has jurisdiction
in this cause.
The case
now on remand from the Illinois Supreme
Court is based
upon an amended comp:Laint flied
by
the
Attorney
General
alieqinc; Respondent~sfailure to
comply
with
his
Develop-
ment PermiJ: tar his landfill and also concerns itself
with Respondent~s failure to pay a $5,000 penalty
imposed
by the Circuit Court on
May
21,
1971.
in the case before the Board the Attorney General
represents
the
Agency;
however7
the
Agency
is the com-
plainant
The
allegations
before
the
Board
are
specific
counts
of
violations
of
Board
regulations
and
the
Act.
The
parties
and
issues
are
different
in
each
case.
The
Board findsthat
it does have jurisdiction
in this matter.
Three
Agency employees
testified concerning their
visitations
to
the
site
during
the period of time from
July l~ .1974
through
Seøteinber
20,
1976,
Refuse, includ-
ing
household-type
garbage
and
demolition material, brick,
concrete and wood was observed on the
site
(R,
15).
The
same refuse was observed at the same areas on several
occasions
(R.
18,
21),
On July
2,
1974
dead
rats
were
on
the
railroad
track
west
of the
property
(R.
18).
Refuse
was also
in
the stream beside the
site
(R.
18).
On July 29,
1975 a large area of old refuse was
observed; also refuse
was
observed on the bank of a small unnamed
creek that
is
a tributary
to Kickapoo Creek
(R.
34),
On September
23,
1976 smoke was observed emanating from a
portion of the
site
(R.
45).
On
September
24, 1976
the smoke
had lessened
but still existed
(R,
47).
Exposed
refuse
was
observed
in
several
different
portions
of
the
site
(R.
42,
45).
Mr.
Janson
does
not
have
a
permit
for this
site
(R.
48).
Four
citizen
witnesses
also testified.
Mr. Gale
Schisler,
a State Representative,
stated he had received
complaints
from
his
constituency
(P.
65),
Mr. Schisler
also stated
that
smoke
hangs
over
the
valley
like a blanket
(R.
65).
Mr. John Hight stated that Respondent had been
pushing
lumber
and
brick
into
Kickapoo
Creek,
which
forces
the creek
over
onto
his
own
property
(R,
67,
68),
Mr.
Hight
estimates
that
over
the
years
at
one
point
the
creek
has
moved
thirty
(30)
feet
(R.
68).
Mr.
Hight
stated
Respondent
covers
the new
garbage
with
old;
“he pushes it
around
and
wears
it
out~
(R,
68,
69),
Mr.
Bight
also
complained
about
the
smoke and
the
fact
that
Pleasant
Hill
Grade
School
is
in the proximity
(R.
68).
Mr.
Kenneth
Dahlstrom
also
testi-
fied.
Mr.
Dahlstrom did not feel Mr. Janson’s dump is in
as bad condition
as the National
Disposal Dump which is
downstream
on
Kickapoo Creek
(P.
75,
77).
25
—
460
—3—
There
is
sufficient evidence to find Mr. Janson does
not have an
operating
permit
for
a
solid
waste
management
site;
he
has
failed
to
deposit
all
the
refuse
or
garbage
into
the
toe
of
the
fill
or
into
the
bottom
of
the
trench;
he
has
failed
to
spread
and
compact
the refuse into cells
as rapidly as it was deposited;
he has failed to apply daily,
intermediate or final cover to areas promptly and as appro-
priate; he has failed to take adequate measures to monitor
or control leachate; and he has failed to control vectors.
Such an absence of good operating procedures provides a
high
probability
of
leachate
flow
into the creeks around the
property
which
is
clearly
a
threat
of
water
pollution
as
in
Rule 313 of the Regulations.
The Board finds Respondent in
violation of all the Regulations and Sections of the Act as
alleged
in
the
complaint.
Prior to
its
final
determination
the
Board
must
con-
sider the facts of Section 33(c)
of the Act.
In this case
this
is difficult because the Respondent did not
parti-
cipate at the hearing and it is Respondent’s burden to
provide the 33(c)
information, Processing and Books, Inc.
v.
Pollution
Control
Board,
64
Ill.
2d
68,
351
N.E.
2d,
865
(1976).
The
Board
will
consider
what
information
it
has.
An unnamed tributary to Kickapoo Creek and Kickapoo
Creek both border the site
(R.
34,
62).
On one side is
a
country road with businesses located on
it
(P.
62).
These
businesses are approximately two hundred yards away
(R.
62).
The nearest residence
is approximately one hundred yards
away
(P.
62).
The site has apparently been there for at
least twenty years
(R,
74).
Although the site has longevity
its position adjacent to two creeks increases the potential
for water pollution.
The site does not appear to be a
particularly good choice for a landfill.
The general welfare of Mr. Janson’s neighbors has been
greatly injured.
The neighbors have had to put up with smoke
and smells
(P.
72)
which evidently even reach
a grade school
(P.
72).
One neighbor claims to have
lost property from
Respondent~sdiversion of the creek
(R.
67,
68).
A properly run landfill is definitely of social and
economic value;
however, not much can be said for a poorly
operated site.
The technological and economic feasibility of compliance
is difficult
to determine without more information.
However,
the
Board
will
take
official
notice
of
the
fact
in
numerous
other
cases
solid
waste
management
sites
have
come
into
25
—
461
—4—
compliance,
E.P.A.
v.
George
D.
Gilley,
et
al,
PCB
75-401
(March
3,
1977),
E.P.A.
v.
Harvey
L.
Wilhelms,
PCB
76-19
(Nov.
10,
1976), E.P.A.
v.
D
&
N
Trucking,
Inc.,
et
a?,
PCB 76—104
(Nov.
10,
1976).
Considering all factors the Board
finds that a penalty
is
necessary
in
this
case.
The Board finds
Respondent
in
violation
of
ten
separate counts each with a possible $10,000
civil penalty
plus
$1,000 for each day of continued violation,
which for some
counts
are noted to have occurred over
a three
year period.
Because of the complexity of the violations,
it
is difficult to
assign specific penalties for each count.
Consequently,
a penalty of $6,000 is assessed to aid in 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.
Charles Janson
d/b/a
Bartonville Disposal is
found
to he
in violation of the following Solid
Waste Regulations and Sections of the Environ-
mental Protection Act:
Rule 202(b) (1)
and
Section
21(e)
of the Act; Rule 303(a)
and Sections
21(a)
and
21(b)
of the Act; Rule 303(b)
and Sec-
tions
21(a)
and 21(b)
of the Act; Rule 305(a)
and
Section
21(a)
of the Act;
Rule 305(b)
and Sections
21(a)
and 21(b) of the Act; Rule 305(c)
and Sec-
tions
21(a)
and 21(b)
of the Act; Rule 314(e)
and
Sections
21(a)
and 21(b)
of the Act; Rule 314(f)
and
Sections 21(a)
and 21(b)
of the Act; Rule 313
and Sections
21(a)
and 21(b)
of the Act; and Rule
311
and
Sections
9 (c)
,
21(a)
and
21 (b) of the Act.
2.
Respondent
shall
cease
and
desist
all
further
violations of the Board’s Regulations and the Act.
3.
Respondent shall pay a penalty of $6,000 within
35
days
of
this
Order.
Payment
shall
be
by
certified
check
or
money
order
payable
to:
State
of
Illinois
Fiscal
Services
Division
Environmental
Protection
Agency
2200
Churchill
Road
Springfield,
Illinois
62706
25
—
462
—5—
I~
Christen
L,
Moffett,
Clerk
of
the
flhinais
Pollution
Control Board, here~’
certify
the
above
Opinion
and
Order
were
adootedon
the
/l~
day
of
L!~’
1977
by
a
vote
of
Ctiristan
L. Motfett,
erk
Illinois
Pollution
o
trol
Board
25
—
463