ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
July
12,
1979
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
and ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY,
)
Complainants,
V.
)
PCB 77—162
WATTS TRUCKING SERVICE,
INC.,
an Iowa corporation,
Respondent.
MS. JUDITH
S.
GOODIE, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON
BEHALF
OF
THE
COMPLAINANTS.
MR.
MARVIN
L.
SCHRAGER,
ATTORNEY
AT
LAW,
APPEARED
ON
BEHALF
OF
THE RESPONDENT.
OPINION
AND
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Dr. Satchell):
This matter comes before the Board upon an amended complaint
filed March 20,
1978 by the Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency)
against Respondent Watts Trucking Service,
Inc.,
(Watts)
an Iowa Corporation.
The amended complaint alleges various viola-
tions
of Sections
12 and 21 of the Environmental Protection Act
(Act)
and Board Rules, Chapter
7:
Solid Waste,
in connection with
the operation of a permitted landfill near Andalusia in Rock
Island County.
A hearing was held in Rock Island on April
17,
1979,
at which time the parties presented
a stipulation and pro-
posal for settlement.
Members of the public appeared and objected
to the terms
of the settlement.
The allegations
of the amended
complaint are summarized in the following table:
Count
Section/Rule
Gravamen
I
Section 12(d)
Failed to control leachate and other
contaminants
so
as
to
create
a
water
pollution
hazard.
II
Section
21(b)
Failed
to
comply
with
permit
condition:
Rule 302
deposited refuse above 740 foot level.
III
Section 21(b)
Failed to supply sufficient equipment
Rule 304
and/or supervision at the site to ensure
compliance with permit, Act and Regu-
lations.
35-.
3
—2—
IV
Section 21(b)
Failed to place a compacted layer of at
Rule 305(a)
least six inches of suitable cover
material on all exposed refuse at the
end of each day.
V
Section 21(b)
Failed to place
a compacted layer of at
Rule 305(b)
least twelve inches of suitable cover
where no additional refuse will be
placed within sixty days.
VI
Section 21(b)
Failed to place a compacted layer of at
Rule 305(c)
least two feet of suitable cover not
later than sixty days following the
placement
of refuse in the final
lift.
VII
Section 21(b)
Failed to collect all litter from the
Rule 306
site by the end of each working day.
VIII
Section 21(b)
Caused or allowed scavenging operations
Rule 308
at a sanitary landfill site.
IX
Section 21(b)
Caused or allowed open burning at
a
Rule 311
sanitary landfill site.
X
Section 21(b)
Operated the site so as to allow the
Rule 313
discharge of contaminants into the
environment.
XI
Section
21(b)
Did not provide roads at the site which
Rule 314(b)
were adequate to allow orderly operations.
XII
Section 21(b)
Failed to provide fencing and gates or
Rule 314(c)
control access.
XIII
Section 21(b)
Failed to provide adequate measures
to
Rule 314(e)
monitor
arid control leachate at the site.
In an earlier action, Watts was charged with substantially
the same violations and was fined $9000
in an Order entered Sept-
ember 25,
1975
(18 PCB 611).
The penalty was assessed pursuant
to
a stipulation which included a plan to bring the site into
compliance.
The present stipulation is silent as to Watts’
record
of performance of this agreement.
In a related action involving
another landfill, EPA v. Joyce E.
Frye and Watts Trucking Service,
Inc., Watts agreed to a stipulated penalty of $2000
(PCB 78—38,
Order entered May 24,
1979).
—3—
rthe
Watts
site is located on a fifty—six acre tract within
the SE
¼
of NW
¼
and NE
¼
of SW
¼
of Sec.
25,
T.
17 N.,
R.
3 E.,
4
PM,
Rock Island County.
There are several ravines and an inter-
mittent creek
which carry surface and spring water about one mile
north to the Mississippi River.
The site is largely surrounded
by agricultural lands with private residences to the north
(Stip.
2).
Watts receives daily,
under an Agency permit,
3000 to 3500
cubic yards of domestic, commercial,
industrial and municipal
wastes.
Watts holds supplemental permits for liquids and sludges
whose
identities
are
not
disclosed
in
the stipulation.
The orig-
inal permit included provisions for a cutoff trench and berm to
control leachate migration
(Stip.
3).
The stipulation provides that Respondent admits
to having
inadequate equipment on the site and failing to take adequate
measures to control leachate.
Count VI is “dismissed”.
Ten
other counts are left in limbo
(Stip.
8).
Respondent promises
to come into compliance as detailed below and to pay a $3000
fine.
There is
provision
for an additional penalty of $1000
for
each future violation of the settlement agreement,
plus $500 for
each day the violation may continue
(Stip.
8,
13).
It is stip-
ulated that leachate control measures will entail the expenditure
of
“upwards of $300,000”
(Stip.
13).
The stipulation provides that Watts
is to submit an application
for modification of its operating permit within thirty days of
si~jningthe agreement
(Stip.
8).
This
is to
include engineering
plans and specifications for construction of berms and trenches
on the south and north sides of the site to control the inflow
of water and to control the leachate migration
(Stip.
9).
Plans
for eventual closing of the site are to be included
(Stip.
10).
Watts is to immediately bring its operation into compliance
(Stip.
13).
Watts represents that it will hire a licensed engineer to
assume fulitime responsibility for the overall management and
operation of its landfills
(Stip.
14).
Several citizens appeared at the hearing and five testified
in
opposition to the stipulation.
All objected to the fact that the
parties did not provide them with a copy of the stipulation prior
to the hearing.
The stipulation was read to the audience and a
question and answer session was held limited to interpretation of
the agreement
(R.
10,
31).
Considering the record as
a whole, the
Board is satisfied that
the
public has had an adequate opportunity
to be heard.
35—S
—4—
Mr. Ed Wriedt presented a written statement, testimony and
8 x 10 black and white photographs
(R.
48; Ex.
1,
2,
3).
The
photographs bear dates from March 10 through April
14,
1979.
Many
of
them
depict
a
large
mound
covered
with
a
large
amount
of
refuse.
The
material
is
being
unloaded
from
the
top
rather
than
in the toe of the fill.
Two taken April 12 show litter scattered
away from the fill
face.
The statement concerns an incident on
March 10,
1979
(R.
49;
Ex.
1,
3).
Mr. Wriedt observed a tanker
dumping liquid waste onto the top of the fill.
He watched for
forty minutes, saw other garbage dumped and saw
no
effort to work
or cover either the liquid or other waste.
On April
2, Mr. Wriedt
saw a truck dump after working hours.
On April
2 and
3 he saw
garbage dumped late in the afternoon with no attempt to cover
(R.
50).
Mr. Wriedt complained of unsupervised dumping and blowing
litter.
He wanted to know what chemicals were being dumped and
wanted periodic analyses of his well water
(R. 48).
Mr. William Boon objected to litter and refuse along the road
and mud and hazards from the trucks
(R. 56).
He wanted access to
inspection reports, borings and well monitoring data
(R.
57).
Mr.
Joseph Verschoore also objected to the agreement
(R.
58.)
Mr.
Jerry Martens testified that a leachate flow referred to in the
stipulation had actually reached the Mississippi River
(R. 61).
It would be much cheaper for Watts
to pay the fine than
to comply
with the rules
(R.
60).
Watts had rebulldozed
the
night before
to be sure that
it was in compliance on the date of the hearing
(R.
61)
Mr.
Joe Whitley testified and presented a large number of
small, color photographs into evidence, along with a copy of
what is apparently the stipulation from the previous enforcement
case against Watts
CR.
63,
71; Ex.
4,
5).
He testified that Watts
had been fined and agreed to come into compliance in the earlier
case and that there had been no change in Watts’ operation
(R.
64).
There was garbage on the site that had been uncovered since Janu-
ary
(R.
65).
Photographs show uncovered refuse and also litter on
the witness’s and a neighbor’s property on the date of the hearing.
He wanted his drinking water monitored on
a regular basis
(R.
66).
The agreement was signed by the parties on various dates from
March 13 through 27,
1979.
Portions of it were to become effective
on signing
(Stip.
13).
Among other things, Watts was to cease
dumping outside of stated operating hours or in the absence of
authorized supervisory personnel, comply with litter rules and to
operate in compliance.
The testimony of the citizen witnesses
indicates that these provisions may have been violated between
the signing of the document and the date of the hearing.
The
testimony concerning these and other violations during pendency
of this action as well as Watts’
record of compliance with the
earlier stipulation raise
questions of good faith.
However,
the
3S—6
—5—
stipulation provides for an expensive, detailed compliance plan
which should protect the public
if carried out.
Rejection of the
stipulation
would
at
least
delay
execution
of the compliance plan
by
several
months.
Although
an
increased
penalty
could
result,
this would still be trivial compared with the cost of compliance.
It
seems
unlikely
that
the
Board
could
order
Watts
to
do
more
to
come into compliance than it has undertaken
in the stipulation.
The Board therefore
finds that,
on the balance, the public interest
is served by accepting the settlement under Procedural Rule
331.
Respondent
is found in violation of the Act and Rules as
alleged in Counts III and XIII relating to failure to supply
sufficient equipment and supervision and failure to provide ade-
quate measures to monitor and control
leachate.
The other eleven
counts are dismissed without prejudice.
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.
Respondent, Watts Trucking Service,
Inc.,
is in
violation of Section
21(b)
of the Act and Rules
304 and 314(e) of Chapter
7:
Solid Waste as alleged
in Counts III and XIII of the amended complaint.
2.
Counts
I and II and IV through XII are dismissed.
3.
Respondent shall comply with the terms of the stip-
ulation and proposal for settlement which is incorp-
orated herein by reference.
4.
Within thirty days of the date of this Order, Respondent
shall, by certified check or money order payable to the
State of Illinois, pay a civil penalty of $3000 which
is to be sent to:
State of Illinois
Fiscal Services Division
Environmental Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield,
Illinois 62706
Mr. Jacob
D. Dumelle concurred.
35—7
—6—
I, Christan
L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby c~rtifythat the
bove Opinion and Order
were adopted on the /c&’~ day of
________,
1979 by a vote
of
________
Christan L. Mof
,
Clerk
Illinois Polluti.
ontrol Board
3~—8