ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
April 14, 1977
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Complainant,
v.
)
PCB 76—173
JERSEY SANITATION CORPORATION,
)
an Illinois corporation, and
RALPH JOHNSON, an individual,
)
)
Respondents.
Mr. George W. Tinkham, Assistant Attorney General, appeared for
the Complainant;
Mr. Robert M.
Egan appeared for the Respondents at the first
hearing.
Mr. Johnson appeared pro se after the first hearing.
OPINION
AND
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Dr.
Satchell):
This matter comes before the Board upon acomplaint filed
June 17,
1976 by the Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency).
An amended complaint was filed July 22,
1976.
This amended
complaint lists six counts of alleged violations concerning
a refuse disposal site operated by Respondents and located on
property owned by Ralph Johnson in the Northwest 1/4 of Sec-
tion
6, Township
7 North,
Range 11 West of the Third Principal
Meridian,
in Jersey County, Illinois.
The allegations cover
a time span from April
8,
1975 to the filing of the amended
complaint July
22,
1976 and include alleged violations
of
Rule 305(a)
of the Board’s Solid Waste Regulations
(Regula-
tions)
and Sections
21(a)
and 21(b)
of the Fnvironmrntal
Protection Act
(Act);
Rule 303(b)
of
the
Regulations;
Rule
308 of thc Regulations; Rule 314(f) of the Regulations; Rule
304;
and Rule
302.
A hearing was held in Jerseyville, Illinois on December
3,
1976.
At a second hearing on December
21, 1976 a stipulation
was presented for the Board’s approval.
Respondent Ralph
Johnson who was represented by counsel at the first hearing
appeared pro Se at the second hearing and at the signing of
the stipulation.
25
—
293
—2—
After the stipulated agreement was submitted to the
Board, Mr. Johnson filed a motion to ask the Board to con-
sider additional facts.
The Agency filed a response asking
any ex parte communications be stricken from the record.
The Board in this matter finds itself confronted with accep-
ting the stipulated agreement or sending the matter back for
further hearing concerning the additional facts. Respondent
has not asked that the stipulation be rejected.
The facts
Respondent refers
to cannot be considered in their present
form as complainant has had no opportunity for cross—
examination or rebuttal statements.
The Board finds that
Respondents’ motion is inappropriate and cannot be con-
sidered as part of the record.
The stipulated agreement as presented to the Board is
set out as follows.
Respondent,
Ralph Johnson, owns the
property as described in the complaint.
It was further
stipulated that:
a.
Respondents failed to place a compacted layer of
at least six inches of suitable material on all
refuse at the end of each day of operation on
April
8,
1975, July 15,
1975, August 21,
1975,
September
24,
1975, October
22, 1975, December
11,
1975, January
9, 1976, January 21,
1976, Feb-
ruary
25,
1976, May 27,
1976, May 28,
1976, June
4,
1976,
June 25,
1976, and July
1,
1976.
b.
Respondents failed to spread and compact all refuse
in layers not exceeding a depth of two feet as
rapidly as
it was deposited at the landfill on
April
8, 1975, July 15, 1975, August 21,
1975,
September 24, 1975, December 11,
1975, January 9,
1976, January 21, 1976,
February 25, 1976, May 27,
1976, and May 28, 1976.
c.
Respondents caused or allowed scavenging operations
at the landfill on July
9,
1976.
d.
Respondents failed to provide adequate measures to
control vectors on July
9,
1976 and June
2,
1976.
e.
Respondents failed to provide sufficient equipment,
personnel,
and supervision at the landfill to ensure
that operations would comply with the operating per-
mit and the Act and Regulations on January
9, 1976,
May 28, 1976, and June 25,
1976.
25
—
294
—3—
f.
On June
25,
1976 Respondents failed to work and
seed the cover of cell
*1; to stockpile topsoil
for use as “finish cover”; to cause an employee
to be present at all times when the fill
is open
to the public;
to place at the fill signs desig-
nating the unloading area; to construct temporary
fences around the dumping area;
to provide a rodent
control service when rodents appeared; and to keep
any of Respondents’ personnel from scavenging or
salvaging materials at the landfill,
as had been
required by Respondents’
permit
number
73-44-OP
issued by Complainant, Environmental Protection
Agency.
On the date of filing the stipulation the condition of
the site as described in the stipulation could be described
at best as partial compliance.
Cover has been provided
although not to an adequate depth in all places.
The leach-
ate collection system is not as developed as the permit re-
quired.
An additional monitoring well is needed.
There is
portable fencing and litter control at the site.
Access to
the site
is not adequately controlled.
There are rats at
the site.
Dumping has been limited to a specific area and
an operator
is present with equipment and the required accom-
modations are provided.
The suitability of the site is not
in issue.
Respondents do have a permit for the development
and operation of the site.
The stipulation provides that the site,
if not operated
properly, could adversely affect the environment by providing
a
feeding and breeding ground for vectors
(including rats and
flies), causing objectionable odors, being
a source of blowing
litter and debris,
and by threatening the pollution of surface
waters.
The potential environmental detriments will be alle-
viated by Respondents following the stipulated compliance
schedule and by complying with their development and operating
permits.
The parties agreed that the compliance schedule was
a technologically practicable and economically reasonable means
by which Respondents’ landfill may be brought into compliance.
A detailed thirteen point plan provides for placement and
maintenance of proper cover; extermination of rats within
30
days
of the filing of the stipulation; replacement and repair
of fencing; leachate collection; monitoring of ground water;
and an operator on duty with sufficient operational equipment
at all times.
Monthly progres,s reports are to be submitted to
the Agency until July 31,
1977.
25
—
295
—4—
The parties agreed the facility was of significant
social and economic value to the community but lack of
compliance with the regulations constitutes potential to
injure or interfere with the property or general welfare
of the people.
The parties also stipulated to a penalty
of $3,500.
The Board
finds the stipulated agreement to be accep-
table under Procedural Rule 333.
From the testimony
presented at the hearing on December 3,
1976 it is apparent
that the operation of
the landfill was of considerable
injury and irritation to neighboring residents.
The Board
finds Respondents
in violation of all allegations
as set
out in the cbmplaint with the exception of Section 21(a)
of the Act.
There is no evidence in the stipulation as to
the open dumping of garbage.
The Section 21(a)
allegation
is dismissed.
The Board finds the penalty of $3,500 adequate
to aid 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.
Jersey Sanitation Corporation and Ralph Johnson
are
found to be in violation of Rule 305(a)
of
the Board’s Solid Waste Regulations and Section
21(b)
of the Environmental Protection Act; and
Rules
302, 303(b),
304, 308, and 314
(f)
of the
Regulations.
The allegation of violation of
Section 21(a)
of the Act is dismissed.
2~ Respondents
shall follow the compliance plan as
set out in the stipulation.
3.
Respondents
shall pay a penalty of $3,500 within
35 days of this order.
Payment shall be made by
certified check or money order payable to:
State of Illinois
Fiscal Service Division
Environmental Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois 62706
25
—
296
—5—
I, Christian L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby certify the abpve Opinion and Order were
adopt~edon the
i~/~
day of
4~ytJL
1977 by a vote
of~-3’~C)
.
U
Christan L. Moffett,JgJ~rk
Illinois Pollution Ctht~olBoard
25
—
297