ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

November

 6, 1975

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

Complainant,

v.

)

 PCB 75—126

)

COLLINS IMPROVEMENT COMPANY, INC.,

an Illinois corporation, LAVERNE

COLLINS, d/b/a/ CONCRETE CASTING

COMPANY, and LAVERNE COLLINS,

an individual,

Respondents.

Ms. Joan C.

 Wing, Assistant Attorney General, appeared for the

Complainant;

Mr. Laverne Collins, Pro se, appeared for the Respondents.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

 (by Mr.

 Zeitlin):

The Environmental Protection Agency,

 (Agency),

 filed the

original Complaint

 in this matter on March 21,

 1975.

The

Agency subsequently filed an Amended Complaint on April

 1, 1975,

charging Respondents individually and jointly with the operation

of a solid waste management site in Winnebago County, Illinois,

without the required operating permits from the Agency during

the period July 27, 1974 to April

1,

 1975.

 The Amended Complaint

charges violations

 of Sections 21(b) and 21(e)

 of the Environmental

Protection Act and Rule 202(b) (1)

 of Chapter

 7: Solid Waste,

of the Pollution Control Board,

 (Board), Rules and Regulations.

Ill. Rev.

 Stat.

 CII 111—1/2,

 § 1021(b) (1973); PCB Regs.,

 CII 7,

Rule 202(b) (1).

 A hearing was held in Rockton,

 Illinois, on

July 14,

 1975.

 All Respondents were represented at that hearing

by Mr. Laverne Collins.

There is no doubt that no solid waste management site

operating permit was issued for the site in question.

 In fact,

Mr. Collins admitted at one point that he decided not to apply

for an operating permit because of the expense involved,

(R.

 57),

buttressing Agency evidence on that point.

 Instead, Respondents’

rather disorganized Pro

 se defense on this Complaint concentrated

on the following issues:

19

—

221

—2—

1.

 The site in question is not a landfill,

(H.

5).

2.

 Part of the site in question is owned

and operated by individuals other than Respondents

here,

 (R. 45).

3.

 Respondents here should not be held

liable for activities generally carried on in

the area,

(R.

39,

46)

None of these defenses

 is valid.

 First, the record is

replete with admissions that the site was operated as a landfill,

(H.

 39, 46).

 Second, cross-examination by the Agency clearly

showed that,

 regardless of the activities of others on adjacent

properties,

 the site for which violation is charged in the

 Complaint

 is owned and operated by one or more of the Respondents

here,

(R.

 48-50).

 Third,

 Respondents claim as

 a defense that

others are performing essentially the same activities as are

charged in the Instant Complaint is wholly without merit;

the

activities of others provide no excuse for any violations by

Respondents.

In addition, Mr. Collins claimed at the hearing that he

was,

 “filling a hole...it was not a landfill.”

(H.

 40).

Apparently, because of that conclusion and Mr.

 Collins’

 additional

conclusion that he was just using “clean fill,”

 (e.g.,

R.

 54),

he

felt that the site in question was not in violation.

We also find this defense to be wholly without merit.

 It is

apparent that Mr. Collins closed the site in question, at least

partially as

 a result of his failure to obtain a solid waste

management site operating permit,

 (e.g.,

H.

42,

37,

 45).

He

at that time apparently felt that the Permit requirement applied

to this

 site.

 At some time in 1974, however,

 Mr. Collins

“.

looked across the river at this Jerges property and their dumping.

They are building there with the same material.

 I figured

why should

I

 stop.

So

 I just told the corporation to go

back and dump more foundry dirt in there.”

(R.

 46; see also

H.

36,

 38).

There is,

 in summary, no question here as to whether

a

violation of the operating permit requirement occurred here.

Respondent clearly operated a solid waste management site, and,

without the required permits.

Nor do the factors in Section 33(c)

 of the Act affect our

determination that

 a violation occurred here.

 The operation of

a solid waste management site without the necessary permits

presents a serious challenge to the permit system, which the

Board has instituted to protect against environmental damage.

—

222

—3—

See, EPA v.

 Watts Trucking, PCB 74-131

 (September

29,

 1975,

Opinion at

9).

 The social and economic value of a properly

run solid waste management site cannot be questioned here,

but without the necessary operating permits

 it becomes impossible

to weigh that value against the possibility of significant

environmental harm.

 Nor, do Respondents’ contentions as to

the “clean” nature of the fill used at this site affect our

judgement

 in this regard.

 Although Mr. Collins claimed that

the Agency stated his site was suitable for “dry fill,” no

evidence of such

 a statement by the Agency was entered at the

hearing.

 Regardless of the site’s general suitability, no

site can be adjudged suitable as a solid waste management site

unless the conditions of the permit system have been met, as a

guarantee of said suitability.

Nor

 is priority of location

an issue here;

 there is no question that Respondent Collins

reopened the subject site without a permit after the July 27,

1974 date on which the permit requirement became applicable

for existing solid waste management sites.

As regards the economic reasonableness and technical

practicability of compliance with Board regulations, we

again feel that Respondents’ failure

 to obtain an operating

permit is unexcused.

 Respondent Collins did, in 1973,

 submit

an application for an operating permit to the Agency; that

application was rejected because Mr. Collins used an obsolete

form.

 After inquiring with consulting engineers,

 Mr. Collins

decided not to reapply for an operating permit,

 for economic

reasons,

CR.

 57). Mr.

 Collins apparently felt that three to

four thousand dollars was more than an operating permit was

worth, for a site with a “couple of years” remaining useful

life,

(H.

 59).

Applying the same factors under Section

 33(c)

 of the

 Act to the imposition of

 a penalty, we find that a penalty

of three thousand dollars

 ($3,000.00)

 is reasonable for the

deliberate,

 blatant and unexcused violations we find here.

Respondent’s failure to obtain an operating permit was

irresponsible, and his deliberate operation of the 100 acre

site without such a Permit constitutes unacceptable conduct

in flagrant violation of the Environmental Protection Act and

this Board’s rules.

In mitigation,

 Respondent seems to claim that he used

“clean fill” on this site.

It

 is within the purview of this

Board’s technical expertise that we may, and do, reject

Respondents’ contention as to the “clean fill” quality of

foundry sand without further evidence.

 Foundry sand,

 after

use,

 can contain significant quantities of various chemicals

used in foundry processes.

 Unfortunately, the Agency failed

—

223

—4—

to explore the actual nature of the foundry sand being

accepted at Respondents’ landfill, or the possibilities of

resulting leachate,

 etc., which would have had considerable

bearing on the issues of aggravation or mitigation.

 We are

left only with Respondents’ admittedly deliberate violation

of the permit requirement.

 After repeated warnings and

inspection visits from the Agency,

 Respondent, as of the

date of hearing in this matter, had still failed to file

 a new

permit application.

 For that reason we shall,

 in addition

to a $3,000.00 penalty, order Petitioner to cease and desist

all operations on the subject site, unless a solid waste

management site operating permit has been applied for within

90 days of the date of our Order here,

 and received within

180 days thereafter.

 We take this action as a result of

Respondents’ admission,

 (R.42,

 54),

 that the site is still

in operation.

We also feel that the record here supports the imposition

of our orders, regarding both the penalty and the cease and

desist requirement, against both Mr. Collins,

 individually,

and Collins Improvement Company,

 Inc., an Illinois corporation.

Mr. Collins individually directs all landfill operations on

the site, representing both himself and the corporation.

The corporate form cannot,

 in this instance, shield Mr.

Collins from individual liability,

 (See H. 41—42,

 48—49).

The record contains no indication,

 however, that Mr. Collins,

d/b/a Concrete Casting Company, has any interest in the

site.

The Board has previously stated that a violation of

Rule 202 (b) (1)

 of the Solid Waste Regulations will not support

a finding of violation of Section 21(b) of the Act; e.g.,

EPA v.

E

 E Hauling, PCB 74-473

 (March

26,

 1975); EPA v.

 Robinson,

PCB 74-391

 (April

4,

 1975): EPA v. Wauconda Sand and Gravel Co.,

PCB 74-415

 (Aug.

14,

 1975).

 No violation of Section 21(b)

of

the Act has been shown here;

 that portion of the Complaint alleging

open dumping must be dismissed.

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions

of law of the Board in this matter.

—

224

—5—

ORDER

1.

IT

 IS THE ORDER OF THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOP~RD

that Laverne Collins, an individual, and Collins Improvement

Company,

 Inc., are found to have operated a solid waste

management site in Winnebago County, Illinois, from July 27,

1974,

 to April

1,

 1975, without the required operating

permits from the Environmental Protection Agency,

 in violation

of Section 21(e)

 of the Environmental Protection Act and

Rule 202(b) (1)

 of Chapter

 7: Solid Waste,

 of the Pollution

Control Board Rules and Regulations.

2.

 Respondents Laverne Collins,

 an individual,

and

Collins Improvement Company,

 Inc.,

 shall, within

 30 days of

the date of this Order,

 jointly or severally, pay as

a

penalty for the above violations the sum of three thousand

dollars

 ($3,000.00), payment to be made by certified check

or money order to:

Environmental Protection Agency

Manager, Fiscal Services

2200 Churchill Road

Springfield, Illinois

62706

3.

 Respondents Laverne Collins, an individual,

and

Collins Improvement Company,

 Inc.,

 shall cease and desist all

solid waste management operations or disposal operations on the

subject

 site.

 Unless all appropriate permits have been applied

for and received within 180 days of the date of this Order,

Respondents

 shall close such site in a manner consistent with

all applicable Board Regulations.

4.

 That portion of the Amended Complaint in this

matter alleging violation of Section

 21(b)

 of the Environmental

Protection Act is dismissed.

I,

 Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, herqby certify the above Opinion and Order were

adopted

 on the

4’~

day of

~

 1975, by a vote of

Christan L. Moffe

erk

Illinois Pollutio

 ntrol Board

—

225