ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
July
10, 1975
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Complainant,
v.
)
PCB 75—i
ADOLPH DUNN AND JOE CISEL,
Respondents.
MS. MARILYN
B.
RESCH, attorney for Complainant.
MR.
3.
MICHAEL MATHIS, attorney for Respondents.
OPINION
AND
ORDER OF
THE
BOARD
(by Dr. Odell)
On January
2, 1975,
the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
(Agency)
filed a Complaint against the Respondents with
the Illinois Pollution Control Board
(Board).
Complainant alleged
that the Respondents operated a solid waste management site with-
out an Agency Operating Permit from July 27, 1974,
until January
2,
1975,
in violation of Rule 202(b) (1) of the Solid Waste
Regulations
(Chapter
7) and Section 21(e)
of the Illinois Environ-
mental Protection Act
(Act).
Mr. Dunn owns the four—acre site
located
in the NW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 8, Township
9
North, Range
5 East in Peoria County,
Illinois.
Mr. Cisel operates
the landfill and also owns the Cisel Refuse Collection Service
(Collection Service),
the only enterprise hauling
to the site
(B.
8).
A hearing was held in the Peoria County Courthouse in
Peoria,
Illinois on February 21,
1975. Comp.
Ex.
1 established
the allegations set out
in the Complaint.
At the hearing the
parties stipulated to the following additional
facts
(R.
6):
1.
On three dates, August 31,
1973, and May 15 and November
12,
1974,
the Respondents were sent letters by the Agency notify-
ing them of the requirements
of an Operating Permit.
2.
On September 11,
1973, Mr. Dunn inquired about an
operating permit,
and on September 19,
1973,
the Agency mailed
to Mr.
Dunn three copies of the operating permit application.
Respondents called one witness, Mrs.
Carol Cisel, wife of
Joe Cisel and daughter of Adolph Dunn.
She does the bookkeeping
and clerical work for the landfill and the Collection Service.
The Collection Service hauls from the communities of Elmwood,
Brimfield, Yates City, and Laura in western Peoria County and
eastern Knox and Fulton Counties
(R.
9).
The Collection Service
pays Mr.
Dunn a small sum for dumping on the land
(R.
16).
Four
hundred residential and retail customers are served by Respondents
(R.
8).
Except in
I3rirrtfield,
the Collection Service provides
18—
51
—2—
virtually all the trash
and
garbage collection for the communities.
Approximately one load a day
is dumped at the site which is open
about 20 hours per week
(R.
8,
9).
The Collection Service owns
$17,000 worth of collection and disposal equipment including a
garbage truck,
a hauler and compactor,
a dump truck, and one D-6
bulldozer
(R.
10).
During 1974 the Cisel family made $6,000
from operating the business
(R.
11).
Mr. Cisel does not work at
the site, but is employed full-time at Caterpillar
(R.
10).
When Respondents were made aware of their need for a permit,
they believed that a renewal of their 1965 permit from the Water
Control Board was all that was required.
Efforts to comply were
delayed, because Mr. Dunn’s attorney would only correspond with
Mr. Dunn who is retired and often out-of-town
(R.
21).
It is
?stimated that
a permit application will cost at least $3,000 due
~:othe engineering studies
(B.
12) needed for application.
A
preliminary study
is now being undertaken at a cost of $500 to
determine whether the site has
a useful life of sufficient length
to justify the expense of compliance
(R.
13).
When the site was
purchased in 1965,
its life expectancy was ten to eleven years
(B.
20)
If the site were closed, hauling to a commercial facility
would mean additional expense for customers
(R.
14).
At the
present time the operation is considered marginal.
Although the
Cisels
are
now making a reasonable return on their investment,
if expenses went up and income went down,
the site would no longer
be worth operating
(R.
15).
On April
28,
1975, the Board received a “Petition For Leave
To File Additional Evidenc&’ which stated in part that:
1.
“Respondents have been advised that a joint City of
Peoria-County of Peoria solid waste disposal site will be opened
on or before approximately November 1,
1975.
2.
“The report prepared for Respondents has determined
that the approximate useful site life of the present solid waste
management site is eighteen months and will terminate approximately
between February and June of 1976 and that final cover would have
to be started in the early spring of 1976 and that the engineering
and other services required to prepare and file an Application for
an Operating Permit would require an expenditure by Respondents of
approximately $5,000.00 to $8,000.00 and that it is not economically
feasible to amortize such an expenditure over the useful site life.
3.
“No substantive violations of the Act have been charged
in the Complaint by the Environmental Protection Agency and the
owners have and will continue to provide adequate daily and inter-
mediate cover and will commence the final cover operation on
November 1,
1975,
if the Board sees fit to grant a Temporary
Operating Permit.
18
—
52
—3—
4.
“The owner
will
voluntarily and permanently close
the current site as soon as the joint City-County landfill site
is opened or no later than November
1,
1975 whichever comes
first.
5.
“The present service offered by Respondents
is vital
to the health, welfare, and sanitation of the Elmwood, Yates City,
and Brimfield area
and
the economics of the present operation pre-
clude transportation and disposal elsewhere.
The loss of refuse
collection service to these communities will work a direct and
visable hardship and will,
in all likelihood, result in the dis-
persal and disposal of trash around the countryside and in illegal
dumps.”
The Agency responded to the Respondents~ Petition and
stated that “the Board must order compliance with the
law or
immediate closure.”
We find that Respondents have violated Rule 202(b) (1)
of
Chapter
7 and Section 21(e)
of the Act from July 27,
1974, until
January
2,
1975, as charged in the Complaint.
The permit re-
quirements are an important part of our environmental program.
While Respondents’ actions do not show bad faith,
their conduct
evidences insufficient concern for the Act and regulations.
Al-
though the landfill has social value when properly operated,
failure to comply with the law decreases its worth.
While the
cost of compliance may be substantial,
the requirement exists
because the permit system provides important environmental safe-
guards.
The expense involved is part of the cost of doing busi-
ness.
This constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of
law of the Board.
ORDER
IT
IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that:
1.
Respondents violated Section 21(e)
of the Act and
Rule 202(b) (1)
of Chapter
7 as set out in our Opinion.
2.
Respondents, jointly and severally liable,
shall pay
a penalty of $150.00 for their violations of the Act and regula-
tions established in this Opinion.
Payment shall be by certified
check or money order payable
to the State of Illinois, Fiscal
Services Division, Environmental Protection Agency,
2200 Churchill
Road,
Springfield, Illinois
62706.
Payment shall be made within
35 days of the adoption of this Order.
3.
Respondents shall cease and desist operating their
solid waste management site by November
1,
1975, or as soon as
the joint Peoria City-County landfill site
is opened, whichever
comes first, unless Respondents obtain a valid operating permit
from the Agency before said date.
If the site is closed by
November lor earlier in 1975,
final cover
shall be in place by
March
31,
1976.
18 —53
—4—
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order was
adopted on the /~~‘ day of July,
1975, by a vote of
________
Illinois
trol Board
18— 54