ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

August 13, 1971

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

V.

)

#

71—42

J. C. DILL

Mr. F, Daniel Welsch,Special Assistant Attorney General, for EPA

Mr. J. C. Dill, pro se.

Opinion

of

the Board (by Mr. Currie):

Mr. Dill

was charged with a number of violations of the

Rules and Regulations for Refuse Disposal Sites and Facilities

(Landfill Rules) in the operation of his landfill near George-

town, Two of the alleged violations (counts 5

and 9) were

dropped by the Agency at the hearing on June 17, 1971, (R. 8).

We find several of the charges well proven and impose a money

penalty and a cease and desist order.

The first count of the complaint alleges open dumping in

violation of both Section 21 of the Environmental Protection

Act and of Rule 3.04 of the Landfill Rules. Open dumping is

a general description of a practice which entails a number of

specific violations of the rules alleged elsewhere in the com-

plaint. As in EPA v. Clay Products et a?.,

#

PCB 71—41 (June

23, ~l97l) our finding on the specific violations make a de-

termination of open dumping unnecessary.

Count 2 of the complaint alleges open burning in viãlation

of Section 9(c) of the Act and Rule 3,05 of the Land Rules.,

There is ample testimony by EPA inspectors as to the existence

of open burning at the site on November 5, 197l,(R, 66, 102,

117, Ex. 5-G) and on February 20, 1971 (R. 60-62, Ex, 6A and

6B), In addition a neighbor who lives “half a b1ock’~ from the

site testified that fires occur once or twice a week (R; 190).

An employee of the respondent testified that the two reasons

fires started were embers from trash fires dumped into the

pick—up truck and vandals (R. 158—161). We agree with theA~

Agency’s contention that for Agency investigators to find

actual open burning or the evidence of recent burning d~nvirtually

every occasion an inspection was made cannot be blamed upon

coincidence. Further, reasonable care in the collection of burn-

ing materials and action such as the installation of a locked

2 —

277

---

gate to help exclude vandals would obviously have prevented

many fires. Proper cover and compaction of refuse would have

minimized and shortened other fires. Respondent has caused

or allowed open burning.

Count 3 charges that Mr. Dill failed to provide his site

with a lockable gate in violation of Land Rule 4.03 (a). The

respondent conceded that the gate or

the road leading to the

disposal area

is not provided with a lock (R. 19). Mr. Dill’s

defense that he is running not a landfill but a farm is unaccept-

able. A violation was shown.

Count 4 alleges that Mr. Dill has operated his site without

an all weather operational road as required by Rule 4.03 (b)

of the Land Rules. There is evidence that the road in question

although surfaced with some kind of rocks or gravel had become

so rutted that it would likely

be impassable in wet weather

(R. 67—68, 104)

.

Respondent’s contention that a blacktop road

is called for is not supported by a review of the regulations,

but something more than a heavily rutted

“farm” road is de-

finitely required. There is proof of a violation.

Count 6 alleges that refuse was not covered at the end

of each working day as required by Rule 5.07. Violations were

clearly shown. Mr. Lorimore, an EPA investigator, testified

that refuse viewed on November 5, 1971 had not been covered

by the next day (R. 68-69). An Agency photographer provided

additional evidence of the failure to cover during the period

of November 5—6, 1971 (R. 99—103, Ex, 5—A, 5—B, 5—C, 5—E,

5-G).

Count 7 charges that completed portions of the landfill

have not been provided appropriate final cover as required

by Rule 5.07 (b). An Agency witness testified that the upper

portion of the ravine needs additional final cover to meet the

requirement of at least two feet of compacted material (R.

69-70). His testimony was not challenged.

Count 8 alleges that Mr. Dill permitted improper salvage

operations at his landfill site in violation of Rule 5,10 of

the Land Rules, If material is to be salvaged the rules specify

the salvage operations should be confined to areas remote from

the fill. Photographs taken on November 5 and 6, 1971 (Ex. 5-A

and 5-B) clearly show junked automobiles in the operating

area of the landfill. However, Mr. Ray Adams, a neighbor of Mr.

Dill, testified that the autos are used as an “anchor” to keep

the filled areas from being washed down the steep gullies which

constitute the landfill area and are not salvaged. Since there

is no evidence that respondent intended to do anything with the

automobiles other than bury them this charge is really a continuation

of Count 6. If the autos are to be buried they must be covered

2

—

278

---

by the end of the working day that they arrive on the site.

In addition, Agency witnesses testified that the automobiles

and a pile of lumber were in violation of Rule 5.10 because they

were not elevated above the ground and thus created a rodent

harborage (R. 71-72, 123-124). The rules say nothing about

evevating salvaged materials although the Agency has obviOusly

inferred this requirement as being necessary to prevent rat

harborage. We suggest that if the Agency feels elevating

automobiles is needed

it should propose that the regulation be

revised to specifically include that requirement. We find no

violation of Rule 5.10.

Respondent sought to deflect the charges brought against

him by maintaining that his operation is only a farm

and not

a landfill (R. 176). Although respondent’s intentions of

reclaiming strip mined land for agricultural use are commendable

it is clear that the means he has chosen for that reclamation

is the operation of a landfill.

We find violations with respect to open burning, lack

of a lockable gate and an all weather road, and failure to daily

and finally cover refuse, We shall order that no further in-

fractions occur and in consideration of respondent’s

economic

and family problems assess a modest $200 penalty. Although

we have assessed this nominal penalty in the face

of the repeated

warnings and visits by Agency representatives

we assure Mr.

Dill that continued operation of his landfill in violation of

the law will result in greatly increased penalties.

This opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and

conclusions of law,

ORDER

I. Mr. J. C. Dill shall cease and desist from violations of the

Environmental Protection Act and of the Rules and Regulations

for Refuse Sites and Facilities, as follows:

a) No open burning shall be allowed.

b) The site shall be provided with an entrance gate and lock.

c) Refuse shall be covered daily as required by the Rules.

d) Coopleted portions of the site shall be covered in

accordance with the Rules within 60 days of the date

of this order.

e) The road to the ~ite shall be graded to level the ruts

and provided with a layer of gravel.

2 — 279

---

2.

Mr. 3. C. Dill shall within 35 days after receipt of this

order pay to the State of Illinois the

sum

of $200.00 as

a penalty for the violations found in the Board’s opinion.

I, Regina E. Ryan, Clerk of the Pollution Control Board, certify

that the Board adopted the above Opinion this 13th

day

of August

,

1971.

-

2

—