ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
November
8, 1984
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Complainant,
)
)
PCB 83—4
)
CITY
OF
EAST MOLINE,
)
Respondent.
MR.
PHILIP
L.
WILLMAN AND MR. FINIS E. WILLIAMS, ASSISTANT
ATTORNEYS
GENERAL, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT.
SCHRAGER,
BLACKWOOD & NOWINSKI, P.C.
(MR. ALAN G,
I3LACKW000,
OF
COUNSEL) APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT.
OPINION AND
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by W.
J.
Nega):
This matter comes before the Board on a January
7, 1983
Complaint, as amended on February
10, 1983, filed by the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency (Agency)
alleging that the Respondent,
the
City
of East Moline (East Moline) operated its sanitary
landfill
in
Rock Island County,
Illinois in violation of the
Environmental
Protection Act (Act), Chapter
7:
Waste Disposal of
the Board~s
regulations, and certain conditions of permits issued
to the
Respondent.
The period of violations alleged in the
eleven
count Amended Complaint occurred over nine years, begin~-
ning
in 1973.
Hearings were held on September 14 and
15,
1983,
in
Rock Island, Illinois.
No members of the public attended.
On
November
7,
1983, the Agency filed its Closing Brief
in lieu of
closing
arguments as agreed to by the parties at hearing
(R.
474—
476).
Also filed was a Motion to File Instanter;
that motion is
granted.
East Moline filed its Brief on December 8, 1983,
and
the
Agency filed a Reply Brief on December 19, 1983.
The Respondent owns and operates a sanitary landfill, known
as
the
East Moline Landfill, which
is located on approximately
fifty
acres
of land north of Grace Road and east of Ruth Road
near the City
of East Moline in Hampton Township, Rock Island
County,
Illinois.
Wastes,
including but not limited to, garbage,
refuse and
sludge are accepted at the East Moline Landfill,
The
operations
are permitted.
The first operating perTnit,
Permit No.1
l97l~36,was issued by the Agency on September 23, 1971
(Ex.
15A)
1Unless otherwise indicated, the Exhibits referenced are
Complainant~
5,
61-07
That permit contained conditions requiring daily cover, final
cover,
leachate control, and notification to the Agency should
sludge disposal be considered by East Moline,
A supplemental
permit, No.
76—95, was issued on February 25, 1976, which
contained conditions requiring Respondent to compl~with Rule 305
of the Board~sSolid Waste Regulations,
Chapter
7,
Specifically, that permit contained conditions requiring that
refuse be dumped at the toe of the slope of the working face;
that the daily and intermediate cover requirements be complied
with; that refuse be spread and compacted as received and de-
posited; that litter be collected and controlled each day; and
that two feet of final cover be applied at all finished areas
(Ex. 15B).
That supplemental permit had been preceded by another
permit, No~74—46,
issued on April
8,
1974, allowing disposal of
digested sludge at the East Moline with the condition that it be
mixed with general refuse
and promptly compacted, and covered
applied to the same
A
series of
experimental permits were
later issued by the
Agency on December 29,
1980, March 29, 1982
and January
3,
1983,
which allowed sludge to be received
and
disposed at the East Moline Landfill
in trenches,
subject to
special conditions
(Resp.
Exs.
43,
45 and 46).
Nine Agency inspectors, who had visited the East Moline
Landfill over the period of
alleged violations, testified at
hearing. The Agency also introduced inspection reports, sketches
and photographs documenting at least sixty—two inspections.
The
Director of Public
Services and the Assistant Director for
the
City of East Moline testified on behalf of the Respondent.
As originally
adopted, Section 21 of
the Act provided at
paragraph
(b)
that no person shall “cause
or allow the open
dumping of any other refuse in violation of regulations adopted
by the Board;”
Ill.
Rev.
Stat.
1971,
ch. 111½, par.
1021(b)J.
Effective January 1,
1980 that Section was amended
to provide at
that no person shall:
(a)
“(clause or allow the open dumping of
any refuse;”,
and
(e)
“d)ispose
of any refuse
.
.
except
at
a
site or facility which meets the requirements of this Act and the
regulations thereunder.”
Effective September
3,
1981 paragraph
(a) was amended to
provide that no person shall
“clause
or allow
the open dumping of any waste;” and Section
2.
was also amended
at paragraph
(d) to prohibit any person from conducting any
waste—storage, waste—treatment,
waste—disposal,
or
special waste
transportation operation without a permit,
in violation of any
condition imposed by such permit, or in violation of any regulation
adopted by the Board,
(Ill.
Rev. Stat. 1983,
ch, 111½, par.
1021),
In each count
of the Amended Complaint, the
Agency alleges
Board
Regulations cited herein have been
codified since
this action was brought.
They are now contained in 35 Ill. Adm.
Code:
Subtitle G.
For convenience
in reviewing this record, the
former numbering system is
used in this Opinion
and Order.
61~08
—3—
that Respondent acted
in violation of Section
21 of the Act
because it operated the
East Moline Landfill in violation of the
Board~sregulations and conditions of its
permits.
Over the
period of alleged
violations, the pertinent parts of the statute,
i.e., the prohibitions
of open dumping and violation of
Board
regulations were in
effect, albeit in different paragraphs of
5ection
21 of the Act,
Likewise,
it is alleged in each
count
that the respondent
violated Rules 301 and 302 of the Board’s
regulations, which
were in effect during the alleged period of
violation.
Rule 301
of Chapter
7 provides that no person shall
operate a sanitary
landfill unless this Rule and the other rules
contained in Chapter
7 are complied with.
Rule 302
requires that
all conditions of each permit be
complied with. The
specific
permit conditions
and additonal regulations allegedly
violated
are discussed in detail
below,
Count
I alleges
that, on at least fifty—two occasions,
Respondent allowed
open dumping at the East Moline Landfill
because it failed
to provide daily cover (Amended Complaint,
Ex,
3).
The Agency complains that this
is
a violation of the
open
dumping prohibition
contained in Section 21 of the Act, and also
in violation
of Board regulations, specifically Rules
305(a),
301
and 302.
In
pertinent part,
Rule 305 of Chapter 7 provides:
Unless otherwise specifically provided by
permit,
the following cover requirements
shall
be followed:
(a)
Daily cover
—
A compacted layer
of
at
least six inches of suitable
material shall be placed on all
exposed refuse at the end of
each
day of operation.
Condition
6 of East Moline’s first permit, No.
1971—36, and
Condition
3 of
the subsequent operating permit, No, 76—95, con-
tained
the same
daily cover requirement as that set out in Rule
305(a),
Therefore,
if the allegations of open dumping and
in-
adequate daily
cover are found to be correct, East Moline
will
have violated
Section 21 of the Act, Rules 305(a) and
301, the
permit conditions
contained in its permits during the respective
period of
violations, and, therefore,
Rule 302.
Inspection
reports, sketches and photographs describing and
depicting
incidences of inadequate or no daily cover
were
entered
into the
record.
All nine of the Agency field inspectors who
testified at
hearing had filed reports.
Also submitted were the
inspection reports
of inspectors who did not testify at hearing.
(Ex, hA-hG;
R.
340.)
These inspection reports indicated that
daily cover
had not been applied, and in those instances where
it
61-09
—4—
had been, that it was inadequate.
Photographs taken
during
the
inspections clearly show uncovered refuse strewn about the landfill,
even in areas away from the active area,
The uncovered refuse
consisted of tires,
paper, wood debris, and metal drums.
In some
instances,
it appears that
attempts were undertaken to
bulldoze under
or
to cover the refuse,
and yet
large amounts and large pieces of
debris were still exposed.
On the following dates, the inspection
reports and accompanying photographs evidenced total or partial
lack of daily cover
at the East Moline Landfill,
October
11,
1973
January
17,
1974
February 27, 1974
March 20,
1974
April
11, 1974
June
25,
1974
July
24,
25,
1974
August
1,
1974
September 13,
1974
January 28,
1974
March 26,
1975
June 9,
1975
July
8,
1975
September
2,
1975
November
13,
1975
April
7,
1976
February
2,
3,
1976
January
2, 1977
February 24, 1978
August 28,
1978
October
17,
1979
November 15,
1979
January 8,
1980
The period of violations
span nine years,
all
four seasons,
and all types of weather.
For example, on October 11,
1973 and
March 20, 1974, openly dumped garbage and refuse was observed,
and inadequate daily cover was reported.
The photographs taken
at each inspection depict large tracts of land with exposed paper
and other debris,
The weather on both those days was cloudy.
(Ex,
1A*;
2A*),
The same inadequate operating conditions were
reported and photographed
on May 9,
1974 when the weather
was
sunny
(Ex,
2B);
again
on June 9,
1975 and July 8,
1975, warm
and
partially cloudy days
(Ex, 3A*;
51*);
and on June
25,
1980, when
weather conditions
were warm and dry
(Ex.
5J*),
Even
on winter
days,
for example,
December 12,
1978 and January
8,
1980,
when
applying daily cover
may be difficult if adequate preparation is
not taken or the active fill
area is too large, the debris exposed
through the snow cover
was not only the day’s deposit, but that
3*Asterisks indicate
photographs included.
Exhibit
No.
Date
Exhibit No.
1A*3
March
11, 1980
5E*
I1A*
March 25,
1980
5F*
lB
April
21, 1980
5H*
2A*
May 21,
1980
51*
1D*
June
25,
1980
5J*
2B*
July 24,
1980
5K
1D*
August
7,
1980
7A*
2C
August 12,
1980
7B
2D*
September
9,
1980
7C*
2F
September
26, 1980
8A
2G
November 14,
1980
8B
3A*
December
16,
1980
8C
1OA*
February 26,
1981
80*
11B*
March
31,
1981
8E*
IOB*
April
28,
1981
8F*
1OC*
May 29,
1981
8G
11C*
July 27,
1981
7E*
11E*
September
3, 1981
8H*
11F*
January 22,
1982
9A
11F*
March 19,
1982
9B
5A*
April
9,
1982
9C
5B*
April
28,
1982
hlG*
5C*
May 20, 1982
90
61-10
—5—
previously disposed of at the site and left uncovered (Ex.
60*;
5C*),
On February 24, 1978,
a
sunny
day with little visible snow
cover, the inspection revealed a large expanse of uncovered,
heaped lumber,
tires, and general refuse
(Ex, IIF*),
The reported areas of uncovered refuse ranged from 20 by
30
yards
(Ex,
5A*) to 70 by 10
yards
(Ex. 8A;
8B),
That last area
remained uncovered between two inspections,
the first on March
26,
1980 and the second on November 14,
1980.
At
least twice,
ReSpondeflt~Semployees admitted that those areas away from active
fill area identified by the inspectors as inadequately covered
had not been used that day, but
in earlier weeks
(Ex,,
5J,
8D).
In addition, the inspectors identified the inadequately covered
areas to be not just the active fill areas, but separate from
these areas
(Ex.
hA;
1C;
lOA; 11C; hF;
6A;
6D;
6F;
6G;
SE;
5J;
8C;
8D;
8E; 8H).
Not only does this indicate that intermediate
cover was not provided,
(which
will be discussed
under Count
II)
but
that the six inches required on the refuse disposed of each day
was either not provided or was insufficient.
Furthermore, given the
sizeable area and amount of uncovered debris,
it is evident that
daily cover was not adequately
applied on the days
discussed and
in many other instances
(e.g., Ex. hF),
On at least nine occasions sludge was dumped into trenches
and no cover was applied
(Ex.
6F;
SB;
5C;
SD;
5E;
SF;
5H;
51;
5J)
This occurred over a period beginning March 27,
1979 through
June
25,
1980.
During the November 15,
1979 insp~ctionan East
Moline employee admitted that no cover had been a~p1iedfor
several days to the sewage treatment sludge
(Ex,
SB),
On
February 14,
1980, the Director of Public Services admitted to
the Agency inspector that the daily cover violations were due to
his decision to dry out sludge in the trenches
(Ex,
5D),
During
the next inspection on March 11,
1980,
uncovered and partially dry
sludge
in a trench was again
observed
(EX,
5E).
Aside
from the
fact that this form of disposal violated the conditions of Permit
No~74-46,
which required Respondent to mix the sludge with
general refuse as opposed to trench disposal, failure to cover
the sludge in the trenches
violated Rule 305(a) and Section 21
of the Act,
Sometime
in September,
1981, Respondent began to dispose of
refuse
in bales without
providing daily cover.
This was observed
and reported on July 27,
1981,
September 3,
1981, November 5,
1981, December 23,
1981, January
22,
1982,
March 12,
1982, April
9,
1982 and May
20, 1982
(Ex.
7E*;
811*;
8J;
9A;
9B;
9C;
90),
For
the most part the bales were stacked three to six bales high in
rows 150 to 200 feet in
length.
The bales were stacked
away from
the active fill area and no cover, natural or otherwise,
was
provided.
They were observed
to be breaking apart,
allowing
loose debris to fall
away.
The worst conditions were
reported on
April
28,
1982 when
one inspector reported 22 uncovered bales
in
the active area of the fill;
40 piled in the inactive area,
15 of
which were uncovered; and that the bales stacked in the middle
were loose or broken,
those stacked highest completely uncovered,
and all were exposed at the sides
(Ex.
11G*).
61-11
—6—
In addition to the bales, on at least three occasions,
refuse deposited at the front gate of the East Moline Landfill
was observed
(Ex,
5C*;
51*; 5J*),
This observation, plus other
evidence of open dumping resulted in the East Moline Landfill
being placed on the Open Dump Inventory List.
Inspections under
this program revealed large areas of uncovered garbage,
leachate,
and erosion~ The inspection
reports for August
7,
1980, August
12,
1980 and September 9,
1980
cited little,
if any, improvement
and recommended that the site remain
on that
list,
Leachate
stains were observed off the site~(Ex.
7A*;
7B*;
7C*),
Inspection
reports for visits on March 31,
1981 and
July
27,
1981 again
indicated uncovered refuse,
and leachate problems
(Ex,
7D;
7E).
Count II of the Amended
Complaint alleges
that Respondent
failed to provide adequate intermediate cover in violation of
Board Rule 305(b) and Special Condition
2 of Permit No,
76-95.
Rule 305(b)
of Chapter
7 provides that unless it is otherwise
specified by permit,
intermediate cover
shall be applied
,
At the end of each day of operation, in all but the
final lift of a sanitary landfill,
a compacted layer of
at least twelve inches of suitable material
.
.
.
on
all surfaces of the land’fill where no additional refuse
will be deposited within
60 days.
Condition
2 of Respondent’s Supplementary Permit No, 76—95 requires
compliance with Rule 305(b).
The Agency
alleges that on at least
43 occasions Respondent failed to apply sufficient intermediate
cover,
(Amended Complaint,
Ex,
4),
Between October 11,
1973 and October 12,
1978 six Agency
inspectors made approximately twenty—five visits to the East
Moline Landfill,
At twenty—one of
those inspections,
insuf-
ficient or lack of intermediate cover was reported.
The dates
and exhibits documenting the
same are:
Ex,
Ex.
Nos,
Dates
Nos,
October 11,
1973
IA*
March 26,
1975
2G
February 27,
1974
lB
June
9,
1975
3A*
March 20,
1974
2A*
July 8, 1975
IOA*
April 11,
1974
1C*
September
2,
1975
11B
June
25,
1974
2B*
November 13,
1975
1OB*
July 24,
1974
1D*
June 3,
1976
33*
August
1,
1974
2C*
September 16,
197,6
3C*
September 13,
1974
2D*
February 2,
1976
h1C~
October 29,
1974
2E
December
2,
1977
liE
January 28,
1975
2F
August 12,
1978
6A*
October 12,
1978
6B
Between 1979 and
1982,
three ~idditionalfield inspectors
visited the site thirty—two
times,
At least nine
times insuf—
ficient~’intermediatecover was observed.
On October 17,
1979
61-12
—7—
three
areas
—
10 by 5
yards,
60 by 20 yards, and 20 by
10 yards
were without sufficient
intermediate cover
(Ex. 5A*),
On
November
15, 1979
two large stretches,
80 by 30 and
25 by
10
yards,
lacked intermediate
cover
(Ex. 5B*).
On January
1, 1980,
again two large areas,
each 80 by 30 yards, were without
immediate cover and
remained that way until a March 11,
1980
inspection,
even
though the Director of Public Works admitted to
a field inspector
on February 14,
1980 that no work had been done
on the area,
On
March 11,
1980 a new area was also observed to
be insufficiently
covered
(Ex. 5C~,5D*,
5E*).
On March
25,
an
entire hillside,
200 by 50 yards, to the east of the fill area
had eroded and needed intermediate
cover
(Ex.
5F*).
A portion of
that same area,
70
by 40 yards remained inadequately covered when
inspected on April
21 and June
25, 1980
(Ex.
511*;
5J*),
Beginning on
September 26,
1980 through April 9,
1982 the
inspections made
on the following dates revealed
sizable
areas
lacking sufficient
intermediate cover.
Date
Size
Ex, No.
September 26,
1980
60 x 50 ft.
8A
400 x 10 ft.
November 14,
1980
2 acres
8B
December 16,
1980
60 x 50 ft.
SC
February
26, 1981
400 x 10 ft.
8D*
50 x 50 ft.
60 x 50 ft.
400 x
10 ft.
50 x 50 ft.
March 31,
1981
150 x
30
ft.
8E
April
28,
1981
150
X
30 ft.
8F*
200 x 30 ft.
May 29,
1981
100
x 300 ft.
8G
March 19,
1982
2 acres
9B
April
9,
1982
2 acres
9C
As already
discussed under Count
I ~
pg.
5),
on
September
3,
1981
disposal of baled refuse was observed,
which was
not a permitted
activity.
(Discussed further under
Co~int
XI,)
The inspector reported that an
employee of the
Respondent stated
that the bales
were being used to facilitate intermediate cover on
one of the site’s
slopes
(Ex. 8H*).
Nevertheless,
bales still
remained uncovered
according to the November 5,
1981, inspection
report
(Ex,
81),
and inadequately covered at a December 23,
1981
inspection, which
resulted in fallen refuse being exposed on the
surrounding ground
(Ex.
8J),
During the March
19,
1982 inspection,
the entire two acres
(listed
above) consisted of baled
refuse
with little or
no intermediate cover
(Ex. 9B).
Count III of the Amended
Complaint alleges that Respondent
failed to provide
final cover in violation of Rule 305(c),, which
provides
in pertinent
part that unless otherwise specifically
provided by permit,
the following final cover requirements shall
be applied..,
61-13
—8—
a compacted
layer
of not less than
two feet of suitable material.,,over
the entire surface of
each portion of
the final lift not later than 60 days
following the
placement
of refuse in
final lift,
East Moline’s Permit
No, 1971—36 contained no special conditions,
and
Supplementary Permit No,
76-95 provided at Condition
5 that
“all
finished areas of the
landfill shall be
covered with two
(2)
feet of cover material”,
the same requirement
set out in Rule
305(c).
The. Agency alleges that on
at least 16 occassions,
Respondent
failed
to apply two feet or more
of suitable cover on
the surface portions
of the final
lift within
sixty days following the final placement
of refuse
in that portion,
as required by permit and
Board regulations
(Amended Complaint,
Ex,
5),
On the following dates,
final cover deficiencies were noted
on the Agency inspection reports, because no cover had been
applied where required,
or
because the depth of
that applied
was inadequate, and in some instances, both deficiencies were
noted,
Date
Ex, No,
October 11,
1973
1A*
February 27, 1974
lB
March 20, 1974
2A*
April
11,
1974
1C*
June
25, 1974
2B*
July 24
&
25, 1974
ID
August
1,
1974
2C
September 13,
1974
2D
October 27, 1974
2E
January 28, 1975
2F
March 27, 1979
6F
June
15, 1979
6G*
Those photographs
accompanying the reports show
refuse uncovered
to the extent that there
appears to be
little,
if any, cover
supplied to satisfy the daily
and intermediate
cover requirements,,
let alone to satisfy the
requirement that two
feet cover the
closed portions of the final lift.
Many of the photographs
attached to other
inspection reports
appear to evidence
insufficient final cover,
For
example,
in one
photograph, attached to the
August 29,
1978,
report, barrels
surrounded by weeds and vegetative overgrowth are pictured;
in
another slopes shown have debris poking through the vegetative
growth
(Ex, 6A).
Similarily,
in the photographs
attached to the
February 14, March 25,
and June
25,
1980 reports,
refuse
is seen
atop the ground’s surface
and surrounded by
vegetative growth
(Ex,
5E*,
F*, J*),
However, final cover deficiencies are not
reported on the inspection
list for these days.
Therefore,
61-14
—9—
despite
the
vegetation appearing to be higher and more abundant
than sixty
days growth would
allow,
that fact cannot be assumed
or can it be assumed that areas depicted are closed portions of
the East
Moline Landfill requiring final cover.
However, the
same
pictures evidence lack of intermediate and daily cover
(which was discussed above), and that large areas of totally and
partially exposed refuse were prevalent at the East Moline Landfill
over the years.
Count IV of the
Amended Complaint alleges that Respondent
deposited refuse in places other than the toe of the fill in
violation of Rule 303(a)
of the Board regulations and Condition
1
of Permit No, 76—95,
Rule
303(a)
requires
that all
refuse be
deposited in either the toe
of the fill or into the bottom
of the
trench,
However, Condition
1
provided that all refuse
at the
East Moline Landfill be deposited
at the toe of the slope of
the
working face, and did not provide for trench disposal.
Trench
disposal is discussed under Counts IX and X (infra, pg.
13,
14).
On the following dates, the inspection reports and
the
photographs, where indicated, evidence that refuse was
deposited
in placed other than at the toe of the active fill area,
Date
Ex, No,
June 9,
1975
3A*
July 8, 1975
lOA
September 2,
1975
118
November
13, 1975
lOB
July 27,
1976
38
December
15,, 1976
3D*
October 17,1979
SA
November
15, 1979
58
January
8, 1980
SC*
February 14, 1980
SD
March
1.,
1980
5E*
April
21,
1980
511*
On the
first
reported instance,
the
inspectors observed
Respondent’s employees pushing refuse into a steep sloped
ravine,
In most of the other cases, the refuse was
deposited at
the
top
of the slope.
Apparently, the employees
were aware that
this was unpermitted activity for when
asked about
it during the
November 15, 1979 inspection, the foreman told the Agency
inspector
that a
ramp was being built
to allow access to the
toe of the
slope
(Ex,
SB),
However, on the next visit, January
8,
1980,
refuse was
again
observed dumped at the top of the slope
(Ex,
SC), and throughout that winter and spring.
Count
V of
the
Amended Complaint alleges that the
Respondent
failed to comply with Rule 303(b) of the Board’s regulations and
Condition
4
of Permit
No. 76—95, in that it failed to
spread and
compact refuse,
Rule
303(b)
provides in pertinent part:
61-15
—10—
,,,as rapid1y~.asrefuse is deposited
at the toe~ofthe fill,
all refuse shall
be spread and compacted in layers within
the cell, such layers not to exceed a
depth of two feet,
The Agency alleges that violation of this rule and Condition
4 of
the permit, which parallels the rule,
is also violation of
Rules
301
and 302, and Section
21 of the
Act, and that the Respondent
did so
at least ten times (Amended Complaint,
Ex,
7),
For the following dates,
the
Agency inspectors reported finding
that the refuse had not been spread and compacted.
Date
Ex.
No,
February 27,
1974
lB
June
9,
1975
3M
July
8,
1975
lOA*
June
1,
1977
llD
December
12, 1978
6D
January
8, 1980
SC
April
21,
1980
511
May 21, 1980
51
Count VI of the Amended Complaint alleges that on at least
seventeen occassions, Respondent violated Rule 306 which provides:
All litter shall be collected from
the sanitary landfill site by the end
of each working day and either placed
in the fill and compacted and covered
that day, or stored
in a covered container.
Containing identical language, Condition
6 of Respondent’s
Permit No. 76—95 required East Moline to control litter at the
landfill daily.
On the following dates, Agency inspectors
reported that the litter
was not being controlled at
the site,
and oftentimes blowing off—site
(e.g., Ex,
7D and bC),
Date
Ex, No.
October
Il, 1973
1A
February 27, 1974
lB
March 20, 1974
2A
March 26,
1975
2G
April
7,
1976
1OC
January
8, 1980
SC
March 11,
1980
SE
March 25,
1980
SF
April
21,
1980
511
June
25, 1980
SJ
December 16, 1980
8C
61-16
—11—
Date
Ex, No,
June
25,
1980
53
December 16,
1980
8C
February
26, 1980
8D
March
31,, 1981
7D,,8E
May 29, 1981
8G
December
23, 1981
8J
January 22,
1982
9A
March 19,
1982
9B
Over the period of these inspections,
the inspectors observed
litter caught in tall grass, in the area of an off—site intermittent
stream, along the roadway leading to the active fill area,
in the
wooded areas at the northern portion of the site and on the east
side
(Ex, 5C,
8E,,
9A).
On some occasions, the litter observed
was still uncollected and properly disposed of on subsequent
visits
(e.g., January
8,
March 11 and March 25,
April
21, 1980;
January 22 and March 19,
1982).
At the April
21,, 1980, inspec-
tion,
the Assistant Director admitted that the same litter had
been there
for over a month
(EX,
511),
On the August
7,, 1980
inspection report,
it was noted that the bitter fence at the
northern part of the site was missing
(Ex,
7A).
At the March
31,
1981
inspection, the Agency’s field officer reported that some
snow
fences had been erected, and
an employee
of the Respondent
stated
that more fences would be installed,
At hearing, the
Respondent testified that snow fences were purchased, but not
until sometime
in the fall
of 1981
(R.
416),
The inspection
reports
before and after that time indicate litter problems.
For
example, at the March 19,
1982 inspection, the Agency field
officers reported that “no apparent attempt to pick up the
litter,
as it was bleached and faded looking”
(Ex,
9B),
Count VII of the Amended Complaint alleges that Respondent
conducted the East Moline Landfill without adequate measures to
control
leachate in violation of Rule
314(e),
which provides,
among
other thing, that
no person shall
operate a landfill
without
such
controls,
The
Agency alleges that
on at least fourteen
occasions,
since July 24,
1974,,
Respondent
violated that
rule,,
and
thereby, violated Rule
301 and Section
21 of the Act (Amended
Complaint,
Ex,
9),
The Agency introduced inspection reports,
some with
photographs, indicating that
on the following
dates
uncontrolled Ieachate was observed:
Date
Ex. No.
July 24,
1974
1D
August
1, 1974
2C
June
9, 1975
3A
July 8,
1975
lOA
61-17
—12—
August 29,
1978
6A
March 27, 1979
6F
May
15, 1979
6G*
October 17,
1979
5A*
November 15,
1979
5B*
January
8, 1980
5C*
April
21,
1980
5H*
May 21, 1980
51*
June
25,
1980
53*
September
8,
1980
7C*
Twice the inspection reports documented that the leachate
formed streams which moved off-site~ The leachate reported
on
March 27,
1979 which the inspector wrote to be possibly “due
in
part to frost bleeding,
but the lack of proper cover probably
caused the major generation,” was reported to have grown to the
extent that it was flowing off-site onto adjacent farm land at
the May
15,
1979 inspection
(Exs,
6F, 6G).
The second incident
was reported on September 9,
1980, when the Agency inspector
reported finding leachate stains off-site at an intermittent
stream.
That report stated, based on the path marked by the
stains,
that the leachate had traveled from the southern most
point of the landfill’s active area
(Ex, 7C*),
Over the twelve
months just prior,
an Agency inspector had reported leachate
problems at and near the trenches at the southern boundary of the
landfill,
In fall of 1979, the leachate flow from trenches
(unpermitted at that time) towards the southern boundary grew in
length to as long as 100 yards
(EX,
5A*,
5B*),
In the winter,
the leachate’s movement was brought to a halt by the freezing
temperatures
(Ex.
5C).
The next spring, the leachate ponded
within the trenches, aggravating the erosion within and outside
of them, and facilitating the streams to flow from the trenches
towards the boundry (Ex,
511).
The leachate stains observed
off—site in September of 1980,
a year after the initial reports,
is likely to have originated from the trenches where the ponding
and erosions had been reportedly occurring.
Count VIII of the Amended Complaint alleged that the Respon-
dent had failed to provide adequate means to control vectors in
violation of Rule 314(f) of the Board’s regulations.
That rule
provides that no person shall cause or allow the operation of
sanitary landfill unless adequate meassures are taken to control
vectors, along with dust.
Violation of this rule,
triggers
violation of Rule
301 and Section
21 of the Act,
On the following dates, the inspectors reported heavy
populations of flies at the site; dogs feeding at the site;
flocks of birds scavenging;
or combination of the same,
Date
Ex.No,
August
1,
1974
2C
July 8,
1975
bOA
November 15,
1979
5B
61-18
—13—
January
8,
1980
5G
May 21, 1980
51
June
25,
1980
53
August
7, 1980
7A
August 12,
1980
7B
December
16, 1980
8C
March
9, 1982
9B
April
28,
1982
bIG
The problem with vectors
is, of course, related to the
lack
of adequate cover at the site.
If adequate daily and intermediate
cover were provided, the problem should be minimal,
Yet,
at the
November 15, 1979,
inspection, Respondent’s foreman admitted that
the 1andfill~soperations were hampered by the presence of a
pack
of wild dogs.
The inspection report for that date and those
in
the months immediately following found the daily and intermediate
cover provided to be inadequate, and incidences of blowing
litter,
and garbage dumped at the gate
(Ex,
5C,
5D,
5D,
5F,
511,
51,
53).
At hearing,
the Respondent queried two inspectors about when they
would report flies a problem,
One stated that when it constituted
a “heavy” fly population, when there was a gross number, and
the
other stated that a violation would be marked when they interfered
with writing or talking
(R,
263,
288,
294).
Count IX of the Amended Complaint alleges that Respondent
disposed of sewage treatment sludge in violation of Permit No.
74—46, which provided
in pertinent part “disposal
of
a digested
sludge shall include mixing with general refuse and prompt compact-
ing and covering of said refuse,”
Count X of the Amended Complaint
alleges that in constructing the trenches to deposit the sludge,
Respondent violated Rule 210,
That rule prohibits modification
of any solid waste management site, or acceptance of any type of
waste except as provided by permits.
It further provides that
existing permits can be modified by supplemental permits to
allow
said modified activities.
East Moline’s initial operating permit required Respondent
to
modify
its permit by notifying the Agency before disposing
of
sewage treatment sludge.
It was twice modified to provide
for
sludge disposal.
The first supplemental permit, issued on April
8,
1974,
allowed East Moline to accept such sludge if it disposed
of
it by mixing
it with general refuse.
The second modification
consisted of a series of three experimental permits, each allowing
East
Moline to dig trenches and dispose of sewage treatment
sludge in them.
Both Counts IX and X allege that the trench
digging and disposal of sludge in the trenches was observed
at
least twenty times,
beginning on October
12,
1978, through Decem-
ber 16,
1980, the period of time when the first supplemental
permit, No, 74—46 was in effect and prior to the series
of experi-
mental permit being issued (Amended Complaint, Ex,
10).
On the following
dates, the inspection reports and photographs
depict sludge being dumped
into
open
trenches:
81-19
—14—
October
12, 1978
6B
December
12, 1978
6D*
January 31, 1979
6C
February
22, 1979
6E
March
27, 1979
6F
May
15,
1979
6G*
October
17, 1979
5A*
November 15, 1979
5B*
Jan.uary
8,
1980
5C
February 14,
1980
5D
March Il, 1980
5E
March 25, 1980
5F*
April
21, 1980
511*
May
21, 1980
51*
June
25, 1980
5J*
July 24, 1980
5K
~ugust 12,
1980
7B
September 9,
1980
7C
September 26,
1980
8A
November 14, 1980
8B
December
16, 1980
8C
Trench disposal of the sewage treatment sludge took place
primarily at the northern end of the East Moline Landfill, ac-
cording to the sketches attached to the inspection reports.
As
indicated by the above dates,
it took place all year round,
with
new trenches continually being dug.
When the ground was frozen,
the sludge was deposited on the ground
(Ex.
5C),
and during
warmer weather,
it was sitting in standing water
in the trenches
(Ex.
511,
5J).
In three
instances,
it was observed to be uncovered,
dried, cracked,
and erosion to be occurring
(Ex. SE,
53,
8A). At
the February 14, 1980 inspection where the inspector noted that
the trenches remained opened with sewage treatment sludge
lying
exposed
(Ex,
5D).
It was at this inspection the Director of
public Services told the inspector that this was done to allow
the sludge to dry out
~
pg,
5),
On March Ii, 1980, the
sludge was still being dumped into trenches
(EX,
SE),
At the
September
9,
1980, the inspector observed new trenches containing
standing water, and a truck dumping sludge into the standing water
(Ex.
7C).
In addition to the statements made at the February
14,,
1980
inspection, the Director of Public Services thrice acknowledged,
by letter, that East Moline was not handling the sewage sludge
in
accordance with Permit No,
74—46
(Ex.
15G,
1511,
151).
The rationale
was that more sludge was being produced than anticipated and the
volume of refuse was less than anticipated.
The result
was
that
the sludge leaked out,
The problem involved is more than a permit violation,
By
leaving the trenches uncovered, rain water, snow and other
elements
in combination with the sludge aggravate leachate and erosion
61~20
—15—
problems.
Open dumping and open trenches of sludge also aggravate
vector problems,
The purpose of the permit is to condition the
activity so as to minimize or eliminate these problems,
Count XI of the Amended Complaint alleges that Rule
210 was
violated because East Moline was never permitted to accept
baled
refuse.
The following dates and inspection reports document
this
activity and the resulting problems.
Ex, No.
July 31,
1981
7E*
September
3,
1981
811*
November
5, 1981
81
December 23,1981
83
January
22, 1982
9A
March
9,
1982
9B
April
9,
1982
9C
April
28,
1982
llG*
As already discussed under Counts
I and II, during this time
period,
this activity was extensive,
The rows of baled refuse
were as long as two hundred yards,
as high as six bales stacked
(Ex,
9C, lIG),
At one point, one—third of the East Moline
Land-
fill area surrounded by the access road was covered with baled
refuse
(Ex, 9C, 9D),
Stacked as they were, and uncovered, the
bales collapsed and broke apart, allowing loose refuse to fall to
the ground
(Ex, 8J).
This,
of course, would contribute to the
vector and litter problems.
Respondent offered no testimony or evidence denying the
violations alleged in the Amended Complaint.
Rather, Respondent’s
two witnesses and exhibits were presented for the purpose of
mitigation.
The first witness,
the Assistant Director of
Public
Services for the Respondent since 1979 testified that in 1981 a
snow fence was purchased at the cost of $1,060 and erected,
that
during 1981 and 1982,
litter was collected weekly, and that a
truck maintained the access road
(R,
416, 424—425).
The
witness
also stated that he visited the East Moline Landfill at least
once a week over the preceding year,
and offered further
that he
did not “think any site is ever one hundred percent in total
compliance”
(R.
427).
Respondent’s second witness was the Director of Public
Services for the preceding thirteen years
(R. 43O~. The
Director
described the landfill to be in a rural
area surrounded
by farms,
another landfill, and woods,
He testified that it accepts
on the
average one hundred cubic yards of garbage per day, four days a
week, and usually has two active areas,
He admitted
that the East
Moline Landfill had
accepted
baled refuse,
and attempted
to get
a
permit
to do the
same.
It stopped taking
baled refuse when it
did
not get “a definite commitment from the EPA”
(R,
438,,
463).
The Director described the landfill’s leachate
control program to
—16—
consist of identifying the source, redirecting the drainage water
so that it comes out at the surface, and covering the area to
stop the flow
(R.
439).
As for controlling vectors,
the Director
did not believe there was a problem, especially since the
landfill
is in a rural
area near the river,
To control litter,
the Director briefly described the collection program detailed by
the Assistant Director,
The Director admitted that the sludge accepted from the
East
Moline water treatment plant was generated from sewage received
from East Moline,
Silvis and Carbon Cliff
(R.
458—459,
Resp.
Ex,
4),
He authored the letters explaining to the Agency that the
volume of sludge per day, fifty cubic yards, was greater than
anticipated and that the average volume of refuse, one hundred
cubic yards per day, was insufficient to mix
it with
(R.
463—464,
Resp.
Ex.
5).
He had considered the option of disposing the
sludge at another landfill, but did not do so
(R.
464—465),
He
also admitted that “since day one” the landfill has used the top
of the fill on wet weather days, while he was aware that the
solid waste regulations require that it be deposited at the toe
of the active fill area
(R,
459—460).
As for daily cover, the Director stated that the purpose of
daily cover is “questionable” and it
is applied because the
regulations require it
(R. 461).
As for the baled refuse, he
acknowledged that despite their size, six by six feet,
they
could
have been covered had it been determined necessary,
It was his
understanding that cover is not required by the regulations
because of information obtained about Madison, Wisconsin,
and “a
place in the Wyoming”
(R.
467—468,
470).
In general,
the violations alleged in the Amended Complaint
can be divided into two categories.
Counts
I through V and IX
through XI pertain to the proper operation of a sanitary
landfill,
(e.g., cover, compaction, trench disposal) while Counts
VI through VII are the results of an improperly operated landfill
(e.g.,
leachate), besides being violations
in and of themselves
if not controlled,
The Agency inspection records for sixty—two
inspections over a period of nine years demonstrate continued
violations by the Respondent of the regulations pertaining to
proper operation,
failure to control the resulting problems, and
continued violation of Respondent’s permits.
The exhibits
include not only the routine inspection reports,
which Respondent
received copies of,
but also written descriptions, photographs,
and sketches over the nine years.
The violations reported were
submitted by fourteen inspectors, who repeatedly recorded the
same violations from visit to visit and little or no progress.
Counts
I,
II and Ill address the cover required at
landfills —daily, intermediate and final
—
so that the operations
do not constitute open dumping, and to minimize or eliminate
environmental problems.
There
is no definition in the
Act or
Board regulations of what constitutes open dumping.
It is
obvious, however, that
if waste is accepted and not adequately
61-22
—17—
covered at a landfill, the refuse will be exposed, that is,
openly dumped.
As discussed above, on numerous inspections, East Moline
failed to provide daily cover at active areas of the fill,
intermediate cover where the area had been inactive for sixty
days,
and of final cover when the area was closed.
Oftentimes,
it appeared that no cover had been applied at inactive areas, let
alone the six inches required daily, or the twelve inches
required under the daily and intermediate rules, combined,
Violation of these requirements, either individually or in
combination, resulted
in the East Moline Landfill being an
area,,
which at its worst, with exposed tires, timber, drums, baled
refuse, sludge
(in and out of open trenches), and assorted
garbage strewn about,
At its best,
inadequate cover resulted
in
the same poking through the ground surface creating leachate and
erosion problems,
Under Counts IV and V,
it was evidenced that refuse was
not
compacted or deposited at the toe of the active area of the fill
but just dumped where convenient,
This was not just the case
in
inclement weather.
If the active area of the fill
is expanded
by
random dumping and the refuse
is not compacted or is compacted
in
depths deeper than two feet,
it follows that it is difficult
to
properly cover.
The purpose of those two regulatory and permit
requirements
is to facilitate proper cover at the landfill, while
the three cover requirements are intended to prevent
environmental problems, such as leachate, vectors,
litter and
erosion,
Under Counts IX,
X and XI, the Agency proved that Respondent
engaged in two unpermitted disposal activities.
Respondent
accepted sewage treatment sludge generated from its waste
water
treatment plant which serviced East Moline and two other
munic-
ipalities.
As of 1974, this activity was permitted.
However,
instead of mixing the sludge with other refuse received and
covering the same,
as required by permit, Respondent dug
trenches
and disposed of the sludge in them, and finally, did not
cover
the trenches,
Respondent admitted to this form of operation,
The open trenches suffered erosion because the liquid sludge
and
trench walls were exposed to nature’s elements, such as rain,
heat,
and cold.
The open trenches also contributed to leachate
and vector problems.
During an overlapping period of time, Respondent also
accepted baled refuse which was not a permitted activity.
No
permit for this type of disposal was ever received.
The bales
were deposited at inactive and active areas of the fill,
The
Agency’s inspection reports and accompanying photographs
evidence
that the number of bales received and not covered were
extensive,
They broke apart, contributing to the vector and litter
problem
at the site,
61-23
—18—
Cunts VI, VII, and VIII charge that the site was plagued by
litter, vectors, nnd
leachate,
The weekly litter collection
program initiated in 1981 was not sufficient since large
amounts
of paper and o~1erdebris were observed stuck in the surrounding
woods and grass.
The presence of flies,
wild dogs,
and birds
feeding off the exposed garbage again evidence lack of sufficient
cover,
The evidence of leachate on and off—site, likewise
indicate that there was insufficient cover over the refuse and
degradation of the trenches,
One means to control all
three
problems would have been to comply with the three cover require-
ments
Respondent seems to attribute violations of the cover
requirements
tc
inclement weather.
However,
as one Agency
inspector test
:jed, these can be avoided if a program
antic’pating t
same is provided.
Such a plan would include
having al~ernawe disposal areas within the site near the
entrance~sto~kp~ling
cover close to the active fill
face, or
sa~n~the Iio~at ground for wet weather operations,
For
cold
or f~c’ezirgw6ather conditions,
stockpiled cover can be provided,
sO
tha~tae mactrnery can dig into
it,
Again, continuing
compliance wit~the cover requirements should alleviate the
leac~afe~vector,
and litter violations,
To control litter,
maintaining
fewer active areas and positioning them leeward,
can
minimLri~
~-h~
b~vingof litter (R~ 35l—355)~
One procedural
issue is outstanding.
The Agency argues
that
Respo~dent’aExh~o~t
No,
48 was improperly admitted into evidence
over its
bjections of attorney—client privilege, hearsay, and
relevancy
Reap ndent’s Exhibit No,
48 is a handwritten copy of
a mer
andu
‘r~etweenan Agency attorrey and the Manager of Solid
Wa~teDerwt Uiit,
The copy was made by an employee of
Respordent’s who did not appear at hearing.
The Resondent
argues
that the attorney—client privilege was waived because
Respondent’~employees viewed the document in question at the
Agency, before this action was filed;
that the hearsay exclusion
is inapplicable because the author was an agent of the
Complainant; and that the memorandum is relevant to the issue
of
a penalty
CR
319—323;
417—423).
The hearing officer ruled
that
the attorney-client privilege was waived,
and that the document
was n~texcluded as hearsay, and that it was relevant
CR.
323;
420, 421)
The Board affirms the hearing officer’s decision that
attorney—client privilege was waived, but reverses the hearing
officer’s rulings on hearsay and relevancy.
Neither the author
nor the copier was available for cross—examination
regarding the
memorandum.
Even if the truth of the matter
is not Respondent’s
purpore in entering the document,
it is irrelevant.
The subject
matter of the memorandum was Section
39 of the Act which
delineates the Agency’s duties and obligations in issuing
permits.
There is no question that the Agency issued
supplementary and experimental permits to Respondent during
the
period of violations,
Parenthetically, the Board notes
that even
61-24
—19—
were it to rule the other way on the aforementioned procedural
issue,
the record in this case clearly indicates that numerous
violations occurred which would justify a substantial penalty
as
an aid
in the enforcement of the Act,
The
Board
finds
that the Respondent, East Moline, operated
its
fifty
acre
landfill
in
such a
manner
as
to cause the repeated
violations
of
the
Act,
Board regulations, and its operating
permits
described
above on at least those given dates,
These
violations
have
been
repetitive and persistent despite the
numerous
inspections
and accompanying reports
of
violations.
In
each
instance,
except
for the inspections made under the Open
Dump
Inventory
Program
(Ex. 7A—7E),
the
inspection
sheets
identifying
the
violations was
left
with
Respondent’s
personnel
if
they
were
on-site.
Beginning
in
1973
through
1981,
thirty—six
letters
were
sent
to
the Respondent, identifying
the
problems
and
violations
at
the
site
(Ex.
l2A—l2Q,
4A—4G,
l3A—l3L),
Even
the
testimony
and
exhibits
proffered
by
the
Respondent demonstrate
that
East
Moline
was
aware
of
the
violations
(Resp,
Ex,
4,
5,
15,
21,
31,
40,
42).
The
Director
of
Public
Services
testified that
he
knew
the
regulations, but refused
to
acknowledge
the
problems
and
the
need
to
comply
with
regulations
(H,
440,
460—463).
Pursuant to Section 41 and
33 of the Act, the Board is
authorized to assess a penalty for violations of the Act, Board
regulation or permit, or condition thereof, to revoke a permit as
a penalty for violation, and to include a cease and desist
order.
In
so
doing
the
Board
is
statutorily
required
to
take
into
con-
sideration
gall
the
facts
and
circumstances
bearing
upon
the
reasonableness
of
the
emissions,
discharges,
or
deposits
invo1ved...~ The Act also delineates four criteria for the
Board
to consider.
Respondent likewise reminds the Board of its
obligation to consider these criteria in assessing
a penalty.
Respondent argues that no penalty is justified after the
factors delineated in Section
33(c) of the Act are taken into
account,
First, the Respondent argues that
(I)
there was
no
evidence of any injury or interference with public health and
no
citizen complaints about the landfill;
(2) the site has
a bene-
ficial
social and economic value in its role as the place wherein
refuse and garbage from city residents and sludge from the
municipal sewer plant are conveniently and properly disposed of:
(3)
the site is perfectly situated in a rural area about 1/2
mile
off a county road, having its own entrance road,
surrounded on
two sides by woods and on the other sides by another privately
owned landfill and a farm field;
and
(4) there are no emissions,
discharges, or deposits emanating from the site
(H,
422—435),
As for the first criteria
—
injury or interference with
public health, welfare and property
—
Respondent argues that
there was
rio evidence of injury because there were no citizen
complaints or problems caused to neighboring lands
(Reply
Brief,,
pg.
12),
There is, however, uncontroverted evidence of
uncovered
refuse, uncontrolled leachate on and off the landfill site,
open
—20—
and unper’aitted
cor’structed
sludge
trenches,
open
dumping
at
the
gates
of
the
landfill
and
inside
the
site,
and
inadequate
control
of litter and vectors
over a period
of nine years.
While the
landftU
is
sonewhat
isolated,
the
improper
operations
evidenced
are
violations
of
the
Act,
regulations, ard East Moline’s
permits
resustic~gin a misuse of the land.
As stated in section 20 of
the
At,
the purj.ose of Title V is to prevent pollution.
The
statutory means for acccmplishing that are the Board’s
reauiations which designate the proper
methods
for landfilling so
ac
to
prevent
pollution,
and
the
permitting
system
which
further
deltncates
the
proper
methods
to
operate
the
particular
landfill
tax
mitted.
For
a
period
of
nine
years,
Respondent
has
repeatedly
~-~olatedJis terms of its permits, the Board’s regulations,
and
the Act
thereby causing environmental harm and thwarting one of
the
‘rpo~es
of the
Act,
that is to prevent pollution.
The
ev5dence
shows
ti at leachate did travel off—site; that the flies,
birds
‘nd drgs cttracted to breed and feed at the site due to
.he
Xe cad
ir
-e.
and the sludge, do leave the site and threaten
t
c-
‘
n
set e
and
that the litter did blow or was carried by
1 v;
--
.°
o
1-
t~
Furthermore, the sloppy
operations
at
the
East
I
)..
r
e
L rdfi..
s
resulted in environmental harm not only
dunno
4ic
perioc of violations, but also increase the inherent
envi
~nme
ce
cangers posed by landfills
includ,ng sanitary
lanc
ia
c~pec..allyto the
waterc
of
the
state,
in
the
years
to
cone.
L.sonde t next argues that the East Moline Landfill has
5~
.91.
a)(
eco
~ic
value
because
it
serves
the
residents
of
East
~rl1;e
ar.
‘.co
snaller
communities.
While
that
is
true,
the
pucucre of
a
landfill
and
its
operation
are
reaailv
distin—
-
e
-
onwunity must
dispose
of
its
garbage.
That
is
t
say
Ut
pLace
of
disposal
can
be
operated
it.
such
a
manner
as
to
constitute
an
open
dump
much
of
the
time,
create
health
hazaris,
an3
be
a
source
of
potential
pollution
to
groundwater,
nearby
antar~isttent streams,
and
neighboring
lands.
The
social
need
for
a
landfill
does
not
overide
the
violations
evidenced
at
this
site
Witle
the
Board
does
not
dispute
that
a
landfill
servcs
i
social
and
economic
good,
a
properly
operated
landfill
better
sarves
the
public’s
need.
s
t.te
third
criteria,
Respondent
argues
that
the
landfill
‘is p2rfectly situated
•
However,
just
because
a
landfill
is
in
a
rural
oettirg
does
not
mean that
garbage
dumped
on
the
access
road,
aittor blown into the surrounding woods and grass, flies
and scavengirg btrds, cats and
dogs, leachate
on
site
and
n±gratingto nearby property, heaped
and
baled refuse, and
open
thaposai. of sewage sludge can be tolerated.
Furthermore,
siting
s.s not the issue,
proper
operation of the potential and actual
source of pollution is.
As to the fourth criteria
—
the technical practicality
and
economic reasonableness of reducing or eliminating the pollution
from the source
—
Respondent argues that there are no emissions,
discharges
or deposits emanating from the site.
Respondent adds
that it bas erected snow fencing to control litter, has used
6126
—21—
prisoners
on
work
release
programs
to
police
the
area,
albeit
intermittently,
oiled
the
roads
to
control
dust,
and
attempted
to
apply
sufficient
covers
Throughout
the
hearing and
in
its
Reply
Brief, Respondent implied that
wet
or
cold weather precluded
it
from
applying
sufficient
cover to
the
refuse
received~
However,
as
already
discussed,
landfills
can
and
do
prepare
in
advance to
insure proper operation during inclement weather (supra,
pg.
18).
None of these methods,
such as stockpiling cover or reserving
high land for wet and cold weather, necessitate expenditures
beyond those normally required in operating a landfill.
All were
within Respondent~smeans during the period of violations
as
evidenced by the Agency inspectors’
observations of
improvement,
although these were infrequent and fleeting
(Ex,
5D,
5?,
SF, 8G).
The repeated promises to improve, the constant
disregard for
permit conditions,
continued operation without proper permits
and
plans, demonstrated that the operator, the City of East
Molines
lacked commitment to comply absent an enforcement action~
For
those reasons, the Board will invoke its authority granted
under
Section
33
and 42 of the Act as follows:
Respondent’s
operating
permit insofar as it allows East Moline to accept waste is
revoked.
Since the correspondence exchanged and the inspections
conducted by fourteen inspectors over the nine years did not
prompt the City of East Moline, which had the same Director
of
Public Services over the period of violations, to operate its
landfill in any .manner close to full compliance,
it is
apparent that a different and professional management system
is
heeded.
To facilitate this transition and avoid shutting
down
the site, the revocation will not be effective until May
8,
1985.
During this period, the City of East Moline is ordered to
immediately cease and desist from violations of the Act, Board
Regulations, and condition of its permits~
To insure that it
does
so, the Respondent is ordered to submit a operating
plan
which anticipates wet and freezing weather, provides
control
plans for litter,
vectors, and leachate and provides for daily,
intermediate, and final cover
at those inactive areas of
the site
not yet in compliance and, as needed in the future,
at
the active
areas of the East Moline Landfill,
The Agency requested a penalty of $200,000 which the
Board
believes unnecessarily high for purposes of deterrence,
since the
Board
is acting to revoke the Respondent~soperating permit.
Nevertheless, the Board agrees with the Agency~s~undamenta1
premise that the conduct of the Respondent over the
last
decade
is unacceptable and cannot be excused and that the improper
operations at the site have caused and may have resulted
in an
increased threat of water pollution.
Furthermore, the
record
indicates that
aside
from
the
normal personnel costs for
operating a landfill, and necessary costs for machinery,
Respondent’s expenditures have hardly been out of the
ordinary.
On the face of
it, the Respondent has saved money by
its
ineffectual and inefficient operation of the landfill,
Having
found that the Respondent, the City of East Moline, has
violated
Rule 210,
302,
303(a),
303(b),
305(a),
305(b),
305(c),
306,
R1~27
e22a
314(a) and 3s4(f
of the Board’s Regulecions and Section 21 of
the Act, and afar considering the criteria set out at Section
33(c) of the
kct
the ~espondentis ordered to
pay
a penalty
of
$30,000 to aid an the enforcement of the
Act.
This Opirion coDstitutes the Beard’s findings of fact and
conclusions of 1a
in this matter.
ORDER
ft is the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board
a.
I.eI
~isa
1.
The Res~tndent, the Cit1
~.,
Zast tioline,
has violated
Rules 210, 301, 302, 303 a,
303(b), 305(a), 305(b),
3J5(c)
306, 314(a) and 314(f) of chapter 7:
Solid
Wt’a Regulations and
Secf
for
21 of the I’linois
)
-
wtertal Protection
ict.
2.
!I~eat.cpondent’s operatana
permit
insofar as it allows
the Reopondent to accept waste is revoked, effective as
3~
1985.
S
•
tt.e Eesponaent shall
am. ed’ately :ease
arid
desist from
further violations.
4.
Witlin
45
days
of
the
date
of
this
Order,
the
tcespondent
shall,
by
certified
check
or
money
order
payable
to
the
State
of
Illinois,
pay
a
penalty
of
$30
0
0
which
is
to
be
sent
to.
Illinois
Enva.ronmental
Protection
Agency
Fiscal
Services
Division
2200
churchill
Road
Springfield,
IL
62706
5
Within
45
days
of
the
date
of
this
Order,
the
Respondent
shall
submit
to
the
Agency
a
plan
for
enacting
remedial
measures
to
eliminate
the
recurrence
of
past problems
This plan shall include, but shall
not
as
limited
to
a
prognr.
to
prepare
for
wet
weather
by
having
the
Respondent
provide
alternate
disposal
areas
-
itha.n
the
site
nearer
to
the
entrance,
or
stockpiling
cover
close
to
the
operating
fill
face,
or
saving
the
highest
ground
of
the
land
fill
for
wet
weather
operations.
Similarly,
the
Respondent
shall
de~e
top
a
program
to
stockpile
cover
so
that
machinery
can
dig
into
it
during
freezing
conditions.
Additionally,
the
Respondent
shall
develop
a
plan
to
control
litter
by
using
several
active
areas
in
a
leeward
position
from
the
prevailing
winds
so
as
to
cut
down
on
the
wind’s
force
and
to
minimize
the
blowing
of
litter
81-23
IT
IS
SO ORDERED~
Chairman
J~ D,
Dumelle
dissents~
I,
Dorothy
M,
Gunn,
Clerk
of
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
hereby certify
that
the
above
Opinion
and
Order
was
adopted
on
the
~
day
of
_____
1984
by
a
vote
of
Illinois Pollution
Control Board
R1~29
