ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
September
15,
1982
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
)
AGENCY,
Complainant,
)
v.
)
PCB 81—180
)
EVERETT ALLEN,
d/b/a/
ALLEN DISPOSAL SERVICE,
)
)
Respondent.
MRS.
GWENDOLYN W. KLINGLER, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED
ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT.
MR. EVERETT ALLEN APPEARED PRO SE.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by
I.
G.
Goodman):
This matter is before the Board upon a complaint filed
November
10,
1981 by the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency (Agency)
alleging that Everett Allen, d/b/a/ Allen Disposal
Service,
(Allen)
is
in violation of certain Board rules and regula-
tions,
Chapter 7:
Solid Waste Rules and Regulations
(Chapter 7)
and certain sections of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act
(Act) with regard to the operation of a refuse disposal operation
and solid waste management sites located in Jackson County,
Illinois.
Hearing was held in this matter on March 26,
1982
at which a proposed Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement
(Stipulation) was filed with the Board.
Two citizens testified
at the hearing; the Board has received no other public comment.
The proposed Stipulation recites the pertinent facts of this
case
as follows.
Allen owns two parcels of land located near
DeSoto,
Illinois
in Jackson County at which he operates a refuse
disposal operation and solid waste management sites (hereinafter
Allen No.
1 and Allen No.
2).
Allen No.
1 has the following legal
description:
East 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 and
East 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of
Section
7,
Township
8 South,
Range
1 West,
Jackson County,
Illinois.
Allen No.
2 has the following legal description:
Northeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 and South
1/2 of the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 7, Township 8 South, Range
1 West,
Jackson County,
Illinois.
48-147
2
Allen has operated a solid waste management site at both
Allen No.
1 and Allen No.
2 since November,
1979 pursuant to
two individual Agency operating permits.
After sorting out the
various statements
in the Stipulation concerning the law and the
facts of this case,
the Board comes to the conclusion that the
following violations are alleged and admitted: Allen No.
1,
violation of Rule 305(a) of Chapter
7,
daily cover.
Allen No.
2,
Rule
302, supply of cover material; Rule 303(b),
spreading and
cover operation;
Rule 310(b), liquid waste disposal; Rule 314(f),
dust and vectors,
Allen No,
1 and Allen No.
2,
Sections 21(a)
and 21(e)
of the Act and Rule 301, general violations of the Act
and the Rules; Rule 305(b),
intermediate cover,
Some of the fore-
going are redundant but not fatal to the Stipulation.
Allen alleges that he has retained an engineering
firm to per-
form the water quality analyses for both of his landfill sites and
that these tests were being performed and submitted to the Agency.
The Proposal for Settlement filed pursuant to Procedural Rule 331
recites a series of actions to be taken by Allen in order to bring
Allen No.
1 and Allen No,
2 into compliance with the Board~srules
and regulations,
These actions include submission of water moni-
toring reports to the Agency, maintenance of one week~ssupply of
cover for use on the active area,
immediate spreading and compac-
tion of refuse at the toe of the fill,
six inches of daily cover
on all exposed refuse on active
lifts, at least 12 inches of
intermediate cover on all surfaces of the landfills where no
additional refuse will be deposited within 60 days,
refusal of
liquid wastes unless permitted,
institution of measures adequate
to control dust and vectors, certain operating equipment and
manpower agreements, and the payment of a $3,000 penalty to aid
in the enforcement of the Act,
Of the two citizen witnesses,
both appeared to have their problems cured by the proposed
Settlement and promised cooperation by Allen and others.
The Board finds the proposed Stipulation to be a reasonable
resolution of this matter.
The compliance plan included in the
Stipulation should correct the violations found and suitably pro-
tect the environment in the future,
The Board shall therefore
accept the proposed Stipulation as presented at the March 26,
1982
hearing.
This
is the second time that Allen has been before this Board.
Consequently, the Board notes that there have been a number of
cases recently in which a Respondent with a record of prior vio-
lations has entered into a Stipulated Settlement with the Agency.
This situation raises the question of whether or not the stipulated
settlement practice is functioning to further the intent of the
Act, particularly where the Respondent has a record of past
violations,
This Opinion constitutes a finding of facts and conclusions
of law of the Board in this matter.
48-148
3
ORDER
1.
Everett Allen is found in violation of Sections 21(a) and
21(e)
of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act and
Rules
301,
302,
303(b), 305(a) and
(b),
310(b) and 314(f)
of Chapter
7:
Solid Waste.
2.
Everett Allen shall execute the terms of the compliance plan
contained in paragraphs
2 through
9 on pages
10 and 11 of the
Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement filed March 26,
1982,
which Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement is hereby
incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
3.
Everett Allen shall pay a penalty of $3,000 for the violations
found in Order
1 above to be sent to:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Fiscal Services
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield,
IL
62702
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
I,
Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order
was adopte,~on the /~‘
day of
~
,
1982 by a
vote of
.S-ô
Christan L. Mof~Ø~4Clerk
Illinois Polluti6n Control Board
48-149