ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
July 21,
1982
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
)
AGENCY,
Complainant,
v.
)
PCB 80—232 and
PCB 80-233
(Consolidated)
WASTEX RESEARCH,
INC..,
an Illinois Corporation,
JACK CHASE, and ROY BAUR,
JR..,
)
d/b/a/ BAUR TRUCKING,
Respondents.
CHRISTINE ZEMAN, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON
BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT..
THOMAS
J.
IMMEL, ATTORNEY AT LAW, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF
RESPONDENT WASTEX RESEARCH,
INC..
JACK CHASE APPEARED PRO
SE..
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(By
N.E.. Werner):
This matter comes before the Board on the December 23,
1980
Complaints
in PCB 80-232 and P03 80-233 brought by the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency (“Agency~)against Respondents
Wastex Research,
Inc..
(‘4’Wastex”),
Jack Chase
(“Chase”)
and Roy
Baur,
Jr.., d/b/a Baur Trucking
(~Baur”)..
On May 8,
1981, the
Agency filed a Notion to Amend the Complaint and an Amended
Complaint in both cases..
On May
12,
1981,
the Hearing Officer
entered orders granting the
Agency
leave to amend both Complaints.
On February 19,
1982, the Agency filed a motion to consolidate
PCB 80—232 and P03 80—233,
On March
4,
1982,
the Board entered
an Order which consolidated these two enforcement actions.
On
March 29,
1982, a hearing was held.
On April
6,
1982, two separate
Stipulations between Baur
and the Agency
were filed pertaining to
PCB 80—232 and PCB 80—233..
Similarly, on April
6,
1982, two
separate Stipulations between Chase and the Agency were filed.
On May 7,
1982,
two separate Stipulations between Wastex and the
Agency were
filed relating to PCB 80—232 and PCB 80—233.
Thus,
there are a total of
six
separate Stipulations involved in this
proceeding.
For convenience, the Stipulations involving Baur
will be referred to as
“I3aur Stip.#232” and “Baur Stip.#233”;
the Stipulations between Chase and the Agency will be called
“Chase Stip.#232” and Chase Stip.#233”;
and the Stipulations
concerning Wastex will he designated “Wastex Stip..#232” and
“Wastex Stip. #233.”
47-373
—2—
Wastex Research, Inc. operated facilities at 301 S.
15th
Street (“15th Street facility”) and at 2000
E. Broadway (“Broadway
Facility”)
in East St. Louis,
St. Clair County,
Illinois for the
storage and occasional recycling of wastes.
The 15th Street
facility, which is now closed,
was in operation during the time
periods relevant to the Amended Complaints.
Mr. Jack Chase owned Wastex from its incorporation on
October
3,
1979 until its sale on March
1,
1981 to Mr. James
Markel
(who took over possession and management of Wastex).
From October 3,
1979 until at least December 31,
1980, Chase
was employed as business manager of Wastex; determined which
waste products would be accepted by Wastex and what would be
done with them;
and although not a corporate officer,
“held
himself out as Wastex Research,
Inc. and acted on behalf of and
within the scope of his employment” for the firm.
(Chase Stip.
#233, p.2—3).
As business manager of Wastex,
Chase had opera-
tional responsibility for both the 15th Street facility and the
Broadway facility.
Mr. Roy Baur,
Jr., d/b/a Baur Trucking
(and occasionally
d/b/a Baur Equipment), owns and operates a hauling firm which is
based
in Cahokia,
St. Clair County,
Illinois.
Count
I of the Amended Complaint in PCB 80—232 alleged that,
sometime between October
3,
1979 and January
1,
1980, Wastex and
Chase delivered, at the 15th Street facility, between 200 to 300
drums containing a heavy sludge waste product
(i.e., a moderately
toxic hazardous chemical waste known as “Kolene”)
to Baur for
disposal
at a
1 acre open dump site in Clinton County, Illinois
about 1½ miles east of Germantown,
just south of Route 161
(i.e.,
on property owned by Mr. Ebbie Colston).
Baur allegedly transported
the drums of sludge to the Colston open dump site and buried the
drums on that property.
By disposing of refuse at an unpermitted
site and thereby conducting refuse disposal operations without a
permit, Baur allegedly violated Sections 21(e) and 21(f) of the
Illinois Environmental
Protection
Act (“Act”).
Similarly, Wastex,
chase, and Baur allegedly caused or allowed the use or operation
of a solid waste management site without an Agency permit in
violation of Rule 202(a) of Chapter 7:
Solid Waste Regulations
(“Chapter 7”) and allowed open dumping of refuse in violation of
Section 21(b) of the Act.
On August
7,
1980, at the suggestion
of the Agency, Wastex and Chase excavated the Kolene drums from
the dump site and transported the sludge drums to the Broadway
facility where they are now stored.
Count II alleged that, because none of the Respondents had
ever been issued a permit by the Agency authorizing acceptance of
hazardous wastes,
liquid wastes, or sludges at the open dump site,
Wastex, Chase, and Baur allowed the operation of a sanitary landfill
which
fails to meet each requirement of Part III of Chapter
7 and
allowed the open dumping of refuse other than garbage at the open
dump site in violation of Rule 301 of Chapter
7 and Section 21(b)
of the Act.
Additionally, Baur allegedly accepted sludge for its
disposal
at the open dump site without a supplemental permit from
the Agency in violation of Rule 310(b) of Chapter
7.
47*374
—3—
Count III alleged that Wastex and Chase violated Rules
301,
302(B), 501(A) and 501(B) of Chapter
9:
Special Waste Hauling
Regulations
(“Chapter 9”) by delivering a special waste, unaccom-
panied by the necessary manifest,
to unlicensed hauler Baur without
having any supplemental Agency permit designating anyone to dispose
of, or transport, the Kolene to a specified site.
Baur allegedly
violated Rules
201 and 501(B) of Chapter
9 by transporting this
special waste without a permit and by failing to acknowledge the
receipt of the special waste by signing an appropriate manifest
which should have accompanied the Kolene to an authorized desti-
nation.
Count
I of the Amended Complaint in PCB 80-233 alleged that,
from October
3,
1979 until April,
1980, Wastex and Chase delivered,
without the necessary accompanying manifests,
industrial process
waste in barrels to unlicensed hauler Baur at Wastex’s 15th Street
facility for transport,
storage, treatment, and disposal at various
sites within Illinois in violation of Rule 301 of Chapter
9.
Baur
allegedly hauled these special wastes without the requisite Agency
permit in violation of Rule 201 of Chapter
9.
Count II alleged that,
on various specified occasions between
October
3, 1979 and May
8,
1981, Wastex and Chase accepted industrial
process wastes from Baur without signing the requisite manifests
in violation of Rule 501(B) of Chapter
9.
Count III alleged that, intermittently from October
3,
1979
until May 8, 1981, Wastex and Chase accepted special process
waste at their facilities whose manifests designated other sites
as the proper desd~nationin violation of Rules 302(A) and 501(C)
of Chapter
9.
Count IV alleged that, on certain enumerated dates, Wastex
and Chase accepted special wastes which were delivered without
any manifests in violation of Rule 302(A) of Chapter
9.
Count V alleged that,
from March
1,
1980 through April 30,
1980, Wastex and Chase allowed special wastes to be transported
from the 15th Street facility to the Broadway facility without
the appropriate manifests in violation of Rule 501(C)
of Chapter
9.
Count VI alleged that, on certain specified occasions, Wastex
and Chase accepted excessive amounts of special wastes such as
printing wash—up, paint pigments, paint sludge and solvents in
quantities which violated conditions of the special waste permits
issued by the Agency in violation of Rules 201 and 302 of Chapter
7:
Solid Waste Regulations.
The Stipulatio~ibetween Baur and the Agency in PCB 80—232
provided that:
(1)
pursuant to an oral agreement between Baur
and Chase
for services and equipment rsntal during the time period
between October
1, 1979 and January 1,
1980, Baur rented a high
lift and trucks
to Chase whenever Chase requested or needed this
equipment;
(2)
Baur, who utilized various employees to help him,
47-375
—4—
operated the high lift for Chase and was paid on an hourly basis
for this service and also drove trucks for Chase’s waste disposal
operations and was paid $250.00 per load for the use of his trucks;
(3) the Kolene,
a moderately toxic solid industrial process waste,
was initially received by Chase from the Ford Motor Company’s
assembly plant in Kansas
City
where it was used to
“wash down”
paint pigments on Fordus assembly line;
(4) Baur admittedly
accepted the 200 to 300 drums of Kolene from Chase and transported
them to the Colston open dump site where they were buried;
(5) when
Chase excavated the Kolene drums on August
7,
1980 at the suggestion
of the Agency and transported these sludge drums to Wastex’s
Broadway facility,
I3aur
lent
no
help to Chase in this project
(although Chase requested Baur’s aid in the excavation);
(6) Baur
and Chase terminated their oral agreement “shortly after the
Germantown incident”;
(7) Baur admits the violations alleged in
the Amended Complaint in PCB 80-232 and has admittedly violated
Rules 202(a),
301,
and 310(h)
of Chapter
7; Rules 201 and 501(B)
of Chapter
9;
and
Sections 21(b),
21(e) and 21(f) of the Act;
(8) Baur agrees to cease and desist from further violations;
(9) Baur agrees,
for a period of
5 years, not to work for, or
contract with,
Jack Chase
(or any business entity in which Chase
is a corporate officer or employee) pertaining to the transport
by Baur of any “special waste”; and
(10) Baur agrees to pay a
stipulated penalty of $1,000.00.
(Baur Stip.#232,
p.2—3).
The Stipulation between Baur and the Agency in PCB 80-233
indicates that:
(1) Baur and his employees, intermittently between
October
3,
1979 and April,
1980,
accepted various types
of industrial
process waste in barrels from Wastex and Chase, without the requisite
accompanying manifests, at the 15th Street facility and, although
not having the necessary waste hauling permit from the Agency,
transported and hauled this waste
for disposal within Illinois;
(2) during such disposal operations, Baur sometimes crushed barrels
still containing special wastes, loaded these barrels into his
trucks,
covered the barrels with refuse,
and disposed of these
special wastes at landfills
in St.
Clair County which were not
authorized by supplemental Agency permits to accept such wastes;
(3)
Baur and Chase have terminated their oral agreement for
services and equipment rental;
(4) Baur admittedly transported
special waste without the appropriate Agency permit in violation
of Rule 201 of Chapter
9;
(5)
Baur agrees to cease and desist
from further violations;
(6)
i3aur agrees to not work for, or
contract with, Chase for the transport of special wastes for a
5 year period; and
(7) Baur agrees
to pay a stipulated penalty of
$500.00.
(Baur Stip..~233, p.1—5).
The Stipulation between Chase and the Agency in PCB 80-232
states that:
(1) Chase, who paid
13at.r about $3,000.00 for the
transport and disposal of the Kolene drums, asserts that he
“assumed” that Baur would properly dispose of the Kolene, hut
admittedly failed to ascertain where Baur took the sludge drums
“until notified by the 2\qency or media in August of 1980 that his
drums were found dumped at the Colston open dump site”;
(2)
on
47-376
August 7,
1980,
Chase, at the suggestion of the Agency, dug up
the Kolene barrels from the Coiston property and transported these
drums to Wastex’s Broadway facility where they are presently
stored;
(3) Chase sold Wastex to James Markel on March 1,
1981;
(4) Chase admits violations of Rules
202(a) and 301 of Chapter 7;
Rules 301,
302(B), 501(A),
and 501(B) of Chapter
9;
and Section
21(b)
of the Act;
(5) Chase agrees
to cease and desist from further
violations; and
(6) Chase agrees to pay a stupulated penalty of
$1,500.00 in three installments of $500.00 every 60 days,
the
first installment to begin 180 days after the date of the Board
Order in this case,
(Chase Stip.#232, p,1~8).
The Stipulation between Chase and the Agency in PCB 80-233
notes that:
(1) Chase asserts that,
in October or November of
1979,
he “delegated the scheduling and paperwork duties asso-
ciated with manifests and special waste hauling permits to a
corporate officer of Wastex Research,
iflC,
and that both met
with Agency personnel
for almost halt a day to better learn
the details of their responsibilities and requirements” under
Chapter
9;
(2) the Agency assigned both the 15th Street facility
and the Broadway facility the same identification number
(i.e.,
site #16304531)
“tor purposes of completing manifests used
in
connection with the transportation and delivery of special waste
to the two facilities0
(3)
Chase asserts that the lack of
compliance with manifest requirements was due to 0oversights
on
the part of the employee and corporate officer of Wastex
Research,
Inc. who was delegated the duty to oversee such
matters”;
(4) Chase admits violations of Rules 301,
302(A),
and 501(B)
of Chapter
9 and Rules 210 and 302 of Chapter
7;
(5) Chase admits violating Rule 501(C) of Chapter
9 by accepting
special process wastes at the 15th Street and Broadway facilities
whose manifests designated other sites as the proper destination,
but contends that it did not violate Rule 501(C) of Chapter
9
pertaining to the transfer of wastes from the 15th Street facility
to
the Broadway facility without a manifest (i.e., Chase denies
that
it has any liability pertaining to the allegations
in
Count
V of the Amended Complaint in PCB 80—233; while the Agency
contends that Chase has liability under Rule 501(C) of Chapter
9
even though the two facilities have the same site number);
(6) Chase
agrees to cease and desist from further violations;
and
(7) Chase
agrees to pay a stipulated penalty of $1,000.00 in two installments
of $500.00, the first installment to be paid with 60 days of the
date of the Board’s Order and the second installment to be paid
within 120 days of the date of the Board’s Order in this case.
(Chase
Stip.#233, p.1~15).
The Stipulation between Wastex and the Agency in PCB 80-232
indicates that:
(1) Wastex asserts that it has “no direct knowledge
of the transaction, but admits that the delivery of the 200 to
300
Kolene drum~by Chase to Baur might or could have occurred”;
47-377
—6—
(2) Wastex asserts that it also has “no direct knowledge”
of
the transportation and burial of the Kolene drums by l3aur, but
admits that such actions may have, in fact, occurred;
(3)
Wastex admits that “it has no copy or record of manifests showing
the delivery of 200 to 300 Kolene drums
from its 15th Street
facility to Baur for disposal at the Colston open dump site
between October
3,
1979 and January 1,
1980”, but states that
it has “no direct knowledge of the transaction between Chase
and Baur” or the subsequent chain of events;
(4) Wastex, by
the conduct of Chase on the firm’s behalf, has allowed the
operation of a landfill without the necessary permit,
allowed
the open dumping of refuse,
and failed to have the requisite
supplemental permit from the Agency;
(5) Wastex admits the
violations alleged
in
Counts
I,
II, and III of the Amended
Complaint
in
PCI3
80—232 and agrees to cease and desist from
further violations;
(6) Wastex agrees to pay a stipulated
penalty of $1,500.00.
(Wastex Stip.#232, p.1—7).
The Stipulation between Wastex
and
the Agency in PCB 80-233
provides that:
(1) Wastex admits violating Counts
I through IV
of the Amended Complaint, but denies that its actions violated
Rule 501(C) of Chapter
9 or Rules
210 and 302 of Chapter
7
as alleged in Counts V and VI of the Amended Complaint;
(2)
Wastex agrees to cease and desist from further violations;
and
(3) Wastex agrees to pay a stipulated penalty of $1,000.00.
(Wastex Stip.#233, p.l—17
Ex.A & B).
In reference to the disputed violations in Count V of the
Amended Complaint in PCB 80—233,
Wastex argues that when its
employees moved waste material from the 15th Street facility
to the nearby (i.e.,
less than one mile away) Broadway facility,
no manifest was required for the movement of such “inventory”
material between adjoining facilities having the same Agency
identification number.
Moreover, Wastex asserts that the Agency
is estopped from alleging any such violation, since the Agency
renewed supplemental and other permits without ever notifying
Wastex that such “inventory” movements constitute violations
if no manifests are first obtained.
On the other hand,
the
Agency argues that, even if facilities only have one identi-
fication number, where special waste is put back into the
transportation mainstream on a public street and then goes
to a separate facility or site nearby,
a manifest is required
for shipment for even five blocks
(even where the same owner
is involved).
Concurrently, the Agency argues that even if
the Board accepts Wastex’s legal position on the transfer
of special wastes between two nearby facilities,
the Board
should limit its holding to the fact situation where the Agency
has assigned only one number to two facilities, but not to
those cases where there are two separate facilities having
two separate identification numbers.
(R.
18—41).
47-378
—7—
In evaluating the respective arguments of the parties on
this legal issue,
the Board, while rejecting Wastex’s estoppel
contention as
self-serving and legally unfounded, hereby holds
that no manifest
is required for interfacility movement of special
wastes between two nearby facilities having one Agency identifica-
tion number.
(See:
The Eureka Company v.
EPA, PCB 79-117,
Opinion
and Order dated September
6,
1979.)
Accordingly, the movement of
waste material from the 15th Street facility to the nearby Broadway
facility without a manifest did not violate Rule 501(C)
of Chapter
9.
However, both Wastex and Chase have admittedly violated Rule 501(C)
of Chapter
9 by accepting special process wastes at the 15th Street
and Broadway facilities whose manifests designated other sites as
the proper destination.
In reference to the disputed violations
in Count
VI of the
Amended Complaint in PCB 80-233, Wastex contends that:
“...the figure reported on the green application form
by an applicant for ‘total annual waste volume’ does
not become a condition of that special waste permit.
Neither the application nor the instructions for the
special Waste Disposal permit states anywhere that the
applicant’s response to ‘total annual waste volume’
becomes a condition of that special waste permit.. .the
information has relevance only to facilities which
dispose of wastes
(i.e.,
landfills) and not to facilities
which process or reclaim wastes.”
(Wastex Stip.#233,
On the other hand,
the Agency argues
that:
“...the figure reported
on the green application form
by
an applicant for ‘total annual waste volume’
is
a
condition of that special waste permit.
At the time
of
the
occurrences
in this case, the green sheet appli-
cation, when approved by the EPA,
was signed and sent
back to the applicant as the special waste permit.
A
cover letter specifying the terms of the permit is now
sent to each permittee.
The Agency receives between
50 and 200 requests monthly to extend or alter the total
annual waste volume of a special waste permit as origi-
nally reported on the green application form,
evidence
that others deem the volume figure
a ‘condition’ with
which it must abide.
In addition, the Agency’s manifest
computer is programmed to flag those manifests whose
volumes exceed the volume reported on the green sheet.
The total volume figures serve to inform the Agency and
others
of the total volume of waste that may arrive at
a site during the life of the green sheet permit.”
(Waste..r Stip.#233, p.14—15).
47-379
—8—
In the instant case, there appears to be
rio factual question
that Wastex accepted amounts of special wastes such as printing
ink, paint pigments, paint sludge and solvents in quantities
which exceeded the “total annual waste volume” figures originally
delineated in the special waste disposal application forms.
However, the Board believes that Wastex’s contentions pertaining
to the disputed violations in Count VI of the Amended Complaint
in PCB 80-233 have merit in that:
(1) the throughput figures for
a waste processor may be inherently inexact and
(2) ambiguity
(subsequently rectified by a cover letter now being sent by the
Agency) formerly existed in that processors might not initially
realize that the “total annual waste volume” figure they inserted
on their green sheet was not merely an estimate, but instead
would be construed by the Agency as
a limit.
While it might be
argued that,
in the present case,
Mr. Jack Chase owned and
operated Wastex and could perhaps be presumed to have the requisite
familiarity with Agency forms since he has been involved in such
matters before, the Board will,
in this case,
accept Wastex’s
argument as being reasonable and hereby finds that Wastex has not
violated Rules 210 and 302 of Chapter
7.
(See:
EPA v. Jack Chase,
d/b/a/ Abcoa Thinners,
arid Michael Chase, PCB 79—19,
Opinion and
Order dated July 12,
1979.)
In evaluating the consolidated enforcement actions and the
six proposed settlement agreements, the Board has taken into
consideration all the facts and circumstances in light of the
specific criteria delineated in Section 33(c) of the Act.
The
Board finds
all six settlement agreements acceptable under
Procedural Rule 331 and Section 33(c) of the Act.
The Respondents
will
be ordered to follow the provisions of their respective
proposed settlement agreements and to pay the appropriate stip-
ulated penalties.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.,
ORDER
It is the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board that:
1.
Respondent Wastex Research,
Inc. has violated Rules 202(a),
and 301 of Chapter
7:
Solid Waste Regulations;
Rules 301,
302(A),
302(B),
501(B), and 501(C) of Chapter
9:
Special Waste Hauling
Regulations; and Section 21(b) of the Illinois Environmental
Protection Act.
2.
Wastex Research,
Inc.
shall cease and desist from
further violations.
3.
Within 60 days of the date of this Order, Respondent
Wastex Research,
Inc. shall, by certified check or money order
payable to the State of Illinois, pay the stipulated penalties
47~::~4Rn
—9—
of $1,500.00
(for violations in PCB 80—232) and $1,000.00
(for
violations in PCB 80—233) which are to be sent to:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Fiscal Services Division
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois
62706
4.
Respondent Jack Chase has violated Rules
202(a),
210,
301, and 302 of Chapter 7:
Solid Waste Regulations; Rules 301,
302(A),
302(B),
501(A),
501(B), and 501(C), of Chapter
9:
Special
Waste Hauling Regulations; and Section 21(b) of the Illinois
Environmental Protection Act.
5.
Respondent Jack Chase
shall pay a stipulated penalty
of $1,500.00
(for violations in PCB 80—232)
in three installments
of $500.00 every 60 days, the first installment to begin 180 days
after the date of this Order.
6.
Respondent Jack Chase shall pay a stipulated penalty of
$1,000.00
(for violations in PCB 80—233)
in two installments of
$500.00,
the first installment to be paid within
60 days of the
date of this Order and the second installment shall be paid within
120 days of the date of this Order,
7.
All penalty payments by Jack Chase shall be by certified
check or money order payable to the State of Illinois and are to
be sent to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Fiscal
Services Division, 2200 Churchill Road, Springfield, Illinois
62706.
8.
Jack Chase shall cease and desist from further violations.
9.
Respondent Roy Baur, Jr.,
d/b/a. Baur Trucking, has
violated Rules 202(a),
301, and 310(b)
~.
Chapter 7:
Solid
Waste Regulations;
Rules
201 and 501(B) of Chapter
9:
Special
Waste Hauling Regulations; and Sections 21(b),
21(e), and 21(f)
of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act.
10.
Respondend Baur shall
cease and desist from all further
violations.
11.
Respondent Baur shall not,
for a period of
5 years
from
the date of this Order, work for, or contract with,
Jack Chase
(or
any business entity in which Chase is
a corporate officer or
employee)
for the transport by Baur of any “special waste.”
12.
Within 60 days of the date of this Order,
Respondent
Roy Baur,
Jr.,
d/b/a
F3aur Trucking,
shall,
by certified check or
money order payable to the State of Illinois, pay the stipulated
penalties of $1,000.00
(for violations in PCB 80—232) and $500.00
(for violations in
PCI3 80—233) which are to be sent to the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency, Fiscal Services Division,
2200
Churchill Road,
Springfield, Illinois
62706.
47-~F~1
—10—
13.
Each Respondent shall comply with all the terms and
conditions of the applicable Stipulations and Proposals for
Settlement which were filed on April
6,
1982 and May
7,
1982,
which are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
D. Anderson and J. Anderson concur.
I, Christan L.
Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order
were adopted on the
J~-’~ay
of
___________,
1982 by a vote
of
_____.
/
-~
~
j.
(/~/~~/
~‘
Christan L.
Moffett,
~erk’
Illinois Pollution Control Board
47-382
