ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
    BOARD
    March
    5,
    1981
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    )
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    )
    Complainant,
    )
    v.
    )
    PCB 79—43.
    )
    CALVIN GEISS, d/b/a C & A
    )
    DISPOSAL COMPANY, AND
    )
    FRED 0. BENNITT,
    )
    Respondents.
    NANCY BENNETT, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF
    THE COMPLAINANT.
    DAVIS, VARSEK & DYSTRUP, ATTORNEYS AT LAW
    (MR.
    L.
    PARK DAVIS, OF
    COUNSEL), APPEARED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT CALVIN GEISS, d/b/a
    C & A DISPOSAL COMPANY.
    FRED D. BENNITT APPEARED PRO SE.
    OPINION
    AND
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by N.E.Werner):
    This matter comes before the Board on the February 26,
    1979
    Complaint brought by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
    (wAgencyft).
    This
    Complaint alleged that Mr. Calvin Geiss, d/b/a
    C & A Disposal Company (~Mr.Geiss”), has conducted a refuse
    collection and disposal operation at a site in Will County, Illinois
    which is owned by Mr. Fred D. Bennitt
    (“Mr. Bennitt”) and leased to
    Mr. Geiss.
    Counts
    I and III of the Complaint alleged that the Respondents
    operated the sanitary landfill in such a manner as to:
    (1)
    improperly
    unload, spread, and compact refuse;
    (2) improperly maintain the
    slope of the working face;
    (3) operate without sufficient equipment,
    personnel, and supervision;
    (4) place inadequate daily, intermediate,
    and final cover on the site;
    (5)
    fail to properly collect litter;
    (6) improperly handle salvage materials;
    (7) allow open burning;
    (8)
    fail to provide adequate fencing and gates;
    (9) provide
    insufficient measures to monitor and control leachate,
    dust and
    vectors;
    (3.0) fail to submit the necessary water monitoring data
    as required by Operating Permit No.
    1974—20—OP, and
    (11) allow the
    open dumping of garbage and other refuse in violation of Rules
    301,
    303(a),
    303(b),
    303(c),
    304,
    305(a),
    305(b),
    305(c),
    306,
    307(d),
    311,
    314(a),
    314(c), 314(e),
    314(f),
    314(h), and 317 of Chapter
    7:
    Solid
    4
    1—21
    Waste Regulations (“Chapter 7”)
    and Sections 9(a),
    21(a), and
    21(b) of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act (“Act”).
    Count II alleged that, on May 24,
    1973, June 8,
    1973,
    October 30,
    1973,
    April 28, 1976, May
    5,
    1977,
    and August
    8,
    1978, the
    Respondents disposed contaminants upon land in such
    a ~ñace and
    manner as to create a water pollution hazard in violation of
    Section 12(d) of the Act.
    Count IV alleged that, on various specified occasions,
    the
    Respondents failed to comply with all the conditions and provisions
    of their operating and supplemental permits in that unauthorized
    hazardous and/or liquid wastes were accepted at the site;
    the
    filling of a new trench area began without first obtaining
    a
    supplemental permit to do so;
    and the necessar~’water monitoring
    data was not furnished to the Agency in violations of Rules 210,
    302, and 310(b) of Chapter
    7.
    Count V alleged that, on various specified dates prior to
    July 27, 1973
    (i.e., while the Illinois Department of Public Health
    Rules and Regulations for Refuse Disposal Sites and Facilities were
    still in effect), the Respondents operated the site without providin~j
    the necessary daily and final cover; without properly restricting
    access to the site, and without complying with the prohibition against
    open dumping in violation of Rules 3.04,
    4.03(a),
    5.02,
    5.07(a), and
    5.07(b) of the Illinois Department of Public Health Regulations on
    refuse disposal sites.
    A hearing was held on July
    9,
    1979.
    The parties filed
    a
    Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement on August
    1,
    1979.
    On
    August
    9, 1979, the Board entered an Interim Order which rejected
    the proposed settlement agreement because of
    a suspended penalty
    provision in the Stipulation.
    On November 20,
    1980,
    the Board
    entered an Order which mandated that the parties expedite proceedinqs
    in this matter.
    A new hearing was held on January
    15,
    1981.
    On
    January 20, 1981,
    the parties filed a second Stipulation and
    Proposal for Settlement (“2nd Stip.”).
    It is stipulated that Respondent Geiss has,
    since at least
    January,
    1971, operated a sanitary landfill of about 25 acres in
    Will County,
    Illinois.
    (2nd Stip.
    1).
    While the Agency has
    contended that Respondent Bennitt has owned the property in question
    since at least January,
    1971 and leased it to Respondent Geiss,
    Mr. Bennitt has asserted that he is merely an agent for the owners
    of the site.
    (2nd Stip.
    1—2).
    However, Mr. Bennitt “has submitted
    no evidence against the Agency’s contention that he is the actual
    property owner”.
    (2nd Stip.
    2).
    This sanitary landfill has been operated pursuant to an Agency
    operating permit and various supplemental permits which have been
    granted by the Agency.
    (See: Exhibits A,
    B, C, and D).
    In its
    Stipulation, the Agency has alleged “unauthorized modification of
    Respondents’ permits” as well as operation in violation of these
    41—22
    permits (i.e.,
    “causing or allowing dumping in a trench not yet
    permitted or approved by the Agency”).
    (2nd Stip.
    2).
    Additionally,
    the Complainant has contended that, as a result of the utilization
    of improper operating methods, leaching has developed at the southern
    end of a trench.
    (2nd Stip.
    3).
    However, the parties have indicated that, in order to rectify
    matters,
    Respondent Geiss “has already trenched along the South end
    perimeter of Cell #1 as shown on George Reiter and Associates drawing
    #73—767—B dated October 23,
    1973, or cell A of Drawing #C 78—288,
    dated July 10,
    1978, and lined the trench with Bentonite or
    impermeable clay and backfilledin order to prevent the flow of
    leachate from said cell.”
    (2nd Stip.
    3).
    Additionally, the parties have stated that Respondent Geiss is
    currently in substantial compliance with the Board’s Solid Waste
    Regulations and the Act and have indicated that Mr. Geiss
    shall take
    all necessary measures to properly operate the landfill site in the
    future.
    (2nd Stip.
    3—4).
    The proposed settlement agreement provides that:
    (1) Respondent
    Geiss
    shall promptly place final cover on all trenches (and provide
    prompt notification and adequate proof to the Agency that the
    required measures have been completed) and
    (2) pay a stipulated
    penalty of $1,100.00 in two equal monthly payments of $550.00 each.
    (2nd Stip.
    4—5;
    2nd
    R.
    4—5).
    Moreover, Respondent Bennitt has agreed to provide Mr. Geiss
    “with up to 400 cubic yards of materials suitable for cover” from
    two specified locations so that Respondent Geiss can meet his
    obligations to provide the requisite final cover on all trenches.
    (2nd Stip.
    5;
    2nd R.
    5—6).
    The parties have agreed that the “cost
    of the removal and placement of the material for the cover shall be
    borne by Respondent Geiss.”
    (2nd stip.
    5).
    According to paragraph five of the second Stipulation, it is
    uncontroverted that the Respondents have violated Rules
    303,
    305(a),
    305(b), 305(c), and 306 of Chapter 7:
    Solid Waste Regulations.
    The Board will dismiss the rest of the allegations for lack of
    prosecution.
    In evaluating this enforcement action and the second proposed
    settlement agreement, 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 the second stipulated
    agreement acceptable under Procedural Rule 331 and Section 33(c) of
    the Act.
    The Respondents will be ordered to comply with the
    terms of the Second Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement and a
    stipulated penalty of $1,100.00 (payable in two equal monthly payments
    of $550.00 each)
    shall be assessed against Respondent Geiss.
    This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
    conclusions of law in this matter.
    41—23
    ORDER
    It is the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board that:
    1.
    The Respondents,
    Calvin Geiss, d/b/a
    C & A Disposal Company,
    and Fred D. Bennitt, have violated Rules
    303,
    305(a), 305(b),
    305(c),
    and 306 of Chapter 7:
    Solid Waste Regulations.
    2.
    The allegations in the Complaint (other than the above
    mentioned rule violations)
    are hereby dismissed.
    3.
    Within 30 days of the date of this Order, Respondent
    Calvin Geiss,
    d/b/a C &
    A Disposal Company, shall pay 1/2 of the
    stipulated penalty of $1,100.00
    (i.e.,
    $550.00).
    Within 60 days of
    the date of this Order, Respondent Geiss shall pay the remaining
    1/2 of the stipulated penalty of $1,100.00
    (i.e., another $550.00).
    Both payments of $550.00 shall be by certified check or money order
    payable to the State of Illinois, which are to be sent to:
    Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
    Fiscal Services Division
    2200 Churchill Road
    Springfield, Illinois
    62706
    4.
    The Respondents
    shall comply with all the
    terms
    and condLt1an~
    of the Second Stipulation and Settlement Agreement filed on
    January 20,
    1981, which is incorporated by reference as if fully
    set forth herein.
    Mrs. Anderson concurs.
    I,
    Christan L. Moffett,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, he,~e~y
    certify that the above Opinion and Order were adopted
    on the
    ~ ~
    day of
    _______________,
    1981 by a vote of
    .S~.
    Christan
    L. Mof~~T~ierk
    Illinois Pollutioñ~Control Board
    4 1—24

    Back to top