ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
January 18,
1979
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
Complainant,
V.
)
PCB 78-86
JERRY FINTON, d/b/a
JERRY FINTON
)
DISPOSAL SERVICE,
)
Respondent.
MR. STEPHEN GROSSMARK, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON
BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT.
HARTZELL, GLIDDEN, TUCKER
& NEFF, ATTORNEYS AT
LAW
(MR. STEPHEN K.
SHEFFLER, OF COUNSEL), APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT.
I
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr. Werner):
This matter comes before the Board on the March 20, 1978
Complaint brought by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(“Agency”).
Count
I
of the Complaint alleged that,
from January
4,
1977 until March
20,
1978, the Respondent, Jerry Finton, d/b/a
Jerry Finton Disposal Service
(“Mr. Finton”), accepted and
deposited liquid wastes at his sanitary landfill
(although his
Operating Permit from the Agency only authorized the handling of
general solid waste exclusive of all liquid and hazardous wastes)
in violation of Rule 301 and Rule 310 of Chapter
7:
Solid Waste
Regulations and Section 21(e)
of the Illinois Environmental
Protection Act
(“Act”).
Count II
of the Complaint alleged that,
on specified dates between February 11, 1976 and March 20,
1978,
the Respondent failed to deposit all refuse into the toe of the
fill or into the bottom of the trench
in violation of Rule 301
and Rule 303(a)
of Chapter
7:
Solid Waste Regulations and Section
21(b)
of the Act.
Count III
of the Complaint alleged that, on
specified dates between September
9,
1976 and March 20,
1978,
the
Respondent failed to adequately spread and compact refuse as
rapidly as it was deposited,
in violation of Rule 301 and Rule
303(b)
of Chapter
7:
Solid Waste Regulations and Section
21(b)
of the Act.
Count IV
of the Complaint alleged that, on specified
dates between February 11,
1976 and March 20,
1978,
the Respondent
failed to apply adequate daily cover on all exposed refuse in
violation of Rule 301 and Rule 305(a) of Chapter
7:
Solid Waste
32—42 1
—2—
Regulations and Section 21(b)
of the Act.
Count V
of the
Complaint alleged that, on specified dates between September
9,
1976 and March 20,
1978,
the Respondent failed to place the
requisite
intermediate cover material on the landfill in
violation of Rule 301 and Rule 305(b)
of Chapter
7:
Solid Waste
Regulations and Section
21(b)
of the Act.
Count VI
of the
Complaint alleged that,
on specified dates between April
20, 1977
and March
20,
1978, the Respondent failed to place the appropriate
final cover on a portion of the landfill in violation of Rule 301
and Rule 305(c)
of Chapter
7:
Solid Waste Regulations and Section
21(b)
of the Act.
Count VII
of the Complaint alleged that, during
a period beginning on September
9,
1976 and continuing to the date
of the filing of the Complaint,
including,
but not specifically
limited to, September
9, 1976, the Respondent caused or allowed
the open burning of refuse at the site in violation of Rule 311 of
Chapter
7:
Solid Waste Regulations;
Rule 502 of Chapter
2:
Air
Pollution Control Regulations;
and Section
9(c)
of the Act.
Count viii
of the Complaint alleged that,
on specified dates from
January 20,
1977 until March 20, 1978, evidence of rat and/or
vector activity was observed on the site and adequate measures to
control dust and vectors were lacking,
in violation of Rule 301
and Rule 314(f)
of Chapter
7:
Solid Waste Regulations and Section
21(b)
of the Act.
A hearing was held on August 10,
1978.
The
parties filed a Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement on
December 14, 1978.
Mr. Finton
is, and has been, operating a refuse disposal
facility
(the
“facility”)
on a site consisting of approximately
7.5 acres near the City of Warsaw in Hancock County, Illinois.
The Respondent holds an Operating Permit issued by the Agency
(i.e., Operating Permit Number 1974-66-OP)
which authorizes the
facility to handle general solid waste, exclusive of all liquid
and hazardous waste on the site.
It
is stipulated that:
(1)
During a period beginning on
January
4,
1977, and ending on July 21,
1977,
Mr. Finton accepted
and deposited liquid, hazardous waste at the refuse disposal
facility on approximately five or six different occasions.
(See:
Exhibit U*).
Approximately three hundred 55-gallon barrels were
accepted and deposited
(Mr.
Finton received between $1.25 and
$3.00 for each barrel of liquid, hazardous waste that was accepted
*All exhibits are attached to the Statement of Stipulated
Settlement and are incorporated by reference therein.
32—422
—3—
and deposited at the site);
(2)
On at least nine occasions during
the time frame of the Complaint of this case,
refuse was not
deposited into the toe
of a fill or into the bottom of
a trench at
the refuse disposal facility;
(3)
On at least eight different
occasions during the time frame of the Complaint of this case,
refuse was not spread and compacted as rapidly as it was deposited;
(4) On at least nine different occasions since February 11,
1976,
a compacted layer of at least six inches of cover material was not
placed on the deposited refuse at the end of the working day;
(5) On at least four different occasions since September
9,
1976,
a compacted layer of at least twelve inches of cover material was
not applied over surfaces of the refuse disposal facility when no
additional refuse was to be deposited within 60 days;
(6)
During
a period beginning on April 20,
1977, and ending on August
11,
1977,
there were occasions when a compacted layer of not less than two
feet of cover material was not placed over the entire surface of
each portion of the final lift within 60 days following the
placement of refuse in the final lift;
(7)
It takes approximately
two hours to deposit refuse at an appropriate point at the refuse
disposal facility, spread and compact the refuse,
and apply cover
each working day;
(8)
Since January 20,
1977, there has been
evidence of rat activity at the site
in that rat tracks and burrows
have been observed at the refuse disposal facility.
(See:
Exhibit
R~-which contains a photograph taken by an Agency inspector
of rat tracks at the site).
Mr. Finton admits the most effective
way to control vectors
is to meticulously follow Chapter
7 cover
requirements;
(9) Mr. Finton admits that the previously delineated
facts indicate that violations of the Act and Board’s Solid Waste
Regulations occurred;
(10)
Mr. Finton attempts to monitor the
refuse accepted and deposited at the facility,
so that refuse that
may be smoldering or burning when accepted does not cause a fire
after it is deposited at the site.
(See:
Exhibits J and K which
contain photographs taken by Agency inspectors of the open burning
which occurred on the property in
question).
However, Mr. Finton
does not accept responsibility for the open burning that occurred
at the refuse disposal facility on September
9,
1976; and
(11) The
refuse disposal facility has been inspected by the Agency on at
least 15 different occasions since February 11, 1976.
After each
inspection, a copy of the Agency’s inspection report was either
given to Mr.
Finton,
given to one of Mr. Finton’s agents,
or
mailed to Mr. Finton within two weeks of the inspection.
Within
two weeks of most of the inspections,
the Agency wrote Mr. Finton
a letter informing him of operational problems observed by Agency
inspectors.
On one occasion,
the Agency sent Mr. Finton a Notice
of Enforcement.
Thus,
Mr. Finton has had extensive notice from
the Agency regarding operational problems at the facility.
(See:
Exhibits A through I which consist of letters and the Notice of
Enforcement sent by the Agency and received by Mr. Finton).
On
several of the Agency inspections,
photographs were taken by
Agency inspectors of the conditions at the site.
(See:
Exhibits
J through
Z and A1 through
W3-).
32
—4 2
3
—4—
The Respondent has indicated that periods of particularly wet
and cold weather and equipment breakdowns have,
in the past,
caused operational problems at the site.
At the hearing, the
Respondent’s attorney described the situation as follows:
“...
The Respondent wishes to note for record that his
equipment
is,
because
of
location
in
the
particular
area,
difficult to repair promptly, as there
is some
40 or 50
miles distance to a proper repair firm,
and that he has
had difficulty in obtaining equipment during a period of
breakdown...”
(Record,
P.
10).
In the Statement of Stipulated Settlement, the Agency noted
that “since the filing of the Complaint in this case,
there has
been substantial improvement
in the operation of the subject
refuse disposal facility.”
(Stipulation,
p.
8).
The proposed
Compliance Program and settlement agreement provides that the
Respondent
will:
(1)
immediately
come
into
compliance
with
the
Act and the Board’s Solid Waste Regulations;
(2)
cease and desist
from further violations of the Act and Chapter
7;
and
(3) pay a
stipulated penalty of $2,000.00 in four equal installments of
$500.00 each within
90 days,
180 days,
270 days, and 360 days of
the entry of the Board’s Opinion and Order
in this case.
In evaluating this enforcement action and proposed settlement,
the Board has taken into consideration all the facts and circum-
stances in light of the specific criteria delineated in Section
33(c)
of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act.
Incinerator,
Inc.
v.
Illinois Pollution Control Board,
59 Ill.
2d 290,
319 N.E.
~d794
(1974)
Accordingly,
the
Board
finds
that
the
Respondent
has
violated
Rules
301,
303(a)
,
303(b)
,
305(a)
,
305(b)
,
305(c)
,
310,
and
314 (f)
of
Chapter
7:
Solid
Waste
Regulations
and
Section
21(b)
and
Section
21(e)
of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act.
All other
allegations of violations are hereby dismissed.
The Board hereby
imposes the stipulated penalty of $2,000.00 against the Respondent.
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.
The
Respondent
has
violated
Rules
301,
303(a),
303(b),
305(a),
305(b),
305(c)
,
310, and 314(f)
of Chapter
7:
Solid Waste
Regulations and Section 21(b)
and Section 21(e)
of the Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Act.
.32—424
—5—
2.
The Respondent
shall cease and desist all further
violations.
3.
The
Respondent
shall
immediately
come
into
compliance
with the Act and the Board’s Solid Waste Regulations.
4.
The
Respondent
shall
pay
the
stipulated
penalty
of
$2,000.00
in
four
equal
installments
of
$500.00
each
within
90
days,
180
days,
270
days,
and
360
days
of
entry
of
the
Board’s
Opinion
and
Order,
payment
to
be
made
by
certified
check
or
money
order
to:
State
of
Illinois
Fiscal Services Division
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
2200
Churchill
Road
Springfield, Illinois
62706
5.
The Respondent shall comply with all the terms and
conditions of the Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement filed
December
14,
1978,
which
is
incorporated
by
reference
as
if
fully
set
forth
herein.
6.
All other allegations of violations are hereby dismissed.
I, Christan
L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, herejy certify the above Opinion and Order were
adopted on the
I8”~
day of
________________,
1979
by
a
vote of
/t)
Q~tanL.Mof~~
Illinois Pollution
trol Board
32—425