ILLINOIS
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
October 28, 1976
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCI
Complainant,
PCB 74—404
MODERN
UTILITIES,
INC.,
Respondent.
Mr. John VanVranken,
Assistant Attorney General, appeared for
the Complainant.
Mr.
John
D,
Bauman appeared
for Respondent.
OPINION
AND
ORDER
OF THE
BOARD
(by Dr. Satchell):
This
matter
comes before the Pollution Control Board
(Board)
unon a complaint
filed October 29,
1974 by the Environmental
Protection Agency
(Agency).
An Amended
Complaint and
a
Second
Amended
Complaint
were filed
on December 10,
1974 and August 22,
1975
respectively.
The Second Amended Complaint alleges
that
Modern Utilities,
Inc.
has operated a solid waste management
site located in Section
31, Township
1 North, Range
8 West,
St.
Clair County,
Illinois;
that from on and at all times after
July
27,
1974 up to
and including the
date
of filing the Second
Amended Complaint
including but not
limited
to eighteen named
dates ResponJnt operated
a solid waste ru~nagementsite without
a permit
Ia. ~iiolation
of Section 21(e)
of
the Environmental Pro—
tection Act
(Act)
and
Rule 202(b) (1)
of the Chapter 7:
Solid
Waste Rules
and Regulations
(Regulations)
;
that from on or about
SepteiTiber 11
1973 and continuing every day thereafter up to
and includin
the
date of filing of the Second Amended Complaint
including but not
limited to thirty—four named dates Respondent
caused
or allowed
the
open
dumping of garbage
~iri
violaLion
of
Section
21(a)
of the Act and the
open dumping of refuse in vio—
lation of Section
21(b)
of
the
Act;
that on twenty named dates
since September 11,
1973 Respondent failed to spread and com-
pact
refuse
as
rapidly as it was deposited in the site
in
violation of Rule
303(b)
of the Regulations;
that on October 23,
1974, March
5,
1975 and May 19, 1975 Respondent failed to
provide sufficient
personnel and supervision at the site
to
ensure that
operations complied with the Act and Solid Waste
Regulations
in
violation of Rule 304 of the Regulations;
that
from on or about
September
9,
1973 and continuing every day
thereafter,
up to and including the date of filing of this
24
—107
—2—
Second Amended Complaint Respondent failed to place
a com-
pacted layer of at least six ~Lactiesof suitable material
on all exposed refuse at the end of each day of operation
in violation of Rule 305(a)
of the Regulations;
that from
on or about September
11, 1973 and continuing every day
thereafter,
up to and including the date of filing of this
Second Amended Complaint including but not limited to twenty-
nine named dates, Respondent failed to place intermediate
cover in accordance with Rule 305(b) and thus in violation
of Rule 305(b)
of the Regulations;
that on five dates from
January
4,
1974
to April
9,
1974 Respondent failed to place
final cover on the final lift in violation of Rule 305(c)
of the Regulations;
that on October 16,
1973 and October 17,
1973 Respondent caused or allowed scavenging operations at
its site in violation of Rule 308 of the Regulations;
that
on or about six named dates, Respondent accepted hazardous
wastes without having received a permit to do so from the
Agency
in violation of Rule 310(b)
of the Regulations;
that
on October 16, 1973 and October 17,
1973 Respondent failed
to maintain roads adequate to allow orderly operations with--
in the site
in violation of Rule 314(b)
of the Regulations;
that on six dates from October 16,
1973
to May 19,
1975
Respondent failed
to provide adequate fencing, gates or
other measures to control access to the site,
in violation
of Rule 314(c)
of the Regulations;
that on seven dates from
February
13,
1974
to May 19, 1975 Respondent failed to take
adequate measures
to monitor and control leachate
in violation
of Rule 314(e); and that on five dates,
from February
14, 1974
to May 16,
1975, Respondent failed to take adequate measures
to control vectors in violation of Rule 3~4(f) of the Regula-
tions.
The Agency filed a Request for Admission of Facts
(Comp.
Ex.
1).
In its reply Respondent admitted that Modern
Utilities does not have a permit for a solid waste manaqe-
went
i
to
i
~~-;II(’(i
by
he
I\qeney
(Comp.
-
I
)
.
I~
nlen
t
ii
so
adru i LLed the s ILu
in
ques
Lion
was operaLed
from
pr
ior
to
July
27,
1974
to May 29, 1975 by Respondent
(Conip.
hx.
I).
Also submitted into evidence was a Request for Admission of
Genuineness of Documents
(Comp.
Ex.
2).
These documents
consist of eighteen letters to Respondent stating conditions
present at the site which would constitute violations and
one letter of acknowledgment from Respondent.
Respondent
did not respond to the Request for Admission of Genuineness
of Documents.
Under Procedural
Rule 314(c) each document
of which admission
is requested is admitted unless a response
is made.
As no response was made the documents are admitted
as genuine.
24
—
108
—3—
~.
rinq
in this matter was held on June 14, 1976
~r
1n
Illinois,
At the hearing it was established
I
Unit
~RIlities
leases the site in question from
Joe p
E
~i
terman
(R.
25)
.
The landfill operation has
gem
)i
a-
ti-c present site since 1965
(R.
26).
The site
is
a~pioa.inat~ly
ninety
(90)
acres with approximately thirty
(30)
acres
c
rra.ntly in use
(R.
34).
The site receives approxi-
mately
I
~ve
hundred
cubic yards of solid waste per day
(R.
27).
Moder
Utilities
owns and operates a refuse collection business
of
its own
(P..
28).
This business plus three other sanitation
servi e~use
the
solid waste management site
(R.
28)
Inspections of this
site were made during the period
cc ered by the
complaint
by two Agency employees, Kenneth
Gent tieretrg and Patrick McCarthy, both of whom testified
at tie hearing
Mr.
Mensing inspected the site on Septem--
be-
~,
1973
(P.
44).
During this inspection Mr. Mensing
abs ive
rEar the operator was not at the site but at
a site
Iiumcdatcly to the north
(R.
44).
He further observed two
old dreas of refuse that weren’t properly spread and
corn—
p-cted so”e
distance
from the active dumpinq area that day
(~,
4i,
An area of the landfill had intermediate cover
~zre
t
satisfactory;
there was exposed and protruding
ret ts.
44).
On his inspection report of that day Mr.
Mensi
~g
noted observing openly dumped garbage and refuse,
refuse standing in water, flies,
a need for site policing
ard ~ort~
fencing, and that dumping was not confined to
-
rLer
oossible
area
(Comp. Ex.
3)
.
On the next day
-
12
1973,
Mr. Mensing returned
to
the site and
oi-ser~cEbasically the same conditions;
however there was
an
prr nor
on the site
(R.
46,
47).
there are two opera-
tors for the site, Ray Guertterman and James Guertterman
(P.
2L).
Eay Guertterman is the main operator and has had
part
rime neIp for the past five years
(R.
21).
The opera-
tor
Ray Guertterman,
stated that the area at the back of
th
i
t
h ~d boon dumped severat days
he Core and
Lli,iL
he
just In
En
joLLeri around to covering the site
(1~.
47)
t
I
reas
of
the
site
remained
uncovered
from
one
inSpeC-
tion
hr
another
(R.
55,
58,
143)
*
An area uncovered on
December
13,
1973
remained
uncovered
and
enlarged
on
Jaruary
4,
1974
(P.,
55).
On March 18,
1974 an area was
still ancovered
from
January 4,
1974
(R.
58).
Agency witness
McCart5y observed the same area uncovered on November 26,
1971 and on December 30, 1974
(R.
143).
On September 27,
1974 con
and watermelon type plants were observed growing
arong the old refuse
(R. 79).
These same general conditions
were observed throughout all the inspections.
24— 109
—4—
On June
25, 1974 sewage sludge was observed at the
site
(R.
62).
The sludge was also observed on March 18,
1974, June 26,
1974, July 29,
1974 and May 16, 1975
CR.
58,
64, 70, 94).
On June
26,
1974, May 16,
1975 and May 19,
1975 a large fly population was observed at the site
(R.
64,
94, 99).
Mr. Guertterman,
the operator, stated there were
no more rodents or crows or scavenging animals on the site
than at an old barnyard
(R.
12).
On October 16,
1974, October 23, 1974 and May 19, 1975
an Agency inspector arrived at the site prior to the operator
and on these occasions dumping was already taking place
CR.
136,
142,
99).
On May 19, 1976 the site was not restricted; fenc-
ing or gates had not been put up along the road
(R.
99).
A
black top road, Mine Haulage Road, runs parallel to the site
but no one claims it or takes care of
it
(R.
16).
The access
to the site is a dirt road
(R.
16).
Respondent’s operator
stated that the site is accessible at some point during all
types of weather and that the road
is large enough for two
vehicles to pass
(R.
16,
17)
.
Mr. McCarthy stated the road
was a one-lane dirt road upon which two trucks could not
pass at the same time
(R.
138).
The inspection reports of
September 11,
1973 and September
12,
1973 show the access
road as unsatisfactory,
being a “narrow unsmooth” dirt road
(Comp. Ex.
3,
4).
The later inspection reports indicate a
satisfactory road.
Leachate has been observed at the site on February
27,
1975 and May 16,
1975
CR.
92,
94,
144).
On
February
27,
1975 the leachate was emanating from
an
old
fill area and
ponding in low areas and depressions
(R.
t2).
On May 16,
1975 the site was leaching to a
greater
extent
than
the
earlier date;
the leachate was flowing or trickling into
a pond on the east edge of the site
(R.
94, 95).
The
Board
finds
that
the
Aqency
presented
su
finest.
evidence
to
find
Respondent
in
violation
on
all
but
two
of
the
fourteen
paragraphs
of
alleged
violations.
No
evidence
was
presented
that
any
scavenging
took
place
on
the site as alleged in Paragraph 11.
Paragraph 13 alleges
Respondent failed to maintain adequate roads for orderly
operation of the site.
Although there are indications of
possible inadequacies
in the record,
not enoucrh information
was presented to allow the Board to determine what is suffi-
cient to be an “adequate” road.
Therefore, the allegations
of Paragraphs
11 and 13 are dismissed.
Respondents are
found to be
in violation of all Rules and Regulations and
Sections of the Act as alleged in the remaining paragraphs
of the complaint.
24—110
—5—
e Board
determines
what
penalty
and/or
-
prlate
the
Board must consider the fac—
or’-
~
-~
n
33(c)
of
the
Act.
These include the
i-ar
degree
of
injury to the public, social and
cc’
i
t the site, suitability of the site loca-
~-‘~u
cal
and
economical reasonableness of
corn—
Jr-1
-.
T
Uridfill
in violation of so many standards
damage
to
the
public health and welfare.
Th
t’rl
is
for
water
pollution from the flowing
‘cad
i
~—
3.
he
disseminatIon of disease by vectors such
e.-
a
3
£olents.
A properly run landfill follows
n
-igned
to prevent the possible dangers.
This
is
‘I
p
ç
ace
of
the
permit system;
to protect the public
by
~it
e
uiolations
and
injury before they occur.
-
a
dt~l1
ifl
question
is
a definite social and
Modern
Utilities sanitation service,
ex—
licir
-
rue
i~ther
users of the landfill,
serve directly
r
-
-t~
nsc’-
about
22,000 residents and approximately
dc
-
dye
hundred
business establishments
CR.
29,
30’
prirate
collectors
in the area Modern Utilities
mbv
a.
‘m
a
ety~five
percent of the market
in the area
aEltion
there
are three other sanitation
c~’~
‘n
cE
use
the
site
CR.
28).
e
is
an
old strip mine in a farming area
CR.
8,
C
en
material
available
on
the
site
itself.
t
e president and general manager
of
Modern
U
iJ
a~-
d
that
there
had
been
diE
iculty
in
keeping
hr
in
proper
repair and in
a.ging people
from
brrct
~o
the
site
(R.
31,
33).
Mn, Hecht stated that
erom
i~alJa
ard
technologically the business would not have
dEli
ii
keeping
someone at the site when it is open or
‘~
itJ
the
other regulations
CR.
32, 33).
The net
pin-
)
Re~pondent
for a period ending February
28,
1974
a~
-~
6~R~8( and
for
a period ending February
28, 1975
it
~
~7
(P.
25),
For the period ending
February
29,
I97~
P
s~o
dent
had
a
loss
of $336.62
CR.
25).
U’-ilities
did
apply for a permit in November 1974
(4
5
6
Mr.
Leo
Germain, a civil engineer and land
sure’or
rrov~ded
the
information for the permit application
(P.
U’3
164
Mr
Germain
testified
that
all
the
physical
~see
~
o~ the
site
were
acceptable
for
a
landfill
CR.
165)
it
is
V
rca.main~s
understanding
the
permit
was
denied
because
f
r’~n
ar
~housekeeping,”
the
monitor
well
must
be
back—
fi.
1
3 ~
-r~”erit
surface
ground
water
contamination,
inadequate
daily
~d1e
and
the site
is
not
being
dumped
according
to
app~o.
~d
plans
(P..
168,
169)
24—111
—6—
The
Board
finds
the
evidence
in this case presents
a
picture
of
ongoing
failure
to
comply
with
the
regulations.
Respondent
has
compiled
a lengthy list of violations.
This
is
extremely
unfortunate
in the fact that apparently the site
is in a good location and serves the needs of
a large number
of residents and businesses
in the area,
Respondent’s presi-
dent stated that Respondent has the technical and economic
ability to comply with the Solid Waste Regulations and the
Act.
On these facts the Board finds a penalty of $1500
necessary to aid the enforcement of the Act.
Respondent
will also be required to cease and desist further violations
and to obtain the necessary permit within sixty
(60)
days of
this Order.
This opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact
and
conclusions
of
law.
ORDER
It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board
that:
1.
Modern Utilities,
Inc.
is found to be
in violation
of’Rule
202(b) (1)
of the Solid Waste Regulations
and Section 21(e)
of the Environmental Protection
Act, Section 21(a)
of the Act,
Section 21(b)
of the
Act, Rules 303(b), 304,
305 Ca),
305(b),
305(c),
310(b),
314(c),
314(e)
and
314(f)
of
the
Solid
Waste
Regulations.
2.
The
allegations
of
violations
of
Rules
308
and
314(b)
of
the
Regulations
are
H
missed.
3.
Respondent shall
immediately
cease
and desist
further violations and shall obtain the proper
Agency permit within
60 days.
4.
Respondent shall pay a penalty
o:f $1500 within
35 days of this Order.
Payment shall be by
certified
check
or
money
order payable to:
State of Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Fiscal Services Division
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois 62706
24—112
—7—
~n
L
Moffett,
Clerk
of
the
Illinois
Pollution
hereby
certify
the
above
Opinion
and
Order
~
1976bya
Christan L. Moffett,.
erk
Illinois Pollution
trol Board
24—113