ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
September 30, 1976
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Complainant,
v.
)
PCB 75—463
CONNIE McLAUGHLIN, d/b/a CEE-JA
)
LANDFILL,
Respondent.
Mr.
Steven Watts, Assistant Attorney General appeared for the
Complainant.
Mr. Joseph
R. Bartylak appeared for the Respondent.
OPINION
AND
ORDER OF THE
BOARD
(by Dr.
Satchell):
This matter comes before the Board upon a complaint filed
December 10, 1975 by the Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency)
alleging that Connie McLaughlin doing business as Cee-Ja Land-
fill operated or caused to be operated a solid waste manage-
ment site located in Section 28, Township
6 North, Range
9
West,
in Madison County, Illinois;
that from on or about
August 15,
1973 and continuing everyday of operation, parti-
cularly including but not limited to
20 named dates up to
June
2, 1975 Respondent failed to place a compacted layer
of at least six inches of suitable material on all exposed
refuse at the end of each day of operation in violation of
Rule 305(a) of the Solid Waste Regulations
(Regulations);
that from on or about August 14,
1973 and continuing every
day of operation,
particularly but not limited to
20 named
days up to June
2,
1975,
Respondent failed to spread and
compact refuse as rapidly as it was deposited at the site
in violation of Rule 303(b)
of the Regulations; that Respon-
dent caused or allowed open burning in violation of Rule 311
of the Regulations including but not limited to August 15,
1973 and August
26,
1974; that Respondent has allowed liquid
wastes or sludges
to be accepted at the said site without
authorization by permit in violation of Rule 310(b) of the
Regulations including but not limited to five named days
between December
6, 1973 and August 26,
1974; that Respondent
caused or allowed operation of
a refuse disposal site without
providing adequate measures to monitor and control leachate
in violation of Rule 314(e)
of the Regulations including but
not limited to eight named dates from March 18, 1974 to
June
2,
1975;
and that Respondent has since July 1, 1974 to
23
—
609
—2—
the date
of
filing the complaint,
failed to place final cover
over all
the final lifts
of the solid waste management site
in violation of Rule
305(c)
of the Regulations including
but not limited
to
six named dates from August
26,
1974 to
June
2,
1975.
A hearing was held in this matter on June
7 and
8,
1976.
During that proceeding the Agency made
a motion to amend the
complaint to conform to the proof under Procedural Rule
328.
Paragraph
4 of the complaint would be changed to allege a
violation of 305(a)
rather than 305(e)
(R.
5,
6).
Para-
graph
9 of the complaint would be amended to include June
1,
1976 as
a date of alleged failure to provide final cover in
violation of Rule 305(c)
of the Regulations
(R. 257—259).
Respondent had no objections.
The Board finds there was no
undue surprise and the amendment will be allowed.
Respon-
dent made a motion to strike two portions of the Complaint,
Paragraph
6 alleging open burning, a violation of Rule 311 of
the Regulations, and two dates, August 26, 1974 and June
2,
1975,
of Paragraph
8 concerning the monitoring of leachate
on the basis that there was no evidence to substantiate or
prove the allegations.
This motion was referred to the
Board for ruling.
The Board allows the motion to strike
in both instances.
There was no proof whatsoever offered
concerning leachate on August
26, 1974 and June
2,
1975.
The presence of a fire in Respondent’s auto salvage yard
a
couple hundred yards from Respondent’s waste management site
is not sufficient to support an allegation of open burning
(R.
95).
Complainant’s
other
reference
to
remains
of
what
appeared to be burned tires and the burned inner core of
tires
does
not
clearly
establish
that
open
burning
took
place
on
the
refuse
site
(R.
146,
147)
.
For
these
reasons
the
Board
dismisses
Paragraph
6
of the Complaint and the
dates
of
August
26,
1974
and June
2, 1975 from Paragraph
8
of the Complaint.
Respondeni
Connie
McLaughlin
has
run
Cee—Ja
Landfill
~or
twenty—five
years
(R.
243)
.
The landIiU i~~pproxi—
mately
three
hundred
thirty
feet
long
and
one
hundred
sixty-
five
feet
wide
(R.
267).
Mr.
McLaughlin
was
the
sole
owner
of
Cee-Ja
Landfill
during
the
period of operation
(R.
235).
His
son
owns
the
land
where
Cee-Ja
is situated
(R.
294).
The
land
was
transferred
to
the
son four or five months before the
hearing
(R.
294).
Mr.
McLaughlin
states
that
he
shut
his
land-
fill site down altogether
in May 1974
(R.
236).
23
—
610
—3—
The Agency presented testimony and exhibits concerning
the Cee-Ja Landfill.
The testimony covered from August
15,
1973 to June 1,
1976
(R.
91,
92,
43).
On August 15,
1973
there was a large area of refuse uncovered and uncompacted
(R.
89).
There was no equipment operating and no activity
concerning covering on the 15th
(R.
89).
On August
16,
1973
the site was
in the same condition as the day before,
no
activity, no covering, no spreading and compacting
(R.
91,
92).
Equipment was there on the 16th but it was being used
in Mr. McLaughlin’s auto salvage adjacent to the landfill
CR. 92).
The site was substantially the same as August 15,
1973 on September 12,
1973, October
19,
1973 and October 23,
1973
CR.
101).
The area is filled with uncompacted, unspread,
unleveled demolition
CR.
101).
Also there were cardboard
containers, tires,
cans and doors
CR.
104).
Inspections on
November
16,
1973 and December 6,
1973 again showed the area
to be basically the same
(R.
112).
On December
6,
1973 the
dumping
of
six fifty-five gallon barrels of an undetermined
liquid was observed
CR. 112).
On March 18,
1974 and March
20, 1974 the site was
again inspected
(R.
119).
On March 18,
1974 much of the
demolition material was covered with a sludge—like material
CR.
119).
This material came from an oil company in Wood
River
(R.
122)
.
It was still present on April 10,
1974 and
the site in the same condition
(R.
130, 132).
On the March 18
visit Mr. McLaughlin was told he needed a special permit to
accept something other than ordinary solid waste
(R.
122).
Sludge was still present and uncovered on August 26, 1974
CR.
145)
and October 11, 1974
CR.
151).
Leachate was ob-
served at the site on several occasions, March 20,
1974
CR.
123)
,
April 10,
1974
(R.
131)
,
May 1,
1974
CR.
135)
,
June
4,
1974
CR. 141), and December 20, 1974
(R.
39).
There were no
wells
to monitor the leachate
CR.
142).
The landfill does
slope toward
a creek
(R.
38)
and leachate was observed enter-
ing the creek on one inspection date
(IL
157).
Agency witness,
Mr. McCarthy, testified that he thought the creek was named
“Honeycut Branch”
CR.
197).
During
a May
1,
1974 inspection Mr. McLaughlin stated
that he was closed
CR.
134).
At this time he was informed
of the final cover requirements
CR.
134).
Through several
inspections up through June 1, 1976 final cover over the
total landfill area had not been properly placed on the landfill
(R.
141,
145, 151,
154, 155,
162, 163).
On October 11,
1974
some efforts at cover had been made but approximately one and
one half acres remained to be covered
(R.
151,
152).
On June 1,
1976 some final cover had been placed; the upper elevations of
23
—611
—4—
the
fill
had
a
foot
to
eighteen
inches
of
cover
material,
on
the lower slopes there was still some uncovered refuse
CR. 43).
Mr. McLaughlin has been running his landfill for twenty-
five years
(R.
243).
He has had permits from Madison County,
the last of which would have run out in June of 1974
CR.
234).
The Environmental Control Division of Madison County has had
a lien on the solid waste management site since May
29,
1968
CR.
307, 309).
This was to guarantee to Madison County that
Mr. McLaughlin
would comply with the requirements of Madison
County insofar as the landfill
is concerned
(R. 311).
On
December 15,
1975 Madison County gave Respondent six months
to
bring
his
site
into compliance or the lien against the
property
would
be
assessed
(Resp.
Ex.
4).
Respondent
has
never
received
a
permit
from
the
Agency
for
the landfill or
for
receiving
liquid
wastes
or
sludges
(R.
234).
Mr.
McLaughlin
stated
that
the
sludge
was
fuller’s
earth
used
as
a
filter
to
take
the
acids
out
of
oil
and
that
a
crude
oil
formed
on
the
earth
CR.
240).
He
further
stated
that he received twenty-seven
loads
of
this
“filter clay”
at approximately eighteen cubic yards a load
CR.
241).
Re-
spondent intended to let it dry and use it for roads
CR. 242).
Approximately forty yards of material were used on his road
CR.
241).
Mr. McLaughlin stated there was plenty of dirt at
the site and that he did use it on the landfill
CR.
244).
Respondent stated that prior to June, 1975 whenever he could
get the time and his machine was in operation he would place
cover on the landfill
CR.
268,
269).
Respondent’s bulldozer
is old and needs repairs although it does run
(R.
269,
270).
Respondent was told the repairs needed to have the bulldozer
“fixed up” would cost $6,000 and he only has $800
(R.
270).
He has no other earth moving equipment
(R.
270).
Respondent
stated he didn’t think he could ever get the cover done the
way the Agency wanted it
(R.
292).
Mr. McLaughlin receives one hundred twenty—nine dollars
and ten cents
a month from Social Security
(R.
266).
His wife
works two days
a week
CR.
266).
The automobile salvage
business
is closed up
(R.
267).
Respondent sold the auto
salvage business for one hundred dollars a week
(R. 243,
244);
however, payments
£or the business stopped in January or
February of 1976
(R.
266).
The business is now closed
CR.
266).
Respondent’s total income for 1973 was $36,965.44
(R.
238).
In 1974 his total income was $34,540.77
(R.
238).
In 1975 his
total income was $3,695
(R.
238).
The income from the landfill
23
—
612
—5—
site itself was $1,366
in 1973 and $2,338
in
1974
CR.
238).
In
1975
Respondent
had
no
income
from the landfill
CR.
238).
Respondent
stated
that
he
kept
records
but
that
he
didn’t
know how much he charged per load
CR.
250).
He stated that
he was cheaper than other landfills
(B. 250).
The charge
was
not
determined
on
quantity
but
per
load
(R.
251).
Mr. McLaughlin has placed cover on the site since the
last Agency inspection
CR.
272).
Pictures of the site
indicate most of
it is covered
CResp.
Ex.
1,
2,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9).
Respondent did not cover approximately fifty or
sixty yards from which he uses the bricks and blocks to
scatter on the road and the wood he uses in his furnace
rather than coal in the wintertime
CR.
273).
Respondent
estimates
to place two feet of cover would take thirty days
(R.
293)
The Board finds that the facts of this case clearly
show violations of Rules
303 (b)
,
305(a)
,
305(c)
,
310(b)
and 314(e)
of the Regulations.
Before the Board can deter-
mine a final remedy the factors of Section 33(c)
of the
Act must be considered.
In this case there were no water samples set forth in
the evidence; however,
the testimony was that at least on
one occasion a leachate flow was traced to a point where
it entered the creek
CR.
157)
and on another date leachate
was infiltrating down into the sand of the creek bed
(R.
39,
40).
On July 1,
1974 five leachate paths were observed
CR.
135.).
Although actual damage may not have been shown,
the potential for water pollution is great.
This landfill
has been run in this manner for twenty—five years,
a threat
to the public waters of the State.
The waste management
site was of obvious economic value to Mr. McLaughlin;
however, an improperly run landfill is of little value to
society when
it creates pollution problems.
The
purpose
of
the
permit
system
is
to
prevent
pollution
before
it
occurs.
Respondent could and should have applied for a permit.
The Agency admits that there is some question of Respon-
dent1s ability to pay a penalty at this time and his financial
ability to place final cover; however, because Respondent’s
past violations are so gross and the length of time required
for Respondent to place any final cover was so long, the
Agency suggests that a penalty is necessary.
The Agency also
requests proper closure of the site and the posting of
a
23— 613
—6—
performance bond
in the amount of $7500 to guarantee com-
pliance.
Respondent estimates the site could be adequately
covered for $1200
CR.
277).
The Board finds that a bond of
$3,000 would be adequate.
Respondent’s financial condition seems to mitigate
against imposing a penalty; however,
the violations were as
flagrant during the years with no apparent economic stress
as during the latter periods.
Throughout numerous inspec-
tions, reports of possible violations were ignored or openly
discarded.
This
in addition to accepting oily sludge and
liquid wastes of unknown composition in a site that slopes
into waters of the State shows an utter disdain of environ-
mental matters.
There is no evidence that compliance with
all regulations during the active years
(1973 and 1974)
of
this landfill were not economically and technically feasible.
Respondent stated that there was plenty, ten thousand yards
or better,
land on the site to cover every portion of the
landfill with two feet of final cover
CR.
276).
Respondent
also managed to pay
a man $600 at the last of May 1976 to do
some cover work
CR.
278).
The Board finds a very large
penalty to be appropriate in this case,
but because of Respon-
dent’s financial condition
will impose only
$1500 for the
violations.
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.
Complainant’s motion to amend the complaint to
conform with the proof under Procedural Rule 328
is
granted.
2.
Respondent’s motion to strike Paragraph
6 and two
dates from Paragraph
8 of the Complaint is granted.
3.
Respondent Connie McLaughlin d/b/a Cee-Ja
Landfill is found to have operated its land-
fill so
as to violate Rules 303(b),
305(a),
305(c),
310(b)
and 314(e)
of the Board’s
Solid Waste Regulations.
4.
Respondent
Connie
McLaughlin shall cease and
desist from further violations
of said
Rules and Regulations.
23
—
614
—7—
5.
Respondent Connie McLaughlin shall within 90
days
of
the
date
of
this
Order place final
cover in compliance with Rule 305(c)
and
complete the closure requirements
as stated
in
Rule
318.
6.
Respondent
Connie
McLaughlin
shall
post
a
performance bond in the amount of $3,000 within
thirty
(30) days of this Order to assure com-
pletion of final cover as contemplated in the
foregoing Opinion.
Such bond will be in a form
acceptable by the Environmental Protection Agency
and shall be sent to:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Land Pollution Control
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois 62706
7.
Respondent shall pay the sum of Fifteen Hundred
Dollars
($1500) as a civil penalty for past
violations of the Solid Waste Regulations.
Payment to be made within 120 days of the date
of this Order to the State of Illinois by ôerti—
fied check or money order sent to:
State of Illinois
Fiscal Services Division
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois 62706
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby ce tify the above 0
mi
n and Order
were adop~edon the
_______
day of
‘~?~~J~&J.L,)
1976 by a
vote of
.5...~
.
(I
Illinois Pollution
23—615