ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

November

10, 1976

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Complainant,

v.

)

PCB 76—19

HARVEY L. WILHELMS,

)

Respondent.

Ms. Helga Huber, Assistant Attorney General, appeared on

behalf of the Complainant.

Mr. Peter Weygandt appeared on behalf of the Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Dr. Satchell):

This matter comes before the Pollution Control Board

(Board) upon a cor

Laint filed on January 21,

1976 by the

Environmental Prot~cizionAgency

(Agency) alleging that

Respondent owns and has operated a solid waste disposal

site

in the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of

Section

3, Township 26-27 North, Range

8 East in Stephenson

County,

Illinois;

that on ten named dates from November

15,

1973 to September

16, 1975 Respondent failed to place final

cover

in compliance with Rule 305(c)

of the Chapter

7: Solid

Waste Regulations

(Regulations)

and Section 21(b)

of the

Environmental Protection Act

(Act); and that Respondent

ceased operating his solid waste disposal site in the fall

of 1973 and has failed to file a detailed description of the

site including a plat with the appropriate recording authority

in Stephenson County in violation of Rule 318(c)

of the Regu-

lations and Section

21(b)

of the Act.

On February

10, 1976

the Agency filed a Request for Admission of Fact.

This re-

quest went unanswered by Respondent.

Under

the Board’s

Procedural Rule 314 the matters of fact requested are admit-

ted

unless

a

response

is

made

within

twenty

days

of

service.

Under

t:h

i

s-;

Procedural

Rule Rusoonden~

is

LOUIId

L()

~1J VO

admitted the allegations of

the

complaint.

A hearing in this matter was held on June

8,

1976.

The

facts of the complaint were reaffirmed

in testimony by Respon-

dent

(R.

16, 17,

20,

21,

22).

The Board finds that Respondent

is

in violation of Rules

305(c)

of the Regulations and Section

21(b)

of the Act.

The

allegation of violation of Rule 318(c)

of the Regulations will be dismissed.

Rule 318(c) calls for

filing a plat upon closure of the site;

as the site was not

properly closed there could be no requirement to file the plat.

See EPA v. Gooder-Henrichson Company,

Inc.

26 PCB 355

(1976).

24—

219

---

—2—

Prior to determining what remedy

is appropriate in

this case the Board must consider the factors of Section

33(c)

of the Act.

The site is two miles east of Freeport

and

is one half

to one mile off the highway

(R.

34).

The

refuse

in the site consists of scrap, tires, refrigerators,

dryers,

and other items that are past use

(R.

17).

The area

containing the refuse was originally a sand and gravel pit

with

a depth of approximately forty feet

(R.

32).

This de-

pression has been in existence approximately forty years

(R.

32)

.

It does not flow into any stream and no water

gathers or stands on the site

(R.

32,

33).

The refuse was

deposited

in an attempt to fill in the void

(R.

33).

Filling in this area with refuse and not following proper

procedures can result in water pollution.

Water in the

form of precipitation running through the refuse will pro-

duce leachate,

The leachate will flow through the permeable

sand and gravel on which the refuse rests and on into the

ground water flow.

These materials have been on the property

approximately three years

(R.

37)

.

There was no evidence

presented actually showing contamination; however the poten-

tial for damage in a situation such as this

is great.

Respondent did shut down the site for acceptance of refuse

when the Agency sent notice on May 10, 1973 that a permit

was necessary to run a solid waste management site

(R.

17, 18).

Some cover, consisting of dirt and gravel from the site, was

applied in May 1974

CR.

19,

20).

This covered about thirty

percent of the site

(R.

20).

Respondent has contracted with

Ralph Helbin to cover the area

(R.

24).

Some fill has already

been brought in

CR.

24).

Mr. Helbin stated that if sand and

gravel would be satisfactory for a base with clay over the

top the job could

be

finished

earlier

CR.

24).

Mr.

Helbin

further stated that

fill

is difficult to get because most of

the buildings built in the area are on low ground and builders

have

to

bring

in

fill

CR.

25).

The

sources

for

fill

are

also

seasonal,

available

more

readily

April

through

October

CR.

25,

26).

Mr. Helbin estimated

if he could use sand and gravel

the job could be done

in about two weeks,

if other fill was

required it might extend to two years before fill would be

available

CR.

26,

27).

The site is a poor one for a waste management

site.

There

is

much

potential for leachate to flow into the ground

water and adequate cover material

is not readily available.

Using sand and gravel for cover will not prevent the leaching.

24

—

220

---

—3—

The

fact

that

Respondent

has

contracted

to

have

the

refuse covered shows that compliance

is economically and

practically reasonable.

The site in this case serves no

social or economic purpose and is a potential threat of

pollution.

Respondent has indicated a desire to bring the site

into compliance and to make the land usable

CR.

38).

Re-

spondent has been dilatory in providing cover; however, he

did cease dumping when he discovered he needed a permit.

Under these circumstances the Board finds that a penalty

of $300 is sufficient

to aid the enforcement of the Act.

Respondent shall also be required to bring the site in

question into compliance with the Regulations and the Act

within

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.

Respondent is found to be in violation of

Rule 305(c)

of the Solid Waste Regulations

and Section

21(b)

of the Act.

2.

The allegation of violation of Rule 318(c)

of the Solid Waste Regulations is dismissed.

3.

Respondent shall cease and desist any further

violations of the Regulations and/or the Act.

4.

Respondent shall bring the site in question

into compliance within 60 days of this order.

5.

Respondent

shall

pay

a

penalty

of

$300

for

the

aforementioned violations within

35 days of this

order.

Payment

shall

be

made

by

certified

check

or money order payable to:

State of Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency

Fiscal Services Division

2200 Churchill Road

Springfield, Illinois 62706

24

—

221

---

—4—

I,

Christan

L.

Moffett,

Clerk

of

the

IllinoIs

Pollution

Control

Board,

hereby

certify

the

above

Opinion

and

Order

were

adopted

on

the

/~‘~

day

of

~

,

1976

by

a

vote

of

..~-C

Q4~anL.Mofth~~

Illinois

Pollution

Co

trol

Board

24

—