ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL

BOARD

February 11,

1976

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

Complainant,

v.

)

PCB 75—258

RICHARD C. McCORMICK,

)

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Mr.

Zeitlin):

This case comes before the Board on a Complaint filed by the

Environmental Protection Agency on June

30,

1975.

The Complaint

alleges violations of Section 21(e)

of the Environmental Protection

Act

(Act) and Rules

201 and/or Rule 202(a)

of the Board’s Solid

Waste Regulations.

A hearing was held on September

4,

1975 at which

a Stipulation of Facts

(Stipulation)

including eight exhibits were

admitted into evidence.

Mr. McCormick appeared without counsel.

Additional Exhibits A and B were submitted on October 21, 1975

pursuant to agreement of the parties

(B. 5).

In paragraph

4 of the Stipulation, Mr. McCormick admits that

he did not possess, between January 14,

1975 and June

30,

1975,

a

permit for the operation of his solid waste management

site.

In

paragraph

1, Mr. McCormick admits to ownership of the site in

question.

In paragraphs

12,

14 and 15 Mr. McCormick admits that

the site was

in operation on January

14,

1975, April

9,

1975, and

June

10,

1975,

respectively.

These admissions establish all of the

facts necessary to find a violation of Section

21(e)

of the Act.

Exhibit A is

a letter from the Agency acknowledging receipt of

Mr. McCormick’s application for a development permit dated June 21,

1974.

This letter set out 15 inadequacies

in the application and

denied issuance pending receipt of complete information.

Additional

Exhibit A is another letter from the Agency dated September

19,

1975.

In this letter the Agency, having received the

information

submitted,

denied the permit request.

It is clear from this record that a

development permit was necessary prior to the operation of Mr.

McCormick’s site.

Violation of Rules

201 and 202(a)

of the Board’s

Solid Waste Regulations have

been shown.

20—17

---

—2—

It can be argued that Mr. McCormick’s previous attempt to

apply for and obtain a permit should be considered in mitigation

of these violations.

However, as

is shown in Exhibit A,

F, and G,

Mr. McCormick failed to supply information essential to the completion

and final analysis of his development plans,

in spite of numerous

warnings from Agency personnel concerning the potential violation

of Board regulations

(Exhibits A and F; Stipulation paragraphs

6,

13,

14,

15, and 16).

Without the information necessary

to enable

the Agency to determine the viability of a proposed site,

a permit

“application” is meaningless.

The submission of such information

is much more than a costly formality.

It is not a matter of “bureau-

cratic red tape”.

This fact is excellently illustrated in the present

case.

Additional Exhibit A is a letter from the Agency’s Permit

Section discussing complications inherent in Mr. McCormick’s

plan for above grade

(area)

filling:

“Area fills have a propensity to leach along the base.

Your plans treat this problem with a complicated collec-

tion and treatment and/or recirculation system involving

what certainly must be high installation and maintenance

costs”.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

“However,

if your site were trenched,

the need for leachate

collection would be entirely eliminated.

Added benefits

include an increased site life and reduced development

costs.

Furthermore,

spot samples from our files indicate

that overall conformance with the Rules and Regulations is

best achieved by trenching

(as opposed to area filling).”

It

is thus shown that Mr. McCormick’s development plan was

not acceptable from an environmental point of view.

It is also

shown that the plan may not have been acceptable from a purely

economic point of view if he had looked into the matter adequately.

The integrity of the permit program is essential

to the Act’s

program for the protection of the Illinois environment.

Solid

waste management

sites have

a substantial social and economic value.

However,

that value is diminished

to the extent that the site is not

developed properly to prevent the pollution of land and contamination

of water supplies.

This is especially true because the cost of

obtaining the necessary permit

is not prohibitive.

As

such,

the costs

involved in obtaining the development and operating permits represent

not only

a cost of doing business in the State of Illinois, but also

the exercise of sound business judgment.

20—18

---

—3—

A penalty of $2,500

is especially necessary in this case, to

protect the integrity of the permit system;

to demonstrate to Mr.

McCormick that he will not profit by opting to violate Board regulations.

As stated

in the Act,

Ill. Rev.

Stat.

Ch. 111—1/2 §1002(b) as

amended,

“It is the purpose of this Act.

.

.to assure that adverse

effects upon the environment are fully considered and borne by

those who cause them”.

Mr. McCormick, by operating without a

permit has explicitly failed to consider the adverse environmental

effects caused by his site and has thus violated both the form

and the very substance of the permit requirement.

A cease and desist order is also warranted in this case.

Mr.

McCormick will be ordered to cease and desist from the operation

of his site until such time as it has been issued necessary

development and operating permits.

This is necessary because at

issue here

is not merely operation without a permit.

The basis

of the permit denial is the inadequacy of Mr. McCormick’s plan

for the development of the site.

The operation of this site,

therefore, poses a threat to the environment.

This

is all of no

surprise to Mr. McCormick

(see Agency warnings in Exhibits A

and F, and Stipulation paragraphs

6,

13,

14,

15 and 16,

and Addi-

tional Exhibits A and

B)

who has been apprised of the need for

a permit and of potential adverse effects on the environment.

The record bears no facts which would indicate that the

cessation of operations

at the McCormick site would result in

any substantial hardship to the communities served.

The only

pertinent fact is that the nearest site is in East Peoria, and

is operated by Tazewell County Waste Management,

Inc.

CR.

4).

Paragraph

2 of the Stipulation states that Respondent’s McCormick

Disposal Service serves approximately 30 communities

in the

central

Illinois area,

and dispose these collected wastes at

the site in question.

The Board has been presented with no

facts which would indicate that any extreme hardship would fall

upon either Mr. McCormick or his customers because of an order

to cease and desist from operating without a permit.

In this

case,

the violation of the Act and the Board’s regulations,

coupled with the potential for land pollution and subsequent

water contamination far outweigh any mitigating factors.

This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and

conclusions of law.

ORDER

1.

Respondent Richard C. McCormick is hereby found to have

violated Section 21(e)

of the Environmental Protection Act and

Rules

201 and 202(a)

of the Board’s Solid Waste Regulations.

20—19

---

—4—

2.

Respondent Richard C. McCormick shall pay as a

penalty for such violations the sum of $2,500 payment

to be made by certified check or money order within

35 days of the date of this Order to:

State of Illinois

Fiscal Services Division

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

2200 Churchill Road

Springfield, Illinois

62706

3.

Respondent Richard C. McCormick shall cease and desist

from the aforesaid violations within ninety

(90) days from the

date of this Order, unless all appropriate permits have been

obtained from the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I,

Christan

L.

Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Or~erwere adopted on the

~jl

~\

day of February, 1976, by a vote of

~

Illinois Pollution

‘1 Board