ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
February 11, 1976
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Complainant,
v.
)
PCB 75—391
)
MACON COUNTY LANDFILL CORPORATION,
)
a Delaware Corporation,
)
Respondent.
Mr. Fredric Benson, Assistant Attorney General, appeared for
the Complainant;
Mr. Norman J. Fombelle, Attorney, appeared for the Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Zeitlin):
This matter is before the Board on an Enforcement Complaint
against Respondent Macon County Landfill Corporation (Macon), filed
by the Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) on October 10, 1975,
alleging various violations of the Environmental Protection Act (Act),
the old Rules and Regulations for Refuse Disposal Sites and Facilities,
and Chapter 7: Solid Waste of the Pollution Control Board’s Rules and
Regulations. A hearing was held on December 3, 1975 in Decatur,
Illinois, at which time the parties submitted a Stipulation of Facts
and Settlement Proposal which forms the basis of this Opinion and
Order. The only additional matters in the record are the testimony
of various citizens at the Decatur hearing, and a document filed by
a group of citizens residing in the general area of the solid waste
management site in question objecting to the stipulated penalty in
the Settlement Proposal.
The Complaint in this matter alleges a number of violations
during the period 1970-1975. The Complaint alleges that on many
specific dates during that period, Respondents operated a 40—acre
landfill site in such a manner as to violate virtually all of the
applicable requirements of the Act, the old Department of Health
Rules, and this Board’s Regulations. Respondents admit by stipulation
to all of the violations alleged.
20—51
—2—
In addition to an admission of the violations, the Stipulation
in this matter contains a listing of 29 dates on which the Agency
inspected Respondent’s landfill site; following 21 of those inspections,
the Agency sent Respondent letters detailing defects noted during the
inspections. The first of those letters was sent by the Agency on
September 10, 1970, and the most recent on July 28, 1975.
Respondent’s site is centrally located in Macon County, close
to the banks of the Sangamon River and its backwaters. It accepts
approximately 90-95 of the refuse generated in Macon County
—-
approximately 1,200 cubic yards daily. Based on the present amount
of refuse being received at Respondent’s site, it is estimated that
the site has no more than six months of useful life remaining. The
site began operation in 1965, and has operated six days a week since
July 1, 1970.
Before the Complaint in this matter was filed, Respondent began
a program to abate the violations alleged in the Agency’s Complaint.
Commencing in July, 1975, Respondent hauled and applied 92,520 cubic
yards of dirt to remedy the most serious of these violations, the lack
of proper cover, at a total cost of $63,142.75. With the exception
of the permit violation, all of the above violations had been remedied
by the time of the hearing held in this matter on December 3, 1975.
The Agency indicates that it would normally insist on a larger
penalty in a case involving the quantity and type of violations
admitted to here. However, based on Respondent’s voluntary program
to abate the violations, started three months before the Complaint
was filed, and the completion of that remedial program, the Agency
has stipulated to a penalty of $1,200.00 for the admitted violations
here. The Agency feels that the penalty of $1,200.00 will be
sufficient to aid in enforcing the Act, and in deterring Respondent
from committing future violations in its continued operation of the
site.
We find that the Stipulation and Proposed Settlement in this
matter will serve as an aid to enforcement of the Act and our
Regulations. Further comments are, however, in order.
Various matters raised by private citizens, both at the hearing
on December 3, 1975, and in additional documents submitted on
December 15, 1975, as well as certain facts stipulated to by the
parties hereto, raise questions concerning the adequacy of the
proposed settlement in this matter.
20—52
—3—
One citizen at the hearing, (R.18-20), raised the question of
the suitability of Respondent’s site, which abuts the Sangamon River.
This is borne out in paragraph C(4) (c) of the Stipulation, (at p.5),
which states that leachate has been observed pondirig on portions of
this site, and that surface flows of leachate have been observed
entering the backwaters of the Sangamon River. That paragraph also
states, however, that there is no “conclusive proof” that leachate
has entered the ground water beneath the site or the Sangamon River
itself.
Another issue raised by citizens is the adequacy of the penalty
stipulated to.
We have accepted the Stipulation in this matter based on three
factors:
1. Respondent’s efforts to date, approved by
the Agency in the Stipulation, have resulted in
complete compliance at this site, except for the
issuance of a permit.
2. The fact that only six months useful life
remains for this site.
3. The fact that the Stipulation and Proposed
Settlement in this matter concerns itself only with
past violations, and in rio way constitutes settlement
of any future violations at this or any other site.
The citizens’ objections, and the Stipulation itself, do raise
questions as to the suitability of the site for landfill purposes.
However, Respondent has already taken significant steps which should
aid in preventing the migration or flow of leachate into the
Sangamon
River. We are concerned only with this site; as regards any possible
use of adjacent land by Respondent, we may rely on the permit system
to assure the propriety of any such site for solid waste disposal.
We can and must rely on the Agency to deny any permit where there is
indication that, because of proximity to a river, the types or perme-
ability of underlying soil, operation of such a site would cause a
violation of the Act or our Regulations. Our concern here is to assure
ourselves that any past violations on this specific site are remedied
and will not be repeated. Our Opinion and Order here provides no
protection for Respondent, should a previous poor choice of location,
the lack of a permit, or improper method of operation cause pollution
of the Sangamon River or nearby subsurface water strata. On the
limited facts before us, the Stipulation and Proposed Settlement are
adequate.
This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of
law of the Board in this matter.
20—53
—4—
ORDER
IT IS THE ORDER OF THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD that:
1. Respondent Macon County Landfill Corporation, a Delaware
Corporation, is found to have violated the Environmental Protection
Act, the Department of Public Health Rules and Regulations for Refuse
Disposal Sites and Facilities, and the Pollution Control Board Rules
and Regulations, Chapter 7: Solid Waste, as detailed in the foregoing
Opinion.
2. Respondent shall pay as a penalty for the foregoing
violations the sum of Twelve Hundred Dollars ($1,200.00), payment to
be made within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order by certified
check or money order to:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Fiscal Services Division
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois 62706
3. Respondent shall, unless all appropriate permits are received
from the Environmental Protection Agency within 120 days of the date of
this Order, cease and desist all refuse disposal operations at the site
in question.
Mr. Irvin Goodman dissents
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby certi:
above Opinion and Order were
adopted on the
1V4”
day
,
1976 by a vote of
Illinois Pollution
rol Board
20—54