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.

DISSENTING OPINION (by Mr. Goodman):

The Board issued its Opinion and Order in PCB 75-391 today,

wherein a Stipulation and Proposed Settlement was accepted by a

majority of the Board members. In this stipulation, Macon County

Landfill Corporation (Macon) admitted to all the violations alleged

in the Complaint filed October 10, 1975, by the Environmental Protec-

tion Agency (Agency). The Agency’s Complaint records no less than

263 specific dates of violation of 23 different rules and regulations

and 4 specific sections of the Environmental Protection Act (Act).

Indeed the list of violations is so lengthy that we might better

list the rules and regulations which Macon did not violate, but in

the interest of brevity I will list neither.

The subjects of the admitted violations include, but are not

limited to, the following: operating without a permit, open dumping

of garbage, burning of refuse, inadequate fencing, inadequate cover,

inadequate vector control, discharge of liquid or hazardous material,

and inadequate leachate control. This landfill has been in operation

since at least July of 1970, and is located adjacent to the north bank

of the Sangamon River. In the face of this tremendous mass of viola-

tions which range over a time span of 5 years and whose location is,

at best, highly suspect from an environmental standpoint, the Agency

20—55

---

—2—

and Macon would have us believe that a $1200.00 fine is sufficient to

protect the permit program and to deter other landfill operators from

functioning in a like manner. Based upon only the admitted violations,

a maximum penalty of $516,000.00 is indicated in this case. The

stipulated penalty amounts to some two tenths of one percent of this

potential maximum fine.

The record in this case consists of the very lengthy complaint

and the stipulation which proposes, as mitigation against the admitted

violations, an expenditure by Macon of approximately $63,000.00,

roughly 2 months prior to the filing of the Complaint. From the record

before us it would appear that Macon was 5 years late in their remedial

efforts rather than 2 months early. In any event, the record is too

sparse to make an intelligent decision as to whether the mitigation

justifies so low a penalty in the face of the gross violations admitted

by Macon. It is my opinion that the stipulation should have been re-

turned to the parties and the matter set for hearing on the merits of

the Complaint. It appears from the facts before the Board that Macon

has been allowed to operate a potentially very dangerous landfill

in flagrant violation of the Board’s Rules and Regulations and the

Act for the grand total of $240.00 per year. It is my opinion that

cases of this nature serve to encourage violations of, rather than

compliance with, the Board’s Regulations.

I must, therefore, respectfully dissent from the majority opinion

issued in this case.

I join with Mr. Goodman in hi~

I Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify the a ove Dissenting Opinion was submitted on

the

~

day of

ft)

,

1976.

Illinois Pollution

Board