June

6,

1975

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Complainant,

v.

)

WILLIAM FREEDING AND WILLIAM

BUITEN d/b/a/ LANDFILL ENGINEERING

Respondents.

Mr. Steven Z. Weiss appearing on behalf of Complainant;

Mr. Melvin J. McGowan appearing on behalf of Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE

L~JARD

(by Mr. Goodman):

This matter comes before the Pollution Control Board

(Board)

upon the amended complaint

of the Environmental

Protection Agency

(Agency)

against William Freeding and

William

Buiten, d/b/a Landfill Engineering Company (Land-

fill)

for violation of Rule 202(b) (1)

of Chapter 7 of the

Illinois Pollution Control Board Rules and Regulations and

S~2l(b)and 21(e)

of Illinois Environmental Protection Act

(Act),

The original complaint was filed November 27, 1974

and a motion to amend the complaint to conform with the

proof pursuant to procedural Rule 308 was ~filedMarch 31,

l975~ We hereby grant Complainant~smotion to amend the

complaint,

there being no objection by and no prejudice to

Landfill.

Rule 202(b)

(1)

states:

Existing Solid Waste Management Sites.

Subject to such exemption as expressly provided in

Section 21(e)

of the Environmental Protection Act

as •to the requirement of obtaining a permit,

no

person shall cause or allow the use or operation

of any existing solid waste management site with-

out an Operating Permit issued by the Agency not

later than one year after the effective date of

Rule 202(b) (1)

became effective on July 27,

Sections 21(b)

and 21(e)

state that no one shall:

(b)

Cause or allow the open dumping of any other

the Board;

17

—

257

---

—2—

(e)

Conduct any refuse—collection or refuse—disposal

operations, except for

refuse

generated by the

operator’s own activities, without

a permit

granted by the Agency upon such conditions,

including periodic reports and full access to

adequate records and the inspection of facilities,

as may be necessary to assure compliance with the

Act and with regulations adopted thereunder, after

the Board has adopted standards for the location,

design, operation,

and maintenance of

such facilities;

The facts in this action were presented to the Board

upon stipulation of the parties.

Landfill has operated the

solid waste management site,

located at the southeast corner

of Milwaukee and Deerfield Roads in Lake County, from

September,

1966 to September

30,

1974,

The site was for-

merly a gravel pit and was open five and one—half days per

week.

Landfill ceased business activities, except for

accepting cover material, when the site was filled on

September 30,

1974.

Respondent stated that it grossed

between $15,000 and $25,000 per month from refuse while in

operation and an additional $15,000 to $40,000 from the sale

of sand.

Respondent states that it always had sufficient finan-

cial resources to obtain a permit

(R7).

Landfill’s reason

for not applying or obtaining a permit was that the pro-

jected closing date of the site was before July 27,

1974.

However,

according to Landfill, the fill necessary to cover

the site was inadequate because of its unavailability due to

recession in the construction trade

(R7,8).

We note that

80% of the refuse accepted was compacted household garbage

(Stip.

p.2).

Landfill states that it never applied for a

variance because it was not familiar with the variance

procedure,

and, therefore,

did not know it was available to

it

(Stip.

p.3).

The Agency sent Landfill seven letters from December,

1973 to November,

1974 discussing the potential violation of

operating without a permit.

These letters are attached to

the stipulation as Exhibits

‘tA” through

“G”.

The letters

allege violations of Rule

305 in that Respondent failed to

meet cover requirements.

In addition,

on page

4 of the

stipulation it is stated that final cover in some areas was

inadequate.

The Board has not been informed as to the

extent of the violations and Landfill does not deny that

there were violations.

In mitigation, Landfill states

(R22)

that it will conform to Rule 305 as clean fill

~ made

available.

17

—

258

---

—3—

The Agency’s complaint alleges a violation of Section

21(b)

due to Respondent’s operation without a permit.

As

operating without

a permit does not constitute open dumping,

we cannot find a violation of Section 21(b)

based upon the

amended complaint.

See EPA v. E~&E Hauling, Inc., PCB 74-

473

(1975).

Therefore,

the portion of the complaint refer—

ing to

a violation of Section 21(b)

must be dismissed.

It is uncontroverted that Landfill operated a solid

waste management site without a permit.

The Board points

out the importance of the permit system in regulating solid

waste management sites so as to protect the environment and

the public.

When a permit is issued, the applicant has

proved that the development and/or operation of the sanitary

landfill will not cause or tend to cause water or air pollu-

tion; will not violate applicable air or water quality

standards;

and will not violate any rule or regulation

adopted by the Board

(Rule 316).

Without

a permit system,

operators of landfills may inadvertantly cause pollution,

thereby injuring the public.

To obtain a permit,

the appli-

cant must perform certain tests to determine the likelihood

of leachate; the effect of the landfill upon public water

supplies;

soil classificatibn,

grain size distribution

permeability, compactability and ion-exchange properties of

subsurface materials,

In addition various maps must be prepared, borings and

water samples taken.

Additional information as listed in

Rule 316 is also required.

The application is an expensive

undertaking.

To allow an~individualto operate a landfill

without a per.mit does a disservice to~thepublic and poten-

tially endangers the life and, property of population sur-

rounding the landfill,

Respondent has failed to justify its

failure to obtain a permit and we find a violation of Rule

202(b) (1) and Section 21(e).

We, therefore, assess a

penalty of $1500.00 fo~violation of Rule 202(b) (1) and

Section 21(e),

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and

conclusions of law of the Board in this matter.

ORDER

IT

IS THE ORDER of the Pollution

Control Board that:

1)

Respondents William Freeding and William

Buiten

d/b/a Landfill Engineering Company are found to

have

oper-

ated a solid waste management site in Lake

County, without

17

—

259

---

—4—

the required operating permit from the Agency,

in violation

of Rule 202(b) (1)

of Chapter

7:

Solid Waste Rules and

Regulations and Section 21(e)

of the Act, during the period

July 27, 1974 and September 30,

1974; and

2)

Respondents shall pay,

as

a penalty,

the sum of

$1500.00, payment to be made within 35 days of the date of

this Order, by certified check or money order

to:

State of Illinois

Fiscal Services Division

Environmental Protection Agency

2200 Churchill Road

Springfield, Illinois

62706

3)

Respondents shall cease and desist all refuse

disposal activities, and shall promptly and properly close

and apply final cover to the site in accordance with appli-

cable Board regulations; ‘and

4)

That portion of the complaint alleging violation of

Section 21(b)

of the Act is hereby dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

Control Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order

were adopted on the

~

day of

~

1975 by a vote of

~

Christan L. Moffq~fr~4C1erk

Illinois Po1lutiorV~6ntrolBoard