ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
May
8,
1975
MARVIN
WII.DER,
h/b/a
CRAWFORD
COUNTY
DISPOSAL,
INC,,
Howard B.
Thomas, Assistant Attorney General, for the Complainant;
Mr.
E.
H.
Price, Attorney, for the Respondent.
OPINION
&
ORDER of the Board
(by Mr.
Zeitlin):
The Coaplaint in this matter was filed by the Attorney
General for the Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency) on
November 27, 1974,
The Complaint alleges that Respondent
Wilder,
through and as the corporate ~entity of
Crawford..
County Disposal, mc,,
operated a solid waste ~management
site in Crawford County,
Ill. without the required operating
license from the Agency.
Such operation without the.requirhd
license is alleged
to. constitute violation of both Section
21(e)
of the Environmental Protection Act and Rule
202:(b) (1)
of the BoardTs Solid Waste Rules and Regulations.
The
vi..olations are alleged to have occurred between July 27,
1974,
on which date the operating license requibements of
Rule 202(b) (1) became effective,
and November 27,
1974, .the
date on which ~theComp.laint was filed.
The Complaint also
alleges as
a specific date of violation,
(but does not limit
itself to), July 30,
1974.
Respondent Wilder originally applied for an Agency
operating permit in May,
1974,
That application, stating
that Wilder expected to receive approximately
40 cubic yards
of residential waste and 33 cubic years of industrial RAstewater
treatment sludge per day, was denied by the Agency in
a
letter dated June 26,
1974,
In its rejection letter for
that application, the Agency found considerable. shortcomings
in the application both as to documentation and ~thesubstantive
operational plans expressed by RAspondent, particularly as
regards the acceptance of industrial sludge on the site.
16 —583
—2—
On December
9,
1974 Wilder again submitted a permit
application. After its review of the December application,
the Agency again refused to issue a permit.
A hearing was held in the matter in Robinson,
Illinois,
on January 21,
1975.
At that hearing the parties submitted
a Stipulation of Facts which contain sufficient information
to allow a finding that the alleged violation did in fact
occur
(R.
4-6).
The stipulation basically sets out facts
constituting an admission that Wilder operated the solid
waste management site in question, and has done so since
July 27,
1974 without an operating permit from the Agency.
The 5tipulation also contains several points bearing on
the presence or lack of good faith in Respondent’s attempts
to secure the necessary permit.
It was noted that the
Agency had sent to Respondent seven letters, commencing
in
August,
1973,
to the effect that a permit would be required
for the site in question.
The Stipulation also reiterates
Respondent’s attempts to obtain a permit.
Further,
it was
pointed out that the site in question was approved by the
State Department of Public Health on December
1,
1966.
There was also considerable testimony taken at the
hearing, consisting entirely of the direct and cross-examination
of Respondent Wilder,
Mr Wilder’s testimony was offered
solely for purposes of mitigation and concerns only matters
of good faith attempts to secure a permit and to comply with
Agency recommendations for proper operation of the site
in
question. While the Agency offered no rebuttal testimony,
its cross-examination was sufficient to put the question of
good faith in issue before the Board in its determination of
an appropriate penalty for the admitted violations,
Considerable testimony was taken from Mr. Wilder
as
to
sums spent by him in the preparation of
his
permit applications
for this site.
Mr. Wilder apparently spent $4,311 for the
preparation of his first application by consulting engineers,
and has spent at least $2,800 on the subsequent application,
which was also rejected
(R.
9,
21,
22,
28)
.
Mr. Wilder
testified that he was required to borrow at least a portion
of
this
sum.
The bulk of those
expenses were incurred
as
engineering fees in 1974, although a portion of the money
was
allocated to continuing application attempts in 1975.
Mr. Wilder also testified to considerable expenses
incurred in attempts to operate the landfill site in question
in
accord with
this Board’s Rules,
and with operating suggestions
16
—584
—3—
offered by the Agency
(R.l4,
20,
26).
These sums
were largely
spent for new equipment, maintenance,
and the construction of
a proper roadway.
Although the Agency’s cross-examination on the point was
able,
it
appears that Wilder’s reliance on the advice of
consulting engineers was real and arguably reasonable.
Mr.
Wilder apparently felt that he had engaged the most qualified
engineering consultants that could be seen as reasonably
available,
and depended wholly on their advice
in
the preparation
of his permit application.
Mr. Wilder did state that he was
somewhat concerned by delays in submitting both of the
rejected permit applications, which delays may have resulted
from the consultant’s inaction
(R.
32,
34, 39, 41,
44).
While Mr. Wilder may have relied on outside consultants
in
this matter, and the delays
in
obtaining a proper Agency
permit may be due to the inaction of such consultants,
reliance on a third party cannot entirely excuse Respondent’s
failure to obtain an operating permit. The Agency rejected
Wilder’s first permit application on June
26,
1974,
and a
second
application was not submitted until December,
1974,
six
months later.
Although Wilder’s good faith submission
of the
initial application,
before the permit requirement
of Rule
202(b)
(1)
became effective,
responsibility for the
subsequent six month delay in reapplication cannot be placed
entirely upon his consultants.
The final responsibility for
applying for and obtaining the required operating permit was
Mr. Wilder’s.
Also,
as was brought out by the Agency in its cross-
examination, many of the
sums
expended by Mr. Wilder on this
site may in fact have been spent simply because they were
necessary to bring the site into compliance with other solid
waste regulations, unrelated to the permit requirement
(R.
30).
Weighing Mr. Wilder’s apparent,
if
illadvised, reliance
on
a third party to complete the applications
in question
here,
against the significant period of operation without
the required operating license, the Board finds that a
penalty of $750 will serve to fulfill the purposes of the
Act and Regulations in requiring licensure of solid waste
management sites.
However, because Respondent has shown some good faith
in attempts to comply with various regulations concerning
the operation of
a solid waste management site, involving
the expenditure of considerable sums,
the Board will allow
180
days for Respondent
to continue operations while attempting
to obtain the appropriate permit.
(The Agency in its Complaint
requested that as relief the Board order Respondent to cease
and
desist
all violations, unless the appropriate
operating
permit had been applied for within
30 days of the Board
16
—
585
—4—
Order, and obtained within 120 days of that Order.)
The
Board trusts that this generous delay will prove more than
sufficient time for Respondent Wilder to obtain the appropriate
operating permit, and resolve whatever difficulty
he has
faced in his prior attempts to obtain the permit.
This Opinion constitutes the finding of fact and
conclusions of law of the Board in this matter.
ORDER
IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that:
1.
Respondent Marvin Wilder, doing business as
Crawford County Disposal,
Inc.,
is found to have violated
Section 21(e)
of the Environmental Protection Act and
Rule
202(b) (1)
of the Board’s Solid Waste Rules and Regulations
by operating a solid waste management site in Crawford County
without the appropriate operating permit from the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency, during the period of July 27,
1974,
to November 27,
1974.
2.
Respondent Marvin Wilder,
d/b/a Crawford County
Disposal,
Inc.,
shall
pay
as a penalty $750 for the violations
cited.
Payment shall
be
by certified check or money order
within 30 days of the adoption of this Order, payment to be
made to:
State of Illinois
Fiscal Services Division
Environmental Protection Agency
2200 Churchhill Road
Springfield, Illinois
62706
3.
Respondent Marvin Wilder d/b/a/ Crawford County
Disposal,
Inc.,
shall cease and desist the above cited
violations to include a discontinuance of all refuse disposal
activities at the solid waste management site in question,
unless an appropriate operating permit has been applied for
within 30 days of the Board’s adoption of this Order, and
obtained within 180 days of the Board’s adoption of this
Order.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby ceçtify that the above Opinion and Order
were adopted
on,
the
~“
day of
i
1975
byavoteof
~‘/
to
~
OLJ~m
qjtib
Christan L. MoffettV~erk
Illinois Pollution ~itro1
Board
16
—586