ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
April 25,
1974
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Complainant,
v.
)
PCB 73-21
CITY OF HERRIN and FEDDERS-NORGE
)
DISTRIBUTORS OF CHICAGO,
INC.,
)
Respondents.
Delbert D. Haschemeyer, Assistant Attorney General for the Agency
James B. Bleyer, Attorney for Respondent City of Herrin
Charles J. O’Connor and John E. Costello, Attorneys for Respondent
Fedders-Norge Distributors
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by
Mr.
Henss)
The Environmental Protection Agency filed
a two count Complaint
against Respondents
City
of Herrin and Fedders-Norge alleging that
Respondents had violated the Environmental Protection Act and the
Regulations for Refuse Disposal Sites and Facilities
at a land-
fill owned by the City of Herrin.
Herrin was charged with:
a)
depositing oils, various neutralizing compounds and other con-
taminants upon the land on at •least
18, separate dates
since
July 26, 1971
so
as to cause a water pollution hazard in violation
of Section 12(d)
of the Environmental Protection Act;
b)
causing
or allowing open dumping of garbage on at least
S separate dates
since January
13,
1972 in violation of Section 21(a)
of the Act;
C)
causing or allowing the open dumping of refuse on at least 11
separate dates since September 23,
1971 in violation of Section
21(b)
of the Act and Rule 3.04 of the Rules and Regulations for
Refuse Disoosal Sites and Facilities;
ci) on 11 dates the failure
to confine dumping to the smallest practical area in violation of
Rule 5.03 of the Rules, failure to prevent blowing litter in
violation of Rule 5.04 of the Rules,
failure to spread and compact
refuse as rapidly as it was admitted to the site in violation of
Rule
5.06 of
t1Le Rules and failure to p~ovideoro~erdaily cover
in violation of Rule 5.07(a)
of
the Rules;
e) open burning on
three specific dates
since December
7,
1971 in violation of
Section
9(c)
of the Act and Rule 3.05 of the Rules;
f)
allowing
the deposition of liquid and hazardous substances without written
12
—
131
—2—
approval from the Agency on
18 specific dates since July 26,
1971
in violation of Rule 5.08 of the Rules; and
g)
failure
to provide adequate final cover since January
3,
1972
in
violation of Rule 5.07(b)
of the Rules.
The Complaint charged Respondent Fedders-Norge with de-
positing oils, various neutralizing compounds and other con-
taminants at the Herrin landfill site in
a place and manner
so as to
create
a
water
pollution
hazard
in
violation
of
Section 12(d)
of the Act.
Fedders—Norge was also alleged to
have deposited these materials without written approval from
the Agency in violation of Rule 5.08 of the Rules.
The Fedders-
Norge violation allegedly occurred on
18 specific dates since
July 26,
1971.
Respondents filed Motions for Dismissal contending that
the Complaint was not specific or that the Agency had failed
to abide by the Board’s Procedural Rules.
We denied those
Motions and ordered that the case proceed to hearing.
In the Fedders-Norge Motion to Dismiss it was argued that
the Complaint failed to set forth the nature and extent of the
contaminants alleged to have been discharged and failed to
identify the body of water alleged to have been subject to
a
water pollution hazard.
Such lack of specificity was alleged
to have precluded Fedders-Norge from preparing an adequate
answer or defense.
In our Order, which denies the Motion, we
told Respondents that additional information required for the
preparation of the defense could be obtained through prehearing
procedures pursuant to our
Procedural
Rules.
On
March
1,
1973
Fedders-Norge took the Discovery Deposition of the Agency’s
inspectors.
During the testimony of inspector Calvin Badding
the following dialogue occurred:
“Q.
(by Mr.
O’Connor”
Now, you said it’s
a hazard to
water only.
Now, will you tell us what water is
being hazarded,
threatened.
A,
(by Mr.
Badding)
Well,
it would be whatever water
your drainage system ends up in.
Q.
And what water
is that?
A.
Ir this case
I cannot tell you.
Q.
So, you say
——
A.
Water
pollution
was there.
12
—
132
—3—
Q.
So, you say there’s
a hazard to water, but you
don’t know what the water
is you’re talking about,
is that correct?
A.
Not the tributary,
no.
Q.
How far is the Big Muddy
from this site?
A.
I don’t know.
Q.
Do you have an approximate idea?
A.
No,
sir.
Q.
Is there a creek called Pond Creek in the area?
A.
I’m not familiar with it.
Q.
The Bi~jMuddy wasn’t threatened,
is that correct?
A.
I have no way of knowing.
Q.
The Pond Creek wasn’t threatened,
is that correct?
A.
Here again I have no way of knowing.
Q.
Was there any sub—surface water that was being
threatened?
A.
Sub—surface water
I have no way of knowing.
Q.
You didn’t take any tests to find out if sub-surface
water was being threatened, did you?
A.
No
Q.
Did you take any soil borings at any time?
A.
No sir.
(Fedclers-Norge Exhibit B(l,
2 and 3)
Q.
(by Mr. Bleyer)
If
I understand you correctly, you
have no tests
——
you have no results of any tests made
regarding water outside this area shown in Exhibit
1,
is that right?
A.
That is
right.
Q.
So you can’t say whether there’s been any effect on
the quality of the water outside of this area,
is that
right?
12
—
133
—4—
A.
Not at this time.
Q.
And you have no knowledge
as
to whether any of
the water in the bodies of water which are set forth
in the Exhibit 1 could have supported acquatic life
or fish prior to any dates mentioned here today,
is
that right.
A.
Well,
I cannot say that I’ve ever seen these ponds
previous to the time
I went back there.
Q.
So, you would have no knowledge whether they would
support acquatic life,is that right
--
your own knowledge?
A.
No.
Q.
And have you had any tests for quality of this water
shown in Exhibit 1?
I don’t know what you’ve got that
marked as.
This
lake,
(Indicating)
A.
No,
I don’t.
Q.
So, would it be fair to state that you have no
evidence, personal knowledge or evidence of any effect
that this landfill has had on any area outside the
landfill itself?
A.
That’s right.”
(Fedders—Norge Exhibit C(i and
2)
From the above dialogue, we must conclude that Respondents’
attempt to ascertain
the
identity of the threatened water through
pre’nearinq discovery was not successful.
This deprived Respondents
of information paramount to their defense.
Respondents were
entitled to know prior to trial which waters were supposedly
being threatened.
Accordingly, Paragraph
2 of Count
I and
Paragraph
3
of Count II are dismissed.
Agency Exhibit #14,
a memo from Agency Inspector Rodger A.
Walker
to the Division of Water Pollution Control, was introduced
into evidence at the public hearing.
This memo provides
in
some detail1 observations made by Walker while investigating the
Herrin landfill site,
and indicates that the “threatened” water
was ground water rather than surface water.
At page
2 of this
memo Walker stated:
“..
.It is my feeling that an enormous
potential for the contamination and,’or pollution of the ground
water supplies exist in the area of the Herrin landfill.
The
12
—
134
—5—
entrance of the liquid waste into ground water supplies,
through the sinkholes located downstream from the present
liquid waste dumpsite,
creates this problem.”
Walker con-
cluded his report stating
“Again,
I must say that, according
to my personal observations
in the area,
the potential for
ground water pollution definitely exists in the Herrin landfill.
The potential is most severe because the liquid waste is being
dumped on rather
‘porous’ soil”.
The
Walker
report
was
apparently
not
revealed
during
pre-
hearing discovery.
In any event,
a report by Bauer Engineering
Inc.
(Fedders-Norge Group Exhibit
#1) would have been sufficient
to rebut any inference relative
to ground water contamination
arising
from
the
Walker
report.
Bauer Engineering reported that
an impervious shale formation 200 feet thick underlying the dump
area should preclude the possibility of ground water pollution,
In lieu of protracted public hearings,
the parties have
submitted stipulations
of fact.
However,
the parties ask us
to draw different conclusions from those facts and they have
submitted differing Proposed Orders for our consideration.
Agency exhibits submitted via Stipulation substantiate the
charge that Fedders-Norge has deposited liquid materials at the
Herrin landfill.
The dumping of waste by Fedders-Norge occurs
in an area distant from the active landfill operations.
A
truck fitted with a large tank and clearly marked “Norge Division,
Herrin,
Illinois” is seen at the landfill
in numerous Agency
photographs.
These photographs show
a white liquid being dis-
charged from the truck.
Vegetation in the path of flow Of the
liquid appears
to be dead or oil covered.
Agency memoranda and investigation reports indicate that
the liquid waste flows
from the discharge area in the direction
of
a drainage ditch.
The liquid temporarily pools in
a swampy
area before flowing toward several sink holes.
A sink hole
nearest the discharge point was ordered filled by the Illinois
Department of Mines
and Minerals in November 1971.
In the
Walker report,
it was noted that other sink holes were found
“downstream” from the filled sink hole.
Further “downstream”
is
a pond which was formed when an old strip mine pit filled
with water.
Walker noted in his report that the pond appeared
to
be
covered
with
an
oil
film
but
Walker
could
not
conclusively
state that the oil had come from the Fedders—Norge discharge site.
The photographic evidence portrays a deplorable situation
at and near the discharge site.
We are not moved by Fedders—
Norge contention that these wastes
“may be used to enrich the
12
—
135
—6--
soil~inthe landfill until
such time as the landfill
is
completely filled.
As Fedders-Norge points out, the Board
recognized in proposed
(now adopted)
Solid Waste Regulations
that liquid waste could be accepted at a sanitary landfill.
However,
Feciders-Norge has grossly misinterpreted our intent
if
it believes that this Board would approve of the manner in
which the liquid wastes are dumped at the Herrin landfill.
In its Answer, Fedders-Norge attempted to show,
in
a variety
of imaginative ways,
that former Rule
5.08 of the Rules did not
apply to its discharge operation.
That Rule provided:
“Sewage solids or liquids,
septic tank pumpngs,
and other liauids or hazardous substances shall
not he discharged to
a sanitary landfill until
written approval has been obtained from the
Department.
Special provisions may vary from
site to site. depending upon local conditions,
and will he specified in the approval letter.”
The first of these defenses argued that Rule 5.08 was
an
unconstitutional delegation of authority in that the term
“hazardous waste”
is neither defined in the Rules nor in the
Environmental Protection Act and that no standards or conditions
relative to the issuance of the permit are set forth in said Rules.
This argument is without merit.
More than six years prior to the adoption of the Rules,
the
Legislature passed the Uniform Hazardous Substance Labelling Act.
Within this Act
(Chapter 111 1/2,
Section 252—4)
is found the
definition of hazardous substance:
“Hazardous substance means any substance or mixture
of substances which is toxic, corrosive,
an
irritant, strong sensitizer,
flammable or which
generates pressure through decomposition, heat or
other means and which may cause substantial personal
injury or illness during any customary or reasonably
anticipated handling or use including reasonably
foreseeable ingestion by children and also means
any radioactive substance,
if, with respect to such
substance as used in a particular class of article
or as packaged,
the Director determines by regulation
that the substance is sufficiently hazardous to
require labelling in accordance with the Act in order
to protect the public health.”
Rule 5.08 allows for the discharge of liquid or hazardous
substances only after written approval and provides for special
12
—
136
—7—
provisions to allow for different local conditions.
It is
unreasonable to expect that one set of standards could be
devised and set forth in
a Rule to cover every possible
situation that could occur at every landfill site in the State
of Illinois.
Thd standard seems sufficient
to
us.
Fedders-Norge next argued that Rule 5.08 was contrary to
law in that it requires the Department
of Public Health to
issue permits whereas the Environmental Protection Act calls
for such permits
to be issued only
by
the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency.
Since the enactment of the Environmental Pro-
tection Act such permits are issued only by the EPA,
and Respondent
should not have been confused by the former law,
The Company contends that the Rules
(including 5.08)
are not
operative because they have not been properly filed with the
Secretary of State.
In support of this argument, Fedders-Norge
states that upon repeal of Section 475 of Chapter III 1/2 of
the Illinois Revised Statutes, the Rules and Regulations were
not filed or refiaed
“as required by
law”.
No specific “law”
is
cited
but
it
is
clear
that
the
law referred to is
“Rules
and Regulations of State Agencies”, Chapter
127, Sections 263—268.1
of the Illinois Revised Statutes.
The Rules and Regulations for Refuse Disposal Sites and
Facilities were adopted on March 22,
1966 and properly filed with
the Index Division of the Secretary of State of Illinois.
Any
person
whose actions were subject to those Rules
and the Statute
(Refuse Disposal Sites and Facilities, Chapter
III 1/2,
Sections
471-476)
could have ascertained his liability by a reading of the
Rules and the Statute.
Neither Rule 5.08 or any other part of
the Rules specifically dealt with or referred to Section 475.
The
applicability of Section 475 could only be discovered by reading
the Statute.
Because of this,
the repeal of Section 475 did not
create
any
need
for
amendment
of
the
Rules.
There
were
absolutely
no changes required in the wording of Rule 5.08 or any other part
of the Rules.
Therefore,
there was no justification for a
refiling of the Rules with the Secretary of State and they remained
in full effect and were continued pursuant to Section 49
of the
Environmental Protection Act.
For
its
next
defense,
Fedders-Norge
argued
that
its
discharge
was not hazardous in nature.
The current Regulation now defines
hazardous waste
as
“solid waste with inh?rent properties which
make such waste difficult or dangerous
to manage by normal means
including but not limited to chemicals, explosives, pathological
waste, radioactive materials and waste likely to cause
fires.”
12
—
137
—8—
The phrase “but not limited to” was intentionally included
in the definition of hazardous waste to allow flexibility for
the myriad of possibilities that can be encountered when
dealing with chemicals.
To be classified
as hazardous,
under
this definition,
it is not required to show the actual death
or injury of an individual who has encountered the substance.
A number of samples were taken by the Agency to identify
the chemical comoosition of the liciuid discharge.
Analysis
reveals at least 19 different chemical elements or compounds
in the liquid.
lncluded
in varying concentrations were
magnesium,
sodium, potassium,
ammonia,
and barium.
These sub-
stances could
be reactive under some circumstances or could be
considered irritants or poisons in certain concentrations.
However, the record does not establish the hazardous nature of
these substances
in the concentrations found in the Fedders—
Norge discharge.
The discharge might in fact be hazardous but
the record
is not sufficient to make that finding.
This failure
of proof
in this particular case does not preclude the Agency
from determining upon better information that the discharge
is
in fact hazardous.
In any event the discharge is liquid, and Rule 5.08 was
applicable for that reason.
Agency Exhibit #10,
13 and 22 show
a liquid being discharged from
a tank mounted on
a truck bearing
the words
“Norge Division,
Herrin,
Illinois” on its doors.
Fedders-Norge in its Answer admitted depositing liquid at the
site.
Rule 5.08
is clearly applicable.
Fedders-Norge further states that the former Rule
5.08
applied only to the operator of the landfill and not to Fedders-
Norge.
If the Rule is construed to apply to
a person doing the
dumping,Fedders-Norge denounces the Rule
as unconstitutional
in
that “a person not in the business of operating a
‘sanitary
landfill’
or
‘dump’ would be unaware of the Regulations and as
a consequence would not he bound
thereby”.
The language of Rule 5.08 was not vague or ambiguous.
The
phrase “shall not be discharged”
is clear and precise in its
intent.
It absolutely prohibited the discharge of liquids and
hazardous materials by anyone without specific written approval.
Fedders-Norge is bound to comply with all
Illinois Statutes and
Regulations and it
is the Company’s obligation,
as
a matter of
routine businesr practice,
to become acqn,ainted with the laws
applicable
to
it.
Ignorance of the law is not a license to
pollute.
Another argument advanced by Fedders—Norge is
that the Herrin
site is
a dump not a landfill.
This exercise in semantics is
based upon an Application for Registration of Refuse Disposal
Sites
filed in 1968 in which the City of Herrin indicated by
a
checkmark that the facility was a
dump.
The
Board
recognizes
12
—
138
—9-.
that the words dump and sanitary landfill have been used. inter-
changeably in the past.
However,
as people became aware of the
actual distinction between a dump and a sanitary landfill, the
interchangeable misuse became less common.
In 1963
the
Legislature outlawed dumps and open dumping in Illinois
(Chapter 111 1/2, Section 461).
The operation of the Herrin
site as
a dump would be illegal even prior to the enactment
of the Environmental Protection Act.
As their final “additional affirmative defense” Fedders—
Norge argues
that:
1.
The Board
is without power to impose
a monetary
fine or penalty, and
2.
The Board’s power
to issue a cease and desist
order is an unconstitutional delegation of legis—
lative authority and an attempt by the Legislature
to confer injunction powers on an administrative
Agency in violation of the constitutional precept
of separation of powers.
We have consistently denied these contentions when raised
in other cases.
The Illinois Supreme Court has recently decided
that our exercise of the penalty power is valid and not an un-
lawful delegation of power.
City of Waukegan v.
Pollution
Control Board
Ill.
—
(
Mar.
1974)
We deny all motions for dismissal and affirmative defenses
raised by Respondents except those defenses they raise
to the
Section 12(d)
charge, and the argument Respondents raise re-
garding the hazardous nature of the liquid discharge.
Fedders—Norge has apparently succeeded
in reducing the
volume of oil waste being discharged at the landfill site from
10,000 gallons per day to about 2500 gallons per day under its
Waste Oil Management System Implementation Plan.
This reduction
was achieved through the institution of better housekeeping
practices and by reclaiming and recycling some of the waste oil
it previously sent to the landfill.
There are presently two waste streams being discharged
to the
Herrin landfill by Fedders—Norge.
One is waste cutting oil from
the plant’s macrime shop and the other i~the oil contaminated
overflow from the tub and basket fabrication area.
The waste cutting oil is the runoff~from the borings pit in
the machine shom.
It is composed of a water soluble
oil and a
non-water soluble oil.
About 500 gallons per day of
this oil
waste
are collected and discharged at the landfill site.
12
—
139
—10—
The
waste
from
the
tub
and
basket
fabrication
area
is
comprised
of
a
mixture
of
water
and
water
soluble
drawing
oil.
It comes from the overflow of the tub and basket expansion
process and from spray washing of
the tubs and baskets after
expansion.
Occasional malfunctions in the expansion equipment
result in spills of hydraulic oil which become part of this
waste stream.
About 2,000 gallons per day of this oil—water
mixture are discharged
at the landfill.
As part of the Management Plan, waste cutting oil will
be reclaimed and reused in the plant’s machine shop.
A sig-
nificant amount of “non—water soluble”
cutting oil is already
being
recycled
within
the
plant.
Borings
contained
in
this
oil
will he
segregated
and
centrifuged
and the oil thus
collected
will
be
sterilized,
stored
in
drums
and
reused
when
needed
The
laboratory
bench
tests
have
shown
that
it
may
be
possible
to
treat
the
waste
oil
from
the
tub
and
basket
fabrication
area
with
alum
or
ferric
chloride
in
conjunction
with
pH
adjustment
as
a
method
of
reclaiming
the
oil.
Under
the
proposed
plan,
laboratory
observation
and
in-plant
evaluations
will
be
con—
ducled
to
determine
if
the
water
soluble
drawing
oil
can
be
reused
after
reclamation.
Waste
hydraulic
oil
found
in
this
waste
stream
will
be
separated
from
the
emulsified
oil
waste
and
combined
with
the
other
waste
hydraulic
oils
originating
in the
p:Lant
for
disposal.
Fedders—Noree
plans
to
dispose
of
this
waste
oil
in
one
of
two
ways:
it
can
either
be
stored
and
shi
nod
semi—annually
to
an
oil
reclamation
facility
or
it
can
be
stored
and taken semi—annually to
a Thndfill
for
disposal.
We
wouth
strongly
encourage
Fedders—Norcre
to
make
all
possible
efforts
to
have
the
oil
sent
to an oil
reclamation
facility.
if it
is
found
necessary
to
take
this
oil
to
the
landfill,
the
1~anaeement
Plan
cal:Ls
for
proper
land disposal techniques
to
he
followed
to
insure
that
there
will
he
no
pollution
problems
associated
with
this
disposal.
llhis
is
to
be
accomplished
by
apnlvinq
the
oil
in
one—fourth
or
one--half
inch
applications.
The
application
of
waste
oil
on
a
given
section of the site may
he repeated on a
yearly
basis.
Spoil
material
is
to
be
provided
for admixture and covering during the winter operation.
Sludge
produced
as
a
by—product
of
the
treatment
processes
will
probably
he
no
more
than
700
gallo:~s
per
day
before
sludge
dewaterinq and a maximum of
210 gallons per dcv after sludge
dewaterinq.
This
sludge will
be
disposed on
a daily or weekly
basis at the Herrin landfill.
Proper land disposal techniques
will
be
followed
to
insure that no pollution problem will be
associated with
the disposal.
12
—
140
—11—
The implementation schedule accompanying the Waste Manage-
ment Plan shows that it will take
slightly
in
excess
of
36
weeks before completion and start-up of all equipment specified
in
the
Waste
Management
Plan.
It
would
have
been
helpful
to
have had Agency comment on this Proposed Implementation Schedule.
In the absence of such guidance from the Agency we are inclined
to approve this schedule as submitted.
Agency exhibits submitted as evidence in the Stipulation
convincingly proved that the violations occurred as alleged in
Count
I
of
the
Complaint.
EPA
inspection
sheets
and
photographs
reveal
that
debris
and
refuse
have
been
deposited
at
the
landfill
site
at
multiple
locations
with
little
or
no
effort
made
to
cover
the
material.
Photographs
taken
on
different
dates
show
clearly
identifiable
material
present
on
both
dates
thus
proving
that
the
City
of
Herrin
has
not
provided
proper
daily
cover
for
the
refuse
(Agency
Exhibits
16,
19
and.
22)
.
Some
refuse
is
clearly
identifiable
in
photographs
taken
three
months
apart
(See
Agency
Exhibits
23
and
25)
.
Smoke
and
flames
from
the
open
burning
of
refuse
is
clearly
depicted
in
other
Agency
photographs
(Agency
Exhibits
19,
22,
23,
and
30)
Both
the
Agency
and
the
City
of
Herrin agreed to the imposition
of
a
$1,000
fine
in
the
event
we
find
that
the
violations
did
occur.
We
dismiss
the
allegations
that
Respondents
caused
a
water
pollution
hazard
in
violation
of
Section
12(d)
of
the
Act.
We
find
Respondents
guilty
of
all
other
violations
and
will
require
that
they
cease
and
desist
from
their
violations
and
pay
appro-
priate monetary penalties.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of
law.
ORDER
It
is
the
Order
of
the
Pollution
Control
Board
that:
1.
City
of
Herrin
shall
pay
to
the
State
of
Illinois
by
June
1,
1974
the
sume
of
$500
as
a
penalty
for
the
violations
found
in
this
proceeding.
Penalty
p~:yment by
certified
check
or
money order payable
to
the
State
of
Illinois,
shall
be
made to:
Fiscal
Services
Division,
Illinois
EPA,
2200
Churchill
Road,
Springfield, Illinois 62706.
12
—
141
—12—
2.
city
of Herrin shall immediately cease and desist
from open burning of refuse at
its
landfill site.
3.
city of Herrin shall immediately take all
necessary action toward obtaining all required
permits from the Environmental Protection Agency
for operation of the landfill.
4.
city of Herrin shall, within 45 days of the date
of this Order, apply
two
feet of compacted final
cover over the entire surface of each portion of
the completed final lift at the Herrin landfill.
In addition,
city
of Herrin shall place a
compacted
layer of at least six inches of cover material on
all exposed refuse at the end of each day of
operation.
5.
For
a period of 90 days from the date of this Order
city
of Herrin shall cause the oil sludge materials
from
the Fedders-Norge plant to be deposited at its
landfill in the afternoon of each working day and
shall
spread
the
oil
sludge material over the pre-
viously deposited and compacted daily refuse.
Thereafter,
as
directed
in
Part
4
above,
all refuse
and
oil
sludge
material
shall
be
properly
covered.
If,
during
this
90
day
period,
the
city
of
Herrin
receives
a
permit
from
the
Agency
for
such
operation,
all
subsequent
onerations
shall
conform
to
the
permit
and
conditions attached theretp.
The city shall not
accept liquid or hazardous materials from Fedders-
Norge after said 90 day
period
unless
a
permit
has
been
issued
by
the
Agency.authorizing
the
city
to
do
so.
6.
Fedders—Norge shall pay to the State of Illinois by
June
1, 1974 the
sum
of $500 as a penalty for the
violations found
in this proceeding.
Penalty payment
by certified check or money order payable to the
State of Illinois shall be made to:
Fiscal Services
Division, Illinois EPA, 2200 churchill Road,
Springfield, Illinois 62706.
7.
Fedders-Norge shall continue and fully implement
within 30 days of this Orde±its Waste Oil Managemert
System Implementation Plan as presented in this
proceeding.
8.
In the event
the
city
of
Herrin
fails
to
obtain
a
permit to receive the waste from Fedders—Norge
12—142
—13—
pursuant
to
Rule
203
or
Rule
310,
Chapter
7,
Solid Waste Rules and Regulations within the
90 day period specified in Paragraph
5, Fedders-
Norge shall cease and desist
from depositing
licuid
materials
at
the Herrin landfill.
During
said
90
day
period
the
deposition
of
liquid
materials at the Herrin landfill shall be as
specified in Paragraph
5
of
this
Order.
I, Christan L.
Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, here~vcertify
th-
ab
ye
Opinion and Order was adopted
this
~~day
of
..
,
1974 by
a vote of
~f
to
0
12
—
143
