ILLINOIS POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD
May
23,
1974
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
COMPLAINANT
)
v.
)
PCB
73—493
LOUIS
DI CICCIO
)
RESPONDENT
)
STEPHEN
Z. WEISS,
ASSISTANT AT~QRNEY GENERAL,
in behalf
of the
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
PAUL
MARTIN,
ATTORNEY,
in
behalf
of
LOUIS
DI
CICCIO
OPINION
AND
ORDER
OF
THE
BOARD
(by
Mr,,
Narder)
This
case
comes
to
the
Board
on
complaint
of
the
Environmental
Protection Agency, charging Respondent
with
violations
of the Enviror
mental
Protection
Act, the Rules and Regulations for Refuse Disposal
Sites and Facilities
(promulgated by the Department of Public Health)
remaining in effect until July
27,
1973,
pursuant
to
Sec.
49
(c)
of
the Environmental Protection Act,. and the Solid Waste Regulations,
Chapter
7,
of
the Board~s Rules and Regulations.
The complaint was
filed
November
19, 1973.
An amendment
to
the comolaint was
filed
on
January 10,
1974, relating to Paragraphs
S
and 10 of the complaint.
Respondent
filed
his
answer on March
15,
1974.
Hearing
was
held
on
April
8,
19 74,
at
the
LaSalle
County
Ccurthou~
Ottawa, Illinois.
The complaint charges:
1)
That
Respondent
Di
Ciccio
owns
certain
property
loc-
ated
1
1/2
miles
south
of
Ottawa,
Illinois,
on
U.S.
Highway
#6,
which
Respondent has used
as
a
refuse dis~
posal
site;
2)
That
since
July
1,
1970,
Respondent
has
operated
a
ref~
use
disposal
site
on
his
property
without
a
perm±t
issueO
by
the
Invironmental
Protection
Agency
in
violation
of
Sec.
21
(e)
of the Environmental Protection
Act.;
E~)
That
from
on
or
about
July
1,
1970,
and
continuing
cv-
~ry day
to
the
filing
of
the
complaint. including
but
rot limited to
certain
dates
itated
in
Paragraph
S
the
romplaint,
Respondent
caused
or
allowed
the
oioen
iT
367
—2—
dumping of garbage
in violation of Sec.
21
(a)
of the Environmental Protection Act;
4)
That from on or about July
1,
1970, and continu-
ing every day to the filing of the complaint, inclu-
ding
but
not
limited
to
certain
dates
stated
in
Par-
agraph
7 of
the
complaint,
Respondent
caused
or
allowed the open dumping of refuse,
in violation of
Sec.
21
(b)
of the Environmental Protection Act;
5)
That on or about July
27,
1973, and continuing every
day of operating, including but not limited to Dec-
ember 17,
1973, Respondent caused or allowed the open
burning of refuse at the site in violation of Sec.
9
(a)
of the Environmental Protection Act;
6)
That on or about July
1,
1970, until July
27,
1973,
and continuing every day of operation to the filing
of the complaint, including but. not limited to cer-
tain dates specified in Paragraph
9 of the complaint,
Respondent caused or allowed the open dumping of ref-
use
at the site,
in violation of Rule
3.04
of the
Rules and Regulations for Refuse Disposal Sites
(here-
inafter referred to as “Rules”);
7)
That on or about July
1,
1970,
until
July 27,
1973,
and continuing every day of operation to the filing
of the complaint,
including but not limited to Dec-
ember 17,
1973, Respondent caused or allowed open
burning on the site in violation of Rule 3.05 of the
“Rules;”
8)
That on or about July
1,
1970,
until July 27,
1973,
and continuing every day of operation to the filing
of this complaint, including but not limited to cer-
tain dates specified in Paragraph 11 of the complaint,
Respondent failed to adequately fence said site, pro-
vide an entrance gate which could be
locked and post
hours of operation,
in violation of Rule 4.03
(a)
of
the “Rules”;
9)
That from on or about July 27,
1973, and continuing
every day of operation to the filing of this complaint,
including but not limited to certain dates specified
in Paragraph 12 of the complaint,
Respondent failed
to provide fencing, gates or other measures to control
access to the site,
in
violation
of Rule
314
(c)
of
Chapt~er 7 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations;
10)
That from on or about July
1,
1970, until July 27,
1973, and continuing every day of operation to the
12—368
—3—
filing of this complaint, including but not limited
to certain dates
listed in Paragraph 13 of the com-
plaint, Respondent failed to confine refuse to the
smallest practical area in violation of Rule 5.03 of
the
“Rules”;
11)
That from on or about July 1,
1970, until July 27,
1973,
and continuing every day of operation to the
filing of this complaint, including but not limited
to certain dates listed in Paragraph 14, Respondent
failed to provide supervision of unloading in viola-
tion of Rule 5.04 of the “Rules”;
12)
That from on or about July 1,
1970,
until July
27,
1973, and continuing every day of operation to the
filing of this complaint,
including but not limited
to certain dates listed in Paragraph 15, Respondent
failed to provide sufficient equipment in operation-
al condition in violation of Rule 5.05 of the
“Rules”;
13)
That from on or about July
27,
1973, and continuing
every day of operation to the filing of this complaint,
including but not limited to certain dates specified
in Paragraph 16, Respondent failed to supply suffic-
ient equipment, personnel,
and supervision to ensure
that operations comply with the Act and Regulations,
in violation of Rule 304 of Chapter
7 of the Board’s
Rules and Regulations.
14)
That from on or about July
1, 1970,
until July 27,
1973,
and continuing every day of operation to the
filing of this complaint,
including but not limited
to certain dates listed in Paragraph 17, Respondent
failed to properly spread and compact refuse admitted
to the site in violation of Rule 5.06
of the “Rules”;
15)
That from on or about July
27,
1973,
and continuing
every day of operation to the filing of this complaint,
including but not limited to certain dates specified
in Paragraph 18, Respondent failed to spread and com-
pact refuse
in layers within the cell
as such refuse
was deposited in the toe of the fill in violation of
Rule 303
(b)
of Chapter
7 of the Board’s Rules and
Regulations;
16)
That from on or about July
1,
1970, until July 27,
1973, and continuing every day of operation to the
filing of this complaint, including but not limited
to certain dates listed in Paragraph 19, Respondent
failed to provide daily cover at the site in viola-
tion of Rule 5.07
(a)
of the
“Rules”;
17)
That from on or about July 27,
1973,
and continuing
every day of operation to the filing of this complaint,
12— 369
—4—
including but not limited to certain dates specified
in Paragraph 20, Respondent failed to place a compacted
layer of at least six inches of suitable cover material
over all exposed refuse at the end of each day of opera-
tion in violation of Rule 305
(a)
of Chapter
7, of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations.
18)
That from on or about July 1,
1970, until July 27,
1973,
and continuing every day of operation to the
filing of this complaint,
includiftg but not limited
to certain dates listed in Paragraph 21, Respondent
failed to conduct salvage operations
in an area remote from
the operation face of the fill, and failed to properly store
salvage materials so as not to create a nuisance, rat har—
borage, or unsightly appearance,
in violation of Rule 5.10
(b)
and
Cd)
of the “Rules”;
19)
That from on or about July 27,
1973, and continuing
every day of operation to the filing of this complaint,
including but not limited to certain dates specified
in Paragraph 22, Respondent failed to confine salvage oper—
ations to an area remote from the operating face of the
landfill and failed to remove all salvage materials
ftorn
the site daily,
or separate and store such materials so as
not to create a nuisance, vector harborage,
or unsightly
appearance in violation of Rules
307
(b) and
Cd)
of Chap-
ter
7 of the Rules and Regulations of the Board;
20)
That from on or about July
27,
1973, and continuing
every
day
of
operation
to
the
filing
of
this
complaint,
including but not limited to certain dates specified in
Paragraph 23, Respondent failed to collect all litter at
the end of the working day and store the litter in a cov-
ered container or place the litter in the fill, covered
and compacted, in violation of Rule 306 of Chapter 7 of
the Board’s Rules and Regulations;
21)
That from on or about July 27,
1973,
and continuing
every day of operation to the filing of this complaint,
including but not
limited
to
certain
dates
specified
in
Paragraph
24, Respondent failed to provide adequate meas~
ures to control vectors
in violation of Rule
314
(F)
of
Chapter
7 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s case of violations consistei
of the testimony of Robert Rocha of the
Agency’s Division of Land Polli
ution Control.
Mr.
Rocha testified as
to
having
inspected
Respondent’s
property many times,
His observations
as to those inspections
were
memorialized
in
hiE
reports,
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Group
Ex~
hibit
4.
Violation of Sec.
21
Ce)
of the Environmental Protection Acrr
Section 21
(e)
of the Act requires that no refuse collection opera-
12—3Th
—5—
tion, except that generated by the owner’s own operation, shall be con-
ducted without a permit issued by the Agency.
Mr. Rocha testified that
Mr.
Di Ciccio claimed not to need a permit, because he never ran an open
ump
(R.
56).
Mr.
Di
Ciccio
also
signed
an
inspection
form
prepared
by
Rocha on March 22, 1972, such form indicating that no permit had been
issued by the Agency
(Agency Exhibit 4-C).
Testimony
by
Mr.
Rocha
also
showed that material was being brought in from sources other than Re-
spondent’s activities
(Agency Exhibit 10,
R.
62).
Respondent also ad-
mitted to receiving money from outside sources to dump on his property.
His total receipts were $2,234 and his expenses were $802.50. Respond-
ent intends to use the remaining funds to close up the facility
(R.
112,
Resp.
Ex.
#6)
The Board
finds
Respondent
in
violation
of
Sec.
21
Ce)
of
the Envir-
onmental Protection Act.
Violation of Sec.
21
(a)
of the Environmental Protection Act:
Sec.
21
(a)
of the Act prohibits the open dumping of garbage.
Garbage
is
defined
in
Sec.
3
(e)
of
the
Act
as
waste
related
to
food
and
produce
handling
and
processing,
storage
and
sale.
The
reports
of
Mr.
Rocha,
which
were
not
rebutted
in
any
way
by
Respondent,
show
that
he
noted
refuse that was putrescible
(Agency Exhibits
4, A,
C through R), and
garbage
(as noted in Agency Exhibits
4,
S, T).
Mr. Rocha testified
that when he marked putrescible material in the reports, he was in
fact
noting garbage at the site
CR.
14).
The
Board
finds
Respondent
in
violation
of
Sec.
21
(a)
of
the
Act.
Violation of Sec.
21
(b)
of the Environmental Protection Act:
Open
dumping
is
defined
in
Sec.
3
(g)
of the Environmental Protection
Act as the consolidation of refuse from one or more sources
at
a central
disposal site that does not fulfill the requirements of a sanitary land-
fill.
The record, through Mr.
Rocha’s reports
(Agency Group Exhibit
4)
and pictures
(Exhibits
5-9),
shows
that
such
material
was
dumped
on
Mr.
Di Ciccio’s property.
Agency Exhibits
49 and P indicate the disposal
of
1000
tires,
old
appliances,
etc.
The Board
finds
that
Respondent
violated
Sec.
21
(b)
of
the
Environ--
mental Protection Act.
Violation
of
Sec.
9
(c)
of
the
Environmental
Protection
Act:
Sec.
9
Cc)
of
the
Act
prohibits
open
burning
of
refuse,
or
salvage
by burning except as regulated by the Board.
Mr.
Rocha testified
to
seeing
open
burning
of
refuse
on
the
site
in
question
(R.
63),
This
statement was never rebutted by Respondent.
The Board finds that Re-
spondent violated Sec.
9
Cc)
of the Environmental Protection Act.
Violation
of
Rule
3.04
of the “Rules:”
Violation of Rule 3.04
(open dumping)
is proved by the same facts
as
needed
to
prove
violations
of Sec.
21
(b) of the Act.
Since that
iolation has been proven, the Board finds Respondent in violation of
ule 3.04, based
on
the evidence
found
above relating to Sec.
21
(b)
12—371
of the Act.
Violation of Rule 3.05 of the “Rules:”
Proof of violation of Rule 3.05
(open
burning
of
refuse)
is
the
same
as the proof of violation of Sec.
9
(c)
of the Act.
Violation of
9
(c)
of the Act being established above, the Board finds Respondent violated
Rule 3.05 of the
“Rules.”
Violation of Rule 4.03
(a)
of the “Rules:”
Rule 4.03
(a)
provides that before a landfill site can be placed in
operation, the site must be adequately fenced, have an entrance gate
that can be locked, and a posting of opening and closing hours.
In the
reports of Mr.
Rocha,
there was indicated the fact that this Rule has
not been complied with
(Agency Exhibits
4,
B through R).
The Board finds that Respondent has violated Rule 4.03
(a)
of the
“Rules.”
Violation of Rule 314
(c)
of
Chapter
7:
Rule
314
Cc)
of Chapter 7 requires fencing, gates,
or other measures
to control access to the site.
Mr.
Rocha’s reports indicate that fenc-
ing
and
access
to
the
site
were
inadequate
to
control
access.
(Agency
Exhibits
4,
S,T,U.)
Agency Exhibit
7 shows fencing that the Board con-
siders inadequate.
The Board finds Respondent violated Rule 314
(c)
of Chapter
7 of th?i
Board’s
Rules
and
Regulations.
Violation
of
Rule
5.03
of
the
“Rules:”
Rule
5.03 provides that “dumping
of
refuse
on
the
site
shall
be con-
fined to the smallest practicable area.”
All of Mr.
Roche’s
reports
indicate that the area of dumping was not contained.
(Agency Group Ex-
hibit
4,
A-D.)
Agency Exhibit
6 is
a photograph that shows material
spread over a wide area.
Therefore,
the
Board
finds
that
Respondent
violated
Rule
5.03
of
the
“Rules.”
Violation
of
Rule
5.04
of
the
“Rules:”
Rule
5.04
provides
that
unloading
shall
be
supervised.
Mr.
Rocha’s
reports
indicated
that
on
the
days
of
his
inspection
unloading
was
un-
supervised
(Agency
Exhibits
4,
B-O).
This
evidence
going
unrebutted,
the
Board finds
that Respondent has
violated
Rule
5.04
of
the
Rules.
Violation
of Rule
5,05
of the
“Rules:”
Rule
5.05
provides
that
there
he
sufficient
equipment
on
the
site
in
order
to
operate
the landfill according
to the approved plan.
There
12—372
—7
are indications
in the record that there is no equipment on the site,
when Reports
(Agency Exhibits
4, A
&
B) were completed,
and that there
was inadequate equipment when Reports C through 0 were made.
The Board finds that there being no approved plan, that it can not
find Respondent in violation of a rule that measures the adequacy of
equipment by what is required in such plan.
Violation of Rule 304 of Chapter 7:
Rule 304 provides that there be adequate equipment, personnel,
and
supervision available at the site to ensure the operation’s compliance
with the Act, Regulations,
and permit.
Mr. Rocha’s reports indicate
that sufficient equipment was not on the site when making some of his
reports
(Agency Exhibits
4, S,T, and U).
It should also be noted that
the record indicates
as to when bulldozers came on the site to compact
and place cover on the site
(Resp.
Exhibits 7,8,9)
.
This indicates
that this type of equipment was not available for daily compacting and
spreading.
Therefore, the Board finds that Respondent violated Rule 304 of
Chapter
7 of the Board’s Rules
and. Regulations.
Violation of Rule 5.06 of the Rules
and Rule
303
(b)
of Chapter
7:
Rule 5.06 and Rule
303 of Chapter 7 provide that as soon as refuse
is admitted to the site,
it must be compacted.
The same evidence that
applies to the violation of Rule
304 of Chapter
7 and Rule 5.05 of the
Rules applies to this charge,
as to compact refuse sufficiently, there
must be adequate equipment on the site.
Pho~ographstaken on separate
days of the same material also indicate that spreading and compacting
was not done immediately
(Agency Exhibit 8).
Therefore the Board finds Respondent violated Rule 5.06 of the Rules
and Rule 303
(b) of Chapter
7.
Violation of Rule 5.07
(a)
of the “Rules” and 305
(a)
of Chapter 7:
Both of these rules apply to putting a six-inch daily cover on the
site.
Mr. Rocha’s reports
(Agency Exhibits
4,
B-U)
indicate that on
his inspections daily cover was not applied.
Photographs taken on con-
secutive days
(Agency Exhibits
6 and
8)
also indicate that daily cover
has not been applied.
Therefore the Board finds that Respondent violated Rule 5.07
(a) of
the “Rules”
and Rule 305
(a)
of Chapter
7 of the Board’s Rules and Reg-
ulations.
Violation of Rules 5.10
(b) and
Cd)
of the
“Rules” and Rules 307
(b)~nd (d)
of Chapter
7:
Both of these rules apply to salvage operations.
The evidence shows
12—373
—8—
that
Mr.
Di
Ciccio
has
been
storing
wood
pallets
on his property (Agen-
cy Exhibit #5).
Mr.
Rocha’s reports indicate that the materials
were
kept in an”unsatisfactory
“
manner
(Agency Exhibits
4,
C-O).
Also in
Agency’s Exhibit
5, two photographs indicate the material was not re-
moved daily.
Therefore,
the Board finds Respondent violated Rule 5.10
(b)
and
Cd)
of the “Rules” and Rule 307
(b)
and
Cd)
of Chapter
7 of the Board’s
Rules and Regulations.
Violation of Rule 306 of Chapter
7:
Rule 306 of Chapter 7 states that blown litter shall be collected daily
and stored or compacted into the fill.
Mr. Rocha’s reports
indicate that
at
least once while he was inspecting,
litter had been a problem
(Agen-
cy Exhibit
4
S).
Taken along
with
Agency Exhibit
#6, pictures showing
litter
over the site, the Board finds Respondent violated Rule
306 of
Chapter
7 of
the Board’s
Rules and Regulations.
Violation of
Rule 314
(f)
of
Chapter
7:
Evidence
of
vectors
was
noted.
in
Mr.,
Rocha’s report of
September 10,
1973
(Agency
Exhibit
S).
Therefore
the
Board
finds
Respondent
violated
Sec.
314
(f)
of
Chapter
7
of
the
Board’s
Rules and Regulations.
It
should
be
noted
that
no
evidence
was
put
on
by
Respondent
to
rebut
the truth of
the
testimony
of
Mr.
Rocha
and
the
veracity
of
the
reports
The
Agency
s
only other witness
was
Arthur
Kraft,
an
Environmental
Protection
Specialist
with
the Division of
Land
Pollution
Control.
He
testified
as to
three
ways
in
which
Respondent
could bring his
site
~nto con
~or~ance
qth t~ Cequratcois
lieu are
as
follows:
~i.
(A)
Cut
slope
down to
a
two—to—one
ratio
(Tr.
87)
(B)
Cover
~Tr,.
87)
with
impervious
material
two
feet thick
iTr.
88)
(C)
Fence
in area
(Tr,
88).
(B)
Be
completed
by
September
28,
1974
(Tr.
88)
~2,
(A)
Fill toe
with
clay
or
other
suitable cover
materia,1
(Tr,,
80)
and
bring
this
to
a
two-
tc~~one
ratio
(Tr.
85)
(3)
Fence
in
area
(Tr.
88)
(C)
Be completed by
September
28,
1974
(Tr,
88)
~3.
(A)
Fill toe area with
road
bed
material
(Tr.
88)
to
:hrin,q area
o a twc—to—one
slope
(Tr.
85)
~r.
~ci
~
I
T
~
som~
w’oe~-meable mal-eriat
~Tr..75)
C)
Be completed
lit
Pull
28
,
1974
(T.r
.
88)
a the titee
.fo,r rompeerIon .betweea
•eiIerie
1
:2
al5erne.tioe
3
it
mu
to
hates
i.:~,
11oh
nor. natrail. mattn
al.
—9—
After
Mr.
Kraft’s
testimony,
the
Agency
rested
its
case.
Respondent in his brief raised several legal issues, to which the
Board now turns
its attention.
The first issue raised is whether by not replying to Respondent’s
answers in this matter, Complainant admitted certain affirmative de-
fenses therein contained.
Respondent refers to the Civil Practice
Act, wherein the rule is, all material not specifically denied is ass-
umed admitted.
Rule 308
(a)
of the Board’s Procedural: Rules sets forth
the exact opposite approach to pleadings.
All allegations not admitted
are
presumed
denied.
Therefore,
the
Board
finds
Complainant
has
ad-
mitted
to
no
affirmative
defenses
stated
in Respondent’s answer.
The
second
argument
goes
to
whether
the
Agency
is
estopped
from
prosecuting
Respondent,
because
of
affirmative
statements which Re-
spondent relied on, made by Agency representatives.
Respondent cites
to the Board the case Wachta
v. Pollution Control Board,
289 N.E.
2d
484,
for
the
proposition
that
in
the
proper
case
the
Environmental
Protection Agency will be estopped from prosecuting violations,
where
it
would
be
inequitable
for
it
to do so.
The Board finds that
Respond-
ent
has
not
established a case against
the
Agency
for
estoppel.
it
appears
for
the
entire
time
that
Mr.
Di
Ciccio’s
property
was
under
in-
vestigation,
Mr.
Rocha
was
submitting
unsatisfactory
reports,
which
Re--
spondent was aware of and which reports he in fact had signed
(Agency
Exhibits
4 C,D,E,S,T,U,X).
The Wachta
case
is
one
wherein
the
Board
tried
to deny
a
variance
to
a
developer
after
the
Sanitary
Water Board
had
issued
a
permit
and
the
developer
had
spent
substantial
sums of
money
in developing the property..
In this
case, we have an enforce-
ment action.
The Board feels
to prove up a case of estoppel
.in an en-
forcement action,
Respondent must
meet a high burden of proof.
The
reason is that in an enforcement action, the Agency’s duty
is to bring
about
an
end
~
violations
of
the
Act
and
Regulations,
which
are
pro--
mulgated
to
preserve
the
health
and
welfare
of
the
community.
There-
fore,
the
Board
finds
that
the
Agency
is
not
estopped
from
bringing
this
action
against
Respondent.
Respondent
owns
the
property
in
question
in
joint
tenancy
w.ith
his
wife
(R,
103)
He
is
78
years
old
(R.
105)
,
and
has
been
retired
since
1954
(R.
104).
His
major
source
of
income
is
his
monthly
social
secur-~
ity
check
of
$189
(R,
106)
.
He
has
been
putting
fill
in
his
property
since
the
early
1950’s
when
the
State
of
Illinois
began
hauling
in mat-
anal
from
a
test
road
site
(R.
107).
It
appears
that
Mr.
Di
Ciccio
i.e
not
running
a
commercial
dumping
operation.
When
the Agency
began
in—
veSticrating
the
site,
Respondent understood the suggestions
of
the Agen--
cy
to
be
that
he
must
compact
and
cover
the
area.
This gave
Respondent
major
problems
because
he lacked sufficient funds
in order
to
complete
this
type
of
project.
In order to raise
money
to
rent
a
bulldozer
(which
from
the
record
costs
about
$30
per
hour,
Resp.
.Ex.
7,8,
and
9)
he be-
gan
charging
people
to
dump
on
his
property,
thereby
compounding
his
violattons
(R.
112)
Respondent appears
to the Board to be a sincere man whose only oh—
jective at this
time
is
to
stop
dumping on the property and end .sis
v:Lol-~
12
—
375
—
10
—
ations of the Act.
Testimony was introduced showing a substantial amount
o,f fill would
be available to Respondent from repair work on Boyce Memorial Drive,
in
LaSalle County
(R.
25—28).
Respondent has contacted Mr. Vincent Dettore,
who testified that should Mr.
Di Ciccio want fill,
it would be made
available to him.
It was also indicated in the record that Respondent has made arrange-
ments for this fill to be
brought
to
his
property
by
the
road
contract-
or
and to cover and compact the material dn the site
(R.
114).
The Board takes notice of the fact that
Mr.
Di
Ciccio is of limited
means.
The Board also notes that part of the problem in this case
could be traced to the lack of understanding of what the Agency’s rep-
resentatives were telling him to do.
While ignorance of the law is no
excuse, the Board feels no good purpose will be served by imposing
a
fine in this case.
Any
fine that the Board would impose would only
cause a greater hardship on Respondent in attempting to pay for the
closure of the site.
Respondent will be ordered to
submit
a. plan to the Environmental
Protection Agency detailing the closure of the site so as to comply
with applicable rules and regulations of the Board.
This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of
law of the Board.
ORDER
IT
IS
THE
ORDER
of
the
Pollution
Control
Board
that:
1)
Respondent, Louis Di Ciccio, has Violated Sections
21
(e),
21
(a),
21
(b) and
9
Cc)
of the Environmental Protection Act,
Rules
3.04,
3.05, 4.03
(a), 5.03,
5.04,
5.06,
5.07,
5.10
(b)
and
(d)
of the Rules
and Regulations for Refuse Disposal Sites
and Facilities, and Rules
314
Cc)
,
303
(b)
,
305
(a)
,
307
(b)
and
Cd),
306, and 314
(f) of Chapter
7 of the Board’s Rules
and Regulations.
2)
Respondent,
Louis Di Ciccio, shall within
30 days of receipt
of this Order,
submit a compliance plan to the Environmental
Protection Agency, Division of Land Pollution Control, 2200
Churchill Road, Springfield, Illinois 62706, detailing a plan
to bring the site into compliance with the Act and all applic-
able Rules and Regulations of the Board.
3)
Within 90 days of the receipt of this Order,
Respondent shall
cease and deáist all violations of the Act, and all applicable
Rules and Regulations of the Board,
at Respondent’s landfill
site.
12—376
—
11
-
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I,
Christan
L.
Moffett,
Clerk
of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board,
certify
that
the
above
Opinion
and
Order
was
adopted
by
the
Board on the
.~
~
day of
~
,
1974, by a vote of
,.~
to
~
~
12—377
