ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
June
20,
1974
CITIZENS FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT,
An Illinois Not-For-Profit
Corp.,
Complainant,
v.
)
PCB 73—507
EVERETT J.
LaVOIE, individually
and
d/b/a/ LaVoie
Sanitary Service,
Respondent.
Mr. Dennis L. Adamczyk appeared for Citizens For A Better Environment
Everett
J. LaVoie appeared without the aid of counsel
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Dr. Odell)
Citizens For A Better Environment
(CBE)
filed a Complaint
against Mr. LaVoie,
the owner of a landfill,
on December 4,
1973.
The Pollution Control Board
(Board)
entered an I~.terimOrder on
January
3,
1974.
We ruled bhat the allegation
(Count 7)
charging
Respondent with violation of a Board Order was not actionable by
Complainant,
and we referred the issue to the Attorney General and
the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)
for appropriate action.
An Amended Complaint was filed on February 19, 1974,
and
alleged
that:
1.
Respondent has operated a landfill without a permit
from the EPA from August 23,
1972,
through February 18,
1974;
2.
Respondent has failed to provide daily cover to refuse
from August 23,
1972, through July 18,
1973, contrary
to Rule 5.07(a)
of the Rules and Regulations for Refuse
Disposal Sites and Facilities
(Rules).
Rule 305(a)
of
Chapter Seven:
Solid Waste Regulations
(Chapter Seven)
was violated in the same manner from July 19, 1973,
through February 18, 1974;
3.
Respondent has not provided final
cover to the refuse
at the landfill from August 23,
1972,
through July 18,
1973,
in violation of Rule
5,07(b)
of the Rules and
from July 19,
1973,
through February 18, 1974,
in
violation of Rule 305(c)
of Chapter Seven,
—2—
4.
Respondent has caused and allowed the emission of odors
from the landfill site to such
a degree as to constitute
a violation of Section 9(a)
of the Illinois Environ-
mental Protection Act
(Act),
such violations occurring
from March
29,
1973,
through February 18,
1974;
5.
Respondent has allowed the emission of air contaminants
from the landfill site in violation of Rule 312 of
Chapter Seven from July 19,
1973,
through February 18,
1974;
6.
Respondent has caused and allowed the open burning of
refuse material at the landfill site in such a manner
as
to be a violation of Rule 5.12(d)
of the Rules on
June 4,
1973 and July
9,
1973; and in violation of
Rule 311 of Chapter Seven on August 10,
1973, September 27,
1973, September 28,
1973,
and October 25,
1973;
7.
Respondent has provided and allowed to continue conditions
on the landfill site favorable to the development of
animal vectors--flies and rats--from August 10,
1973,
through February 18, 1974, contrary to Rule 314(f)
of
Chapter Seven;
8.
Respondent allowed landfill refuse to reach the banks
of Spring Creek, threatening to cause water pollution
from July 19,
1973,
through February 18,
1974,
trans—
gressing Rules 305 and 313 of Chapter Seven;
9.
Respondent allowed leachate from a field tile draining
the landfill site to be discharged into Spring Creek,
causing water pollution on September 8,
1973,
in dis-
regard of Rule
313 of Chapter Seven.
A hearing took place on April 23,
1974,
in Watseka, Illinois.
Respondent operates his landfill in
a rural area several miles
northwest of Crescent City in Iroquois County,
Illinois.
Respondent
contracts
to haul refuse for various
legal entities in the county.
Mr. LaVoie uses the landfill incident to his hauling activities
when other landfills cannot accept the refuse.
The evidence clearly establishes several violations of the
Act and Rules.
First, Respondent admitted operating the landfill
without a permit from the EPA.
This
is a violation of Section
21(e)
of the Act.
Respondent has nol
applied for a permit because
the landfill cannot satisfy the permit qualifications
(R—80).
Second,
Respondent admitted not applying daily cover to the
site
(R-76).
Forty—seven thousand (47,000) bushels of corn were
dumped at the landfill sometime in the spring of 1973 and was still
not covered at the time of the hearing in 1974
(R-82).
An additional
12—
552
—3—
57,000 bushels of corn have been dumped this year
(R—76).
Testimony
introduced by Complainant
(Comp.
Ex.
#2,
R-lO,
15,
17,
19)
establishes
that daily cover was not applied to refuse for long periods during
late 1972 through the spring of
1973.
This evidence established
violations of Rule 5.07(a)
of the Rules.
Respondent’s admissions
establish violations of Rule 5.07(a)
of the Rules and Rule 305(a)
of Chapter Seven
(superceding Rule 5.07(a)
on July 27,
1973)
Third,
the evidence established that open burning occurred at
the site in violation of the Rules.
Debris was smoldering on
July
9,
1973,
(Comp.
Ex.
#2:
top photo page 19,
R-27)
in violation
of Rule 5.12(d)
of the Rules.
Smoldering refuse was observed on
August 10, 1973
(R-41),and it was also seen on September 27 and
28, 1973
(Comp. Ex.
#3:
photos
2,
3,
4,
5,
7,
8, and 9;
R—47).
On October 25,
1973, smoldering garbage and corn was observed
(Comp.
Ex.
#3:
photos 14, 15, and 16;
R-50).
This testimony was
not challenged by Mr.
LaVoie.
Rather, Respondent stated that
“hot loads” were not picked up on purpose but cannot be avoided in
the business
(R-79).
The other allegations in the Amended Complaint were not
proven.
First, the final cover requirement was not established,
because CBE did not show what areas of the landfill has received
the final refuse mandating final cover.
Second, air pollution was
not proven; although a witness stated that
a strong odor of decay
was noticed on the site
(R—49)
,
no unreasonable interference with
any person’s enjoyment of life or property was introduced.
Third,
the lack of adequate vector control, was not proved in that no
evidence was introduced that flies or rats were creating difficulties
or were not adequately controlled at the site.
Finally,
it
was
not established that water pollution occurred or was threatened to
occur at the landfill,
No evidence of the condition of Spring
Creek was introduced.
Such evidence is
a necessary element of proof
to establish water pollution.
See Environmental Protection Agency
v. Holland Ice Cream and Custard Co.
#
71-319;
3 PCB 587
(February
3,
1972)
in mitigation, Respondent stated that he was forced to dump
refuse at his site because of the unavailability of other landfills
in the county
(R-74).
Mr. LaVoie complained that other landfills
were only open for a limited amount of time each day and would not
accept ~‘hotloads”.
Respondent stated that he did not operate his
landfill to make
a profit;
in fact,
the landfill now owes debts of
$1,600.00
(R-75).
Respondent acknowledged that he had received
notice of possible violations from the EPA at various times, but
argued that since they hadn’t closed him down,
he thought he was
not violating the law
(R-78).
Respondent is selling his refuse
business to Kankakee Sanitation.
Mr. LaVoie is also trying to sell
the landfill and will apply final cover until it is adequate or
until the property is sold
(R—76).
12
*
553
—4—
In deciding on the appropriate remedy in this case, we first
look to Section 33(c)
of the Act.
These factors, alone, would not
mandate a severe penalty because little detrimental environmental
impact has been shown to affect man or the environment.
Other
considerations influence our Order.
First, Respondent’s violations
are willful and of long standing.
Our previous Order against
Mr. LaVoie CEnvironmental Protection Agency v. Everett J. LaVole
#72-191;
5 PCB 121 (August
8, 1972)3 has not been complied with.
Continued violations in the face of
a Board Order over a long
period indicates lack of good faith.
On the other hand,
some
evidence was introduced suggesting Respondent has financial difficult-
ies.
We are reluctant to be too harsh in the light of his important
family responsibilities.
Finally, Respondent indicated a desire to
get out of this line of work.
We favor that decision and style
our Order accordingly so that additional deliberate flaunting of
the law will not occur.
This 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, Everett J.
LaVoie, individually,
and d/b/a
LaVoie Sanitary Service, shall cease and desist the
aforesaid violations.
2.
Respondent, Everett J. LaVoie,
individually, and d/b/a
LaVoie Sanitary Service, shall pay a penalty of
$500.00
for the violations of the Act and Rules and Regulations
that were established in this Opinion.
Payment shall be
by certified check or money order made payable to the
State of Illinois, Fiscal Services Division, Environmental
Protection Agency,
2200 Churchill Road, Springfield,
Illinois
62706.
Payment must be tendered by Respondent
within 35 days of the adoption of this Order.
3.
Respondent shall apply final cover material, within 90
days of the adoption of this Order, on those portions
of the landfill not already overspread with final cover.
Within 30 days of the adoption of this Order, Respondent
must post a performance bond of $3,000.00 in a form
satisfactory to the Environmental Protection Agency,
to
assure compliance with this final cover Order.
Failure
to apply
final cover will cause forfeiture
of this bond.
4.
Respondent shall file reports with the Environmental
Protection Agency 30, 60, and 90 days after the
adoption of this Order, detailing the progress in apply-
ing final cover as specified in Order
3,
above.
12—554
—5—
5.
Respondent shall haul no additional refuse to the land-
fill site,
from the date of the adoption of this Order,
until a permit has been received from the Environmental
Protection Agency.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order was
adopted on the
~
day of
_________
1974, by a vote of
____
to
~.
-
Christan L. Moffet~~Clerk
12—555