ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Complainant,

V.

M

& N DISPOSAL COMPANY,

INC.,

an

Illinois Corporation;

J

& V DEVELOPMENT)

COMPANY,

an Illinois Corporation; and

MELVIN F, WATSON, an individual,

Respondents.

Mr. Jeffery~S.Herden, attorney for Complainant.

Mr. Lyman

C.

Tieman, attorney for M and W Disposal

Company,

Inc. and Mr. Melvin Watson.

Mr. Robert Quinn, attorney for J and V Development

Company.

INTERIM OPINION AND ORDER OF TEE BOARD

(by Dr. Odell)

On April

26, 1974,

the Environmental Protection Agency

(Agency)

filed a Complaint against Respondents and alleged

numerou~violations

in the operation of a landfill located in

Rockdale, Will County,

Illinois.

In Count

I,

Complaiflatt charged

that Respondents from March

22,

1973, until July 27,

1973, in~

cluding certain specified dates:

1.

Operated the landfill without a permit in violation

of Section 21(e)

of the Envi.ronmental Protection Act

(Act).

2.

Inadequately fenced the facility in violation of

Section 21(b)

of the Act and Rule 4,03 of the Rules and Regulations

For Refuse Disposal Sites and Facilities

(Rules and Regulations).

3,

Failed to provide daily cover in violation of Section

21(b)

of the Act

and

Rule 5.07(a)

of the Rules and Regulations.

4.

Failed to provide final cover in violation of Section

21(b)

of the

Act

and Rule 5.07(b)

of the Rules and

Regulations.

Additional violations were charged

in Count II

for

the

period July 27, 1973,

to April

26,

During this period Complainant alleged that Respondents:

1.

Failed to provide adequate fire protection, fencing,

gates and other measures to control access to the site,

and failed

to control dust in violation of Section 21(b)

of the Act and Rules

314(c),

Cd), and

(f) of the Pollution Control Board~sRegulations

for Solid Waste

13

507

---

2.

Failed

to

provide daily

cover in

violation of

Section 21(b)

of the Act and Rule

305 of Chapter

7.

3.

Failed to

spread and compact refuse as rapidly

as it

was deposited at the toe of the landfill

in

violation

of Section

21(b)

of the

Act and

Rule 303(b)

of Chapter

7.

4.

Caused or allowed scavenging operations at

the site

in violation of Section 21(b)

of the

Act

and Rule 308 of Chapter

7.

In Count III, Complainant alleged that from June

22,

1973,

until April

26,

1974,

Respondents had not obtained all necessary

permits and from March

22,

1973,

until

April

26,

1974,

Respondents

had failed to close its~facility since necessary permits were not

obtained.

Both allegations were violations

of the former Board

order in ~

ç2~n,

#72~467; 7 PCB 379

(March 22,

1973).

Point one of that

Order, payment of

a $2,500 penalty, had been complied with.

A hearing occurred in Joliet,

Illinois, on June 21,

1974;

the parties indicated that a tentative settlement agreement had

been reached (R~6),

The Stipulation and Proposal For Settlement

was submitted to the Board in final form on July 12.

J and V

Development Company owned the land occupied by the ~•landf

ill

(Stipulation and Proposal For Settlement, page

3).

The settle~

ment agreement provided for the dismissal of J and V Development

Company as a party Respondent because it did not operate the land~

fill (R~9). The other Respondents admitted as vIolations most of

the charges indicated in Counts I and II; Count III was dismissed

~because the Board cannot enforce its own order” (R~l2), The two

Respondents agreed to pay a $5,000 penalty

(R~9) and comply with

all Board regulations.

The program oLcompliance has already

been undertaken

i.n that a conditional permit has been issued to

Respondents for a new landfill west of the present facility (R~13)

and plans are to close down the present site on approximately

September

1,

1974

(Stipulation and Proposal For Settlement, page

6).

Finally, the Stipulation provided that should the Board fail

to approve it and the $5,000 penalty, that the Stipulation would

be held for nought and that no admissions

in the Stipulation would

prejudice either party in subsequent hearings.

Several witnesses testified at the hearing.

An Agency

official stated that at his last visit in March 1974,

the problem

of the inadequacy of daily cover still existed (R~21), Unimpeached

citizen testimony vociferously objected to the inconvenience,

the

odor problems (R~23, 24,

27),

the rat problems (R~35)

,

and the

serious dust nuisance caused by Respondents in operating the site

(R~39, 40).

We reject The Stipulation and Proposal For Settlement worked

out between the parties.

Lacking further evidence, we believe that

the $5,000 penalty

is unreasonably low.

This

is not the first

action brought against Respondents.

They should be acutely aware

of how to properly comply with our regulations,

Citizens have been

severely inconvenienced.

To accept a $5,000 penalty on the facts

before us would do an injustice to the Board and citizens;

it would

also encourage others to delay compliance because continued

13

508

---

pollution would be economically expedient.

Any future Stipulation

and Proposal For Settlement must provide for a higher penalty and

assure the Board not only that the old site is no longer operating

or operating within all applicable regulations

but also that

the new site

is

fully complying with

the Act and regulations.

Igency inspections would be one means to determine this,

Before

taking final action on any stipulation in this case,

the Board

must have assurances that the violations and nuisance caused by

Respondents~operation have ceased.

Failure to accept this Stipulation will not delay com~

pliance.

Respondent is obligated to comply with the law regardless

of

any

order

from

this

Board.

Furthermore,

our

previous

Board

order

against

these

Respondents

mandated

compliance.

Failure

to

comply

with

our

previous

Order

is

one

factor

in

determining

a

penalty

in

this

subsequent,

similar

cause

of

action.

ORDER

The

Stipulation and Proposal For Settlement

is remanded

to the parties for further action consistent with this Interim

Opinion and Order.

IT

IS

SO ORDERED.

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk

of

the Illinois Pollution Control

Board,

hereby

cer

ify

that the a

ove

pinion and Order was

~~ted

on the

day of

1974,

by a Vote of

~istanL,Mot

13

*