ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

October

31,

1972

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Complainant,

v.

)

PCB72—265

J

.

C,

DILL,

Respondent.

F.

Daniel Welsch,

Special Assistant Attorney General,

for

the

Environmental

Protection Agency;

J.

C.

Dill, pro

Se.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Mr. Parker)

This is an enforcement proceeding involving open dumping

violations

of Sections

21

(a)

,

(b)

and

(e)

of the Environmental

Protection Act

and Rules

3.04,

4.03,

5.03,

5.04,

5.06 and

5.07

(a)

of

the Rules and Regulations

for Refuse Disposal

Sites

and Facilities.

The Complaint alleges that Respondent

Dill

caused or allowed open dumping

of garbage and other refuse

on eight separate dates extending from October

28,

1971

through

April

7,

1972 at

a facility

located near Georgetown.

The

specific charges include failure

to make

the necessary physical

improvements before placing

the facility in operation,

failure

to confine

the dumping to

the smallest practical

area,

failure

to provide portable fencing and to police the area

to collect

scattered material,

failure

to properly spread and compact the

refuse,

failure

to provide daily cover,

and operation without

a permit.

The Complaint

also charges Respondent with violation

of

a previous Order of this Board entered August

13,

1971

EPA v.

J.

C.

Dill,

PCB71-42).

At

a public hearing,

held September

27,

1972,

Respondent

stipulated that he owned

and operated

the facility and admitted

all

of

the violations charged except violation of

the previous

Board Order

(R.

3—5)

.

Photographs

were

placed in

the record

(Group Exhibit A,

B,

C and

D)

showing

the

dumping

site

--

large open piles of garbage and miscellaneous

debris including

broken cardboard boxes and wooden crates,

tires, oil drums,

stoves

and other large metal remnants.

The only witnesses who appeared at

the hearing were the

Respondent

Dill and several of

his neighbors.

They testified

that

the violations occurred because

of repeated breakdowns

of

a bulldozer on

the

site

(R.

6-7,

9,

13,

17—18)

,

that the

6

—

95

---

blowing

litter did not bother anyone else

(R.

8,

9),

that

Respondent had used his best efforts to provide cover

(R.

8,

13,

14,

19),

that Respondent has recently decided

to

give up open dumping on the premises

(R.

10,

14),

and that

final cover has been or will

be applied

to

a depth of two feet

using

a rented bulldozer

(R.

11,

14)

.

It appears

from

the

record

that

the Respondent was

in

the refuse collecting business,

and that only refuse from

the Respondent’s

truck was dumped on

the premises

(R.

10).

Apparently,

there were

no dumping

activities by outsiders

(R.

10).

The record shows that since

deciding

to close

the premises,

Respondent has been paying

to

dump his refuse

at

a Danville city dump

(R.

10).

We find that

the occurences described

in the Complaint did

take place

on or about

the dates alleged,

and conclude that

Respondent has violated

the Act and

the Rules

as charged

in

the Complaint.

A cease

and desist order will

be entered,

along

with

a

final cover requirement.

We find also that Respondent has failed to comply with the

earlier Order of this Board entered August 13,

1971.

~

Order

dealt with open dumping and open burning violations

at the same

site.

The accompanying Opinion stated in part:

“We find violations with respect

to open burning,

lack

of

a lockable gate

and

an

all weather

road, and

failure

to daily and finally cover refuse.

We

shall

order that no further infractions occur

and

in

consideration

of respondent’s economic

and family

problems assess

a modest $200 penalty.

Although we

have assessed

this nominal penalty in the face

of

the repeated warnings and visits by Agency repre-

sentatives we assure Mr.

Dill

that continued opera-

tion of

his

landfill

in violation of

the law will

result

in greatly increased penalties.’

While the record presently before

us does not show

continuing

open burning violations

or failure

to provide

a lock-

able gate and an all weather

road,

all

as required by our pre-

vious Order,

it does show that Respondent failed to daily and

finally cover

the refuse as required by that Order.

Once again,

however,

there appear

to

be some extenuating

circumstances.

We note the bulldozer disrepair problem,

the

“best efforts” testimony,

the

fact that Respondent’s family

is

apparently

not any smaller than previously

(R.

12),

the

fact

that Respondent has finally agreed to discontinue

the dumping

entirely,

and the fact that Respondent now has the added burden

of paying for dumping privileges

at the city dump.

In view

especially

of the last mentioned factors,

the decision to close

the dump entirely and

the added financial burden of using the

City facilities, we decline

to assess

a money penalty.

—2—

6

—

96

---

This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact

and conclusions

of

law.

ORDER

1.

Respondent

shall immediately cease and desist from

causing or allowing open dumping

of garbage and other refuse

at its facility located near Georgetown.

2.

Respondent

shall immediately spread

and compact all

refuse presently at

the facility,

and apply final cover to it.

I, Christan

L. Moffett, Clerk of the Pollution Control

Board, certify that the above Opinion and Order was adopted

on

the

,i/~day of

~

,

1972, by

a vote of

t~

to

~

~

/

1)

~

~

—3—

6

—

97

---