ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

December

5,

1972

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

v.

)

#72—186

MAL

LANDFILL CORPORATION

Thomas J.

Immel, Assistant Attorney General,

for Environmental

Protection Agency

Hillary

H.

Hallett, for

MAL

Landfill Corporation

Dick

H. Mudge,

Jr.,

for Chouteau Island Citizens Association

and Coalition for the Environment,

St. Louis Region

Opinion and Order of the Board

(by Mr. Lawton):

By complaint filed on May 1,

1972

(as amended on August

11,

1972)

,

the Environmental Protection Agency

(“Aqency”)

charged

MAL

Landfill Corporation

(“MAL”)

,

owner and operator

of a Madison County refuse disposal site, with numerous

violations of the Environmental Protection Act

(“Act”)

Ill.

Rev.

Stat.,

1971,

ch. 111

1/2, and the Rules and Re-

gulations For Refuse Disposal Sites and Facilities

(“Rules”)

on many separate dates.

In total,

MAL

was charged with

nearly one-hundred violations, including the open dumping of

garbage and refuse,

the deposition of contaminants on land

causing

a water pollution hazard, failure to confine dumping

to the smallest practicable area, allowing blowing litter,

failure to provide daily cover, operating the site without

a permit and depositing liquids and hazardous materials on

the site without a permit, improperly conducting salvaging

operations and inadequately providing vector control, and

depositing refuse in standing water.

By Stipulation submitted to the Board on October

26,

1972, more than one-half the allegations were dropped and the

parties agreed that if the Agency’s witnesses were to testify,

they would state that they had observed certain conditions

on certain dates, including at least

12 separate instances

of blowing litter,

at least

14 separate instances of failure

to provide daily cover,

and several other infractions relating

to vector control and the deposition of liquids and hazardous

materials on the site.

The Stipulation also vitiated the

need for oral testimony on the numerous photographs taken

by Agency personnel

to substantiate their charges, and

constituted the Agency’s entire case.

Since there was no

oral testimony offered by complainant,

there was also no

6

—

387

---

—2—

cross-examination; and while Respondent did not specifically

admit any of the charges,

it did generally admit that such

violations had occurred, stressing, however, that the vio-

lations were of a “housekeeping” nature

(R.

52, 130—145,

218—219,

332,

337).

Evidence and the Supplemental Statement submitted by

the Agency indicated that

MAL’s

operation is one of the

largest of

its kind in the State of Illinois.

The present

owners apparently acquired the 75-acre site in 1969

(R.

173),

and presently operate seven ~ays

per

week and twenty—four

hours per day, handling an estimated 1,000,000 cubic yards

of garbage each year

(R.

47).

The area they service in-

cludes the Cities of Venice, Madison, Glen Carbon and Granite

City;

area park, school and township highway districts;

the

western portion of Madison County; and Southern Illinois

University at Edwardsville

(R.

37).

They employ fifteen

major pieces of machinery and equipment in their operations,

which they maintain is the most used at any site in the

State

(R.

50), and they receive some 400 truckloads

of

materials each day.

MAL appears

to have received a permit to operate the

old site on September 18, 1972 and is in the process of

expanding onto an adjacent 246-acre site.

As the Agency

points out in its Supplemental Statement,

the permit is

conditioned upon the posting of

a $250,000 performance bond

to guarantee compliance in the future with the terms of

the permit.

In addition, the Agency agrees that the remaining

violations alleged constitute “housekeeping” violations;

that the operators have sufficient equipment and adequate

cover material to properly operate the site if utilized

correctly; and that the operators of the fill have corrected

the violations found by the Agency’s inspectors upon being

advised of the inspector’s conclusions.

The record indicates that this is a massive operation,

basically well-run, but responsible for certain infractions

of the Act and Rules of a housekeeping nature, either due

to the very size of the operation itself, or to occasional

sloppiness

in: its conduct.

MAL’s own witness frequently

stated that the problems referred to .in the complaint “should

be kept on top of,”

(R. 130, 132—145), but a Madison County

Sanitation POllution Official testified that every time the

operators had been informed of

a possible offense, they

had corrected the situation by the next day

(R.

191).

The case generated a considerable amount of local in-

terest, and several citizens testified at the hearing.

There was testimony offered indicating that the blowing

litter problem

is a great deal more severe than the parties

said it was

(R.

222, 235—237,

265);

that the area is

a

6

—

388

---

—3—

natural flood-plain, with a sandy subsoil, and that the

continuous rise and fall of the water table threatens to

draw contamination from the fill back into the soil en-

dangering

the

local water

supply

(R. 229—230, 235—236,

264,

320-323).

As the Agency correctly pointed out,

the substance

of the citizen testimony pertained to whether or not the

permit should have been issued in the first place, and not

to the individual violations enumerated

in the complaint

which allegedly occurred at the site

(R.

249).

The limited

intervention of the Chouteau Island Citizens Association and

the

Coalition for the Environment raised similar questions.

We are here concerned with certain very specific allega-

tions of violations

at the site, and not with the question of

whether from a land—use planning, or any other point of view,

the site would be better situated elsewhere.

It would appear

that the primary concern of the Intervenors relates to the

new,

larger site which they fear might have a significant

detrimental effect on the Island’s ecology, and not to

the

principal issues raised in the complaint.

We are unclear

as to whether all appropriate permits for the operation

of the new site have been issued.

If so, the Intervenors

and any other concerned individual or group are free to

file a new proceeding against MAL,

if there is evidence of

pollution violations

at the new site,

or that reasons exist

calling for a revocation of the permit.

Similarly, the

Intervenors are free to prosecute

a new case against HAL

for other violations

at the old site not considered

in

this proceeding.

The burden of proof which must be borne

in such a case is the same burden which must be borne in

all enforcement actions: specific charges must be filed,

supported by convincing evidence at a public hearing.

Vague misgivings about the propriety of the facility near

a residential area will not suffice.

In summary, we find that the undisputed evidence indi-

cates several housekeeping violations

of the Act and Rules

at the site.

We will order Respondents to pay a nominal

penalty to

the State of Illinois for such violations, and

remind them that we may not be so lenient

if

such violations

persist in the future.

All reasonable and practicable

steps must be taken to ensure that such violations do not

recur, and since the existence of the violations may have

an effect on the public’s health and welfare, an even great-

er effort must be made by the operators of the site to see

that they are corrected.

This opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact

and conclusions of

law.

6— 389

---

—4—

IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board:

1.

Respondent shall pay to the State of Illinois within

thirty—five

(35) days from the receipt of this Order,

the sum of $1,000 as a penalty for the violations

found

in this proceeding as set forth in the stipulation.

Payment shall be made by certified check or money order

payable to the State of Illinois, and shall be sent to

Fiscal Services Division,

Illinois Environmental Protec-

tion Agency,

2200 Churchill Drive,

Springfield, Illinois

62706.

2.

Respondent shall not conduct any refuse disposal or

landfill operations until appropriate permits there-

for have first been obtained from the Agency;

and shall

take

all necessary steps to correct the violations found

to have occurred herein, and to assure that they will not

recur in the future:

specifically, Respondent shall

immediately cease and desist the improper operation of the

site and shall immediately take steps

to assure daily

cover, the prevention of blowing litter, and vector

control;

shall not deposit liquids or hazardous materials

at its landfill sites without first having obtained a

permit from the Agency to do so; and shall forthwith

cease improper salvaging operations at the sites.

I, Christan Moffett, Clerk of the ILlinois Pollution Control Board,

certify that t e Board adopted

the above Opinion and Order this

4~4~dayof

__________________,

1972, by a vote of

~/

to

6

—

390