ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
January
16,
1973
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
PCB
72—312
HOWARD
JAMES
OPINION
AND ORDER
OF
THE
BOARD
(by
Mr.
Dumelle)
This
is
an
enforcement
case
alleging
that
the respondent
in the
operation
of
a 60-acre
landfill
near
Raleigh,
Illinois
(Saline
County)
has
violated
numerous
sections
of
the
Environmental
Protection
Act and the
Rules
and
Regulations
for Refuse
Disposal
Sites
and Facilities
on certain
specified
dates,
Hearing
was
held
on
November
11,
1972
at which
time
the respondent
did
not
appear
nor
did
anyone
appear
in his
behalf.
On
October
18,
1972
1972,
the
respondent
was
notified
of
the time
and
place
of
the hearing
by
letter
from
the
hearing
officer,
On
November
9,
the respondent
was
notified
by letter
that~the
location
of the
hearing
was
changed from
the
original
location
to
a
new
one located
only
a half block
from
the first,
On the
morning
of
the hearing
the. hearing
officer
posted
a notice
on
each
door
of
the original
location
stating
the
new location.
It was
alleged
that
the
site
was
being
operated
without
an
Agency
permit.
At
the
hearing
this
charge
was
dropped
because
there
had
in
fact
been
a permit
since
November,
1969,
It
was
alleged
that
the
respondent
caused
or
allowed
open
dumping
of
garbage
and refuse
in
violation
of
Section
21
of
the
Act
and Rule
3. 04
of
the
Rules.
The
inspectors
testified
that
they observed
items
at the
site
such
as
metals,
wire,
tires,
desks,
refrigerators,
stoves,
bicycles,
hot
water
tanks, paper,
bottles,
cans,
etc.
One
inspector
testified
that
he observed
dumping
on
October
21,
1970
and January
7,
1971,
Another
inspector
said
he
observed
that
dumping
had
taken place
on
November
3,
1971,
There
were
numerous
other
dates
alleged
for
open
dumping
however
they were
not
proved
adequately.
Open
dumping
can
be proved
either
by
actually
observing
the
dumping
taking
place
or
by proving
that
there
was
new
material
added
to
the
site from
one
date
to
another,
Reference
is
made
to Sections
3(h)
and
3(L) of
the
Act
which
define
‘open
dumping’
and
‘sanitary
landfill”.
The
-2-
essential
elements
of
open
dumping
are
contained
therein.
We find
open
dumping
violations
on
October
21,
1970,
January
7,
1971
and November
3,
1971.
It
was
alleged
that
the respondent
caused
or
allowed
open
burning
in violation
of
Section
9(c)
of the
Act
and Rule
3. 05.
The
inspector
testified
that
he
saw
burned
materials
on
August
13,
1971
and October
20.
1971
ani
that
he
saw
acthal
burning
of
logs
and garbage
on
November
3,
1971
and
November
4,
1971.
We
find that
the violations
did
occur
on
those
four
dates.
It
was
alleged
that
the
respondent
failed
to
provide
sufficient
equipment
in violation
of Rule
5. 05.
The
inspector
testified
that
there
was
no
operable
equipment
at the
site
on
August
13,
1971,
October
20,
1971,
November
3,
1971
and
November
4,
1971.
We
find that
the violations
did
occur
on
those
four
dates.
It was
alleged
that the
respondent
failed
to
properly
spread
and
compact
refuse
in violation
of Rule
5.
06.
The
inspectors
testified
that
there
was
no
spreading
or
compacting
of
any
refuse
on
October
21,
1970,
January
7,
April
12,
August
13,
September
23,
October
20,
November
3,
and November
4,
1971,
January
17,
January
18,
January
31,
February
1,
May
9 and
May
10,
1972.
There
was
testimony
that
the
materials
were
just
stockpiled
and lying
over
most
of
the
site.
We
find that
the
violations
did
occur
on
those
dates.
It
was
alleged
that
the
respondent
failed
to
provide
daily
cover
in violation
of Rule
5.
07
(a).
The
inspectors
testified
that
there
was
no
cover
whatsoever
provided
on
October
21,
1970,
January
7,
April
12,
October
20,
November
3
and
November
4,
1971,
January
17,
January
18,
January
31,
and
May
9,
1972.
We find that
the
violations
did
occur
on
those
dates.
There
were
three
additional
dates
alleged
for
cover
violations
which
were
not
adequately
proved.
It was
finally
alleged
that the
respondent
failed
to properly
conduct
salvage
operations
at the
site
in violation
of Rule
5. 10.
The
rule
provides
that
if salvage
operations
are
carried
out
they must
be
conducted
in a sanitary
manner,
they
must
be
confined
to
an area
remote
fromthe
operating
face
of
the fill,
they
shall
not
interfere
with
or
delay the
fill
operation,
and
all
salvaged
materials
must
be
moreced
from
the
site
daily
or
properly
stored
such that
they
will
not
create
a
nuisance,
rat
harborage
or
unsightly
appearance.
The
inspectors
testified
that
salvage
operations
were
being
carried
out
at the
site
including
materials
such
as
metals,
desks,
bicycles,~ stoves,
lumber
and hot
water
tanks.
They further
6
—
532
—3—
testified
that
these
materials
were
being
stockpiled
over
wide areas
at
random,
in an unsanitary
manner,
not
remote
from
the fill face
and
with
an unsightly
appearance.
The
dates
involved were
October
21,
1970,
January
7,
April
12,
July
21,
August
13,
September
23,
October
20,
November
3,
and November
4,
1971,
January
17,
January
18,
January
31,
February
1,
May
9,
and
May
10,
1972.
We
find that
the violations
did
occur
on those
dates.
Considering
all
the
facts
we
will
assess
a
penalty
of
$1000.
We
expect,
however,
that
all
violations
at the
site
be
corrected
immediately.
This
opinion
constitutes
the
Board~s findings
of fact
and
conclusions
of
law.
ORDER
1.
Respondent
shall
cease
and desist.
from
all
violations
found
in this
opinion.
2.
Respondent
shall
pay to the
State
of Illinois
the
sum
of
$1000 as
a penalty
for
the violations
found
in this
proceeding
by
January
31,
1973.
Penalty
payment
by
certified
check
or
money order
payable
to the
State
of Illinois
shall
be made
to:
Fiscal
Services
Division,
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
2200
Churchill
Drive,
Springfield,
Illinois
62706.
I,
Christan
L.
Moffett,
Clerk
of the
Illinois
Pollution
Contro,~Board,
hereby
certify
the
above
Opinion
and Order
was
adopted
on the /t~
~‘day
of
January
197 3 by
a vote
of
3—ô
~
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
6
—
533