LLINO I S IOLLUOI ON CONTROL BOARI;

January l6~ i9~73

LNP 1 RONMONTAL PROTLCT

TON

AGPNCY

p72-348

)

JAMLS

II.

ilUITON and PAUL F

CRA13TRLL

)

hoiras A. Cengel

Ass is

tant

Attorney General

on behalf

of

hn\TlrOfl-

non ta I P rot ect ion A~,encv

Julio A. ~Iaiiii on bean I F of Respondent James R. 1-lutton

Opinion and

Order a 

F the hoard (by Mr

Lawton)

Conip a I

at

was

Li

led on Augus

22

1 972 chargIng Respondents

hutton

and Crab tree, owners and operators of a landfill located about five

No rth of Onc.ks any

ille 

I 11 i no i s

w i th caus i ng or a1 low Log numer

uus yb 1at~ons of te Ill ino;is hnvironmental Protection Act, hereinafter

referred to as the “Act”,

Ill. Rev. Stat., Oh. lilh (1971), and the

Rules and Reguations For R~~se~sposa1 Sites and FacIlities,

here-

:nafter referred to as the “Rules”, at the

site

on many separate occasions

from January 1 5

1971 through June

1972

Public hear lag was held

in Jacksonville

on October 16, 1972.

the outset,

Res

poodent Crahtree

appearing pro

se,

admitted

that he had been i n pa

rtnersh i p

with Respondent

lint

ton when

the s i te

was acquired

in Januar

19711

hut that

had sold out nine

months

later,

on September

30,

1971 (R.

11).

ills responsibility

and liability

for violations

the

site, if any,

would therefore extend through

the

date he

terminated 

the partnership agreement.

The

record developed at the

hearing revealed that

the

site has been

run

in an

extremely s loppv fashion

and that the

owners

and opera

tars

have

bordered

on negligence in their conduct of bus:iness at the landfill.

Convincing, and relatively unrehutted evidence was introduced to support

ninny of the

allegations of violation contained in the complaint,

and we

specifically

find

the following violations did occur as charged:

Open

Dumping of Garbage

violation of Section 21(a) of

the

Act,

on March 4, 1971 (R.

33-34) 

and

May 28,

1971 (R.43-44)

2) Open

Jumping of

Refuse in

violation of Section 21(b) of

the

Act and Rule

the Rules, on March 4,

1971 (R. 33-34);

May

28, 1971

(R.43-44)

;  August 24, 1971 (R. 53-54); September

29,

1971

(R. 78-79); October 115, 1971 (R. 

79);

October 18,

1971 (R. 83); 

October

20,

1971

(R~ 89-90); October 26, 1971

(R. 90-91); October 27, 1971 (R. 91); December 9, 1971 (R, 159-26(1);

January 

1972 (R. 160); 

January

27, 1972 (R. 

175);

April 12,

1972 (R. 177); May 15, 1972 (R. 179); 

June

27, 1972 (R. 181);

and

June

29, 1972 (II. 182);

-7—

3) Open Burning in violation of Section 9 (c) of the Act and Rule

3.05 of the Rules, on January 15, 

1971 (R.18); August 24, 1971

(R. 53-56); October 15, 1971 (R. 79-80); October 20, 1971 (R.

89); October 26, 1971 (R. 90); January 7, 

1972

(IL

160-161)

and January 27, 1972 (R. 175);

4) Failing to Prevent Blowing Litter 

in

violation of Rule 5.04 of

the Rules, on April 16, 1971 (R. 36); May 28, 1971 (R.44);

August 24, 1971 (R. 53-54); September 29, 1971 (R. 78-79);

October 18, 1971 (R. 83); October 20, 1971 (R. 89); October

26, 1971 (R. 90); December 9, 1971 (R. 160); January 7, 1972

(R. 161);

5) Failing to Properly Spread and Compact Refuse in violation of

Rule 5.06 of the Rules, on May 28, 1971 (R. 44-45); August 24,

1971 (R. 53-54); September 29, 1971 (R. 78-79); October 15,

1971 (IL 80); October 18, 1971 (R. 83); October 20, 1971 (IL 89);

October 26 and 27, 1971 (R. 90-91, 

EPA

Ex. # 7, 7A through L);

December 9, 1971 (R. 160); January 7, 1972 (R. 160-161); Jan-

uary 27, 1972 (R. 175); April 12, 1972 (IL 177); May 15, 1972

(R. 179); June 27, 1972 (11. 181) and June 29, 1972 (R. 182);

6) Failing to Provide Proper Daily Cover in violation of 

Rule

5.07 (a) of the Rules, on May 28, 1971 (R. 44-45); August 24,

1971 (R. 53-67); October 26, 1971 (R. 90); October 27, 1971

(R. 91); December 9, 1971 (R.160); January 27, 1972 (IL 175)

and April 12, 1972 (R. 177);

7) Failing to Provide Proper Final Cover in violation of Rule

5.07 (b) of the Rules, on May 28, 1971 (R. 43); June 30, 1971

(R. 45-46); October 15, 1971 (R. 79-80); October 18, 1971 (R.

83); October 26 and 27, 1971 (R.90-91); April 12, 1972 (R. 177);

May 15, 1972 (R.179); June 27, 1972 (R. 181) and June 29, 1972

(R. 182);

8) Deposition of Liquids or Hazardous Materials Without Written

Approval from Agency in violation of Rule 5.08, on January 13,

1971 (R. 17, 25-26). A City Alderman, who identified himself

as Chairman of Municipal Services, testified that he had ordered

sludge from the Jacksonville Treatment Plant to be taken to the

site and dumped there not knowing that to do so without authori-

zation constituted a violation (R. 27-28). I-Ic added that since

he had not been explicitely told not to do so, he assumed that

no harm would be done (R. 134), Not only were his assumptions

inaccurate and unsupported, 

but

they also did not serve to

excuse the owners and operators of the landfill site from

responsibility for what was deposited there. They were in

control of the facility and should have prevented the sludge

from being dumped there until a permit to do so had been ob-

tained.

6— 544

in summary, the

complaint charged

some

87 separate violations

of the Act and Rules and. we have

found that the evidence supports

67 of the charges. In addition, similar offenses were shown to have

occurred on other dates not specified in the complaint. The overall

picture painted by all of these violations is that of an extremely

sloppily run operation. By and large, the evidence indicates that

the majority of the items improperly dumped, inadequately spread,

compacted or covered, consisted of combustibles, bricks, wires, con-

crete, lumber, trees, brush and demolition materials. Respondent

Hutton stated that the site receives about 1,000 cubic yards per

day (R. 196—197) and that it was not “feasible” or “possible” to

spread and compact the materials as soon as they came into the site.

He added that he simply could not handle both residential refuse and

demolition materials adequately, so he normally just piled it up

until he had enough time to get to it (R. 206).

While we applaud Respondent’s apparent attitude to do whatever

he can to comply with the rules and regulations governing this type

of operation, we find it difficult to reconcile with his obvious failure

to cope with a situation clearly of his own making: an inability to

properly handle the volume of materials being sent to the site.

Since Respondent has control of his operation, he must be the one

responsible to regulate the flow of materials into the site, and

when the volume simply becomes too great to properly handle according

to law, it is Respondent’s obligation to cease accepting more, or

permitting more to be dumped there. This he has failed to do.

For the many violations we have found herein, we will require

payment of a penalty in the amount of $1,500, which amount might

easily have been more but for the fact that testimony revealed that

significant steps have already been taken to improve conditions at

the site. We feel that this gOod faith attitude should not be un-

recognized. We will also order Respondent to do all that he reason-

ably and practicably can do to see that the disgraceful conditions

found to have been prevalent at the site in the past do not recur. As

far as apportionment of the penalty between the two Respondents is

concerned, we will hold Respondent Crabtree liable for only $250.00

of the entire amount and Respondent Hutton for the remainder, approx-

imating the proportion of time both were involved in the ownership

and operation of the facility when the violations were occurring,

and applying

that proportion to the entire penalty.

ORDER

1.

Respondent Hutton shall pay to the State of Illinois

by January 23, 1973, the sum of $1,250.00, and Respon-

dent Crabtree shall pay to the State of Illinois by

January 23, 1973, the sum of $250.00, as penalties

for the violations found in this proceeding. Payment

shall be made by checks or money orders payable to the

—3-.

—

545

~nca~

cad ~haL be sent to Fiscal

~-~-is La

n\-::~ocnta1 Protection Aqency

Oh;rchii Scad Sc::ncfieie, Illinois 62706.

:~a-: :S~:tn~ s’~

foc-towati; 

ceasa ace desast ali

as aS

:~tand Aulcs at said landf) 11 sine

i S a:- ~ aOl. aeacssar~

stays to sea than such

herniaLo cot ::ecur in the Lutare~

:;:

aPe ?toa-:aoc Control Poard,

certify

—

z~-

—

~-~---~

m’~

~rS

t

-_--

- :-

a