ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
September 12, 1972
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Complainant,
vs.
)
PCB 72—1
C
& S MOTOR SERVICE, INC.,
an
Illinois Corporation,
Respondent.
Lee A.
Campbell, Assistant Attorney General for the EPA
Clayton Mikelson,
Pro Se
OPINION AND ORDER OF
THE
BOARD
(by Mr. Henss)
The Environmental Protection Agency filed its complaint
alleging that Respondent C
&
S Motor Service,
Inc. had com-
mitted numerous violations of the Environmental Protection Act
and
the
Rules and Regulations for Refuse Disposal Sites and
Facilities in the operation of a site at Palos Hills, Illinois.
It was charged that Respondent for the period of about one
year in 1971 and 1972 had operated a refuse disposal site with-
out a permit and without adequate fencing or a gate and was
guilty of open dumping of refuse,
failure to confine dumping
of refuse to the smallest practical area,
failure to have
sufficient equipment on the
site,
failure to spread and compact,
failure to cover the refuse on a daily basis, and the deposition
of refuse in standing water.
Testimony for the Complainant was
presented by an EPA Sanitarian
who
had visited the site on
thirteen dates
from April
22,
1971 to June 14,
1972.
Respondent’s
evidence was presented by Clayton Mikelson, owner and President of
C
&
S Motor Service,
Inc.
Respondent is not in the refuse disposal business but operates
25 dump trucks in the business of moving earth for contractors and
doing some grading and excavating.
As a part of its occupation
Respondent does stockpile dirt on its premises for later transfer
to an area in need of landscaping.
The area used by Respondent
for this purpose was only about 1/4 acre.
A 20 acre landfill had
been operated on adjoining property by other persons.
There was
no fence between the two properties and occasionally members of
the public would mistakenly drive into Respondent~sproperty to
deposit debris.
Most of the debris on Respondent’s land, however, was brought
there by its own trucks.
Some of it was in dirt to be stockpiled.
Other debris was included in “heavy fill” which Respondent used to
5— 411
—2—
build up a low-lying area and eliminate an insect breeding pond.
Photographs of Respondent’s property taken on several dates in
1971 and 1972 clearly showed debris consisting of rusty metal
cans, wooden boards, broken wooden crates, rusty pipe, broken
tile, broken concrete, barrels, broken window screens,
a metal
cabinet and a mattress jumbled in a heap with dirt and brush.
Some of the debris was located in a pool of standing water and
oil slicks appear on the water.
Respondent never applied for a permit nor did it fence
the
area since there was no intention to operate
a public landfill.
The police were instructed to patrol the property regularly
to
apprehend trespassers.
Mr. Mikelson had the mistaken impress. on
that the dumping was legal since it did not include garbage.
The
EPA
was somewhat slow in correcting this idea.
On February 28,
1972 Mikelson wrote to the EPA stating:
“We are
in the dump truck and excavating business
and have no need to dispose of refuse.
Refuse to
us is household garbage.
We do,
at times, stockpile
black dirt and fill from some of our jobs and also
dump
heavy fill in the low part of the property.
Heavy fill being broken asphalt, concrete curb,
concrete pavement,
rock and heavy wood.
None of
which has food value for rodents or
is combustible.”
Over five months later on August
2 when the hearing was
held the EPA had not yet answered the letter.
On April
28, 1972 Mr. Mikelson was told orally by an EPA
Representative that the definition of refuse included material
of the type he had been depositing on the property.
When in-
spected twelve days
later the site had been cleaned up, covered
and closed to further dumping.
The pond area was filled with
clay dirt,
Some of
the
area has now received its final cover
of dirt.
The Record indicates that Respondent intends to sell
the property.
Respondent’s mistaken interpretation of the law of course
cannot excuse the violations.
We find that Respondent did
operate a landfill without a permit,
cause open dumping, fail
to spread and compact, fail
to cover on a daily basis, and did
deposit debris in standing water.
The \ziolations were not gross
and Respondent moved rapidly into compliance when its mistaken
interpretations were corrected.
Mr. Mikelson’s attitude indi-
cates that there will be no future violations and we believe that
a penalty of $250.00
is sufficient along with an order to apply
final cover and cease and desist the violations.
5—412
—3—
ORDER
It is ordered that:
(1)
Respondent cease and desist said violations of the
Environmental Protection Act and the Rules and
Regulations for Refuse Disposal Sites and Facilities.
(2)
Respondent apply final cover to the site on or before
October
31,
1972.
(3)
Respondent shall pay to the State of Illinois on or
before October 31,1972 the sum of $250.00 as a
penalty
for violations
found
in this proceeding.
Penalty payment by certified check or money order
payable to the State of Illinois shall be made to:
Fiscal Services Division, Illinois EPA,
2200
Churchill Drive, Springfield, Illinois
62706.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify the above Order was adopted on the
,/~
“~
day of September,
1972 by a vote of
~/—(~
~
~
/
~.;
~
C1~iristanL. ~bffett,
Cl,erk
Illinois Pollution Coñ?rol
Board
5— 413