ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
September 12, 1972
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Complainant,
v.
)
PCB 72—23
EARL BAKER, HAROLD BROVERMAN,
ROBERT RINK,
individually, and
as
a partnership,
Respondents.
William J. Meyer,
Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for the
Environmental Protection Agency;
Harold Broverman for Respondents,
Baker and Broverman.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr. Parker):
This is an enforcement proceeding brought by the Agency
against the owners and operators of the Taylorville Landfill
occupying approximately ten acres
(R.233)
of a 62 acre plot
(R.20) near Taylorville and Kincaid in Christian County.
The Complaint as amended charges Respondents with
violations of the refuse disposal rules and regulations by
operating the landfill without a permit, causing and allow-
ing open burning of refuse on
13 dates between July 29, 1970
and January 11,
1972,
causing and allowing open dumping of
refuse on 26 dates between July 29, 1970 and March
8,
1972,
and failure to spread and compact refuse and to apply daily
and final cover during approximately the same time periods.
The complaint also alleges failure to provide for fire
protection,
to supervise unloading,
to provide portable fences,
to provide sufficient equipment in operational condition
and to take insect and rodent control measures,
as well as
causing or allowing salvage operations to take place.
At the public hearings, held May 24 and 31,
1972,
the
Respondents Baker and Broverman generally denied every
allegation of the Complaint
(R.l3).
They stipulated that
they were joint owners of the Taylorville Landfill during
the entire time period of interest here,
and that Respondent
Rink had also been an owner during the initial portion of
this
time period,
i.e. up until April
1,
1971.
(R.21—22).
5—415
Although Respondent Rink was properly named as
a
party to this proceeding, and was properly served with
legal process, he did not appear at the public hearings.
The evidence at the hearings showed that Rink on a number
of occasions was made aware that the Agency considered
the operations
at the landfill site to be in violation of
the pollution control regulations
(R.199,
202,
235—239,
246)
Baker was the only Respondent who testified as a
witness at the hearing.
He admitted that 5 to
20 truckloads
of refuse per day had been deposited at the site throughout
the time period of interest here, and even extending up
until the time of the hearing
(R.39-40).
Baker also said
there had been burning
(R.4l)
and that they had tried but
failed to extinguish the fires
(R.52, 61-62).
He admitted
that the only fire protection was that provided by using
a
bulldozer to cover the fire with dirt
(R.5l-52,
61).
Respondent Baker also admitted he had seen rats and flies on
the site
(R.50-51),
that there had been blowing of litter
(R.46),
that no portable fences had been installed
(R.47),
and that salvage operations had taken place
(R.49—50,
63-64).
Throughout the time period of interest here, Respondents
Baker and Broverman frequently visited the dump site
(R.33-34).
Baker testified that he continued to receive refuse at
the dump site and continued not to provide cover
(R.55-56)
even after he had received notices of violations from the
Agency
(R.52-53).
He said that an application for permit was
filed with the Agency in May of 1972
(after filing of the
Complaint herein) but no permit has been issued (R.37, 71-72).
Several Agency witnesses testified about numerous visits
to the dump site from July of 1970 up through March of 1972.
The Agency photographer took pictures of the dump site on
August 28 and December 9 and 10 of 1970,
and on July
1 and 2
and November 24 of 1971.
These photos
(Exhs.
1,
6 -19,
21-26)
depict the enormity and seriousness of the dumping and
burning offenses.
The photos show monstrous piles of assorted rubbish
including all manner of garbage and trash, boxes, cans,
glass,
tires, steel drums, refrigerators and other appliances, hot
water tanks, tractors and parts of and entire junked auto-
mobiles.
In addition the record shows that the dump site
contained manure and blood waste from a slaughterhouse
(R.38,
82).
The dump received all the garbage and trash from
the City of Taylorville
(R.39).
Several of the photos show
smouldering undersurface fires,
some accompanied by open
flames
(Exhs.
7—13,
21—26).
—2—
5—416
Agency witness Eisenkoff inspected the dump site
on July 29, August 28, October
15 and November 19 of
1970,
and on June
24 and August 30 of 1971.
He described the
large volume of refuse present on these dates
(R.1l4,
120,
121,
123,
125,
128),
the noticeable odor
(R.ll4,
120,
121),
the lack of spreading or cover
(R.114,
119,
120,
121, 123,
125,
128,
130,
146), the burning of refuse
(R.l15,
146—147),
a heavy fly population
(R.ll5, 120,
121, 126),
the presence
of rats
(R.ll5,
142— 145),
and the absence of fire control
equipment
(R.124,
126,
129).
Eisenkoff spoke several times
with the Respondent Broverman (R.124-l25, 126—127) who at
first refused
to identify himself (R.ll5—ll6).
Agency witness
Larribert gave similar testimony about
visits he made to the site on July 22, 1971
(R.l54-l56)
and
October
7,
1971
(R.l56—l59; also see photos Exhs.
32,33),
as
did Agency witness Beck concerning visits on December 18,
1970
(R.l9l—l92, 195—199)
,
January 12
(R.192—193,
199)
,
February 24
(R.l94,
199), April 15
(R.199-200) and November
23
(R.200)
of 1971, and February 24, 1972
(R.20l).
Witness
Toberman for the Agency testified in like manner as to his
visits to the dump on July
1 and
2
(R.2l1-215), September 22
(R.2l6—2l7), November
4
(R.2l7—218) and November 23
(R.2l8—2l9)
of 1971, and on January
6
(R.2l9) and March
8
(R.219-220)
of
1972.
Agency witness Stauffer testified to his observations
along the same lines during visits to the dump made on
November
9
(R.233-235), November 30
(R.235-237) and December
9 and 10
(R.237—239)
of 1970, on July 1 and 2
(R.239—24l),
July
22
(R.241—243) and November 24
(R.243,244) of 1971, and
on January 11, 1972
(R.245—246).
A number of witnesses testified on behalf of Respondents
that the landfill had been in existence as such for a number
of years, and that some compacting and covering operations
had taken place especially recently
(R.252 et seq).
By motions made before, during and after the public
hearing Respondents seek to have the complaints dismissed
on vaguely stated constitutional grounds.
These motions are
without merit for various reasons, many of which were dis-
cussed
in early Board decisions
(eg. see EPA v. J.M. Cooling,
PCB7O-21, dated September
9,
1970), and accordingly are
denied.
We find that the record evidence overwhelmingly supports
the various allegations of the amended complaint.
It is
difficult to imagine a landfill case more pervasive than this
one.
The enormous size of the open dump, the smelly nature
of the garbage and slaughterhouse wastes, the open burning,
the rats, etc. add up to a most undesirable situations
—3—
5—417
And
it is particularly disturbing that the Respondents
continued these long-standing violations in spite of repeated
Agency warnings and requests that they stop.
Moreover,
Respondents~defiant and obstructive attitude displayed at the
public hearings was hardly helpful to a resolution of the issues.
A cease and desist order will be issued as well as an
order to cover the dump,
and under the circumstances we
believe fairly stiff money penalties are justified,
in the
amounts of $5,000 for each of Respondents Baker and Broverman,
and $2,000 for Respondent Rink
(whose liability extends over
only the initial part of the time period, when he was an owner
of the property).
This opinion constitutes the Board~sfindings of fact
and conclusions of law.
ORDER
1.
Respondents shall cease and desist from causing
and allowing open dumping of refuse and causing and allow-
ing open burning of refuse at their Taylorville Landfill.
2.
Respondents shall immediately spread and compact
the refuse at the Taylorville Landfill,
and apply final
cover to it, which condition shall exist until such time as
the Agency may issue a permit for operation of a landfill.
3.
Respondent Baker shall pay to the State of Illinois
by October 18, 1972 the sum of $5,000 as
a penalty for the
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 D±V±5~Oflr
IlllflOiS
EPA,
2200 Churchill Road,
Springfield, Illinois
62706.
4.
Respondent Broverman shall pay to the State of
Illinois by October 18,
1972 the sum of $5,000 as
a penalty
for the 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 Road,
Springfield, Illinois
62706.
5.
Respondent Rink shall pay to the State of Illinois
by October 18, 1972 the sum of $2,000 as
a penalty for the
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 Road,
Springfield,
Illinois
62706.
I, Christan L, Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order
was adopted on the
/~
day of~.
(~..
~c
.,
1972 by a vote of
-c’
to
:~
.
(
/
/
•;
~
—4--
5
—
418