ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
September 12, 1972
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
)
#72—136
v.
CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND
AND
PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY
)
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (BY SAMUEL T. LAWTON, JR.)
MR. RICHARD M. BANER, SPECIAL ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED
ON BEHALF OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MR. JAMES E. SYKES, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND AND
PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY
Complaint was filed against the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific
Railroad Company alleging that Respondent has owned and operated
a landfill site near Silvis, Illinois, which operation has been
conducted without a permit in violation of Section 21(e) of the
Environmental Protection Act (Act) and pursuant to which operation,
Respondent has been guilty of open dumping in violation of Rule
3.04 of the Rules and Regulations for Refuse Disposal Sites and
Facilities (Rules) on seven specified dates, has caused or allowed
the depositing of oil upon land so as to create a water pollution
hazard in violation of Section 12(d) of the Act, and has conducted
the landfill site in violation of Rules 4.03(a) with respect to
fencing and posting, 5.03 with respect to failure to confine the
dumping of refuse to the smallest practical area, 5.07(a) relating
to failure to provide daily cover and Rule 5.12(c) with respect
to dumping refuse in standing water.
Answer was filed in which Respondent admits the ownership of the
site and the operation of the landfill without a permit, but denies
that the operation violates any statutory or regulatory provisions.
Respondent concedes that its operation does not comply with Rules
4.03(a) or 5.07(a), if applicable. There does not appear to be any
substantial dispute on the facts of the case and the exhibits ad-
mitted into evidence establish a considerable amount of open dumping
on the premises in question.
Two
dumping areas are involved. In one area, the railroad has
dumped cardboard and oil filters used in its operation over a two-
acre tract, which area is subject to periodic water retention and
flooding. Oil in some instances had seeped into the standing water
creating a water pollution hazard in violation of Section 12(d) of
the Act. On another two—acre tract referred to as the “promiscuous
5
—
419
dumping area”, open dumping has taken place which probably has
not been done by Respondent’s employees,but rather by private citizens.
However, this area is unfenced, not patrolled and easily accessi-
ble. The record does not disclose any substantial efforts
having been made to abate the continued illegal dumping and the
respondent appears to have acquiesced in its continuance.
Agency witnesses testified to the conditions of open dump-
ing in both areas, the absence of spreading, compacting and cover,
and the presence of oil and water on the land on the dates alleged.
Some flies were observed in the oil spill area and cans and old
refrigerators were observed in the “promiscuous dumping area”.
Oil odors were noted but beyond this no serious odor problem
appears to have developed.
Section 21(e) of the present Act prohibits the conduct of
refuse disposal operations except for ‘refuse generated by the
operator’s own activities” without a permit. The present Rules
and Regulations for Refuse Disposal Sites and Facilities were
adopted in April of 1966. Rule ..Olrequires the registration of
all refuse disposal sites with the Illinois Department of Public
Health. Rule 1.O3provides as follows:
“(a)fter the effective dates of the rules, prior
approval shall be obtained from the Department for any
new refuse disposal site or facility. Said approval will
be granted when the registrant shall have met the rules
set forth herein.”
Respondent’s defense is premised essentially on the alleged
inapplicability of the statutory provisions and rules to its
operation. It contends that since the refuse was generated by
Respondent1s activities no permit is required and that since its
operation pre—dated the 1966 regulations, the regulations are not
applicable to Respondent’s landfill operation. If the refuse on
Respondent~ssite was solely attributable to its business activities,
its position with respect to the statutory requirement for permit
might be well taken. However, there is no question that substan-
tial refuse has accumulated on Respondent’s site with Respondent’s
acquiesence that is not attributable to its business operation
and for which Respondent, by its inaction and indifference is
responsible. See Environmental Protection Agency v. Otto E.
Dobbeke, Jr., et al, #72—130. Furthermore, while Section 1.03
requires new sites to acquire prior approval, nothing in the regu—
lations suggests that sites existing prior to April, 1966 are
exempt from the application of the Rules. This is all the more
clearly brought out by reference to Rule l.Olwhich requires regis-
tration of all refuse sites with the Department of Public Health.
We find Respondent to have violated the following Act and Rule
provisions: Section 21(e) of the Act in failing to obtain a permit,
Section 12(d) of the Act in creating a water pollution hazard,
5
—
420
Rule 3.04 in causing and allowing open dumping, Rule 4.03(a) with
respect to fencing and posting, Section 5.03 in failing to confine
its dumping of refuse to the smallest practical area, Rule 5.07(a)
in not providing daily cover and Rule 5.12(c) in depositing refuse
in standing water.
While the number of violations is great, there is no evi-
dence that the impact on the community is severe and Respondent
appears to be taking steps currently to improve the condition. Nor
does there appear to be any evidence in the record that fires have
resulted from the oil seepage.
We order Respondent to cease and desist its operation in
violation of the Environmental Protection Act and the Rules and Regu-
lations for Refuse Disposal Sites and Facilities, We direct Respon-
dent to spread, compact and cover all refuse presently on its site
in keeping with the Rules and to take affirmative steps to prevent
others from using the site in violation of the Rules and Statute.
Penalty in the amount of $250.00 is assessed for the violations
aforesaid.
This opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions
of law of the Board.
IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board:
1. Penalty in the amount of $250.00 is assessed against
Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad for violation
of Section 21(e) and 12(d) of the Environmental Protec-
tion Act and Rules3,04, 5.03(a), 5.07(a) and 5.12(c)
on the dates alleged in the complaint, as amended.
Within thirty-five days from the date hereof, 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,
2. Respondent, Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad
is directed to cease and desist violation of the Environ-
mental Protection Act and the Rules and Regulations
for Refuse Disposal Sites and Facilities with respect
to its Silvis operation.
—3—
5
—
421
3. Respondent shall take affirmative steps to spread,
compact and cover all debris and refuse presently
located on its landfill site in Silvis, Illinois, in
strict compliance with the relevant section of the
Rules and Regulations for Refuse Disposal Sites and
Facilities.
4. Respondent shall take affirmative steps to prevent
the unlawful dumping by others of refuse and debris
upon its landfill site.
I, Christan Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board,
certify that the above Opinion and Order was adopted on the ,c~
~‘~‘
day of September, 1972, by a vote of
‘/
to p
—4—
5
—
422