ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL 

BOARD

October 10, 1972

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

)

#72—129

HENRY DE 

BOER, d/b/a

MARENGO

)

DISPOSAL 

COMPANY

and

)

PAUL JOOST            

)

MR. GEORGE D. KARCAZES, SPECIAL ASST. 

ATTORNEY

GENERAL, APPEARED

ON

BEHALF OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

MR.

NORMAN

POLLOCK, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

OPINION

AND

ORDER

THE BOARD

(BY

SAMUEL T. LAWTON, JR.)

Complaint was filed against Henry De Boer, d/b/a Narengo Disposal

Company and Paul Joost

alleging from 

on

or before July 21, 1970 to

the date

of

hearing, Respondent, Henry

Dc

Boer operated, and Respon-

dent Paul Joost owned, a landfill disposal site in Marengo, Illinois,

and that between July 

15, 1971 and the date of the hearing, Respon-

dents operated or allowed operation of the landfill site so as to

cause 

or allow 

open burning of refuse in violation of Sections 9(a)

and 9(c) 

of the Environmental Protection Act, Rules 

2~2.1 

and 2-1.2

of the Rules and Regulations Governing the Control of Air Pollution

(Air Rules) and Rule 3.05 of the Rules and Regulations for Refuse

Disposal Sites and Facilities (Land Rules). The complaint further

alleges that between July 1, 1970 and the date of hearing, Respon-

dents conducted a refuse disposal site without permit issued by the

Environmental Protection Agency in violation of Section 21(e) of the

Act and that between July 21, 1970 and the date of hearing, Respon-

dents operated the landfill site in violation of the following Land

Rules:

4.03(a) failure to provide fencing; 5.03 

failure to confine

dumping to the smallest practicable area; 5.04 

—

unsupervised un-

loading; 5.06 

—

failure to spread and compact; 5.07(a) 

failure

to apply six inches of daily cover; 5.07(b) 

failure to provide

adequate final cover; 5,09 

—

failure to employ adequate insect and

rodent control measures; 5.10(a) 

—

failure to conduct salvage opera-

tion in a sanitary manner; 5,10(b) 

conduct of salvage operation neai

the operating face of the landfill; 5.10(d) 

storing salvage mater-

ials so as to create a nuisance; Rule 5.12(c) 

depositing refuse in

standing water.

Hearing was held in Narengo on August 30, 

1972. 

By oral stip-

ulation entered into at the hearing, ownership and operation as

5

—

625

alleged in the complaint were admitted. Open burning of refuse

resulting in discharge or emission of smoke was admitted between

July 15, 1971 and July 19, 1971 and on October 5, 1971. The ab-

sence of a permit between July 1 and the date of hearing was admitted.

With respect to the alleged violation of the land rules, the

parties stipulated that Rule 4.03(a) was complied with after July 19,

1971 but was violated prior 

to that date; that Rule 5.04 with respect

to unsupervised unloading was violated 

~on occasion”, and that Rule

5.06 requiring spreading and compacting as rapidly as refuse was admitted

to the site, was violated. Violation of Rule 5.07(a) requiring daily

cover was admitted. The parties have stipulated that Section 5,07(b)

requiring final cover had been complied with as to a limited portion

of the tract (R.7) and that all salvage operations for which violations

of Rules 5,10(a), (b) and Cd) were asserted have ceased since “the

last part of 1970” indicating violation between July 21, 1970, as all ~ged,

and the end of the year. Violation of 5.12(c) prohibiting deposit

of refuse in standing water was admitted between July 15, 1971 

and

July 19, 1971 and in October of 1971. 

The Assistant Attorney General

stated that no evidence would be offered relative to the alleged

violation of Rule 5.07(b) requiring final cover, However, as noted

below, this does not mean that the final cover provision had been

satisfied but rather that with the exception of a limited portion of

the tract where final cover had been applied, the balance of the

tract was not in condition to receive final cover (?~,7)

Vernon Earl Krogh 

(R.

9)

was

the only witness for the Environ-

mental Protection Agency. He testified to various inspections made

of the Respondent~soperation during the year 1971, commenting on

his

observations

during such visits. He observed open burning on

July 

15, 1971

(R.13) 

and

noted the absence of appropriate signs re-

quired by Rule 4.03(a) of the Regulations. Refuse in water was ob-

served on July 16, 1971 (R,l5). Pictures taken by Krogh on July 15,

:6 and 19, 1971 (E,P,A, Ex. 1(a) through (i~show the open arid un-

covered dumping of garbage and refuse in sickening profusion, Photo-

graphs of smouldering fires 

and.

uncovered garbage and refuse and

refuse dumped in water portray the violation of virtually 

all

land-

fill regulations alleged. Pictures taken in October 

1971

(EPA

Ex.

2A

and B), January and February of 1972 

(EPA

Ex. 3A through F)

and

August, 1972 (EPA Eix. 4A 

through

D)

show a 

continuation

of this

inexcusable condition which, if anything, appears to have worsened

with the passage of time. Absence of supervision, failure to spread,

compact and

cover and failure to satisfy 

all

site and housekeeping

requirements

was abundantly supported by the stipulation, testimony

and exhibits, Flies were observed in substantial numbers on the

occasions

of

Mr. Crowe’s inspections,

over a two-year period.

No

useful 

purpose

would be 

served by soecifying

the

observations of

this witness

on

each

occasion 

of his inspections.

Violations of

all

Rules alleged is admitted by the Respondent with the exception

of Rule 5.09 requiring

insect and rodent control measures.

The

evidence clearly supports violation of this Rule, as well,

Failure

to

pursue

the charge 

of violation of the final

cover 

requirements

at the hearing was justified on the basis that only a small por-

tion of the tract was in such condition that the application of

final cover would be appropriate. The bulk of the area, not

having received even daily cover, was not in condition to receive

final covering (R.90). Recent inspections indicate that refuse

no longer being dumped in standing water and that open burning

is not taking place. Proper signs have been posted.

Henry J. DeBoer appeared as a witness on his own behalf. (R.41).

He testified that he has been the operator of the Respondent company

since July 1, 1967 which serves a community of approximately 4,200

people. He testified that the fire of July 15, 1971 started as a

result of a burning load being dumped by a garbage truck (R.43)

and that the 

Fire Department was called to help

extinguish the fire,

which continued to burn underground for several days. Letters from

the Environmental Protection Agency to DeBoer dated July 30, 1970

and October 29, 1970 were received

in evidence (R.47). The July 30,

1970 letter indicated operation of the site in a satisfactory manner

but the need for a more daily and final cover. The letter of Octo-

ber 9, 1970 stated that the site was being operated in compliance

with Agency requirements (Resp. Ex. 1 and 2). These letters were

offered in mitigation of

the charge that Respondents had operated

their landfill without 

a permit, rather than by way of defense to

this charge.

In February of 1972, the Agency advised De i3oer that

a permit was necessary (R.50). De Boer testified (R. 52) that some

effort was made to apply daily cover, but 

“under

numerous circumstances

the garbage was not covered with six inches of dirt”, because of

tractor breakdown or lack of help. Approximately 14 loads of garbage

are dumped on the site over a five—day week. Refuse is not covered

after each load and frequently not at all at the end of the day (R.53)

An insect problem is acknowledged. Orkin Exterminating Company

has been hired to control rodent and fly problems (R, 55).

Salvage

operations, conducted at the dump until June or July of 1971 have

presently ceased (R. 56) 

Non-garbage

refuse, including 55-gallon

drums and wooden skids, was located apart from garbage piles and

presented serious difficulties of cover CR. 57). 

Dumping

of refuse

in water was conceded, principally in ponds caused by rain run—off

accumulating in the dumping holes. This practice appears to have

ceased.

On cross—examination, De Boer conceded that as early as July 15,

1971, he 

was advised that

he did not possess an EPA permit (R.64)

but that he relied on the July and October, 1970 letters to believe

he was in full compliance with the regulations. As of the date of

hearing, no permit had been sought.

Paul Joost testified on his own behalf (R. 75). He is the owner

of the site 

which the landfill is operated and has leased the

property to Marengo Disposal Company since 1967. He lives 400 to

—3—

—

627

500 feet from the disposal hole.

He testified that

he was not

bothered by odors, rodents or ins~ct5from the 

dump.

Ross Kitchen, Chief of

the Marer.qo Fire Protection District,

testified on behalf of Resoondents relative to the July 15 ~nd

October 5,

1971 fires, both of which his department 

was

successful

extinguishing with some help from Respondent’s 

tractor, after

several days of burning.

A letter of March 

4, 1971

from C.

E. Clark, Ghief of the Bureau

of Land 

Pollution Control of the

Environmental Protection 

Agency

to Henry 

Boer (EPA 

16) stated that 

violations existed at

the disposal site 

with

respect 

to failure to

provide daily cover

and dumping in standing water,

Violations were also noted in let-

ters of July 2, 1971, July 28, 1971 and February 4, 1972 from Clark

to De3oer (EPA Ex. 18).

We cannot tell from the record what 

the

present condition of

the dumc size is although 

are

told

that open burning of refuse

and dum~ingof refuse in standing water have ceased and that final

cover

has been applied to a small portion of the tract. However,

the condition of the dump site is as 

portrayed 

in the 

various

photacraphic

exhibits, violations of the 

relevant,

statutory and

regulatory provisions continue. From the oral 

stipulation of 

the

parties, supported

by evidence of the Environmental Protection Agen-

cy witness and

the

admission of

the respondents, flagrant and con—

tinuins 

violations of the statute, and

the air arid land regulations have

been demonstrated.

We

will 

order Respondents to take immediate

ste~s to bring its

operation into compliance with the regulations,

to

obtain

a permit from the 

Environmental Protection Agency and

to pay a penalty of $2,000 for the violations alleged and admitted

or sroven as

noted above, Because of the possibility that innocent

citizens may be dependent on this operation for 

their

refuse disposal,

x~ilnot direct the operation be shut down immediately, but will

give

a period of 60 days for Respondent to obtain a permit, and

u~cnfailure to obtain such permit the operation shall shut down

upon the termination of this period.

Thxs opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions

of law of the Board.

IT

1$

?HE

ORDER 

the Pollution Control Board:

1. Penalty is imposed against Henry De Boer, d/b/a

Marengo Disposal Company and Paul Joost i~the amount

$2,000 for violations of Sections 9(a) and (c) and

21(e) of the Environmental Protection Act, Rules 2-1,1

and 2-2.2 of the Rules and Regulations Governing the

Control of Air Pollution and Rules 3.05, 4,03(a), 5.03,

—4—

628

5.04, 5.07(a) 

5.09, 5.10(a), (b) and (d) and 5.12(c)

of the Rules and Regulations for Refuse Disposal Sites

and Facilities, as set forth in the Opinion. Penalty

payment by certified check or money order payable to

the State of Illinois shall be made to:

Fiscal Ser-

vices Division, Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency, 2200 Churchill Drive, Springfield, Illinois

62706.

2. Respondents shall immediately cease and desist the

operation of their Marengo landfill site in violation

of the Environmental Protection Act, the Rules and

Regulations Governing 

the

Control of Air Pollution

and the Rules and Regulations for Refuse Disposal

Sites and Facilities,

except that a 60-day grace

period is given solely with respect to Respondent’s

obligation to obtain a permit as provided in Para-

graph 3 of this Order.

3. Respondents shall apply for and obtain a permit for

the operation of 

their Marengo refuse disposal site

from the Environmental Protection Agency within 60 days

of the date of this Order, and if such permit is not

obtained within the time prescribed, Respondents shall

close dawn their landfill operation.

I, Christan Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board,

certify that the above Opinion and Order was adopted on the 

,i~‘~

day of October, 1972, 

a vote of -1          

to

‘