ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

October 17, 1972

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Complainant,

vs.

)

PCB 72—243

JERRY FRYE,

Respondent

Richard M.

Baner, Assistant Attorney General for the EPA

Frederick Patton for Respondent

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Mr.

Henss)

Respondent,

the owner of a landfill near Viola,

Illinois,

is charged with over 50 violations of the Environmental Pro-

tection Act and the Rules and Regulations for Refuse Disposal

Sites and Facilities,

including the open dumping of garbage

and refuse,

failure to apply daily cover,

failure

to spread

and compact refuse, open burning of refuse, failure to have

sufficient equipment on his landfill site,

failure to use

portable fencing to contain litter,

failure to confine dumping

to the smallest practical area and failure to properly conduct

salvage operations.

These violations are alleged to have

occurred on twelve dates

in 1970,

1971 and 1972.

It is also

alleged that Respondent at all times

since July

1,

1970 has

operated

a landfill without

a permit.

A great many of the allegations were not proved by the

evidence.

The EPA failed to introduce any evidence whatever

regarding six of the alleged dates and had insufficient proof

of other charges.

We do find Respondent guilty of operating a landfill

without a permit.

A careful review of the record indicates that

he is also guilty of open dumping of garbage and refuse on

February 28,

1972,

failure to confine dumping

to the smallest

practical area on October

4,

1971, November 29, 1971 and

November 30,

1971 and failure

to use a portable fence

to contain

blowing litter on November

8, 1971 and May 15,

1972.

Respondent, Jerry Frye, operates a scavenger service

in 64

municipalities and

4 counties.

He

owns

9 trucks,

serves 11,000

households and for a fee also permits other scavengers and the

public

to dump at the landfill.

About

3 or

4 trucks in addition

to his own use the site regularly.

Three tractors are available

on the site but Respondent has on occasion had difficulty keeping

the tractors in operating condition.

5

—

677

---

—2—

Respondent bought the dump in cuestion in 1969 but has

never ap~1iedfor a permit.

He states that he didn’t

know

one was needed.

EPA

investigators

visited

the

site

on

a

number

of

occasions.

They

found

that

active

dumping

was

taking

place

over

an

area

estin.ated at

15,000

square feet.

Piles

of

household

refuse

were observed over

a large area on several dates, however, the

investicators always appeared at the landfill well before the

cbs

hour and did not ordinarily return the following day.

Therefore,

they are unable

to testify as to Respondent’s daily

coverin~activities and many allegations of open dumping and

failure

to cover remain unproved.

Photographs taken on

November 28 and 29,

1971 reveal the same uncovered debris and

would definitely prove that Respondent failed to apply daily

cover on November 28,

1971.

However,

no such violation was

alleged for that date.

We do find from photographs and oral

testimony that open dumping occurred February 28, 1972.

The

bulldozer operator on that date told an EPA investigator that

cover had not been applied in two weeks because of bad weather.

A very large area of uncovered refuse is seen in photographs

taken that date.

Blowing paper and litter were observed twice.

The EPA

investigator conceded that it

is “impossible”

to prevent paper

from blowing on

a wincAy day but it is precisely that fact

which makes the portable fence a necessity for its containment.

This is the third prosecution of Jerry Frye for violations

at his landfill.

On the first

2 offenses in 1969 he was fined

$50 and $200.

We are concerned that Respondent has not been

able to bring his operation into compliance with the law.

The

fact that he dId not know that he should apply for a permit

reveals a certain degree of carelessness in the operation of

this business which bodes ill for the public.

Carelessness in

the collection of waste

from 11,000 households could become a

serious problem for environmental quality.

For this offense

we will impose

a still larger penalty in the amount of

$500 to

emphasize anew the necessity of coming into full compliance.

We will grant Respondent

a period of 45 days

to obtain a permit

and order him to close the landfill if a permit is not obtained

in that time.

He shall cease and desist from all other violations

iramediately.

Finally,

it should be noted that a great number of allegations

were made which,

if proved, would have constituted a quite serious

accumulation of violations and would have justified a higher

penalty.

However, the proof fell short of the allegation.

The

penalty we impose

is in line with the proof.

5

—

678

---

—3—

ORDER

It

is ordered that:

(1)

Respondent close his landfill if he has

not obtained a permit for its operation

in 45 days.

Operation of the landfill

shall not thereafter be resumed without

a permit from the EPA.

(2)

Respondent immediately cease and desist from

all other violations

of the Environmental

Protection Act and the Rules and Regulations

for Refuse Disposal Sites

and Facilities.

(3)

Respondent shall pay to the State of Illinois

by December

1,

1972 the sum of $500

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 Drive,

Springfield, Illinois 62706.

Mr. Dumelle dissents.

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Ord~erwas

adopted this /7~day of October, 1972 by

a vote of

1/

to

/

~

/~~l

~

~hristan

L. Moffett,’~4~rk

Illinois Pollution Ccyn~trolBoard

5

—

679