ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

November

23, 1971

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

v.

)

PCB 71—258

THE TOWN OF HUTSONVILLE,

a Municipal

)

Corporation of the State of Illinois,

and Harry F. Hathaway,

individually

and as Supervisor of the Town of

)

Hutsonville,

and JOE D. GOFF

)

Honorable William J.

Scott, Attorney General,

by Mr.

George E.

Brazitis, Special Assistant Attorney General, appeared on behalf

of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Mr. Harlan Heller,

appeared on behalf of the respondent.

OPINION OF THE BOARD

(by Mr. Lawton)

Complaint was filed by

the Environmental Protection Agency

against Joe

D. Goff as owner of

a refuse dump~1ocated in Crawford

County,

the Town of Hutsonville as lessee,

and Harry F. Hathaway,

individually and

as Town Supervisor

as operator,

alleging violations

of specified sections of the Environmental Protection Act and the

Rules and Regulations for Refuse Disposal Sites and Facilities

(Rules).

The complaint alleges respondents failed to obtain an operating

permit in violation of Section 21(e)

of the Act;

that the refuse

disposal site by reason of its location,

topographic and

soil condi-

tion, was wholly unsuitable for operation as

a sanitary landfill;

that respondents caused the open burning in violation of Rule

3.05

of the Rules and Sec.

9(c)

of the Act on thirteen specified dates;

that respondents caused the open dumping of garbage and refuse in

violation of Section

3.04 of the Rules

and 21(a)

and 2l(b)of the Act

on thirteen specified dates;

that respondents by the disposal of

garbage and refuse on

the land created

a water pollution hazard in

violation of 12(d)

of

the Act on six specified dates;

and that

respondents in their operation of the refuse disposal site have

violated Rule 5.03 requiring that the refuse site be confined to

3

—

157

---

the smallest practical area, Rule 5.04 requiring supervision of

unloading and precaution against the scattering of

litter,

Rule 5.06 requiring the spreading and compacting of refuse,

Rule 5.07 requiring daily covering of refuse

as specified;

and

Rule 5.09 requiring insect and rodent control measures.

These

latter rule violations are alleged to have begun September

8,

1966 and have continued to the date of the filing of the

complaint.

We find respondent guilty of operating without

a permit

in violation of Section21(e)

of the Act,

to have caused or

allowed the open dumping of refuse

in violation of Rule

3.04

and Section 21(b)

of

the Act,

on January 11,

12 and May 4,

1971,

and to have violated Rule 5.06 relating to spreading and compac-

ting of refuse and Rule 5.07 relating to cover.

In all other

respects we find the evidence insufficient to support the

charges

alleged

in the complaint.

We assess

a penalty in the

amount of $500.00

for the violations aforesaid and order respondents

to cease and desist their dumping operation until they are in

full compliance with

all provisions of the Environmental Protection

Act and all relevant regulations relating to the operation of

refuse disposal sites

and facilities and open burning.

The site in question has been operated as

a dump

for approxi-

mately

10 years

(R.l2)

during the last

6 years

of which it has

been leased to the township.

There

is no issue on ownership

or operation,

the parties conceding that Joe

D. Goff is the

owner,

the township the lessee and Harry F. Hathaway,

individually

and town supervisor the operator.

The property occupies approxi—

mately

3 acres which the township rents from Goff for $500.

a

year.

Nor

is there any dispute as to the generally sloppy manner

in which the dump has been operated in the past.

Refuse is

transported by truck to the site where it is taken up

the side of

a hill and dumped down its face indiscriminately over

a 100 yard

width

(R.14).

The refuse so dumped is “covered up every few

weeks”

(R.l4).

Environmental Protection Agency photographic

exhibits

10(a)

(b)

and 11(a) (b)

show the uncovered and uncompacted

condition of a substantial area.

It is reasonable

to assume the

condition depicted is

a generally continuing one and not unique

to the dates when the pictures were taken.

The record also dis-

closes that respondents have been warned since May of 1968 that

their operation failed to meet minimum legal requirements

for

refuse sites.

Respondents concede that open burning has taken

place with frequency over a substantial period of time

at the

site.

It is only that the record fails to substantiate open

burning on the dates alleged that we are compelled to make

a

finding in favor of respondent in this regard.

Likewise

the

evidence does not substantiate

the Agency~sallegations

of

3—

158

---

unsuitability of the site for landfill or the open dumping of

garbage nor does the evidence support the allegations that a

water pollution hazard has been created, or that Rules

5.03,

5.04 or

5.09 have been violated.

While we can only act on the

record before us, we would be remiss in our duties if we did

not make the further observation that the record and evidence

do

create a strong inference that these sections were

likewise violated.

Our order to cease and desist will embrace

all matters relating to open burning and refuse disposal operation.

No impression should be created that because of our findings

in some respects contrary to the Agency’s allegations that we

in any way tolerate the conduct of which respondents are accused.

While

the Board recognizes

some, effort has been made

to improve

the respondents~operation by the use of additional fill and

gravel it is manifest that major changes in procedure must be

employed if respondents operation is to meet the minimal legal

requirements.

We are not persuaded that directing respondents

to comply with the law will force the community to use the

Wabash River as a dumping ground as suggested

(R.9).

If such

results take place a further proceeding will be in order.

This opinion consti~tutesthe Board’s findings of fact and

conclusions of law.

---

ORDER

The Board having considered the complaint,

transcript

and exhibits in this proceeding HEREBY ORDERS:

1.

Respondents shall cease and desist the operation of its

refuse disposal dump in Crawford County until it is in

full compliance with all relevant statutory provisions

and regulations relating to open burning and in full

compliance with all relevant statutory provisions and

regulations relating to the operation of refuse disposal

sites and facilities.

2.

Penalty

is accessed against respondents in the amount of

Five Hundred Dollars

($500.00)

for violation of Section 21

(e)

of the Environmental Protection Act, requiring a permit

for refuse disposal operation and for violation of the following

rules of the Rules and Regulations for Refuse Disposal Sites

and Facilities:

Rule 3.04 prohibiting open dumping, Rule

5.06 requiring spreading and compacting of refuse and Rule

5.07 requiring daily and final cover of refuse.

I, Christan Moffett, Acting Clerk

of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board,

hereby

certify that the Board adopted the abov,e

Opinion and Order on the c~

day of November, 1971.

Christan Moffett, ~

ng Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

3

—