ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

December

9,

1971

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

v.

)

PCB 71—257

MRS.

HILLIARD WHITE

MR. LARRY

R. EATON, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARING FOR THE

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

MRS. HILLIARD WHITE,

PRO SE

OPINION OF THE BOARD

(by Mr.

Kissel):

On August

30,

1971, the Environmental Protection Agency

(“Agency”)

filed

a

complaint against Mrs.

Hilliard White, the owner and operator

of

a site near Fairfield,

Illinois used

for sanitary landfill and/or

salvage operations.

The complaint alleged that the following violations

had occurred since December

28,

1966:

The open dumping of refuse

in

violation of

Rule

3.04 of the Rules

and Regulations for Refuse Dis-

posal Sites and Facilities

(“Rules”)

and Section

21(b) of the Environ—

mental Protection Act; the open burning of refuse in violation of

Rules

5.05 and

5.12(d)

and Section

9(c)

of the Act; failure

to provide

an all-weather operational road in violation of Rule

4.05(b);

failure

to make suitable arrangements for fire protection services

in violation

of Rule

4.04;

failure

to have operating personnel

on the

site when

access was permitted,

in violation

of Rule

5.02;

failure to confine

dumping of refuse

to the smallest practical

area,

in violation of Rule

5.03;

failure to adequately supervise unloading of refuse and to con-

trol the blowing of litter through the use of portable fences,

in vio-

lation of Rule 5.04;

failure

to keep sufficient operational equipment

on the site to permit satisfactory

landfill operation,

in violation of

Rule

5.05;

failure to spread and compact refuse in violation of Rule

5.06;

failure to provide insect and rodent control measures in vio—

lation of Rule

5.09;

and,

failure to remove and properly store salvaged

materials,

in violation

of Rule

5.10(d).

The Agency also alleged that

Mrs. White had operated or allowed the operation of the site in such

a manner as

to cause air pollution,

in violation of Section 9(a)

of

the Act.

Subsequently,

the Agency amended its complaint to include an

allegation of water pollution by the discharge

of cyanides or cyanogen

compounds through seepage or leachate from Mrs. White’s

land.

The

Agency sought the entry

of

a cease and desist order and the imposition

of

a monetary penalty.

3

—

235

---

The site in question has been operated as

a refuse disposal

site since

1964.

Part of

the

4-acre area contains Mrs. White’s

trailer home,

as well

as the 2-2 1/2—acre refuse disposal site.

Mrs. White has restricted dumping refuse at the site so as to ex-

clude domestic garbage

(R.27).

Until October,

1971,

the Airtex

Company had been depositing milo—maize,

an organic cleaning and

floor covering compound, and steel grindings at the White dump

(R.ll—l2,

152).

Earlier in 1971, Mrs. White had stopped autos from

being left on her premises

and had had the ones there cut up and

sold for scrap

(R.l2).

In conjunction with the disposal site,

Mrs.

White has also conducted

a sa1va~eoperation;

by raking through

the metal

loads received from Airtex,

she extracted enough material

to make

sale periodically worthwhile

(R.12-l4).

Since June,

1970,

she has owned and had

a D-4 Caterpillar on her property

(R.17).

At

certain times the caterpillar has been inoperative,

though it has

been used

to create compaction on the ramp, but not on

the actual

fill

face

(R.66,

80,

98).

Mrs. White

admitte’d,

and

a neighbor and all the Agency witnes-

ses confirmed, that an underground fire has existed on the premises

for approximately

five years

(R.22,

40,

48,

75,

104,

119).

Several

photographs

admitted into evidence corroborated

this testimony

(Ex.

13,

14).

This, we find,

constitutes open burning in contra-

vention of Section 9(c)

of the Act and of Rule 5.12(d).

The evidence established that refuse is most often delivered

to

the dump in a pickup truck

(R.60--64).

Depending on-the nature

of

the refuse,

it is deposited either on the

“ramp” or on the

face

of

the fill

(R.35,

61).

An Agency investigator who made several

visits,

the last being January

26,

1971,

testified that the ramp

area was compacted and covered with sawdust, but that the face of

the

fill showed no compaction

at all

(R.98).

Another Agency inves-

tigator indicated that on his visit on September

22,

1971,

the

face

of

the fill showed no evidence of earthen cover or compaction

(R.1l6—

117).

We find

that respondent has caused or allowed the open dump-

ing of refuse in violation of Rule 5.04

and Section 21(b)

of the Act,

on January

26,

and September

22,

1971,

and to have violated Rule 5.06

relating

to spreading and compacting of refuse and Rule

5.07 relat-

ing

to cover.

Respondent contends that she

is conducting salvaging

operations,

thereby negating the offense of open dumping and reliev-

ing her of the obligation

of covering.

The State Rules

are meant

to encourage salvaging, but the operator

is obliged

to cover once

salvaging

is completed.

Such was

not the case here,

since

no cover-

ing of the fill

ever occurred.

On the other alleged violations, Mrs. White herself admitted

that she had not made arrangements

for fire protection

services

in

violation of Rule 4.04

(R.24).

Nor has

she confined

the refuse

to

3

—

236

---

the smallest practical area,

thereby violating Rule

5.03

(R.36).

In addition,

the evidence

is conclusive that

the cumping of steel

grindings from

the Airtex Company is creating

a cyanide or cyanogen

compound discharge or leachate which Mrs. White has allowed,

thereby

causing or tending to cause water pollution in violation of Section

12(a)

of the Act.

The Agency established that the discharge con-

taining cyanide could only have

come from Mrs. White’s premises,

and that it then flowedinto

a neighboring pond which the owner

described

as

“SO

contaminated

-

.

.

the fish

all died

in it”.

He

could no longer use

it as spray water for his orchard

(R.45-46).

In all other respects we find the evidence insufficient

to support

the charges alleged in the complaint.

There

is no question that Mrs. White

is operating this sani-

tary landfill

site with little or no regard for laws

long in

existence in this

State.

Ordinarily,

such gross violations would

demand the imposition of

a harsh penalty.

In this case,

though, we

are reminded by the Agency and by the record of

the impoverished

condition of the respondent.

Therefore,

a penalty of $100 shall be

imposed.

The Board’s concern,

of course,

is more with the proper opera-

tion of the site.

Mrs. White shall

not accept any more refuse at

her site until the underground fire is extinguished, adequate fire

protection assured,

and the face of the

fill given adequate

cover.

Nor

shall she accept any more cyanide-bearing wastes from Airtex

unless adequate measures are taken to protect against leachate or

pollutional discharges

from the landfill

site.

This opinion constitutes the findings of fact

and conclusions

of law of the Board.

ORD

ER

The Board having considered the complaint,

transcript and

exhibits

in this proceeding HEREBY ORDERS:

1.

Respondent shall cease and desist the operation

of its refuse disposal dump in Wayne 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.

3

—

237

---

2.

Penalty is assessed against respondent in the

amount of One Hundred Dollars

($100)

for vio-

lation of Section

21(b)

of the Environmental

Protection Act prohibiting open dumping of

refuse,

for violation of Section 12(a)

of the

Act for allowing the discharge of any contarni-

nants which cause or tend to cause water

pollution,

and for violation of

the following

rules of the Rules and Regulations for Refuse

Disposal

Sites and Facilities:

Rule

3.04 pro-

hibiting open dumping, Rule 5.06 requiring

spreading and compacting of refuse, Rule

507(a)

requiring daily and final cover of refuse,

and

Rule

5.12(d)

prohibiting open burning,

and

Rule 4.04 requiring suitable arrangements

for

fire protection services.

3.

Respondent

shall not accept cyanide or cyanogen

compound-bearing refuse at its

site until ade-

quate control measures,

approved by the Agency,

are installed

to protect against pollutional

discharges or leachate from the site.

4.

Respondent shall extinguish

the underground

fire on

the premises

as soon as possible using

all available means necessary.

5.

If

the Respondent should decide

to cease opera-

tion on the site,

she shall comply with Rule

5.07(b)

of the Rules

and Regulations for Refuse Disposal

Sites and Facilities requiring two feet of final

cover within six months of the final placement

of refuse.

I,

Christan Moffett, Acting Clerk of the Pollution Control

Board, certify that

the Board adopted

the above Opinion and Order

this

‘-7’

day of December,

1971.

/

..

1/,

~

fl~

-

///~

Christah

Mof.fe-ht,

Acting Clerk