1. THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
      2. COUNT IIFAILURE TO PREVENT OR CONTROL LEACHATE FLOW
      3. APPLICATION FOR A SIGNIFICANT MODIFICATION
      4. WATER POLLUTION
      5.  
      6. PORTIONS OF A LANDFILL
      7. COUNT VIII
      8. CONDUCTING A WASTE DISPOSAL OPERATION WITHOUT A PERMIT
      9. COUNT IXOPEN DUMPING
      10. COUNT XVIOLATION OF STANDARD CONDITION 3
      11. COUNT XICONDUCTING A WASTE DISPOSAL OPERATION WITHOUT A PERMIT
      12. COUNT XIIIMPROPER DISPOSAL OF USED TIRES
      13. B. A finding that Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, has not caused violations of Section
      14. D. In the event the Board finds that Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, violated any
      15. COUNT XLIIVIOLATION OF PERMIT CONDITION
      16. ANSWER: Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM,realleges and incorporates by reference herein
      17. No person shall:
      18. Conduct any waste-storage, waste-treatment, or waste-disposaloperation:
      19. FINANCIAL ASSURANCE PURSUANT TOTHE OCTOBER 24. 1996 PERMIT
      20. COUNT XVIII
      21. VIOLATION OF PERMIT CONDITION
      22. COUNT XIXFAILURE TO PROVIDE REVISED COST ESTIMATE
      23. BY DECEMBER 26. 1994
      24. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
      25. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
      26. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD CLERK’S
OFFICE
JAN
C
‘i
2005
PEOPLE
OF THE
STATE OF
ILLINOIS,
)
by LISA MADIGAN, Attorney General ofthe
)
p~t~jon
controc Board
State ofIllinois,
)
Complainant,
)
)
PCB No. 04-207
v.
)
(Enforcement)
)
EDWARD PRUIM, an
individual, and
ROBERT PRUIM, an individual,
)
)
Respondents.
)
NOTICE OF FILING
TO:
Ms.
Dorothy Gunn, Clerk
Mr. Christopher Grant
Illinois Pollution Control
Board
Assistant Attorney General
James R. Thompson Center
Environmental
Bureau
100W.
Randolph Street,
11-500
188W. Randolph, 20th
Floor
Chicago, IL
60601
Chicago, IL
60601
Mr. Bradley Halloran
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100
W.
Randolph Street, Suite
11-500
Chicago, IL
60601
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on
January 4, 2005,
we filed with the Clerk of the
Illinois
Pollution
Control Board
an
original
and
nine
copies
of RESPONDENT
ROBERT
PRUIM’S
ANSWER
TO
COMPLAINT AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, a copy ofwhich
is attached
and herewith served upon you.
~
___
Attorney for Respondent
Mark A,
LaRose
Clarissa C.
Grayson
Attorney No. 37346
LaRose & Bosco,
Ltd.
200 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 2810
Chicago, IL
60601
(312)
642-4414
Fax
(312) 642-0434
THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED
ON RECYCLED PAPER
ORIGiNAL
BEFORE THE
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
f~E
liv ~
D
PEOPLE OF THE
STATE OF
ILLINOIS,
)
CLEV1’i’S
OFF1CE
by LISA MADIGAN, Attorney General of the
)
Stateoflllinois,
)
,
IL’.
)
S1AILOT
PI.i
Complainant,
)
Pollution Control
boai’C
)
PCB No.
04-207
v.
)
(Enforcement)
)
EDWARD PRUIM, an
individual, and
)
ROBERT PRUIM, an individual,
)
)
Respondents.
)
RESPONDENT ROBERT PRUIM’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, by and through his attorneys LaRose & Bosco, Ltd., hereby
presents his Answer to Complaint and AffirmativeDefenses and in support thereof, state asfollows:
COUNT I
FAILURE TO ADEOUATELY MANAGE REFUSE
AND LITTER
I.
This count is brought on behalfofthe PEOPLE
OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, by
LISA MADIGAN, Attorney General ofthe State ofIllinois, on her own motion, pursuant to Section
31 ofthe Illinois Environmental Protection Act (“Act”), 415
ILCS
5/31(2002).
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT
PRUIM, admits that this
Count was brought on
behalfofthe PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, by LISA MADIGAN,
Attorney General ofthe State ofIllinois, on her own motion and pursuant to
Section 31
ofthe Act.
2.
Respondent EDWARD PRUIM
is an Illinois resident.
ANSWER:
Respondent,
ROBERT PRUIM, admits the allegations of Paragraph
I
2 of Count I of the Complaint.
3.
Respondent ROBERT PRUIM is an
Illinois resident.
ANSWER:
Respondent,
ROBERT
PRUIM,
admits
the allegations of Paragraph
3
of
Count
I ofthe Complaint.
4.
At
all times relevant to this Complaint, the Respondents managed, operated and co-
owned Community
Landfill Company (“CLC”), an
Illinois
corporation.
CLC
is
the permitted
operator of the Morris Community Landfill,
1501
Ashley Road, Morris, Gnindy County, Illinois,
(“landfill” or “site”).
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, admits that he is a co-ownerofCommunity
Landfill Company(“CLC”), an Illinois Corporation.
Respondent, ROBERT
PRUIM, admits that CLC is thepermitted operator ofthe Morris Community
Landfill,
1501
Ashley Road, Morris, Grundy County, Illinois.
Respondent,
ROBERT PRUIM, denies the remaining allegationsofParagraph 4 ofCount
I ofthe Complaint.
5.
The Landfill consists ofapproximately 119 acres within the Northwest 1/4 ofSection
2 ofthe Northeast
1/4 ofSection
3, Township
33 North Range 7 East, and in
the Southeast
1/4 of
Section 34 and the Southwest 1/4 ofSection
35,
Township 34 NorthRange 7 East, Grundy County,
Illinois.
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM,
admits the allegations ofParagraphS of
Count I ofthe Complaint.
6.
The landfill
is divided into two parcels, designated Parcel A and Parcel B.
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT
PRUIM, admits the allegations of Paragraph 6 of
ANSWER:
2
Count
I of the Complaint.
7.
Parcel A is approximately 55 acres
in size, and
is currently accepting waste.
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM,
admits that
Parcel A is approximately 55
acres
in size and denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 7 ofCount I
ofthe Complaint.
8.
Parcel B is approximately 64 acres in
size.
ANSWER:
Respondent,
ROBERT
PRUIM,
admits
the allegations of Paragraph
8
of
Count
I of the Complaint.
9.
At
all times relevant to
the Complaint, Edward
Pruim and Robert Pruim were
responsible
for,
and
did,
sign
and
submit
all
permit
applications
and
reports
to
the
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(“Illinois
EPA”)
related
to
the landfill, jointly
directed
and
managed
CLC’s
landfill
operations,
caused
and
allowed
the
deposit
of waste
in
the
landfill,
negotiated and
arranged for surety bonds
and
letters of credit relating
to
the landfill,
and
were
responsible for ensuring CLC’s
compliance with pertinent environmental laws and regulations.
ANSWER:
Respondent,
ROBERT
PRUIM,
denies
the allegations of Paragraph
9
of
Count I ofthe Complaint
10.
Section 3.185 oftheAct,
415
ILCS 5/3.185 (2002), provides thefollowing definition:
“DISPOSAL”
means
the
discharge,
deposit,
injection,
dumping,
spilling, leaking orplacing ofany waste or hazardouswaste into or on
any land
or water or into
any
well
so that
such waste
or hazardous
waste
or any
constituent thereof may enter the environment
or be
emitted into the air or discharged into any waters, including ground
waters.
ANSWER:
Paragraph
10 of Count I of the Complaint states a legal conclusion to which
3
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, makes no answer.
11.
Section 3.270 oftheAct, 415 ILCS 5/3.270(2002), provides the followingdefinition:
“LANDSCAPE
WASTE”
means
all
accumulations
of
grass
or
shrubbery,
cuttings,
leaves,
tree
limbs
and
other
materials
accumulated
as the result of the care oflawns, shrubbery, vines and
trees.
ANSWER:
Paragraph
11 ofCount I ofthe Complaint states a legal conclusion to which
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, makes
no answer.
12.
Section 3.315 oftheAct, 415 ILCS 5/3.315(2002), provides the followingdefinition:
“PERSON”
is
any
individual,
partnership,
co-partnership,
firm,
company, limited
liability company, corporation,
association, joint
stock company, trust estate, political subdivision, state agency, or any
other legal entity, or their legal representative, agent or assigns.
ANSWER:
Paragraph
12 ofCount I ofthe Complaint states a legal conclusion to which
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, makes
no answer.
13.
The Respondents are “persons”
as that term is defined by Section 3.315 ofthe Act,
415
ILCS
5/3.3 15
(2002).
ANSWER:
Paragraph 13
ofCount I ofthe Complaint states a legal conclusion to which
Respondent, ROBERT
PRUIM, makes no answer.
14.
Section 3.445 ofthe Act, 415 ILCS 5/3.445 (2002), providesthe followingdefinition:
“SANITARY LANDFILL” means a facility permittedby the Agency
for the disposal of waste on
land meeting the requirements of the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act,
P.L.
94-580,
and
regulations thereunder, and without creatingnuisances or hazards to
public health or safety by confining therefuse to the smallest practical
volume and covering it with a layerofearth atthe conclusion ofeach
day’s operation, orby such othermethods and intervals as the Board
may provide by regulation.
4
ANSWER:
Paragraph
14 ofCount I ofthe Complaint states a legal conclusion to which
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, makes no answer.
15.
Section 3.535 ofthe Act, 415 ILCS 5/3.535 (2002),provides the followingdefinition:
“WASTE” means any garbage, sludge from a waste treatment plant,
or air pollution control facility or other discarded material, including
solid, liquid, semi-solid, orcontainedgaseous material resulting from
industrial, commercial, mining and agricultural operations and from
community activities, but does not include solid ordissolved material
in domestic sewage, or solid ordissolved materials in irrigation return
flows, orcoal combustion by-products as defined in Section 3.94, or
industrial discharges which arepointsources subjectto permits under
Section
402 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control
Act,
as now or
hereafter amended, or source, special nuclear, orby-productmaterials
as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (68 Stat.
921) or any solid or dissolved material from any facility subject to the
Federal
Surface Mining Control
and Reclamation Act of
1977 (P.L.
95-87) or the rules
and regulations thereunder or any law or rule or
regulation adopted by the
State ofIllinois pursuant thereto.
ANSWER:
Paragraph
15 ofCount I ofthe Complaint states a legal conclusion to which
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, makes no answer.
16.
Section 21(d)(2) of the Act, 415 ILCS
5/21(d)(2) (2002), provides, as follows:
No person shall:
*
*
*
d.
Conductany waste-storage,waste treatment, or waste-
treatment, or waste-disposal operation:
*
*
*
2.
In
violation
of
any
regulations
or
standards adopted by the Board under
this
Act; or
*
*
*
ANSWER:
Paragraph 16 ofCount I ofthe Complaint states a legal conclusion to which
5
Respondent, ROBERT
PRUIM, makes no answer.
17.
On at least the following dates, the Illinois EPA conducted an
inspection of the site:
April
7,
1994, March 22,
1995, May 22,
1995, March
5,
1997, July 28,
1998, November 19,
1998,
March 31,
1999, May 11,
1999 and July
20,
1999.
ANSWER:
Respondent,
ROBERT
PRUIM,
admits
that
the
Agency
conducted
inspections
on these dates.
the April
7,
1994,
inspection, litter was observed in the perimeter drainage
portion ofParcel
B and on the southwest slope ofParcel B.
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, has insufficient knowledge to form a
as
to
the truth or falsity
of the allegation in
Paragraph
18 of Count
demands strict proofthereof.
19.
During the March 22,
1995, inspection,
the Illinois
EPA inspector observed refuse
in
a perimeter ditch and in
a retention pond at the landfill.
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, hasinsufficient knowledge to form a belief
as
to
the truth or falsity of the allegation in
Paragraph
19
of Count
I,
and
demands strict proof thereof.
20.
During theMay 22,
1995,
inspection, the Illinois EPA inspectorobserved refuse and
litter in the perimeter ditches.
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, has insufficient knowledge to
form
a belief
as to
the truth or falsity of the
allegation
in
Paragraph 20
of Count I, and
demands strict proofthereof.
21.
Also during the May 22,
1995,
inspection, the Illinois EPA inspectorobserved three
18.
During
ditch at the southwest
ANSWER:
belief
I,
and
6
eroded areas where leachate seeps had exposed previously covered refuse.
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, has insufficient knowledge to form
a belief
as to
the truth or falsity of the allegation
in
Paragraph
21
of Count
I, and
demands strict proofthereof.
22.
During the July
28,
1998
inspection,
there
was uncovered
waste
from
previous
operating days in
Parcel A.
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, has insufficient knowledge to form a belief
as to
the truth or falsity of the allegation
in
Paragraph
22 of Count
I,
and
demands strict proofthereof.
23.
On November
19,
1998 and
March 31,
1999,
on
March
3 1,
1999,
there was uncovered
refuse
on
Parcel
Parcel A.
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT
PRUIM,
admits that
Parcel A was accepting waste
in November
1998 and
March
1999.
Respondent,
ROBERT
PRUIM, has
insufficient knowledge
to
form
a belief
as to
the
truth
or
falsity of the
remaining allegations in Paragraph
23 ofCount I, and demands strict proof
thereof.
24.
On May 11,
1999, the landfill was accepting waste, and there was uncovered waste
at the site.
ANSWER:
Respondent,
ROBERT
PRUIM,
admits that Parcel
A was accepting waste
in May 1999.
Respondent, ROBERT
PRUIM, has insufficient knowledge
to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations in
the landfill
was accepting waste, and
B,
and
blowing
uncovered litter
on
7
Paragraph 24 ofCount I, and demands strict proofthereof.
25.
On July
20,
1999,
the landfill
was accepting
waste
in
Parcel
A,
and
there
was
uncovered refuse on Parcel B.
ANSWER:
Respondent,
ROBERT
PRUIM,
admits that Parcel A was accepting waste
in July
1999.
Respondent,
ROBERT
PRUIM,
has insufficient knowledge
to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegation in
Paragraph 25 of
Count I, and demands strict proof thereof
26.
Section
21(o) of the Act,
415
ILCS
5/21(o)
(2002), provides,
in
pertinent part, as
follows:
No person shall:
*
*
*
o.
Conduct a sanitarylandfill operation which is required
to
have a permit under subsection (d) of this Section
in
a
manner
which
results
in
any
of the following
conditions:
1.
refuse
in standing or flowing waters;
*
*
*
5.
uncovered refuse remaining from any
previous
operating
day
or
at
the
conclusion
of
any
operation
day,
unless authorized by permit;
*
*
*
12.
failure
to
collect
and
contain
litter
from
the
site
by
the
end
of
each
operating day.
ANSWER:
Paragraph
26
states
a
legal
conclusion
to
which
Respondent,
ROBERT
8
PRUIM, makes no answer.
27.
Section 807.306 ofthe Illinois Pollution ControlBoard’s (“Board’s”) Waste Disposal
Regulations,
35 Ill.
Adm. Code
807.306, provides, as follows:
All litter shall be collected
from
the sanitary landfill site by the end
ofeach working day and either placed in the fill
and compacted and
covered that day, or stored in
a covered container.
ANSWER:
Paragraph
27
states
a
legal
conclusion
to
which
Respondent,
ROBERT
PRUIM, makes no answer.
28.
Litter
and refuse are waste
as that term is defined in Section
3.535
ofthe Act, 415
ILCS
5/3.535
(2002).
ANSWER:
Paragraph
28
states
a
legal
conclusion to
which
Respondent,
ROBERT
PRUIM, makes no answer.
29.
Thesite is a sanitary landfill that requires a permit under Section 21(d) oftheAct, 415
ILCS
5/21
(d)(2002).
ANSWER:
Respondent,
ROBERT
PRUIM,
admits
the
allegations
contained
in
Paragraph 29 of Count
I of the Complaint.
30.
By failing to remove, or cause employees to remove refuse in perimeter ditches and
theretention pond on March 22,
1995,
and by allowing refuse to remain in perimeter ditches on May
22,
1995, the Respondents have violated Section 21(o)(1) ofthe Act, 415 ILCS
5/21
(o)(1) (2002).
ANSWER:
Respondent,
ROBERT
PRUIM,
denies
the
allegations
contained
in
Paragraph 30 of Count
I of the Complaint.
3 1.
By
allowing
leachate
seeps
to
erode
areas of the landfill
and
expose
previously
covered refuse, at least on May 22, 1995, the Respondents haveviolated Section 21 (o)(5) ofthe Act,
9
415
ILCS
5/21
(o)(5) (2002).
ANSWER:
Respondent,
ROBERT
PRUIM,
denies
the
allegations
contained
in
Paragraph 31
of Count I ofthe Complaint.
32,
By allowing litter and refuse to remain exposed, uncontained, and uncovered, around
various areas ofthe site on April
7,
1994, March 22,
1995, May 22,
1995,
July 28,
1998,
March31,
1999, May 11,
1999 and July 20,
1999,
the Respondents violated
Sections 21 (o)(5) and (12) of the
Act,
415
ILCS
5/21(o)(5)
and
(12) (2002),
and
Section
807.306
of the Board
Waste Disposal
Regulations, 35111. Adm.
Code 807.306, and therebyalso violated Section 21(d)(2) ofthe Act, 415
ILCS
5/21(d)(2)
(2002).
ANSWER:
Respondent,
ROBERT
PRUIM,
denies
the
allegations
contained
in
Paragraph 32
of Count I of the Complaint.
WHEREFORE:
Respondent, ROBERT
PRUIM, respectfully requests that the Board enter an order in this
matter against Complainant, PEOPLE
OF THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
with respect to
Count I as
follows:
A.
Authorizing a hearing in this matter at which time the Complainant
will be required
to prove the allegations alleged in
Count I;
B.
A
finding
that
Respondent,
ROBERT
PRUIM,
has
not
caused
violations
of
Sections 21(d)(2), 21(o)U),
(5),
and (12), and 35
111. Adm. Code 807.306;
C.
In the alternative, denying Complainant’s request for a cease and desist order based
on
a finding that the alleged violations have been corrected;
D.
In
the
event the
Board
finds
that
Respondent,
ROBERT
PRUIM,
violated
any
10
provisions ofthelaw cited by theComplainant in Count
1, to assess a nominal penalty
against ROBERT PRUIM for each violationbased on the limited and isolated nature
of the violations
alleged and the fact that:
(1)
thealleged violations havebeenvoluntarilycoaected;
(2)
the alleged violations are not ongoing or repetitious;
(3)
the alleged violations were limited
in duration and of
relatively minor gravity;
(4)
there was
no
substantial
savings
to
Respondent
or
substantial harm
to the environment or to the People
of the State of Illinois;
and
(5)
other mitigating factors regardingpenalty assessment.
E.
Denying any request by the Complainant
that Respondent, ROBERT
PRUIM, pay
all of its costs
including
expert witness,
consultant and
attorney fees
expended in
pursuit ofthis action;
and
F.
Granting such other relief as this
Board deems appropriate.
COUNT
II
FAILURE TO PREVENT OR CONTROL LEACHATE
FLOW
1-17.
Complainant realleges and incorporates by reference herein paragraphs I through
17
of Count I as paragraphs I through
17 of this Count II as if fully set forth herein.
ANSWER:
Respondent,
ROBERT
PRUIM,
realleges
and
incorporates
by
reference
herein his
answers
to
Paragraph
I
through
17
of Count
I as Paragraphs
1
through
17 ofthis Count II as if fully set
forth herein.
11
18.
During the April
7,
1994, inspection, the Illinois EPA inspector observed five
leachate seeps along the northwest perimeter of Parcel B.
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, has insufficientknowledge to form
a belief
as to
the truth or falsity ofthe allegation in
Paragraph
18
of Count
II,
and
demands strict proofthereof.
19.
DuringtheMarch 22,
1995, inspection, theIllinois EPAinspector observed numerous
leachate seeps at the northwest perimeter ofthe landfill.
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, has insufficient knowledge to form
a belief
as to the truth or falsity of the allegation
in
Paragraph
19 of Count
II, and
demands strict proofthereof.
20.
Duringthe May 22,
1995, inspection, the Illinois EPA inspector observed numerous
leachate seeps alongthe north slope ofthe landfill and in the north perimeter ditch which eventually
drains into the Illinois
River.
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, has insufficientknowledge to form a belief
as to
the truth or falsity of the allegation in
Paragraph
20 of Count
II, and
demands strict proofthereof.
21.
Section
2 1(o) of the
Act, 415
ILCS
5/21(o)
(2002), provides,
in
pertinent part, as
follows:
No person shall:
*
*
*
o.
Conduct a sanitarylandfill operation which is required
to have a permit under subsection (d) of this Section,
in
a
manner
which
results
in
any of the
following
12
conditions:
*
*
*
2.
leachate flows
entering
waters of the
State;
3.
leachate
flows
exiting
the
landfill
confines
(as
determined
by
the
boundaries established for the landfill
by a permit issued by the Agency);
*
*
*
ANSWER:
Paragraph
21
of Count
II
states
a
legal
conclusion
to
which
ROBERT
PRUIM makes
no answer,
22.
Section 807.314(e) ofthe Board’s Waste Disposal Regulations,
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
807.314(e), provides as follows:
Except as otherwise authorized in writing by the Agency, no person
shall
cause
or
allow
the
development
or operation
of a
sanitaiy
landfill which does not provide:
*
*
*
e)
Adequate measures to monitor and
control leachate;
ANSWER:
Paragraph22 ofCount II states a legal conclusion to which ROBERT PRUIM
makes no answer.
23.
Section 3.550 ofthe Act,
415
ILCS 5/3.550(2002), contains the following definition:
“WATERS”
means
all
accumulations
of
water,
surface
and
underground, natural and artificial, public and private, or parts thereof,
which arewholly or partially within,
flow
through, or border upon the
State.
ANSWER:
Paragraph
23
ofCount IIstates a legal conclusion to which ROBERT PRUIM
13
makes no answer.
24.
The Illinois River is a “water” ofthe State ofIllinois, as that term is defined in Section
3.550 of the Act,
415 ILCS
5/3.550 (2002).
ANSWER:
Paragraph 24 ofCount II states a legal conclusion to which ROBERT PRUIM
makes no answer.
25.
The Respondents
failed
to
take sufficient
action, or direct
their employees
to
take
sufficient action, to
prevent leachate seeps from exiting the landfill.
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, denies the allegations of Paragraph 25 of
Count II ofthe Complaint.
26.
By allowing leachate seepsto exit the landfill boundaries and enterwaters ofthe State,
and by failing to control leachate flow, theRespondents have violated Sections 21 (d)(2), and 21 (o)(2)
and
(3) ofthe Act, 415
ILCS
5/21(d)(2)
and 21(o)(2) and (3) (2002), and Section
807.314(e) of the
Board’s Waste Disposal
Regulations, 35111.
Adm.
Code 807.3 14(e).
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, denies the allegations ofParagraph 26 of
Count II of the Complaint.
WHEREFORE:
Respondent,
ROBERT PRUIM, respectfully requests that the Board enter an order in this
matter against Complainant,
PEOPLE
OF
THE STATE
OF
ILLINOIS, with respect to Count II as
follows:
A.
Authorizing a hearing in this
matter at which time the Complainant will be required
to prove the allegations alleged in Count II;
B.
A findingthat Respondent,
ROBERT PRUIM, has not caused violations of Sections
14
21(d)(2), 21(o)(2) and (3), and 35
111. Adm.
Code 807.314(e);
C.
In the alternative, denying Complainant’s request for a cease and
desist order based
on a finding that the alleged violations havebeen corrected;
D.
In the event the Board finds that Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, violated any
provisions ofthe law cited by theComplainant in Count II, to assess a nominal penalty
against ROBERT PRUIM for each violationbased on the limited and isolated namre
ofthe violations alleged
and the fact that:
(1)
the alleged violations have been voluntarily corrected;
(2)
the alleged violations are not ongoing or repetitious;
(3)
the alleged violations were limited
in
duration and of
relatively minor gravity;
(4)
there
was
no
substantial
savings
to
Respondent
or
substantial harm to the environment or to the Peopleof
the State of Illinois;
and
(5)
other mitigating factors regarding penalty assessment.
E.
Denying any
request by the Complainant
that
Respondent,
ROBERT
PRUIM,
pay
all of its costs including expert witness, consultant and attorney fees expended in
pursuit of this
action; and
F.
Granting such other relief as this
Board deems appropriate.
COUNT
HI
FAILURE TO PROPERLY DISPOSE OF LANDSCAPE
WASTE
1-16.
Complainant realleges and incorporates by reference herein paragraphs
I
through
16
15
ofCount las paragraphs
I through
16 ofthis Count III as if fully set forth herein.
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, reallegesand incorporates byrefereneeherein
his answers to Paragraph I through
16 ofCount I as paragraphs
I through
16
of this Count III as if fully set forth herein.
17.
Section 22.22(c) ofthe Act, 415
ILCS 5/22.22(c) (2002), provides as follows:
c.
Beginning
July
I,
1990,
no
owner or operator of a
sanitary landfill
shall accept landscape waste for final
disposal,
except that landscape waste
separated
from
municipal waste maybe acceptedby a sanitary landfill
if
(1)
the
landfill
provides
and
maintains
for that
purpose separate landscape waste composting facilities
and
composts
all
landscape
waste,
and
(2)
the
composted waste
is
utilized,
by
the operators
of the
landfill
or
by
any
other person,
as
part
of the
final
vegetative cover for the landfill or such other uses as
soil conditioning material.
ANSWER:
Paragraph
17 ofCount III ofthe Complaint states a legal conclusion to
which
Respondent, ROBERT
PRUIM, makes no answer.
18.
On August
18,
1993 and April 7, 1994, the Illinois
EPA conducted inspections ofthe
site.
Duringthese inspections, the Illinois EPA inspector observed that the landscape waste had been
deposited in the landfill area.
ANSWER:
Respondent,ROBERT PRUIM, admits that theAgency conducted inspections
on these dates.
Respondent,
ROBERT PRUIM, has insufficient knowledge
to form
a belief as to
the truth or falsity ofthe remaining allegations
in
Paragraph
18 ofCount III, and demands strict proofthereof
19.
On
July
28,
1998,
the Respondents
were
causing
and
allowing
the landfilling of
landscape waste at the site in
Parcel A.
16
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM,
has insufficient knowledge to
form a belief
as
to the truth or falsity ofthe allegation in
Paragraph
19 ofCount III, and
demands strict proofthereof
20.
By causing and allowing the landifiling oflandscape waste, the Respondents violated
Section 22.22(c) ofthe Act, 415 ILCS
5/22.22(c) (2002).
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, denies the allegations of Paragraph 20 of
Count III ofthe Complaint.
WHEREFORE:
Respondent,
ROBERT
PRUIM, respectfully requests
that the Board enter an order in
this
matter against Complainant, PEOPLE
OF THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS, with respect to Count
III as
follows:
A.
Authorizing a hearing
in this matter at which time
the Complainant
will be required
to prove the allegations alleged in Count III;
B.
A findingthat Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, has not caused violations ofSections
22.22
(c) ofthe Act;
C.
In the alternative, denying Complainant’s request for a cease and desist order based
on
a finding that the alleged violations have been corrected;
D.
In the event the Board finds that Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, violated any
provisions of the law cited by the Complainant in Count III, to
assess a nominal
penalty against ROBERT PRUIM for each violationbased on the limited and isolated
nature of the violations alleged
and the fact that:
(1)
the alleged violations have been voluntarilycorrected;
17
(2)
the alleged violations are not ongoing or repetitious;
(3)
the alleged violations were
limited in duration and of
relatively minor gravity;
(4)
there
was
no
substantial
savings
to
Respondent
or
substantial harm to the environment or to the People of
the State of Illinois; and
(5)
other mitigating factors regarding penalty assessment.
E.
Denying any
request by the Complainant that Respondent, ROBERT
PRUIM,
pay
all ofits costs including expert witness, consultant and
attorney fees expended in
pursuit ofthis action;
and
F.
Granting such other relief as this
Board deems appropriate.
COUNT IV
FAILURE TO PROVIDE AND MAINTAIN ADEQUATE FINANCIAL ASSURANCE
PURSUANT TO THE APRIL 20.
1993 PERMIT
1-16.
Complainant realleges and incorporates by reference herein paragraphs
I
through
16
of Count las paragraphs
1
through
16 ofthis
Count IV as if hilly set
forth herein.
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, realleges and incorporates byreferenceherein
his answers to paragraphs
I through
16 ofCount las paragraphs
1
through
16
of this Count IV as if hilly set forth herein.
17.
Section 21.1(a) ofthe Act, 415
ILCS
5/21.1(a)
(2002), provides as follows:
a.
Except as provided in subsection (a.5) no person other
than the State of Illinois,
its agencies and institutions,
or a unit of local government shall conduct any waste
disposal
operation
on or after March
1,
1985,
which
requires a permit under subsection (d) ofSection 21 of
18
this
Act,
unless
such
person
has
posted
with
the
Agency a performance bond
or other security for the
purpose ofinsuring closure ofthe site and post-closure
care
in
accordance
with
this
Act
and
regulations
adopted thereunder.
ANSWER:
Paragraph
17 ofCount IV states a legal conclusion to which Respondent,
ROBERT PRUIM, makes no answer.
18.
Section 807.601(a) ofthe Board’s Waste Disposal
Regulations,
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
807.601(a), states as follows:
No person
shall
conduct
a
waste
disposal
operation
or
indefinite
storage operation which requires a permit under Section 21(d) ofthe
Act unless suchperson has provided financialassurance in accordance
with this Subpart.
a)
The financial assurance requirement does not apply to
the State of Illinois, its agencies and institutions, or to
any unit oflocal government; provided, however, that
any other persons who conduct such a waste disposal
operation on a site which may be owned oroperated by
such
a
government
entity
must
provide
financial
assurance for closure and post-closure care ofthe site.
ANSWER:
Paragraph
I ofCount IV
states a legal conclusion to which
Respondent,
ROBERT PRUIM, makes
no answer.
19.
Section 807.603(b)(I)ofthe Board’s Waste Disposal Regulations, 35 Ill. Adm. Code
807.603(b)(l), provides as follows:
b)
The
operator
must
increase
the
total
amount
of
financial
assurance
so
as
to
equal
the
current
cost
estimate within 90 days after any of the following:
1)
An
increase
in
the
current
cost
estimate;
19
*
*
*
ANSWER:
Paragraph
19 of Count IV
states a legal conclusion to which Respondent,
ROBERT PRUIM, makes no answer.
20.
Item 3
of CLC’ s supplemental permit dated April 20,
1993, provided that financial
assurance was to
be maintained in an amount equal to
$1,342,500.00.
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, admits the allegationscontained in Paragraph
20 ofCount IV of the Complaint.
21.
Item 3 ofCLC’s supplemental permit dated April20, 1993, approved theRespondents’
current cost estimate for
$1,342,500.00.
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, admits the allegations contained in Paragraph
21 ofCount IV ofthe Complaint.
22.
Respondents Edward Pruim and Robert Pruim failed to arrange financing and increase
the total
amount of CLC’s financial assurance
to
$1,342,500.00, within 90
days after the Agency
approved its
cost estimate on April 20,
1993.
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, admits the allegationscontained in Paragraph
22 of Count IV of the Complaint.
23.
Respondents arranged for and provided aperformancebond forCLC on June20, 1996.
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, admits the allegations contained in Paragraph
23
of Count IV ofthe Complaint.
24.
By continuing to allow acceptance ofwaste
a the Site from July
13,
1993
until June
20,
1996, and by failing to provide adequate financial assurance, the Respondents violated Section
21.1(a)ofthe Act, 415 ILCS
5/21.1(a)
(2002), and Section 807.601(a) ofthe Board’sWaste Disposal
20
Regulations,
35
Ill. Adm. Code 807.601(a).
ANSWER:
Respondent,
ROBERT
PRUIM,
denies the allegations of Paragraph
24
of
Count
IV ofthe Complaint.
25.
By failing to
adequately increase the financial assuranceamount by July
19,
1993 (90
days after the Agency approved its cost estimate on April 20,
1993), the Respondents have violated
Section 21(d)(2) of the Act,
415 ILCS
5/21(d)(2)
(2002), and
Section
807.603(b)(1) of the Board
Waste Disposal Regulations,
35
Ill. Adm. Code 807.603(b)(1).
ANSWER:
Respondent,
ROBERT
PRUIM,
denies the allegations of Paragraph
25
of
Count IV ofthe Complaint.
26.
Respondents caused and
allowed CLC to be out of compliance with Section 21.1(a)
ofthe Act, 415 ILCS. 5/21.1 (a)(2002),
35111. Adm. Code 807.601(a) and 807.603(b)(i) from July19,
1993 until June 20,
1996.
ANSWER:
Respondent,
ROBERT
PRUIM,
denies the allegations of Paragraph
26 of
Count IV ofthe Complaint.
WHEREFORE:
Respondent,
ROBERT
PRUIM,
respectfully requests that the Board enter an order in
this
matter against Complainant,
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, with respect to Count IV as
follows:
A.
Authorizing a hearing in this matter at which time the Complainant will be required
to prove the allegations alleged in Count IV;
B.
A finding that Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, has not caused violations ofSections
21
(d)(2) and 21.1
(a) of the Act and 35
Ill.
Adm.
Code Sections 807.601(a) and
21
807.603(b)(l);
C.
In the alternative, denying Complainant’s request for a cease and desist order based
on
a finding that the alleged violations have been corrected;
D.
In the event the Board finds that Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, violated any
provisions ofthe law cited by the Complainant in Count IV, to
assess a nominal
penalty against ROBERT PRUIM foreach violation based on the limited and isolated
nature of the violations alleged and the fact that:
(I)
thealleged violations have been voluntarilycorrected;
(2)
the alleged violations are not ongoing or repetitious;
(3)
the alleged violations
were limited in duration and of
relatively minor gravity;
(4)
there
was
no
substantial
savings
to
Respondent
or
substantial harm to the environment or to the Peopleof
the State of Illinois; and
(5)
othermitigating factors regardingpenalty assessment.
E.
Denying any request by the Complainant
that
Respondent, ROBERT
PRUIM, pay
all ofits costs
including expert witness, consultant and attorney fees expended in
pursuit of this action; and
F.
Granting such other relief as this Board deems appropriate.
COUNT V
FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE THE REQUIRED
APPLICATION FOR A SIGNIFICANT
MODIFICATION
1-16.
Complainant realleges and incorporates by reference herein paragraphs I though
16
22
ofCount Las paragraphs
I through
16 ofthis
Count V as if fUlly set forth herein.
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, realleges and incorporates by reference herein
Paragraphs
1
through
16 of Count las Paragraphs I through
16 of this Count
V as if fUlly set forth herein.
17.
Section 814.104 ofBoard’s Waste Disposal Regulations, 35111. Adm.
Code 814.104,
provides as follows:
a.
All owners or operatorsoflandfills permitted pursuant
to
Section 21(d) of the Environmental Protection Act
(Act) (Ill. Rev. Stat.
1991,ch. 111
V;par.
1021(d) 415
ILCS 5/21(d)
shallfile an application for a significant
modification to their permits for existing units, unless
the units
will be closed pursuant
to
Subpart E
within
two years ofthe effective date of this
Part.
b.
The owner or operator ofan existing unit shall submit
information required
by
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
812
to
demonstrate compliance with Subpart
B, Subpart C or
Subpart D ofthis
Part, whichever is applicable.
c.
The application shall be filed within 48 months ofthe
effective date ofthis Part, or at such earlier time as the
Agency
shall
specify in
writing
pursuant
to
35
Ill.
Adm. Code 807.209
or 813.201(b).
d.
The
application
shall
be
made
pursuant
to
the
procedures of 35
III. Adm.
Code 813.
ANSWER:
Paragraph
17 ofCount V states a legal conclusion to
which Respondent,
ROBERT PRUIM, makes no answer.
18.
The Respondents failed to causeCLC to file the required significantmodification for
Parcel B by June 15, 1993.
ANSWER:
Respondent,
ROBERT
PRUIM,
admits
that CLC
did
not
file a
Significant
23
Modification application by June 15, 1993 but denies theremaining allegations
contained in
Paragraph
18 ofCount V ofthe Complaint.
19.
The Respondents
finally
filed CLC’s
significant modification
on
August
5,
1996,
pursuant to a prospective variance issued by the Board.
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, admits that CLC filedthe requiredSignificant
Modification for Parcel B on August 5,
1996.
Further Respondent, ROBERT
PRUIM, states that CLC was allowed to file same on August 5, 1996 pursuant
to the Appellate Court Order in Community Landfill Company v.
Illinois
Environmental
Protection Agency and Illinois Pollution Control
Board, No.
3-96-0182
(June
17,
1996).
20.
By failing
to
file CLC’s
required significant modification
for Parcel
B by June 15,
1993, the Respondents have violated Section 21(d)(2) of the Act, 415
ILCS
5121(d)(2)
(2002), and
Section 814.104 ofthe Board’s Waste Disposal Regulations, 35111. Adm.
Code 814.104.
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, denies the allegations ofParagraph 20 of
Count V ofthe Complaint.
WHEREFORE:
Respondent,
ROBERT
PRUIM,
respectfUlly requests that the Board enter an order in this
matter against Complainant,
PEOPLE
OF THE STATE OF
ILLINOIS,
with respect to Count V as
follows:
A.
Authorizing a hearing in this
matter at which time the Complainant will be required
to prove the allegations alleged in Count V;
B.
A finding that Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, has not caused violations of Sections
24
21
(2)(2) of the Act
and 814.104 of the Board’s Waste Disposal Regulations;
C.
In the alternative, denying Complainant’s request for a cease and desist order based
on a finding that the alleged violations havebeen corrected;
D.
In the event the Board finds that Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, violated any
provisions ofthe law cited by theComplainant in Count V, to assess a nominal penalty
against ROBERT PRUIM foreach violation based
on the limited and isolated nature
of the violations alleged and the fact that:
(I)
thealleged violations have been voluntarilycorrected;
(2)
the alleged violations are not ongoing or repetitious;
(3)
the alleged violations
were limited
in
duration and of
relatively minor gravity;
(4)
there
was
no
substantial
savings
to
Respondent or
substantial harm to the environment or to thePeople of
the State ofIllinois;
and
(5)
other mitigating factors regarding penalty assessment.
E.
Denying
any request by the Complainant
that Respondent,
ROBERT PRUIM,
pay
all
of its
costs including expert witness,
consultant and attorney fees expended in
pursuit ofthis action; and
F.
Granting such otherrelief as this Board deems appropriate.
COUNT VI
WATER POLLUTION
1-21.
Complainant realleges and incorporates by reference herein, paragraphs
1
through 21
25
ofCount
I as paragraphs
1
through
21
of this Count VI as if fUlly set forth herein.
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, realleges and incorporates byreference herein
his answers to Paragraphs
I
through
21
ofCount las Paragraphs
1
through 21
of this
Count VI as if fUlly set forth herein.
22.
During May 22,
1995,
inspection, theIllinois EPA inspectorobserved leachate in the
north perimeter ditch, which eventually drains
into the Illinois River.
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, has insufficient knowledge to
form
a belief
as
to
the truth or falsity of the allegation
in Paragraph 22
of Count
VI,
and
demands strict proofthereof.
23.
Section
12(a) ofthe Act, 415 ILCS
5/12(a) (2002), provides as follows:
No person shall:
a.
Cause
or
threaten
or
allow
the
discharge
of
any
contaminants in
any
State
so
as to
cause or tend
to
cause
water
pollution
in
Illinois,
either
alone
or
in
combination with matter from othersources, or so as to
violate
regulations
or
standards
adopted
by
the
Pollution Control Board under this Act;
ANSWER:
Paragraph 23 ofCount VI contains a legal conclusion to which Respondent,
ROBERT PRUIM,
makes no answer.
24.
Section
807.3 13
of the
Board’s
Waste
Disposal
Regulations,
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
807.3 13,
provides as follows:
No person shall cause or allow operation ofa sanitary landfill so as to
cause or threaten orallow the discharge ofany contamination into the
environment
in
any
State
so
as
to
cause
or
tend
to
cause
water
pollution in Illinois, either alone or in
combination with matter from
other sources, or so
as to violate regulations or standards adopted by
the Pollution Control Board under the Act.
26
ANSWER:
Paragraph 24 of Count VI contains a legal conclusion to which Respondent,
ROBERT PRUIM,
makes no answer.
25,
Section 3.165 ofthe Act, 415
ILCS
5/3.165
(2002),
defines “contaminant”
as “any
solid, liquid, or gaseous matter, any odor, or any form ofenergy, from whatever source.”
ANSWER:
Paragraph 25 ofCount VI contains a legal conclusion to which Respondent,
ROBERT PRUIM, makes no answer.
26.
The leachate
the
Illinois
EPA inspector observed
in
the north
perimeter ditch
is a
contaminant as that term is defined at Section
3.165
ofthe Act,
415
ILCS
5/3.165
(2002).
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, has insufficient knowledge to
form
a belief
as to
the truth or falsity of the allegation in
Paragraph
26
of Count VI,
and
demands strict proof thereof
27.
Section
3.550
of
the
Act,
416
ILCS
5/3.550
(2002),
defines
waters
as
“all
accumulations ofwater, surface and underground, natural, and artificial, public and private, or parts
thereof, which are wholly or partially within, flow through or border upon this State.”
ANSWER:
Paragraph 27 of Count VI states a legal conclusion to which Respondent,
ROBERT PRUIM,
makes no answer.
28.
The Illinois River into
which leachate from the north perimeter ditch located on the
site eventually drains,
is a water of the state of Illinois as that term is defined at Section 3.550 of the
Act, 415 ILCS
5/3.550 (2002).
ANSWER:
Paragraph 28
of Count VI contains a legal
conclusion to which Respondent,
ROBERT PRUIM, makes no
answer.
29.
Section 3.545
of the
Act,
415
ILCS
5/3.545
(2002), defines
“water pollution”
as
27
follows:
“Waterpollution” is such alterationofthe physical, thermal,chemical,
biological or radioactive properties ofany waters ofthe State, orsuch
discharge ofany contaminant into any waters of the State,
as will or is
likely to create a nuisanceor rendersuchwaters harmfUl or detrimental
or
injurious
to
public
health,
safety
or
welfare,
or
to
domestic,
commercial, industrial, agricultural, recreational,
or other legitimate
uses”, or to livestock,
wild animals, birds, fish, or other aquatic life.
ANSWER:
Paragraph 29 of Count VI ofthe Complaint states a legal conclusion to which
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM,
makes no answer.
30.
Causing or allowing leachate, a contaminant,
to flow into the north perimeter ditch
which
eventually drains or discharges into the Illinois River constitutes
water pollution as that term
is defined at Section 3.545 of the Act, 415 ILCS
5/3.545
(2002).
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM,
denies that CLC or he caused or allowed
water pollution.
31.
The Respondents
failed to
take
sufficient action,
or direct their employees
to
take
sufficient action, to prevent leachate from flowing off-Site to the Illinois River.
By allowing leachate
to flowoff-site to the Illinois River, theRespondents have violated Sections
12(a) and 21 (d)(2) ofthe
Act,
415
ILCS
5/12(a)
and
21(d)(2) (2002), and
Section
807.3 13
of the Board’s Waste Disposal
Regulations, 35111. Adm.
Code 807.3 13.
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM,
denies the allegations of Paragraph 31 of
Count VI of the Complaint.
WHEREFORE:
Respondent,
ROBERT PRUIM, respectfully requests that the Board enter an
order in this
matteragainst Complainant, PEOPLE
OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, with respect to Count VI as
28
follows:
A.
Authorizing a hearing in this matter at which time the Complainant will be required
to prove the allegations alleged in Count VI;
B.
A findingthat Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, has not caused violations ofSections
12(a) and
21(b)(2) ofthe Act and
35111. Adm. Code 807.3 13;
C.
In the alternative, denying Complainant’s request for a cease and desist order based
on a finding that the alleged violations have been corrected;
D.
In the event the Board finds
that Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, violated any
provisions ofthe law cited by the Complainant
in Count VI, to
assess a nominal
penalty againstROBERT PRUIM for each violationbased on the limited and isolated
nature ofthe violations alleged and the fact that:
(1)
the alleged violations have been voluntarily corrected;
(2)
the alleged violations are not ongoing or repetitious;
(3)
the alleged violations
were limited in duration and of
relatively minor gravity;
(4)
there was
no
substantial
savings
to
Respondent
or
substantial harm to theenvironment orto thePeople of
the State ofIllinois; and
(5)
other mitigating factors regarding penalty assessment.
E.
Denying any request by
the Complainant
that
Respondent,
ROBERT
PRUIM,
pay
all of its costs including expert witness,
consultant and attorney fees expended in
pursuit of this action;
and
29
F.
Granting such other relief as this Board deems appropriate.
COUNT VII
DEPOSITING WASTE IN UNPERMITTED
PORTIONS OF A LANDFILL
1-15.
Complainant realleges and incorporates by referenceherein, paragraphs I through 15
ofCount las paragraphs I throughl5 of this Count VII as if fully set forth herein.
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, realleges and incorporates by referenceherein
Paragraphs
I
through
15 of Count I as Paragraphs
1
through
15 ofthis Count
VII as if fully set forth herein.
16.
On June5,
1989, supplemental developmentpermit number
1 989-005-SP was issued
to CLC for the vertical expansion ofParcel A and Parcel B.
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, admits the allegations ofParagraph 16 of
Count VII of the
Complaint.
17.
Supplemental developmental permit number
1 989-005-SP, specifically incorporated,
as part ofsaid
permit, the finalplans, specifications, application and supporting documentsthat were
submitted by the Respondents and
approved by the Illinois EPA.
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM,
admits that supplemental developmental
permit number
1 989-005-SP was submitted.
Respondent denies the remaining
allegations in
Paragraph
17 ofCount VII ofthe Complaint.
18.
The Respondents’ supplemental development permit application, incorporated as part
ofsupplemental development permit number I989-005-SP, provides the maximum elevation for the
landfill as 580 feet above mean sea level.
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, admits that supplementaldevelopment permit
30
number
1 989-005-SP provides the maximum elevation for the landfill as 580
feet above mean sea level.
Respondent denies the remaining allegations in
Paragraph IS of Count VII of the Complaint.
19.
Respondents, who managed and controlled the deposit ofwaste at the landfill, were
therefore required not to
allow the landfill elevation to exceed
580
feet above mean sea
level.
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, denies the allegations ofParagraph
19 of
Count VII ofthe Complaint.
20.
On or about January
17,
1995,
the Respondents submitted
a
Solid
Waste Capacity
Certification
to
illinois
EPA,
signed
by
Respondent Edward
Pruim,
reporting that
there was
no
remaining capacity in Parcel B as ofJanuary
1,
1995.
ANSWER:
Respondent,
ROBERT PRUIM,
admits that
CLC
submitted
a
Solid
Waste
CapacityCertification to Illinois EPAand states that theapplication speaksfor
itself
Respondent,
ROBERT
PRUIM,
denies the remaining allegations of
Paragraph 20 ofCount VII ofthe Complaint.
21.
Despitehaving reportedno remaining capacity in Parcel B at thesite, the Respondents
continued to cause and allow the deposit ofwaste in Parcel
B afler January
1,
1995.
ANSWER:
Respondent,
ROBERT PRUIM, has insufficient knowledge to
form
a belief
as to
the truth or falsity of the allegation in Paragraph
21
of Count VII, and
demands strict proofthereof.
22.
On or about
January
15,
1996,
the Respondents
submitted
a
Solid
Waste Landfill
Capacity Certification
to
Illinois
EPA,
signed by
Respondent Robert
Pruim,
reporting that
the
Respondents had received over 540,000 cubic yards for deposit in Parcel B between January
1, 1995
31
and December 31,
1995.
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT
PRUIM,
admits that
CLC
submitted
a
Solid Waste
Landfill Capacity Certification to the Illinois
EPA and
states that the
certification speaks for itself.
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, denies the
remaining allegations ofParagraph 20 ofCount VII of the Complaint.
23.
On August
5,
1996, the Respondents
caused CLC
to file with the Illinois
EPA,
an
application for significant modification ofparcel
B.
The application contained a map which shows
the current condition ofparcel B.
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, admits that CLC filed
an application for
significant modification ofParcel B on August 5,
1996 and
states that the
applications speaks for itself.
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, denies the
remaining allegations of Paragraph 23
of Count VII of the Complaint.
24.
The map referenced in paragraph 23
above, shows the current elevation for parcel B
to be at least 590 feet above mean sea level, a ten feet increase over the permitted elevation.
ANSWER:
Respondent,
ROBERT PRUIM, has insufficient knowledge to form
a belief
as to the truth or falsity of the allegation in
Paragraph 24
of Count
VII, and
demands strict proof thereof.
25.
On
April
30,
1997,
the Respondents
caused
CLC
to
submit
to
the Illinois
EPA, a
document titled: “ADDENDUM TO THE
APPLICATION FOR SIGNIFICANT MODIFICATION
TO PERMIT
MORRIS
COMMUNITY
LANDFILL
-
PARCEL
B.”
The information contained
therein showed, that
in excess of475,000 cubic yards ofwaste was disposed of above the permitted
landfill height of 580 feet above mean sea level.
32
ANSWER:
Respondent,
ROBERT
PRUIM,
admits that
CLC
submitted
a document
to
the Illinois EPA titled “Addendum to
the Application for Significant
Modification to Permit Moths Community Landfill
-
Parcel B” and states that
the document
speaks for itself
Respondent,
ROBERT PRUIM,
denies the
remaining allegations ofParagraph 25 of Count VII ofthe Complaint.
26.
On information and belief, to the date of filing this amended
complaint, portions of
Parcel B continue to
exceed 580 feet above mean sea level.
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, has insufficient knowledge to
form a belief
as to
the truth or falsity of the allegation in Paragraph 26
of Count
VII, and
demands strict proofthereof
27.
Section 21 (o)(9) ofthe Act, 415
ILCS
5/21 (o)(9) (2002), provides as follows:
No person shall:
Conduct a
sanitary
landfill
operation
which
is
required
to
have a
permit under subsection (d) ofthis Section, in
a manner which results
in any of the following conditions:
9.
deposition ofrefuse in any unpermitted portion of the
landfill.
ANSWER:
Paragraph27 ofCount VII ofthe Complaint states a legal conclusion to which
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, makes no
answer.
28.
Refuse is a waste as that term is definedat Section 3.535 ofthe Act, 415 ILCS 5/3.535
(2002).
ANSWER:
Paragraph 28 ofCount VII ofthe Complaint states a legal conclusion to which
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, makes no answer.
33
29.
Onand before August 5, 1996, ora datebetter known to Respondents, and continuing
until the filing ofthis Amended Complaint herein, the Respondents caused and allowed the deposit
ofrefuse in unpermitted portions ofparcel
B.
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM,
is without sufficient knowledge to admit or
deny theallegations contained in Paragraph 29 ofCount VII oftheComplaint.
Further answering,
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM,
states if refuse was
deposited in unpermitted portions of Parcel B, same was done so without any
specific knowledge or intent.
30.
By causing and allowing the deposit ofrefuse or waste in portions ofparcel B above
its permitted elevation, the Respondents violated
Section 21 (o)(9) of the Act, 415
ILCS
5/21 (o)(9)
(2002).
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM,
is without sufficient knowledge to admit or
deny theallegations contained in Paragraph 30 ofCount VIIofthe Complaint.
Further answering,
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, states if refuse was
deposited in unpermitted portions ofParcel B, same was done so without any
specific knowledge or intent.
WHEREFORE:
Respondent, ROBERT
PRUIM,
respectfully requests that the Board enter an
order
in this
matter against Complainant, PEOPLE
OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, with respect to Count VII as
follows:
A.
Authorizing a hearing in this matter at which time the Complainant will be required
to prove the allegations alleged
in Count VII;
34
B.
A finding that Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, has not caused violations of Section
2 1(o) ofthe Act;
C.
In the alternative, denying Complainant’s request for a cease and
desist order based
on a finding that the alleged violations have been corrected;
D.
In the event the Board finds that Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, violated
any
provisions ofthe law cited by the Complainant
in Count VII,
to assess
a nominal
penalty against ROBERT PRUIM for each violation based on thelimited and isolated
nature of the violations
alleged and the fact that:
(1)
the alleged violations have been voluntarily corrected;
(2)
the alleged violations are not ongoing or repetitious;
(3)
the alleged violations were limited
in
duration and of
relatively minor gravity;
(4)
there
was
no
substantial
savings
to
Respondent
or
substantial harm to the environment or to thePeople of
the State of Illinois;
and
(5)
other mitigating factors regarding penalty assessment.
E.
Denying
any
request
by the Complainant
that
Respondent,
ROBERT
PRUIM, pay
all of its costs including expert witness,
consultant and attorney fees expended in
pursuit of this
action; and
F.
Granting such other relief as this
Board deems appropriate.
35
COUNT VIII
CONDUCTING A WASTE DISPOSAL OPERATION WITHOUT
A PERMIT
1-26.
Complainant realleges and incorporates by reference herein paragraphs
I
through 26
of Count VII as paragraphs
1
through 26 of this Count VIII
as if filly set
forth herein.
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, realleges and incorporates byreferenceherein
his answers to Paragraphs I through 26
ofCount las Paragraphs
1
through 26
of this Count VIII as if fullyset
forth herein.
27.
Section 21(d)(l) of the Act, 415 ILCS
5/21(d)(1) (2002), provides
as follows:
No person shall:
Conduct
any
waste-storage,
waste-treatment,
or
waste-disposal
operation:
I.
without a permit granted by theAgency or in violation
of any conditions
imposed by such permit,
including
periodic reports and fill accessto adequate records and
the
inspection
of facilities,
as
may be
necessary
to
ensure compliance with this Act, and with regulations
and standards adopted thereunder.
.
ANSWER:
Paragraph27 ofCount VIIIofthe Complaint states alegal conclusion to which
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, makes no answer.
28.
Refuse is waste as that term is defined at Section 3.535 ofthe Act, 415
ILCS 5/3.535
(2002).
ANSWER:
Paragraph
28
of Count
VIII of the Complaint
states
a
legal
conclusion to
which Respondent,
ROBERT PRUIM, makes no answer.
29.
By causingor allowing refuse or waste to be deposited in Parcel B at thelandfill above
the permitted elevation of 580
feet above mean sea
level,
unpermitted areas of the landfill,
the
36
Respondents conducted a waste-storage or waste-disposal operation.
ANSWER:
Respondent,
ROBERT PRUIM, is without sufficient knowledge to admit or
deny the allegationscontained in Paragraph29 ofCount VIIIofthe Complaint.
Further answering,
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM,
states if refuse was
deposited in unpermitted portions ofParcel B, same was done so without any
specific knowledge or intent.
30.
Neither the Respondents nor CLC have
a permit for the disposal of waste above
an
elevation of 580 feet above mean sea
level.
ANSWER:
Respondent,
ROBERT PRUIM, admits the allegations of Paragraph 30 of
Count VIII of the Complaint.
31.
Since
at
least August
5,
1996,
or
a
date
better
known
to
the
Respondents,
and
continuing until thefiling ofthis AmendedComplaint, the Respondents havecaused and allowed the
deposition ofwaste in unpermittedportions ofParcel B ofthe landfill in violation ofSection 21 (d)(I)
ofthe Act, 415
ILCS
5/21(d)(1) (2002).
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM,
is without sufficient knowledge to admit or
deny theallegations contained in Paragraph 31 ofCount VIII oftheComplaint.
Further
answering, Respondent,
ROBERT PRUIM, states if refuse was
deposited in unpermitted portions ofParcel B, same was done so without any
specific knowledge or intent.
WHEREFORE:
Respondent,
ROBERT
PRUIM, respectfully requests
that
the Board
enter an
order in this
matter against Complainant, PEOPLE
OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, with respect to Count VIIIas
37
follows:
A.
Authorizing a hearing in
this matter at which
time the Complainant will be required
to prove the allegations alleged in Count VIII;
B.
A finding
that Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM,
has not caused violations ofSection
21(d)(1) of the Act;
C.
In the alternative, denying Complainant’s request for a cease and
desist order based
on a finding that the alleged violations have been corrected;
D.
In the event the Board finds that Respondent, ROBERT
PRUIM, violated any
provisions ofthe law
cited
by the Complainant
in
Count
VIII, to
assess
a
nominal
penalty against ROBERT PRUIM foreach violation based on the limited and isolated
nature of the violations alleged and the fact that:
(1)
the alleged violations have been voluntarily corrected;
(2)
the alleged violations are not ongoing or repetitious;
(3)
the alleged violations were limited
in
duration and of
relatively minor gravity;
(4)
there
was
no
substantial
savings
to
Respondent
or
substantial harm to the environment otto thePeople of
the State of Illinois; and
(5)
other mitigating factors regarding penalty assessment.
E.
Denying
any request by
the Complainant that Respondent,
ROBERT
PRUIM,
pay
all
of its costs including expert witness, consultant and
attorney fees expended in
pursuit of this action;
and
38
F.
Granting such other relief as this Board deems appropriate.
COUNT IX
OPEN DUMPING
1-26.
Complainant realleges and incorporates by reference herein paragraphs
1
through 26
of Count VII as paragraphs
I through 26 of this Count IX as if filly set forth herein.
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, realleges and incorporates byreferenceherein
his answers to Paragraphs
I through 26 Count VII as Paragraphs I through 26
of this Count IX as if fully set forth herein.
27.
Section 21(a) of the Act, 415
ILCS
5/21(a) (2002), provides as follows:
No person shall:
a.
Cause or allow the open dumping ofany waste.
ANSWER:
Paragraph 27 ofCount IX ofthe Complaint contains a legal conclusion to
which Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM,
makes no answer.
28.
Section 3.305 ofthe Act, 415 ILCS 5/3.305 (2002), provides the following definition:
“OPEN
DUMPlING” means the consolidation of refuse from
one or
more sources at a disposal site that does not fulfill
therequirements of
a sanitary landfill.
ANSWER:
Paragraph 28 ofCount IX ofthe Complaint contains a legal conclusion to
which Respondent, ROBERT
PRUIM, makes no
answer.
29.
Sections 3.385 and
3.460 of the Act, 415 ILCS
5/3.385,
3.460
(2002), provides the
followingdefinitions, respectively:
“REFUSE” means waste.
“SITE”
means
any
location,
place,
tract
of
land,
and
facilities,
including,
but
not
limited
to
building,
and
improvements used for
39
purposes subject to
regulation or control by this
Act
or regulations
thereunder.
ANSWER:
Paragraph 29 of Count IX ofthe Complaint contains a legal conclusion to
which Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, makes no answer.
30.
The landfill is
a “disposal site” as those terms are defined in the Act.
ANSWER:
Paragraph 30 ofCount IX ofthe Complaint contains a legal conclusion to
which Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM,
makes no answer.
31.
Since
at
least
August
5,
1996,
or
a
date
better
known
to
the
Respondents,
the
Respondents caused or allowed the consolidation ofrefuse at the site, abovethe permitted elevation
of 580 feet above mean sea level.
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, is without sufficient knowledge to admit or
deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 3
1
of Count IX ofthe Complaint.
Further answering, if refuse was consolidated at the site above the permitted
elevation of 580
feet above mean sea
level,
same was done
so without
any
specific knowledge or intent.
32.
Theconsolidation ofrefuse at thesiteon Parcel B abovethepermitted elevation of580
feet above mean sea level,
disposal
areas that do
not fulfill the requirements of a sanitary landfill,
constitutes
“open dumping”
as that
term is
defined
in
Section
3.24
of the Act,
415
ILCS
513.24
(2002).
ANSWER:
Paragraph 32 ofCount IX ofthe Complaint contains a legal conclusion to
which Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, makes no answer.
33.
The Respondents, by their conduct as described herein, have violated Section 21(a)
40
ofthe Act, 415
ILCS
5/21(a) (2002).
ANSWER:
Respondent,
ROBERT PRUIM,
is without sufficient knowledge to admit or
deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 33 of Count IXof the Complaint.
WHEREFORE:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM,
respectfully requests
that the Board enter an
order in
this
matter against Complainant,
PEOPLE
OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, with respect to Count IX as
follows:
A.
Authorizing a hearing in this matter at which time the Complainant
will be required
to prove the allegations alleged in Count IX;
B.
A finding that Respondent,
ROBERT PRUIM,
has not
caused violations ofSection
2 1(a) of the Act;
C.
In the alternative, denying Complainant’s request for a cease and
desist order based
on
a finding that the alleged violations
have been corrected;
D.
In the event the Board finds that Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, violated any
provisions ofthe law cited by the Complainant
in Count IX, to
assess a nominal
penalty againstROBERT PRUIM for each violationbased on the limited and isolated
nature of the violations alleged and the fact that:
(I)
the allegedviolations havebeen voluntarilycorrected;
(2)
the alleged violations are not ongoing or repetitious;
(3)
the alleged violations
were limited
in
duration and of
relatively minor gravity;
(4)
there
was
no
substantial
savings
to
Respondent
or
41
substantial harm to the environment or to the People of
the State of Illinois;
and
(5)
other mitigating factors regarding penalty assessment.
E.
Denying any request by the Complainant
that Respondent,
ROBERT PRUIM,
pay
all
of its costs including expert witness,
consultant and
attorney fees expended in
pursuit of this action;
and
F.
Granting such other relief as this Board deems appropriate.
COUNT X
VIOLATION OF STANDARD
CONDITION 3
1-26.
Complainant realleges and incorporates by reference herein, paragraphs
I through 26
of Count VII as paragraphs
I
through 26 ofthis Count X as if fully set forth herein.
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, reallegesand incorporates by reference herein
his answers to Paragraphs I through 26 ofCount VII as Paragraphs
I through
26
ofthis
Count X as if fully set forth herein.
27.
Section 21(d)(l) ofthe Act, 415
ILCS
5/21(d)(I) (2002), provides as follows:
No person shall:
Conduct
any
waste-storage,
waste-treatment,
or
waste-disposal
operation:
1.
without a permit granted by the Agency or in violation
of any conditions
imposed by such permit,
including
periodic reports and fullaccess to adequate records and
the
inspection
of facilities,
as may
be
necessary to
ensure compliance with this Act, and with regulations
and standards adopted thereunder....
ANSWER:
Paragraph 27 ofCount XoftheComplaint containsa legal conclusionto which
42
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, makes
no answer.
28.
Refuse is waste as that term is defined at Section 3.535 ofthe Act, 415
ILCS 5/3.535
(2002).
ANSWER:
Paragraph 28 ofCount Xofthe Complaintcontains a legal conclusion to which
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, makes
no answer.
29.
Standard condition number 3 ofsupplemental developmentpermit number 1989-005-
SP which was issued to CLC on June
5,
1989, provides as follows:
Thereshall be no deviation from theapproved plans and specifications
unless
a written request for modification of the project,
along with
plans and specifications as required, shall have been submitted to the
Agency and
a
supplemental written permit issued.
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM,
admits the allegations in
Paragraph 29 of
Count X of the Complaint.
30.
Standard condition number 3 ofsupplemental development permit number 1989-005-
SP, required the Respondents to obtain
a supplemental permit for CLC in order to increase landfill
elevation above 580 feet above mean sea level.
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT
PRUIM, admits the allegations in Paragraph 30 of
Count X ofthe Complaint.
31.
Since
at
least
August
5,
1996,
or a
date
better
known
to
the
Respondents,
and
continuing until the filing ofthis
Complaint, the Respondents failed to obtain a supplemental permit
for CLC to increase the permitted elevation ofthe landfill before deposition waste therein, above 580
feet above mean sea level.
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM,
is without sufficient knowledge to admit
or
43
deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 31
of Count X ofthe Complaint.
Further answering,
ROBERT PRUIM states that if a supplemental permit to
increase
the elevation of the landfill
was not
obtained,
same
was
done
so
without any specific knowledge or intent.
32.
The Respondents, by their conduct as described herein, violated standard condition
number
3
of supplemental development permit
number 1989-005-SP,
and
thereby,
also
violated
Section 21(d)U) ofthe Act, 415
ILCS 5/21(d)(1).
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM,
is without sufficient knowledge to admit or
deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 32 ofCount X ofthe Complaint.
Further answering,
ROBERT PRUIM states that
if a supplemental permit to
increase
the elevation of the landfill
was not
obtained,
same
was done
so
without any specific knowledge or intent.
WHEREFORE:
Respondent,
ROBERT
PRUIM,
respectfully requests
that the Board
enter an order in
this
matter against Complainant,
PEOPLE
OF THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
with respect to
Count X as
follows:
A.
Authorizing
a hearing in this matter at which time the Complainant will be required
to prove the allegations alleged in Count X;
B.
A finding that Respondent,
ROBERT PRUIM, has not caused violations ofSection
21(d)(1) ofthe Act and standard condition number
3
ofpermit number
1989-005-SP;
C.
In the alternative, denying Complainant’s request for a
cease and
desist order based
on a finding that the alleged violations have been corrected;
44
D.
In the event the Board finds that Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, violated
any
provisions ofthelaw cited by the Complainant in Count X, to assess a nominal penalty
against ROBERT PRUIM for each violation based on the limited and isolated nature
ofthe violations alleged and the fact that:
(I)
the alleged violations have beenvoluntarily corrected;
(2)
the alleged violations are not ongoing or repetitious;
(3)
the alleged violations were
limited
in duration and of
relatively minor gravity;
(4)
there
was
no
substantial
savings
to
Respondent
or
substantial hann to the environment orto thePeople of
the State ofillinois; and
(5)
other mitigating factors regarding penalty assessment.
B.
Denying any request by the Complainant
that
Respondent,
ROBERT
PRUIM,
pay
all
of its costs including expert witness,
consultant and attorney fees expended in
pursuit ofthis action;
and
F.
Granting such other relief as this Board deems appropriate.
COUNT XI
CONDUCTING A WASTE DISPOSAL OPERATION WITHOUT A PERMIT
Count
XI
was
Dismissed
by
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
pursuant to
its
order
of
November 4, 2004 and therefore requires
no answer by Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM.
COUNT XII
IMPROPER DISPOSAL OF USED TIRES
-
iS.
Complainant realleges and incorporates by reference herein,paragraphs I through 10,
45
paragraphs 12 through 15, and paragraph 17, of Count las paragraphs
1
through
15 ofthis Count XII
as if frilly set forth herein.
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, realleges and incorporates by reference herein
his answers to Paragraphs
I through
10,
Paragraphs
12 through
15,
and
Paragraph
17, ofCount las Paragraphs
I through
15
of this Count XII as if
frilly set
forth herein.
16.
Section
55
(b-I) of the Act, 415 ILCS
5/55
(b-I) (2002), provides, in pertinent part,
as follows:
b-I
Beginning January
1,
1995, no person shall knowingly
mix
any used or waste
tire, either whole or cut, with
municipal
waste,
and
no
owner
or
operator
of
a
sanitary landfill shall accept any used or waste tire for
final disposal; except that
used or waste
tires, when
separated from other waste, maybe accepted if: (I)the
sanitary landfill provides
and
maintains
a means
for
shredding,
slitting,
or
chopping
whole
tires
and
so
treats whole tires and, if approved by the Agency in a
permit
issued under this
Act,
uses the used or waste
tires for alternative uses,
which may included on-site
practices such as lining of roadways with tire scraps,
alternative daily cover, or use in a leachate collection
system or (2) the sanitary
landfill, byits notification to
the
Illinois
Industrial
Materials
Exchange
Service,
makes
available
the
used
or
waste
tires
to
an
appropriate
facility
for
reuse,
reprocessing,
or
converting, includinguse asan alternativeenergy thel.
ANSWER:
Paragraph
16 ofCount XII ofthis Complaint contains a legal conclusion to
which Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM,
makes
no answer.
17.
On July 28, 1998, the Respondents were allowing the mixing of waste tires with
municipal waste and placement of the mixed waste in the active area ofParcel A of the landfill for
46
disposal.
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, has insufficient
knowledge to
form a
belief
as
to the
truth
or falsity of the allegation in Paragraph 17 ofCount XII, and
demands strict proofthereof.
18.
Bytheactions describedherein, Respondentshaveviolated Section
S5(b-
1)
oftheAct.
ANSWER:
Respondent,
ROBERT PRUIM, has insufficient
knowledge to
form a
belief
as
to the
truth
or falsityof the allegation in Paragraph 18ofCount XII,
and
demands strict proofthereof.
WHEREFORE:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, respectfully requests that the Board enter an order in this
matter against Complainant, PEOPLE OFTHESTATEOF ILLINOIS, with respect toCount XII as
follows:
A.
Authorizing a hearing in this matter at which timethe Complainant willbe required
to prove the allegations alleged in Count XII;
B.
A finding that Respondent,
ROBERT PRUIM, has
not caused violations of Section
55(b-l)
ofthe Act;
C.
In the alternative, denying Complainant’s request for a cease and desist order based
on a finding that the alleged violations havebeen corrected;
D.
In the event the Board finds that Respondent,
ROBERT PRUIM, violated any
provisions ofthe law
cited by the Complainant
in Count XII, to
assess a nominal
penalty against ROBERT PRUIM foreach violationbased on the limited and isolated
nature of the violations alleged and the fact that:
47
(I)
the alleged violations have been voluntarily corrected;
(2)
the alleged violations
are not ongoing or repetitious;
(3)
the alleged violations were
limited
in
duration and of
relatively minor gravity;
(4)
there was no substantial savings to Respondent or
substantial
harm
totheenvironment or to thePeople of
the State ofIllinois;
and
(5)
othermitigating factors regarding penaltyassessment.
B.
Denying any request by the Complainant
that Respondent,
ROBERT
PRUIM, pay
allof its costs including expert witness, consultant and attorney feesexpended in
pursuit ofthis action;
and
F,
Grantingsuchother reliefas this Board deems appropriate.
COUNT XLII
VIOLATION
OF PERMIT CONDITION
1-22.
Complainant realleges and incorporates byreference herein, paragraphs
I through 22
ofCount las
paragraphs
I
through 22 of this
Count
XIII, as if fully set forth herein.
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM,realleges and incorporates by reference herein
his
answers to Paragraphs
1
through
22 of Count I as Paragraphs
1
though
22
of this Count XIII as if
fully
set forth herein.
23.
Section
21 (d)(1) of the Act, 415
ILCS 5/21 (d)( 1) (2002), provides as follows:
No person
shall:
Conduct
any
waste-storage,
waste-treatment,
or
waste-disposal
operation:
48
1.
without a permit grantedby theAgency or in violation
ofany conditions imposed by such permit, including
periodicreports and frill access to adequaterecords
and
the inspection
of facilities,
as
may be
necessary
to
ensure compliance with this Act, and with regulations
and standards adopted thereunder.
ANSWER:
Paragraph 23 of Count XIII ofthis Complaint contains a legal conclusion to
which Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, makes
no
answer.
24.
Refuse is waste as that
term is defined at Section
3.535
ofthe Act,
415 ILCS
5/3.535
(2002).
ANSWER:
Paragraph 24
of Count XIII of this Complaint contains a legal
conclusion to
which
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, makes no answer.
25.
Special condition number 13 ofsupplementaldevelopment permit number 1989-005-
SP which was
issued to
Respondent CLC on June
5,
1989, provides as follows:
Movable, temporary
fencing will
be
used to
prevent blowing
litter,
when the refuse
fill
is
at a higher elevation than the natural
ground
line.
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM,
admits the allegations in Paragraph 25
of
Count XIII ofthis
Complaint.
25.
Special
condition number
13
of CLC’s
supplemental development permit number
1 989-005-SP, requiredthe Respondents to utilize movable fencingto preventblowing litter when the
refuse fill
is at a higher elevation than the natural
ground line.
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM,
admits the allegations in Paragraph 25 of
Count XIII of this Complaint.
26.
On March
31,
1999, a windy day, no movable fencing was present, even though the
49
fill was at a higher elevationthan the natural ground line, and litterwas blowing all over the landfill.
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, has insufficient knowledge to form a belief
as
to the truth or falsity ofthe allegation in Paragraph 26 ofCount XIII,
and
demands strict proofthereof.
27.
The Respondents, by their acts and omissions as describedherein, causedand allowed
violations ofspecial condition number
13 ofCLC’s supplemental developmentpermit number 1989-
005-SP, and thereby, violates Section 21(d)U) ofthe Act, 415
ILCS
5/21(d)(1) (2002).
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, has insufficient knowledge to form a belief
as to the truth or falsityofthe allegations in Paragraph 27 ofCount XIII, and
demands strict proofthereof.
WHEREFORE:
Respondent,
ROBERT PRUIM,
respectfully requests that the Board enter an
order
in
this
matter against Complainant, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, with respect to Count XIII as
follows:
A.
Authorizing a hearing in this
matterat which time the Complainant
will be required
to prove the allegations alleged
in Count XIII;
B.
A finding that Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM,
has not caused violations ofSection
21 (d)(l) oftheAct and special condition number
13 ofpermit number
I989-005-SP;
C.
In the alternative, denying Complainant’s request for a cease and desist order based
on a finding that the alleged violations have been corrected;
D.
In the event the Board finds
that Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, violated any
provisions of the law
cited by the Complainant
in
Count XIII,
to
assess
a
nominal
50
penalty against ROBERT PRUIM foreach violationbased on the limited and isolated
nature ofthe violations alleged
and the fact that:
(I)
the alleged violations have been voluntarilycorrected;
(2)
the alleged violations
are not
ongoing or repetitious;
(3)
the alleged violations were limited in duration and of
relatively minor gravity;
(4)
there
was
no
substantial
savings
to
Respondent
or
substantial harm to the environment
or the People of
the State of Illinois; and
(5)
othermitigating factors regarding penalty assessment.
E.
Denying any request by the Complainant that Respondent,
ROBERT PRUIM,
pay
all ofits
costs including expert witness, consultant
and attorney fees expended in
pursuit ofthis action; and
F.
Granting such other relief as this Board deems appropriate.
COUNT XIV
VIOLATION OF PERMIT
CONDITION
1-23.
Complainant realleges and incorporates by reference herein, paragraphs
1 through 23
ofCount las paragraphs I through 23 ofthis Count XIV as if fully set forth herein.
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, reallegesand incorporates by referenceherein
his answers to Paragraphs
1 through 23 ofCount I as Paragraphs
1
through 23
of this Count XIV as if fully set forth herein.
24.
Section 21(d)O) of the Act, 415 ILCS
5/21(d)Ø) (2002), provides as follows:
51
No person shall:
Conduct
any
waste-storage,
waste-treatment,
or
waste-disposal
operation:
1.
without a permit grantedby the Agency or in violation
of any conditions
imposed by such permit,
including
periodic reports and frill access to adequate records and
the
inspection of facilities,
as
may
be
necessary
to
ensure compliance with this Act, and with regulations
and standards adopted thereunder..
ANSWER:
Paragraph 24 of Count XIV of this
Complaint contains a legal conclusion to
which Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, makes
no answer.
25.
Refuse is waste as that term is defined at Section 3.535 ofthe Act, 415 ILCS 5/3.535
(2002).
ANSWER:
Paragraph 25
of Count XIV ofthis Complaint contains
a legal
conclusion to
which
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, makes no answer.
26.
Special condition number
1 ofsupplementaldevelopment permit number I996-240-SP
which was
issued to Respondent CLC on October 24,
1996,
provides as follows:
This permit allows the development and construction ofan active gas
management
system
and
a
gas flare.
Prior
to
operation of the gas
control facility, theapplicant shall provide to the Agency the following
information, certified by a registered professional engineer.
a.)
“as built”
construction plans;
b)
boring logs for the gas extraction wells;
c)
any changes to
the operation
and maintenance of the
system;
d)
contingencyplan describingthe emergencyprocedures
that
will be
implemented
in
the
event of
a
fire
or
explosion at the facility; and
e)
permit numbers from the Agency’s Bureaus ofAir and
Water.
52
This
information
shall
be
submitted
in
the
form
of
a
permit
application.
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, admits the allegations in Paragraph 26
of
Count XIV ofthe Complaint.
27.
The
Respondents
were
required by
special
condition
number
I
of supplemental
development permit
number
I 996-240-SP,
to
provide the
Illinois
EPA
with
the abovementioned
information, before operating its gas control facility.
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, admits the allegations
in Paragraph 27 of
Count XIV of the Complaint.
28.
On or about March 31,
1999, or on
a date or dates better known to the Respondents,
the Respondents allowed commencement ofoperation ofthe gas control facility at the site without
having first providing the necessary information to the Illinois EPA.
ANSWER:
Respondent,
ROBERT PRUIM, has insufficient knowledge to
form a belief
as to the truth or falsity ofthe allegation in Paragraph 28 ofCount XIV,
and
demands strict proofthereof
29.
On May
5,
1999,
the
Illinois
EPA received Respondents’
submittal
regarding an
operating authorization request for the landfill gas management system.
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, has insufficient knowledge to
form
a belief
as to the
truth or falsity of the allegation in
Paragraph 29 of Count XIV, and
demands strict proof thereof.
30.
The Respondents, by their acts and omissions as described herein, violated special
condition number
1 ofCLC’s supplemental developmentpermit number
I 996-240-SP, and thereby,
53
also violated
Section 21(d)(1) ofthe Act,
415
ILCS
5/21(d)(1)
(2002).
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM,
has insufficient knowledge to
form
a belief
as to
the truth or falsity of the allegation
in Paragraph 30 ofCount XIV, and
demands strict proofthereof.
WHEREFORE:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, respectfully requests that theBoard enter an order in this
matter against Complainant, PEOPLE
OF THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS, with respect to
Count XIV
as
follows:
A.
Authorizing a hearing in this matter at which time the Complainant will be required
to prove the allegations alleged in Count XIV;
B.
A finding that Respondent,
ROBERT PRUIM, has not caused violations ofSection
21(d)(l) ofthe Act and special condition number
I ofpermit number 1996-240-SP;
C.
In the alternative, denying Complainant’s request for a cease and desist order based
on
a finding
that the alleged violations have been corrected;
D.
In the event the Board
finds that Respondent,
ROBERT PRUIM, violated any
provisions of the law cited by the Complainant in Count XIV, to assess a nominal
penalty againstROBERTPRUIM for eachviolationbased onthe limited and isolated
nature of the violations alleged
and the fact that:
(I)
the alleged violations havebeen voluntarily corrected;
(2)
the alleged violations are not ongoing or repetitious;
(3)
the alleged violations
were limited
in
duration and of
relatively minor gravity;
54
(4)
there
was
no
substantial
savings
to
Respondent
or
substantial
harm to the environment or to thePeople of
the
State ofIllinois;
and
(5)
other mitigating factors regarding penalty assessment.
E.
Denying any
request by the Complainant
that Respondent,
ROBERT
PRUIM,
pay
all
of its costs including expert witness,
consultant and attorney fees expended in
pursuit of this action;
and
F.
Granting such other relief as this Board deems appropriate.
COUNT XV
VIOLATION OF PERMIT CONDITION
1-23.
Complainant realleges and incorporates by reference herein, paragraphs
I through 23
of Count I as paragraphs
1
through
23 of this
Count XV as if fully set
forth herein.
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, reallegesand incorporates byreferenceherein
his answers to Paragraphs I through
23 ofCount I as Paragraphs
I through 23
ofthis Count XV as if
fully set forth herein.
24.
Section 21(d)(I) ofthe Act, 415
ILCS 5/21(d)(l)
(2002), provides as follows:
No person shall:
Conduct
any
waste-storage,
waste-treatment,
or
waste-disposal
operation:
I.
without a permit granted by the Agency or in violation
of any conditions
imposed by
such permit,
including
periodic reports and full access to adequaterecords and
the
inspection
of facilities,
as
may be
necessary
to
ensure compliance with this Act, and with regulations
and
standards adopted thereunder.
..
55
ANSWER:
Paragraph 24
of Count XV ofthe Complaint contains a legal conclusion to
which Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, makes no answer.
25.
Refuse is waste as that term is defined at Section
3.535
ofthe Act, 415 ILCS
5/3.535
(2002).
ANSWER:
Paragraph 25
of Count XV ofthe Complaint contains a legal conclusion to
which Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM,
makes no answer.
26.
Special condition number 9 of supplemental development permit number 1996-240-
SP,
provides as follows:
While
the site
is
being developed
or
operated
as
a
gas
control
or
extraction
facility,
corrective
action
shall
be
taken
if
erosion
or
ponding
are
observed,
if cracks
greater
than
one
inch
wide
have
formed, ifgas, odor, vegetative or vector problems arise, orif leachate
popouts or seeps are present in the areas disturbed by constructing this
gas collection
facility.
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM,
admits the allegations
in Paragraph 26 of
Count XV ofthe Complaint.
27.
Respondents
were
required
by
special
condition
number
9
of
supplemental
development permit number
1 996-240-SP, to take correctiveaction when therewaserosion, ponding,
and
cracks greater than one inch wide at the facility.
ANSWER:
Respondent,
ROBERT PRUIM, admits the allegations in
Paragraph 27 of
Count XV of the Complaint.
28.
On orabout March31, 1999, on Parcel A, there was erosion, ponding and cracksover
one inch wide at the facility, no vegetative cover,
and no corrective action
wasbeing taken.
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, has insufficient knowledge
to form a belief
56
as to the truth or falsity of the allegation in Paragraph
28 ofCount XV,
and
demands strict proofthereof
29.
On July
20,
1999,
there was
not
a vegetative cover over
the
entire Parcel
B
of the
landfill.
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, has insufficient knowledge to form
a belief
as to
the
truth or falsity ofthe allegation in Paragraph 29 of Count XV,
and
demands strict proofthereof
30.
The Respondents failed to take any action, or authorize and direct their employees to
takeany action, to prevent erosion, ponding, and crack in the landfill cover, and failed to provide for
proper vegetative cover at the Site.
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, has insufficient knowledge to
form a belief
as to
the truth or falsity of the allegation in Paragraph 30 ofCount XV,
and
demands strict proofthereof.
31.
Respondents, by theconduct described herein, violated special condition number 9 of
its supplemental development permit number 1996-240-SP, and thereby, also violated Section
21(d)(l) ofthe Act, 415
ILCS
5/21(d)(1)
(2002).
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, has insufficient knowledge to form
a belief
as to the truth or falsity of the allegation in Paragraph 31 ofCount XV, and
demands strict proofthereof
WHEREFORE:
Respondent,
ROBERT
PRUIM, respectfblly requests
that
the Board
enter an
order in
this
matter against Complainant,
PEOPLE
OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, with respect to Count XV as
57
follows:
A.
Authorizing a hearing in this matter at which time the Complainant will be required
to prove the allegations alleged in Count
XV;
B.
A finding that Respondent,
ROBERT PRUIM, has not caused violations of Section
21(d)(1) oftheAct and special conditionnumber 9 ofpermit number 1996-240-SP;
C.
In the alternative, denying Complainant’s request for a cease and desist order based
on
a
finding that the alleged violations have been corrected;
D.
In the event the Board
finds that Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM,
violated any
provisions of the law citedby the Complainant in Count XV, to assess a nominal
penaltyagainstROBERTPRUIM foreach violationbased on the limitedand isolated
nature ofthe violations alleged
and the fact that:
(I)
the alleged violations have been voluntarily corrected;
(2)
the alleged violations are not ongoing or repetitious;
(3)
the alleged violations were limited in duration and of
relatively minorgravity;
(4)
there
was
no
substantial
savings
to
Respondent
or
substantial harm to theenvironment orto thePeopleof
the State of Illinois; and
(5)
other mitigating factors regarding penalty assessment.
E.
Denying
any request by the Complainant
that Respondent, ROBERT
PRUIM, pay
all ofits costs including expert witness, consultant and attorney fees expended in
pursuitofthis action; and
58
F.
Granting such other relief as this Board deems appropriate.
COUNT XVI
VIOLATION OF PERMIT CONDITION
1-23.
Complainant realleges and incorporates by reference herein, paragraphs
I through
23
ofCount las paragraphs
I
through
23 ofthis Count XVI as if fullyset
forth herein.
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, realleges and incorporates by reference herein
his answers to Paragraphs
1
through 23 ofCount I as Paragraphs
1
through 23
ofthis
Count XVI as if fully set forth herein.
24.
Section 21(d)(l) of the Act,
415
ILCS 5/2 l(d)(1) (2002), provides as follows:
No person shall:
Conduct
any
waste-storage,
waste-treatment,
or
waste-disposal
operation:
1.
without a permit granted by theAgency or in violation
of any conditions
imposed by
such permit,
including
periodic reports and fullaccess to adequate records and
the
inspection
of facilities,
as
may be
necessary
to
ensure compliance with this Act, and with regulations
and standards adopted thereunder.
ANSWER:
Paragraph 24 of Count XVI ofthe Complaint contains a legal conclusion to
which Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM,
makes no answer.
25.
Refuse is waste as that term is defined at Section
3.535
ofthe Act, 415 ILCS
5/3.535
(2002).
ANSWER:
Paragraph 25
of Count XVI of the Complaint contains a legal conclusion to
which Respondent,
ROBERT PRUIM, makes no
answer.
26.
Special condition number
11 ofsupplemental development permit number 1996-240-
59
SP, provides as follows:
Condensate from the gas accumulations system, and leachate pumped
and removed from the landfill shall be disposed at an IEPA permitted
publically owned treatment works, or
a commercial treatment or
disposal facility. The condensate shall be analyzed to determine if
hazardouswaste characteristicsarepresent.
Awrittenlog showing the
volume of liquid discharged to the treatment facility each dayby the
landfill will be maintained at the landfill.
This log will also show the
hazardous waste determination analytical results.
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM,
admits the allegations in Paragraph 26 of
Count XVI ofthe Complaint.
27.
The Respondents were required by special condition number
11 of supplemental
development
permit
number
1 996-240-SP,
to
dispose
of leachate
pumped
from
the
cells
at
a
permitted, publically owned treatment works, or a commercial treatment or disposal facility.
ANSWER:
Respondent,
ROBERT PRUIM, admits the allegations in
Paragraph 27
of
Count XVI ofthe Complaint.
28.
On orabout March 31, 1999and July20, 1999, theRespondents caused andallowed
leachate to be pumped from the landfill
into new cells for added moisture and did not dispose of it
at a permitted facility.
ANSWER:
Respondent,
ROBERT PRUIM, has insufficient knowledge to
form a belief
as
to the truth or falsity ofthe allegation in Paragraph 28 ofCount XVI, and
demands strict proofthereof.
29.
TheRespondents,bytheconduct describedherein, violated special conditionnumber
11
of supplemental development permit number
1 996-240-SP,
and
thereby also
violated
Section
2l(d)(1) of the Act, 415
ILCS 5/21(d)(1) (2002).
60
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM,
has insufficient knowledge to
form a belief
as to the truth or falsity ofthe allegation in Paragraph 29 of Count XVI,
and
demands strict proofthereof
WHEREFORE:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM,
respectfully requests
that the Board
enter an
order in
this
matter against Complainant, PEOPLE OF THE
STATE
OF ILLINOIS,
with respect to
Count XVI
as
follows:
A.
Authorizing a hearing in this matter at which time the Complainant will be required
to prove the allegations alleged in
Count XVI;
B.
A finding that Respondent, ROBERT
PRUIM, has not caused violations of Section
21(d)(1) ofthe Act and special condition number 11 ofpermit number 1996-240-SP;
C.
In the alternative, denying Complainant’s request for a cease and
desist order
based
on
a finding that the alleged violations have been corrected;
D.
In the event the Board finds that Respondent,
ROBERT PRUIM, violated any
provisions of the law
cited by the Complainant
in
Count XVI,
to
assess
a nominal
penalty against ROBERT PRUIM foreach violationbased on the limited and isolated
nature of the violations alleged
and the fact that:
(1)
the alleged violations have been voluntarily corrected;
(2)
the alleged violations are not ongoing orrepetitious;
(3)
the alleged violations
were limited
in duration and of
relatively minor gravity;
(4)
there
was
no
substantial
savings
to
Respondent
or
61
substantial harm to the environment or to thePeople of
the State of Illinois;
and
(5)
other mitigating factors regarding penalty assessment.
B.
Denying any request by
the Complainant
that
Respondent, ROBERT
PRUIM, pay
all ofits costs including expert witness,
consultant and attorney fees expended in
pursuit of this
action; and
F.
Granting such other relief as this Board deems appropriate.
COUNT
XVII
FAILURE
TO PROVIDE AND MAINTAIN ADEQUATE
FINANCIAL ASSURANCE PURSUANT TO
THE
OCTOBER 24.
1996 PERMIT
1-23.
Complainant realleges and incorporates by reference herein, paragraphs
I through 23
of Count las paragraphs
I
through 23 ofthis Count XVII as if fully set forth herein.
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, realleges and incorporatesby reference herein
his answers to
Paragraphs
1 through 23 ofCount las Paragraphs
I through 23
ofthis
Count XVII as if fully set forth herein.
24.
Section 21(d)(1) ofthe Act, 415
ILCS 5/21(d)(l) (2002), provides as follows:
No person shall:
Conduct
any
waste-storage,
waste-treatment,
or
waste-disposal
operation:
I.
without a permit grantedby the Agency orin violation
of any
conditions
imposed by such permit,
including
periodic reports and full access to adequaterecords and
the
inspection
of facilities,
as
may
be
necessary
to
62
ensure compliance with this Act, and with regulations
and
standards adopted thereunder.
ANSWER:
Paragraph 24 of Count XVII of the Complaint contains a legal conclusion to
which
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, makes
no answer.
25.
Refuse is waste
as that term is
defined at Section
3.53 of the Act,
415
ILCS
5/3.53
(2002).
ANSWER:
Paragraph 25 of Count XVII of the Complaint contains a legal conclusion to
which
Respondent, ROBERT
PRUIM, makes no answer.
26.
Special condition number 13 ofsupplemental development permit number 1996-240-
SP,
dated October 24,
1996,
provides as follows:
Financial assurance shall be maintained by the operator in accordance
with 35
III. Adm.
Code, Subtitle G, Part
807, Subpart
F
in an amount
equal
to
the current cost
estimate for closure
and
post
closure care.
The
current
cost
estimate
is
$1,431,360.00
as
stated
in
Permit
Application,
Log No.
1996-240.
Within 90 days ofthe date of this
permit, the operatorshall provide financial assurance in the amount of
the
current
cost
estimate
as
required
by
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
807.603(b)(l).
(Note:
prior
to
the
operation of the gas extraction
system
in
accordance with
Special
Condition
1
of this
permit,
the
operator
shall
provide
financial
assurance
in
the
amount
of
$1,439,720.00)
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM,
admits the allegations in
Paragraph 26 of
Count XVII ofthe Complaint.
27.
The Respondents
were
required
by
special
condition
number
13
of supplemental
development permit number
1 996-240-SP, to
arrange financing
for CLC to provide $1,431,360.00
in financial assurancewithin 90 days from October24,
1996 (January 22,
1997) and to
increase this
amount to
$1 ,439,720.00 prior to the operation of the gas extraction system.
63
ANSWER:
Respondent,
ROBERT PRUIM, admits the allegations
in Paragraph 27 of
Count XVII ofthe Complaint.
28.
The Respondents
did
not increase
CLC’s
financial
assurance to
$1,431,360.00 by
January 22,
1997 (90 days from October 24,
1996).
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, has insufficient knowledge to form a belief
as to the truth or falsity ofthe allegation in Paragraph 28 ofCount XVII, and
demands strict proofthereof
29.
The
Respondents
did
not provide for CLC’s
financial
assurance
in the
amount
of
$1,439,720.00 prior to the operation ofthe gas extraction system.
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, has insufficient knowledge to
form a belief
as to the truth or falsity of the allegation in Paragraph 29 of Count XVII, and
demands strict proofthereof
30.
The Respondents
caused CLC to
provide to
the Illinois
EPA a rider to the existing
performance bond that increased the amount of financial assurance to $1,439,720.00
on September
1,
1999.
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, has insufficient knowledge to form a belief
as to the truth or falsity ofthe allegation in Paragraph 30 ofCount XVII, and
demands strict proofthereof
31.
The Respondents, by the conduct described herein, caused or allowed violations of
special condition number 13 of supplemental development permit number
1 99-240-SP, and thereby,
also
violated Section 2I(d)(l) ofthe Act, 415
ILCS
5/21(d)(1) (2002).
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM,
has insufficient knowledge to
form a belief
64
as to thetruth or falsity ofthe allegation ofParagraph 31 and Count XVII, and
demands strict proofthereof
32.
The
Respondents
were
out
of compliance
with
special
condition
number
13
of
supplemental development permit number
1 996-240-SP and Section
21 (d)(1) of the Act, 415 ILCS
5/21(d)(1) (2002) from January 22,
1997 until
September
1,
1999.
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM,
has insufficient knowledge to
form a belief
as to the truth or falsity ofthe allegation in Paragraph 32
of Count XVII, and
demands strict proofthereof.
WHEREFORE:
Respondent,
ROBERT
PRUIM,
respectfully requests that the Board enter an
order
in
this
matter against Complainant, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, with respect to
Count XVII
as
follows:
A.
Authorizing a hearing in this matter at which
time the Complainant will be required
to
prove the allegations alleged in Count XVII;
B.
A finding that Respondent,
ROBERT PRUIM, has not
caused violations of Section
21 (d)( 1) ofthe Act and special
condition number 13 ofpermit number I996-240-SP;
C.
In the alternative,
denying Complainant’s request for a cease and desist order
based
on a finding that the alleged violations have been corrected;
D.
In the event the Board finds that Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, violated any
provisions of the
law
cited by the Complainant
in Count XVII,
to assess a
nominal
penalty against ROBERT PRUIM for each violationbased on the limited and isolated
nature of the violations alleged and the fact that:
65
(1)
the alleged violations havebeen voluntarily corrected;
(2)
the alleged violations are not ongoing or repetitious;
(3)
the alleged violations were
limited
in duration and of
relatively minor gravity;
(4)
there
was
no
substantial
savings
to
Respondent
or
substantial harm to the environment orto the People of
the State of Illinois;
and
(5)
other mitigating factors regarding penalty assessment.
E.
Denying any request
by the Complainant that Respondent,
ROBERT
PRUIM,
pay
all of its costs including expert witness, consultant
and attorney fees expended in
pursuit ofthis action;
and
F.
Granting such other relief as this Board deems appropriate.
COUNT XVIII
VIOLATION
OF PERMIT
CONDITION
1-23.
Complainant realleges and incorporates by reference herein, paragraphs
I through 23
of Count las paragraphs
1
through 23
of this Count XVIII
as if fully set forth herein.
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, realleges and incorporates by referenceherein
his answers to Paragraphs
1 through 23 ofCount I as Paragraphs
I through 23
of this Count XVIII as if fully set forth
herein.
24.
Section 2l(d)(I) of the Act, 415
ILCS 5/2l(d)(l) (2002), provides as follows:
No person shall:
Conduct
any
waste-storage,
waste-treatment,
or
waste-disposal
66
operation:
I.
without a permit granted by the Agency or in violation
of any conditions
imposed by such permit, including
periodic reports and full access to adequate records and
the
inspection of facilities,
as may
be
necessary
to
ensure compliance with this Act, and with regulations
and standards adopted thereunder..
ANSWER:
Paragraph 24 of Count XVIII ofthe Complaint contains a legal conclusion to
which Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, makes no answer.
25.
Refuse
is waste
as that term is
defined at Section
3.53
ofthe Act,
415
ILCS 5/3.53
(2002).
ANSWER:
Paragraph 25
ofCount XVIII ofthe Complaint contains a legal conclusion to
which Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, makes no answer.
26.
Special condition number 17 ofsupplemental developmentpermit number 1989-005-
SP, provides,
in pertinent part, as follows:
Prior to
placing waste
material in any Area, a registered professional
engineer shall certi& that
the floor
and/or sidewall liner or seal has
been developed and constructed in accordance with an approved plan
and
specifications.
.
.
Such data and certification shall be
submitted
to
the Agency
prior
to
placement
of waste
in
the
areas referenced
above.
No wastes shall be placed in those areas until the Agency has
approved the certifications and
issued an
Operating Permit.
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, admits the allegations in
Paragraph 26 of
Count XVIII of the Complaint.
27.
The Respondents
were
required by
special
condition
number
17
of supplemental
development permit
number
1996-240-SP,
to
obtain
CLC’s
Operating
Permit
and
Illinois
EPA
approvalbased on a professional engineer’s certificationbefore placing any waste materials in an area
67
that did not yet have this approval.
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM,
admits the allegations in Paragraph 27 of
Count XVIII ofthe Complaint.
28.
OnMarch 31,
1999, and July 20,
1999, the Respondents caused orallowed placement
of leachate, a waste, in
areas that had not been certified or approved by the Illinois EPA.
ANSWER:
Respondent,
ROBERT PRUIM, has insufficient knowledge to form a belief
as to the truth orfalsity of the allegation in Paragraph 28 ofCount XVIII, and
demands strict proof thereof
29.
TheRespondents, by theconduct described herein, violated special condition number
17 ofsupplemental development permit number
1 989-005-SP,
and
thereby, also violated Section
2l(d)(1) ofthe Act, 415
ILCS 5/21(d)(l)
(2002).
ANSWER:
Respondent,
ROBERT PRUIM, has insufficient knowledge to form
a
belief
as to the truth or falsity ofthe allegation in Paragraph29 of Count XVIII, and
demands strict proofthereof
WHEREFORE:
Respondent, ROBERT
PRUIM,
respectfully requests that
the Board
enter an order in
this
matter against Complainant,
PEOPLE
OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, with respect to Count XVIII
as
follows:
A.
Authorizing a hearing in this matter at which time the Complainant
will be required
to
prove the allegations alleged in
Count XVIII;
B.
A finding that Respondent, ROBERT
PRUIM, has not caused violations ofSection
2l(d)(l) ofthe Act and special condition number 17 ofpermit number l989-005-SP;
68
C.
In the alternative, denying Complainant’s request for a cease and desist order based
on
a
finding that the alleged violations have been corrected;
D.
In the event the Board finds that Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, violated any
provisions of the law cited by the Complainant
in Count XVIII, to
assess a nominal
penalty against ROBERT PRUIM foreach violation based on the limited and isolated
nature ofthe violations alleged
and the fact
that:
(I)
thealleged violations have been voluntarily corrected;
(2)
the alleged violations are not ongoing or repetitious;
(3)
the alleged violations were limited
in
duration and of
relatively minor gravity;
(4)
there
was
no
substantial
savings
to
Respondent
or
substantial
harm to
the environment
or the People of
the State ofIllinois; and
(5)
other mitigating factors regarding penalty assessment.
E.
Denying
any request by the Complainant
that
Respondent,
ROBERT PRUIM,
pay
all of its
costs including expert witness, consultant
and attorney fees expended in
pursuit ofthis
action; and
F.
Granting such other relief as this Board deems appropriate.
COUNT XIX
FAILURE
TO PROVIDE REVISED COST ESTIMATE
BY DECEMBER 26. 1994
1-16.
Complainant
realleges and incorporates by reference herein paragraphs
1
through
16
ofCount las paragraphs
I
through
16 of this Count XIX as if fully set forth herein.
69
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, realleges and incorporates byreferenceherein
his answers to Paragraphs
1
through
16 ofCount las paragraphs
1 through
16
ofthis
Count XIX as if fullyset forth herein.
17.
Section 21.1(a) of the Act, 415 ILCS
5/21.1(a) (2002), provides as follows:
a.
Except as provided in subsection (as) no person other
than the State of Illinois, its agencies and institutions,
or a unit of local government shall conduct any waste
disposal
operation
on
or after March
I,
1985,
which
requires a permit under subsection (d) ofSection 21 of
this Act, unless such personhas posed with the Agency
a performance bond orother security forthe purpose of
insuring
closure
of the site
and
post-closure
care
in
accordance
with
this
Act
and
regulations
adopted
thereunder.
ANSWER:
Paragraph
17 ofCount
XIX ofthe Complaint contains a legal conclusion to
which Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, makes no answer.
18.
Section
807.601(a) of the Board’s Waste Disposal
Regulations, 35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
807.601(a), states as follows:
No
person
shall
conduct
a
waste
disposal
operation
or
indefinite
storage operation which requires a permit under Section 21(d) ofthe
Act unless such person has provided financial assurance in accordance
with this
Subpart.
a)
The financial assurance requirement does not apply to
the State ofIllinois,
its agencies
and institutions, or to
any unit of local government; provided, however, that
any other persons who conduct such a waste disposal
operation on a site which may be owned or operated by
such
a
government
entity
must
provide
financial
assurance for closure and post-closure care ofthe site.
ANSWER:
Paragraph
18
of Count XIX ofthe Complaint contains a legal
conclusion to
which Respondent,
ROBERT PRUIM, makes no answer.
70
19.
Section
807.623(a) of the Board’s Waste Disposal
Regulations,
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
807.623(a), provides as follows:
a.
The operator must
revise the current cost estimate
at
least once every two
years.
The revised current cost
estimate
must
be
filed
on
or
before
the
second
anniversary of the filing or last revision ofthe current
cost
estimate.
ANSWER:
Paragraph
19 ofCount XIX ofthe Complaint contains a legal conclusion to
which Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, makes no
answer.
20.
Item 9 ofthe CLC’s supplemental permit dated April 20,
1993, provided that the next
revised cost
estimate was due by December 26,
1994.
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, admits the allegations
in Paragraph 20 of
Count XIX ofthe Complaint.
21.
Respondents failed to cause CLC to provide a revised cost estimate by December 26,
1994.
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM,
has insufficient knowledge to form
a belief
as to
the truth or falsity ofthe allegation in
Paragraph 21
of Count XIX,
and
demands strict proofthereof.
22.
On July 26,
1996, the Respondents submitted a Supplemental Permit Application for
the gas
collection
and
recovery
system
and
included
a
revised
cost
estimate in
the amount
of
$1,431,360.00.
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, has insufficient knowledge to form a belief
as to
the truth or falsity ofthe allegation in Paragraph 22 of Count XIX, and
demands strict proof thereof.
71
23.
By failing to revise the cost estimate by December 26,
1994,
as required by theApril
20, 1993, supplemental permit, the Respondents have violated Section 21 (d)(2) oftheAct, 415 ILCS
5121(d)(2)
(2002), and Section 807.623(a) of the Board’s Waste Disposal Regulations,
35
Ill. Adm.
Code
807.623(a).
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT
PRUIM, has insufficient knowledge to form
a belief
as to the truth or falsity ofthe allegation in Paragraph 23 of Count XIX,
and
demands strict proofthereof
24.
The Respondents were out of compliance with Section 2l(d)(2) ofthe Act, 415 ILCS
5/2l(d)(2) (2002),
35
Ill. Adm.
Code
807.623(a) from December 26,
1994 until July 26,
1996.
ANSWER:
Respondent, ROBERT PRUIM, has insufficient knowledge to
form a belief
as to the truth or falsity ofthe allegation in
Paragraph 24 of Count XIX, and
demands strict proof thereof
WHEREFORE:
Respondent,
ROBERT PRUIM,
respectfully requests that the Board
enter an
order in
this
matter against Complainant, PEOPLE OF THE
STATE OF
ILLINOIS, with respect to Count XIX
as
follows:
A.
Authorizing a hearing in
this matter at which time the Complainant will be required
to
prove the allegations alleged
in Count XIX;
B.
A finding that Respondent, ROBERT
PRUIM, has not caused violations of Section
21 (d)(2) ofthe Act and Section 807.623(a)ofthe Board’sWaste Disposal Regulations;
C.
In the alternative, denying
Complainant’s request for a cease and desist order based
on a finding that the alleged violations have been corrected;
72
D.
In the event the Board
finds that Respondent, ROBERT
PRUIM, violated any
provisions ofthe law
cited by the Complainant in Count XIX,
to
assess
a nominal
penalty against ROBERT PRUIM foreach violation based on the limited and isolated
nature ofthe violations alleged
and the fact that:
(1)
the alleged violations have been voluntarily corrected;
(2)
the alleged violations are not ongoing or repetitious;
(3)
the alleged violations were limited in duration and of
relatively minor gravity;
(4)
there
was
no
substantial
savings
to
Respondent
or
substantial harm to the environment or to the People of
the State of Illinois;
and
(5)
other mitigating factors regarding penalty assessment.
E.
Denying any request
by the Complainant
that Respondent,
ROBERT PRUIM,
pay
all of its costs including expert witness, consultant
and attorney fees expended in
pursuit ofthis
action; and
F.
Granting such other relief as this
Board deems appropriate.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
This Complaint is barred because it is prejudicial to
Respondent, is not timely filed and the
allegations in the Complaint are nearly identical to the allegations contained in the Second Amended
73
County
of
S(atcof
ILLII.JOIS
bF~
IMflWF RO~RTWJ.M
I, Robert
Prom,. on oath
urnS aI1irma~on
hereby depose and
sU~tc
as
follows:
i.
i
am a Respondent
in
PCB
04-207 (Ithforcenictn).
2.
I
urn
without sufficient
know)cd5e lo
form
~t
belie?
as
to
the truth
or
tulsity or
alkgation~
cnn1i~ned
inCcnnm~
LII,
UI. V, VI, VII, VIII, IX.
X.
XII,
XII.
XIV, XV.
Xvi.
XV?I,
XVIII.
XIX
ofthe Complitint and
dGnland Ktrict ~toofthcreo(.
Further,
affiani
.aycth
nauglil.
Robert
Pruint
Signed and
sworn to
Ihis5_ day of January, 2005
Notary
Public
a pan
an
gasp
‘OFFICIAL SEAL”
~‘~j
NANCY
E
CRAVENS
CO
ssjot•i
OCPIteS07/09/07
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The
undersigned,
an
attorney,
on
oath
states
that
she caused
to
be
served
a
copy of the
foregoing
RESPONDENT
ROBERT
PRUIM’S
ANSWER
TO
COMPLAINT
AND
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES to
the following parties ofrecord,
by hand delivery this
4th
day of
January,
2005:
Mr. Christopher Grant
Mr. Bradley Halloran
Environmental Bureau
Hearing Officer
Assistant Attorney General
Illinois
Pollution Control Board
188 West Randolph Street, 20~’Floor
100W.
Randolph Street, Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL 60601
Chicago, IL
60601
Ms.
Dorothy Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R.
Thompson Center
100W.
Randolph Street, 11-500
Chicago, IL
60601
C~Qa,c&~_C
6z
Attorney for Respondent
Mark A.
LaRose
Clarissa C.
Grayson
Attorney No.
37346
LaRose & Bosco, Ltd.
200 N.
LaSalle Street
Suite 2810
Chicago, IL 60601
(312) 642-4414

Back to top