Environmental Progress - Summer 1999

Facility Admits Violations, Accepts Fine

$5,000 penalty imposed for operational, permit violations

The Scotts Company, a landscape waste composting facility in Kendall County, agreed to pay a $5,000 penalty under a stipulation and proposal for settlement accepted by the Illinois Pollution Control Board on Feb. 18, 1999. The fine resulted from a series of violations by the firm in 1996 and 1997, including failure for a brief time to have an operating permit, and operational inadequacies including monitoring, training, testing and failure to post required signs.

The company had been issued a permit, with an expiration date of Sept. 25, 1996, from the Illinois EPA. A condition of the permit called for Scotts to submit a re-application at least 90 days before the scheduled expiration date, in order to continue in operation.

An inspection showed Scotts was receiving landscape waste at the facility though its permit had expired. The inspector informed the operators they could accept no more landscape waste until a new permit was obtained, though they could continue processing the material already on hand.

Follow-up visit showed firm was still taking landscape waste

A follow-up visit on Oct. 30, 1996, showed that Scotts was still receiving landscape waste, and a Violation Notice Letter was sent.

The firm obtained a new composting permit on Dec. 20, 1996, 85 days after their earlier permit had expired.

A second follow-up inspection revealed five new operational violations. These included failure to post a sign at the facility entrance that included the name of a contact person for complaints; failure to monitor each windrow of composting material weekly for oxygen levels; failure to monitor each two weeks for the moisture level of each window; failure to provide required personnel training and maintaining required training documentation, and failure to test the final compost product for parameters set forth in state regulations.

A second Violation Notice Letter was sent based on the new violations and Scotts submitted a compliance commitment agreement (CCA) that seemed to satisfactorily address the technical resolution of most of the violations. However, the CCA was rejected by the Agency in mid-August, 1997, to preserve the Illinois EPAÕs right to seek a civil penalty.

"This is not an uncommon procedure. After an inspector discovers violations, a party may submit a CCA that technically addresses the violations to the satisfaction of the Illinois EPA," Inspector James Haennicke said. "If the CCA were to be accepted, the Illinois EPA may be barred from obtaining statutory penalties for the violations. Therefore, it is common for an acceptable CCA to be rejected when the Agency believes it is appropriate to seek a civil penalty."

Enforcement action ultimately led to $5,000 penalty

The case ultimately was referred to the Office of the Illinois Attorney General and a complaint and a stipulation and proposal for settlement were simultaneously filed with the Pollution Control Board. The settlement called for a payment of $5,000 by Scotts.

The minimal penalty was accepted in part because of Scotts' diligence in addressing the violations, most of which had been corrected even fore the case was referred to the OAG, as well as the firm's implementation of a computer system to track permit renewal deadlines.

"I believe substantial consideration should be given to a company," said Bruce Kugler, Illinois EPA enforcement attorney, "who after becoming aware of environmental violations, quickly comes back into compliance. Scotts also admitted to the violations. These are important facts in evaluating the appropriate penalty."