EPA v. COM-PAK ENGINEERING, BRIGHTON LANDFILL DIV.

Case summary

NATURE OF THE CASE BRIGHTON LANDFILL IS A HAZARDOUS WASTE LANDFILL LOCATED IN BRIGHTON, ILLINOIS. SINCE 1980, THE LANDFILL HAS ACCEPT- ED HAZARDOUS WASTE FOR BURIAL WHILE OPERATING UNDER RCRA INTERIM STATUS. ON SEPTEMBER 28, 1984, U.S. EPA ISSUED BRIGHTON LANDFILL AN ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT AND COMPLIANCE ORDER FOR, AMONG OTHER THINGS, VIOLATIONS OF RCRA GROUND- WATER MONITORING REQUIREMENTS. U.S. EPA AND BRIGHTON LAND- FILL SETTLED THE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER ON SEPTEMBER 10, 1985 BY ENTERING INTO A CONSENT AGREEMENT AND FINAL ORDER (CAFO). UNDER THE TERMS OF THE CAFO, BRIGHTON LANDFILL IS REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT A GROUNDWATER MONITORING SYSTEM WHICH MEETS THE APPROVAL OF U.S. EPA. IN JANUARY 1986, U.S. EPA RECEIVED NOTIFICATION THAT BRIGHTON LANDFILL AND THE ILLINOIS ATTORNEY GENERAL HAD ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT APPROVED BY A STATE COURT ON DECEMBER 20, 1985 ( JUDGEMENT ORDER ). THE JUDGMENT ORDER CONTAINS PROVISIONS REGARDING GROUNDWATER MONITORING WHICH CONFLICT DIRECTLY WITH THE RCRA GROUNDWATER MONITORING RE- QUIREMENTS TO WHICH BRIGHTON LANDFILL HAD EARLIER AGREED IN THE FEDERAL CAFO. MOREOVER, PROVISIONS OF THE JUDGMENT ORDER REGARDING CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE CARE AT BRIGHTON LANDFILL ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE RCRA CLOSURE AND POST- CLOSURE REQUIREMENTS. SUCH RCRA REQUIREMENTS BECAME APPLI- CABLE TO BRIGHTON LANDFILL ON NOVEMBER 8, 1985, THE DATE ON WHICH BRIGHTON LANDFILL LOST ITS INTERIM STATUS AS A HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY. (BRIGHTON FAILED TO MAKE THE REQUISITE CERTIFICATION BY NOVEMBER 8, 1985; FOLLOWING THAT, BRIGHTON FAILED TO SUBMIT A CLOSURE PLAN BY NOVEMBER 23, 1985.) OF PARTICULAR CONCERN IS THE FACT THAT THE JUDGMENT ORDER CIRCUMVENTS THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND TECHNICAL REVIEW PROCESSES REQUIRED BY RCRA FOR CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE PLANS. WITHOUT OPPORTUNITY FOR SUCH REVIEW AND PARTICIPATION, U.S. EPA AND THE ILLINOIS EPA LACK THE INFOR- MATION NECESSARY TO DETERMINE IF THE SOIL CAP PROPOSED FOR THE FACILITY'S CLOSURE MEETS APPLICABLE RCRA CLOSURE RE- QUIREMENTS. FURTHERMORE, THE SIGNATORIES OF THE JUDGMENT ORDER FOR BOTH BRIGHTON LANDFILL AND THE ILLINOIS ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE KNEW OF THE PREVIOUS FEDERAL CAFO AT THE TIME THEY ENTERED THE JUDGMENT ORDER. AFTER BEING NOTIFIED OF THE JUDGEMENT ORDER, U.S. EPA HAS ATTEMPTED REPEATEDLY, WITHOUT SUCCESS, TO RESOLVE THIS MATTER AMICABLY. BRIGHTON LANDFILL'S REPRESENTATIVE HAS TOLD U.S. EPA THAT THE LANDFILL WILL NOT BE COMPLYING WITH TERMS OF THE FEDERAL CAFO WHICH CONFLICT WITH TERMS OF THE STATE JUDGMENT ORDER. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, MEANWHILE, IS RELYING ON STATE CASE LAW WHICH ALLOWS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO TAKE ACTION IN OPPOSITION TO STATE REGU- LATIONS IF FOLLOWING THOSE REGULATIONS WOULD PRESENT AN IMMENENT HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE CONTENDS THAT THE CAFO'S REQUIRE- MENT REGARDING THE DRILLING OF GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLS, IF IMPLEMENTED, WOULD PRESENT SUCH AN IMMENENT HAZARD BY CREATING THE POSSIBILITY OF CONTAMINATION OF PREVIOUSLY UNCONTAMINATED AQUIFERS. U.S. EPA MAINTAINS THAT THE DRILLING OF WELLS IN THE AREA OF BRIGHTON LANDFILL NOT ONLY PRESENTS NO SUCH IMMINENT HAZARD, BUT ALSO IS NECESSARY TO DETECT PROMPTLY THE MIGRATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE CONSTITU- ENTS IN THE GROUNDWATER AND THEREBY AVOIDS THE CREATION OF AN IMMINENT HAZARD. CAUSES OF ACTION U.S. EPA AUTHORITY TO BRING THIS ACTION IS BASED ON SECTION 3008 OF RCRA, WHICH AUTHORIZES U.S. EPA TO BRING A CIVIL JUDICIAL ACTION AGAINST PERSONS WHO VIOLATE SUB- CHAPTER III OF RCRA. U.S. EPA PLANS TO BRING SUCH AN ACTION AGAINST BRIGHTON LANDFILL WITH TWO

Defendants (2)

• COM-PAK ENGINEERING, INC.Named in complaintNamed in settlement
• EVANS, EUGENENamed in complaintNamed in settlement

Facilities (1)

• BRIGHTON LANDFILL

  CRAIG LAKE RD, BRIGHTON, IL, 62012

  Registry ID: 110007520717

Statutes cited

• RCRA 3008 — Res Conserv & Rec Act

Enforcement conclusions (1)

• COM-PAK ENGINEERING, INC.entered 1992-05-17

  Primary law: RCRA

  Federal penalty: $60,000

Timeline (6 milestones)

• 1986-05-12Referred To Dept Of Justice
• 1986-09-11Complaint Filed With Court
• 1992-05-17Final Order Lodged
• 1992-05-17Final Order Entered
• 1992-05-17Concluded
• 1997-08-28Enforcement Action Data Entered