ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL

BOARD

September 6,

1972

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Complainant,

vs.

)

 PCB 72-2

CITY OF SALEM AND THOMAS ARNOLD

Respondents.

Larry

R.

 Eaton, Assistant Attorney General for the EPA

Alfred Pfaff,

 City Attorney for Respondents

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

 (by Mr. Henss)

The Environmental Protection Agency filed its complaint

against the City of Salem and Thomas Arnold alleging that they

had committed numerous violations of the Environmental Protection

Act and the Rules

 and Regulations for Refuse Disposal Sites and

Facilities in the operation of

 a landfill near Salem, Illinois.

It was charged that there had been open burning, open dumping

of garbage and refuse, scavenging, failure to confine dumping

of refuse to the smallest practical area,

 failure to provide

adequate vector control,

 failure to properly spread and compact

refuse,

 failure to provide daily cover or final cover, and the

deposition of refuse in standing water on numerous occasions

between February 1966 and January 1972.

 The site of these

alleged violations was a twenty acre landfill owned by the City

of Salem and operated by Thomas Arnold,

 a city employee, about

two miles northeast of Salem.

The evidence introduced at the hearing dealt mainly with

 violations alleged to have occurred since July

1,

 1970,

the

effective date of the Environmental Protection Act.

 From the

record we conclude that Respondents were guilty of open dumping

and failure to provide adequate daily cover on several occasions.

Respondent Thomas Arnold said that he tried to cover but under

cross examination admitted that photographs taken on different

dates

 showed the existence of un~covereddebris overnight.

 Arnold

also said he ~‘cou1dn’tcover it everyc~ay” CR.

42)

 and left demo-

lition overnight if it arrived on the site close to the quitting

hour.

Brush burning, lasting for a week at a time, occurred on

four or five occasions in 1971.

 There was no evidence that the

Respondents started the fires and it seems that all of the fires

began at night.

 These fortuitous

 fires benefited Respondents by

removing brush piles which Respondents would otherwise have had

difficulty in covering.

—

341

—2—

Respondent Thomas Arnold testified:

“Q.

 So, your practice is not to cover or put the

brush in the

fill?

A.

 We always put our brush in this one place.

Q.

 Well, what would you do with that brush if it

would never burn?

 You say the pile keeps getting

larger.

A.

 Well,

 I guess we would just keep piling it up.

Q.

 You would have

 a big mountain of brush?

A.

 You’ve got a hundred dollar question.

 I don’t

know what you would do.”

(R.

 121)

In our opinion the Respondents are clearly responsible

because of their accumulation of the materials to be burned

and failure to extinguish the fires once they started.

Scavenging occurred occasionally but was not a serious

problem. The City did post “No Scavenging” signs and did chase

violators away.

 The dump was available for the public between

the hours of

 8 a.m. and 5 p.m.

 five days per week and from

 8 a.m.

until noon on Saturdays.

 It was locked at other times.

Some leachate flowed from the site into a nearby stream.

Samples from the stream indicate that the water quality did not

seriously suffer from the introduction of the material.

Rats were controlled fairlywell but there was no attempt to

control flies.

The biggest problem with littering came from an attempt to

use the area fill system in a low lying area.

 The trench system

was used generally and cover material was close at hand.

The

City Manager admitted that there had been violations

 in the lower

end of the fill based upon failure to cover on

 a daily basis.

The problem with this landfill operation was stated rather

succinctly by the City Manager.

 He said.

“The history of Salem’s present landfill site dates

back to 1941 when it was opened——of course,

 then

 as an

o!en dump——and it was operated for many, many years as

an open dump.

 And when the regulations were established

to convert it to a sanitary landfill, the City began to

make efforts

 in this direction and began to make some

progress,

 I think, despite what we’re discussing here

today.

—

342

—3—

But,

 it’s very difficult to convert an open dump

to a sanitary landfill.

 The design of the area is not

very conducive to that.

 It’s been used one way, and

it’s just really impossible to change it to another.”

(R.

 158)

Over the past year the City has attempted to locate

 a new

landfill.

 Contacts were made with other units of local govern-

ment but first the County Board and then the City of Centralia

declined to create an area landfill.

 Arrangements have now been

made by the City of Salem to use a landfill

 not, operated by the

City.

 A permit has been issued and the City has entered into a

contract to use the site starting August 1,

 1972.

 The Assistant

Attorney General who prosecuted this case commended the City for

having found a new disposal site.

The City has been moving toward compliance with the law.

We

agree that it is difficult to change the habits of the public and

the long established use of the old site, and that compliance

is

more likely to occur at a new location.

 In view of the progress

made by the City we believe a small penalty in the amount of

$250.00 would be appropriate along with an order for the closing

of the old dumping site.

The City takes the position that we have no jurisdiction to

impose a monetary penalty upon a municipality.

 Section 42 of the

EPA provides~that “any person” who violates the Act shall be

liable to pay the monetary penalty.

 This term is broad enough to

include corporations and municipalities.

 We adhere to our view

that monetary penalties may be imposed upon municipalities.

 City

of Springfield vs. EPA, PCB 70—55.

ORDER

It is ordered that:

(1)

 Respondents City of Salem and Thomas Arnold cease and

desist from their violations of the Environmental

Protection Act and the Rules

 and Regulations for

Refuse Disposal Sites and Facilities.

(2)

 Respondent City of Sa1~mshall close the landfill

which was the subject of this hearing and shall not

in the future use

 bhe site for a landfill unless

a

permit for doing so is first obtained from the

Environmental Protection Agency.

 Final cover shall

be applied within six months

 from the date of this

 order.

—

343

—4—

(3)

 Respondents jointly or severally shall pay to the

State of Illinois by October

6,

 1972 the sum of

$250.00 as

 a penalty for the violations found in

this proceeding.

 Penalty payment by certified

check or money order payable to the State of Illinois

shall be made to:

 Fiscal Services Division,

 Illinois

EPA,

 2200 Churchill Drive,

 Springfield, Illinois

 62706.

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Pollution Control Board,

certify that the Board adopted the above Opinion and Order this

________day

 of September,

 1972, by a vote of

~/77

J~4~

Christan L. Moffett, C?~p5~

Illinois Pollution Control Board

—

344