ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    October
    14,
    1976
    ENVIRONMENTAL
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    Complainant,
    v.
    )
    PCB 76-34
    CITY OF MOUND CITY,
    a
    Municipal Corporation,
    Respondent.
    Mr. Richard W.
    Cosby, Assistant Attorney General, Attorney
    for Complainant
    Mr. Warner Wall, Attorney for Respondent
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by Mr.
    Young):
    This matter comes before the Board on
    a Complaint filed
    by
    the
    Environmental
    Protection
    Agency
    (Aqency)
    on
    February
    6,
    1976,
    alleging that Respondent, City of Mound City
    (Mound City)
    violated certain sections of the EnviDonmental Protection Act
    (Act)
    and certain rules of the Illinois Pollution Control Board
    Rules and Regulations,
    Chapter
    7:
    Solid Waste
    (Chapter
    7)
    as
    follows:
    Count
    I:
    Violation of Rule
    (b) (I)
    of Chapter
    7 and Section
    21(b)
    and 2l(~j Di
    the Act
    operation of a solid waste management site from
    November 19, 1975 until the date
    of
    filing without
    an operating permit issued by the Agency;
    Count
    IT:
    Vi.o1dI..
    jOfl
    ()l
    ~uc
    ~
    (c)
    ~l C~lptcr 7
    and Section 21 (b)
    ol
    the Act
    ~ii
    iurc
    to place
    a
    compacted
    layer
    of.
    not:
    less
    tI)~n 1:w()
    feet
    ()
    cover over the entire surface
    o
    the
    final lifts
    of the landfill within 60 days
    following place-
    ment of refuse in said final lifts;
    and
    Violation of Rule
    311 of Chapter
    7 and Section
    21(b)
    of the Act
    -
    causing or allowing open
    burning at a sanitary landfill site not in
    accordance with the provisions
    of Chapter
    2,
    Part V1
    Open Burning, Illinois Pollution
    Control Board Rules and Regulations;
    and
    24
    33

    —2—
    Violation of Rule 314(c)
    of Chapter
    7 and Section
    21(b)
    of the Act
    causing
    or allowing the opera-
    tion of a sanitary landfill which did not provide
    fencing, gates or other measures
    to control accesss
    to th~site.
    On February 10, l97G the Agency filed with the Board
    a
    Request for Admission of Fact pursuant to Rule 314(a)
    of the
    Board’s Procedural Rules and served a copy of said Request
    upon the Respondent herein on February
    12,
    1976.
    Rule 314(c)
    of the Board’s Procedural Rules,
    in pertinent parts provides:
    “Each of the matters of fact
    ..,
    of which ad-
    mission is requested is admitted unless, within
    20
    days after service thereof, the party to whom
    the request
    is directed serves upon the party
    requesting the admission either
    (1)
    a sworn state-
    ment denying specifically the matters of which ad-
    mission is requested or setting forth in detail
    the reasons why he cannot truthfully admit or deny
    those matters or
    (2) written objections
    on the
    ground that some or all of the requested admissions
    are privileged or irrelevant or that the request is
    otherwise improper in whole or
    in part.’t
    Mound City did not file a sworn denial or written objections
    to the Request for Admission of Fact
    in
    this case and the matters
    of fact of which admission was requested are admitted by operation
    of Procedural Rule 314(c).
    Mound City prepared an Answer to the
    Complaint which was presented
    to the Hearing Officer
    at the hearing
    of this matter on June
    17, 1976
    in Mound City,
    Illinois.
    The Answer
    was filed with the Board on June 21,
    1976 by the Hearing Officer.
    The site
    in question is located
    in the Northwest Quarter of
    Section
    36 of Township
    16 South, Range
    1 West,
    in Pulaski County,
    Illinois.
    In
    the
    Answer
    filed
    by
    riound
    CiLy
    Respondent
    admits the opera-
    tion of
    a solid waste management site without. an operating permit
    (Answer,
    para.
    6
    &
    7)
    and
    failure
    to
    appty
    tinal cover
    (Answer,
    para.
    7).
    The
    record
    indicates
    that
    the
    Illinois
    Environmental
    Pro-
    tection Agency sent
    a series of
    19 letters
    to Mound City from
    August 24,
    1973 through December
    8,
    1975 notifying Mound City of
    violations of the Environmental Protection Act and Chapter
    7 of
    the Illinois Pollution Control Board Rules and Regulations
    (Request
    for Admission, para.
    7).
    Kenneth
    G. Mensing,
    an inspector
    for the Division of Land
    Polibtion Control
    of the Agency,
    testified concerning the
    existing condition of the site
    (R.
    p8—9)
    and the work required
    24
    34

    —3—
    to bring the site into compliance with the Solid Waste Regula-
    tions
    (R.
    p9-10).
    He also estimated that the cost to
    cover would
    be somewhere in the range of $1000.00 or less
    (R. p12).
    Frederick
    M. Winkler,
    the Mayor of Mound City, was called as
    an adverse witness and testified that the site has been mismanaged
    for 30 years
    (R.
    p19);
    that there had been opdn burning at the site
    prior to the time that the landfill site was closed
    (R. p21-22)
    that everybody inthis world has access
    to the site
    (R. p27);
    and
    that a contract had been let to provide final cover at a cost of
    under five hundred dollars but that due to mechanical problems the
    contractor had not started work
    (R. p29-~0). Mayor Winkler gave
    a narrative statement on behalf of Mound City in which matters
    in mitigation were presented including plans
    for closing the site
    (R. p34);
    the origin of demolition materials deposited on the site
    (R. p35);
    and Mound City’s attempts to prohibit use of the site
    (R.
    p36—37)
    .
    On cross examination the Mayor testified that much
    demolition material resulting from the demolition of one hundred
    homes
    in Mound City was still on the sites where
    it was generated
    but some was taken
    to the landfill site at least up through
    ‘75
    (R. p39-4°).
    Other matters in mitigation concern the expenditure
    required to remove demolition material from tax delinquent properties
    in Mound City and the problems caused by the inability to dispose
    of the mate~ia1 (R.
    p42; Answer para.
    3)
    and the inability of Mound
    City to generate sufficient revenues
    (R. p28; Answer para.
    3)
    to
    immediately dispose of the demolition wastes.
    In determination of the appropriate remedy for the violations
    set forth herein,
    the Board, after
    a consideration of the factors
    included in Section
    33 of the Act and the facts of this case, has
    concluded that it is technically practicable and economically
    reasonable for the Respondent to comply ~th
    the requirements of
    the Act and Chapter
    7 of our Regulation;.
    However suitable the
    site might be
    as a sanitary landfill, without proper site prepara-
    tion and operation guaranteed by the appropriate Agency permits,
    the potential
    for environmental damage is great.
    In this
    instance
    Respondent’s Mayor admitted the site to be “an open sore”
    (R.
    p19)
    and test i f ied
    that-
    the
    s
    I to
    was
    an o
    1 d
    norrow a rca
    Whore
    sand
    had
    been
    removed
    and
    the
    resulting
    holes
    stood
    t nfl
    o
    water when the
    river
    was at high stage
    (R. p23) and that the Mound City area has
    a high ground water problem
    (R. p41).
    The
    record also indicates
    that a suitable disposal site
    is available within
    7 or less miles
    (R.
    p31,
    41).
    The fact that Mound City has received numerous warnings and
    visits
    from the Agency over
    a considerable period within coming
    into compliance aggravates the violation.
    Some mitigation
    is justified because Respondent
    is
    a munici-
    pality and the Board is aware of the strained financial position
    of most municipalities.
    Certainly Mound City is no exception;
    24
    35

    —4—
    however,
    such condition is not a justification for long continuing
    violations of the Act and the Rules and Regulations of the Board.
    Under the circumstances the Board will assess
    a penalty of $400.00
    and will further require Mound City to properly close the site or
    obtain a permit from the Agency if it chooses to continue depositing
    demolition materials
    at the site.
    Additionally, Respondent shall
    cease and desist from open burning in violation of Rule 311 of
    Chapter
    7.
    The Complaint,
    in Count
    I, paragraph
    7,
    alleges
    a violation
    of Sections 21(b)
    and 21(e)
    of the Act arising from the violation
    of Rule 202(b) (1)
    .
    The portion of that count alleging violation
    of Section 21(b)
    must be dismissed following our decision
    in
    E
    &
    E
    Hau1ip~, PCB 74—473,
    16 PCB 215
    (1975)
    This Opinion constitutes the Board’s finding of fact and con-
    clusions
    of law in this matter.
    ORDER
    1.
    Respondent,
    City of Mound City,
    is found to have operated
    its waste disposal site in violation of Rule 202(b)
    (1)
    ;
    Rule 305(c);
    Rule
    311; and Rule
    314(c), all of Chapter
    7 of the Rules and Regu-
    lations of the Board; and,
    in violation of Sections
    21(b)
    and 21(e)
    of the Act, as alleged and shall pay
    a
    penalty
    of $400.00 for such
    violations.
    Penalty payment by certified check or money order
    payable to the State of Illinois shall
    be
    made within 35 days of
    the date of this Order to:
    Fiscal Services Division,
    Illinois
    Environmental Protection Agency,
    2200 Churchill Road,
    Springfield,
    Illinois,
    62706.
    2.
    Respondent,
    City of Mound
    Cit~
    ~ha1l cease and desist
    from the violations
    of the Act and
    Chaptar
    7 of the Rules and Regu-
    lations of the Board found herein.
    3.
    Respondent, City of Mound City, shall apply
    final cover
    within 120 days of the adoption of this Order or apply for an
    01)0
    rat;
    i
    nq
    pP
    ~fl
    i
    I rom
    t1io Aq
    n~
    ~y w
    i Ili
    i
    0
    I iys
    d
    t
    Ii
    i
    Ortlo r
    i
    f
    ~ospondeii
    t
    iii
    tends
    Lo operate
    he
    site
    .
    P
    ii
    L
    no
    ~
    ~
    ii
    I ~on
    o t
    the
    S
    i
    te
    Wi
    1
    1
    he
    a
    1
    .1
    owed
    un
    1 ess
    a
    id
    till
    t
    i
    I
    a
    ii
    a~
    ii
    I
    i
    nq
    ~O
    till
    I:
    i
    s
    i sS
    ned
    by
    the
    Agency.
    4.
    The
    charge
    of
    Count
    I
    alleging
    violation
    of
    Section
    21(b)
    of
    the
    Act
    is
    dismissed.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    Mr. Jacob
    D.
    Dumelle concurs.
    24
    36

    I,
    Christan
    L.
    Moffett,
    Clerk
    of
    the
    Illinois Pollution
    Control
    Board,
    her~y
    certify
    the
    ~boye
    Opinion
    and
    Order
    were
    adopted
    op
    the
    ___—
    day of
    ~
    ____,
    1976
    by
    a
    vote
    of
    ~Q.
    Illinois
    Pollution
    24~-37

    Back to top