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