ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
February
15,
1979
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Complainant,
v.
)
PCB 78—112
CITY OF MOUNT CARMEL,
an Illinois
Municipal Corporation,
Respondent.
MR. REED NEUMAN, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON BEHALF
OF THE
COMPLAINANT.
MR ROBERT N.
KEENAN,
JR., ATTORNEY AT LAW, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF
THE RESPONDENT.
OPINION
AND
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Dr.
Satchell):
This matter comes before the Board upon a complaint filed
April 20,
1978 by the Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency),
The complaint alleges that Respondent owns a solid waste manage-
ment site located within the Northeast Quarter of Section 22,
Township
1 North, Range
12 West of the Second Principal Meridian
in Wabash County, Illinois;
that this site has been closed since
on or about February
1, 1977;
and that Respondent has failed to
place final cover at the site in violation of Rules
301 and 305
of the Chapter
7: Solid Waste Regulations
(Chapter
7)
and
Sections 21(a)
and 21(h)
of the Environmental Protection Act
(Act).
A hearing was held on October 26,
1978.
At the hearing the parties stated they had agreed to a
stipulated set of facts.
These facts were then presented by
statements from the attorneys for the parties.
Exhibits were
presented which included an earlier agreement between the parties
(Jt.
Ex.
3); however, no written submission of the stipulated
facts was made.
The following facts were presented in statements made at
the hearing and in the joint exhibits placed in evidence.
Re-
spondent operated or caused to be operated a solid waste manage-
ment site on the property in cruestion from on or about December
1,
1971 to on or about January
31, 1977
(Jt.
Ex.
1 and 2).
The site
was operated under contract by Crawford County Disposal,
Inc.
(later assigned to Wabash County Disposal,
Inc.).
The site,
32—531
—2—
approximately twenty acres, was purchased in 1972 by the City
apparently with the recommendation of the Agency and the same
year an operating permit was received
in the City’s name
(R.
6).
The Agency was concerned with operation of the site and a com-
pliance conference was held in November 1976
(R.
7).
Because
of operational problems and especially ground water problems
that had arisen
it
was agreed that the site should be closed.
An agreement between the parties, Joint Exhibit 3, determined
that no refuse would be accepted after January
31,
1977 and
proper final cover would be placed by no later than April 30,
1977.
This agreement further provides that quarterly water
monitoring reports were to be submitted to the Agency.
These
analyses were to be from both the east and the west wells.
The
Agency agreed to forbear from bringing an enforcement action
based on an October 26,
1976 notice upon the express condition
that the City properly close the site as set out in the agreement.
Refuse was no longer accepted after January 31,
1977; how-
ever, the City had trouble getting the contractor, Marvin Wilder,
to comply with the agreement
CR.
8).
In the summer of 1977 some
covering was done by the City.
Of the twenty acres at the site
approximately thirteen have been used for landfill activities
and require cover.
The Agency estimates that there
is an average
of one foot of cover on the filled portions of the site
(R.
9).
There are few areas of actual exposed refuse
(R.
9).
The Agency
estimates that fifteen thousand to twenty thousand cubic yards of
cover material are needed at the site.
The Mayor of Mount Carmel
estimates
if the cover material comes from the remainder of the
site the cost could run as high
as $25,000
(R.
10).
If the
material
is brought in from outside the site the cost could
triple
(R.
10).
There is a monitoring well at the east end of the
site from which the Agency has been getting regular reports, but
reports from the west side of the site have been lacking
(R.
10).
The City has been unable to enforce its contract for
covering the site.
The City sought the advice of
a Farm Ex-
tension Adviser
(Adviser)
for problems which might adversely
affect crop protection
(Ex.
8).
He recommended against taking
the additional material from the other end of the site
(R.
13,
14).
The Adviser stated this would create a swamp at one end of the
site an would not do that much for the other end which he feels
is valuable farmland as
is
CR.
14).
The City has put the property
out for bids, the highest of which was slightly in excess of
$15,000
(Jt. Ex.
7).
The City feels that further cover is not
necessary and should not be required
(R.
22).
While the City
32—53 2
—3—
contends on the basis
of bid values for the land for agricultural
production and a “walk over” inspection by an agricultural ex-
tension adviser that no further cover Is required, the Agency
apparently brought this matter before the Board based on at
least fifteen Agency inspections made during the period Jan-
uary 14,
1975
to November 10, 1977
(Jt.
Ex.
1, No.
8).
The
Agency asks that cover be placed and that a performance bond be
required
(R.
20).
It is apparent in this case that the Respondent has been
and is
in violation of Rule 305(c)
of Chapter
7.
Respondent
is
asking for a permanent variance concerning cover.
This
is not
a proper proceeding for a variance.
In addition, the Board has
no authority to grant a permanent variance.
Respondent has also
failed to consider the leachate problem which can result in
water pollution problems.
The fact that the land is usable as
farmland shows social and economic value; however,
such a use
does not automatically resolve all the pollution problems
associated with a sanitary landfill and the potential for public
injury.
The Agency considered the site suitable when it granted
a permit;
however, the fact that the lower portion of the site
would become swampy
if cover material is removed indicates a
high probability that the ground water would become polluted
without adequate cover.
There is no question that applying final
cover is technically practicable.
The Board has not been pre-
sented with a great deal of economic information.
Certainly the
cost is not negligible; however,
the fact that the City originally
undertook operating or causing the operation of a sanitary land-
fill indicates an ability to afford the costs accrued.
The Board finds Respondent in violation of Rules 301 and
305(c)
of Chapter
7 and Sections
21(a)
and 21(b)
of the Act.
The Board will require Respondent to place proper final cover
as required by Rule 305(c) within 180 days of this Order.
Respondent will be required to execute a performance bond of
$25,000
in a form satisfactory to the Agency.
In light of the
factors of Section 33(c)
of the Act and the amount of money
required to reach compliance the Board will not assess a penalty
in this case.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
32—533
—4—
ORDER
It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board
that:
1.
The City of Mount Camel
is found to be in violation
of Rules
301 and 305(c)
of the Chapter
7:
Solid
Waste Regulations and Sections
21(a)
and 21(b)
of
the Act.
2.
Respondent shall provide cover in compliance with
Rule 305(c)
of Chapter
7 within 180 days of this
Order.
3.
Respondent shall post a performance bond in the
amount of $25,000 within thirty-five days of this
Order in a form satisfactory to the Environmental
Protection Agency,
2200 Churchill Road,
Springfield,
Illinois 62706.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order were
adopted on the
J~~’
day of
~?ei5~/jti4~,’,
1979 by a vote of
•3—/)
~
Christan L. Moffett,
erk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
3 2—534