ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
July
22,
1971
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
#PCB71—48
v.
CITY OF GOLCONDA
LARRY EATON, Assistant Attorney General,
for EPA
LESTER SEXTON, Mayor of Golconda,
for Respondent
OPINION OF THE BOARD
(BY MR.
LAWTON):
The Environmental Protection Agency filed a complaint against
the City of Golconda asserting that
the
city operated a sanitary
landfill
site in the Shawnee National Forest and that its operation
constituted violations of various sections of the Environmental Pro-
tection Act
(“Act”)
and of the Rules
and Regulations for Refuse Dis-
posal Sites and Facilities
(Land Rules,
promulgated by
the Department
of Public Health in April of 1966
and remaining in force and effect pur-
suant to Section 49(c)
of the Act,
Specifically,
the complaint alleges that on September
29 and
September
30,
1970, and continuing through the date of the filing of
the complaint,
the city has allowed open dumping of refuse at its
landfill site
in violation of Sections 12(a)
and
(b)
and Section
20
and Section 21(a),
(b)
and
(f)
of the Act,
and Rule
3.04 of the Land
Rules
The
complaint further alleges that on September
29,
1970 and con-
tinuing intermittently to the date of the filing of the complaint,
Respondent allowed open burning at the landfill site,
in violation
of 3.05 of the Land Rules and Section 9(c)
of the Act,
The complaint further alleges that on or about Septemb~r29,
1970,
and continuing through the date
pf
the filing of the complaint, Respon-
dent permitted,
allowed or failed to do the
following:
permitted access
to the site at all hours, in violation of Rule 5,02;
allowed unsuper-
vised unloading in violation
of
Rule
5,04;
failed
to
compact and spread
refuse in violation of Rule
5,06;
failed to provide
a 6” daily cover
of refuse, in violation of Rule 5.07(a); failed to register its site
in violation of Rule 1.03,
and caused scenic blight, created a public
nuisance, diverted land from more productive use, depressed the value
of nearby property, offended the senses and otherwise unduly interfered
with community life resulting in pollution
and
misuse of land, all in
violation of Section 20 of the Act.
2—
145
We find Respondent to have allowed open dumping of refuse;
to
have allowed open burning;
to have permitted unauthorized access to
the site;
to have allowed unsupervised unloading;
to have failed to
spread and compact the refuse;
and to have failed to provide a 6”
daily cover.
All of the foregoing acts or conditions
to be in violation
of the statutory and regulatory provisions asserted.
Section 20 of
the Act is not a regulatory provision and does not serve as
a ground
for alleged violation of the statute.
Accordingly, we find Respondent
not to be in violation of this specific section, notwithstanding the
fact that its operation may have been contrary to the objective sought
to be achieved by this provision,
We order the city to cease and desist the operation of its land-
fill facility in violation of the requlations and the Act,
and to
take such affirmative steps
as are more fully set forth in the decretal
portion of
this
Order,
Hearing was held on
the
complaint of the Agency at the
Golconda
Court House
on
June
1,
1971.
The landfill has been
in
operation for
approximately four years.
Lester Sexton,
the mayor of Golconda,
appeared
as both an adverse witness for
the
Agency and principal
witness for the municipality.
He
testified that the
landfill
is
presently
operated by
Leonard Wallace, who gets
a
nominal
salary from
the
city,
and also
a portion of the charges made for the garbage
pick-
up,
Mr. Wallace
was on
the premiscs
two days a
week,
Mr. Sexton testi-
fied that
the size of the site was approximately 100
feet by
150
feet,
although other testimony suggests that
it
might be somewhat larger.
Approximately an acre has been used in
the
last four years since the
beginning of the operation.
Notwithstanding the fact that the
site is
a municipal operation, other people within the county have been using
the site without apparent authorization nor does it appear that the
city has established an aggressive policy to prevent unauthorized use.
The site
is located on property owned by the Federal government in
Shawnee National Forest.
Photographs taken by Andrew Vollmer, employed by the Environmental
Protection Agency, taken on September
29 and September
3Q,
1970, estab-
lish the principal contentions of
the complaint.
Vast quantities
of
open garbage and refuse can be observed and
the absence of compacting
or covering is evident.
Testimony of Gary Brashear, Sanitary Inspector of the Environmental
Protection Agency, established
that on the same dates, the facility
was accessible through its open gate and that
the
fencing was inadequate.
Open dumping
and
the absence of compaction and cover were evident, as
was
the result
of open burning.
2
—
146
These conditions were further testified to by Gene Hatfield,
Sanitary Inspector for the Environmental Protection Agency, who had
conducted inspections from April
1,
1969 through May
7,
1971, including
the September 29 and 30 dates on which occasions he observed exposed
refuse and the absence of supervision.
Garbage, boxes, refrigerators
and comparable refuse was observed on each occasion.
Supervision did
begin
on or about April
13,
1971, at which time some equipment necessary
to eliminate the violations was utilized.
Open burning of garbage
and refuse was observed by this witness on November 25,
1970.
Both the mayor and the operator, Mr. Wallace, testified that
without additional
funds
the operation could not be improved.
They
conceded that the present site was inadequate for their purposes
and expressed the hope that a county landfill site would be established.
The penalty we impose
is in consideration of
the foregoing operation.
The testimony of the site operator,
Mr. Wallace, is illustrative of
how the operation had been handled until approximately March
16,
1971.
His activities were in direct relation to when the city obtained funds
“When the city got the money to get the work done,
they called me,
I would go out and dig a trench, push the garbage
in
and cover it.”
(R,79).
He testified that the trenches dug were roughly
10 feet wide,
4 to
8 feet deep and 125 feet long.
They occasionally would take
as long as two months
to fill up,
although occasionally only
a month.
(R.80),
In response to questions as
to the
amount of cover, the
witness stated:
“Now, on that, the amount of
fill, some
places
it
was 6”,
some places it was a foot deep,
but what caused the trouble
on the amount of cover that
is
over it,
is that well, in my opinion,
it was set up wrong and started from the front to the back,
and you
would cover an old ditch, and that is where people would throw the
garbage, and you would have to push it off the old ditch onto the
new one, and you would get so much of your fill of the garbage each
time.”
As a consequence,
the previous cover was pushed off in digging
or filling a later trench necessitating additional fill and covering.
(R,8l)
Efforts were made to increase the frequency of fill
and
cover
but
Mr. Wallace~sactivities do not appear to be on more than a monthly
basis,
During the intervening period,
“people come in to dump, they
drive up
to the curb of the road and dump
it
in the road.
They wouldn~t
go for the ditch because they would have to cross f~e~h
fill,
and maybe
get their shoes
muddy, and they dumped
it
on the road,
So when
I go
back out the end of
the week,
I would have to push it from almost the
front gate to the back side of the land fill.”
(R,83).
Since approx-
imately March 16,
1971,
Mr. Wallace has been present between 10:00 A,M.
and 7:00 P.M. on Tuesday and Thursday and that he now endeavors to
cover the refuse on these days but that a substantial amount of garbage
is still thrown by persons over the locked gate,
and represents
a con-
tinuing problem.
He testified that because
the
dump
is open until
2
—
147
7:00 P.
M.
at night,
it is often impossible to compact and cover
on
the
same
day
the garbage is received, because of darkness.
Wayne Nichols, employee of the U.
S.
Forestry Service, testified
that the dump was operated pursuant to permit issued by the U.
S.
Government to the City of Golconda, which required the operation be in
compliance with the State law.
Originally, the Job Corps was to work
jointly
with the
city in maintaining the site but this program did not
continue.
According
to
the testimony of this
witness, the conditions
of the permit
have
been violated but
not
enforced,
because
of the
necessity of having
a
place
to
dump.
A new permit
is
being presented
to the city.
The witness indicated the
U.
S.
Forestry
Service does not
want the dump to remain in the present location.
J.
C. Wright,
Planning Analyst, Southeastern Illinois Regional
Planning and Development Commission,
testified
to the desire of having
a county-wide landfill operation which would serve 3,900 people and
require an expenditure of approximately $39,000.00
to acquire, develop
and equip.
State financing has been sought.
He testified
to the
“promiscuous dumping along the highways out there by
the site.
People
dump after hours.. .rnany people do not work on Saturday,
they therefore
take
the refuse out there and the site is closed.
So they dump into
ditches or they carry it over by hand,. .they dump near
the front of
the site...”(R.l04).
He testified that since the middle of March,
1971,
there has been considerable improvement in the operation of the site
in
terms of supervision, covering and
the absence of burning.
He recommended
that
the site be open on Saturdays until Noon.
The Board wholeheartedly concurs in the desirability of having
a
county~-widelandfill facility which would serve
a greater area and
more people than
the present Golconda operation.
The Board stands
ready to assist in any way possible toward the realization of this ob-
jective.
If,
in the meantime,
the Golconda operation is
to continue,
it must
be brought into compliance with the law.
Accordingly,
we enter
our Order hereinafter set forth directing the Respondent to cease and
desist the various illegal operations
it has conducted or permitted
and to take
such further steps
as are appropriate in consideration of
its continued operation.
A nominal penalty
is imposed.
This Opinion constitutes the findings
of fact and conclusions
of
law of the
Board.
IT
IS
THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board, as follows;
1.
Respondent, City of Golconda,
is found to have violated
the
following regulations and statutory provisions during
tue
period alleged as hereinafter set forth:
2
—
148
(a)
Open dumping of refuse in violation of Section
12(c)
and 12(b)
of the Environmental Protection
Act and Section 21(a),
(b) and
(f),
and Rule 3.04
of the Rules and Regulations for Refuse Disposal
Sites
and
Facilities;
(b)
Open burning
in
violation
of Rule
3.05 of the Rules
and
Section
9(c)
of
the
Act;
(c)
Unlimited access
to the
site at all hours
of the
day
in violation
of
Rule 5.02
of
the Rules;
Cd)
Unsupervised unloading in violation of
Rule 5.04
of the Rules;
Ce)
Failure to spread
and
compact refuse
in
violation
of
Rule
5,06
of the Rules;
Cf)
Failure ~o provide
6”
daily cover
for
refuse in
violation of Rule
5,07
of
the Rules;
(g)
Respondent
is
not
found
to have violated Section 20
of the Act,
The evidence does not establish
a viola-
tion of Rule
1,03 relative
to registration.
2.
The City of Golconda is ordered
to cease and desist all
activities and violations above set forth ir~paragraph
1
of this Order.
3.
City of Golconda is assessed
a penalty in the amount of
$100.00 for
the violations aforesaid.
4,
The City of Golconda
is directed
in the operation of
its
landfill
to refrain from accepting refuse less
than
two
hours before sunset
in order that spreading,
compacting
and covering can take place on the
same day such refuse is
received.
The city is further directed to keep
its land-
fill operation open on Saturdays until
12 o~clock Noon.
I,
Regina
E.
Ryan, Clerk of
the
Illinois Pollution Control
Board,
certify
that
the
Board
adopted
the
ab
1971.
2
—~
149