ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

January 6

,

1977

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

ComplaInant,

v.

)

PCB 75—487

CITY OF MOUNT CARMEL,

a municipal

)

corporation,

Respondent.

Mr. Richard Cosby, Assistant Attorney General,

appeared for

the Complainant.

Mr. Robert M. Keenan,

Jr. appeared for the Respondent.

OPINION

AND

ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Dr.

Satchell):

This matter comes before the Pollution Control Board

(Board) upon

a complaint filed December

19,

1975 by the Environ-

mental Protection Agency

(Agency).

An amended complaint was

filed on January

19,

1976.

The amended complaint alleges that

the City of Mount Cannel operates a refuse disposal site located

in Section 21, Township

1 South, Range

12 West,

in the County

of Wabash, Illinois;

and that Respondent caused or allowed the

operation of its refuse disposal site without an operating per-

mit in violation of Rule 202(a) of the Solid Waste Regulations

(Regulations) and Sections 21(b)

and 21(e) of the Environmental

Protection Act

(Act).

The Board has held on several occasions that a violation

of a permit requirement as

of Rule 202(a)

is not the proper

basis for an allegation of violation of Section 21(b)

of the

Act.

The allegation of violation of Section 21(b)

of the Act

is dismissed.

A hearing was held concerning this matter in Mount Carmel,

Illinois on February

18,

1976.

The site in question

is

in the

Rose Hill Cemetery.

In the cemetery there is an erosion

problem

(R.

26).

Retaining walls had to be built to keep some

grave

sites from washing down

(R.

26).

Two

trees were under-

mined and had to be cut down because their roots were exposed

and they died

(R.

26).

The City was trying to build up the

ditch or gully to create a grass waterway

(R.

27, 28).

Dirt

and refuse was brought in to fill

in the area,

then the City

was going to place topsoil on it and seed

it

CR.

28).

The

24 —517

---

cc

‘cc:

tob ~n tte City and consisted

ens

~

~seepings

off

the

street,

which

in

~cl~’

~in

:cct

iin~:

~P

2$)

Landscape

waste

produced

a

in::.

s

e~:oplaced in the

area

(R,

28).

in:

-

4i

cinnrtity and

Included

the

trunks

of

in

a

a

:~

Th.

C~

4Th

:~

in

laTh’

l’s~. The refuse being used was self—

ç

~n-cd

p1p~ dci

Tda

4Th:

to be covered by the exemption

a:,

~ecti”n

‘a

~

:ae

Ice

The Board has

rejected

this

rp~ctscI

in’

ne let as a circumvention of the permit

sy~ThrrnTh

a

ci

r-’

th~

legIslature,

EPAv.

City of

Pont_ac

1

PC:

-13

10

5

The Board does

find

that the

ii

~cC

Cocit

,arre

ci

a:. violation of Rule 202(a)

of the

J~c~tio~~

2t~, cicder

2I(e~

of

the Act,

etoci

r:Th

~c

p

~

detcimlnation in this matter the

toe~ecisc carsac

in

‘inc

f- ciors

of Section 33(c)

of

the

Act~

lcsiondeci

ci

:earive

a

a’elopment Permit for this site

~

Ce a

-‘a’:

14,

9

a

C

3i~

The permit allows disposal

ci

en

ci

in

in

ci

rater:als plus brick,

concrete,

in

a

d

an

ay

auntle

(P

181,

Daily and

an

in

in

C

cr

~ac

cci

rmccnt~

are

waived

ny

the

permit

(

C

C:

in

cc

the

time

of

the

hearing

had

nc

he:

~cian

~~

‘in:

aanmental

damage

(P.

24).

City

tat:

ire

a

~

~

o

tint

most

covering

of

the

refuse

rici

~aken

ac

a

rose

landscape

waste

does remain

eaciral

C.

31

ci:cjered

landscape

waste

is

a

fire

~i

ca

as

a’ a

oca:e~

cia

te

harbor

vectors

(P.

18,

19)

ciTh

or

ci

~ci

ai

Thr:ae

has

been

assessed

at

the

site;

hoaa’ec

~

e

4154

cii

4-’:riage

is

the

reason

the

permit

system

exists

:0

p~’ovide the

forethought

necessary to prevent

pollu—

t~ion.

Tna

stcs

here

ci

noii

in

issue

The

refuse was placed

to

prevert

ercs:or

to

sate

the

cemetery

site

from further

hacage.

There

s

Thin-c

Cuestion

as

to

the

positive

social

54

C

‘I

ci

if

‘ci 0

4

(1

t

1’

P001)l

y

oF

Mount

(‘ccc:

‘in

a. 4

-.

4

41’:

Caty

has

received

a

development

-a

ci

wora

e

cc

cone

to

remedy

the

situation

shows

tTht

eer~

lClci

:

a

econc’aacall~

and

technically

feasible,

‘C

a

cci

Tht

fan

attempted

to

prevent

the

erosion

the arc:

ci:

ccc

cc:

circa

a

solid

waste

manaaement

site

bj

-ci

Cit’•:

‘I-’ci

acaice

Iron

the

Agency

the

City

has

now

rac~I’ec

die

c.pinoinic:t.a

permit.

For

these

reasons the Board

a

pecici:v

a:

aid-

cicassary

for

an

aid

to

enforcement.

.1he

Clay

staid

Ce

an

ire3.

co complete the cover of any land—

soaps

caste

~

s-’ntly

at

the site and shall not place any

~acn’eapO wa~t:

ci

lain

cite

In the future.

The City shall

ceace and Theist any fur liar violations of the Act or the

Regulat:or s

518

---

—3—

This opinion constitutes the findings of fact and

It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that:

1.

The City of Mount Cannel is found to have been in

violation of Rule 202(a)

Section 21(e)

2.

The allegation of violation of Section 21(b)

of the

Act is dismissed.

3.

The City of Mount Carmel shall cease and desist any

further violations of the Board’s Regulations or the Environ-

mental Protection Act.

Any landscape waste presently at the

site shall be covered within 45 days of this order and no

Mr. Young dissents.

I, Christan

L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order were

adopted on the

_______

day ~

1977 by a vote of

an

L.

Mo~

if

Illinois Pollution C

ol Board