ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
April
22, 1976
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Complainant,
V.
)
PCB 75—404
CITY OF
MACOMB,
a Municipal
Corporation,
Respondent.
Mr.
Richard W.
Cosby,
Assistant
Attorney General appeared
for Complainant.
Mr. Bruce
J.
Biagini and Mr. Larry Kwacala, appeared for
Respondent.
OPINION
AND
ORDER
OF THE
BOARD
(by Dr.
Satchell):
This case comes before the Board upon a complaint
filed by the Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency)
on
October 17,
:L975.
The complaint alleges that the City of
Macomb owns and operates
a refuse disposal site in
Section 30 of rpowflshjp
6 North,
Range
2 West in McDonough
County, Illinois and that this site has been in operation
since
July
27,
1974 to the date of filing without an
operating permit issued by the Agency,
in violation of
Rule 202(b) (1)
of the Solid Waste Regulations and Sec-
tions
21(b)
and 21(e)
of the Act.
Count II alleges that
final cover has not been properly placed and is thus
a
violation of Rule 305(c)
and Section 21(b)
of the Act.
Count III alleges that the La Moine River bounds the site
on the south and constitutes waters of the State of Illinois,
and that on twelve different dates
from and including
July
11,
1973 to September 25,
1975,
Respondent caused or
allowed leachate to pond on the site or to drain from the
site toward
the
backwater
of
the La Moine River which would
be in violation of Rules 406 and 408 of the Board’s Rules
and Regulationsb
Ch,
3, Water Pollution,
if deposited or
discharged directly into the waters of the State.
This
same drainage is
also alleged as
a violation of Rule 313
of the Solid Waste Regulations and hence
a violation of
21(b)
of the Act,
Ill.
Rev. Stat,,
Ch.
ill 1/2 1021(b) (1973).
21—235
—2—
~ hearing was held
in Macoinb,
Illinois on January 29,
1976.
The facts presented
are that the City of Macornb had
run a landfill
of
approximately eighty acres
(R.150)
at
the site in question.
In 1970 the site was covered ~R.1QO)
and for all practical purposes abandoned.
The cover has
eroded and
:Leac~hateflows
have occurred on the site.
The
site
is
located
just north of the
East Fork of the La Moine
River
which
is a tributary
of the Illinois River and drainage
from
the area entets this
fork.
The City has made efforts
to cover
the
c~LtCCS
wnere
leaching occurs and has added to
the cover
on several
occasions (R.75,78,80),
The City of Macorub
was aware of leachate at the landfill
site
as
early
as
July
1972
(R.75).
The City hauled dirt
into
the
landfill
in an attempt
at increasing the cover
(R.75).
Also in 1972 an attempt
was made to lime and seed
the iandf
ill
(A.7~3).
The
City attempted, at the recommenda-
tion
of
the
Agency,
to
use
a berm to divert water into
a
channel
so water would not permeate the landfill
(R.79,80).
Lime
sludge
has
also been
applied
to
the
landfill
in attempts
to cover
(R,109,1lO),
The record does not state on whose
authority
this
was
done.
There
is testimony from an Agency
witness,
Mr. William C.
Child,
Regional Supervisor from the
Central
Region, that lime
sludge would “help neutralize some
of the
constituents within the
leachate
.
.
.“
and that it
would also
hei~~‘promote
vegetative growth” and help “get
the
evapotranspiraticn
rate up for the landfill to get the
water balance correctt’
(R.52).
There is no testimony stating
there were any
harmful
effects.
At the hearing it was sug-
gested
that the lime sLudge
was “dumped” because of the
convenience
of the
site.
Examination of motive and the apparent
good faith efforts to prevent the leaching leads the Board
to reject
the theory that the
City
was
dumping its sludge for
convenience.
Two feet of
final cover was placed in 1970
(R.100).
In Agency
inspections in 1973 and 1974, cover was
found adequate
but
eroding
(EPA Exs.
#4,10,12,15).
The nature
of the site
is such that it
erodes easily and
is an unstable
slope.
The
City of
Macomb has only attetapted to repair and
maintain
the
Cover.
There
is
no evidence of bad faith on the
part
of
the City.
On
the
contrary correspondence shows that
the City
has responded quickly
and offered only cooperation
with the
Agency
(EPA
Ex.
24).
That the City has been running
a landfill has
not
been shown
as admitted by the Agency’s own
counsel in closing
(R,148).
The Board therefore dismisses
the allegations
of
Count
I.
21
—
236
Bet~eei
~i
9
J373 and August 21,
1975 demolition
waste was aua~
r
he
~te by persons unknown
(R.40,41).
This was e
a~‘~ri~ntLy-leaned up by the City Street
Department
~R. u~i
aria authorization for a fence
to limit
access to the cite has also been given by the
Mayor
(R,81).
The duriping of
i.aste without proper cover in
accozdance
‘i
the Solid Waste Regulations
is
a violatior
of the Ac~
The Board does
find the ole
n
a
reit lack of permanent environ-
mental dana’
i
ctira factor~. With respect to the
remainder of
$111
a ea
the Board finds that two
feet of ~n
cv
r
ac
c~npieced in accordance with Rule
305(e)
of ~-1
~
Reguiltions and that further cover-
ing
i
CLL~~e~
tmbe Board therefore
finds
t
Utior
f Rule 305(c)
and See—
tior
I
.
espect to the demolition waste,
Couit
IJ
go
v
ations of Rules
406 and 408 of
the
CtciL
PoJ
t or Regulations and of Rule 313
of the “ol d
?
e~
o
s and Section 21(b)
of the Act.
The
Acrl ~y
~
t
~c~chatewas found either in ponds
or dreir
c
A
~
etor
£ the La Moine River on
July ~l
3
3
October
1,
1973, November 6,
1973
lA~’~u’~
‘~e’~y0,
i97t~,July 18, 1974,
October
3,
19
5, June 9,
1975, August 21,
1975 and ~e t rl~r23
97
This was substantiated
by
witnesse~ t
t
?.
1cr ~ng
(R 11,14,16,19 25,35,40,52)
and
by
their report~
~ lx
1)
Actual samples of leachate
were tile
u
•
rher
14
1973.
Of the four
sample
r ‘~r
p
1 and 2, were in violation of
the eff1ier~
r
I
I~fcr ammonia nitrogen in Rule 406 of
Chapter
Watt-~~c £u~onRegulations.
All four samples
exceeded
i
f the effluent regulation,
Rule 40S~
C
ilt
Pilution Regulations.
Sample
number
‘~
‘ia”
r
c rec ly into the La Moine River
(R,17),
With certain a ~-irnptionsthese samples could,
as alleged,
be taker
to u
a~ion~of Rules 406 and 408 of the Water
pollutior
A’~j
rver, Ru e 104 of these regula-
tions cer~
t or of
‘eff1uent~ around “waste
water.”
Tro
I cc •o
indicate liquid wastes were
deposited
ct
ii
~e
therefore,
it
is questionable that
the standard
~or ~f
f
u~ntsshould be applied to these seep-
ages.
Ii
addil
r~
if
ile interpretation is that the
seepage
rs
ar
f~Luerit,the recorded flow rate and con-
centration (~P F
of
J
to
2 gal/mm. with a concentration
of
0
3
mg/i art
nrc N of the sample directly discharging into
the La Moine A
o ld ~a 1 to prove
a violation of Rule
406.
No
too
v
rr~e?as givea to permit an estimation of
ammonia ritr
e
c~
~eirg
the river by subsurface flow.
We
must dismr~
t
Jieged violation of Rule 406.
21
237
—4—
In its definition of effluent, Rule 104 specifically
mentions runoff from land used for disposition of sludge.
Since the Respondent did apply lime sludge it is possible
to find
a violation of Rule 408.
However,
in the absence
of clear proof that the seepage is derived from runoff from
the sludge and that the seepage
is in fact an effluent, we
also dismiss the alleged violation of Rule 408.
The Board
has no difficulty in finding a violation of Rule 313 of
the Solid Waste Regulations which provides:
No person shall cause or allow operation of a
sanitary landfill so as to cause or threaten or
allow the discharge of any contaminants into the
environment in any State
so as to cause or tend to
cause water pollution in Illinois, either alone
or in combination with matter from other sources,
or so as to violate regulations or standards adopted
by the Pollution Control Board under the Act.
The Board has previously stated that allegations of
violations of Section 21(b) must set forth a specific
regulation as violated.
This regulation must relate to
the manner or method in which the disposal site
is operated.
A violation of Rule 313 in this case is not so closely
related to the manner or method of operation as to con-
stitute a violation of Section 21(b)
of the Act as alleged
in Count III.
Therefore,
the allegation of violation of
Section 21(b)
of the Act in Count III
is dismissed.
In this case the main concern of the Agency and the
City of Macornb is that this problem be resolved.
Both
the Agency and the City of Macomb had qualified people,
Mr. William C.
Child and Mr. Raymond L.
Childs, respectively,
testify as to the nature of the problem and possible solutions.
For the most part these two witnesses agreed on the analysis
of the situation.
Mr. William Child of the Agency testified
that the refuse at this site sits on rather impermeable clay
and that water filtering through the cover and the refuse
would then run down the steep slope of the clay to the toe
of the landfill to the La Moine River bottom
(R.53).
He
suggested two courses of action to alleviate the situation.
First, it is necessary to stop the infiltration of water
falling on the surface of the landfill and secondly,
to make
a clay barrier or dike at the bottom of the landfill to hold
the water already in the landfill.
Also the clay should help
purify the leachate
(R.53,54).
Mr. Child on the assumption
the City could get dirt from other municipal projects
estimated that the work could be done for a maximum of
$50,000.
Mr. Raymond L.
Childs agreed with the Agency’s
suggestions
(R.l29) but noted that at this point in time
there
is
rio
sure way to control the leachate
(R.l27).
21
—
238
—5—
The City of Maccmb has already put considerable
time
and
money into correcting this situation.
In 1972 the City
paid $7,360 to Leroy Brown
and
Sons for moving dirt
and
bulldozing at the site in question (R.83).
In 1974 dirt
and
clay were hauled to put on the leachate eruptions
CR.83).
This project included three to four weeks of continuous
work involving hauling with
two
trucks.
The City
has
also
done other interim covering
(R.121).
Macomb is a city of
20,000 people.
It is without an industrial
tax
base.
The
City has a $220 million assessed valuation which is
tax
free in the form of Western Illinois University
(R.157).
The City is not a
home
rule
unit
(R.157)
and
the garbage
levy is about $100,000,
which
is about
two
mills, the
maximum by Illinois State Statute (R.91).
The City is
presently confronted with subsidizing the garbage levy
out
of
the
Corporate-General
account
CR. 97).
The
Board
agrees
that
the
important
issue
here
is
the
resolution
of
the
problem
leachate.
The
allegation
of
violation of Rule 202(b) (1) of the Solid Waste Regulations,
the allegation of violations of Rules 406 and 408 of
Chapter 3: Water Pollution Regulations
and
the allegation
of violation of Section 21(e) of the
Act
are
dismissed.
The
Board does
find the City of Macomb is in violation of
Rules
305(c) and 313 of the Solid Waste Regulations and Section
21(b) of the Act.
Because of the City’s efforts to alleviate
the
problem,
its cooperative response
to
the
Agency
suggestions,
and
the
relatively
small
size
of
the
city,
the
Board
finds
that
no
penalty
is
warranted.
However,
the
Board
does
require
that
the
City
of
Macomb
submit
a
plan
to
the
Agency
within
90
days
to
restore
the
site
in
accordance
with
Regulations.
The
Agency
shall
continue
to
monitor
the
site
periodically.
The
City
will
cause
corrective
measures
in
the
event
of
further
seepage
so
as
to
prevent
pollution.
Other
than
in
accordance
with
a
compliance
plan
the
City
shall
cease
from
dumping
any
refuse
on
the
site
and
use
its
best
efforts
to
prevent
others
from
so
doing.
This
constitutes
the
Board’s
findings
of
fact
and
conclusions
of
law.
ORDER
It
is
the
Order
of
the
Pollution Control Board that:
1.
The
alleged
violation
of
Rule
202(b)
(1)
of
the
Solid
Waste
Regulations
and
the
allegation
of
violation
of
Section
21(e)
of
the
Act
are
dismissed.
2.
The
alleged
violations
of
Rules
406
and
408
of
the
Chapter 3:
Water
Pollution
Regulations
are dismissed.
21—239
—6--
3.
The City of Macomb
is in violation of Rules
305(c)
and 313 of the Solid Waste Regulations and
Section
21(b)
of the Act.
4.
The City of Macomb shall cease and desist any
further use of the site in question except
in accordance
with regulations.
5.
The City of Maconib will submit to the Environ-
mental Protection Agency within ninety
(90) days of this
Order a plan acceptable to the Agency to restore the site
in accordance with Regulations.
The Agency shall continue
to monitor the site periodically.
The City will cause
corrective measures in the event of further seepage so as
to prevent pollution.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby certify the above Opnion and Order
were adopted on the
~
day of
__________,
1976 by a
vote of
~
C ristan
.
o
ett,
Illinois Pollution Co
1 Board
21
—240