ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

February 11,

1976

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

Complainant,

V.

)

PCB 75—156

CITY OF PEKIN,

Respondent.

OPINION AND

ORDER

OF THE BOARD

(by Mr.

Zeitlin):

This matter is before the Board on an Enforcement Complaint

filed April

14,

1975 by the Environmental Protection Agency

(Agency),

alleging that Respondent City of Pekin

(Pekin)

had operated

a solid

waste management site in Tazewell County,

Illinois from July 27,

1974

until April

14,

1975 without the required operating permit from the

Agency,

in violation of Section 21(e) of the Environmental Protection

Act

(Act)

and Rule 202(b) (1)

of Ch.

7: Solid Waste

of the Pollution

Control Board Rules and Regulations.

A hearing was held in the matter

in Pekin,

Illinois on November

21,

1975.

At that hearing the Attorney General submitted as an exhibit an

unanswered Request for Admissions, going directly to the allegations

contained in the Complaint

(Coinpl.

Ex.

1).

The parties also submitted

a Stipulation of Fact to which were attached various stipulated exhibits

(Joint Ex.

1).

The City of Pekin,

cornniencing in 1965, operated a solid waste

management site on approximately

25 acres of leased property located

1-1/2 miles south of Pekin,

in an unincorporated rural area.

During

its last year of operation, utilizing approximately

8 acres

of the

entire

site,

the site received approxima~e1y29,491 tons of household

waste,

2,158 tons of industrial waste, and 3,416 tons of miscellaneous

waste,

for

a total of 34,065 tons of waste.

Between 1973 and 1975,

the Agency sent Pekin ~1 letters

containing notification of the need for an operating permit at Pekin’s

solid waste management site

(Stip.

Ex. A—K).

On April 24,

1974,

Pekin

filed an application for permit with the Agency, which was denied on

May

9,

1974

(Stip.

Ex.

L).

On April

2,

1975, Pekin again filed

a permit

application with the Agency;

that application was denied by letter on

April

25,

1975

(Stip.

Ex. M).

20—9

---

—2—

On June

2,

1975,

the City of Pekin commenced a comprehensive

study of its solid waste collection ~nd disposal operations.

As

a

result of that study,

Pekin ceased dumping any material at the site

in question as of November 12,

1975.

Although the site had not been

completely closed as of the date of hearing,

(R.10),

it was expected

that all operations on the site,

including dumping by others, would

be eliminated within two to four weeks

(R,86).

klthough not stipulated to, the principal issue of fact in this

case

—-

the lack of an operating permit

——

was never

an issue at the

hearing

in this matter.

The unanswered Request for Admissions,

submitted at the hearing without objection

(R.5),

is conclusive as to

the fact that Pekin operated its solid waste management site during

the period

in question,

and that it did so without the required permit.

Nor does the Board have any problem finding a violation based on

that fact.

Balancing the social and economic value of this unpermitted

solid waste management site,

and the potential for injury to the

environment and public health,

in light of the technical practicability

and economic reasonableness of ceasing such unpermitted operation as

demonstrated by Pekin’s transfer of its operations to another site, we

have no difficulty

in finding such a violation.

The only real issue present under Section 33(c)

of the Act, which

we must examine in finding such a violation,

is the suitability or

unsuitability of this location for use as a solid waste management

site.

Although the City of Pekin did, on cross examination, question

the Agency’s determination as to the site’s unsuitability

(R.71),

Pekin

also stipulated to admission of the Agency’s rejection letter regarding

the April

2,

1975 permit application.

The Agency there denied Pekin’s

application based on a June

18,

1974 preliminary hydrologic evaluation

by the Illinois Geological Survey, showing that Pekin’s site

is located

in an area where gravel constitutes the underlying soil to a depth of

75 feet,

at which point bed rock be9an.

In any event, because the site

is no longer in operation, it~present suitability for use as

a solid

waste management site is no longer a significant issue.

The only remaining question is that of the proper remedy in this

situation.

At hearing,

the Attorney General closed with a request

that a significant monetary penalty be assessed, and amended the

prayer for relief in the Complaint to ask that the Board require that

Pekin’s site be finally closed, and covered,

in compliance with

a

closure plan approved by the Agency.

In light of Pekin’s cessation

of operations on the site after the Complaint was filed, and testimony

presented at hearing by Pekin, that.axnendment was proper under our

Procedural Rules.

20—10

---

—3—

The City of Pekin concentrated its case on the need for and

expense of covering its site

in conformity with Board regulations.

To that end,

it brought three witnesses:

the Mayor, the City

Engineer, and the Corporation Counsel.

Pekin attempted to show that

to cover the

site with two feet of suitable material,

as required

under our regulations, and so as to optimize surface drainage and

prevent surface water infiltration with consequence of leachate

pollution of

the water table or the Illinois River, would require

approximately 132,000 cubic yards of fill, to be brought a distance

of five or ten miles,

at a completed cost of approximately $6 per

cubic yard

(e.g.,

R.19).

The Mayor of Pekin testified that the total

cost of such cover on the site, amounting to $792,000, when compared

to Pekin’s total

1974 tax

levy of $2,800,000, would present the city

with an impossible burden

(R.31).

The Mayor feared that either city

services would have to be cut,

or the city’s present tax rate of $1.94

per $100 assessed valuation

(presently totaling $147 million), would

require a

50 cent increase

(R.32).

The City’s position

in this regard was without foundation.

Cross

examination by the Attorney General showed that the City was unclear

as to whether the entire site would need two feet of cover, or as to

whether prior applications of daily or intermediate cover would apply

as against the final cover requirements

(e.g., R.26).

And, although

Pekin did question the source of the Agency’s judgement,

it

is clear

that there is

a real danger of leachate pollution from this site.

we shall require that Pekin properly close and cover this site.

The stipulated exhibits indicate that Pekin has known of the cover

requirement for some years

(Stip.

Ex.

A—K).

Respondent stated that

they had been covering the site since 1965,

but that the cover was not

that

which

would be permitted under our Rules

(R.40).

Nor,

as the

City claims, was the enactment of our regulations

in 1973

a serious

additional

requirement in the area of site cover.

In the areas of

both subsurface soil composition and cover requirements, the Old Rules

of the Department of Health contained requirements substantially similar

to those of this Board.

Illinois Department of Public Health, Division

of Sanitary Engineering, Rules and Regulations for Refuse Disposal Sites

and Facilities, April,

1966,

Rules

4.02,

5.07.

Pekin seemcd ~o assume at the hearing that its entire site would

need two feet of cover, and that significant areas would need additional

fill.

The Attorney General showed that this was not necessarily true.

We trust that in presenting a closing plan to the Agency, Pekin will

minimize its own costs, with maximum effectiveness in protecting the

environment.

Because the site in question has been closed, and this Order

provides no shield from future enforcement regarding pollution which

may result from this site, we will impose no penalty in this matter.

20—11

---

—4—

Apparently

as

a

result

of

this

enforcement

case,

Pekin

has

ceased

using

its

unpermitted

site,

and

has

commenced

using

another

private

site at

an

increase

in

cost,

and

presumably

in

conformity

with

the

Board’s Regulations.

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions

of

law

of

the

Board

in

this

matter.

ORDER

IT

IS

THE

ORDER

OF

THE

POLLUTION

CONTROL BOARD

that:

1.

Respondent

City

of

Pekin

is

found

to

have

operated

a

solid

waste

management

site

in Tazewell County without the required permits

from

the

Environmental

Protection

Agency,

in

violation

of

Section

21(e)

of

the

Environmental

Protection

Act

and

Rule

202(b)

(1)

of

Chapter

7:

Solid Waste

of’ the Pollution Control Board Rules and Regulations.

2.

Respondent

shall

cease

and

desist

all

solid

waste

disposal

activities on said site,

and shall close said site in conformity with

the Rules and Regulations of this

Board, pursuant to a plan of closure

prepared by Respondent and acceptable to the Environmental Protection

Agency.

Such plans shall be submitted to the Environmental Protection

Agency within thirty

(30) days of the date of this Order.

3.

Respondent shall,

if determined by the Agency, provide and

maintain leachate monitoring sites;

and shall report the results of

such monitoring

to the Agency on

a quarterly calendar basis.

I, Christan

L.

Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, he~ebycertif

t e above Opinion and Order we e

adopted on the

~1”

day of

,

1976 by a vote of

._p

C ristan

L. No

ett,

k

Illinois Pollution C

ol Board

20—12