LYiIOISPI 10 CNI

1.  7.,

C

I

0

1~

‘3

It

3 1’

a

1’

C’

I ~

1.    te

y41 scattg atao 

ad

C  -t so 

aste manage~e 

• °

L 10

lear Thntherecor 

t°

R’hval~.dxd

‘6

—2—

apply for an operating permit, it is a fact that no application

was filed until well after July 27, 1974, after which date a

permit was required under Rule 202 (b) (1). The Agency did

stipulate (R.56), that Rushville has formally applied for a

permit. Action on the permit could not have been taken by

Rushville without a “hydrogeologic survey”, which was not

received by Rushville from the Agency until approximately

February, 1975 ~L39,82). (That hydrogeologic survey will

also be discussed in the Board’s consideration of matters

offered in mitigation.) The attorney for Rushville, in

closing argument, stated that, “In essence, the position of

the city is that, true, they have been dilatory in not

obtaining the permit.” (R.79).

Despite the latter admission regarding Rushville’s

permit application, the testimony offered in mitigation

shows that Rushville was not entirely inactive after it

first learned of the permit requirement. Mr. Tomlinson, a

Rushville Alderman, and Chairman of the City Dump Committee,

stated that he first went to Springfield to pick up a permit

application in 1973 (R.l5). Unable to fill out the application

personally, he took it to the City’s Attorney, who stated

that an engineer would be needed to prepare the application

(R.49)

After first determining that Rushville could not afford

a consulting engineer to work on the matter, Mr. Tomlinson

attempted to obtain assistance from the Schuyler County

engineer (R.16,35). He also attempted to obtain state aid

in the form of a grant, to finance the preparation of a

permit application (R.l7). Further, in continued effort to

obtain grant funding, he participated in the creation of the

Two Rivers Regional Agency, which lists as among its major

purposes, the establishment of a viable area—wide solid

waste disposal plan (R.2l,23,30).

Other testimony, uncontroverted, indicates that Rushville’s

dump is the only one operated “with any semblance of authority”

in Schuyler County (R.54). Refuse is apparently accepted

from Rushville, Schuyler County, the State of Illinois, and

other adjoining counties; other nearby cities and commercial

operations also use the Rushville city dump (eg. R.l9,55).

Several witnesses (eg. R.24,55), testified to the

effect that Rushville has made a good faith effort to comply

with Agency rules and regulations, as well as those promulgated

by the Board. The city has attempted to comply with all

suggestions offered in conjunction with Agency visits, and

has expended considerable funds in attempts to remain in

compliance with the substantive Rules and Regulations for

landfill sites.

—

137

—3--

Other testimony also indicated that there is not a

great likelihood of environmental damage resulting from the

operation of the admittedly unpermitted site operated by

Rushville. The ground being used in the land fill operation

is old strip mined property, which has been turned over to a

depth of 40 feet. In this area of sharp ridges and artificial

depressions, Rushville is burying its garbage at a maximum

depth of 15 feet (R.20). This factor, taken in conjunction

with the good faith evidenced by Rushville’s other testimony,

would argue against the imposition of a penalty.

That view is strengthened by the fact that the Agency

apparently failed to forward to Rushville a hydrogeologic

survey requested by Rushville in about September, 1974. In

closing argument, the Agency notesthat the information in

that survey was received by the Agency in about November,

1974, and was not then forwarded to Respondent until approximately

February, 1975. Because of this, the Agency feels that a

penalty would be inappropriate if applied to any period

after November, 1974.

Taking into account these facts, as well as the con-

siderations in Section 33c of the Act, the Board feels that

a penalty is appropriate in this matter. The bulk of the

evidence offered by Rushville in mitigation is premised on

Rushville’s inability to pay for a permit application out of

its own funds. While the record does support Rushvill&s

contention that it has a small population, Rushville1s

inability to pay for a consulting engineer has not been

shown by the evidence (eg. 21,65). Rushville merely states

that the expenditure required would be larger than those

normally approved by so small a city, and that the city does

not wish to add an extra burden to its citizens (R.66).

The Board ha~in the past emphasized the necessity of a

viable permit system with regard to solid waste management

sites, stating that such a system is necessary to protect

the environment, including waters of the state which may be

contaminated by improperly run landfill sites. In the

Matter of: Chapter 7: Solid Waste Rules and Regulations,

R72—5, 8 PCB 695, 697, 699 (1973)

weighing both the factors offered in mitigation and the

value of the permit system, we feel that a penalty in the

amount of $100 will serve to both reaffirm our resolve as

regards the permit system and recognize the problems encountered

by Respondent.

—

138

—4—

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and

conclusions of law of the Board in this matter.

ORDER

IT IS TUE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that:

1. Respondent City of Rushville is found to have

operated a solid waste management site in Schuyler County,

Illinois, in violation of the operating permit requirement

of Section 21(e) of the Environmental Protection Act and

Rule 202(b) (1) of Chapter 7: Solid Waste of the Board’s

Rules and Regulations, during the period July 27, 1974, to

January 29, 1975.

2.  For the above described violation, Respondent City

of Rushville shall pay as a penalty the amount of $100,

payment to be made by certified check or money order to:

State of Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency

Fiscal Services Division

2200 Churchill Road

Springfield, Illinois 62706

3.  Respondent City of Rushville shall, unless an

operating permit for the subject solid waste management site

has been issued by the Environmental Protection Agency

within 120 days of the date of this Order, cease and desist

all operations of the subject solid waste management site in

violation of the Environmental Protection Act and this

Board’s Rules and Regulations, and shall properly close and

cover such site in conformance with this Board’s Rules and

Regulations.

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order

were1 adopted on the /71’I day of July, 1975 by a vote of

5-0

Christan L. Moffett,,~rk

Illinois Pollution C~ntrol Board

—

139