ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
December 18,
1975
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
)
Complainant,
v.
)
PCB 74—485
CITY OF FULTON,
)
Respondent.
OPINION
AND ORDER
OF THE BOARD
(by Mr.
Zeitlin):
This matter comes before the Pollution Control Board
(Board)
as final settlement of a case originating in a Complaint filed by
the Attorney General for the Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency)
on December 20,
1974.
That Complaint alleged the operation of two
sanitary landfills by Respondent City of Fulton
(Fulton) without
the necessary operating permits from the Agency,
in violation of
the Board’s Solid Waste Regulations and the Environmental Protection
Act
(Act).
PCB Regs.,
Ch.
7: Solid Waste;
Ill. Rev.
Stat.,
Ch.
111—1/2,
§1001 et.
seq.
For clarity, a summary of the preceding events
is given at
the start of the Opinion:
1.
On December 20, 1974,
the original Complaint
in this matter was filed,
alleging violation of Rule
202(b) (1)
of our Solid Waste Regulations and §21(b)
of the Act, at twq solid waste management sites
described as being in:
a.
“Section 33, Township
22 North,
Range
3 East in Whiteside County, Illinois.”
b.
“Section 35, Township 22 North,
Range
5 East in Whiteside County,
Illinois.”
2.
A Petition for Variance was filed by the
City of Fulton on December 30,
1974, seeking permission
to continue operation of a solid waste management site
without the required Agency permit.
City of Fulton
v.
EPA,
PCB 74—490
(April 10, 1975).
The Board entered
an
Interim Order
in this case on January
3,
1975,
requiring
the submission of additional information by Fulton,
to
which Fulton responded in a letter filed January 20,
1975.
19
-
462
—2—
3.
On April
3,
1975,
the Attorney General filed
an Amended Complaint in the instant case, adding an
allegation of violation of §21(e) of the Act, and
changing the location of the purported sites in
violation:
a.
“Section 33, Township 22 North,
Range
3 in Whiteside County,
Illinois.”
b.
“Section 35, Township 22 North,
Range
3 in Whiteside County, Illinois.”
In all other respects, the two counts
in the Amended Complaint
were identical,
and the Amended Complaint was identical to the
original Complaint.
4.
On April 10, 1975,
this Board granted Fulton
a Variance in PCB 74—490,
granting permission to operate
a solid waste management site without the permit required
under Rule 202(b) (1)
and the Act.
The Variance period
under PCB 74—490 was December 30,
1974,
until October 20,
1975.
The Variance was granted,
in part,
due to default
by the Respondent Agency.
5.
On August 13, 1975,
a hearing was held in
the instant case; Respondent Fulton defaulted.
Additionally, the Attorney General showed that
Fulton had failed to respond to a properly served
Request for Admissions,
thus admitting essentially
all of the allegations in the Amended Complaint.
6.
On October 16,
1975, the Board entered
an Interim Order in this case,
finding Fulton in
violation of S21 (e) of the Act and Rule 202(b) (1),
but remanding the matter to the Hearing Officer
for further hearing so that the Board could fashion
a final remedy based on adequate facts, and a
situation other than default by one of the parties.
7.
Also on October 16,
1975,
the Board denied
a Motion by Fulton to extend the Variance granted on
April 10,
1975 in PCB 74—485.
8.
A further hearing was held in the instant
case on November 24,
1975,
at which all parties were
finally present;
sufficient testimony was taken, and
exhibits entered,
to allow the entry of this final
Opinion and Order.
19
-
463
—3—
The facts adduced at the November 24,
1975 hearing allow us
to find the following:
1.
Fulton did indeed have two solid waste
sites in Whiteside County.
One site
(#1) was located
near the southwest edge of the City, and the other
(#2) several miles southeast of the City.
2.
Excepting the earlier default by Fulton,
there is no indication that Site
#2 was operated
after July 27,
1974, after which date the permit
requirement became effective.
3.
Site #1 was operated without a permit
from July 27, 1974 until December 30, 1974,
after
which time the Variance granted in PCB 74-490
became effective.
That site was closed following
the expiration of the Variance on October
20, 1975.
The Record does not indicate whether Site
#1 was
closed in accordance with our Rules, but the Record
does show that Fulton now disposes of its rubbish
at another, ur~relatedsite some miles away.
4.
Site #1 was operated in general conformity
with this Board’s Rules and Regulations, excepting
the permit requirement.
There is no indication of
environmental damage resulting from the unpermitted
operation of Site #1.
An additional finding, from PCB 74—490
(the Variance case),
remains unchallenged:
5.
Fulton applied for a permit for one of its
sites
(the record is unclear as
to which site)
in
June,
1973, at a cost in excess of $2,500.
The fate
of that permit application is unclear.
Turning to the factors in
§33(c)
of the Act,
(and keeping
in mind Fulton’s defaults), we conclude that our findings of
violation in the October 16,
1975 Interim Order remain valid.
Now,
in addition to that default and the admissions by virtue
of the Attorney General’s Request for Admissions,
Fulton has
explicitly admitted violation as regards Site #1,
(R.30).
While the direct injury to persons or the environment may not
be great here,
and the sites may have had considerable social
and economic value,
such value is considerably lessened by
operation in contravention of the permit requirement, which
is designed expressly to protect persons and the environment.
Without the permit process,
the state is unable to judge site
suitability,
and prevent the use of unsuitable sites.
It is
both technically practicable and economically reasonable to
obtain the required permit, unless the site is not suitable
for use as a sanitary landfill.
19
-
464
—4—
Keeping in mind those same
§33(c) factors,
we feel that
a
penalty is mandated here,
for the protection of the permit system,
which is itself designed to help in achieving the goals of the
Act.
There is some evidence that the City of Fulton’s attorney
was unclear as to the nature of the enforcement action, thinking
that it was somehow connected to
a clerical error in connection
with the Variance case,
PCB 74-490.
This cannot totally excuse
Fulton’s default,
in either this case or its original obligation
to obtain the required permits.
A penalty of $250 will be adequate.
We shall order that Fulton properly close both sites, unless
the proper permit is obtained for one or both of them.
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 Fulton is found on default
to have operated two
solid
waste management sites in
Whiteside County without the proper operating permits
from the Environmental Protection Agency, in violation
of §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, within 30 days of the date
of this Order, pay as a penalty for said violations the
sum of
Two
Hundred Fifty Dollars
($250.00), payment to
be made by certified check or money order to:
Environmental Protection Agency
Control Program Coordinator
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois
62706
3.
Respondent shall cease and desist all operations
at the subject solid waste management sites, and shall
properly close said sites in conformity with the applicable
rules of Chapter
7: Solid Waste,
of the Pollution Control
Board Rules and Regulations, by March 15,
1976,
unless and
until all proper operating permits have been applied for
and received from the Environmental Protection Agency.
19-465
5.
4.
That portion of the Amended Complaint herein
alleging violation of
S2l(b) of the Environmental
Protection Act
is dismissed.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby
rtify the
bove Final Opinion and Order
were adopted on the
J
day of
__________
1975 by a vote of
______
CFxristan L.
o fetf4~lerk
Illinois Pollution ~~trol
Board
19-
466