ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

April 24, 1975

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

)

Complainant,

)

)

)

PCB 74~434

)

CITY OF MARSHALL,

)

)

Respondent.

)

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE~BOARD (by Mr. Zeitlin)

The Complaint in this matter was filed by the Attorney General for

the Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) on November 20, 1974. The

Complaint alleged in two counts that Respondent City of Marshall (Marshall),

had operated two solid waste management sites, (hereinafter Site #1 and

#2), without the operating permit from the Agency required under Rule

202(b) (1) of the Board’s Solid Waste Rules and Regulations, in violation

of that Rule and Section 21(e) of the Environmental Protection Act. Ill.

Rev. Stat. Ch. 111½, Sec. 1021(e); Ill. P.C.B. Regs., Ch, 7: Solid

Waste,

Rule 202(b) (1) became effective as against existing solid waste

management sites on July 27, 1974. The Complaint alleged as specific

dates for the operation of Site #1, August 9, 1974 and September 17,

1974; the violations were additionally alleged to I~vebeen of a continuing

nature. Count 2 alleged as specific dates for the operation of Site #2

withdut the requisite permit, September 2, 1974 and September 17, 1974;

continuing violation as to Site #2 were also alleged.

At a hearing held in the matter on January 17, 1975, the partids

entered a Stipulation of Fact and Settlement Proposal. The Cityof Mar~

shall in that Stipulation admitted to violations of Section 2l(~)and

Rule 202(b) (1) of the Solid Waste Rules and Regulations, in the manner

specified in the Complaint, The Board thus has no difficulty in findIng

a violation here.

The parties also noted that althpugh Site #1 continues to operate,

Site #2 ceased operation in the early part of December, 1974. Further,

Respondent Marshall has arranged ~for one Jesse A. Murphy to apply for a

permit from the Agency to develop and operate a separate and distinct solid

waste management site on land owned by Mr. Murphy,

16

—447

---

—2—

As conceived by Respondent Marshall, the proposed site would be operated

by Mr. Murphy and would serve as a site for the disposal of Respondents’

wastes, Once this new site has commenced operation, Respondent Marshall

plans to

close down Site #1.

After

an

initial rejection for lack of

adequate information, the Agency is currently evaluating a permit application

submitted with the requir~dfurther information on December 27, 1974.

By way of settlement, Respondent Marshall has agreed that if it, by

the time the Board has issued this Order, the proposed Murphy site has

not received the necessary permits from the Agency, Marshall will

discontinue all refuse disposal activities on Site #1 unless it shall

have applied for an operating permit within 30 days of this Order, and

obtained such a permit within 120 days of this Order. Alternatively, if

Mr. Murphy has been granted an operating permit, Respondent shall discontinue

all refuse disposal activities at its sites upon the issuance of such a

permit, Respondent Marshall has also agreed, that if its two Sites

are closed, it will apply a compacted layer of suitable cover material,

two feet in depth, over the entire surface of both sites within 90 days

of this Order.

The parties note in the Stipulation that the Agency may have been

negligent in failing to reply to a letter from Respondent requesting the

Agency’s opinion as to the suitability of another, unspecified alternate

site, That letter was sent by Respondent’s consulting engineer on March

18, 1974. Reference to this letter is apparently Intended by Respondent

Marshall to constitute a mitigating circumstance; the Agency’s failure to

answer such a letter clearly does not excuse Respondent’s failure to timely

apply for the proper permit, particularly in light of repeated warnings

from the Agency regarding the necessity of a permit, as evidenced by the

Stipulation.

Respondent Marshall has also agreed to pay a penalty of $1,000 for its

admitted violations. In light of this penalty, the Board finds the Stipula~-

tion and Proposed Settlement in this matter acceptable. The Settlement

is designed to, and will apparently accomplish, an elimination of Respondent’s

admitted violations, ~Respondent’sagreement to properly close and cover

the subject site will apparently serve to protect the environment from

damage which might be caused by Respondent’s prior violations in the

operation of a site without a permit,

This Opinion constitutes the finding 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 Marshall is found to have operated two solid

waste management sites in Clark County without the required operating

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 Board’s Rules and Regulations.

16—448

---

—3—

2. Respondent City of Marshall shall pay as a penalty for those

violations the amount of $1,000, payment to be made within 30 days of

the date of this Order, by certified check or money order payable to:

State of Illinois

Fiscal Services Division

Environmental Protection Agency

2200 Churchill Road

Springfield, Illinois 62706

3. Respondent City of Marshall shall comply wiXh all terms and

conditions contained in Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the Stipulation of Fact

and Settlement Proposalsubmitted by the parties to this matter.

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

Boardjiereby certify that the abo e Opinion & Order were adopted on the

I,~/”~

day of __________________________, 1975 by a vote of

‘I

to ~

~s~nL.Mofett,~~

Illinois Pollution C ol Board