ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    May 31,
    1973
    )
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    )
    )
    )
    v.
    )
    PCB
    72-510
    )
    )
    CITY OF MARION
    )
    )
    OPINION AND OR1)ER OF THE
    BOARD
    (by Mr. Dumelle)
    This
    is an enforcement
    case involving alleged violations
    at the
    City
    of Marion Landfill.
    Hearings were held on March
    15
    and 16,
    1973.
    The evidence proves
    that the City has no Agency permit to
    operate the landfill.
    Mere registration of a landfill with the
    Department of Public Health does not excuse the need for an Agency
    permit.
    We
    find such failure to have
    a permit
    to be
    a violation of
    Section 21(e)
    of the Act.
    The Agency inspectors testified to numerous fires
    at the
    site.
    We find the City to be
    in violation of Section 9(c) of the
    Act and Rule 3.05 of the Rules and Regulations
    for Refuse Disposal
    Sites by allowing open burning on October 16,
    1970, January
    4,
    April
    26, April
    27, April
    28, May
    3, July 21, August
    14, August
    20,
    August
    25, October 16, October 20,
    and December
    21,
    1971, January 14,
    January
    31, February
    1,
    February
    2 and December 20~1972.
    Even
    though there
    is no direct testimony that any of the City’s employees
    actually lit the fires, we nevertheless hold the City responsible
    for allowing it
    to occur on their property so many times without
    taking better measures
    to prevent its recurrence.
    The inspectors testified
    to many dates upon which the unloading
    of refuse was not supervised, where portable fences were not used
    to prevent blowing litter,
    and where
    the fill and surrounding area
    were not policed properly to collect all scattered material.
    We
    find that the City was in violation of Rule 5.04 of the above Rules
    on October 16,
    1970, January
    4, April
    26, April
    27, April
    28, May
    3,
    June 14, August
    20, August
    25, August
    26, September 23, October 19,
    October 20, and December
    21,
    1971, January 14, January 31,
    February 2,
    April
    28, May 9, May 10, June 12, October 19 and December 20,
    1972.
    The inspectors testified to numerous dates upon which the refuse
    was not spread or compacted.
    We find that the City was
    in violation
    of Rule 5.06 on October 16, 1970, January
    4, April
    26, April
    27,
    April
    28, May 3, June 14, July
    8, July 21, August
    25, August
    26,
    September 23, October 19, October
    20 and December 21,
    1971, January 14,
    January 31, February 2, April
    28, May 9, May 10, June 12, August
    23,
    October 19, October 20, and December 20,
    1972.
    B
    —
    139
    -2-
    fhe inspectors also testified to dates upon which no daily cover
    was applied.
    We find that the City was in violation of Rule 5.07
    (a)
    on October 16,
    1970, January
    4, April
    26, April
    27, April
    28, May 3,
    June
    14, July
    8, August
    20, August
    25, August
    26,
    September 23,
    October
    19, October
    20
    and December
    21, 1971, January 14, January 31,
    February 1, February
    2,
    May
    9, May
    10, June
    12, August
    23, October 19,
    October
    20 and December
    20,
    1972.
    The complaint also alleges violations of Rule 5.12(d) which
    requires burning to take place only
    in an approved incinerator.
    We
    find it unnecessary to make findings
    as
    to this allegation because we
    have covered the fires here under the open burning provisions.
    There are also allegations of open dumping of garbage and
    refuse under Sections 21(a)
    and
    21(b)
    of the Act respectively and
    Rule 3.04 of the Rules.
    Section 3(h) of tbe~Actdefines
    open dumping
    as “the consolidation of refuse from one
    or more sources
    at
    a central
    disposal site that does not meet the requirements of
    a sanitary land-
    fill.”
    Section 3(L) of the Act provides that
    in order for a site
    to be
    a sanitary landfill
    the refuse must,
    among other
    things, be
    properly covered.
    Consequently, wherever we would find
    a violation
    for failure
    to cover we would also be able to find
    a violation for
    open dumping.
    We will not, however,
    find two separate violations
    for
    the
    same conduct.
    Since we have already found the violations
    for failure
    to cover we will not find violations for open dumping
    also.
    We assess
    a penalty of
    $500
    for the violations
    found in this
    opinion.
    We also expect
    that if the City wants to continue using
    the landfill that they receive
    a permit from the Agency to do
    so.
    This opinion constitutes
    the Board’s findings of fact and
    conclusions of law.
    ORDER
    1.
    The City of Marion shall
    cease and desist from all violations
    found in this opinion
    2.
    Within
    120
    days the City of Marion shall obtain
    a permit for
    its
    sanitary landfill but may operate until
    that time.
    3.
    The
    City shall pay to the State of Illinois by June
    30, 1973
    the sum of
    $500 as
    a penalty for the violations found in this
    proceeding.
    Penalty payment by certified check or money
    order payable
    to the State of Illinois shall be made
    to:
    Fiscal Services Division,
    Illinois Environmental Protection
    Agency,
    2200
    Churchill Drive,
    Springfield,
    Illinois
    62706.
    I,
    Christan L. Moffett,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board,
    hereby certify the
    above Opinion and Order were adopted on the
    ~
    day of
    May,
    1973 by a vote of ______________________
    CJiristan L. Moffett,
    1(fl4er
    Illinois Pollution Cd~ro1 Board
    8
    —
    140

    Back to top