ILLIN~I5POlLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
August
1,
1972
ENYIROISMEflAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY,
)
)
Complainant,
)
v.
)
P~B
72—57
)
CITY
OP
CAIRO,
a Municipality,
)
CAIRO
DRAINAGE
DISTRICT
and
)
DON
JONES,
)
Respondents
)
Delbert
Haschemeyer,
Assistant
Attorney
General
for
the
EPA
George
J.
Kiriakos,
for
the
City
of
Cairo
OPINION
AND
CRDRR
OP THE
BOARD
(by
Mr.
Henss)
The
Environmental
Protection
Agency
filed
its
complaint
against
the
City
of
Cairo,
the
Cairo
Ik’ainage
District
and
Don
Jones,
alleging
that
they
had
committed
numerous violations
of
the
Environ-
mental
Protection
Act
and
the
Rules
and Regulations
for
refuse
disposal
sites and facilities.
The violations were alleged to have
occurred
at
a
landfill
located
by
the
Mississippi
River
levee
immedi-
ately
west of the city.
On the date of the hearing, the Environmental Protection Agency
asked
leave
to
dismiss
Respondents
Cairo
frainage
District
and
Don
Jones,
and
file
an
amended
complaint,
alleging
that
the
violations
were
committed
by
the
City
of
Cairo.
The
stipulated
facts
do
not
show
violations
by
Cairo
~ainage
District
and
Don
Jones.
Complainant ‘s
Motion for
Leave
to
File
an
Amended
Complaint
is
allowed
and
Respondents
Cairo
Damage
District
and
Don
Jones
are
dismissed
from
the
case.
The
stipulated
facts
show
that
the
City
of
Cairo
operated
a land-
fill
on
both
sides
of
the
Mississippi
River
levee
near
the
city
limits.
The
dump
on the
river
side
of
the
levee
was
subject
to
flooding,
and
contaminants
were
deposited
on
thfrs
side
of
the
levee
so
as
to
pollute
the
water
•
Some
refuse
was
deposited
in
standing
waters.
The
violations
on
both
sides
of
the
levee
also
included:
open
dumping
and
burning
of
refuse,
open
dumping
of
garbage,
failure
to
spread
and
com-
pact
refuse,
failure
to
cover
refuse
and
garbage,
failure
to
confine
dumping
to
the
smallest
practical
area,
failure
to
provide
fencing,
on-site
shelter
and
adequate
roads,
failure
to
supervise
or
limit
access
to
the
dunning
site, and failure to prevent scavenging.
The
landfill was opetkted by the City of Cairo without a permit or registra—
tion.
5—73
-2
In March,
1971 the dump was described as the worst in the
region, and in August of 1971 smoke from the burning of refuse
could
be
seen for several miles.
Photographs and inspection
reports reveal that the respondent made no progress toward com-
pliance with the law during 1970 and 1971 and that the violations
during this time were flagrant,
In May,
1971
a newly elected City Council took office.
The
current Mayor of Cairo,
James Walder,
took office November
19,
1971
and since that date the city administration has cooperated with the
Environmental Protection Agency in solving the landfill problem.
Under the new administration~the city has closed and prevented
further
dumping at the landfill site, has cleaned
up
and leveled
the landfill in accordance with regulations,
has applied final cover
to part
of
the
river
side
landfill
and
plans
to
complete
the
app1ica~
tion of
final cover to both the river side and inside areas as soon
as weather permits.
Photographs taken in January and February,
1972
show improvement in the appearance
of the landfill.
Photographs
taken in April, 1972 show clean expanses of grass and cover where
previously had existed smoking piles of rubbish and garbage.
In addition,
the City of Cairo has now obtained a permit,
has
established an approved landfill at a new location, and has contracted
for the collection of garbage and refuse and its disposal at the new
landfill,
in compliance with the law,
The budget for refuse collection
has increased from $16,000 per year to $107,500 per year,
The EPA and City of Cairo have entered
into a settlement agreement
which would require the city to cease and desist violations, pay a
nominal penalty of $100.00,
apply final cover to the landfill as soon
as weather permits and submit monthly reports detailing
its progress
in the application of final cover,
We approve the settlement.
We have noted that violations
in 1970 and 1971 were flagrant,
but
the new city administration has been vigorous
in eliminating those
violations.
The imposition of penalties against
a municipality
is a
sometimes vexing problem in that the financial burden falls,
not upon
the responsible city officials,
but upon members of the community who,
in many cases, were among the victims of the pollution.
Here the
community has taken the steps necessary to install an administration
which would assist
in cleaning up the environment, and excellent pro-
gress has,
in fact,
been made.
The budget for refuse collection has
increased substantially.
The purpose of the Environmental Protection
Act would not be served by setting aside
a mutually agreed settlement
and requiring a larger penalty
in this case.
See: EPA
v.
City of
East St. Louis, 71—26; City of Springfield
v.
EPA,
70—55,
5— 74
‘-3-
OR
DER
It
is hereby ordered:
(1)
That Respondent, City of Cairo, cease and desist the
aforesaid violations,
(2)
That Respondent, City of Cairo, pay to the State of
Illinois (Environmental Protection Agency Fiscal Services Division)
a penalty of $100.00.
(3)
That Respondent complete the closing of the complained of
site by applying final cover
in accordance with all applicable Rules
and Regulations as soon as weather permits.
(4)
That Respondent submit written reports
on a monthly basis,
detailing the progress in applying final cover,
or lack of progress,
and the reasons therefor,
until such time as final cover has been
applied.
I, Christan L. Moffett,
Clerk
of the
Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order was adopted on
the /4~ day of August,
1972 by a vote of
J~
0
Illinois Pollution
5
—
75