ILLINOIS POLLUTION

CONTROL BOARD

July 25, 1972

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

)

I

v.

I

PCB 72—100

CITY OF NASHVILLE

Thomas

J

•

Immel for the Environmental Protection Agency

Clarence

Defloss for the City of Nashville

Opinion and Order of the Board (by Mr. Aldrich):

The Environmental Protection Agency filed a complaint March 14, 1972,

against the City of Nashville, Washington County, Illinois, for

improper operation of a sanitary landfill. The complaint alleged

that Respondent was guilty of several violations of the Environ-

mental Protection Act or of Rules and Regulations for Refuse

Disposal Sites and Facilities: 1) causing or allowing open burning

on 12 dates between July 13, 1970 and January 28, 1972 Sec. 9(c)

of the Act and Rules 3.05 and. 5.12(d); 2) threatening or allowing

discharges so as to cause water pollution on 4 dates from April 28,

1971 to January 28,1972 (Sec. 12(a) of the Act; 3) depositing

refuse in standing water on 4 dates from April 28, 1971 to

January 28, 1972, (Rule 5.12(c); 4) failing to properly cover

refuse on 5 dates from July 8, 1971, to January 28, 1972 (Rule 5.07

(a); and 5) open dumping of garbage and refuse on 6 dates from

April 28, 1971, to January 28, 1972 (Sec. 21(a) and (b) of the

Act and Rule 3.04.

On July 3, 1972, the Parties submitted a STIPULATION and suggested

conditions for a settlement in lieu of a public hearing. The

Agency agreed to withdraw the allegation of threatening to cause

water pollution by the discharge of contaminants, iteut 2 in the

above paragraph. The City agreed that allegations 1, 3, 4, and 5

in the above paragraph were true and uncontested. Respondent is

considering alternative means of disposal and agrees to report

the results of its deliberations within 120 days. In the mean-

time, Respondent agrees to abide by a cease and desist order. The

City is agreeable to posting a performance bond. The Parties

leave the question of penalty to the discretion of the Board.

5—49

---

This Board is on record as favoring a reduction in time and expense

of litigation whenever it is possible to arrive at an equitable

settlement which serves the purpose of the Environmental Protection

Act without a hearing. (See EPA v. Charles R. Rhodes, PCB 7l~-53,

September 16, 1971; EPA v. Custom Farm Services, Inc. PCB 71-312,

September 21, 1971; EPA v. Solid Waste Disposal Company, PCB 71-236,

February 3, 1972; and EPA v. Russell, Burdsall

&

Ward Bolt and

Nut Co. PCB 71—369, June 27, 1972).

This is another case in which the proposed settlement, if accepted,

offers no opportunity for public comment. The Parties state

in the STIPULATION that neither, has been contacted by the public

expressing an interest in a public hearing. We do not know whether

this is because of unconcern or because the citizens are unaware

of the proposed settlement. The Board will soon propose a change

in its Rules wh:Lch will establish a procedure more in keeping with

the intent of the Act which was to assure an opportunity for

public comment in the hearings. The instant case is relatively

minor in terms of environmental impact or potential nuisance. The

proposed terms are reasonable and. will be effective. We shall

accept them and assess an appropriate menalty for past violations.

ORDER

1. The City of Nashville shall diligently pursue an alternative

means for disposal of its refuse ar~dreport progress to that

end to the Board ho later than’ November 25, 1972.

2. The City of Nashville shall cease and desist from violations

of the Act and Rules and Regulations for Refuse Disposal

Sites and Facilities.

3. The City of Nashville shall post a $1000 ~orformance bond with

the Environmental Protection Agency to be forfeited in case

the City fails to adhere to any of the conditions of this Order.

4. The City of Nashville shall pay a penalty of $250 to the State

of Illinois and send same to the Environmental Protection

Agency, Fiscal Services Division, 2200 Churchill Road, Spring-

field, Illinois 62701

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

~ereby certify that the above Opinion and Order was adopted this

_____

of July, 1972, by a vote of _____to C

~

~

5

—

50