ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

May

20,

1976

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

Complainant,

v.

)

PCB 76—18

CITY OF PERU,

a municipal

)

corporation,

Respondent.

Mr. Marvin Medintz and Miss Susan

H.

Shumway, Assistant

Attorneys General, appeared on behalf of the Complainant.

Mr. Charles Helmig appeared on behalf of the Respondent.

OPINION

AND

ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Dr.

Satchell):

This case was brought before the Board upon a complaint

filed January 21,

1976 by the Environmental Protection Agency

(Agency)

alleging that the City of Peru owns and operates a

refuse disposal site located in Sections 20 and 21 of Town-

ship 33 North,

Range

1 East in La Salle County,

Illinois.

Count

I alleges that on January 21,

1975, February 26,

1975,

May 2,

1975, July

22,

1975, August 28,

1975, December

5,

1975,

December 11, 1975 and December 12,

1975 Respondent failed to

place

a compacted layer of at least six inches of suitable

material on all the exposed refuse at the site in violation

of Rule 305(a)

of the Solid Waste Regulations

(hereinafter

Regulations)

and Section 21(b)

of the Environmental Protection

Act.

Count II alleges that the refuse site

is on the flood

plain of the Illinois River and that on January

31,

1975, Decem-

ber 5,

1975, December

11,

1975 and December

12,

1975 Respondent

caused or allowed refuse to be dumped in standing water on the

site in violation of Rule 313 of the Regulations and Section

21(b)

of the Act.

Count III alleges Respondent failed to

collect all litter from the site by the end of the working

day on February 26,

1975, December 5,

1975, December 11, 1975

and December 12,

1975

in violation of Rule 306 of the Regu-

lations

and

Section 21(b)

of the Act.

Count IV alleges that

Respondent on December 5,

1975 caused or allowed paint wastes

to be dumped on the site without

a permit issued by the Agency

in violation of Rule 310(b)

of the Regulations and Section

21(b)

of the Act.

21 —451

---

—2--

A hearing was held on this matter on March

12, 1976.

At that time a stipulated agreement was presented with

a

written statement to .be submitted later.

At this hearing

the Respondent had testimony from two witnesses presented

in mitigation.

The witnesses were Marvin Ecklund,

city

employee in charge of the site and Donald Baker, Mayor of

Peru.

The stipulated agreement is

as follows.

Respondent

owns and operates the refuse disposal site

in question.

Respondent admits that December 11,

1975 Respondent failed

to place a compacted layer of at least six inches of

suitable material on all exposed refuse of the landfill at

the end of the day of operation in violation of Rule 305(a)

of the Regulations and in violation of Section 21(b)

of the

Act.

Respondent further admits that on December 5,

1975

Respondent caused or allowed paint wastes to be dumped on

the site without a permit issued by the Agency,

in violation

of Rule 310(b)

of the Regulations and of Section 21(b)

of the

Act.

The parties then stipulated to particular aspects of

Exhibits

1 through

7 concerning accuracy and validity.

Respondent agreed to a cease and desist order from further

violations and to pay a penalty of $750 within thirty-five

days.

Mr. Ecklund,

an employee who is

in charge of the

disposal site, testified to the fact that the deposit of

paint found on the site on December 5, 1975 was not brought

in with any knowledge on the part of the City

(R.l2,13).

Sometimes the trucks are checked at the gate for what they

contain but not all the trucks

(R.14,20).

Mr. Ecklund also

stated that normally daily cover is applied at the end of

the day

(R.15).

There was no cover applied December 11,

1975 because Respondent’s end loader motor “had knocked a

rod out” and had to be sent to the plant to be repaired

(R.l6).

Mr. Ecklund attempted to cover using the compactor

but the results were inadequate

(R.l6).

The City has only

one end loader and Mr. Ecklund knew of no others

in the area

(R.17).

Mr. Ecklund stated that purchasing a

new

end loader

would cost approximately $50,000

(R.lB).

Mr. Baker, the mayor, testified to the fact that he had

discussed the stipulation with several members of the City

Council and that they would approve the settlement

(R.22,24).

It was approved on April

12,

1976.

21 —452

---

—3—

In summation it was pointed out that the City of Peru

has had

a good record in the past of properly running their

site, but that the City had run into some problems when their

old site was exhausted and it was necessary to move to adjacent

land in the fall of 1975

(R.28,29).

The City has complied to

the request of the Agency to dump the refuse at the toe of the

fill rather than the top and this has helped reduce the litter

in the area (R.29).

The stipulation does fail to address all the allegations

of the complaint.

The City admits with Agency agreement the

violation of no daily cover, Rule 305(a)

of the Regulations

on only one of the eight alleged days.

The Count II alle-

gations of Rule 313 and the Count III allegations of violations

of Rule 306 are not mentioned at all in the settlement.

The

daily collection of litter, Rule 306 and the improvement of

the situation was mentioned by the City in summation (R.29).

Count

IV, the allegation of causing or allowing the dumping

of paint wastes, Rule 310(b) was disposed of completely by

the admission of violation.

The Board prefers to have access to the knowledge that all

the allegations of the complaint were dealt with, but absent

prosecution by the Agency the Board must rely on the Agency’s

judgment in settling the case or reject the settlement.

In

this case the evidence presented shows the City of Peru has

not intentionally violated the Act, and that in the past

Respondent has had a good record.

The Board also notes the

City responded to the complaint with alacrity.

Thus the

Board does accept the stipulated agreement under Procedural

Rule 333.

The Board finds that the City of Peru was in violation

of Rule

305(a) of the Solid Waste Regulations and of Section

21(b)

of the Act on December 11, 1975,

and on December 5,

1975 the City was in violation of 310(b)

of the Solid Waste

Regulations and Section 21(b)

of the Act.

All other allega-

tions

of violations are dismissed for lack of prosecution.

The Board assesses

a penalty of $750 to be paid within thirty-

five

(35) days of this order.

This constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and con-

clusions of law.

Mr. James Young concurs.

21—453

---

—4—

ORDER

It

is the order of the Pollution Control Board that:

1.

The City of Peru was in violation of Rule 305(a)

of the Solid Waste Regulations and Section 21(b)

of the

Act on December 11,

1975.

The City was

in violation of

Rule 310(b)

of the Solid Waste Regulations and Section

21(b)

of the Act on December 5,

1975.

2.

The allegations of violation of Rule 305(a)

of the Solid Waste Regulations of days other than Decem-

ber

Il,

1975 and of violation of Rules 306 and 313 of the

Solid Waste Regulations are dismissed.

3.

The City of Peru shall cease the said violations

and desist any violations in the future.

4.

The City of Peru shall pay a penalty of $750

within thirty-five days of this order.

Payment shall be

by certified check or money order payable to:

State of Illinois

Fiscal Services Division

Environmental Protection Agency

2200 Churchill Road

Springfield, Illinois 62706

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

Control Board,

hereby ceçtify the above Opinion and Order

were adopted on the

~Lf”

day of

I))

,

1976 by a

vote of

‘.c~

~&nL.M~I~

Illinois Pollution ~~Jrol

Board