ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

May 10,

1979

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Complainant,

PCB 78—213

DONALD TWEEDY,

Respondent.

MR.

WILLIAM

E.

BLAKEY, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON

BEHALF

OF

THE

COMPLAINANT.

MR. ROBERT

D.

ACTON, ATTORNEY AT LAW, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE

RESPONDENT.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Dr. Satchell):

This

matter comes before the Board upon a complaint filed

by the Environmental Protection Agency

(Agency) on August

8,

1978

charging Respondent, Donald Tweedy, with various violations

of

Section 21 of

the

Environmental Protection Act

(Act)

and

Board Rules, Chapter 7:

Solid Waste Regulations.

The com-

plaint

alleged that Respondent owns

a forty-six acre refuse

disposal site near Hoopeston in the NW 1/4 of Sec.

19,

T.

23 N.,

R.

11 W,,

2 PM,

in

Vermilion County, Illinois.

Count

I charged

violatäons

of Section 21(e)

of the Act and Rule 202(b), failure

of an

existing site to obtain an operating

permit from the

Agency within

one year of the effective date of Chapter 7,

July 23,

1973,

Counts

II and

III

charged violations of Section

21(b)

of the Act and Rules

3,04 and 5.07 of the Rules and Regu-

lations of the Division of Sanitary Engineerina of the Department

of Public Health,

These proscribe open dumping and failure to

provide six inches of daily cover and two feet of final cover

within six months in areas where no more refuse is to be

deposited.

Counts IV and V

alleged

similar violations of Section

21(a)

and 21(b)

of the Act

and

Board Rules 301 and 305(a)

and

305(c), open dumping of garbage and open dumping of other refuse

in violation of Rules requiring six inches of daily cover and two

feet of final cover within sixty days following the final place-

ment of refuse.

A

public hearing was held on April

5, 1979 at the Vermilion

County Courthouse in Danville,

At that time the parties presented

a stipulation and proposal for settlement in lieu of an evidentiary

hearing.

No members of the public were present and no comments

have

been

received on the settlement.

This Opinion is based upon

the

stipulated statement of facts

in which Respondent admits the

substantial

allegations

of the Complaint.

3 3—44 5

---

—2—

Respondent was issued an operating

permit for the site by

the Department of Public Health

on February 11,

1970 and has

caused or allowed its use for refuse disposal since

that date.

Section 21(e)

and Rule

202(b)

required Respondent to obtain an

operating permit from the Agency within

one year of July 23,

1973,

Respondent never obtained such a permit,

although he

obtained a developmental permit on

March

10,

1975.

Respondent

admits that on numerous occasions since 1971 he operated without

applying six inches daily cover or two feet of final

cover.

Respondent further

admits that he received several

notices

regarding violations of the Act and Rules.

The stipulated agreement provides for a penalty of $1000

and a plan to bring

the

site into compliance by June 1,

1979.

Respondent is to apply,

by June

1,

1979, two feet of suitable

cover material on areas indicated on the site map,

marked Ex.

A (Stipj,

as “Present Landfill

Area” and “Future Area

#1” and

is to confine

his daily operations to “Future Area *2”.

He

is

also to bring his

daily operation into general compliance,

prepare a new site plan and request an operational permit from

the Agency no later than June

1,

1979.

The site plan shall be

prepared by an engineer and shall address the following:

1.

present site conditions

and development;

2.

proposed future

development and operation;

3.

final elevations of the finished landfill

site.

Respondent admits that

compliance with the Act and Rules

was at all times technically

practical and economically reasonable.

The, parties stipulate,

however, that the

operation of the site

provides a service which is

of social and economic value.

The

Board finds that a penalty is necessary to aid

enforcement of the

Act in view of the duration and nature of the

violations and the

fact that Respondent was given notice that he was in violation.

The Board has considered Section

33(c)

in connection

with this

settlement and finds that

a. penalty of $1000

is

reasonable,

considering the social and economic value of the site.

The

Board finds the stipulation and settlement agreement

acceptable

under Rule 331 of the Procedural Rules.

This Opinion constitutes the Board~s findings of fact and

conclusions of law in this matter~

33—446

---

—3—

ORDER

It is the Order

of the Pollution Control Board that:

1.

The Board finds Respondent Donald Tweedy in violation

of Section 21(a),

(b)

and

(e)

of the Act, Rules 3.04

and 5.07 of the Rules and Regulations of the Division

of Sanitary Engineering of the Department of Public

Health and Rules

301, 305(a)

and

(c)

of Chapter

7:

Solid Waste Regulations.

2.

Respondent i~ordered to comply with the terms of the

stipulated agreement which is hereby incorporated by

reference.

3.

On or before

June 1,

1979 Respondent shall submit a

new site plan to the

Agency and request an operating

permit.

4,

Within forty-five days of the date of this Order,

Respondent shall pay a penalty of $1000 by dertified

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 Illihnois Pollution

Control Board, here,py certify the above Opinion and Order were

adop~,edon the

/t~

“

day of

L4~’

1979 by a vote

Q1Iv~t~

&~/~thd’

uI~

Christan L. ~offe

erk

Illinois Pollution

o

rol Board

3 3—447