ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    April 3, 1980
    TLI,INO~S ENVIRONMENTAL
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    Complainant,
    v.
    )
    PCB 78—295
    CITY OF EAST ST. LOUIS, an
    Illinois municipal corporation,
    Respondent.
    MR. BRIAN E, REYNOLDS, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON
    BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT.
    MR. DAVID K. HARRIS, ATTORNEY AT LAW, APPEARED ON
    BEHALF OF
    THE
    RESPONDENT.
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Werner):
    This matter comes before
    the Board
    on the December 4, 1978
    Complaint brought by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
    (“Agency”). On January 8, 1979, the Respondent filed a motion
    which requested that the Board transfer this case to a different
    Hearing Officer. On February 1, 1979, the Board denied this motion.
    On February 8, 1979, the Agency filed its Motion for Leave to Amend
    Complaint Instanter and an Amended Complaint. The Board granted
    the Agency’s motion on February 15, 1979.
    The 4—count Amended Complaint alleged that, from July 11, 1975
    until February 8, 1979, the Respondent operated its solid waste
    management site (“site”) in such a manner as to: (1) violate the
    conditions of its Operating Permit (i.e., the trenching method was
    not used and general refuse, rather than only sludge, was accepted
    at the site); (2) improperly spread and compact refuse; (3) have
    insufficient equipment available; and (4) place inadequate daily
    and intermediate cover on the site, thereby violating Rules 302,
    303, 304, 305(a) and 305(b) of Chapter 7: Solid Waste Regulations
    (“Chapter 7”) and Section 21(b) of the Illinois Environmental
    Protection Act (“Act”). A hearing was held on February 13, 1980.
    The parties filed a Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement on
    February 19, 1980.
    The City of East St. Louis (“City”) owns and operates a
    sanitary landfill consisting of 8.2 acres in St. Clair County,
    Illinois. On September 16, 1974, the City submitted an Operating
    —2—
    Permit application which stated that the City would be handling
    sludge from its sewage treatment plant only and would be using the
    trenching method of disposal at the site. Accordingly, on July 10,
    1975, the Respondent received an Operating Permit from the Agency.
    However, it is stipulated that the Respondent ‘failed to ever
    use the trenching method of disposal at the site and Agency
    inspections indicated that general refuse was accepted for disposal
    at the site on May 24, 1976 and March 6, 1978. (Stip. 3).
    Additionally, Agency inspections have revealed that, on various
    specified dates, the City failed to: (1) properly spread and
    compact refuse; (2) have sufficient equipment available; and
    (3) apply adequate daily or intermediate cover. (Stip. 3—4).
    On six occasions between July 22, 1975 and November 6, 1978,
    the Agency notified the City of these violations by sending letters
    calling the situation to the attention of the City. (Stip. 4—5),
    ~t the hearing, the attorney for the Respondent stated that all of
    the alleged violations took place during the tenure of a prior City
    administration. (R. 6). It is stipulated that the City is
    currently accepting only sludge from its sewage treatment plant
    for disposal at the site and is attempting to operate the site in
    full compliance with its Operating Permit and the Board’s Solid
    Waste Regulations. (Stip. 5).
    The proposed settlement agreement provides that the Respondent
    admits the allegations charged in the Complaint and agrees ‘to:
    (I) cease and desist from further violations; (2) by July 1, 1980,
    provide the Agency with a proposal containing the City’s plan to
    dispose of sludge from its sewage treatment plant when the current
    disposal site is closed; (.3) until January 1, 1981, operate the
    site in compliance with its Operating Permit, Chapter 7, and the
    Act; (4) by January 1, 1981, apply final cover and close the site
    in compliance with Rule 318 of the Board’s Solid Waste Regulations,
    and (5) pay a stipulated penalty of $1,000.00
    .
    (Stip. 6—7).
    In evaluating this enforcement action and the proposed settle-
    ment agreement, the Board has taken into consideration all the
    facts and circumstances in light of ‘the specific criteria
    delineated in Section 33(c) of the Act. The Board finds the
    stipulated agreement acceptable under Procedural Rule 331 and
    Section 33(c) of the Act. The Board finds that the Respondent,
    the City of East St. Louis, has operated its sanitary landfill in
    violation of Rules 302, 303, 304, 305(a) and 305(b) of Chapter 7:
    Solid Waste Regulations and Section 21(b) of the Act. The
    stipulated penalty of $1,000.00 is assessed against the City.
    This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
    conclusions of law in this matter,
    —3—
    ORDER
    It is the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board that:
    1. The Respondent, the City of East St. Louis, has violated
    Rules 302, 303, 304, 305(a), and 305(b) of Chapter 7: Solid Waste
    Regulations and Section 21(b) of the Illinois Environmental
    Protection Act.
    2. Within 45 days of the date of this Order, the Respondent
    shall, by certified check or money order payable to the State of
    Illinois, pay the stipulated penalty of $1,000.00 which is to be
    sent to:
    Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
    Fiscal Services Division
    2200 Churchill Road
    Springfield, Illinois 62706
    3. The Respondent shall comply with all the terms and
    conditions of the Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement filed
    February 19, 1980, which is incorporated by reference as if fully
    set forth herein.
    Chairman Dumelle concurs.
    I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, her ~y certify that, the above Opinion and Order were adopted
    on the
    3
    day of
    1~7.4.4L
    ,
    1980 by a vote of
    $‘._o
    ~tanL~offb~
    Illinois Pollution trol Board

    Back to top