ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
February 27, 1975
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Complainant,
v.
)
PCB 74—380
LEROY
3.
WAGNER,
Respondent.
Mr. Howard Thomas, attorney for Complainant.
Mr. Leroy
3.
Wagner, appeared pro se.
OPINION
AND
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Dr. Odell)
On October
25,
1974,
the Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency)
filed a Complaint against Leroy
3.
Wagner charging
that he operated a solid waste disposal site without an Operat-
ing Permit.
The landfill is located on
a 68-acre tract in
Section
31, Township 1 North, Range
8 West,
in St. Clair County,
Illinois.
The Complaint alleged that a~violation of Rule 202
(b) (1)
of the Solid Waste Regulations
(Chapter Seven)
and Section
21(e)
of the Environmental Protection Act
(Act)
had occurred from
July 27 until October 25,
1974.
A hearing was held on December 18,
1974,
in the City Council
Chambers of Belleville, Illinois.
The evidence established that
Mr. Wagner operated his site without an Operating Permit from
July 27, 1974,
through October 25, 1974
(R.
26,
49).
On
November 12,
1974,
Mr. Wagner applied to the Agency for a permit
(R.
49).
At the time of the hearing, the Agency had not ruled
on the application.
The Respondent was aware of the July 27,
1974, compliance date in early September,
1973
(B.
66).
He
failed to take positive steps
to satisfy the permit requirement
until April,
1974, because he didn’t realize that preparation of
the permit application would take as long as it did
(R.
69).
In mitigation, the evidence established that since approxi-
mately April 22, 1974, when Mr. Wagner retained a registered
civil engineer, who was a licensed land surveyor, diligent and
good faith efforts have been made to achieve compliance
(R.
49,
52 to 54).
The requisite
tests
had to be conducted.
A delay
in receiving boring data detained Mr. Wagner’s application.
15
—601
Mr.
Wagner’s application was postponed 10 days, because he
believed
(on the basis of information from an outdated Agency
form)
that newspaper publication of the application was nec-
essary.
The Respondent has clearly violated the Act and Chapter
Seven from July
27,
1974,
to October 25,
1974,
as alleged in
the Complaint.
A ~ena1ty
is called
far
in this case,.
but
a
severe one would not be appropriate.
First, while Respondent
clearly had knowledge of the compliance date almost eleven
months before it became due, delay was not based on any intention
to violate the Act or Regulations.
Second, although economic
information was not presented,
it is clear that Respondent has
had to expend reasonable sums in
a good faith, albeit belated,
effort to achieve compliance.
Finally, the Complaint did not
allege any other violations.
While letters submitted into
evidence (EPA Ex.
D,
E,
F,
G,
H, and
I)
refer to other possible
violations of Chapter Seven,
they were submitted to snow Res-
pondent’s notice of the permit requirement rather than on the
issue of harm to the environment.
This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and con-
clusions of law of the Board.
ORDER
IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that:
1.
Respondent cease and desist violating Rule 202(b) (1)
of Chapter Seven and Section 21(e)
of the Act within 120 days
of the adoption of this Order.
2.
Respondent pay a penalty of $100.00 for its violations
of the Act and regulations established in this Opinion.
Pay-
ment shall be by certified check or money order payable to the
State of Illinois, Fiscal Services Division, Environmental
Protection Agency,
2200 Churchill Road, Springfield, Illinois
62706.
Payment shall be made within 35 days of the adoption of
this Order.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certi y
at the above Opinion and Order was adopted
on the
~
day of
,
1975, by a vote of
____
to
p.
C~tan.~e~