CLzRK’g OFFICE

ö 2 ~OP4

BEFORE THE

ILLINOIS

POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

-

SiATE OF ILLINOIS

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

)

Fo~Iuto~

Control

Board

PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

)

Complainant,

)

AC 04-27

v.

)

)

(IEPA

No. 686-03-AC)

DOUGLAS S.

CARRICO,d/b/a/

)

CARRICO’S AUTO HEAP,

)

)

Respondent.

)

POST-HEARING BRIEF OF RESPONDENT

The

question before

us is whether I, Douglas S.

Carrico d/b/a Carrico’s Auto Heap

allowed open dumping of waste resulting

in litter and various vehicles, auto parts,

and

tires on my property illegally?

I

will show it was not dumping,

it was not waste, it was not litter and it was not illegal.

For

18 years

I held

two

licenses which

legally allowed me to operate

a Scrap

Processing

business and

an Automotive

Parts

Recycling business.

Illinois Vehicle

Code,

625 ILCS 5/5-1 00 defines my

business license operations under,

“Automotive

Parts

Recycler” and “Scrap Processor”.

In

short

it allows

a licensee

to accumulate scrap automobiles, auto

parts, ferrous

and non-ferrous metallic

scrap for processing.

The business was

in operation at the same location from

March

1994

to August 2002 there about.

During

this time

I

purchased product

which consisted of metals and car bodies forthe purpose of recycling.

All the

items mentioned by the

EPA inspector and described

as waste and

litter, such as

auto

parts, plastic, glass, metal,

rusted pipe,

etc... were in fact product or by

product of the legally

licensed business of Carrico’s Auto Heap. Without

exception these same items would be found on the property of everyAuto Parts

---

Recycling / Scrap Processing business

in the state of Illinois and under the

definition given in their brief every license holder is in violation. The

entire

product remaining was purchased during the time

I was legally licensed to do so.

(See Page 13,

Lines 10-12 hearing transcript) where

Ms. Mier states

a

licensee

can accept product legally.

As you can see by reading through the letter’s from

the EPA,

(Exhibits

1-6) there

was never any

mention of additional

items added,

after

I was no longer licensed, other than a school bus which was actually here all

along and recorded in the daily records of the business showing its purchase

in

1990

and was apparently just overlooked in prior

inspections.

II.

I was always willing to

do what was requested of

me,

as quickly as circumstances

allowed, to solve the concerns raised

by the EPA, (See Page

12, Lines

17-22

hearing transcript).

Ill.

The tire removal

was the most pressing matter in view of the EPA,

(See Page

44,

Lines 4-7 hearing transcript).

I focused therefore

on the tire removal,

but not to

the exclusion of the

other concerns. The

hearing transcript, as pointed out in the

EPA

brief,

had recorded

me as saying

I

had

not started the

clean up process after

the first inspection, which was either stated or else, recorded in error. Actually

I

immediately contacted several metal dealers of who only two came out and

met

with

me and one, after several calls finally

came and started the

removal on

October 15, 2002.

I was under the

impression

I had entered into a tire removal

agreement with the EPA since Exhibit

3,

page 8, item

1

asked me to submit one

which

I

did and

it was accepted by them as stated in Exhibit

4,

page

1.

In their

letter.

In Exhibit

3, page 8,

item

1, there is also

a reference to the 35

IAC that

I

quoted from in the April 7 hearing, (Page 46, Lines 5-24 hearing transcript).

This

---

document states that a site containing

more than

1,000 tires can

have 2 years to

remove the tires and be granted an extension above that.

I was not

allowed to

introduce this into evidence due to Ms.

Ryan’s concern of the foundation of this

document, (Page

50,

Lines 6-10

hearing transcript).

Exhibit 3,

Page 8, item I

addresses the foundation of this document

in

question by

EPA’s reference to and enclosure with their letter.

IV.

I’ve

included

a comprehensive list, the totals of which

I

compiled from

the 45

receipts of product removed.

(Not included in these totals are

a conservative

estimate of

15

loads, that

I

never received receipts for, which went to MAW Salvage)

This is the time covered from the first contact

I

had from the EPA (Exhibit 2)

dated July 24 2002 to the last inspection of October 28, 2003

which

I believe shows my ongoing compliance

with the EPA requirements:

a. 6,110 tires

b. 12.75 tons of waste

c. 410,043.08

lbs. of metal (45 loads) which included approx. 400 car

bodies

The amount of product still on site at the time of the last inspection

was a small

amount in comparison to what

had actually

been

removed to that point in the

ongoing process of clean

up.

V.

The EPA brief also charges:

1. “I did

not heed the warnings”

a.

I believe

I

did

and this fact is witnessed by the amount of

product that had been

removed up to that point.

---

2.

“I failed this situation” (using my analogy of

a student page 27 lines 7-17)

a. However

I was unaware the “school year was over”.

I really

thought Ms.

Mier would contact me by phone or in person before

any fines were

imposed.

3.

“I

caused or allowed

open burning”

a. This was never charged.

VI.

I ask that the fine be dismissed due to the facts that have been

presented showing

my ongoing compliance with the

requests that the EPA

have given me and the

fact that all the

product on site was collected while licensed to do

so

legally.

Respectfully Submitted,

Dated: May 28, 2004

/

,~

4

(~ALCô

Douglas

s.

Carrico

Representing Self

Douglas S. Carrico

19291

Carrico Road

Kane Illinois 62054

1-618-498-4708 / 1-618-410-8786