ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL

BOARD

September 17,

1992

ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY,

Compai.nant3

AC 92—47

)

(IEPA Docket No.

300-92—AC)

)

(Administrative Citation)

DONALD

SICKLES,

)

)

Respondent.

ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by J.C. Marlin):

On July 30,

1992,

the Board entered a default order in this

matter.

On August 10, 1992, respondent filed a handwritten letter

which stated, in its entirety:

In re your letter (certified) received August 3,

1992,

I

do not feel that I owe any fine.

I was not at home (on

the premises)

at the time the alleged burning of tires

took place.

I

have proof

of my whereabouts

on that

evening.

All the tires have been clean up.

I did not

burn any tires on my property then or in

the

past years.

Therefore,

I do not feel that

I

owe the $500.00 fine.

Thank you.

Pursuant to the Board’s order of August 13,

1992 construing

this

letter as

a motion to reconsider and to vacate the default

order.

The Agency filed a response on August 28,

1992.

The Agency’s response

notes

the history of inspection

and

reinspection of the site beginning April 15, 1991 and resulting in

issuance of this and a prior administrative citation (AC)

(AC 91-

59, February 6, 1992).

The Agency notes that standard information

on appeal opportunities was contained in each AC, and that counsel

explained these opportunities on one occasion.

The Agency goes on to address

the

two bases presented for

reconsideration, by stating in response:

a.

“I did not burn any tires”.

The Agency did not charge Mr.

Sickles with open burning in

violation of S21p(3).

Our inspectors did not have a direct

observation of the open burning and were advised that the

County

intended

to

pursue

its

own

prosecution.

The

Administrative Citations were issued for S21q(1) and S21p(l),

O~36-

0083

---

2

causing or allowing open dumping resulting in litter at the

dump site.

b.

“The site is cleaned up”.

The Board haspreviou~~yheld

that

post

citation_activities

of

the citation recipient are not material to the Board’s review

pursuant

to

S31. 1(d) (2)

of

the

Act.

(In

the matter

of:

Lincoln Chamber of Commerce, AC 89-26, IEPA No. 9417-AC, Order

of May 25, 1989.)

The Agency had sent a copy of this order to

counsel for respondent on July 31,

1992.

Copy attached and

incorporated into this response as Exhibit B.

The Agency finds no uncontrollable circumstances in the record

of inspections, warning notice, extension,

and reinspections

of the facility.

The Board agrees with the Agency that no sufficient reason has

been presented to justify reopening this case.

Mr. Sickles’ motion

to reconsider and to vacate and reopen the July 30,

1992 default

order is hereby denied.

To avoid any confusion about what might have happened in this

case,

the Board wishes to make it

clear that

if

a petition for

review had been allowed to be filed, Sections 31.1 and 42(b)(4) of

the Act provide for only two outcomes:

1.

The Board can find that there was no violation of Section

21(p)

or

(q),

or

that

the

violation

resulted

from

uncontrolled circumstances.

Then, the person filing the

petition pays nothing.

2.

If the Board finds that a violation did occur, and that

there were no uncontrollable circumstances, the person

filing the petition pays the fine plus hearing costs.

Hearing costs usually average from $200.00 to $1,000.00,

and must be paid in addition to the penalty.

The Board will, however,

grant an extension of time in which

to pay the fine.

The $500.00 fine is now due to be paid on or

before November 17,

1992.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

0136-00814

---

3

I, Dorothy M.

Gui-rn,

Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board

hereby certify t at

e above order was adopted on the

day of _________________________,

1992, by a vote of

~

.L~

Dorothy

14. q4~/~n,Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

0136-0085