ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

August 26,

1993

SANGAMON COUNTY,

Complainant,

AC 93—12

v.

)

 Docket A

(Administrative Citation)

DAVE PHILLIPS and

)

EARLE PHILLIPS,

)

Respondent.

ORDER OF THE BOARD

(C.

 A. Manning):

On March

30,

 1993,

 Sangamon County filed with the Board

an

administrative

 citation

 pursuant

to

 Section

 31.1

of

the

Environmental Protection Act

 (Act).

415

 ICLS 5/31.1.

 Sangamon

County

 alleged

 that

the

 respondents,

 Dave

and

 Earle

 Phillips,

violated

 Sections

 21(p) (1)

and

 21(p) (3)

 of the Act.

415

 ICLS

5/21(p) (1)

and

 (3).

 On May 20,

 1993 the Board entered a default

order

 in this matter against the respondents.

 On June

18,

 1993,

the respondents filed a motion for reconsideration from the default

order.

 On June

25,

 1993,

 Sanganion County

 filed

 a response

in

opposition to the respondent’s motion for reconsideration.

On

 July

1,

1993

 the Board

in

its

 order

 denied

 respondents’

 motion

for

reconsideration.

 The respondents on July 28, 1993,

 filed with the

Board

a

 motion

for

 reconsideration

of

 the July

1,

 1993,

 Board

order.1

Section 21(p) (1) provides that no person shall cause or allow

the open dumping of

 any waste

in

a

 manner which results

 in the

occurrence

of

 litter.

 Section

 21(p)(3)

 provides that no person

shall

 cause

 or allow the open dumping

of

 any waste

in

 a manner

which results

 in the occurrence of open burning.

 The Board stated

in

 its July

1,

1993

 order

 “the respondents

 state that they have

made several attempts to clean up their property but due to illness

and

 family

 responsibilities,

 they

 were

 unable

to

 clean

up

the

property.”

 The Board also states that the respondents argued that

“the open burning they were accused of was not garbage but instead,

was wood.”

 The respondents also stated they tried to clean up the

area

 as soon as possible.

 The Board

 in its finding stated:

The Board has previously held that the statute

 Section

 31.1

of

 the Act) does

 not provide for

 the removal

 of the litter

after the issuance

 of the AC

 (administrative citation)

as

a

reason to find no violation.

 Additionally, clean up of the

a

 The motion for reconsideration filed on

July

28,

1993

will

be cited as

“Not.”.

2

site

 is not a mitigating factor under the AC (administrative

citation)

 program.

 (See,

 IEPA

 Jack Wright

 (August

30,

1990),

AC

 89-227,

114

PCB

863

and

 IEPA

v.

 Dennis Grubaugh

(October 16,

 1992), AC 92—3,

PCB

The

 respondents

in

the

 present

 motion

 for reconsideration

raise

the

 same

 arguments

as

in

the

 previous

 motion

for

reconsideration.

 As stated in the previous order, Section 31.1 of

the Act

 does

 not provide

 for the

 removal

of

 litter

 after

the

issuance

of

the

 administrative

 citation

as

a

 defense

to

the

violation.

 The Board upon considering these arguments denies this

motion for reconsideration.

The

 respondents

in

 this

 motion

for

 reconsideration

 also

explain that they had originally filed a petition for review with

the Board within the

 35 day filing deadline set forth

 in Section

31.1(d)(l).

 Respondents state “the petition for review was filed

before

the

35

 days

had

 passed.”

 (Not.

at

1).

 Further,

the

respondents

 state

 that

 they were

 unaware

of

35

 Ill.

 Adm.

 Code

101.103(d)

 which

 requires

all

 filings

 with the

 Board

to

be

on

recycled paper until receiving a “letter” from the Board.

 (Mot. at

1)

 Respondents

 assert that they attempted to develop

a

 second

petition

for

 review

to

 meet the

 Board’s requirements

 but were

unable to meet the

 35 day deadline.

 (Mot.

at

1)

 The Board

is

unaware

 of any

 “letter” denying

 the original petition,

 and the

Clerk’s records do not contain the alleged original petition for

review.

 The Board notes

 the requirement

in

35

 111.

 Adm.

 Code

101.103(d)

 applies only to attorneys,

 organized environmental and

trade groups and would not have denied respondents’ petition for

review for this reason.

 Based

 on the arguments contained in the

instant motion,

 the Board again denies reconsideration and finds

respondents in violation of Sections 21(p) (1)

 and 21(p) (3)

 of the

Act.

The

 Board’s

 July

1,

 1993,

 order

 denying

the

 motion

for

reconsideration

 is hereby modified to allow payment of the $1000

penalty within thirty days of today’s order.

 The parties are

to

abide by the May 20,

 1993, default order as modified today.

IT IS SO ORDERED

I,

 Dorothy

M.

 Gunn,

 Clerk

 of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board,

 hereby cert~’ythat the above order was adopted on the

 day of

//~ç~i

 1993,

 by a vote of

~

 ~‘~?

~C

Dorothy N.

Gu~im,

Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board