ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    June
    15,
    1992
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
    AGENCY,
    Complainant,
    V.
    )
    AC 91—34
    (Administrative Citation)
    WILLIAM
    S.
    POPEJOY,
    Sr.,
    )
    Respondent.
    MR.
    W.
    CHARLES GRACE, JACKSON COUNTY STATE’S ATTORNEY, APPEARED
    ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT;
    MR. WILLIAM
    S. POPEJOY,
    SR., APPEARED PRO SE.
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by R.C.
    Flemal):
    This matter comes before the Board upon review of an
    administrative citation issued pursuant to authority vested in
    the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’
    (Agency)
    as
    delegated to Jackson County2.
    The citation finds that
    respondent, William
    S.
    Popejoy,
    Sr., has conducted an open dump
    site operation in such manner as to
    (1) cause or allow litter and
    (2)
    cause or allow proliferation of disease vectors.
    Pursuant to
    the Illinois Environmental Protection Act (Act)
    at
    Ill.
    Rev.
    Stat.
    1991,
    ch.
    111½,
    par.
    1042(b) (4), respondent
    is subject to a
    civil penalty of five hundred dollars
    ($500.00)
    for each of the
    two cited violations,
    for a total penalty of one thousand dollars
    ($1,000)
    Hearing was held on October
    11,
    1991 at the Jackson County
    Courthouse, Murphysboro,
    Illinois.
    BACKGROUND
    Respondent
    is owner
    (Tr.
    at 10,
    25)
    and resident of
    a
    property located
    in Section 24
    of T8S,
    R4W,
    near Ava,
    Jackson
    County,
    Illinois.
    In December 1990 Mr. George Browning,
    Field Inspector
    Jackson County Health Department,
    received a complaint
    filed by
    Ill.
    Rev.
    Stat.
    1991,
    ch.
    ili½,
    par.
    1031.1.
    2
    Pursuant to Ill.
    Rev.
    Stat.
    1991,
    ch.
    111½,
    par.
    1004(r)
    and Delegation Agreement between the Illinois Environmental
    Protection Agency and Jackson County,
    dated March
    2,
    1989.
    1
    ~4—2Rl
    —2-
    the United States Forest Service.
    (Tr.
    at
    7.)
    In response
    thereto,
    Mr. Browning inspected respondent’s property on December
    11,
    1990.
    (I~.)
    Mr. Browning found on the property
    a ditch
    containing
    “demolition debris,
    ..
    old appliances,
    general
    household type waste,
    ...
    garbage,
    ...
    and papers”
    (Tr.
    at
    12)
    in
    addition to standing water
    (Tr.
    at
    16).
    Exhibits
    2 though
    4 are
    photographs showing the ditch and its contents on December
    11,
    1990.
    Complainant attempted service of
    a warning notice upon
    respondent on several occasions in December 1990 and January 1991
    without success.
    (Tr.
    at 18—19.)
    On January
    10,
    1991,
    the
    warning notice was sent to respondent by regular mail.
    (Tr.
    at
    19.)
    Mrs.
    Ruby Popejoy, daughter—in-law and co-resident of
    respondent,
    acknowledges receipt of the warning notice.
    (Tr.
    at
    30.)
    Thereupon no contact occurred between Mr. Browning and
    respondent until June 10,
    1991, when Mr. Browning again inspected
    respondent’s property.
    (Tr.
    at 19—20.)
    In testifying to his
    June
    10 inspection Mr. Browning observed:
    A:
    I found that there appeared to be little or no
    change to the dump site.
    It is possible that
    additional materials had been deposited there,
    but we
    were not able to determine that conclusively.
    But by
    comparing the photographs taken in December and the
    ones taken in June,
    we felt that very little change had
    occurred at that site.
    Q:
    And if any change had occurred,
    there may have
    been something more, did you say?
    A:
    Yes,
    sir.
    Q:
    Had there been any cover applied on the area at that
    point?
    A:
    No,
    sir.
    Q:
    Did you have occasion to inspect relative to
    disease factors?
    A:
    Yes,
    sir.
    At that time,
    we did observe mosquito
    larva present and containers and again an ideal
    environment for their growth.
    Q:
    Was there still household garbage at
    the
    site?
    I 3!,_~82
    —3—
    A:
    Yes,
    sir, there was.
    It was an available food
    source.
    (Tr.
    at 20—22.)
    Exhibit #5 consists of two photographs showing the ditch on June
    10,
    1991.
    On July
    8,
    l991~an administrative citation was filed
    citing respondent for causing or allowing the open dumping of any
    waste in a manner that results in litter
    (Section 21(p) (1)
    of the
    Act4)
    and proliferation of disease vectors (Section 21(p) (5)
    of
    the Act).
    CONCLUSION
    The Act provides for only two defenses to an administrative
    citation properly brought by the Agency or its delegee.
    These
    are that the respondent shows that either no violation(s)
    occurred or that the violation(s) resulted from uncontrollable
    circumstances.
    (see Section 31.1(d) (2)
    of the Act.)
    Respondent
    makes neither of these two showings.
    Accordingly,
    the findings
    of violations as specified in the administrative citation must be
    upheld.
    This matter was authorized for hearing on August 22, 1991
    upon the Board’s reading that a
    letter of Ruby Popejoy filed with
    the Board August 12, 1991 constituted a request for hearing.
    Although a hearing was not specifically mentioned
    in
    the letter,
    the Board’s action reflected concern that a petitioner’s intent
    to appeal not be inadvertently overlooked.
    Upon further review,
    however,
    the reading that a hearing was requested
    is not
    substantiated.
    The Board recovers costs where
    a hearing is
    requested.
    Inasmuch as this
    is not the case here, the Board will
    not seek costs in the instant matter.
    This opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
    conclusions of law
    in this matter.
    ORDER
    Respondent
    is hereby found to have been in violation on June
    10,
    1991 of paragraphs 21(p) (1) and 21(p) (5)
    of the Illinois
    ~ The citation was received by the Board on July
    10,
    1991.
    ‘
    At the time the administrative citation was
    issued, the
    open dumping prohibitions were found at subsection
    21(q)
    of the
    Act.
    By Public Act 87-752,
    effective January
    1,
    1992,
    subsection
    21(q)
    was renumbered to subsection 21(p).
    134—283
    —4—
    Environmental Protection Act
    (Ill.
    Rev.
    Stat.
    1991,
    ch.
    111½,
    par.
    1021(p) (1) and 1021(p) (5)).
    Within
    45 days of this order respondent shall,
    by certified
    check or money order,
    pay a civil penalty in the amount of $1,000
    payable to the Illinois Environmental Protection Trust Fund and
    sent to:
    Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
    Fiscal Services Division
    2200 Churchill Road
    Springfield
    IL
    62706
    Penalties unpaid after the due date shall accrue interest
    pursuant to Section 42(g)
    of the Illinois Environmental
    Protection Act.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    Board Member J.T. Meyer concurred.
    Section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act,
    Ill.
    Rev.
    Stat.
    1991 ch.
    111½ par.
    1041,
    provides for appeal of final
    orders of the Board within 35 days.
    The Rules of the Supreme
    Court of Illinois establish filing requirements.
    I, Dorothy N.
    Gunn,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify that the above o inion and order was
    adopted on the
    /5~-
    day of
    _____________________,
    1992,
    by
    avoteof
    __________.
    ~
    ~.
    /~~‘
    Dorothy M1~(1/Gunn, Clerk
    Illinois P’ollution Control Board

    Back to top