ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    May 21,
    1992
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    )
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    )
    Complainant,
    )
    v.
    )
    AC 92—16
    )
    (IEPA No.
    110-92-AC)
    )
    (Administrative Citation)
    HAROLD HILLEBRENNER,
    )
    )
    Respondent.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by J.C. Marlin):
    On April 23,
    1992, the Board issued a default order concerning
    this administrative citation issued by the Agency on March 3,
    1992.
    As no petition
    for review had been filed
    on or
    before April
    4,
    1992,1
    the Board imposed
    a
    $500.00 penalty for one violation of
    Section 21(p)(1) of the Act.
    By letter dated April 30,
    1992 but received by the Board May
    4,
    1992,
    Harold Hillebrenner seeks
    a “petition for review”.
    Mr.
    Hillebrenner
    states
    that
    the
    matter
    was
    not
    taken
    care
    of
    immediately as he is “in very poor health and unable to get out of
    bed”.
    He further states that he “would like to know exactly what
    has to be done to get this matter cleared up...in the least time”.
    Pursuant to the Board’s Order of May 7,
    1992 construing the
    letter as a motion to reconsider and vacate the default order the
    Agency filed a response in opposition on May 20,
    1992.
    Materials
    submitted by the Agency reveal that this matter was referred to the
    Agency for action by the Adams County Health Department
    in May,
    1990.
    Also, on May 7,
    1990 the Health Department directed a letter
    to
    Mr.
    Hillebrenner asking him to provide the Health Department
    with information, as the Agency had started a tire removal program.
    On December
    7,
    1990,
    the Agency
    inspected
    the property
    in
    response to the referral to determine eligibility for consensual
    removal of used tires.
    The inspection revealed the presence of
    over 500 tires in one slight ravine, and a quantity of old vending
    machines
    in
    another.
    The
    Agency
    inspector
    contacted
    Mr.
    Hillebrenner by phone
    on December
    18,
    1990 and advised him that
    “failure to remove the waste could result
    in possible enforcement
    actions
    and
    fines”.
    The
    repoit
    states
    that
    Mr.
    Hillebrenner
    responded that “they’ll have to take him to court in an ambulance”.
    1This
    is
    35 days from the February
    29,
    1992 date of service
    prescribed by Section 31.1(d) (2)
    of the Act.
    1.33—559
    2
    The Agency. issued an Administrative Warning Notice
    (AWN)
    on
    January 9,
    1991, specifying the apparent violations and corrective
    action suggested,
    i.e. to remove and dispose of non—tire litter at
    a proper disposal site,
    and to participate
    in the Agency’s tire
    removal
    program.
    The AWN specified that the corrective
    action
    should be completed within
    60
    days,
    by March
    16,
    1991 and noted
    that the area would be reinspected to determine compliance.
    The Agency did
    not
    issue
    the administrative citation
    (AC)
    challenged in this case until January 9,
    1992,
    based on the second
    inspection on January
    6,
    1992.
    In response to Mr.
    Hillebrenner’s motion, the Agency quotes
    from
    the
    Board’s previous
    orders
    in
    cases
    of
    this
    type
    which
    explain the nature of a petition for review of an AC.
    The Agency
    then states that:
    The Agency does not believe Petitioner would prevail
    at
    a
    hearing
    and
    would
    be
    liable
    for
    hearing
    costs.2
    The
    allegation
    of very poor health,
    even
    if
    proven,
    would not
    prevent Respondent from arranging for a third party to clean
    up and dispose of the non—tire litter.
    The Agency is able to
    pickup the tires through its tire removal program after the
    non-tire litter is properly disposed.
    In
    conclusion,
    the
    Agency
    states
    that
    the
    Motion
    for
    Reconsideration should be denied and that the Respondent may
    get
    this
    matter
    cleared
    up
    in
    least
    time
    by
    paying
    the
    Administrative Citation, having the non-tire litter removed by
    a
    third
    party,
    and then sending the enclosed tire removal
    agreement back to the Agency.
    The Board finds that there
    is no reason to reopen this case
    for further consideration.
    The materials submitted by the Agency
    indicate that Mr. Hillebrenner has received clear directions on how
    to avoid the filing of this AC since the matter was brought to his
    attention some two years ago.
    The health problems described here
    are not the sort of “uncontrollable circumstance” which allows the
    Board to forgive payment of an AC fine.
    The motion to reconsider and to vacate the order of April 23,
    1992
    is hereby denied.
    However, the Board grants an extension of
    the payment due date for 30 days after the date of this order.
    The
    $500.00 fine must now be paid on or before June 21,
    1992,
    in the
    manner specified in the Board’s Order of April
    23,
    1992.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    2Hearing costs usually are between $200.00 to $1,000.00,
    and
    must be paid
    in addition to the penalty.
    133—560
    3
    I, Dorothy M.
    Gunn,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify that the above order was adopted on the
    ~/-1--~day of ___________________________,
    1992,
    by a vote of
    -7
    Control Board
    133—56 1

    Back to top