CLERK’S OFFICE
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
MAY
05
2004
STATE OF ILL1NO~S
Pollut!on Contro’ Board
ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
)
Complainant,
)
AC 04-27
)
v.
)
(IEPA No. 686-03-AC)
)
DOUGLAS S. CARRTCO, d!b/a
)
CARRICO’S AUTO HEAP,
)
)
Respondent.
)
NOTICE OF FILING
To:
Douglas S. Carrico
19291 Carrico Road
Kane, Illinois
62054
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on this date I mailed forfilingwith the Clerk of the Pollution Control Board
of the State of Illinois the following instrument(s) entitled POST-HEARING
BRIEF OF COMPLAINANT.
Respectfully submitted,
~~elle
~
Special Assistant Attorney General
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021 North Grand Avenue East
P.O.Box
19276
Springfield, Illinois
62794-9276
(217) 782-5544
Dated:
May 3, 2004
THIS
FILING SUBMITTED
ON
RECYCLED
PAPER
LERK S OFFICE
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
~
~4AY
052004
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
STATE OF ILLINOIS
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
PoIIut~on
Control Board
)
Complainant,
)
AC 04-27
)
V.
)
(IEPA No. 686-03-AC)
)
DOUGLAS S. CARRICO, dlb/a
)
CARRICO’S AUTO HEAP,
)
)
Respondent.
)
POST-HEARING BRIEF OF COMPLAINANT
On
October
6,
2003, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (“Illinois EPA”)
issued an administrative citation to Douglas S. Carrico (“Respondent”).
The citation alleges
a
violation of Section 21 (p)(1) ofthe Environmental Protection Act (“Act”) (415 ILCS
5/21 (p)( 1)
(2002)), in that Respondent caused or allowed open dumping of waste,
resulting in litter and
open burning on October 23, 2003.
The violations occurred at 19291
Carrico Road, Kane,
Greene County, Illinois.
Transcript, pp.
6-7; Exhibit
1.
Illinois EPA has demonstrated that Respondent caused or allowed open dumping on the
site.
“Open dumping” means “the consolidation ofrefuse from one or more sources at a disposal
site that does not
fulfill the requirements of a sanitary landfill.”
415
ILCS 5/3.305
(2002).
“Refuse” means “waste,” (415 ILCS 5/3.385
(2002)), and “waste” includes “any.
.
.
discarded
material” (415 ILCS
5/3.535
(2002)).
The inspection report admitted into evidence as Exhibit
1
and the testimony at hearing show that various materials including inoperable and damaged
vehicles, vehicle parts, used tires, scrap metal, glass, plastic, lumber
and
cardboard were
accumulated on the site.
Tr. at 8-9, 22, 34-6; Exh.
1, pp.
7, 9-15.
These materials constitute
“discarded material” within the meaning of the ten-n “waste.” While
some ofthe waste was in an
open-bay shed, much of the material was on the ground with vegetation growing over it,
indicating that it had been
accumulated for a period of time.
Id.
The waste visible in the
photographs in Exhibit
1
ccinstitute the “consolidation of refuse from one or more sources”
within the meaning ofthe term “open dumping.”
Exh.
1
at
9-15.
Respondent owns the property at issue (Tr. at 7) and formerly conducted a salvage
operation there (Tr. at 7,
15,
24,
33-34).
Respondent admitted that the waste at the site was “left
over from the conduct ofthe business” (Tr.
at 24) and that the material was placed on the site
while he was conducting business
and maintaining control over the site
(See
Tr. at 33).
As the
owner and person with control over the property, Respondent caused or allowed the open
dumping ofwaste observed on
October 23, 2003.
Respondent’s causing or allowing the open dumping ofthese wastes resulted in “litter”
under Section 21(p)(l) ofthe Act (415 ILCS 5/2l(p)(l) (2002)).
The Act does not define “litter,”
but in
similar cases, the Board has looked to the definition of “litter” in the Litter Control Act:
“Litter” means any discarded, used or unconsumed substanceor waste.
“Litter” may
include, but is not limited to,
any
garbage, trash, refuse, debris, rubbish.. .or
anything
else of an unsightly or unsanitary nature, which has been discarded, abandoned or
otherwise disposed ofimproperly.
415 ILCS
105/3(a) (2002); see St.
Clair County v. LouisI. Mund
(Aug. 22, 1991), AC 90-64, slip op.
at
4,
6.
Using this
definition, the vehicles,
vehicle parts,
used tires,
scrap metal,
glass, plastic,
lumber and cardboardconstitute “litter” under Section 21 (p)(1)oftheAct, and therefore Respondent
violated that section.
Respondent argued at hearing that he was in the process ofcleaning up the property (Tr. at
16,
25),
but
admitted that he “hadn’t started the cleanup after the first inspections.”
Tr. at
16.
In
2
fact, Respondent had been in the “process” ofcleaning up
for over a year prior to
the October 23,
2003 inspection, and had been given four separate extensionsofthe deadline forremovingthe waste-
from theproperty, from the original deadline ofSeptember 30, 2002 till September 30, 2003.
Tr. at
37-41.
In addition, the Illinois EPA removed 1000 ofRespondent’s tires at no cost to
him under a
Consensual Removal
Action pursuant to
Section 55.3(c) ofthe
Act.
Tr.
at
41,
48.
Respondent
admitted that everyletter Illinois EPA sent to him contained a warning ofpotential legal action.
Tr.
at 42-3. Nevertheless, Respondenton October 23, 2003 had still not achieved compliance atthe site.
It is clear from
his testimony that he
did not heed these warnings because he didn’t believe they
were valid,
to his own detriment.
Tr. at 43, 49.
Respondent analogized his circumstances to a child who is doing his best in school and still
achieves B’s rather than A’s.
Tr.
at 27.
Unfortunately for Respondent, the law
regarding open
dumping is a “pass/fail” situation, and on October 23, 2003, Respondent received a failing grade.
The Illinois EPA photographs and inspection report and the eyewitness testimony show that
Respondent allowed open dumping ofwaste
in a manner resulting in litter in
violation ofSection
21(p)(1) ofthe Act.
Illinois EPA requests that the Board enter a final order finding that Respondent
violated this section and imposing the statutory penalty.
Respectfully Submitted,
DATED: May 3, 2004
Special Assistant Attorney General
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021
North Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box
19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
(217) 782-5544
3
PROOF OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I did
on the ~
day ofMay 2004, send by U.S. Mail with postage thereon
fully prepaid,
by
depositing
in
a
United States Post Office
Box
a
true
and
correct
copy of the
following instrument(s) entitled POST-HEARING BRIEF
OF COMPLAINANT
To:
Douglas S. Carrico
Carol Sudman
19291
Canico Road
Hearing Officer
Kane, Illinois 62054
Illinois Pollution Control Board
1021
North Grand Avenue East
P.O.
Box
19274
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9274
and the original
and nine (9) true and correct copies ofthe same foregoing instruments on the same
date by U.S. Mail with postage thereon fully prepaid
To:
Dorothy Gunn, Clerk
Pollution Control Board
James R.
Thompson Center
100 West Randolph Street, Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Michelle M. Rya~~—~”
Special Assistant Attorney General
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021
North Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box
19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
(217) 782-5544
THIS FILING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
