RECE~VED

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

CLERK’S OFFICE

ADMINISTR4TWE CITATION

FEB

102005

STATE OF ILLINOIS

COUNTY OF JACKSON,

)

Pollution

Control

Board

)

Complainant,

)

)

v.

)

AC 04-63

)

(Site Code:

0778095036)

)

AC 04-64

)

(Site Code: 0778125013)

EGON KAMARASY,

)

(AC’s Consolidated)

)

Respondent.

)

COMPLAINANT’S POST

HEARING REPLY BRIEF

The Complainant herein, pursuant to the Hearing Officer’s November23, 2004 report, files

its post hearing reply brief as follows:

ARGUMENT

On orabout February

1, 2005 the Respondent filed its post hearing replybriefs (one in each

case).

In response the Complainant wishes to discuss in this replya fewmatters in order to clarify

obvious pointsofdisagreement and to addressnewissues that areraised in Respondent’spost hearing

briefs.

1. In both 04-63 and 04-64 administrative citation cases the Respondent asks this Board to

accept the Respondent’s

statement offacts contained in its trial memos, Respondent’sExhibits 1-5

and Exhibit 1, respectively, arguing that the documentsaccurately

portraythe evidence and testimony

presented in this matter.

This is not true.

Complainant disagreeswith Respondent’s assertionon the

ground that the statement offacts were obviously writtenbefore thehearingand do notand couldnot

accurately state what was said at the later hearings.

Also, much ofthe

so called statement offacts

Page

1 of

3

---

referred to by the Respondentcontains legal argument, speculation, and opinion.

Please keep all of

this

in mind.

2. In both matters the Respondent attacks thecredentials and credibilityofthe Complainant’s

witness, Don Terry.

It should be noted, however, that Mr. Terrywas found credibleby the Hearing

Officer in her November23, 2004 hearingreport; and more importantly it is not disputed Mr. Terry

possessed all the required training and certificationnecessary to conduct these types ofinspections.

3. In the 04-63 matterthe Respondent continually insists he was under orders by the Illinois

Department ofPublic Healthto dispose ofthe abandoned mobile homes; and, therefore, he claims,

wasjustifiedto dispose ofthe mobile homes atthe sitein question.

But let uslook atthat Department

ofPublicHealth’sorder in moredetail. TheNovember 19, 2003, order canbe foundatRespondent’s

Exhibit

1

in AC-04-63.

Paragraph 6 ofthe order states, in part, “rlemove

andproperly dispose

of

the rubble from homes being dismantled at sites 12 and 31.”

(Emphasis added).

Clearly the

order

did not give the Respondent a free ticket, or an excuse, ora mandate to disregardthe environmental

laws.

4. InAC-04-63 the Respondent again brings up the allegedagreement with the Complainant

concerning

the

clean

up

of his

site.

Complainant,

of course, has

already

argued

against that

proposition.

Even ifthere were agreement, however, the Respondent did not keep it.

His excuse is

stated on page 13 ofhis reply brief in the AC 04-63 matter.

He claims bad weather presented him

with uncontrollablecircumstances. Weargue that bad weather is not an uncontrollable circumstance

in this instance.

This Board is requested to take manifest recognition ofthe factthat winter in these

climes usually contains inclement weather which would

hamper anyone doing any kind of work

outdoors.

Respondent simply cannotcomplainthat he could not removethedebrishe wasresponsible

for in the first place when he knew, or should have known,

that he would most likely encounter bad

Page 2 of

3

---

weather that might hamper his ability to remove it.

5.

The Respondent again insists

in both matters that Section

21

litter violations

are also

governedand limited by thelanguage found in thelitter controlact. Forthe reasonsalready addressed

in the Complainant’spost trial briefand forthereasons that follow, theRespondentis incorrect. The

litter control act is a criminal provision.

The present proceedings are civil.

This is the difference

between the two.

Respondent is essentially arguing that a civil violation under Section

21

of the

environmental protection act is the same as a criminal violation under the littercontrol act, and vice-

versa.

This is absurd.

The two acts are not interchangeable.

6.

Lastly itshould be noted by this Board that except foronly two minor instances in bothof

Respondent’s posthearingbriefs does he cite any authority forhis sweeping opinions and conclusions

regarding the law in this area.

Therefore for all the reasons given, the Complainant reiterates its request to this Board that

it find that the Respondent violatedthose provisions ofSection

21

as alleged in the administrative

citations.

Respectfully submitted,

“

~

()~)

~

~

DanielBren~ëi~

Assistant State’s Attorney

Jackson County Courthouse, 3’~

Floor

Mursphysboro, Illinois 62966

618-687-7200

For the Complainant

Page

3

of

3

---

I hereby certify that I did on the

8th

dayofFebruary 2005, send by U.S. Mail, with postage

thereon fullyprepaid,by depositing in U.S. Post OfficeBox a true and correct copyofthe following

instrument(s) entitled COMPLAINANT’S POST HEARiNG REPLY BRIEF

To:

Gregory A. Veach

Carol Webb

3200 Fishback Road

Hearing Officer

P.O. Box 1206

Illinois Pollution Control Board

Carbondale, IL

62903-1206

1021

North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box

19274

Springfield,

IL

62794-9274

and the original and nine (9) true and correct copies ofthe same foregoinginstruments on the same

date by U.S.

Mail with postage thereon fully prepaid.

To:

Dorothy Gunn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

100 West Randolph Street, Suite 11-500

Chicago, IL 60601

Daniel Brenner

Assistant State’s Attorney

Jackson County Courthouse, Third Fl.

Murphysboro, IL 62966

618-687-7200

FILING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER