BEFORE
    THE
    ILLINOIS
    POLLUTION
    CONTROL
    BOARD
    ADMINISTRATIVE
    CITATION
    LERI<
    S
    OFFICE
    COUNTYOFJACKSON,
    )
    JAN
    O92DO
    Complainant,
    )
    $TRT2
    OFILUNOIS
    ollutfon
    Control
    Board
    v.
    )
    AC
    09-8
    )
    (Site
    Code:
    0778035009)
    DAN
    KIMMEL,
    Respondent.
    COMPLAINANT’S
    POST
    HEARING
    BRIEF
    Complainant,
    the
    County
    of
    Jackson,
    files
    its
    post
    hearing
    brief
    in
    the
    matter.
    INTRODUCTION
    AND
    PROCEDURAL
    MATTERS
    On
    July
    30,
    2008,
    the
    Complainant
    filed
    an
    Administrative
    Citation
    against
    Dan
    Kimmel,
    the
    Respondent,
    under
    Section
    31.1
    of
    the
    Illinois
    Environmental
    Protection
    Act
    415
    ILCS
    5/1
    et.
    seq.(2008)(the
    Act).
    It
    is
    alleged
    the
    Respondent
    violated
    Section
    21
    (p)(1)
    and
    (p)Q7)
    of
    the
    Act.
    The
    Respondenttimeiyfiled
    his
    response
    to
    the
    Citation
    on
    August
    27,
    2008.
    Hearing
    Officer,
    Carol
    Webb,
    heard
    this
    matter
    on
    December4,
    2008,
    in
    Murphysboro,
    Illinois.
    On
    December
    8,
    2008,
    she
    filed
    her
    Hearing
    Report
    with
    the
    Board.
    FACTS
    On
    July
    8,
    2008,
    Environmental
    Compliance
    Inspector,
    Don
    Terry,
    inspected
    a
    site
    known
    herein
    after
    as
    the
    site
    (Site
    Code
    No.
    0778035009)
    situated
    in
    a
    rural,
    unincorporated
    part
    of
    Jackson
    County,
    Illinois.
    Tr.
    7,
    lines
    2-11.
    See
    Also
    Complainant
    Ex.
    2.
    The
    inspection
    was
    conducted
    pursuant
    to
    the
    Jackson
    County
    Health
    Department’s
    delegation
    Page
    1
    of
    5

    agreementwiththe
    Illinois
    Environmental
    Protection
    Agency.
    Tr.
    6,
    lines
    14-20.
    The
    site,
    at
    the
    time
    of
    the
    inspection,
    was
    owned
    by
    the
    Respondent.
    Tr.
    7,
    lines
    12-3.
    See
    also
    Complainant’s
    Ex.
    2.
    At
    the
    site
    Mr
    Terry
    observed
    abandoned
    vehicles,
    scrap
    metal,
    a
    mobile
    home
    and
    a
    variety
    of
    other
    construction
    demolition
    type
    materials..
    Tr.
    7,
    lines
    14-22
    and
    Complainant’s
    Ex.
    2.
    See
    also
    Complainant’s
    Ex.
    1
    (Inspection
    photos).
    Mr.
    Terry
    also
    testified
    that
    none
    of
    the
    vehicles
    depicted
    in
    the
    photos
    in
    Complainant’s
    Exhibit
    1
    were
    operable
    and
    had
    been
    used
    for
    more
    than
    seven
    days
    prior
    to
    his
    inspection
    on
    July
    8,
    2008.
    Tr.
    10,
    lines
    19-24
    and
    Tr.
    11,
    lines
    1-4.
    He
    stated
    he
    could
    see
    some
    of
    the
    debris
    with
    his
    naked
    eye
    from
    the
    public
    way
    adjoining
    the
    property.
    Tr.
    11,
    lines
    18-20
    &
    Tr.
    13,
    lines
    15-20.
    The
    Respondent
    generally
    admitted
    to
    thewaste.
    Tr.
    16,
    lines
    8-19
    and
    Tr.
    17,
    lines
    5-7.
    It
    must
    be
    further
    noted
    that
    Respondent
    also
    generally
    admitted
    to
    the
    waste
    issue
    in
    his
    petition
    to
    contest
    the
    administrative
    citation
    that
    was
    filed
    with
    this
    Board
    on
    August
    27,
    2008.
    Mr
    Terry
    stated
    the
    site
    did
    not
    have
    the
    proper
    permits
    for
    storing
    waste
    items.
    Tr.
    12,
    lines
    1-4.
    Mr.
    Terry
    further
    stated
    that
    there
    had
    been
    previous
    inspections
    at
    the
    site;
    and
    administrative
    citations
    had
    been
    filed
    againstthis
    Respondent
    at
    this
    site.
    Tr.
    12,
    lines
    12-
    21.
    He
    recalled
    that
    at
    least
    one
    resulted
    in
    a
    Board
    order
    in
    2006.
    hI.
    Complainant
    requested
    the
    Board
    take
    judicial
    notice
    of
    its
    previous
    decision
    in
    AC
    06-21
    dated
    November
    2,
    2006.
    Tr.
    15,
    lines
    3-1
    5.
    That
    decision
    pertained
    to
    thesame
    Respondent
    for
    the
    same
    site.
    Id.
    Page
    2
    of
    5

    In
    its
    case
    in
    chief
    the
    Respondent
    provided
    testimony
    that
    was
    cleaning
    the
    site.
    Tr.
    16,
    lines 6-19
    and
    Tr.
    17,
    lines
    5-6.
    Respondent
    did
    not
    offer
    a
    defense
    to
    the
    allegations.
    His
    only explanation
    to
    the
    allegations
    was
    that
    he
    was
    cleaning
    the
    site and
    that
    he
    wasbeng
    harassed.
    Tr.
    16,
    line
    24.
    ARGUMENT
    Open
    dumping
    is
    defined
    as
    ‘the
    consolidation
    of
    refuse
    from
    one
    or
    more
    sources
    at
    a
    disposal
    site
    that
    does
    not
    fulfill the
    requirements
    of
    a
    sanitary
    landfill.”
    415
    ILCS
    5/3.305
    (2006).
    Refuse
    is
    defined
    as
    “waste”
    (415 ILCS
    5/3.385
    (2006)).
    Disposal
    is
    defined
    as
    “the
    discharge,
    deposit,
    injection,
    dumping,
    spilling,
    leaking
    or
    placing
    of
    any
    waste.
    ..
    into
    or
    on
    any
    land
    .
    .
    .
    “415
    ILCS
    5/3.185
    (2006)).
    Litter
    is
    defined
    in
    the
    Litter
    Control
    Act as
    ‘any
    discarded,
    used
    or
    unconsumed
    substance
    orwaste.
    . .
    abandoned
    vehicle
    (as
    defined
    in
    the
    Illinois
    Vehicle
    Code.
    ..)..
    . or
    anything
    else
    of
    unsightly
    or
    unsanitary
    nature,
    which
    has been
    discarded,
    abandoned
    or
    otherwise
    disposed
    of
    improperly.”
    415
    ILCS
    105/3
    (2006).
    Section
    3.535
    defines
    waste
    as
    “any
    garbage.
    .
    .
    or
    other
    discarded
    material.
    .
    .
    .“
    General
    construction
    or
    demolition
    debris
    is
    defined
    in
    Section
    3.160
    of
    the
    Act
    (2006)
    as
    non-
    hazardous,
    uncontaminated
    materials
    resulting
    from
    the
    construction,
    remodeling,
    repair,
    and
    demolition
    of
    utilities,
    structures,
    and
    roads,
    limited
    to
    the
    following:
    bricks,
    concrete,
    and
    other
    masonry
    materials;
    soil;
    rock;
    wood,
    including
    non-hazardous
    painted,
    treated,
    and
    coated
    wood
    and
    wood
    products;
    wall
    coverings;
    plaster;
    drywall;
    plumbing
    fixtures;
    non-asbestos
    insulation,
    roofing
    shingles
    and
    roof
    coverings.
    . .
    .“
    Finally,
    an
    abandoned
    vehicle
    is
    defined
    as
    any
    vehicle
    in
    a
    state
    of
    disrepair
    rendering
    it
    incapable
    of
    being
    driven
    or
    any
    vehicle
    that
    has
    not
    been
    moved
    or
    used
    for
    seven
    consecutive
    days
    or
    more.
    625
    ILCS
    5/1-101.05
    Page
    3
    of
    5

    (2008).
    The
    evidence
    presented
    herein
    clearly
    shows
    Mr.
    Kimmel
    caused
    or
    allowed
    the
    deposition
    of
    litter,
    waste
    and general
    construction
    demolition
    debris
    at
    the
    site.
    It is
    not
    contested
    the
    Respondent
    owned
    and
    controlled
    the site
    at
    all
    material
    times.
    Further,
    if
    violations
    are
    determined
    herein,
    Mr. Kimmel
    is
    subject
    to double
    fines
    for
    the Section
    21
    (p)(1)
    issue
    because
    itwould
    be
    a subsequentviolation
    under4l
    5
    ILCS 5142(b)(4-5)(2008).
    Taking
    the
    inspection
    report,
    the photos
    of
    the
    site, the
    inspector’s
    testimony
    and the
    Respondent’s
    statements
    leaves
    little room
    for the
    Respondent
    to
    argue
    a
    defense
    to
    this
    charges.
    Nevertheless
    the
    Respondentexplains
    he
    has been
    cleaning
    the
    site.
    However,
    even
    if this
    were
    true, it
    would
    not
    provide
    him
    with a
    defense
    to
    the
    administrative
    citation.
    This
    Board
    has
    repeatedly
    held
    that
    clean
    up efforts
    are
    not
    a
    mitigating
    factor
    under
    the
    administrative
    citation
    program.
    City
    of Chicago
    v.
    City
    Wide
    Disposal,
    Inc.,
    AC
    03-1
    1
    (September 4,
    2003).
    More
    importantly,
    and despite
    his argument,
    the
    Respondent
    does
    not
    deny
    he
    is
    responsible
    for
    the
    waste
    and debris
    on
    his
    site.
    CONCLUSION
    Therefore,
    based
    on
    the
    record,
    the findings
    of the
    Hearing
    Officer
    and
    the
    arguments
    presented
    above,
    Complainant
    requests
    this Board
    to
    find
    that
    the Respondent
    violated
    Section
    21 (p)(l)
    and (p)(7)
    of
    the
    Act on
    July
    8,
    2008,
    and
    impose
    a fine
    of
    $4,500.00
    ($1,500.00
    for
    the
    (p)(7)
    violation
    and
    $3,000.00
    for
    the
    (p)(l)
    violation).
    Page
    4 of
    5

    Respectfully
    submitted,
    Daniel
    Brenner
    Assistant
    State’s Attorney
    Jackson County
    Courthouse,
    Third Floor
    Murphysboro,
    Illinois
    62966
    618-687-7200
    For the
    Complainant
    Page 5
    of 5

    PROOF
    OF
    SERVICE
    I
    hereby
    certify
    that
    I
    did
    on
    the
    6
    1h
    day
    of
    January
    2009
    send
    by
    U.S.
    Mail,
    with
    postage
    thereon
    fully
    prepaid,
    by
    depositing
    in
    U.S.
    Post
    Office
    Box
    a
    true
    and
    correct
    copy
    of
    the
    following
    instrument(s)
    entitled
    COMPLAINANT’S
    POST
    HEARING
    BRIEF.
    To:
    Carol
    Webb
    Dan
    Kimmel
    Hearing
    Officer
    1065
    Dumaroc
    Road
    Illinois
    Pollution
    Control
    Board
    DeSoto,
    IL
    62924
    1021
    North
    Grand
    Avenue
    East
    P.O.
    Box
    19274
    Springfield,
    1L62794-9274
    and
    the
    original
    and
    nine
    (9)
    true
    and
    correct
    copies
    of
    the
    same
    foregoing
    instruments
    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
    El.
    Murphysboro,
    IL
    62966
    61
    8-687-7200

    Back to top