June 8, 2009
    Mr. John
    Therriault, Assistant Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control
    Board
    James R Thompson
    Center
    I
    )Ofri
    100 West Randolph Street
    pT’4TE
    OFILLI
    Chicago, IL 60601
    Uion
    Corij1S
    RE:
    AC
    0939
    IEPA
    No.
    18-09-AC
    Rockport/Sapp
    Site
    29321 Dutch Creek Road
    Rockport, Pike County
    Dear Mr. Therriault,
    There are several reasons that I requested a Hearing
    regarding the Administrative Citation
    identifiing
    the Sapp/Dutch Creek location as being in violation
    of the Illinois Environmental
    Act.
    •
    All listed observations
    in the February 2005 inspection report
    have been abated.
    o
    The
    Illinois
    Environment
    Protection Agency may
    reinspect the site for verification.
    o
    There are no hazardous wastes, oil spills
    or releases involved at the site.
    •
    Listed scrap items were repair
    parts
    or damaged
    parts
    to be taken
    to a
    scrap dealer.
    o
    Copies
    of
    delivery tickets
    taken
    to a scrap dealer are available
    for review.
    •
    The site has been divided into two segments:
    agriculture
    and industrial operations.
    •
    The Agency
    did
    not inform or offer a Compliance
    Commitment
    Agreement.
    As a business man I did not have knowledge or access
    to the Environmental Protection Act 415
    ILCS 5/1 et seq. I did not
    know
    that I could request
    a meeting with the Agency to obtain
    compliance
    procedures and initiate a
    Compliance
    Commitment Agreement. If this information
    had
    been conveyed
    by
    the inspector
    or
    the
    Agency, there would have
    been
    no need for this
    Citation and Hearing.
    Based on the size and number
    of
    vehicles
    required to operate
    two
    part time operations (farming
    and excavation) at the site, there
    is no way
    I can generate sufficient
    cash
    flow to erect
    enough
    buildings
    to enclose the multiplicity of equipment as the inspector
    suggests. I observe other local
    large
    equipment
    operations,
    a
    trucking firm and a paving firm, storing equipment outside.
    If
    enclosed equipment storage
    is required at the site, I will be forced into a fmancially non
    competitive position.
    I
    trust that these reasons are sufficient to justify a Hearing. If not, Twill
    pay the
    $1,500
    penalty,
    but
    request
    a meeting with the Agency to develop and implement
    a
    workable
    compliance plan
    that allows me to move forward with
    my
    operations in
    a
    competitive manner.
    Respectfully,

    Back to top