ILLINOIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

April

25,

1972

WILLIAM

L.

RUTHERFORD and

WILLIAM J.

SCOTT, ATTORNEY GENERAL

OF ILLINOIS

v.

)

PCB72—31

KAMMERER CONCRETE PRODUCTS CO.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

v.

)

PCB72-66

ZABORAC ELECTRIC,

INC.

John C.

Parkhurst,

Special Assistant Attorney General,

and

Prescott

E.

Bloom,

Special Assistant Attorney General

for William L.

Rutherford,

a private citizen

and William J.

Scott, Attorney General of Illinois

Thomas

H.

Trager,

Vonachen, Cation, Lawless,

Trager

& Selvin for

Kammerer Concrete Products

Co.

Prescott

E,

Bloom,

Special Assistant Attorney General,

for the

Environmental Protection Agency

Stephen

D.

Gay,

Davis, Morgan

& Witherell

for

Zaborec Electric,

Inc.

Opinion of the Board

(by Jacob D. Dumelle)

Both of these cases deal with complaints of open burning in

Peoria County contrary to provisions of

the Environmental Pro-

tection Act and Regulations prohibiting open burning enacted by

this Board in 1971.

Both eases are therefore governed by the

same principles of

law.

In

72—31, William

L.

Rutherford,

a

private citizen,

and William J.

Scott, Attorney General

of

Illinois, represented by John

C.

Parkhurst averred that Kammerer

Concrete Products Co.

(Kammerer)

caused or allowed the open burn-

ing of automotive tires and other refuse on its property on

December

8,

1971

in violation of the Environmental Protection Act,

Sec.

9

(c).

In 72-66

the Environmental Protection Agency

(Agency)

alleged

that ~aborac

Electric,

Inc,(Zaborac)

caused or allowed

the open burning of refuse on October l3~ 1971 in violation

of

Section 402

(a)

of the Open Burning Regulations.

In

each casey

all parties stipulated to certain material facts.

4

—

425

---

In

the Kammerer case,

it was agreed upon that certain open

burning had

in fact occurred on the Kammerer premises on

December

8,

1971 after some of Kammerer~semployees had demo~ished

a

feed and storage shed and had most of the resulting debris

hauled away.

The demolition

material which

was

not removed was

placed

into an area approximately

8 feet by

12

feet and set afire.

The

fire lasted about one-half hour and had an estimated eight

foot flame and one hundred foot smoke plume.

Complainant’s

exhibit one

is

a photograph of the occurrence which illuminates

the

evidence

in

this

case most dramatically.

In

the

•Zaborac case,

the

stipulation

of

facts

stated

that

certain employees of Zaborac

burned several piles

of brush and

trees on October

13, 1971 cleared

from

the

area

in

the

process

of

readying

the

land

for

a

mobile

homes

site.

During

the

burn-

ing

process,

an inspector

for

the

Agency

arrived

on the scene

and

advised

an

employee

of

.Zaborac

that

the

burning

might

he

illegal

and

no further burning

was

commenced,

although

consider-

able quantities of waste remained to be combusted.

In

each

case,

the

respondents

put

forth,

in

defense,

the

contention

of

ignorance

of

the

legal

prohibition

against

open

burning.

Open

burning

has

been

illegal

in

Illinois

by

reason

of existing regulation

since 1965,

It

is

true

that

the

rules

have been recently rewritten and that there presently

are

and

have been certain exceptions to the ban against open burning.

Nonetheless,

we

are

past

the

time

when

we

can

fairly

be

expected

to seriously consider ignorance of

the

legal

prohibition

in

‘total

mitigation

of

the

environmental

offense

of

uncontrolled

open

burning.

Both

respondents

in

these

cases

have

acted

wisely

to

inform

their

employees

of

the

law

against

open

burning.

We

wish

they

had

done

so

at

an

earlier

date

so

as

to

preclude

the

subject

occurrerces.

We

shall

order

the

payment

of

a

r~qney penalty

of one

hundred

dollars

.($lOo,00’)

in

each

of

these

matters

for

the

specific

instances

of

open

burning.

Mr.

Dumelle

believes

the

oenalty

should

be

$200.00

in

each

case.

This opinion constitutes

the Board~sfindings of

fact. and

conclusions

of

law.

ORDER: PCB71—31, Rutherford et al

v.

Kammerer Concrete Products

Co.

Kammerer Concrete Products

Co.

shall

pay

to

the

State

of

Illinois

the

sum

of

one

hundred

dollars

($loo~o0)

as

penalty

for

violation of

the prohibition against open burning.

Payment shall

he made within thirty-five

(35)

days

of

the

entry

of this order

by

certified

check

or

money

order

to the Fiscal Services

Division,

Environmental

Protection

Agency,

220C)

Churchill

Road,

Sprinqfieli

Illinois

62706W

---

ORDER:

PCB72-66, EPA v.Zabor~p.Electric,

Inc.

Zaborac

Electric,

Inc.

shall pay

to the State of Illinois

the sum of Dna hundred dollars

($100.00)

as penalty for viola-

tion of the prohibition against open burning.

Payment shall

be made within thirty—five

(35)

days of the entry of this order

by certified check or money order

to the Fiscal Services Divi-

sion, Environmental Protection Agency,

2200 Churchill Road,

Springfield,

Illinois

62706.

I, Christan Moffett, Clerk

of

the Pollution Control Board,

certif:y that the Board adopted the above Opinion

and Order of

the Board this

25th day of

ApriL

,

1972, by

a vote of

5-0

-.

---