ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

August 23, 1973

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Complainant,

vs.

)

PCB 73—47

STEVE LYONS, cl/b/a S & N

)

AUTOMOTIVE,

Respondent.

Samuel Morgan, Assistant Attorney General for the Agency

Steve Lyons per se

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Henss)

The Environmental Protection Agency filed its Complaint

alleging that Steve Lyons, d/b/a S & N Automotive, had caused

or allowed the open burning of refuse on or about June 29,

1972 in violation of Section 9(c) of the Environmental Pro-

tection Act andRule 502(a) of the Open Burning Regulations.

Public hearing revealed that Respondent conducts an auto-

mobile salvage operation near Oregon in Ogle County, Illinois.

Lyons purchased the business on May 18, 1972, at which time

the property was reportedly littered with garbage, piles of

seatcovers and tires, and other assorted refuse.

At about 6:45 p.m. on the date alleged, a fire of con-

siderable magnitude occurred at the salvage site. Two Agency

investigators happened to be in the area and were drawn to the

site by “great billows of dark smoke”. Dr. Stevens of the Ogle

County Health Department testified that he was contacted at

6:45 p.m. by a deputy sheriff and informed of the fire. Two

volunteer fire units were dispatched to the scene.

There were several different fires. Agency investigator

Goff estimated that over 400 tires were on fire in one area.

Photographs taken at the scene show the dense smoke emissions.

In addition to burning tires, automobile hulks and other discarded

automobile parts, the photographs show uncovered garbage mixed in

the other refuse.

9 —63

---

—2—

Appearing without benefit of counsel, Respondent Lyons

testified that he and his employees were on a break in his

apartment at the opposite end of the salvage yard when the fire

started. Upon leaving the apartment, Lyons observed the smoke

and dispatched an employee to determine the extent of the fire.

The employee reported that he had observed “some tires burning

and a car burning”. Lyons then went to the burning area in order

to determine the extent of the fire for himself. After viewing

the fire, Lyons returned to the other end of the salvage yard where

he encountered a deputy sheriff. Lyons indicated he informed the

deputy sheriff that he did not have insurance and, for this

reason, the fire department was not called immediately. Since

the salvage yard did not have water service, Lyons testified that

he did not halt routine work and ask employees to extinguish the

fire. He said “I saw no reason for my men to discontinue working

and stand around watching a fire that they can’t control anyway”.

(R. 29).

Respondent said he did not set the fire but also admitted

that ~e did not do everything possible to terminate the fire

(R. 35). He testified “I stated to the officers at the time that

there was nothing that it was going to hurt by burning, however,

at the time I wasn’t thinking about the EPA laws”. CR. 35). Lyons

also testified that the Oregon Fire Department would have charged

him $200 if he had requested their help in extinguishing the fire.

None of the witnesses in the public hearing knew the origin

of the fire. Lyons felt the fire should be attributed to vandalism

because at least one fire was observed at an unspecified distance

from the major fire.

We find nothing in the record to indicate that Respondent

actually ignited the debris. However, the constant threat of

fire is inherent in salvage operations which use cutting torches

around combustible automobile parts and gasoline tanks. Respondent

testified that he had been involved in salvage operations since at

least December 1971 and, from prior experience with salvage yards,

should have been fully aware of the very real possibility of a

fire at this site. Uncovered garbage and assorted combustible

refuse accumulated where no water is available are an invitation to

serious fires.

The record clearly shows that Respondent made no effort to

extinguish the fires, choosing to save a $200 fire fighter’s fee.

An Agency investigator even observed a workman using a cutting

torch at the site while the fire raged unchecked.

Evidence indicates that conditions at the site are now much

the same as when the fire occurred in June 1972. Lyons admitted

that another load of at least 500 tires has been added to the other

9—64

---

—3—

debris at the site. We find nothing in the record to show

that Lyons has done anything to prevent another large

fire

from occurring.

Based on the record, we find Respondent guilty of

allowing open burning as charged. We believe Respondentts

past record indicates that operations will continue much as

they have in the past unless he is required to conduct a

“clean” operation. Our Order will so provide. The monetary

penalty will be $500. This should clearly indicate to

Respondent that, it is not only better for the environment,

but it is less expensive to control fires.

ORDER

It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that:

1. Steve Lyons shall pay to the State of Illinois

by September 27, 1973 the sum of $500 as a

penalty for the violations found in this

proceeding. Penalty payment by certified check

or money order payable to the State of Illinois

shall be made to: Fiscal Services Division,

Illinois EPA, 2200 Churchill Road, Springfield,

Illinois 62706.

2. Respondent shall cease and desist from open

burning in violation of the Environmental Pro-

tection Act and the Regulations of the Pollution

Control Board.

Respondent shall remove all garbage and refuse

having no resale value from the site by

September 27, 1973. This material shall be

deposited in an approved sanitary landfill.

All remaining salvageable items shall be stored

at a safe distance from any operations involving

cutting torches to reduce the possibility of

unlawful open burning. Combustible items having

no resale value shall be removed from the site

on a weekly basis after September 27, 1973.

4. Respondent shall by September 27, 1973 have made

arrangements for a water supply adequate to

extinguish fires that may occur in the future.

In the alternative, Respondent may elect to

purchase fire extinguishing equipment, to be

permanently located on site, sufficient to control

fires that may occur in the future.

9 —65

---

—4—

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order

were adopted on the 23rd day of August, 1973 by a vote of 3-0.

Qiy~1~k

~

/~

~