ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
October 31,
1972
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
#71-293
v.
15TH STREET AUTO PARTS and
CLARENCE HUTCHINSON
JOHN W. LESKERA, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, ON BEHALF OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MICHAEL CONSTANCE,
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
OPINION AND
ORDER
OF THE BOARD
(BY SAMUEL T.
LAWTON,
JR.)
Complaint,
later amended, was filed against 15th Street Auto
Parts and Clarence Hutchinson, its owner, alleging that on June
5,
June 10, June
28 and September 28,
1971,
and July 12, 1972, Respon-
dent conducted an auto salvage business
in violation of Section 9(c)
of the Environmental Protection Act, by causing, permitting or
allowing the open burning of automobiles.
Complainant further
alleges that on those dates, the operation of the facility caused,
threatened or allowed the discharge of large quantities of dense
black smoke,
so as to cause or tend to cause air pollution,
either
alone or in combination
with
contaminants from other sources in
violation of Section 9(a)
of the Act
(Ill.
Rev.
Statutes,
1971,
Chapter 111—1/2,
Sec.
1009)
Hearings were held in East St. Louis on November 24,
1971 and
continued until September 28,
1972.
Such an
inordinate delay
is without explanation,
and contrary to approved
practice before the Board.
See Environmental Protection Agency v.
Acme Solvents Reclaiming,
Inc.,
et al,
#72—288,
5 PCB
,(Oct.
17,1972.)
Respondent operates an auto salvage yard within the corporate
limits of East St. Louis.
During the period covered by the com-
plaint,
Respondent salvaged parts from autos by means of both
acetylene torches and mechanical apparatus.
In this operation,
certain parts of the car are removed and segregated for sale or
other disposal,
including the body and frame, seats,
tires, wheels
and engine block.
Environmental Protection Agency witnesses testified to obser-
vations of open burning on June 10,
1971,
June 28, 1971 and July 12,
1972
(11/24/71 R.16 and following,
H,
24 and following)
(9/28/72
R.5 and following).
Respondept concedes that fires occurred on
6—
71
each of
these occasions although disagrees as to the extent and
intensity
(9/28/72 R.47)
.
The evidence with respect to the
June 10, 1971 fire
is meager,
a member of the local
fire department
merely testifying that the department was called and the fire was
extinguished in less than an hour.
The fire of June 28, 1971 was
extensive,
requiring six hours to extinguish.
(11/24/71 R.16).
Black smoke billowed 300 or 400 feet into the air (11/24/71
H.
26)
and flames were estimated to be six to eight feet
in height.
Several cars were observed burning on this occasion.
(11/24/71
H.
28)
A pile of rubber tires caught fire and smoke having Ringelmann opacity
of
5 was observed.
(11/24/71 R.26)
.
On July 12,
1972,
another fire
took place at which the fire department was at first denied access,
and later permitted on the premises to extinguish
it.
This fire
appeared to involve tires, and car seats that had been segregated and
spread to include other automotive parts.
(9/28/72 R.ll)
.
Dense
black s~iokeand flames ten to twelve feet high were observed (9/28/
72,
H,
16)
Respondent contends that the fires have either been caused by
vandalism or the use of acetylene torches which have now been dis—
continued.
(9/28/72,
R.47
arid
56)
Respondent concedes awareness
that open burning was prohibited on the occasions when the fire took
place
(9/28/72,
R,30) and that he had been told by representatives
of
the
Environmental Protection Agency that his method of storing
parts and tires created a
fire hazard
(9/28/72,
R.47)
.
Respondent~s
offenses are due to his negligent method of conducting his salvage
operation and the manner in which materials,
including those of
a.n inflammable nature are arranged within his yard.
Respondent
has now segregated his operation from the adjacent property and has
erected a new fence.
He has also stated that he will take improved
measures
in the policing of his yard to prevent any recurrence.
We have
held
in
previous cases that negligent conduct of a salvage
operation
is
sufficient
to
establish
violation
of
Section
9 (a)
of
the
Act.
See
Environmental
Protection
Agency
v.
Neal
Auto
Salvage,
#70-5,
1 PCB 7l(OCt,2d,
1970) ,Environmèntal Protection Agency v.
J.
M.
Cooling, #70—2,
1
PCB 85, (Dec.9,
1970) ~
v.
Jesse N. Farley,
Sr.,
#72—267,
5
PCB
,(Oct.
31,
1972).
Furthe
more,
conduct necessitating repeated calls for the local fire depart-
ment constitute a violation of Section 9(a)
of the Act, with respect
to the causing of air pollution as defined in the Act.
Fires
necessitating employment of a municipal fire department
to the extent
caused by the Respondent clearly constitutes an interference with
the enjoyment of life and property by others
in the community.
Furthermore,
the evidence sustains the fact that the salvage yard
is in the immediate vicinity of
a housing project, whose residents
have undoubtedly been affected by the sloppy operation of Respondent!
business.
We find that Respondent,
by his negligent and indifferent opera-
tion,
has conducted his auto salvaging business in violation of
—2—
6
—
72
Sections
9(c) and 9(a)
of the Environmental Protection Act, with
respect to open burning and the causing of air pollution.
We
assess a penalty in the amount of
$1,000 and order Respondent
to cease and desist the operation of his business,
in violation
of the statute and regulations.
The intensity of the fires, the
general sloppiness of the operation and the possible dangers
to adjacent properties calls
for the imposition of a penalty in
excess of that assessed in
Environmental
Protect~2~Aencyv.
Farley,
supra, decided this day.
This opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions
of law of the Board.
IT
IS
THE
ORDER
of the Pollution Control Board that:
I.
Respondent cease
and
desist the operation of his auto
salvaging facility
in
violation
of
the Environmental
Protection Act and
the
Rules
and
Regulations
Governing
the
Control
of
i~~ir
Pollution.
2.
Penalty
in
the
amount
of
$1,000
is
assessed
against
Respondent for violation of Sections 9(c)
and 9(a) of
the Environmental Protection Act,
as found in this
proceeding..
Payment
shall
he
made
within
35
days,
by
certified
check
or
money
order
made
payable
to
the
State
of
Illinois
and
sent
to:
Fiscal
Services
Division,
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
2200
Churchill
Drive,
Springfield,
Illinois
62706.
3,
Respondent
shall
take affirmative steps to secure
entrance
to
his
salvage
yard against trespassers;
such
steps
shall
have
the approval
of
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
Respondent
shall
permit
repre-
sentatives
of the Environmental Protection Agency to
enter
his
premises
at
reasonable
hours
for
inspection
of
the
facilities
to
determine
whether
the
operation
is
in
compliance
with
the
applicable
statutory
and
regulatory
provisions.
I,
Christan
Moffett,
Clerk
of
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Boar~,
certify
that
the
above
Opinion
and
Order
was
a~opted
on
the
~/
~
day
of
~
~..
,
1972,
by
a
vote
of
~Y
to
Cj
7
/~
j
~
777
—3—
6
—
73
.
.