ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    October 17,
    1972
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
    Complainant,
    vs.
    )
    PCB 72—146
    R.
    W.
    DUNTEMAN CO.,
    an Illinois corporation,
    Respondent.
    Larry Eaton, Assistant Attorney General for the EPA
    George E.
    Buliwinkel for Respondent
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by Mr. Henss)
    The Environmental Protection Agency filed its complaint
    alleging that Respondent,
    a highway contractor, had caused or
    allowed open burning of uprooted trees on September
    1,
    2 and
    3,
    1971 in Rock
    Island, Illinois.
    Respondent concedes that it
    caused the open burning of uprooted trees on the first two
    dates in violation of the Environmental Protection Act but
    claims it is not responsible for the September
    3rd fire.
    The evidence shows that Respondent
    in the construction of
    2.4 miles of highway, accumulated uprooted trees and brush in
    piles
    for the purpose of burning them.
    Tires were placed in
    the piles to aid in creating a hot fire.
    In August 1971 the
    bPA became aware of the stockpiling of trees and trash and
    advised
    J.
    Dunteman,
    an officer of the company, that any burning
    would require an EPA permit and use of an air curtain destructor.
    Mr.
    Dunteman instructed the job superintendent to “bury” the
    trees or use the air curtain destructor which was owned by the
    Respondent company.
    Subsequently,
    on September 1,
    1971 pursuant
    to orders of the job superintendent,
    fires were touched off by
    Respondentt s employees.
    The superintendent testified that an
    assistant fire chief of the Rock Island Fire Department had
    given approval for the fires provided that the fires were small
    and kept under control.
    Fuel oil and tires were used to facilitate
    burning and the fires got out of control, burning over
    4 acres
    h~forethey ~sre put out by the Rock Island Fire Department.
    The
    fire chief,
    on September
    1, told the superintendent not to set any
    more fires.
    When the fire chief was called to the scene on
    September 2nd and again observed the fires he ordered a warrant
    for the arrest of the construction superintendent.
    5
    —
    665
    —2—
    J. Dunteman again instructed the superintendent to cover the
    trees.
    The superintendent later testified that he had intended
    to comply with that order on the next working day.
    He did not
    disassemble the remaining piles of tires and trees “because it
    would have been
    a waste of money”.
    Around 11:00 p.m. September
    3
    a major fire developed in the remaining brush piles.
    Evidence
    indicates that gasoline or fuel oil had been added and the fires
    were intentionally touched off.
    The wind of
    20 miles per hour
    fanned the flames to heights of 100
    to 150 feet in the air.
    The
    fire chief termed it a major fire extending over approximately
    five blocks,
    Two companies of firemen succeeded in extinguishing
    it by 3:30 a.m.
    People who lived in the construction area testified that the
    smoke was dense on all three dates, with burning leaves and ashes
    in the air.
    Smoke and soot entered the homes and permeated drapes
    and furniture.
    On the third night residents used garden hoses to
    wet down their houses since burning residue carried up to 100 yards
    from the fire.
    It is clear that Respondent caused the fires on September
    1
    and
    2,
    1971.
    We also
    find
    R.
    W. Dunteman Co. responsible for the
    September
    3,
    1971 fire.
    Although the record does not indicate that
    Respondent’s employees set the fire,
    they certainly created all the
    conditions
    for a successful fire and took no action for the dis-
    mantling of the stockpiles or removal of kindling agents
    to prevent
    one.
    In view of our decision Mr. Dunteman will hardly agree with
    his superintendent that such precautions would have been “a waste
    of money”.
    It would have been simplicity itself to have used the company
    owned air curtain destructor.
    Instead Respondent made a series of
    deliberate decisions in disregard of the law and directly in opposition
    to advice given by the Environmental Protection Agency and the fire chief.
    The best that can be said for Respondent with regard to the third day
    of burning is that it was negligent in the proper supervision of
    ~iastedisposal.
    We have previously held that such conduct creates
    a liability.
    (EPA vs. Jack Ohiman, PCB 72-244; EPA vs.
    J.
    M. Cooling,
    PCB 70-2).
    For these violations we believe a penalty of
    s~ooo.oó
    appropriate.
    ORDER
    It is ordered that:
    1.
    Respondent cease and desist from open burning in
    violation of the Environmental Protection Act.
    2.
    Respondent shall pay to the State of Illinois by
    November 20,
    1972 the sum of $2000.00 as a penalty
    for the violations found in this proceedings
    5
    —
    666
    —3—
    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 Drive, Springfield, Illinois
    62706.
    I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Orde~was adopted
    this
    /7’~day of October, 1972 by a vote of
    ~
    to
    Li
    Christan L. Noffett,
    9~1Vk
    Illinois Pollution Cofitrol Board
    5
    —
    667

    Back to top