ILLINOIS
P(i.L~1UTIONCONTROL
BCARD
Decc~bor9,
1971
)
)
YOUTH
FOR
ENVIRONXCNTAL
SALVATION
)
)
‘i.
)
PCB 71—255
)
CRANE
PULVIEW
GLASS
DOOR
COMPANY
)
)
Opinion
of
the
Board
(by
Mr.
Dumelle)
This enforeenent action was filed on August 31, 1971 by
Youth for Environnontal Salv1ition (Y.E.S.), an unincorporc.tnd
association,
against
Crane
?ulview
Glass
Door
Company
(Crane).
The
complaint
conta~ccdan
allogaUon
oZ
air
pollution
by
reason
of
the
cpen
burnin”
of
refuse
and
an
alle~4tion
of
~ctcr
pollution
duo
to
the
discharge
of
sewage
i.e.
w.’ste
wal:cc
fron
i;”mtoriea
and
toilets,
from
the
i~unufc4ctu:ingplant.
t~he~irirg
tits
held
in
the
itatter
on
October
29,
1971
at
the
public
librory
ir.
t~aukeurn.
Crane
occupies
prem1sc~at
1201
Cr!no
Drive
in
Dcorftold
.—,.~.
C’
.?....S......
—
•~..•••
~
a
a
.1~L
st.
—
..
.,
—
tween
Deerfield
Rich
School
and
a
building
under
construction
to be occupied by Evans Products
fl.35).
ltpproximatc3y 30-35
persons are employS on the promises (R.48,65).
We shall deal with each of the allegations separately.
I.
Air pollution
-
Open burning
The
record contains ample eyewitness testimony of open burning
on the Crane premises on May 4, 1971.
After hearing from several
witnesses Crane stipulated to the fact that open burninq did in
fact occur on the date in question on the premises
(11.33—37).
Mr. Harold Crane, apparently the principal in the respondent
enterprise,
stated that parties other than Crane
may
have started
tires on the company property without the knowledge of the Crane
Company (R.69-70).
Surprisingly, Mr. Crane stated that he has never
attempted to stop the burning by others on the Crane premises
(R.78).
Clearly the premises were under the control of Crano and
the responsibility for any open fires devolves upon Crane.
The
testimony
of
the
several
eyewitnesses
in
observing
the
burning
on
Crane’s premises and relating its character and location establishes
the existence of the violation.
Crane failed to rebut the proof
or otherwise provide a defense to the allegation.
3—a
O~enburr~nc~hns been nrohii~ted
in
Illinois
at
least
since
i9~3,
The
most
rocent
enactment
of
the
regulatory
framework
was
the September
2,
1371
adoption by the Board of
new
Air
Pollution
rules
regarding
open
burning.
Apart
from
the
existing
~equlatioris,
open
burning of
refuse
was
out’awed
by
Section
9 (c)
of
the
Environmental
Protection Act.1~
At the
time
of
thq subject occurrence
open burnina of refuse was violative of Rule 2—l.2~~of
the Rules
and
Regulations
Governing
the Control of Air Pollution and Section
9(c)
of
the Act.
We find that air pollution has occurred as the result of open
burning
of wood, paper and other materials on the Crane premises
on May
4,
1971
in violation of
the Environmental Protection Adt
and rules thereunder.
The premises were under the direct control
and supervision
of Crane.
Crane disclaims starting the fire but
admits to doing nothing about
the occurrence~
In EPA
V.
J.M. Coo1i~
(PCB
70—2, December
9,
1970)
we considered a
fire of undetermined
origin which continued to burn
for
a number of weeks.
In that
case
we found
the party in control of the premises
to be negligent and
liable
for the open burning and consequent air pollution.
A money
penalty in the amount of $500.00
for the
open burning was imposed
in that case.
We
will
enter
a
cease
and
desist
order
against
Crane but
feel that such an order is simply not a sufficient deterrent~, standing
alone, to prevent recurrence
of
open
burning.
We
will,
therefore
enter a further
order
imposing
a
money penalty of One Hundred
Dollars
for the occurrence of open
burning
on May 4,
1971.
1
Iii, Rev.
Stat.
Ch.fl—1/2
~
10ö9(c)
No person shall:
(c)
Cause or allow the open burning of refuse, conduct any salvage
operation by open burning,
or cause or allow the burning of any
refuse in any chamber not specifically designed for the purpose
and approved by the Agency pursuant to regulations adopted by the
Board under this Act; except that the Board may adopt regulations
permitting open burning of refuse in certain cases upon
a finding
that no harm will result from such burning, or that any alternative
method of disposing of such refuse would create a saf&ty hazard
so extreme as to justify the pollution that would result from such
burning;
2
State of Illinois Rules and Regulations Governing the Control
of Air Pollution
Rule 2—1.2
No person shall cause,
suffer, allow or permit open burnir~gof
refuse.
3
—
23fl
II
Watur nolluLion
—
Sanitary__sewacy? discharqe
Crane
uses
rio a~prcciabloamount o~water
1:1
its manufacturiya
operations.
The
discharge
int.o
the septic
svste~ci is almost wholly
the
wastes
from
the
relatively
small
number
of
employees
(30—35)
using
the sanitary facilities on the premises.
Mr.
Emmet Fredbeck,
a Senior Sanitarian with
the Lake County
Health Department visited the Crane premises on May
5,
1971 and
performed
a dye test
of the septic system.
Mr. Fredbeck descrihe~
the test as simply dumoing dye
into the toilet and
then checking
for
its presence
in the open waters exterior of the premises
(R.22
Mr. Fredbeck testified that dye
was
introduced into
the sanitary
facilities at the Crane facility.
Its presence was
later
noted
in a ditch near
the plant.
The
tile d~anefrom Crane runs into
a
drainage ditch which runs into
a creek which flows into
the North
Branch of the Chicago River
(R.34).
Water pollution
is manifest
from the dye dispersion test,
the results of flushing the dye
through the toi1et~ in the plant were noted only several hours latr
at an open ditch.
Additionally there was evidence that an ilegal
connection
existed at the Crane facility connecting
the
septic
tank
overflow
to the drainage system which led to the open ditch
(R.58—5L
Pet.
Ex.
10,
Reso.
Ex.4)
.
At some indeterminate time
in the past
a septic
system overflow line haa been connected
Lo
a sLcrm d.rainaae systam
whose puroose was
to transport storm water off
the premises
(Pet.
Ex.
7,8).
Undoubtedly
the
effluent
in
which
the
dye
from
the
dye
test
was
apparent was septic.
We can take official notice of the fact that
such an effluent would have
a pollutional character3i,
Such
a
septic effluent, particularly next to a high density use such as
exists here
with the high school, would not only be
offensive to
the
senses
because
of
the
noxious
odors
associated
with
it,
but
i.~ould constitute
a
definite
health
hazard
due
to
the presence of
pathogenic
bacteria
and viruses.
3
In an ancient Illinois Supreme Court case
the court took
judicial notice of the incidence
of stream pollution.
The
court in Bayes
v. Village of
Dwight
150
Ill.
273,
37
N.E.
218 (l894Y~~T
“Despite
witnesses’
testimony
that
in their
opinion Lhe proposed discharge of sewage
would not
haye
the affect of materially pollu-
ting the stream,
the
court held that little
weight
is
to
be
given
to
the
testimony
of
witnesses
who
atLempt
to swear contrary to
known
and established natural
laws.
That
the
sewage
of
a
valiaae
of
160(i
inhabitants,
discharged
into
a small stream
and render
it
unfit
for
domentic
use,
for at least
a few
rods below
the point of dischzirue,
is
a nrc-
3—231
We will include
in
our
order
in
this
case
the
direction
that
Crane cease and desist from causing water pollution in regard
to
their faulty sanitary sewage system.
We will allow Crane thirty
days to comply with
the order.
What we mean
is that should the
sanitary sewage problem not
he
taken
care
of
within
thirty
days
from date Crane will have
to cease using the sanitary sewage system
until
the system can measure up to the criteria
and standards in the
Statute
and
applicable
regulations.
We
will
further
order
that
Crane
disconnect
the
illegal
sewer
line
connection
if
they
have
not
already
done
so.
Also we will order that Crane pay
a money penalty
in the
amount
of
One
Thousand
Dollars
for
the
continuing
water
pollution
violation.
III.
Penalties
After determining the existence of the two flagrant violatIons
alleged and proved in this case some considerable consternation was
involved in ascertaining an appropriate penalty to insure that
the violations
do not recur.
There was no difficulty in seeing
the necessity and wisdom of cease and desist orders for
the
violations.
However,
the question of money penalties was trouble-
some.
We
have here
two gross and inexcusable transgressions upon
the rights of
the citizenry
to live in
a hospitable environment.
To
balance
the
audacious
anti—social
ccnducL
of
tue
poliaLion
we have
the fact
that the company in this case is relatively
small
when compared
to the
corporate
giants.
The
Environmental
Protec-
tion
Act
provides
for
penalties
up
to
$10,000
~er
occurrence
plus
$1,000
for
every
additional
day
of
violation,4~
We are imposing
a
relatively small money penalty in this case w~th
the hope that Crane,
as well as other companies similarly situated, will be fairly and
completely warned of the consequences of failing to comply with
regulations respecting the protection
and
preservation of the
environment.
4)
Ill.
Rev.
Stat.
Ch.
111—1/2 ~ 1042
Any person who
violates
any provision of
this Act, or any
regulation adopted by the
Board, or who violates any deterr~tination
or order of the Board pursuant to this Act, shall be liable
to a
penalty of.not to exceed $10,000 for said violation and an additional
penalty
of
not
to exceed $1,000 for each day during which violation
continues, which
may
be recovered in a civil action,
and such per-
son may be enjoined from continuing such violation as
hereinafter
provided...
position too plain and too thoroughly verified
by ordinary experience
and observation
to admit
of reasonable doubt.”
3
—
232
ORDER
Havinç
considered
the
complaint,
transcript,
and
exhibits
in this proceeding
it is HEREBY ORDERED:
1.
That Crane Fulview Class Door Company cease and desist
any and
all open burning operations on
the premises.
2.
That Crane Fulview Class Door Company within thirty
(30)
days pay
to the State of Illinois
a money penalty in the
amount of One Hundred Dollars
($100.00)
for causing air
pollution by open burning on May
4,
1971 contrary
to Section
9(c)
of
the Environmental Protection Act and the
State
of Illinois Rules
and Regulations Coverning ~the Control of
Air Pollution.
3.
That Crane Fulview Class Door Company cease and desist from
causing water pollution in connection with
its sanitary sewage
septic system within thirty
(30)
days of
this order.
Crane
shall
file
a verified report with
the Board and
the Environ-
mental Protection Agency before January
15, 1972 detailing
any
and all steps taken to carry out the terms of
this paragraph.
4.
That Crane Fulview Class Door Company within seven
(7)
days
of
this order remove the physical connection between the
septic system serving the premises
and the ditch which ultimately
drains
to the North Branch of the Chicago River.
Within ten
days of
the severence of
~
c~In~cccion,if the same has
not
already been accomplished,
Crane Fulview Class Door Company
shall by affidavit inform the Pollution Control Board and the
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
of
the
breaking
of
the
connection.
If the connection has been severed previous
to the
date of this order Crane Fulview Class Door Company
shall by
affidavit inform the Board
arid the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency of the date of disconnection.
5.
That Crane Fulview Class Door Company within thirty
(30)
days pay
to the State of Illinois the sum of One Thousand
Dollars
($1,000.00)
as
a penalty for violation of
the
prohibition against water pollution contained in the Environ-
mental Protection Act and rules thereunder.
I, Christan Moffett, Acting Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board,
hereby certify that the Board adopted the above Opinion and Order
on the
~/ day cf December,
1971.
~
K’
/~
Christan Moffett
Acting Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
3— 233