ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

March

22, 1971

CITY OF HARRISBURG

V.

)

PCB #71—46

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY)

Opinion and Order of the Board (by Mr. Currie):

The City asks a variance to burn trees in the open at its landfill,

alleging that the nearest homes are three quarters of a mile away,

that some of the trees are diseased, and that burying the trees would

cost $100 a week, We deny the petition without hearing because, even

if all the allegations of the petition are true, no variance is called

for.

We have had many occasions to spell out the law as to tree burn-

ing. Open burning, except of diseased trees, has been against the

law since 1965. We have allowed the burning of diseased trees in

appropriate cases even after passage of the absolute ban on open

burning in the Environmental Protection Act, since burning helps to

avoid the risk of spreading infection. City of Winchester v, EPA,

#70-37, (Feb. 8, 1971), Nevertheless, we have refused permission

to burn diseased trees on landfill sites because of the danger of

igniting other refuse, City of DuQuoin V. EPA, #70-40 (March 3, 1971),

and we adhere to that decision even in the absence of a showing that

the landfill is improperly conducted.

As for trees that are not diseased, there are additional reasons

for denying the variance. $100 a week, as we have suggested in

numerous cases, is a small price to pay for avoiding pollution in the

disposition of refuse, E.G., Swords v, EPA, #70—6 (Sept. 2, 1970).

The emission of considerable smoke, moreover, does not become acceptable

simply because it is not done on somebody~s doorstep. The policy

of the state, in the absence of arbitrary or unreasonable hardship,

is to keep contaminants out of the air, because they do nobody any

good once they get there. The petition is denied.

We are presently considering several alternative proposals for

amending the open burninp regulations, one of which would allow tree

burning under appropriate conditions, If it is shown in that rule-

making proceeding (#R70-~-11) that other methods of tree disposal are

less attractive than open burninp, we shall consider a revision. Comments

are invited, and a new application cay be submitted after action is

taken on the proposed amendments,

This opinion constitutes the Board~s findings of fact, conclusions

of law, and order,

I, Regina E. Ryan, do hereby certify that the above Opinion and

Order were approved this ~2~~day.

of.

~,

1971.

REGINA E. RYAN~, CLERK OF THE BOARD

1 —

365