ILLINOIS POLLUTION
    CONTROL
    BOARD
    April 14, 1971
    City of Roodhouse
    )
    )
    v.
    )
    PCB
    71—61
    )
    Environmental
    Protection
    Agency
    )
    Opinion
    of
    the
    Board
    ‘(by
    Mr.
    Kissel):
    On March 25, 1971, the City of Roodhouse filed a petition
    for variance to burn trees.
    According to the one—page petition,
    the City h~the responsibility of maintaining the streets
    and alleys of the City and, in addition, operates the gas,
    water, electric and sewer systems.
    There are
    twenty-two
    (22)
    miles of street lined with trees in the City which the City
    must maintain.
    The City, as a result of its responsibilities,
    has branches, debris and trees which must be cut down, picked
    up and disposed of.
    The City wants to burn the trees in “an
    open burning ground which ii considerable distance from any
    home.”
    The City has no special burning equipment--other than
    a tractor which is used “to keep the burning materials in a
    central spot.”
    There are no plans to buy special equipment
    for the bummer of the trees.
    This Board hs consistently held that the burning of
    trees
    (other than in±ectiousvegetation) will not be allowed.
    See Swords v. EPA, 170-6
    (Sept.
    2,
    1970); City of Jacksonville
    v. EPA, *70-30
    (Jan.
    27, 1971); Valence v. EPA, 170-54
    (March
    3,
    1971); and City o~Litchfield v. EPA, 171-35
    (March 27,
    1971).
    The last cited case is directly in point.
    There, as here,
    the City alleged that it did not have the money to dispose
    of the trees by a method other than open burning.
    In that
    case we said:
    “That it costs tietree burner more to avoid pollution
    than to cause it is no reason to allow pollution.”
    The same statement can be made in reference to the petition
    for variance filed by the City of Roodhouse.
    We have pointed out in each of the open burning cases
    that we presently have under consideration a proposed new
    regulation with regard to the open burning of trees.
    (1R70-l1).
    If it is found in that proceeding that alternative z~ethods
    1—473
    of disposal,
    i.e.,
    landfill, and controlled burning are less
    attractive than open burning, we can reconsider
    the policy
    expressed in this opinion.
    As we said
    in the City of Litchfield
    case,
    supra:
    ‘SIn the meantime, however, open burning is prohibited.”
    The petition is dismissed.
    I, Regina E. Ryan, Clerk of the Pollution Control Board,
    certify that the Board adopted the above opinion this
    14th
    day of April,
    1971.
    I
    -~
    474

    Back to top