ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

July 19, 1973

CITY OF HILLSBORO,

Petitioner,

vs.

)

PCB 72—394

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

George E. Ginos, Attorney for

City

of Hillsboro

Frederick C. Hopper, Assistant Attorney General for

the EPA

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE

BOARD (by Mr. Henss)

On October 4, 1972 City of Hillsboro filed a petition for

variance from Rules 502 and 504(a) (4) of the

Open

burning

Regulations for the purpose of burning

landscape

waste at the

site of a

oroposed reservoir.

t

Petitioner~s rec~uestthe

hearing was

postoonod

until July 2,

1973.

Petitioner is currently involved in the construction of a

water supply and flood control area known as the Shoal Creek

Water Shed Protection and Flood Prevention Project, Two of the

Project!s three main structures have been completed and the

remaining structure is currently in the bid letting process.

It will

he necessary to clear landscape wastes from about 1200

acres of land. Petitioner intends to clear the land

by open

burning the landscape waste in piles approximately l2~high by

65-75k long by 20_30! wide. Approximately 5—10 gallons of

~2

fuel oil per pile will be used to start the fires. The open

burning will require about 573 days for completion.

All of the burn areas are located in Montgomery County

and

are over I mile from any municipality or village. Petitioner

contends that no open burning will be conducted within 1,000 ft.

of any residence. This is not a “prohibited area” where the open

burning of landscape waste is barred under our Regulaticn (See

Rule

503

(c) (4)

The Environmental Protection Agency has recommended denial

of this variance request.

The Agency contend.s that this material

should he classified

as “trade waste” since it is accumulated by

a unit of government during performance of a governmental

---

—2—

function-—the construction of a reservoir. It is argued that

landscape waste which is also trade waste cannot be burned

without a variance.

It is not trade waste. In City of Freeport vs. EPA (PCB

72-487) we rejected the EPA argument that logs accumulated by

the City of Freeport in its effort to prevent a flood con-

stituted trade waste.

We

said “Our previous decisions should

have made it abundantly clear that the Board does not consider

landscape waste accumulated on government property to be trade

waste”.

The brush, twigs, leaves~, stumps, logs and branches which

are located at the reservoir site were never used in a trade

or occupation. Petitioner did not operate a sawmill at the

site and is not asking us for permission to burn off the

accumulated residue of that trade. The City of Hilisboro

stands in exactly the same position as any other property owner

who wishes to clear his property for a construction project.

This entire case has been predicated on the incorrect

premise that Petitioner would require a variance for the open

burning of the landscape waste at its reservoir site. Such

burning may take place in compliance with the Regulation. No

variance is required and the case is dismissed as moot.

It is so ordered.

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order was adopted

this

/1’~~’

day of July, 1973 by a vote of ~ to ~

8

—