ILLINOIS POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD
October
24,
1972
)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
)
)
v.
)
PCB 71-370
)
CONRAD BOSCH,
d/b/a
)
BOSCH
TRUCKING COMPANY,
INC.
)
)
OPINION
& ORDER OF THE BOABD
(by Mr.
Dumelle
This
is
an enforcement
action alleging that
an open burning permit
was
issued to the respondent by the Agency on November
10.
1971 for a period
not to exceed ten days from the date of Issuance
and that
said permit was sub-
ject to tertain
conditions
which,
if violated,
would
void
the permit.
It
Is
further
alleged that the respondent
caused or allowed the burning of landscape
waste near Peoria from
November II tInt
November
21,
1971.
in violation
of conditions
Nos.
1,
4,
5,
7,
8
and
9 of said permit; but the charges per-
taining to
conditions
Nos.
5,
7,
and
9 were withdrawn at the hearing.
Also
the charges for November
19,
20
and
21 were
withdrawn.
Condition
No.
1
of the permit requires
that the open burning shall be conducted under the
direction of supervisory personnel.
Condition
No.
4 limits
the hours of
open
burning between 10:00 a. m.
and 4:00 p. m.
and also states that the
quantities
of materials
to
be burned
shall be restricted
to an amount which
can be
consumed within those hours.
Condition No.
8 provides that
ashes,
residue.
etc.
•
shall be disposed of in such a manner as not to
cause air,
land or water pollution.
It is
also
alleged that the respondent
caused or
allowed the open burning
of refuse
on
two
additional
days but those
charges
were
also withdrawn at the hearing.
The hearing
was held on September
15,
1972.
The only Agency witness,
who lives near the burning area,
testified
that he observed
eighteen large
piles of lumber,
old trees,
rubble
and other
debris being set
on fire on the respondents
property
on November II,
1971.
The witness had
actually entered the property
on that
day and saw all
the
piles burning
out of control,
unattended.
He stated that the fires
were
of
a white hot intensity
in the middle.
The first
were
within 200 yards from
the witness’ home.
He testified that the fires
continued thru
November
21,
1971 but that they
did begin to
diminish arbund the seventh
day.
At a hearing an oral
stipulation was
entered
Into on the record
between the parties.
As part of the stipulation the respondent admitted
to
the
charges for the
days of November
11 thru
November
18.
It was also
stipulated that the respondent
shall
cease
and desist
from future violations
as alleged in the complaint.
The
Agency recommended only a minimal
penalty.
43—b
—2—
The respondent
offered testimony in mitigation
only.
He had
purchased the
78 -acre
property
some time
ago with the Intention of clearing
it,
leveling it and devoting it to economic use
as commercial
and industrial
property.
At the time he
acquired the property there
were
two large gulleys
filled with frees
and substantial
undergrowth.
In the process
of
converting
this property to economic use he had to
do a considerable
amount of cutting,
fifing
and leveling.
As a result,
he accumulated much debris
such as frees
and brushes.
He further testified that
his
property lies
directly
In the flight
pattern of one of the Greater
Peoria Airport runways
and that the airport
people had asked him to refrain from burning the debris until
they had
completed repair work
on the runway.
After the airport work was completed
he applied for the permit
from the Agency.
He stated that there were
six or seven piles
of debris
and that they
were no closer
than
920 feet from the nearest
residence.
He had
notified
the fire
department
that he had the permit
and that he would begin burning
on November
11.
The fire
department arrived
after the fires
were lit,
looked
at the permit
and left with no objections.
The
respondent further
testifIed
that he
does not Intend to ever
again have any fires
on his property.
We find that
the violations
did occur
as alleged and stIpulated.
We also
find that the respondent
did take some precaution and that the
burning
was not done in a totally Irresponsible
manner.
The respondent
did have a permit
and did attempt
to adhere to
Its
conditions.
We believe
that
he acted in
good faith.
Therefore
a
small penalty of $250
would be
appropriate
under these
circumstances.
This
opinion constitutes
the Board’s
findings
of fact and
conclusions
of law.
ORDER
1.
Respondent
shall cease
and desist
from all
violations
alleged
in this
complaint.
2.
Respondent
shall pay to the State
of illinois,
by December
1,
1972,
the sum
of $250 as a penalty for the violations
found in this proceeding.
Penalty payment by
certified
check or
money order
payable to the
State
of illinois
shall be made to:
FIscal
Services
Division,
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
2200 Churchill
DrIve,
Springfield,
illInois
62706.
8—8
-3-
I,
Christan
L.
Moffett,
Clerk
of
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board,
hereby
certify
the
above
Opinion
and Order
were
adopted
on
the
______day
of
October,
1972
by
a vote
of
__________________________
~
~
~
~
Christan
L.
Moffet~(Clerk
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
6—7
S
S