ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

June 26, 1975

CITY OF GALENA,

Petitioner,

vs.

)

 PCB 75—138

ENVIRONMENTAL

 PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

 (by Mr. Henss):

Petitioner, City of Galena, requests variance from

Rule 502(a)

 of the Air Pollution Control Regulations and

Section 9(c) of the Environmental Protection Act from June

through September 1975 in order to open burn approximately

500 diseased elm trees which are now standing on various

private residential lots throughout the City.

 The topography

of the City is unusual in the State of Illinois

 in that many

steep hills exist.

 The land has been terraced in order to

develop residential properties.

 Most of the yards have

retaining walls of native stone and many are slopes of

450

or more.

The City proposes to cut down the diseased elm trees

which are located on 250

 300 private lots.

 The burning

would occur on the lots where the trees are located.

 Members

of the volunteer fire department would supervise the tree

burning by informing area residents prior to the actual

burning and by monitoring the burn.

The common alternatives

 to open burning of landscape

wastes include chipping, use of an air curtain destructor and

the burying of the waste.

 Galena claims that these alternatives

are not acceptable because of the terrain.

 The steep slopes

and old retaining walls make it impossible to get removal

equipment into most areas;

 the sawn logs cannot be dragged by

cable without destroying the retaining walls.

 There are no

cranes available which have

 a reach sufficient to lift logs

out and even if those cranes did exist the cost, according

to Petitioner, would be exorbitant.

17—419

—2--

The City failed to give concise cost estimates but did

furnish the statement of J

&

Tree and Landscape Service,

Dubuque,

 Iowa.

 The tree service company said that it did not

know how to arrive at

 a price to remove these trees

 from the

hillside locations,

 Under the conditions

 that exist the

company refused to quote a price~pertree but was willing to

furnish three men and equipment to top and drop trees and

stack for burning at the rate of $35.00/hour.

 According to

 3 Tree and Landscape Service the dead trees could not be

chipped since only live wood can be put through a chipping

machine.

 The tree service company stated that the cost of

cutting the trees into pieces that could be d~arriedto the

street is “completely prohibitive”.

The Environmental Protection Agency has recommended that

the variance be denied.

 The Agency notes that most of the

elms in the community have already been stricken by Dutch Elm

disease and the disposal of the trees

 is not necessary

to

prevent the further spread of that disease.

 The Agency be—

lives that Galena has failed to prove that the usual alternatives

to open burning are completely unworkable.

Galen&s mayor states the need for tree removal as follows:

“These trees become more dangerous each day.

 Not only

from

the

danger

of

snapping off in the wind, but also the

danger of fire

 as called to our attention by

an

 11 year

old boy whose letter

 I enclose along with my reply.

Galena has adopted as their main theme for Bi-Centennial

‘76

 ‘the beautification of our community’

 These dead

elms in their stark desolation destroy the beauty of our

hillsides and the charm of our community.

 They must be

removed, but we can only do so in the manner stated,

that is, saw and burn in place.”

Although the City of Galena has not furnished us with a

great deal of information we believe from the record that it

would be unreasonable

 to require the City to bury the dead elm

trees.

 We have no doubt that the problems of removal from the

hillsides, transport to

 a remote site and then burial of such

a quantity of landscape waste would make that method quite

unreasonable.

 The record also indicates that chipping is not

an alternative for the dead wood.

 Burning seems the most

reasonable alternative.

 We are inclined to allow the variance

for the open burning of those dead elm trees which cannot be

disposed of through the use of an air

 curtain destructor.

However, we believe that an air curtain destructor could probably

—

—3—

be used in some parts of the City and wish to require the use

of that device where feasible.

 Unfortunately the record does

not contain sufficient information regarding the feasibility

of using an air curtain destructor.

 Without a better record

we are unable to phrase in our Order appropriate language for

requiring the use of an air curtain ciestructor in ~pecific

parts of the City or in rural areas nearby.

On April

4,

 1975 we entered an Order requiring Petitioner

to submit additional information.

 We specifically stated that

the City of Galena should explain why an air curtain destructor

could not be used to burn the landscape waste.

 The additional

information which we received did not adequately address

 that

question.

 Therefore,

 we are compelled to dismiss this petition

without prejudice.

In the event the City of Galena can develop

 a specific plan

for use of an air curtain destructor in the disposal of a part

of the landscape waste then we would be inclined to grant the

variance,

 conditioning the variance upon appropriate use of

the air curtain destructor.

 The plan should detail which areas

will be burned with an air curtain destructor and describe

location,

 along with appropriate burning conditions,

 for the

open burning of the landscape waste which cannot be destroyed in

the air curtain destructor.

 If such

 a plan can be developed we

will be willing to reconsider our decision upon appropriate

motion being made within 35 days

 of this Order.

 After that time

a new variance petition would be necessary.

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and con-

clusions of law of the Illinois Pollution Control Board.

ORDER

It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that the

Petition for Variance be dismissed without prejudice.

I, Christan L. Moffett,

 Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board,

 hereby certify the above Opinion and Order were adopted

the

-‘-‘

 day of

____________,

 1975 by a vote of

:/~

(

/

~

/)~

JJ~

~-(~

Christan

 L. Moffett~Clerk

Illinois Pol1ution~Control Board

17

—

421