ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

September 16

,

1971

Willow Creek Drainage District

of Morgan County,

Illinois

v~

)

PCB 7l~l3l

Environmental Protection Agency

Opinion of the Board

(by Mr~ Kissel):

On

June

1,

1971 the Willow Creek Drainage District of

Morgan

County,

Illinois

(the ~~Districtu) filed a petition

for

variance

to allow

it to carry on open burning of landscape waste,

including

brush

and

trees,

on and immediately adjacent to the

improvements

within

the

District,

for

300

days following the

commencement

of

a

project

within

the

District.

In

support

of

the petition the District filed not only the Petition

for

Variance,

but

other documents including a Supplemental Affi-

davit

requested

by

the

Board.

The

Agency

filed

its

recommen~

dation

on

August

5,

l97L

Because

of

the

fact

that

precedent

for

this

kind

of

case

has

already

been

established,

the

Board

felt that

a decision of this matter could be made without a

formal hearings

The District

is

a duly organized municipality of the State

of Illinois under

the Illinois Drainage Code and

is administered

by three duly appointed Commissioners~

It

is composed of about

4,300 acres of river bottom farm land adjacent

to Willow Creek

in Morgan County,

Illinois,

In

the past several years

a sub-

stantial portion of the

land within the District has been flooded

and saturated with water due mostly to siltation in the d~ainage

ditches

and the accumulation of trees

and brush within the

District drainage ditches and levees.

Recently

(and the prime

purpose for the variance petition herein

filed)

the District

initiated an improvement program consisting of

the removal of

trees

and brush which impede the flow of water within the

levees,

dredging of the drainage ditch channels,

strengthening and build-

ing of levees and reseeding of levees,

Final plans and specifi-

cations

for the project have been completed, construction bids

2

—

447

---

have been received and

the

low bids have been tentatively

awarded by

the District.

The entire project has been approved

by the Circuit Court of Morgan County and the Court has approved

the Assessment Roll, all without objections from

the

landowners

in the District.

The construction bids submitted were based

on

the

fact

that

the

contractors

could

burn

the

cleared

material

on

the

site.

The

landscape

waste

on

the

site

includes

the

follow-

ing:

Thirty-six

(36)

acres

of

brush

and trees,

none

over

thirty

(30)

years

in

age, in a strip

lying

in

an

east—west

direction~west

of

Towhead

Road

Bridge

and

being

4,400

feet

in

length.

Fifty

(50)

acres

of

brush

and

trees, none

over

thirty

(30)

years

in

age,

in

a

strip

lying

in an east—west direction between Towhead Road

Bridge and Highways 100 and 67 and being 6,300

feet in

length.

Twelve

(12)

acres

of light brush and trees,

none over thirty

(30)

years

in age, in

a strip

lying

in an east-west direction east of Highways

100

and 67 and being 4,800 feet in length.

The proposed method of disposal

of the landscape waste

is described

in the petition for variance as follows:

“The

wood

and

underbrush

would

be

piled

and

distributed at intervals along the right-of-way

of said project.

Approximately once each week

the

accumulated

piles

would

be

ignited

at

6:00~

o~clock

A,M.

The

burning

would

be

substantially

completed

at or before 6:00 &clock

P.M.

on the

same

day.

There

would

be

no

noxious

or

toxic

or objectional gases or odors generated or emitted

other

than

those

normally

associated

with

the

burn-

ing of natural wood

and brush.

The burning would

take

place

only

when

the

winds

are

from

the

wester-

ly half of the compass.

The burning shall be

supervised

by

sufficient

personnel

so

as

to

pre-

vent

the

fire

from

spreading

beyond

the

wind

row.

Nothing other than trees and underbrush taken

from Willow Creek, its banks, berms and~levees

shall be burned.

No oils or other contaminants

will be used to start the burning or to maintain

2

—

448

---

combustion.

Burning sites will be selected to

prevent the resulting ashes from causing any

harmful effect on Willow Creek and the Illinois

River.

All burning will be completed over

a

period of time not to exceed 300 calendar days.

Days of maximum dispersion weather conditions

will be selected for the weekly burnings.

Stand-

by equipment and procedures would be established

to arrest burning at any time

it did not comply

with

the terms of any Variance allowed.”

Alternative methods of disposal were

investigated by the

District and

a report of these

is contained in the Supplemental

Affidavit of Robert

H.

Benton,

an engineer for the District,

as

follows:

“

(a)

Burial between the levees:

The vol-

ume of material is so great that the burial of

same would create large

areas

of unstable material

close

to

the base of the

levee embankment, which

would jeopardize

the stability of the

levee.

Also,

the volume of material is so great that

the water

carrying capacity

of the ditch between the levees

would be materially reduced.

(b)

Leaving debris between the levees with-

out burial:

Again because

of the volume of waste,

this would materially impede

the flow of waters,

would cause blockage of water and could cause damage

to levees and increase the possibility of flood

damage

to adjoining agricultural

land.

This method

would nullify the benefits of the project.

(c)

Burial outside the levee:

This would

cause damage to the levees by moving the cleared

waste over and across

the

levees.

Burial near the

outside bank of levee would create the same unstable

conditions

as would burial between the

levees.

Burial outside of and away from the levees would

disturb the fertility and topography of productive

farm land;

leaving the burial site permanently

damaged and disrupting existing drainage.

(d)

Leaving

waste

outside

of

levees:

This

method

like

(c)

would

cause

damage

to

levees

in

moving

material

over

the

levee;

would

also

affect

drainage

of

the

land;

would

require

taking

farm

land

out

of

production.

2

449

---

Ce)

Chipping,

hauling

and

burial:

As

set

forth

in

my

first

affidavit

and exhibit thereto

attached;

this method would be too costly, increas-

ing the

costs of the project by

some $48,130.00,

(See

first

affidavit).

(f)

Air Curtain Destructor:

The prevailing

water

table

in

the

general

area

is

such

that

the

required pit excavation would accumulate

a substan-

tial depth

of water, thereby

making burnin~impossible.

Also,

the character of the soil

and the

high water

table would render the walls of

the

pit

excavations

unstable.

Further investigations made by

the undersigned

discloses

that

in

such situations

the only alterna-

tive is to construct

a cement receptacle or bin or

an earthen receptacle of compacted soil

fill with

earthen sides.

In either event after burning these

structures would have

to be removed from inside

the levees,

Such installation would be prohibitive

in costs.

My investigation disclosed that

this

method has been used only once on the East coast

and that in other situations with similar water table

and

soil

conditions

the

air

destructor

method

was

either not recommended or used.

Companies contacted

were Thomson Culvert Co., of Hazelton, Missouri

and

Dirall Driers,

Inc.

of Attica,

Indiana.”

This Board has considered an almost identical

case in the

recent past.

See ~~~ickBr~

h~om~flyv.EPA,

PCB 71-17,

dated May

3,

1971.

In that

case

the Petitioner was under contract

to deepen

a channel of

a river and to rid the channel and the

embankments

of underbrush.

After an examination of

all the alter-

natives,

this Board decided that open burning was

the only fea-

sible alternative which would not impose

an arbitrary or unreason-

able burden on the petitioner.

The same

is true

in this

case.

Here

the burning will be done away from residential areas and will

seemingly not affect any people, and the costs of alt~rnatives to

open burning are unreasonably

expensive when balanced against the

little,

if any harm, which will be caused by

the burning itself.

Under these circumstances, the Environmental Protection Act

dictates that

a variance from the prohibition contained in the Act

be granted.

4b0

---

While the variance will be granted,

there will be conditions

imposed which will guarantee the minimum effect on the environment.

These conditions were recommended by the Agency in its formal

recommendations where

it suggested

to the Board that the variance

be granted.

These conditions are outlined in the order below.

ORDER

After consideration of the documents

filed in this matter,

the Board hereby grants the petition

for variance filed by the

District

and the District is hereby allowed to conduct open burn-

ing of trees and underbrush gathered as

a result of Willow Creek

drainage project under

the following conditions:

1)

The

waste

to

be

burned

shall

be

moved

within

the

levees

to

a

minimum

number

of

locations

and not less than

1/4 mile from the

few nearby

homes.

2)

Burning shall be conducted only when

the

wind

is

from

the

southwest

at

5-20

miles

per

hour

and

the

sky

is

not

overcast.

3)

No

fuel lesser than

a number two

fuel

oil shall be used to promote combustion,

4)

Petitioner shall notify Agency on days

when burning is

to

occur

prior

to

such burning.

5)

Petitioner

shall

file

a

brief

report

with

the Agency following the final burning,

describing

each burning.

Each description should include the

approximate amount of materials burned, the dates

and time

of burning,

the total duration of burning,

the estimated smoke emission and

a description of

the

weather

conditions.

6)

The variance granted herein shall expire

300

days from this

date

and no burning shall be

conducted thereafter.

I, Regina

E.

Ryan, Clerk of the Pollution Contro’ Board,

certify that the Board ad~pted the above Opinion and Order

this j~

day of

1~2JL~

2

—

451