ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

June 6, 1972

CITY OF OLNEY

#72—205

v.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

OPINION

AND

ORDER OF THE BOARD (BY SAMUEL T. LAWTON, JR.)

On May 15, 1972, the Board received a letter from the City

of Olney captioned “Application for Permit” to conduct open burning

of trees within the City of Olney. On May 17, 1972, we entered

an Opinion and Order stating it was not clear from the letter whether

the City was seeking a permit in the first instance, perfecting an

appeal from a permit denial, or seeking a variance from the open burn-

ing regulations.

Construing the communication as either an appeal or a variance

application, we asked the City to submit information with respect

to alternatives available for disposition of trees and brush, the

cost incurred in pursuing the various alternatives and what effect

each would have on the surrounding community.

On May 31, 1972, we received a further communication from

the City of Olney in response to our order, stating that the alter-

natives available were first, to haul material to be burned to a

privately-owned landfill which does not possess a State permit, or

to burn the trees and brush in a city dump. Costs for each of the

alternativeswere set forth. Petitioner believes that no adverse

effects on the community would result from burning in the city dump,

the first alternative not appearing feasible. However, neither

communication from the city makes reference to the possible use of

an air curtain destructor, which evidence in previous hearings has

shown to be a most suitable means of disposing of landscape waste.

(See “In the Matter of Open Burning Regulations, #R70-ll,” Opinion

dated September 2, 1971.) Under some circumstances, the use of this

facility would obviate the need of a variance and under other circum-

stances, would serve as a suitable basis for the granting of a varia-

tion. Failure to make reference to an air curtain destructor~savail-

ability or the absence thereof, makes petitioner’s second response

deficient.

Accordingly, we will keep this proceeding open for the sub-

mission by petitioner, within ten days from the date hereof, of

4— 665

---

information with respect to its possible use of an air curtain

destructor or the establishment of reasons why such facility would

not be available for resolution of petitioner’s problem. Such

further submission shall be accompanied by a waiver of the applica-

tion of Section 38 of the Environmental Protection Act requiring

Board action on variance applications within 90 days from the date

of filing of the petition, such waiver to extend the time for the

Board’s decision to 90 days from the receipt of the additional

information required to be submitted pursuant to this Opinion and

Order, as above set forth.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I, Christan Moffett, Clerk of the Pollution Control Bo~rd, certify

th he above Opinion and Order was ad pted on the ~day

of

_______________

1972, by a vote of

______

to p

4— 666