ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

December 19, 1974

Jean T. McMackin,        

)

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB 74—236

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Dr. Odell)

On June 21, 1974, the Pollution Control Board (Board)

received through the Environmental Protection Agency (Agency)

a request of May 28, 1974, from Jean T. McMackin for a variance

from Rule 502 of the Air Pollution Regulations, Chapter 2.

Petitioner seeks an extension of a variance granted in Jean T.

McMackin v. Environmental Protection Agency, PCB 73-67, 7 PCB 697

(May 3, 1973), for the open burning of brush, dead limbs and trees

in a park—like tract of land near Salem, Illinois. The land on

which the burning occurs consists of 261 acres in 4 tracts located

within 1,000 feet of the Salem city limits and thus it is in a

restricted area according to Rule 503(c) (4) (v) of Chapter 2. Part

of the material to be burned has been afflicted with Dutch Elm

disease. Petitioner states that he has “no changes to record or

to request” that differ from the original Petition for Variance.

He adds that open burning of the waste has been “very occasional”

in the past year “as it would be for the year ahead”.

On June 27, 1974, the Board requested more information and

Petitioner responded on July 13, 1974.

Agency information filed with the Board on July 8, 1974,

shows that Petitioner would burn a maximum of about 130 tons of

landscape waste per year. The estimated cost of hauling such

waste to an approved landfill would be $3,510 per year. An Agency

investigator reported that Petitioner 

has

not acquired any new

land and that there have been no changes in the circumstances since

the original variance was granted. The investigator encountered no

citizen complaints relative to Petitioner’s burning. Such burning,

according to the Agency, is conducted as part of good operating and

maintenance procedures in an effort to “keep Petitioner’s property

beautiful”. The Agency recommends the granting of this variance

subject to conditions regarding the timing, atmospheric conditions,

and specific location of the burning.

On September 5, 1974, the Board requested from the

Petitioner information on (a) the cost of using alternative methods

of disposal, 

(b)

present uses of the tracts, Cc) the date of ultirn—

ate compliance with the Regulation, and (d) a map showing the

exact location of the tracts in relation to City of Salem boundaries.

—

715

—2—

A response from the Petitioner was received by the Board

on September 23, 1974. It included a map of the 4 tracts and

the City of Salem, some new information, and information contain-

ed in Petitioner’s letter of February 1, 1973, to the Agency.

Tract 1 is located on the north edge of Salem, Tracts 2 and 3 are

between Salem and the Airport to the west, and Tract 4 is on the

south edge of Salem. Petitioner’s business comprises a cornbina—

tion of farming and real estate development. Some clearing and

burning of brush is needed for normal “housekeeping” in the farm-

ing operation and to prepare a limited amount of land for sub-

division purposes. There is a landfill about 3 to 5 miles from

Petitioner’s tracts, but he alleges that the hauling and disposal

charge of $30.00 per load “would be prohibitive for one with a

farm housekeeping operation of my size. 

. . .

The only air

curtain destructor available in the community is at this land-

fill. As to a chipper, the only one I know of is one hired from

time-to-time by the local utilities, and limits its operations

largely to twigs and small branches removed from the area of

their lines.” Petitioner has “no time schedule for bringing

the activity into compliance; inasmuch as it is a continuing and

time—to—time activity, I would appreciate a year’s variance.”

Petitioner believes that “there is no practical or economically

feasible way for a farmer to dispose of his landscape waste

except by burning it at or near the point where it is generated.”

If Petitioner anticipates a continuing need to burn land—

scape waste, he should give greater consideration to achieving

compliance with the burning provisions of Chapter 2, Air Pollution

Regulations, before requesting another variance from the Board on

this matter. For exariple, the cost of a private air curtain

destructor amortized over its useful life may be more practical

than some other methods such as hauling the landscape waste to a

landfill.

In their Recommendation filed with the Board on July 8,

1974, and also in their Amendment To Recommendation filed on

December 3, 1974, the Agency recommended that Petitioner be

granted a Variance for one year after May 3, 1974, subject to

certain conditions. We shall grant this Variance, subject to

those conditions.

ORDER

IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that Jean

T. McMackin be granted a Variance from Rule 502 of the Air

Pollution Regulations for one (1) year from May 3, 1974, to

May 3, 1975, for the purpose of burning landscape waste on

McMackin’s 4 tracts described herein near Salem, Illinois. This

Variance is granted subject to the following conditions:

—

716

—3—

1. The open burning shall be conducted on days

when wind velocity is between 5 and 25 miles

per hour and shall be conducted only between

the hours of 8:00 a.zn. and 4:00 p.m.

2. The materials to be burned shall be confined

to the smallest practicable area and the open

burning site shall be established on a cleared

area which shall be adequately restricted.

3. The materials to be burned are expressly

limited to those stated in Petitioner’s

original application for a Variance to open

burn.

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

Board, hereby certify that the aboi~eOpinion and Order was

ad9pted on the 

/~1~

day of ~ ~    

1974, by a vote of

‘~

to

~ ii..

I ~ !,J./1

Christan L. Moff~ett 

—

717