ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
July 10, 1975
TERRY PETRY d/b/a/
TERRY PETRY GRAIN ELEVATOR,
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 75—197
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Dr. Odell)
On May 8, 1975, Terry Petry filed a Petition For Variance
with the Illinois Pollution Control Board (Board). Petitioner
stated that the Terry Petry Grain Elevator, located in downtown
Rochelle, Illinois, was destroyed by fire on April 2, 1975.
Petitioner wants to remove the waste materials and damaged grain
to a family farm located approximately four miles northeast of
Rochelle. The material weighs approximately 900 tons. No petroleum
products are involved. Metal materials will be separated for
salvage before transport. The remaining 660 tons of unpainted
wooden materials and 15 tons of grain will be hauled to the farm
site where the open burning operations will take place. The remains
will be buried at the site. Petitioner estimated it would take two
weeks to burn and bury the materials from the time the Board
approved the Petition For Variance.
Mr. Petry stated that the Rochelle Fire Department is demand-
ing immediate removal of the material, because it represents a fire
hazard to the downtown area. The City is demanding immediate clean-
up to avoid potential odor and rodent problems. Petitioner estimat-
ed it would cost in excess of $6,000 if he were forced to dump the
materials in the city sanitation area. Petitioner stated that he
cannot afford such an expense. In a letter to the Illinois Environ-
mental Protection Agency (Agency) on June 18, 1975, Petitioner
stated: uMy financial status at this time deems it impossible to
borrow money to enable me to pay both the landfill costs and trans-
portation costs. If the proposed burning site
. . .
is approved,
PetitionerI
could substantiallynoted
that thereducedestroyedthe
costfacilityof this
wasclean—upnot a
operation.’commercialt
enterprise, but was used exclusively for handling, drying, and
storing corn and soybeans in his farming operations.
The Agency filed a recommendation of denial on June 10, 1975.
The Agency pointed out that Mr. Petry is requesting a variance to
exceed the open burning limitations of Rule 502(a) of the Air
Pollution Regulations (Chapter Two) for a total period of twelve
hours. Based upon the standard emission factor applicable to the
open burning of wood, the Agency estimated that the following
emission rates would occur from the proposed activities:
18— 76
—2—
Particulates
17 pounds/ton
Carbon Monoxide
50 pounds/ton
Hydrocarbons
4 pounds/ton
Oxides of Nitrogen
2 pounds/ton
However, since Petitioner is seeking a variance from Rule 502(a)
,
not
the emission standards contained under other rules of Chapter Two,
such data are informative but not crucial to our decision.
The Agency noted that the nearest residents to the proposed
burning site are one-half mile to the north and the south. Neither
resident objects to the proposed open burning.
On June 20, 1975, the Agency received a letter from Black-
hawk Production Credit Association (PCA), which is the financing
organization for Petitioner’s business loans. PCA emphasized that
1974 was not a good year for the farming industry and that PCA was
“not favorable in any way
. . .
in increasing the size of his
Petitioner’s loan by an additional $7,000 to $8,000 to put this
material in the city landfill.’t While PCA noted that the facility
had insurance which did reduce the loan balance, valuable working
assets were destroyed that were important in the Petitioner’s
collateral portfolio. Attached to the PCA letter was an Agency
cover letter which stated: “The Agency will be reviewing the
information to determine whether a change in the Agency Recommenda-
tion is warranted.”
We grant the variance. First, this variance for open—burn-
ing will be short-lived and solves a problem that will not reoccur.
Second, the adverse environmental impact of the variance grant is not
excessive for the area involved and the impact will be temporary.
Third, area citizens are not opposed to the variance grant. Fourth,
this case is different from those in which the financial hardship al—
leged is merely a limit on increased profits. Here the hardship
cannot be measured simply in dollar losses, because the record
indicates that increased costs could jeopardize the Petitioner’s
livelihood. Based on the facts of this case, it would impose an
unreasonable hardship on the Petitioner to deny the variance.
ORDER
Terry Petry, d/b/a Terry Petry Grain Elevator is hereby
granted a variance from Rule 502(a) of the Air Pollution Regula-
tions for a period of two weeks following his receipt of this
Opinion and Order in order to burn and bury approximately 675 tons
of grain and unpainted wood products at a family farm located four
miles northeast of Rochelle, Illinois.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion
and1
Order was adopted
on the /o~’ day of July, 1975, by a vote of ~3-O
Christan L. Moffet1~~aerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
18
—
77