ILLINOIS

POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

June

9,

1971

CITY OF

LINCOLN

v.

)

PCB

#

71—56

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY

Opinion and Order of

the

Board

(by

Mr.

Currie):

The City asks cermission

to burn

20 truckloads per week of

diseased trees despite the statutory and regulatory ban on

open burning.

We

deny

the request.

Llthouch

uncontrolled

burning

is

an

obvious

and

usually

unnecessary

source

of

air oollution,

we have

on several occasions

(c,c.,

Cite

of

Winchester

v,

EPA,

#70—37,

February

8,

1971)

ci

lowod

tde

burning

of

diseased

trees

on

the

ground

that

burning

n~ diseased

trees

is

desirable

to

ensure

destruction

of

insect

ae~ts

~ad

stem

the

speead

of

disease.

We

steess

that

it is

this

cud

~t. i s

clone

that

lies

behind

our

exception

for

diseased

trees;

ah~. deco

“diseased”

is

not

to

be

abused

b

atteonting,

under

cover

of

the

cocootice~,

to

burn

vegetation

that

has

been

lopped

off

to

7

~c

or u~m~

o~’no~

a

s~oro

The

Acency’s

insoector

c~- t~

~at

~

trees

to

cc

burned

were

“dead

and

rotte’Y

the

City

s

soekesman

“dtd

not

know

of

any

infectious

disease

in

the

a :-ea”.

Thus

on

the

City’s

own

admission

the

trees

in

question

Ca

cot

aualifv,

eccent

that,

we

have

held,

elm

wood

is

subject

to

cc

haf

anfer

cronor

conditions,

though

not

yet

diseased,

in

order

arm mod

it

Cecorsing

a

refuge

for

nests.

(Charles

Fiore

Nurseries,

Inc.

a.

EP.d,

9

7.1—27,

May

12,

1971)

lint

omen

as

iC

elm

wood

the

petItion

must

be

denied.

Even

Irces

that

n-use

a

threat

of

contagion

may

be

burned

only

in

such

a

alcoa

and

manner

as

to

minimize

pollution.

See

City

of

Du

Quoin

7lJ--~4Q,

yhere

ne

refused

permission

to

burn

diseased

trees

at

a

~end:a

ii.

sIte

•

‘caere

tnere

was

a

risk

of

iqniting

other

reruse,

a

sae~

ta

a~1o~burning

‘within

1,000

feet

of

~:oc

;encaafe

resicmntial

areas”

according,

to

the

Agency.

That

is

u’~

~

T

m

cbnoxious

nar~re

of

emissions

from

tree

~aiOL’m

Lace

Lad

occasion

to

describe

elsewhere

(Calhoun County

f:u:cuctina

dora,

a.

IIPA,

9

71—14,

April

14,

1971),

We

can

take

catice

el

the

fact

that

not

far

from

Lincoln

there

are

sure

to

be

arcas

nore

rena

aeiy

located

where

burning

could

take

olace

with

far

less

risk

of

annoyance

to

anyone.

It

should

also

be

mentioned

that

there

are

available

devices

known

as

air

curtain

destructors

1

—~

693

---

which, by the use of

inexpensive blowers, consume much of the smoke

from open burning.

We think it time to warn those seeking burning

variances in the future that they will not be granted, even for

diseased

trees, unless there is proof that for some reason such

a

device cannot reasonably be employed under the circumstances.

We further call attention once again to our pending hearings

on

new open burning regulations, and invite comment from all interested

parties.

Applications

for permission to burn

in accordance with

the

new regulations, of course, will be

in order after adoption, which

is expected in July,

We regret that the Agency’s considerable delay in filing

its

recommendation has made our decision come

so late,

The petition was

filed with

the Agency March

2 and with us, required by

the Rules,

March

19,

The Agency’s investigation took place March

10.

Yet

we received

the recommendation no sooner than April

30.

Such

a

delay is neither fair to the petitioner nor good for the cause of

pollution control.

Moreover,

it leaves us with inadequate time in

which to obtain further information,

by hearing or otherwise,

in the

event the recommendation shows the need.

We

also request

the

Agency, in cases like

this,

to recommend alternative dispositions.

In this

case

the Agency recommended denial.

Had we disagreed we

should have wanted guidance as

to what conditions

to impose with

regard to the time and manner of burning,

as we have done

in

other

cases;

time should not be lost having to ask for

a second

recommendation,

the more so since it

takes so long

for-- us

to

receive the first.

The variance request is denied,

This

opinion constitutes

the Board’s findings of

fact, conclusions of

law, and order.

I, Regina

E.

Ryan,

Clerk of

the Pollution Control Board,

certify

a

the Board adopted th~above Opinion this

c//j

day of

-

,

1971,

-j

-

-

1~

~l,

ad,’

Id

o.

~

.

1

—