ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    April
    lii, 1971
    CALHOUN COUNTY CONTRACTING CORP.
    )
    )
    V.
    )
    # 71-1*
    )
    ENVIRONMENTAL
    PROTECTION
    AGENCY
    )
    VILLAGE
    OF
    RIVERTON
    )
    )
    v.
    )
    # 71—22
    )
    ENVIRONMENTAL
    PROTECTION
    AGENCY
    )
    Opinion
    and
    Order
    of
    the
    Board
    (by
    Mr. Currie):
    These are twc more typical petitions seeking variances for
    the open burning of trees.
    In line wIth numerous precedents
    startng
    rrors City of Jacksonville v. EPA,
    1 70—30
    (Jan.
    27, 1971),
    we deny the present petitions.
    The Calhoun case is quite simple.
    The allegations are purely
    conclusozv; the petitioner says only that to find an alternative
    to burning would “impose an unreasonable addItional cost” and that
    burning “would not endanger the normal health and general welfare
    of the people.”
    Such conclusions, we held in the Jacksonville
    case,
    are
    Insufricient
    what
    is
    requIred
    is
    the
    facts.
    The
    company
    says
    it
    is
    required
    by
    Lts
    contract
    with
    the
    state highway people
    to burn trees it removes in the coarse of its hIghway project,
    but no such contract can abrogate the legal prohibition on burning,
    which has been in effect since 1965.
    Finally, letters appended
    to the Agency’s recommendatIon should dispel the notion that the
    burning of trees is necessarily a harmless enterprise forbidden
    for whimsIcal reasons.
    These letters are from people living near
    one of the proposed burning sites who have been subjected to the
    same thing in the past and who violently object to its repetition:
    I
    live
    on
    Wood
    River
    and
    near
    when
    they
    burnt
    the
    last
    time
    and
    the
    smoke
    was
    so
    bad
    It
    caine
    in
    our
    house
    even
    at
    nIght
    and
    you
    cculdn’t hardly breathe for
    it.
    I
    have
    asthma
    and breathing is hard enough Thr me without putting up.
    with
    that
    &noke
    day
    and
    night.
    .
    .
    ‘-S
    —2—
    And a second letter:
    I live in a low area and the smoke settles here when the e4r
    gets heavy at night and we can’t breathe.
    I am taking
    medication for sinus condition and can’t tolerage smoke.
    I live directly across the creek from where they did burn
    a lot for three weeks and it was terrible.
    A third, on behalf of “Residents, Cottage Hills”:
    When the Calhoun Contracting Corp. was burnIng trees at the
    bridge site entering Cottage Mills from the west on Route
    1*0, the smoke spread over our whole town
    211 hours a day.
    The smoke entered our homes even at nIght while we were
    sleeping.
    .
    .
    .
    Not only us but the elderly and the little
    children
    couldn’t
    breathe
    properly.
    The
    Calhoun
    variance
    clearly
    must
    be
    denied.
    Even
    if
    burnIng
    were
    generally
    permissible,
    it could not be done under the conditions
    proposed.
    Riverton’s case is somewhat different.
    The VIllage askes to
    burn 100 truckloads of brush to be cleared for beautifIcatIon
    purposes.
    The
    petition
    allece~ that
    It
    would
    cost
    $1670
    to
    haul
    the
    brush
    to
    a
    landfill,
    and
    the
    EPA
    recontiondation
    adds
    that
    additIonal
    costs
    would
    be
    incurred
    to
    deposit
    the
    brush
    there.
    The petition
    states
    that
    tne
    burning
    site
    is
    “remote”
    but
    gives
    insufficient
    facts
    to
    eveluate
    the
    claln;
    the
    EPA
    says
    there
    are.homes
    within
    a quarter of a mile.
    The neighbors in this case applaud the
    Village’s Intentions since the burning will result in improvement
    of the cleared land.
    The Agency recommends denial.
    Our precedents establish that
    a
    few
    dollars
    spent
    to
    find
    alternatives
    to
    burning
    do
    not
    justify
    a
    variance,
    see
    City
    of
    Winchester
    v.
    EPA,
    #70—37
    (Feb.
    8,
    1971);
    the petition does not state the cost of burning Itself,
    so that we
    cannot determine the not cost of alternatives; and the allegations
    as to lack of harm are mere conclusions.
    We are presently awaiting a revised proposal for open burning
    regulations
    trora the Agency, and we expect this proposal will be
    backed by addItional information on the availability of alternatIves
    to open burnIng of trees.
    If in the proceedings following receipt
    of that proposal we are convinced that open burning under appropriate
    restrictions is the least undesirable method of disposal, we shall
    amend the regulatIons accordingly.
    Petitioners in the meantime
    should take notice that we shall adhere to our present polIcy of
    denying these variances unless a better case can be made than in
    the past.
    1-S
    The petitions- for
    variance are denied.
    This opinion constitutes the Board’s
    findings of fact,
    con-.
    clusions of law, and order.
    I, Regina E.
    Ryan, certify that the Board has approved the above
    opinion this
    14
    day of
    ApriJ~—~.
    ,
    1 71.
    I
    -~
    461

    Back to top