ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    June
    23,
    1971
    TOM HEWERDINE,
    INC.
    V.
    )
    PCB 71-70
    ENVIRONMENTAL
    PROTECTION AGENCY)
    Opinion and Order of the Board
    (By Mr.
    Aldrich):
    Lee
    Zelle, Attorney for Environmental Protection Agency
    Henry Keller, Attorney for Tom Hewerdine,
    Inc.
    Tom Hewerdine,
    Inc.
    (“Hewerdine”)
    seeks
    a variance from the
    statuatory and regulatory ban on open burning
    to dispose of seven
    old farm structures.
    Petitioner
    is an earth—moving contractor
    and wishes
    to burn the structures
    in order to clear
    the land for
    development.
    In the past the Board has granted requests
    to allow open burning
    only when no acceptable alternative means of disposal exists and
    provided the burning is carried out
    in such
    a place and manner
    as
    to minimize pollution.
    The burning of diseased trees has been
    permitted
    in several instances
    (e.g.? City of Winchester v.
    EPA,
    #70—37,
    February
    8,
    1971)
    to prevent the spread of disease.
    Re-
    quests to burn non—diseased
    trees have generally beerf denied
    (e.g.,
    City of Lincoln v.
    EPA,
    #71-56, June
    9,
    1971).
    In the present case Hewerdine asks
    for permission
    to burn
    the wood
    from the farm structures.
    The buildings have already been de-
    molished and the refuse placed in
    a semi—circular pile about 75 x
    108 feet and
    4 feet in depth
    (R.
    23,24),
    A witness for the Agency
    testified that the pile contained some creosoted poles, hydraulic
    hoses and straw
    (R.
    24)
    However,
    counsel for Hewerdine stipulated
    that the extraneous material would be removed from the pile before
    burning.
    Thus we do not consider
    said material as part of the peti-
    tion for variance.
    The statute requires
    a petitioner
    to bear the burden of proof of
    showing that denial of
    a variance would create an arbitrary or
    unreasonable hardship.
    This Hewderine has failed to do.
    Speci-
    fically, Hewerdine did not adequately investigate alternative means
    of disposal.
    Tom
    Hewerdine,
    Secretary-Treasurer for the petitioner,
    admitted he did not personally contact nearby landfill operators
    concerning the possibility of depositing the materials
    in a dump.
    Rather,
    he relied only on hearsay information provided by his sub-
    contractor.
    He did not know whether one operator within four miles
    2
    —
    53
    of the
    proposed burning site would accept the wooden refuse~
    He
    had
    also
    failed
    to contact
    other operators mentioned at the hear-
    ing~
    The amount of refuse
    is
    substantial
    CR.
    24).~
    It
    is located
    near
    a well developed residential
    area
    CR.
    23),
    To allow the
    material to be burned would be in violation of the open burning
    regulations and would create
    a potential nuisance without any
    proven hardship beyond the cost to truck the material to
    a dis-~
    posal site if one
    is available.
    The request for a variance is denied without prejuduce
    to filing
    of
    a future request after petitioner has thoroughly investigated
    alternative means of disposal
    and can furnish the Agency and the
    Board specific information on availability or lack of availability
    of refuse disposal
    sites,
    This opinion constitutes
    the Board~sfindings of
    fact, conclusions
    of law,
    and orderS
    I, Regina E.
    Ryan, Clerk of the Pollution Control Board, certify
    ~that
    the Board adopted the above
    ____
    2
    —
    54

    Back to top