ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

August13,

1971

Hardwick Brothers Company

)

)

V.

)

PCB71-17

)

Environmental Protection Agency)

Opinion of the Board.

(by Mr. Kissel):

Hardwi~kBrothers Company

(“Hardwick”) originally filed

a petition for variance from the open burning regulations and

existing law, and this Board granted that variance, Hardwick

Brothers COmpany’

V.

Environmental Protection A~ency,PCB 71-17,

~

3, 1971.

Hardwick was granted

a variance by the

Board to conduct burning of trees and underbrush gathered as

a result of its work on the straightening and dredging project

on the north fork of

the Saline River, under specified con-

dition~,until September

1,

1971.

Further, Hardwick was

requi~çdto submit to

the

Board a report on or before July

1,

1971

~detailing its investigations and conclusions on the

following:

“a.

The possibilities of, and economics in,

acquiring additional right of way on

the

Saline River project; and

b.

The possibilities of, and economics in, using

an

‘air curtain’ device in the burning~”

The purpose of this investigation was to determine whether there

was any

other

economical way to dispose of the trees and under-

brush other than to burn them in the open.

1

There was a discrepancy between the date

in

the Board

opinion and the date

in the Board order,

The order required the

report by July

1,

1971

and the opinion required it by August

1,

1971.

Actually, Hardwick filed two reports, one

on

June

30

and

one on July

30;

so

it

complied with both dates.

2

—

271

---

On July 30, 1971

Hardwick, through its attorneys

McClure and McClure, directed a letter to the Board,

and

sent copies of the letter to the Environmental Protection

Agency, advising the Board and the Environmental Protec-

tion Agency that Hardwick had made the investigations in

the two required areas.

Hardwick advised as follows:

1.

The additional ri~ght-of-way

-

This land would

have to be acquired by the Saline County Conservancy District,

and would, according to Hardwick, have to be acquired by

condemnation proceedings.

Since the Conservancy District

does not have the power of “quick take”, lengthy legal pro-

ceedings would have to be instituted.

We know from the prior

hearing that the land already received by the Conservancy

District was given to them by the local land owners, and

that the District has little,

if any,money with which

to

purchase land now.

Even if it did have the money, Hardwick

points out that “it is extremely unlikely that such proceed-

ings could be completed in time to be of any value to this

contractor under the provisions of its current contract

with the Corps of Engineers.”

2.

Use of the “air curtain” destructor

—

In its

report Hardwi~T~~

“The contractor has very seriously considered

the possibilities of, and the economics in using

an

‘air curtain’ device

in burning this material

when weather and water level conditions permit.

The

contractor’s past experience with air-curtain-type

burning involves the digging of a trench

8 to 10

feet deep and introducing air under pressure through

tubes at the bottom of the ditch to the combustible

material piled in the ditch.

In this particular

area this method of air-curtain burning is not

practicable because the ground water level is so

near the surface that a ditch of any appreciable

depth would immediately fill with ground water.

Further, normally a pit for air-~curtain-type

burning must have vertical sides.

The character

of the soil in the project area and the moisture

content in the project area is such that it

would not be possible to maintain ~ vertical

wall for the pit.

Simply stated, any pit dug

on the right of ways furnished by the Corps of

Engineers for this project would constitute

nothing but a

‘mud hole’.”

2

—

272

---

This

Board

believes

that

HardwicJc has made a good faith.

effort to find alternate ways of disposing of the trees and

underbrush from the Saline River project.

For the reasons

stated in the original opinion, this Board agrees that the

variance previously granted to Hardwick should be extended

until August 13

,

1972, under the same conditions

as

set forth in paragraphs

1 and

2 of the previous order of the

Board in this case.

Upon presentation and consideration of the documents

submitted by Hardwick, the Board hereby extends the variance

previously granted to Hardwick on May

3,

1971 under the same

conditions

as set forth in paragraphs

1 and 2 of the order

of the Board of that date.

I, Regina E. Ryan, Clerk of the Pollution Control Board,

certify that the Board adopted the above opinion and order this

1~th

day of

Aucni~i-

,

1971.

2

—