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