ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

May 17, 1972

TRADER’ S TREE SERVICE

)

PCB 72-96

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

OP~°NIONOF THE BOARD (by

Mr. Kissel):

Trader’s Tree Service (“Trader’s”) 

is engaged in

the tree removal

business in the City of Dixon, Illinois and from 1967 to now has leased

a parcel of land about one—half mile from the Dixon City limits as a

site

for the disposal and burning of trees which Trader’s has removed

from Dixon. The boundaries and location of the site are shown in

Exhibit #1 submitted by Trader’s as a part of its petition for vari-

ance. Presently, Trader’s has a large pile of tree trunks, limbs and

brush on the site which are piled in an area measuring about 300 feet

by 30 feet and at a maximum height of 5 feet, The pile of brush and

trees is shown in a photograph submitted by Trader’s as Exhibit #2 and

attached to the petition for variance.

Trader’s seeks a variance from the present Open Burning Regulations

which prohibit the burning of landscape waste within an area one mile

from any municipality having a population of more than 1000. Chapter 3,

Air Pollution, Part IV Open Burning, Section 402(a). The regulations

do allow the open burning of landscape waste under certain conditions

a permit is received from the Agency. Supra, Se~btion404(a) (4). But

here, Trader’s applied for a permit and was denied one by the Agency

because the open burning will take place within one mile of a municipal-

ity of over 1000 population. The Agency has no authority under the

regulations to issue a permit under those conditions where an air cur—

tam destructor or equivalent control device is not used. Supra, Sec-

tion 404(a) (4) (i). Trader’s request here is to be allowed to burn the

large pile of brush and trees, which is estimated to take about 4 days.

After that burning, Trader’s will no longer burn on this site.

Trader’s claims that if it does not get the right to burn it will

be a severe hardship because it will cost Trader’s about $7,500 to

remove this material to a landfill site. See Exhibit #3 attached to

Trader’s petition for variance. Trader’s also says that the injury to

be suffered by the public will be slight because the area is “sparsely

settled” and the time of burning would be “short”.

The Agency filed its recommendation with the Board on May 3, 1972,

which requested that the Board deny the variance. The Agency 

asks for

the denial on two grounds: first, it claims that Trader’s has alter-

native methods of disposal available to it (i.e., use of an air curtain

destructor, shredding and cutting for resale as firewood) at, a reason-

able cost; and second, the Agency attaches to its recommendation four

letters (one of which is signed by 21 people) asking that the Board

deny the variance because of the fire hazard created and the bothersome

smoke emitted. One letter in particular is very strong against the

granting of the variance, and it is from the local fire chief who says:

I must vigorously protest a variance being

issued to the Trader Tree Service.

. .

It goes on to ~ay that burning in this area has caused “numerous fire

calls”, The other letters are of similar import and talk also about

the

smoke from the open burning “hanging in the trees”.

(See Exhibit

#2 attached to the Agency’s recommendation).

In deciding variance cases such as this the Board must employ

a delicate balancing process. On the one hand Trader’s claims the

cost of removal of the brush is high and that the smoke from the open

burning would cause no problem. On the other hand, the Agency and

the local citizens say that alternatives are available at a reason-

able cost and that the open burning not only is bothersome because of

the dense smoke,

but that in this location it creates (and has created)

a fire hazard. In this case, we must decide in favor of the Agency

and the people. Open burning has been illegal in Illinois for some

time and it can be, as it would be in this case, a very bothersome

nuisance to the surrounding community. The cost of alternatives we

know is low, even if we assume it will be $7,500. The price of clean

air and the lack of a fire hazard which may burn the wood around the

site, is worth the cost.

The variance is hereby denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Pollution Control Board, -.,~4

certify that the Board adopted t~e above Opinion and Order this 

day of May, 1972, by a vote of