ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    November
    14,
    1972
    VILLAGE OF BENSENVILLE
    v.
    )
    PCB 72—305
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    Village of Bensenville, pro Se;
    Stephen
    C. Bonaguidi, Assistant Attorney General, for the
    Environmental Protection Agency;
    OPINION OF THE BOARD
    (by Mr. Parker)
    Petitioner, the Village of Bensenville, requests a
    variance from Section
    9
    (c)
    of the Environmental Protection
    Act and from Rule
    502 of the Air Pollution Control Regula-
    tions to permit open burning of approximately 600 cubic yards
    of landscape waste generated by a storm which occurred on
    July 14,
    1972.
    The waste apparently was collected by the Village and
    deposited at the location of the proposed open burning.
    This
    site is within Petitioner’s corporate limits, approximately
    400 feet from the closest business buildings,
    3/4 of a mile
    from
    the
    cosest
    residence,
    and 1—1/2 miles from the business
    center of the Village
    (R.
    5).
    Fire control would be provided
    by the Village Fire Department
    (R,
    5), but
    control of gaseous
    and particulate emissions would not
    (R.
    5).
    The fire would
    be expected to burn for roughly four hours and smolder an
    additional
    three to four hours
    (R,
    5).
    Petitioner alleges that its hardships are excessive cost
    and near impossibility of other means of disposal.
    In support
    of financial hardship, Petitioner points to
    a contract offer
    it
    has received of $5,850 to dispose of
    the waste using
    an
    air
    curtain destructor
    (Exhibit
    3)
    .
    The
    contract does not specify
    whether the price is for purchase or rental, although the
    testimony
    (R.
    3) hints
    that rental
    is
    contemplated.
    The
    Village President testified that the Village has no contingency
    fund for an air curtain destructor,
    and that
    ~it
    would hurt
    o~rprogram over all
    if
    we took the money from street con—
    tingency fundu
    (R.
    4).
    This testimony,
    rather than proving
    that the money is unavailable, implies that
    it
    is in fact
    available but in a different account.
    There is no evidence
    that transferring the money from one account to another cannot
    be done or
    would
    impose any hardship.
    6
    —
    245
    Even if the $5,850 were too costly for the village,
    and we do not believe it
    is,
    alternatives were not adequately
    considered.
    Only one local businessman was contacted regard-
    ing an air curtain destructor
    CR. 2), even
    though
    the
    Village of Lombard, only
    six
    to eight miles from Petitioner,
    nas one
    CR.
    3), as does the Cook County Forest Preserve
    CR.
    2—3).
    Hauling the waste to a landfill site was rejected
    because of the time involved in loading the trucks
    CR.
    4).
    The cost of burying the debris was not investigated by
    Petitioner
    CR.
    3).
    The Village is in an area where the ambient air quality
    is poor.
    For the year 1971, the particulate level in Bensen-
    ville was more
    than
    twice the federal level
    CR. 7).
    The
    environmental impact of open burning 600 cubic yards of
    landscape waste is significant.
    The Agency witness testified
    that using applicable emission factors from United States
    Environmental Protection Agency Publication AP 42, 600 cubic
    yards of landscape waste,
    if open burned, would yield 825
    pounds of particulate emissions, 4,850
    pounds
    of carbon
    monoxide, 970
    pounds
    of hydrocarbons,
    and
    97 pounds of
    oxides
    of nitrogen
    CR.
    7, 9).
    Related to the fire’s probable effect
    on
    ambient air quality is the Village Pollution Control
    Officer’s testimony
    that
    90
    of the particulates emitted trom
    the
    fire would still be airborne 1/2 mile from the burning
    sites
    (R.
    10).
    There was no evidence
    that
    these enissions
    would not have an adverse effect on
    ambient
    air quality.
    Use
    of
    an
    air
    curtain
    destructor
    could
    reduce
    particulate
    emission
    by
    as
    much
    as
    90
    CR.
    8).
    Petitioner’s allegations and proof do not support a
    finding that compliance with the Regulations would create
    art
    anreasonable or
    arbitrary
    hardship.
    Accordingly, the Petition
    for variance is denied.
    This opinion constitutes the findings of fact and
    conclusions of law of the Board.
    I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Pollution Ccntro.
    Bnard,
    ccrtif’:
    that
    the
    thove
    opinion
    was
    adopted
    by
    the
    Board
    on
    U;ti
    ~
    day
    of
    ~
    b~C ~
    ,
    1972, by a
    ‘nte
    of
    to
    —2—
    —.
    j!
    ~
    i) :~_~tt
    6—246
    -

    Back to top