ILLINOIS
    POLLUTION
    CONTROL
    BOARD
    January
    24,
    1972
    PEORIA STATE HOSPITAL
    )
    )
    )
    v.
    )
    1
    72—19,
    72—20,
    72—21
    )
    )
    ENVIRONMENTAL
    PROTECTION
    AGENCY
    )
    Opinion
    and
    Order
    of
    the
    Board
    (by
    Mr.
    Currie):
    These
    are
    three
    variance
    petitions
    on
    behalf
    of
    the
    Peoria
    State
    Hospital
    seeking
    permission
    to
    take
    a
    variety
    of
    actions
    contrary to assorted ~o1lutioncontrol regulations.
    We dismiss
    each of
    them
    for reasons stated below.
    #72—19 asks to destroy confidential patient records and
    other
    combustible
    materials
    by
    open
    burning,
    which
    is
    forbidden
    by both the statute and the regulations.
    The justification of
    preserving the confidentiality of certain records does not en-
    compass other material included within the request, as to which
    it is asserted only that the present scavenger contract does
    not provide for its removal.
    If this were proved it would not
    be an excuse for open burning; no reason is stated why the
    Hospital cannot, like everyone else, arrange for the material
    to be disposed of properly.
    As for the confidential records,
    nothing is said as to why the Hospital cannot, like everyone else,
    do whatever burning is necessary in an approved incinerator,
    even if other methods of disposal prove unsatisfactory.
    The petition
    also fails to
    contain
    allegations,
    as
    required
    by
    our procedural
    rules,
    respecting
    the degree of harm to nearby persons if the
    burning were permitted.
    For all these reasons the petition fails
    to allege a case on which relief could be granted, and must be
    dismissed.
    #72-20 asks permission to dispose of boiler house cinders
    and demolished concrete in a landfill operation on hospital
    property.
    No information is offered concerning the suitability
    of the site, the method of landfill proposed, or the possible effect
    on the environment, as for instance with regard to the possibility
    of
    leaching
    of
    contaminated
    rainwater.
    Most
    important,
    there
    is
    not
    even
    an
    allegation
    as
    to
    what
    provisions of the law or
    regulations
    might
    be
    violated
    by
    the
    operation,•
    and
    therefore
    we
    are
    in
    the
    dark
    as
    to
    what
    provisions
    the
    Hospital
    asks
    us
    to
    relax.
    The
    specified
    procedure
    for
    obtaining
    permission
    to
    engage in landfilling is to seek a permit from the Environmental
    3—$27
    Protection Agency.
    Perhaps
    the Hospital has done so and has been
    refused,
    and
    if
    so
    a variance
    is the oroDer remedy.
    But the allegatioi
    are insufficient to demonstratethe need forany variance, since
    nothing
    is said about having sought
    a permit and lost.
    For
    all
    these reasons this petition must be dismissed
    as inadequate.
    #72—21 asks permission to burn
    about
    25 to
    30 diseased
    trees
    per year on the.hospital
    premises.
    We recently went through
    a protracted rule—making proceeding
    in which we heard extensive
    testimony
    as to the problems
    of disposing of diseased trees.
    We concluded,
    in new re-iulations on the subject,
    that burning
    is
    often necessary
    to stop
    the spread of disease,
    but that burning
    should be done outside of populated
    areas
    and, wherever cossible,
    with the
    aid of
    an air—curtain destructor.
    The fact that having
    the trees haulei
    outside
    a populated area may cause certain
    inconvenience and expense we considered
    and rejected
    as
    a ground
    for allowing
    open burning
    in congested areas.
    Open burning
    is
    bad enough anywhere~ it
    is very seldom tolerable
    inside
    a
    metropolitan
    area.
    Again there is no allegation that
    a permit
    for open burning in
    a place or manner allowed by our rather generous
    rules was made
    and denied,
    and that
    is
    a condition precedent
    to obtaining
    a variance.
    Again there is no description,
    as the
    procedural
    rules require,
    of the harm that
    is expected
    if burning
    takes place.
    And there
    is
    no allegation
    of
    a sufficient excuse
    to override the
    very strong presumption
    in favor of
    compliance
    with
    the
    law.
    This petition must also
    be dismissed.
    Variances
    are not granted
    as
    a matter of course.
    As we have
    often emphasized,
    they
    are unusual dispensations granted only on
    a showing of the most unreasonable hardships.
    The petitions
    here are dismissed.
    I,
    Christan Moffett, Clerk of the Pollution Control Board, certity
    that the Board adopted the above Opinion and Order this
    .~y’
    day of January,
    1972 by vote of
    -
    •-
    3
    —
    528

    Back to top