ILLINOIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

May

4,

1971

HARDWICK BROS.

CO.

)

)

)

v.

)

#

71—17

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY

)

Dissenting Opinion

(by Mr.

Currie):

This

is

a

difficult

case,

and

the

Board’s

opinion

states

the competing considerations fairly and completely.

I agree

with

the Board that Hardwick’s proof as to the high cost of

chipping and hauling away

the brush that is proposed to be burned

is thorough and impressive,

but

I also agree

that other alternatives

to burning need further exploration.

I am pleased that the Board

insists upon an investigation

of the

use of the so—called air—

curtain incinerator, which apparently holds much promise for

eliminating most of the

smoke from wood burning,

and upon

an effort

to obtain more land on which to bury the material.

But

I think

the absence of proof

that these alternatives

are impracticable

means the company has not sustained its burden of proof.

It seems

to me we

are being asked to bail

Hardwi.ck out

of

a bad bargain.

Open burning has been illegal since

1965;

a

bidder on a contract such as this should know

it cannot rely

on

our granting

a variance

and should insist on appropriate contract

provisions assuring adequate means of disposing of waste wood or

full

compensation

for

disposal

costs.

To me it

is highly significant

that both the Corps

and the contractor fully expected that the

wood would be buried

along

the cleared bank.

It

is

thus admitted

that

there

is

an

alternative

method

of

disposal,

and

indeed

a

preferable

one.

The

only

reason

it

is

not

to be employed

is that

someone——

the

Corps

or the Conservancy District, which obtained

the

land

for the project—— underestimated the amount of land that

would be needed for the purpose,

and Hardwick

did.

not

have time

to discover

the mistake before making its bid.

To grant

a variance

seems

to me to transform this prior miscalculation into an excuse

for

allowing

the project to slough off some

of its

costs onto

the

innocent

public.

For

it

should

be

a

part

of’

the

cost

of

any

such

project

as

this

that

it

dispose

of

its

wastes

in

such

a

way

as

to

1

—

566

---

minimize

pollution.

The

Corps

should

bear

this

cost,

and

if

Hardwick has made

a careless commitment

to the

Corps

I do not

think we

should allow it

to pollute

as

a result.

Poverty

is

no

excuse

for pollution,

and neither is carelessness.

In this

day and age there must be ways

to dispose of waste

without

causing large

smoke emissions, even out

in the country.

And

I think the record establishes that burying the waste on

site

is

a feasible alternative, with no adequate explanation

of the failure

to provide adequate

land.

Burning the brush from

six miles

of river over

a one—year period strikes me as significant

pollution,

and it ought to be avoided.

I therefore would deny

the petition for variance.

/

~

7~avid P.

Connie

1

—