ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

July 12, 1971

VILLAGE OF OMAHA

v.

)

#

71—167

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Opinion and Order of the Board (by Mr. Currie):

The Village seeks a variar~ce to burn 8 to 10 truckloads each

Tuesday and Friday of “paper cartons, corrugated paper packing and

other conbustible materials generated by retail stores and other

businesses..” The proposed burning site is the village landfill,

which is described as a “remote area.

.

.where there are no nearby

occupied dwellings.” The alleged hardship is that alternative

disposal methods would result in increased costs. It is alleged

that either to buy an incinerator or to bury the material would be

“beyond the financial capacity of the Village” and “beyond the income

of bhe village taxpayers”

Open burning has been illegal since 1965. This village alleges

no facts that make its case different from any other municipality~s.

What it seeks is not a variance but a repeal of the regulation.

Moreover, it alleges only bare conclusions as to its inability to

pay the costs of adequate refuse disposal, costs which the Air

Pollution Control Board and the General Assembly decided after due

deliberation were reasonable to prevent the emission of unnecessary

smoke and other contaminants. We have held on numerous occasions

that mere conclusory allegations are insufficient in a petition for

variance (e.g., City of Jacksonville v. EPA, #70-30, Jan. 1971),

There is no allegation as to what the costs of compliance would be,

and the petition is thus fatally deficient.

We have dismissed numerous petitions such as this in the past

in cases involving the burning of trees. The present case is even

less meritorious, for the practical problems of dealing with bulky

trees are not alleged here. The only argument is that it costs

more not to pollute. Of course it does; that does not justify

pollution. If disposing of commercial wastes gives the village a

financial pinch, no reasons are alleg~dwhy the village should not

charge for its services. Those who generate waste can reasonably

be expected to bear the cost of its disposal.

The petition is dismissed.

I, Regina E. Ryan, Clerk of the Pollution ControL~Board certify that

the Board adopted the above opinion this 12 da~jof July

,

.1971.

2

—

~21