ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    May
    3,
    1971
    BELLEVILLE CONCRETE CONT.
    CO.
    )
    )
    V.
    )
    #71—81
    )
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    )
    0. HELMKANP CO.
    )
    )
    v.
    )
    #71—82
    )
    ENVIRONMENTAL
    PROTECTION
    AGENCY
    )
    CITY
    OP
    DELAVAN
    )
    v.
    )
    #71—90
    )
    ENVIRONMENTAL
    PROTECTION
    AGENCY
    )
    TOWN
    OP
    CHATSWORTil
    )
    )
    V.
    )
    #71—95
    )
    ENVIRONMENTAL
    PROTECTION
    AOENCY
    )
    Opinion
    of the Board
    (by Mr. Currie):
    These are four more of the unending petitions seeking
    variances topermit the open burning of trees.
    All are inadequate
    under our precedents and our procedural rules, and all are
    dismissed.
    In order that the Board may determine whether or not
    compliance with the
    aw forbidding burning would impose an
    arbitrary or unreasonable hardship, our Rule
    1401 (a)(2)
    requires the petition to contain “a description of the costs
    that compliance would impose on the petitioner and others and
    of the injury that the grant of the variance would impose on
    the pub1ic.~ The Helmkamp petition contaIns nothing remotely
    resemb1ing a statement of either the costs or the benefits
    of’
    i—fl
    compliance.
    The Belleville petition contains on the issue of
    costs only the conclusion that alternative methods of disposal
    are “not considered practical,” and on the issue of harm to the
    community from open burning nothing at all.
    The Chatsworth
    petition is virtually the same.
    Both are substantially
    identical to Vise Bros.
    v. Environmental Protection Agency,
    #71—13, which we dismissed April 14, 1971.
    The a1legati~ns
    in the Delavan petition are also inadequate; the City says
    only that in the absence of a variance it would be necessary
    tc haul brush 30—40 miles to a landfill, which would take
    “a lot of time and expense,” and that burning would take
    place only when winds would “carry the smoke away from the
    city.”
    We cannot from these declarations determine whether
    or not the burning would cause serious problems, as burning
    of trees sometimes does, see Calhoun County Contracting Corp.
    v. Environmental Protectioz~Agency, #71~111 (April 14, 1971),
    and we have held before that it is no excuse that it oosts
    more to avoid pollution than to cause
    it.
    E.g., City of
    Winchester v. Environmental Protection Agency, #70—37
    (Feb.
    8, 1971).
    It should be added that we have just scheduled hearings
    on
    a
    proposal
    by the Environmental Protection Agency that would
    amend the regulations to allow the open burning cf trees under
    controlled conditSons on a permit basis, on the groundthat
    alternative methods of disposal are less attractive overall
    than is open burn~.ng. Persons in the position of these
    petitioners and wishing to burn trees in the future are
    requested to submit evidence in the coming hearings in order
    that the Board may reexamine the regulation on the basis of
    a complete record.
    The petitions are dismissed.
    This opinion constitutes
    the Board’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order.
    I, Regina E. Ryan, certify that the
    above opinion this
    3
    day
    0:
    Board has approved the
    1-570

    Back to top