ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

June 29, 1972

CITY OF OLNEY

V.

)

PCB 72—205

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY)

Opinion and Order of the Board (by Mr. Dumelle)

On May 15, .1972, the Board received a letter from the City which requested

a 1permit for variance~ to conduct open burning of trees within the City. On May 17,

1972, we adopted an Opinion and Order stating it was not clear from the letter

whether the City was seeking a permit or taking an appeal from a permit denial or

seeking a variance from the open burningregulations.

Construing the communication as either an appeal or a variance application,

we asked the City to submit information with respect to alternatives available for

disposition of trees and brush, the costs involved and what effect the burning

would have on the surrounding community.

On May 31, 1972, we received a further communication from the City in

response to our order, stating that the alternatives available were either to haul

the material to a privately owned landfill which did not have a State permit or to

burn the material on what used to be the city dump. The annual costs for the

two alternatives would be $3000 to $5000 and 5500 to $1000 respectively.

The

City further stated that it did not contemplate any adverse effects if the burning

were to be done in the old city dump. It also stated that it would cost considerably

more to use the privately owned landfill and also that the landfill was not State

approved.

On June 6, 1972 we adopted an Opinion and Order in which we noted that

neither letter from the City had made reference to the possible use

of

an air

curtain destructor as another alternative to solving the problem. The Opinion

further stated that under some circumstances the use of a destructor would

obviate the need for a variance and under other circumstances would serve as

a suitable basis for granting a variance. We ordered that we would allow the

City ten days in which to submit information regarding the possible use of an

air curtain destructor or else its reasons why such facility would not be available

to resolve the problem.

4

—

751

---

By letter dated June 16, 1972, the City responded stating that it earlier

had received a brochure on the air curtain destructor but that the City nevertheless

wanted to burn at the city dump for one or two years in order to save enough

money to then remedy the problem.

We find that the City has not shown that it would suffer an arbitrary or

unreasonable hardship if it were to solve its problem now. The only statement

the City has really made is that it would prefer to wait a year or two in order

to save up enough money so as not to suffer any hardship at all. The City,

however, has not shown anything concerning its actual financial condition at the

present time nor has it shown that under its current financial condition it would

be arbitrary or unreasonable to comply with t~ieAct immediately.

As we stated in the Lindgren Foundry Company case (PCB 70-1) “a variance

is to be granted only in those extraordinary situations in which the cost of

compliance is wholly disproportionate to the benefits; doubts are to be resolved

in favor of denial.” In the instant case we have serious doubts as to exactly

what financial burden would be placed upon the City if it were to comply now.

We cannot grant a variances under these circumstances.

This opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.

ORDER

It is hereby ordered that the petition for variance by the City of Olney be

and hereby is denied.

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution ~ntrol

Board, hereby

certify the above Opinion and Order was adopted on the~~day of June, 1972 by

avoteof

1/-c

C ristan L. Moffett, C~Ø~

illinois Pollution Control Board

4

—