ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
September 19,
1974
IN THE MATTER OF:
LEAF BURNING
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER
2 AIR
IOLLUTION,
PART V OPEN BURNING OF
SHE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
RULES AND R..EGULATIONS
.OPINION OF THE BOARD
(by Mr. Henss):
in 1970 the Illinois Lecislature enacted the Environmental
Protection ActS
Section 9(c)
of the Act states:
“No person shall
cause or allow the open burning of refuse”~ Refuse is defined by
the Legislatbre as “any garbage or other discarded solid materials”.
(Section
3kI)
Opinions differed as to whether leaf burning was
thereby
prohibited
in illinois~
On September 2,
1971 the Illinois Pollution Control Board laid
all doubts to rest with the adoption of a statewide ban on open
burning of landscape wasteS
The ban on open burning of landscape waste
was in effect during the Fall of 1971 for those communities which had
a refuse collection service, but authorities apparettly did not take
action to enforce the leaf burning ban during that season~
in July
1972 the Environmental ProtectIon Agency filed a proposal requesting
a relaxation of the ban for the smaller communities~
in November 1972
the Board did relax the ban against the burning of landscape waste in
rural areas and in the smaller communities which are not within
a major
metropolitan areaS
This was done since smaller municipalities have
a greater financial problem in disposing of leaves and generally have a
better air quality~ The Board said that leaf burning in those areas
could be conducted without harm to the public~ The relaxation of the
ban affected about
5
of the population of Illinois0
The prohibition
against leaf burning remained in effect in
municipalities over 2500 in population and in their adjoining
muniQipalities,
and within unincorporated areas
which are within 1,000
feet of a municipality where the
open burning of
landscape waste was
banned0
The open burning of landscape
waste remained prohibited in
—2—
all municipalities regardless of size located in the Chicago
metropolitan area and the E,
St. Louis metropolitan area.
This relaxation of the ban did not terminate the controversy in
Illinois.
On March
30, 1973 the Board in Newsletter #63 published a
proposed amendment which would have based the leaf burning ban on a
determination of actual air quality rather than the number of people
living in a municipality.
This proposal would have placed the burden
on the State to determine air quality by using sampling equipment and
air test data.
The proposal was to prohibit the burning of leaves only
in those municipalities which had poor air quality.
Two hearings were
held on this proposal.
When it became apparent in June 1973 that the
Legislature would pass legislation affecting leaf burning the Board
decided to hold in abeyance any further action on the proposal
(R73-5).
On August 13, 1973 legislation amending Section 10(g)
of the
Environmental Protection Act was signed into law.
This legislation
(Public Act 78-243)
added the following language:
“The Board may not adopt any regulation banning the
burning of leaves throughout the State generally.
The
Board may, by regulation, restrict or prohibit the
burning of leaves within any geographical area of the
State if it determines based on medical and biological
evidence generally accepted by the scientific community
that such burning will produce in the atmosphere of that
geographical area contaminants
in sufficient guantity
and of such characteristics and duration as to be injurious
to human, plant or animal life or health1’.
In a written opinion dated October
16, 1973,
the Illinois Attorney
General stated:
“1 conclude that Public Act 78-243 is
in conflict with
the current Regulations of the Pollution Control Board regulating
open burning.
The conflict runs only to leaves and not other forms of
landscape waste or refuse.
Therefore,
the specific impact of Public
Act 78-243 is to exclude leaves
‘from the definition of landscape
waste’ currently found in Rule 501(d)”.
The Attorney General also
said:
“It is the clear intention of the General Assembly in Public
Act 78-243 that the burning of leaves is
to be permitted”.
Therefore
on October
1,
1973 the effective date of the legislation,
the open
burning of leaves in many areas of Illinois was legally permitted for
the first time in over two years.
Less than one month after the new Statute had been signed into
law the Environmental Protection Agency filed its new proposal for the
control of leaf burning.
The proposal was an attempt to reinstate the
13—&4?
—3—
ban on leaf burning for those parts of the State which do not meet
the Primary Air Quality Standards.
Under the proposal the
Environmental Protection Agency would determine air quality by
using air measurement equipment or mathematical forecasting techniques
and by its projections would determine which areas
violate the
Primary Standards.
Leaf burning would then be prohibited for certain
areas of the State in which projections have revealed that the air
quality standards are not being met.
The Acting Director of the
EPA stated that the Agency was prepared to present at a public hearing
“sufficient medical and biological evidence generally accepted by the
scientific community that open burning of leaves may produce
contaminants in the atmosphere to be injurious
to human, plant or animal
life or health”.
The Agency’s new proposal was published in Board Newsletter #72
on September
6,
1973.
At that time the Pollution Control Board also
formally requested the Agency and the Institute for Environmental
Quality to undertake studies of the environmental effects of
leaf
burning.
Public hearin~wereheld on the newest proposal in Peoria, Chicago
and Urbana during November 1973.
At the outset the Board made it clear
that the testimony produced during the two earlier hearings would be a
part of the total record but it would be essential for the participants
to now address the requirements of the new law regarding leaf burning.
This Opinion will discuss the testimony and the exhibits under
the
limitations imposed by the new Statute.
Testimony was received from members of the Legislature,
from the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, the Institute for Environmental
Quality, the Sierra Club,
the Illinois League of Women Voters, the
American Association of University Women, Households Involved in
Pollution Solutions,
the Illinois Lung Association,
the Illinois Municipa
League,
the Environmental Health Resource Center, the Quad-City Regional
Air Pollution Control Agency, the cities of Decatur and Moline and a
number of private citizens.
Forty exhibits were entered in the record
during the hearings, and additional materials were received during the
comment period following conclusion
of the hearings.
During the development of
this record there were several changes
made in the language of the proposed regulation.
A copy of the final
proposal,
as amended December 6,
1973,
is attached to this Opinion.
Under the final proposal leaf burning would be prohibited
in Illinois
municipalities if an episode control stage is in effect,
or if Agency
projections indicate that Federal or State Primary Air Quality Standards
have been exceeded or if the municipality adjoins another municipality
which is prohibited from burning leaves.
Air quality determinations
13
—
647
would be made and published semi~annuallyby the Agency with written notice
being given to each affected municipality.
Testimony indicates that the proposed regulation would cover 5.8
million persons
(which is
52
of the Illinois population) and 1.2
of
the State~sland area.
Local regulations now affect over
6 million
pc.~rs.ons (57)
and 2.5
of the State~sarea.
(Local communities are not
affected by the legislative enactment and are free to ban or restrict
.leaf burning if they so desire.)
She Agency claims that only 518,866
additional persons would be affected above that number now subject to
local
ordinancis.
These figures lead
the Agency to believe that the
proposal conforms with the entent of PA7lo243.
The Attorney General
had
sai.d that the prior regulation was invalid under the new Statute since
the regulation banned leaf burning “throughout the State generally”.
This was said to be true even though the prior law covered only
a small
percentage of the land area of the State and did notencompass all of its
~population.
The Attorney General, however,
said that a leaf burning ban
is
cenera!”
a~oloerefore pronib~ted, lo ~t covered the State s
citizenry hfor tee most part”.
The Agency now claims that the current
proposal is not a general ban since
it would affect only about oneloalf
million persons above that number n.ow affected by local ordinances.
Although we do not adopt the reasoning of tIe Agency we do agree
that the final proposal does not ban the burning of leaves
t.hroughout
are Stare
~enerailr
It ~s our opinion tCat a regulation wnicn affeczs
a bare majcrity of the population and less than
2
of the land area is
not a general statewide ban, especially when one considers that the
proposal is not designed to be permanent but ofly to prohibit the
burning of leaves until those areas can be i.rought within the Primary
Air Quality Standards.
However, we find that the record is insufficient for the adoption
of the proposal when one considers the limitations of the new Statute.
We may not ban the burning of leaves even within these geographical
areas of the State,
unless we first determine “based on medical and
biological evidence generally accepted by the scientific community
that such burning will produce in the atmosphere of that geographical
area contaminants in sufficient quantity and of such characteristics
and duration as to be inj.urious
to human, plant or animal life hr
health”,
The record contains much information regarding the injurIous
impact of the open burning of landscape waste but it is inadequate for
our purposes since we are restricted
to a consideration of the
contaminants produced by the burning of leaves alone.
The Agency and
the Institute have not responded to our request made almost one year
ago that they study the environmental effects of leaf burning.
We make this statement even though the Institute and the Agency
did contribute a great deal of~informationinto the record.
This
—5—
information,
however, did not permit us to answer the questions which
must be asked under the new Statute:
What are the “contaminants”
from
the open burning of leaves?
In what “quantity”
are the emissions
from leaf burning produced in the “atmosphere”
of a “geographical
area”?
For what “duration” will the contaminants remain under different
atmospheric conditions?
What are the “characteristics” of these
contaminants in those quantities
and. for those durations
--
and are
they injurious to human, plant or animal life or health?
It is
unfortunate that the necessary ~udies
have not been conducted to
answer
such questions.
The initial ban on leaf burning was in large measured based
upon testimony of individuals and allergy speciaLists regarding
the
impact of
leaf smoke upon persons who suffer from respiratory problems.
At that time individuals and physicians did testify in favor of
the
ban
and such testimony was summarized in the Board Opinion adopted in
September 1971.
However,
the Board Order has now been struck down.
The new law states that any leaf burning ban must be “based on medical
and biological evidence generally accepted by the scientific community”,
We believe that the Legislature now intends tomquire
a higher degree of
proof than that which the Board found sufficient in 1971.
This record contains testimony quite similar to the 1970-1971
record from individuals and physicians.
The Agency has requested
that
oral and written testimony of the medical doctors and citizens be
regarded as “medical evidence” within the language of PA7S-243.
However, we believe the testimony of the citizen witnesses should be
considered lay testimony that cannot be utilized to satisfy the
requirements of the new law.
Testimony in the exhibits from the medical
doctors does not appear to be “medical and biological evidence
generally accepted by the scientific community” upon which a leaf burning
ban could be reinstated, although it was deemed sufficient by the Board
prior to PA78—243.
There
is substantial testimony that the smoke from leaf burning
causes adverse health effects among those citizens who suffer from
allergies.
Dr. Robert Pogrund,
a member of the Environmental Health
Resource Center testified that his childhood asthmatic problems were
aggravated during the Fail season because of leaf burning.
He also
thought that leaf smoke was responsible for his attacks of angina.
Reactions similar to his could be expected to occur in
10
to 15
of the
Illinois population.
Mrs. George M. Larson of Wauconda testified that her daughter,
a victim of myotomic dystrophy,
began
a coughing reaction at about
the time leaf burning began in her neighborhood.
She stated that the
coughing spells continue through
the
night and will get progressively
worse as more leaves are burned.
13—649
—6—
Mrs. George Felleson,
a registered nurse near Barrington,
Illinois testified that the smoke from leaf burning causes her to
suffer headaches, irritated and stinging eyes,
irritated and
stinging nose and breathing passages,
throat swelling and respiratory
difficulty.
She experiences these reactions even if she remains
indoors with all doors and windows closed.
On one particular day in May 1972
a neighbor sprayed his trees,
trimmed them and then proceeded to burn the trimmings and leaves.
The
wind carried the smoke to Mrs. Felleson’s home.
She became so ill
that she was forced to go
to bed.
Her throat swelled almost blocking
any swallowing activity.
She experienced difficulty in breathing and
began to have severe chest pains
for which her only relief was the use
of medicine and oxygen prescribed by a doctor.
Her husband found her
in
a semi—stuperous state after the experience.
Mrs. Kathleen A.
Blume, Wauconda,
testified that her permanent
chronic bronchitis condition is aggravated from mild discomfort during
light smoke to severe illness during moderate to dense smoke.
She
experiences shortness of breath,
chest
pains and fatigue during these
periods.
Mrs. Marie
M.
Hicks, Bellwood, testified that She experienced
burning eyes,
sore throat, headaches and breathing difficulties during
a leaf burning incident near Elmhurst in 1969.
It took three or four
days to recover after she left the burning area.
At the Urbana hearing
Dr. Aldon Rarick, Director of Radiology
Department at
St.
Elizabeth Hospital in Danville,
testified that his
personal reaction to smoke from leaf burning was a burning and soreness
in his eyes which
lasts for several days after the exposure.
Sharon DeWan,
Champaign County League of Women Voters,
testified
that, while living in Boston, she
experienced
a stinging nose, headaches
swollen eyes and shortness of breath for a period
cf two to four weeks
during the
leaf burning season.
At one point
she was affected to such
an extent that she
could not get out of bed for two days.
She got a
reaction from poison ivy on one occasion when
a neighbor burned poison
ivy leaves with other leaves.
Ruth Walker, Urbana, testified that her son experienced eye
problems, nose problems, and coughing whenever neighbors burn their
leaves.
Letters introduced as exhibits during the hearings presented
additional lay testimony about the effects of smoke from leaf burning.
Mrs.
Barbara Swanson described an incident that occurred after she
drove past a pile of burning leaves.
Immediately she experienced a
headache, sluggishness, earache and her right arm and leg became so
numb that she could not use them.
She required oxygen therapy during
13—650
—7—
the two hour period it took for the reaction to subside
(Chicago
Exhibit
1),
She thought this was caused by smoke,
In Peoria three letters from doctors were introduced as Peoria
Exhibit No.
2.
In the first letter,
Dr. Henry J. Dold,
an allergist
practicing in Skokie, wrote that he and his office partner treat
“a number of patients whom the smoke created~by burning leaves
aggravates”.
Dr. Dold stated that smoke from leaves had long been
known in allergic circles to aggravate ~peoplewith chronic respiratory
diseases.
In the second letter,
Dr. Truman G. Esau,
a psychiatrist
practicing in Park Ridge wrote that several of his patients have
been adversely affected by smoke from leaf burning.
Dr. Esau also
related how leaf burning in the Fall of 1970 had been responsible for
illness in his
two
children that caused them to miss ten days of
school collectively.
Both children are allergic and have “petrochemical
sensitivity”
(sic).
The third letter was from Dr.
H.
F.
K. Mitchell,
a
dermatologist
and allergist in Park Ridge, who wrote in general terms
about the need for a leaf burning ban.
No specific medical knowledge
about leaf burning was contained in this letter.
Seven other letters introduced
at the Peoria hearing specifically
referred to medical problems allegedly caused by the smoke from leaf
burning
(Peoria Exhibits
3 and 4).
The remaining “medical evidence”
found in the exhibits was a solicited letter
(Urbana Exhibit
# 7)
from
Dr. Dean A. Emanuel of the Marshfield Clinic in Marshfield, Wisconsin.
Dr. Emanuel wrote to Chairman Dumelle that while he knew of no
specific research regarding the chemical properties of leaf smoke,
it
was generally held that patients with chronic obstructive lung disease
tolerate inhaled irritants very poorly.
We have a great deal of sympathy for those persons who have such
adverse reactions from the smoke of burning leaves.
Such evidence was,
at one time, considered adequate by the Illinois Pollution Control
Board to sustain a statewide ban upon leaf burning.
However, we are
now operating under different statutory language.
I.f we were to base
a ban upon such testimony and attempt to protect asthmatic persons
wherever they may be located, it would not be in keeping with the
intent of the Legislature which is obviously to prevent
a statewide ban.
The proposal which we have before us does
not,
and under the law
cannot,
give complete protection to asthmatic persons.
it seeks to ban
leaf burning only in those communities which have the poorest air
quality as measured by instrumentation or calculated from mathematical
data.
Under the law we cannot impose a statewide ban.
We cannot impose
a ban in all municipalities.
We cannot impose
a ban in those
municipalities which exceed 2500 in population.
The proposal does not
and cannot adequately address the problem of asthmatics.
In recognition of the fact that
a new type and higher quality of
data
is
now
required for the reinstatement of a limited ban the Agency
—8—
did
submit
several scientific studies.
No studies have been conducted
in any Illinois community to determine the increase in particulates
or
other
emissions
from
leaf
burning.
There are indications that
measurements
of
air
quality
will
not
be
greatly
affected
by
leaf
burning.
Emissions
fran
leaf
burning
are
small
when
compared
to
the
contaminants
in
the
air
fran
all
sources
•
Carbon
monoxide
is
emitted
but
does
not
contribute
significantly
to
air
quality
as
measured.
The
particulates
emitted
from
leaf
burning
apparently
do not
significantly
affec
the
air
quality
as
measured
outside
the
zone
of
burning.
Nevertheless, leaf burning might
have a significant affect on
health especially when found in areas of high particulates or sulfur
dioxide.
One basic question is whether leaf burning causes emissions
of polynuclear hydrocarbons which would create a greater health hazard
in areas which already‘have high particulates or high 502.
The
polynuclear hydrocarbons are higher in an urban area.
Also particulates
and SO2 are higher in urban areas which are the areas of larger threat
from lung cancer.
The death rate from lung cancer increases 5
for
each increment of 1 microgram per 1,000 cubic meters of air of benzo
(a)pyrene
(National Academy of
Sciences).
Benzo (a)pyrene
(BAP)
is
emitted
from
the
burning
of
leaves
and
also
canes
from
other
sources
including
the
burning
of
auto
parts,
from
incinerators,
municipal
refuse,
coal
burning,
cigarette
smoke
and
automobile
exhaust
—-
in
short
the
combustion
of
any
organic
fuel.
It
can
come
in
minute
quantities
from
the
toasting
of
bread
and
f
ran
the
use
of
barbeque
pits.
In 1959 the BAP in the urban atmosphere ayeraged 6.6 micrograms
per 1,000 cubic meters of .air.
Rural air was 0.4 micrograms per
1,000 cubic meters of air.
By 1967 the
BAP
in urban atmosphere had
dropped to 2
•
5 on average as compared to 0.2 for rural air.
This
drop was caused primarily by control of coal burning.
The most significant
arguments
in support of a ban against leaf
burning were found in a letter written by Dr. Bertram W. Carnow,
Director,
Environmental
Health
Resource
Center
•
The
letter
was
written
March
15,
1973
and was amended April 27, 1973.
In
view
of
the
very.exacting
requirements
of
PA78-243
and
because
of
the
profound
and
positive
statements
contained
in
the
Carnow
letter,
many
of
Dr.
Carnow’s
statements
were
traced
to
the
original
source work for verification.
This verification process revealed
certain discrepancies.
Citing the document Compilation of Air Pollution Emission
Factors,
(U.S. EPA Office of Air Programs, AP—42, February 1972)
Dr
•
Carnow
stated
that
20
lbs
•
of
particulates,
0
•
1 lb
•
of
sulfur
oxides, 130 lbs. of carbon monoxide and 11 lbs. of hydrocarbons are
produced
per
ton
of
material
burned
•
A review
of
this
reference
13— $52
—9—
reveals an unexplained discrepancy in numbers.
Table 2—5 at page
2-7 of AP-42 lists emissions from the open
burning
of
landscape
and
pruning refuse as:
17 ibs./ton
narticulates,
negligible
sulfur
oxides,
60 lbs./tcn for carbon monoxide
and
2
lbs./ton
for
nitrogen
oxide.
The emission factors
in AP—42 were based on stud±es*involving
lawn clipeings,
leaves and tree branches1,
land clearing debris3 and
grasses
and straw such as
fescue,
rye, etc.~ and forest debris that
remains
after
logging
operations.
One
of
these
studies
(the
Gerstie—
:Iemnitz
study)
did
identify
several
organic
contamanants
in
smoke
from
the
combustion of landscape refuse.
These materials were fluoranthene
pyrene, crysene
(or)
chrysene, benz(a) anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene,
:benzo (e)pyrene,
nerylene, henzo(g,h,i) perylene and anthanthrene.
These organic compounds,
the importance of which will be discussed
later in this Opinion, were produced at the rate of 0.3 grams per ton
of landscape waste burned.
Another study
(Feldstein) did not
specifically mention leaves or leaf burning.
However, the combustion
of
land clearing debris was found
by
Feldstein to emit the following
types
and quantities
of contaminants:
lb/Ton Burned
Total organic gasses
(excluding CE4
166
Total olefins
30
Total oxygenates
59
Total aromatics
ii
Ethylene
30
Carbon Monoxide
600
Particulates
24
*1.
Gerstle,
R.
W. and D.
A.
Kemnitz, Atmospheric Emissions from Open
Burning, J. Air Pollution Control Association,
17:324-327, May 1967.
2.
Unpublished data:
Estimated Major Air Contaminant Emissions,
State
of New York, Department of Health, Albany, New York, April
1,
1968,
Table A-9
3.
Feldstein,
M.
et
al,
the Contribution of the Open Burning of Land
Clearing Debris to Air Pollution,
J. Air Pollution Control Association
13:542—545, November 1963.
4.
Boubel,
R.
W.,
E.
F.
Darley,
and B.
A.
Schuck, Emissions from Open
Burning Grass Stubble and Straw,
J. Air Pollution Control Association,
19:497—500, July 1969.
5.
Waste Problems of Agriculture and Forestry,
Environmental Science
and Technology, 2:498, July 1968.
F3
—
653
—‘a—
Fuels
used for the Boubel, Darley, Schuck study consisted solely of
grasses and straw such as fescue and rye.
The report compared emission
data from field studies in the Willamette Valley of Oregon to laboratory
studies conducted by the University of California using similar grasses
and straw.
This report did not pertain to leaf burning.
Based on this review of source material used to compile the
emission factors in AP-42 it must be concluded that neither the emission
factors nor the source materials can be construed to be adequate leaf
burning “evidence”.
Several of the references contained in the Carnow letter appear
to be questionable,
a fact which must affect the weight given this
particular exhibit.
However, one of the references
——
reference #4
——
is of unusual importance.
Since one of the requirements of PA78-243 is that the medical
and biological evidence be “generally accepted by the scientific
community”,
it is significant at this point to note that 51 panel
members, consultants,
contributors and committee members prepared the
book cited as Carnow reference #4.
The fact that the report was
critically evaluated in toto by the entire Panel On Polycyclic Organic
Matter prior to approval and distribution by the President of the
National Academy of Sciences would be significant if it
is determined
that ~ny of the material can be construed to be leaf burning “evidence”.
Dr.
Carnow’s reference #4, Biological Effects of Atmospheric
Pollutants
-—
Particulate Polycyclic Organic
Matter~
was
reviewed
for
information that might be directly relevant to the leaf burning issue.
The following is a condensation of that information:
“Polycyclic organic material
(POM)
has been reported
in many plants and plant products such as plant tissues
(p.16°). The increased concentrations of POM in organic
soils and in sediments and large bodies of water suggest
that many of the polycyclic compounds are produced in
decayed organic matter
(page 165).
The POM content of
soil is also increased by exposure to industrial effluent,
products of oxygen deficient burning of vegetative matter,
deposits of petroleum products, and exhaust gasses from the
automobile
(page 160).
Mallet and Heros detected benzo(a)pyrene in tree
leaves and in decaying organic matter under the same trees.
They suggested that the benzo(a)pyrene was absorbed through
the tree roots and
was
translocated through the transportation
stream to the leaves
(page 161).
Benzopyrenes are among the
pyrolytic products of wood and they also occur in the trans-
13—654
—11—
formation of plant organic matter to peat and lignite
(page 161).
Burning of vegetation and some plant products
may produce significant quantities
of several carcinogenic
hydrocarbons
(page 165).
Data
show a benzo(a)pyrene emission
factor of about 150 ug/ib.
of charged refuse for open burning
of municipal waste as well as for grass clippings,
leaves,
etc.
(page 24).
Combustion
of almost any organic material produces
polycyclic organic compounds and their partial oxidation
products in trace amounts to the environment for probable
contamination of every receptive surface
(page 160).
POM
can be formed in any combustion process involving fossil
fuels or, more generally,
compounds containing carbon and
hydrogen.
The amount of POM formed will vary widely;
efficient controlled combustion favors very low
POM
emissions
whereas inefficient burning favors high emissions
(page 13).
Although several polycyclic compounds generated by
burning of vegetation are known to be carcinogenic when
applied externally to particularly susceptible animal
tissue,
few have been adequately tested by ingestion by
experimental animals
(page 160).
Because anthroprogenic
(relating to the impact of man on nature)
POM is identified
with combustion,
it
is likely that such material is emitted
as vapor from the zone of burning.
If it enters the
atmosphere as vapor,
it will undoubtedly be adsorbed on
existing particles while undergoing condensation
(page
38)
Present knowledge indicates that fractions of particulate
PON contain only two classes of compounds that are known
animal carcinogens
-—
the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
and their neutral nitrogen analogs,
the aza—arenes
(e.g., indoles
and carbazoles).
(page
2)
Although dose—response studies
have been carried out with many chemicals and the problem of
quantitative carcinogenesis has been extensively studied for
a few selected carcinogens,
it has not been possible to reach
agreement as to whether there
is
a threshold dosage above
which carcinogenesis is produced
(page 91).
To
gain
insight
into
this
situation
it should be
remembered
that
there
are
probably
at
least
two
events
involved in chemical carcinogenesis.
The first
is
the
primary insult induced intracellularly by the carcinogenic
chemical.
This molecular process
is
(according
to the
available evidence)
rapid and irreversible.
This phase is
followed by the biologic process or processes involved in
13—655
the conversion of the pre-malignant cell(s)
to malignant
cell(s)
or clone(s)
of cells which in turn results in a
tumor.
With some carcinogens,
the amount of materials
required to bring about the primary molecular event is
so
small that it is experimentally difficult to determine on
apparent no-effect dosage
(page 91-92),
Neither epidemiologic
nor experimental data are adequate to fix a safe dosage of
any chemical carcinogen below which there will definitely be
no tumorigenic response in humans.
With
regard
to
air
pollutants, which contain a variety of defined and undefined
carcinogens,
the lowest possible exposure must always be
insisted on
(page
93).
Bioassays on mouse skin, subcutaneous mouse tissue and
mouse cervix and new born mice have shown that the particulate
matter of city air can be carcinogenic
to experimental
animals.
Fractionation studies on urban pollutants suggest
that polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons may play an important
role in the overall carcinogenicity and tumor initiating
activity of urban pollutants
in experimental animals
(page 95).
There are relatively few reports of induction of tumors by
administration of carcinogenic polycyclic
compounds via the
airway.
Because of the attendant difficulty, there have been
few studies in which exposure of the respiratory tract has
been carried out in a manner relevant to the problem of air
pollution
(page
110).
Purified polycyclic compounds such
as benzo(a)pyrene
have produced tumors of the tracheobronchiolar tree or lung
parenchyma only when absorbed on particles and delivered below
the larynx.
In inhalation experiments,
the addition of an
irritant,
such as sulfur dioxide,
to an aerosol of benzo(a)
pyrene has induced lung carcinomas
in rats
(page 113).
There
is clear evidence that airborne polycyclic organic
material found in occupational settings
--
expecially
in
relation to the products of burning, refining and distilling
of fossil
fuels
-—
is responsible for specific adverse biological
effects in man.
The effects include cancer of the skin,
lung,
nonailergic contact dermatitis, photosensitization
reactions,
hyperpigmantation of the skin,
folliculitis,
and
acne.
In
concentrations found in urban or nonurban air, POM does not
appear to cause any of those skin effects;
similarly,
there
is no clear evidence that such materials as benzo(a)pyrene
themselves in polluted air directly influence the pathogenesis
of such nonneoplastic lung diseases
as bronchitis and emphysema
(page 245).
—13—
Other considerations warrant caution in accepting
benzo(a)pyrene as a major pulmonary carcinogen at current
urban atmospheric concentrations.
Lung cancer incidence
has steadily increased since the 1940’s, and yet,
qualitatively,
the carcinogen content of urban atmospheric
pollution
caused
by
combustion
products
of
coal
has
been
on
the
decline.
Recent
tissue-culture
evidence
indicates
that
the
benzo(a)pyrene
content
of
particle.s
recovered
from
city
air accounts for less than 1
of its carcinogenic activity
(page
205)”,
This
condensed
citation
from
the
NAS
publication
provides the
Board
more
information
than
had
previously
been
available
regarding
the
carcinogenic
qualities
of
the
emissions
from
open
burning.
Yet
even with this information the perplexing question
--
does
the
burning of leaves
.
.
.
produce
in the atmosphere
.
.
.
contaminants
in sufficient
~
andof such characteristics and duration as
to
be
injurious
.
.
.
—-
still
remains
unanswered.
Clearly
the
statement
that
benzo(a)pyrene
is
present
in
tree
leaves is significant.
It has also now been established that
benzopyrenes are produced in the
burning
of wood.
The open burning
of a mixture of grass clippings,
leaves and tree branches yields
about lsoug/lb.
of benzo(a)pyrene.
It
is suspected that benzo(a)
pyrene and other polycyclic organic materials exiting the burning
zone as a vapor are adsorbed on particulate matter while undergoing
condensation.
Purified benzo(a)pyrene and other polycyclic compounds such
as those found in leaves have been proven capable of producing
tumors in the trachea or abnormal growths in the lungs but only
when absorbed on particulate matter that is delivered below the
larynx.
Although
the
burning
of
vegetation
releases
polycyclic
compounds
that
are
carcinogenic
when
applied
externally
to
susceptible
animal
tissue,
the
present
atmospheric
concentrations
of
polycyclic
organic
matter reportedly do not cause any of the
skin
effects
which
have
been
noted
on
persons
who
work
in
occupational
atmospheres
containing
polycyclic organic material.
Similarly,
according to the report,
there is no clear evidence that such materials as benzo(a)pyrene alone
in polluted air directly influence the pathogensis of such diseases
as bronchitis and emphysema.
Particularly interesting is the indication
that
the
benzo(a)pyrene
content
of
particles
in
city
air
accounts
for
less
than
1
of
its
carcinogenic
activity.
One of the references cited in the NAS publication relative to
leaf
burning
was
Airborne Carcino ens~
by
Eugene
Sawicki,
as reported in the Archives of Environmental Health,
13—65?
—14—
Volume
14,
pages
46-53,
January
1967.
Sawicki
reported
that
the
average
urban
atmosphere
contains
about
8
ug
of
7-H-benz(de)
anthracen-7—one
per
1,000
m3
of
air
which
is
in
the
same
range
as
found
for
benzo(a)
pyrene.
He
stated
that
the
compound,
which
has
been
identified
in
emissions
from
the
open
burning
of
“leaves
and
grass”,
caused
tumors
of the lung,
thyroid gland and jaw of white mice which received a
subcutaneous
injection
of
the
compound.
In
Table
II
of
this reference Sawicki reported the following
compounds
as
urban
atmospheric
contaminants
which
have
been proven
carcinogenic to animals:
1,
2--ben zanthracene
7-H-benz
(de) anthracen-7-one
Ch
ry sene
Benzo (h) fluoranthene
Eenzo
(j)
fluoranthene
3,4—benzoovrene
rhenzo(a)pyrene
aibenz (a,hacridine
dihenz (a,
~)
acridine
From
this
list
of
known carcthogens it should be noted that 7—H—benz
(deanthracen-7—cne,
chrysene and
benzo(a)pyrene
have
been
identified
in smoke from the combustion of grass and leaves or
landscape
refuse.
Sawicki’ s report that certain polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
had
been
found
in
the
smoke
from
the
open
burning
of
leaves
and
grass
was based on one
of
his
earlier
reports
titled
Ana1~sis
of
the
Urban
Atmosphere and
Air
Polluticn
Source
Effluents
for
Phenalen—l—one
and
7—H—benz (de) anthracen—7—one.
in Table III
of
this
report
Sawicki
shows
that 0.1 mg/l of
phenalen—l—one and 7. 1 mg/g of 7—H-benz
(de)
anthracen-7—one
were
measured in the emissions from open burning of leaves and grass.
However,
the
report
failed
to
state
if
the
open
burning
tests
were
conducted on
leaves
separate
from
grass
or
if
a
mixture
of
the
two
materials
was
used,
Additional information relative to carcinogenic polynuclear
hydrocarbons
in
leaf
smoke
was
presented
as
Urbana
Exhibit
#9.
In
Ipart
I of this Exhibit is
a section dealing with polynuclear
hydrocarbon emissions from the open burning of grass clippings,
leaves
—15—
and branches.
Parts of Tables
2 and 10 from this report have been
combined as
follows to show the relevant data exhibited for
polynuclear hydrocarbon content in smoke from the burning of grass,
leaves and tree branches:
Biological
ug/Ib of
~AbbreviationActivitRefuseChanes
Benzo(a)pyrene
BaP
+++
157
(C20
H12)
(3,
4-benzopyrene)
Pyrene
P
780
(C16
H10)
Benzo(e)pyrene
BeP
±
70
(C20
H12)
(1,
2-benzopyrene)
Perylene
Per
17
(C20 H~2)
Benzo(ghi)perylene
B(ghi)P
73
(C22
H12)
(I,l2-benzoperylene)
Anthanthrene
Anth
12
(C22 H12)
(dibenzo
cd,
jkpyrene)
Group II
Biological
ug/lb
of
ç~n~~bbre~iation
Activit~T
Refuse
Changes
Fluoranthene
Fluor
Not reported
505
(C16
H10)
(NOTE:
In
the
above
Table
the
compounds
are
listed
in
two
separate
groups for the reason that the relative reliability of
the
analytical determinations was affected by interferences
thatoccur during chemical analysis.
Therefore,
values
for the compounds
in
Group II are
of
lower quantitative
reliability than those from Group
I.
The biological
activities shown are the relative activity
on
mouse
epidermis:
+++
active,
+weak,
-
inactive.)
Missing
from
this
section
of
Part
I
were
references
that
could
be
used to verify the data or determine if any of the testing was conducted
on leaves alone.
Two references
(nos.
21 and 22) were found in the
reference listing that could have been the source of data for this
material.
The first was the previously discussed
Gerstle
and Kimnitz
13—659
—16—
Study which has already been shown to have probably involved the
burning of
a mixture of grass, leaves and tree branches~ The second
reference was cited as unpublished research by Sawicki which is not
available for review.
In Part
II of Urbana Exhibit #9 it
is reported that polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons are the most extensively studied trace components
in polluted air.
The great interest in polynuclear aromatic hydro-
carbons
lies in the fact that several are known carcinogens for
experimental
animals and some are suspected carcinogens for man.
However,
the only human carcinogens so far identified
in air pollutants
are
aromatic
hydrocarbons
with
4,
5
and
6
rings.
Table 2 of Part
2 of Urbana Exhibit
#9 lists polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons which have been found in the urban atmosphere.
Also in
the Table is
a column showing the relative degree of carcinogenicity
for each polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon as determined from tests on
the skin of ICR (Institute
of Cancer Research)
female mice.
Of the
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon compounds listed as having been
detected in the smoke
from leaf and landscape burning in either the
Gerstle—Kimnitz report or Part
1 of Urbana Exhibit
#9, Table
2 of Part
2
cited, the following compounds
as carcinogenically active:
Chry
S C
ne
Benz (a) anthracene
Eenzo (a)pyrene
Benzo Cc)pyrene
The following compounds identified
in smoke from burning landscape
waste were listed as carcinoqenically inactive:
Anthanthrene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Fluoranthene
Perylene
Pyrene
The record discussed thus
far indicates that arew
type of
contaminant known as polycyclic organic matter
(POM)
or polynuclear
hydrocarbons
(PNH) must now be considered in the leaf burning issue
along with emissions of particulate matter, carbon monoxide and
nitrogen oxide.
POM is not newly discovered.
13
—
660
—17—
Evidence shows
that concern about the health effects of these
materials has existed since at least 1775,
POM is known to be in
emissions from fossil fuel combustion, petroleum industries, carbon
black manufacturing,
steel and coke manufacturing, motor
vehicles
and
refuse burning.
For the first time,
however, POM has been introduced
during leaf burning regulatory hearings as an allegedly dangerous
component found in the smoke from burning le~ves.
As has been shown earlier,
almost every reference cited by
Dr. Carnow was found to have involved the
burning
of
landscape waste,
agricultural waste, or
a mixture of leaves,
grass
and tree branches.
The
single
significant
exception
appears
to
he
the
detection
of
benzo(a)pyrene in tree leaves.
Dr. Robert Pogrund, Associate Professor
of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, University
of Illinois
Medical Center, testified that to the best of his knowledge benzo(a)
pyrene would be emitted from the burning of leaves unchanged
(Chicago,
page 289)
The Agency states that the numerous studies conducted on
agricultural or vegetation burning constitute medical
and biological
evidence within the
framework
of
PA78-243.
The
proponents
of a leaf
burning ban argue that the data taken from the burning of various
mixtures of grass,
leaves and tree branches is indicative of types
and quantities
of emissions
from the burning of leaves alone.
This
could be true, but there is simply no evidence in the record to permit
that parallel
to be drawn.
Jack Paxton,
a plant pathologist at the
University
of Illinois, testified on behalf of the Sierra Club.
He
said there can be quite a difference in chemical composition between
different species of
plants, and his absence of study relative to any
similarity in emissions would not allow him to make such a correlation.
It
is the Board’s opinion that the ~‘evidence~’thus far discussed
shows
only
that:
a)
leaves
contain
a
substance known
as benzo(a)pyrene.
b)
the
burning
of
leaves
would
emit
benzo(a)pyrene
unchanged,
e)
benzo(a)pyrene
is
a
known
carcinogen
to
certain
susceptible
test
animals
and
is
a
suspected
carcinogen
in
man,
d)
a
mixture
of
benzo(a)pyrene
and
sulfur
dioxide
has
induced
lung
carcinomas
in
rats,
e)
there
is
no
clear
evidence
that
benzo(a)pyrene
in
polluted
air
directly
influences
the
pathogenesis
of
bronchitis
and
emphysema,
and
f)
present
urban
atmospheric
levels
of
benzo(a)pyrene
containing particulate matter account for less
than
1
of its carcinogenic activity.
~3—661
—18—
An additional requirement of PA78-243 is that the contaminants
from leaf burning be of “sufficient quantity and of such characteristics
and duration
.
.
.“
Even
if
it could be assumed that the data derived
from the burning of a mixture of vegetation was the same as for the
burning of leaves alone, the evidence would show
that over 25,O00
micrograms of particulate matter are produced for every microgram of
BAP produced.
The issue would be whether this amount of POM is of
such quantity and duration as to adversely affect health.
AP—33
lists the emission rate for benzo(a)pyrene from leaf and
grass burning
as
just 4.8 tons per year for the entire nation.
However,
the National
Academy
of Sciences states
“more recently, significantly
higher emissions from these sources
(refuse burning) have been
suggested,
reflecting higher estimates of total nationwide refuse
burning, rather than appreciably different emission factors”.
The NAS
estimates that 600
tons of benzo(a)pyrene
is emitted annually from
refuse burning of which possibly 140 tons or more may be attributable
to landscape waste, including leaves.
NAS thus postulates that benzo(a)pyrene emissions are 30 times
higher for landscape waste burning
(including leaves)
than investigators
thought only seven years ago.
Evidence of the “significant quantity” and “duration” of leaf
burning emissions was presented by Jack Coblenz, Manager of Technical
Services for the Agency’s Air Pollution Control Division.
Using the
City of Evanston as an example, Coblenz reported that the 25,000
Evanston trees would each produce about
1 cubic yard of leaves per
year which, when burned, would emit 21,250 lbs.
of particulates.
In
comparison
a nearby power plant emits
17,000 lbs.
of particulates each
day of operation.
For this reason Coblenz testified “we are really
not concerned with the
particulate
standards
but with some other
emissions”
(Peoria, page 196).
The “other emissions”, according to Coblenz, are benzo(a)pyrene
and benzo(e)pyrene.
Emissions of these two polynuclear hydrocarbons
based on the Coblenz testimony are shown in the following table:
City:
Evanston,
Illinois
Number of Trees:
25,000
Quantity of Leaves~
2,5 x 106 lbs.
PNH Emission Factors:
227 ug/lb.
157
ug B(a)P
+
70 ug B(e)P
PNH Emissions:
5.675 x 108 up
Wind Speed:
2 m.p.h.
Atmospheric Conditions:
Stable
Duration of Burn:
1 day
4 days
Distance from Burn:
0.5 Km
1 Km
0.5 Km
1 Km
24 hr. Avg. PNH Exposure
9.1 ug
2.8 ug
2.2 up
0.7 ug
13—
662
—19—
Such an occurrence as described above, the burning of all leaves
on 1 day or in
4 days, is obviously hypothetical.
Coblenz admitted
that leaves would never be burned under the conditions shown above.
He testified that the purpose of presenting such figures was not to
show actual or hypothetical emissions of polynuclear hydrocarbons
but rather
to show the difficulty of conducting an authoritative or
scientific study on the effects of leaf burning.
It is the Agency’s opinion that the burning of
leaves will produce
submicron particles and aerosols incapable of being captured by the
filter of a high volume sampler.
For this reason the Agency concludes
that it would be unable to provide conclusive evidence about quantities
of emissions
from leaf burning based solely on field studies involving
high volume samplers,
This Opinion seems to conflict with the opinion held by the
U.S. EPA that the high volume sampler has a particle size sensitivity
of 0.1 microns and a concentration sensitivity of
1 microgram per cubic
meter.
The Illinois Agency argues that the U.S. EPA fails to take
into account the separation of fibers allegedly caused by the aerosol
which creates enlarged pores.
These enlarged pores, according
to the
Agency, would actually allow one micron and larger
particles
to pass
through thereby creating a false picture of actual ambient concentration.
In Springfield testimony the Environmental Health Resource
Center stated that particulate concentrations encountered during
a
24 hour period
(i.e. weekend leaf burning) may be many times higher
than the concentration reported on an annual average basis and it
is the higher short-term concentration to which an individual
is actually
exposed and not the annual average.
For this reason the Environmental
Health Resource
Center recommended that a leaf burning ban should be
based on 24 hour air quality standards in lieu of annual standards.
However,
no mechanism is available for making such quick determinations.
The record is not sufficient for us to determine “quantity”
and
“duration”
of leaf burning contaminants in
a geographical area.
Nor
can we determine what “quantity”
and “duration”
of such contaminants
would or would not be injurious.
As previously noted, the NAS asserts
that epidemiologica~dexperimental data are not adequate to set a
limit on carcinogenic polynuclear hydrocarbons below which there will
definitely be no tumorigenic response in humans.
Dr. Pogrund expressed
the belief that present scientific information demands that a zero
threshold be adhered to for both carcinogenic polynuclear hydrocarbons
and aerosol aldehydes.
Dr. Pogrund believes that the current Agency
proposal represents
a compromise and as such,
fails
to take into account
the view held by the Environmental Health Resource Center that there
should be a “zero threshold” for carcinogenic polynuclear hydrocarbons
independent of established air quality standards.
Dr. Pogrund,
therefore
13—663
—20—
argues for a general statewide ban on leaf burning,
a thing not
permitted by Statute.
Dr.
Pogrund further stated that the type of scientific proof
apparently required by the new legislation “is practically unattainable
within the constraint of adequate research funds”.
(Chicago P.
240)
“In the absence of time or money to conduct such studies as outlined,
the alternative is to place the burden of proof on those who wish to
burn leaves that such action is safe, rather than prove it is harmful.”
(Chicago R.
243).
This is also not permitted by the Statute.
Expensive and “practically unattainable”
as it may seem to
some, nevertheless,
the Agency and Institute did describe a study which
could be performed to supplement the information contained in this
record.
In the first :phase of this study the Agency would select a
representative quantity of Illinois leaves and ship them to the
University
of California’s Air Pollution Resource Center.
There the
leaves will be burned under laboratory conditions in order to determine
the types and quantities
of contaminants emitted during leaf burning.
Cost of this study is estimated to be about $6,000.
The second phase would involve
a field test where leaves would
be burned under controlled conditions
in an area free from industrial
pollution sources.
“Household—sized” piles of leaves and “city dump
or park district”
sized piles of leaves would be burned in order to
determine do~anwindconcentrations at distances
up to
1 mile
from the
burn site.
This phase would involve two men working six months and a
cost of about $50,000.
Phase
3 of the study would be conducted by the Environmental
Health Resource Center after the Agency has developed emission factors.
As described in ~ thodoloc
for B aluating Health Effects of Leaf
Burning Emissions,
this phase will:
I) Evaluate biological responses
in an animal species,
2) derive a biological
definition
of
the
most
damaging burning condition and leaf type burned by the acquisition of
LD50 data for each such burning condition,
3) derive
a dose-response
curve
for up to
60 days that determines a graded biological effect
while exposure is programmed to range from a minimal concentration to
a
concentration
that
approaches
that
of
the
predetermined
LD50,
4) determine biological effects in pregnant animals chronically exposed
to
selected
emission concentrations and exposure duration.
Physiological
status, of litter pups would be determined to elucidate possible mutagenesis
and/or teratogenesis.
Contaminants to be investigated tentatively would include
particulates, polynuclear hydrocarbons,
trace metals, sulfur oxides,
carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, aldehyde, free radicals, terpenes
and olefins and aromatic hydrocarbons.
Dr. Pogrund stated that these
13—664
—21—
contaminants were decided upon “strictly by inference” because
“components of leaf burning can be guessed at without reference to
concentration or anything else about burning characteristics”.
Phase
3 reportedly will cost about $281,000 and require a
minimum of two years for completion.
Since the total cost of the three
phased study will approach $350,000,
appropr.iations must be seriously
weighed on a cost-benefit ratio.
For example, Dr. Pogrund testified
that the request for “convergence ofsci,entific
opinion” regarding
the quantity and duration of contaminants necessary to cause injury
cannot be readily fulfilled,
“if atall”.
The expensive research
according to
Dr. Pogrund is likely to produce scientific controversies
rather than agreement.
If that be the case then,
under the Statute,
the burning of leaves cannot be banned.
This would hardly justify
a ban on the current state
of the record.
One of the prime reasons for enactment of PA78—243 was the
alleged economic impact of the prior leaf burning ban upon communities.
Several municipalities and park districts introduced cost data showing
an increased financial burden caused by the ban.
However, the
most comprehensive testimony about the economic impact of the prior
ban was presented by Wallace Koster,
a free—lance consultant to the
Illinois
Institnl-e for Environmental Quality.
Koster conducted
a survey of
12
Illinois
communities
to
determine
the impact of the regulation on leaf disposal programs.
Cities involved
in the survey,
ranging in population from 1500 to 3,500,000, were Sandoval,
Harvard, Marion, Hinsdale, Carbondale,
Pekin, Elgin, Evanston,
Decatur,
Peoria, Rockford and Chicago.
Some of the more interesting findings in the survey involved
cost per capita figures and logistics problems associated with the
burning ban.
For instance,
the cost per capita, excluding any savings
from reduction of fire calls and pavement deterioration, ranged from
$0.05 for Peoria to $1.36
for Sandoval.
Rockford experienced an
increase of $0.06 per capita while the cost for Elgin and Hinsdale
were $0.12 and $0.46 respectively.
When the savings of $10,000 for
reduced grass
fire calls in Peoria is weighed against the increased cost
for leaf pick—up services,
the residents of Peoria experienced a net
savings of
$0.02
per capita.
Although such cost reductions could be
expected for the other communities in the survey, the figures for
reduced grass
fire calls
and street repairs were not presented in the
report.
Many communities reported that catch basins and storm sewers
became blocked with leaves.
Most communities noticed a significant
increase in the refuse load above the normal annual trend after the
13—665
—22—
open burning regulations were imposed.
In the main, general tax
funds paid for the leaf collection programs.
The estimated increase in the cost of leaf collection
(excluding any savings for reduced fire calls and street repairs)
after the open burning regulations took effect was $0.53 per capita.
We conclude that the economic issue is not controlling.
The Koster
study refutes the rumors that the financial impact on cities was
unreasonably high.
Few persons would deprive themselves of
a $.50
per year health insurance policy and that additional economic impact
would not in itself be sufficient cause for lifting the ban on leaf
burning.
In summary it i~the finding of the Board that the record
developed in R73-5 lacks certain medical and biological evidence necessary
for the adoption of the Agency’s proposed leaf burning ban.
We do
not by this decision condone the open burning of leaves.
We give
no such stamp of approval.
Evidence showing the detection of Benzo(a)
pyrene,
a known carcinogen,
in leaves should raise doubts even among
the most adamant proponents of leaf burning.
We are encouraged by the
local ordinances which spare over half of our populace from the effects
of leaf burning and recommend the adoption of such local regulation
by more municipalities.
It is important to note that the information presented in these
proceedings relates directly to
our, regulations already in existence
controlling the open burning of agricultural
ar)d landscape waste.
The
hazardous emissions from the combustion of these wastes constitute a
threat to living organismb.
Caution should be exercised by those
persons
who legally engage in the burning of
such
waste.
The Board believes
that the information contained in these proceedings significantly
strengthens the underlying rationale applied by the Board when it
adopted open burning regulations in 1971.
The Board has carefully stpdied each statement and each item
of evidence in the past months, and we conclude that the record does
not meet the requirements of PA78-243.
Some will claim that we have
been too strict in our interpretation of the new Statute.
To this we
would answer that the leaf burning issue, distorted
as it may have
been, has now had the specific attention of the Legislature and we
believe we correctly understand the legislative intent.
The Board has not received any indication that the Agency and
the Institute are proceeding with their proposed three phase study.
Phases
1 and 2 of the study were shown to take only about six months
for completion and are quite
a bit less costly than Phase
3.
The
more complicated Phase
3 will take an estimated two years to complete
after Phases
I and
2 have been completed and would probably not be
undertaken without legislative approval.
13—666
(Proposed but not adopted by the Board)
AMENDMENTS
TO CHAPTER
2, PART V
OF THE ILLINOIS
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD’S RULES AND REGULATIONS
OPEN BURNING
Section
501
—
Definitions
(i)
Episode Control Stage:
A yellow alert, red alert, or emergency
as declared pursuant to Rules 407(a),
408(a), and 409
(a)
of Part
IV of this chapter.
Section
503
-
Exceptions
(h)
The Open Burning of Leaves
(1)
Pursuant to Public Act
78-243, and notwithstanding any
Rule in this Part to the contrary,
the open burning of leaves
shall be allowed in those areas of the state which are
prohibited areas under Rule 503(c)
(4)
(i)
if no episode control stage is
in effect;
and,
(ii) unless projections of the
Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency pursuant to paragraph
(3) of
this Rule,
indicate
that
a
Federal
or State primary
ambient air quality standard is exceeded in a
geographical area where leaf burning would normally
occur.
(2)
During
an
episode
control stage,
no municipality
or
person shall allow the open burning of
leaves within
the area affected by an episode control stage.
The
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency shall provide
notification
of the existence of an episode control
stage in conformity with Rules 406,
407,
408 and 409 of
this chapter.
(3)
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency shall,
as
soon as practicable,
implement a program to determine
the air quality
in those areas of Illinois which are
prohibited areas under 503(c) (4), using air measurement
equipment or mathematical forecasting techniques based
on air measurement.
The equipment and procedures used
by the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency in
determining air quality shall be consistent with any
established Standards of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency.
(4)
The Agency shall publish its air quality determinations
at least semi—annually and shall give written notice
13—667
to
each
affected
municipality
of
the air quality
determinations which affect that municipality.
(5)
Nothing
in this Rule shall exempt the burning of
leaves from applicable local restrictions.
13— 668
—23—
It
is
our
judgment
that
the
record
does
not
support the proposal
for the regulation
of leaf burning. Therefore, we do not adopt the
proposal. However, we retain jurisdiction
in
this
matter
for
a
period
of
six
months
in
order
to
provide
opportunity
for
the
further
development
of
the
record
through
the
studies
which
have
been
described
by
the
Agency
and
the
Institute.
We
do
not
know
whether
those
studies
have
been
or
will
be
conducted
but
that
possibility
does
exist
and
we
retain
jurisdiction
only
because
of
that
possibility.
If
such
studies
actually
take
place
the
additional
information
should
~be
added
to
this
record
and
the proposal re-evaluated in light of the new evidence.
If
the
studies
are
not
filed
with
the
Clerk
of
the
Board,
all
pending
proposals
shall
be dismissed six months
from
the
date of this Order.
This Opinion constitutes the Board~sfindings of fact and
conclusions of law.
ORDER
The Pollution Control Board finds
that the record does not support
the adoption of the proposed regulation of leaf burning. The proposal
is not adopted. The Board retains jurisdiction of this matter for
six months to allow opportunity for introduction of such information
as may be developed by the Agency or the Institute pursuant to the
studies described in this Opinion.
If
such studies are not filed with
the Clerk of the Pollution Control Board within that six month period,
all
pending proposals shall be
dismissed.
Mr. Dumelle will file a concurring Opinion.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, certify that the above Opinion and Order was adopted on this
19th day of September,
1974 by
a vote of 5-0.
~
~
‘I
~..
..
13
—669
