ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

September 27, 1974

CITY OF PLANO,

Petitioner,

PCB74~244

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY,

Respondent

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Henss)

City of Piano filed its Petition for Variance on June 28, 1974

seeking relief from

the

Open Burning Regulations in order to

burn an accumulation of landscape wastes It

is

alleged that these

wastes were generated as a result of heavy winds passing through

Piano on

June 20,

1974.

Petitioner requests a variance for a period of time not in

excess of

60

days in order to burn a quantity of trees and branches

exceeding “the amount which the city would normally expect to

experience for more than an entire year”. Such wastes would be

burned on city owned property adjacent to a sewage treatment plant

in the southeast part

of

the city. The nearest residence is

approximately 1,000 feet from the proposed burning site. No other

information is provided relative to quantity of waste to be burned,

the quantity and

type of

contaminants

to

be discharged, proposed

equipment for controlling the discharge

of

emissions, details of

past efforts to achieve compliance, or injury

that

would be imposed

on the public by the granting

of

such a variance.

Under the heading “Statement that Hardship Exists”, Petitioner

states that the accumulation of trees, branches and leaves create

an immediate danger to the residents of the community. Petitioner

cites the danger to vehicular traffic because of piles of landscape

waste having accumulated on road right-of-ways. Further, Petitioner

states that the probability of accidents

at

intersections has

increased because of

the inability to see approaching vehicles at

intersections.

Petitioner states that it seeks immediate relief as may be

authorized under Section

34 of the Environmental Protection Act

without regard to the requirements of Section 5(a) of the

Act,

It

is apparent that Petitioner fails to understand the intent of Section

13 693

---

—2—

34 of

the

Act. Nothing before us indicates that the Agency has

sealed any facility operated by the Petitioner thus leaving

Petitioner no standing to invoke the provisions of Section 34 of

the Act.

The Agency moved for dismissal on the ground that this matter

is moot, since the landscape waste had already been burned. This

motion was denied by the Board and the Agency subsequently filed

its Recommendation.

Agency personnel were informed that Petitioner collected 10

to 11 truckloads of landscape waste per day for a month after the

storm. Normal landscape waste accumulations by the City amount to

about one truckload per week. In an earlier filing Petitioner sought

a variance to open burn the regular accumulation of landscape waste

(PCB 74—162). This variance was denied on August 8, 1974 because

Petitioner had failed to comply with Rule 401 of the Board Procedural

Rules.

This record shows triat Petitioner has already burned the

landscape waste collected since June 20, 1974, The Agency claims

that the Mayor of Piano admitted the burning on July 16, 1974 and

that an Agency investigator actually observed this open burning of

landscape waste on that date. We are also informed in the Agency

Recommendation that Petitioner removed the accumulation of trees and

branches from the streets shortly after the storm.

The granting of this variance would shield Petitioner from

prosecution for its past open burning but is apparently riot needed

for any current accumulation of landscape waste, Petitioner did not

inform the Board that it had burned the waste nor did Petitioner

respond to the statements in the Agency~s Recommendation. Petitioner

failed to state whether it had applied for an emergency burning

permit from the Agency pursuant to Section 504(a) (6) of the Open

Burning Regulations.

The Agency recommends denial of this variance because of

Petitioner~s disregard for the Open Burning Regulations and the

Board~sProcedural Rules, It is

the

Agency~s belief that Petitioner~s

burning of the landscape waste without waiting for the Board to decide

either of its two pending variance requests indicates a willingness to

accept any consequences of such actions.

We find that Petitioner has failed to provide the information

required by Rule 401 of the Procedural Rules. We cannot •properly

13

—

694

---

assess the situation unless we are told the comparative costs

of different methods of disposal and are given an opportunity to

evaluate environmental impact of those different methods. The

Petition for Variance must therefore be denied.

ORDER

The Petition for Variance is denied.

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, do hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order was

adopted this Q7~ day of~~

1974 by a vote of

___________

13

—