ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
February 14,
1973
STERLING PARK DISTRICT,
Petitioner,
vs.
)
PCB 72—409
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,)
Respondent.
Robert Caughey, Attorney for Petitioner
Michae:i Benedetto,
Jr., Assistant Attorney General for the EPA
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr. Henss)
Petitioner Sterling Park District has requested a variance
prom
Section 502 of this Board’s Air Pollution Regulations to
authc~rize
leaves to be burned in Sinnissippi Park.
In its
‘.‘~tit:Jonthe Park District stated that approximately 2,300 cubic
‘~a~ds
of leaves are to be burned and that disposing of the leaves
at
a landfill site would cost well over
$5,400,
a sub~tantial
burden for the Park District.
Petitioner stated that the leaves
would be burned between the hours of
2 p.m. and
9 p.m. with the
wind out of the northwest so as to blow the smoke away from popu-
lated areas.
The Sterling Park District has 387 1/2 acres of
park lands
lying
inside and outside the corporate city limits.
However,
the variance is requested only for Sinnissippi Park which
consists of some 150 acres and lies
3/4
to
1 mile outside of the
city limits.
Subsequent
to the filing of the variance petition we amended
the Open Burning Regulation and provided that landscape waste may
be burned under certain conditions
in areas more than 1,000
feet
from a municipality.
In cur Opinion of November 28, 1972 we said
“park districts or forest preserves which are not located in a
prohibited area may conduct open burning of landscape waste, but,
because, of the quantities
of waste which may be involved need to
take special care not to create a nuisance.
Such open burning of
landscape waste is authorized only on the premises where it is
generated when atmospheric conditions will readily dissipate the
contaminates and if the burning does not create a visibility
hazard”.
Our Amendment to the Regulation would appear to authorize
the open burning of Sinnissippi Park leaves and make a variance
unnecessary.
Therefore,
the Petition for a variance to burn
Sinnissippi Park leaves on the Sinnissippi Park premises is dismissed
as moot.
7
—
97
—2—
Although it
is not very clear from the record Petitioner
may be planning to burn leaves
from all o
its parks, those
within the City included.
Estimates of the cuantity of leaves
actually to be burned ranee up to 25,000 cubic
yards,
far in
excess of the 2,300 cubic
yards
mentioned in the Petition.
Testimony
indicates
that
additional
leaves are hauled
to the burn
site
from
Lincoln
Par~z
which
is located inside the Sterlinq city
limits and from another location called Hoover Addition.
rIo
the
extent that Sterling Park District may he planninq to haul leaves
from a prohibited area for
burning
at Sinnissippi Park
the
variance petition will
be denied.
There
is no testimony indicatin~
that
compliance
with
the
Regulation
will
cau~e
a
creator
hardshi~
for
this
Park
District
than
for
other
park
dis:rtcts
around
~ho
State
or
for
individual
citizens.
We
note
that
the
Director
of
Environmental
Health
for
the
Whiteside
County
Health
Department
opposed the variance.
He stated that
it would create misunder—
standing
and
confusion
among
the citizens
in the area
if thi
k
District were permitted
to burn leaves waile those citizens
were
in compliance with the Regulation.
We agree.
The EPA estimates
that
the burning
of 25,000 cubic yards
of
leaves will
qive off
almost
6
tons of particulate matter.
We
do not approve
of
hauliiv~
the leaves to cause such
a concentration of contaminants
in
one
community.
It
is
our
ruling
that
the
Sterling
Park
District
shal
1
comely
with the Regulation in all respects.
No variance
is granted.
Leaves which grew at Sinnissippi Park
may be burneT
there in com-
pliance
with
the Regulation when atmospheric conditions will readil’
dissipate
contaminants.
I,
Christan
L.
Moffett,
Clerk
of
the Illincis Pollution Control
Board,
hereby
certify
the
above
Opinion
anH
Order
was
adopted
this
_______day
of February,
ty73 by
a vote of~______to
______
7
—
98