ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL

BOARD

April 10,

1975

CITY OF PLANO,

Petitioner,

vs.

)

PCB 75—14

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Mr. Henss):

City of Piano filed its Petition for Variance requesting

relief from the Open Burning Regulation

in order to burn approxi-

mately

4 dump-truck loads of landscape waste per month.

This

petition is deemed to be a request for variance from Rule 502(a)

of the Air Pollution Control Regulations and Section

9(c)

of the

Environmental Protection Act.

Landscape waste collected as part of Petitioner’s municipal

refuse collection operation

is being deposited on city—owned

land in the southeast part of Piano.

The proposed burning site

is adjacent to Petitioner’s

sewage treatment plant and is completely

enclosed by a chain link fence with a locked gate.

The nearest

residence is located more than 1,000 feet to the southeast of

the proposed burning site.

This petition is the third such request from the City of

Piano to allow the open burning of landscape waste.

In PCB 74-162

Piano’s petition was denied because it failed to show

a means of

bringing the activity into compliance.

No information was presented

as

to quantity of waste to be burned or quantity of contaminants

that would be generated.

In PCB 74-244 the Board denied Piano’s

second Petition for Variance for failure to provide information

required by Rule 401 of the Board~sProcedural Rules.

Petitioner now states that it has investigated the cost and

feasibility of purchasing an air curtain destructor.

Plano is

willing to purchase and install an air curtain destructor if it

can be used for a reasonable number of years as a method of

compliance.

16—387

---

—2—

Petitioner claims that compliance with the Open Burning

Regulations imposes an arbitrary and unreasonable hardship be-

cause it is impossible to collect landscape waste without

disposing of it and burning

is the only method available to the

City.

Petitioner promises to burn only when weather conditions

are

favorable

and to restrict raw materials

to

landscape waste

only.

Prevailing

westerly

winds

and

land

contour

will allegedly

result in the dispersion of smoke over non-populated rural areas.

The Agency believes Petitioner~compliance plan is ambiguous,

since Piano wants assurance that an air curtain destructor will

be approved for five years.

Even if Piano

is agreeable to the

purchase and instaiiation of an air curtain destructor, the Agency

states that it is unable to evaluate the program without further

information such as date of purchase and installation and size

of fan.

Piano has expressed a willingness to purchase, install and

properly operate an air curtain destructor costing $iO,000

$13,000.

Despite the unacceptable conditions sought by Piano,

the Board interprets such wiilingness ho be a declaration of

intent to bring this activity into~compliance.

Emissions from the burning of landscape waste materials are

not the most offensive type of pollution.

The fact that no resi~

dences are located within 1,000 feet of the proposed open burning

site coupled with Petitioner~spromise to burn .only when weather

conditions are favorable should servi

to minimize the effect of

such emissions upon the residents. of Piano,

A short term variance will be allowed subject to certain conditions

which will bring the burning into compliance with the Regulations.

This will permit Piano to dispose of landscape waste now being

generated pending completion of its compliance plan and approval

of such plan by the Agency.

By limiting such burning to landscape

waste now being generated, Petitioner will receive limited relief

for its problem while plans to bring the activity into compliance

are being finalized.

Authorization to burn all landscape waste

now

at the site cannot be granted at this

time since the Board has not

been told the quantity of such accumulated waste.

It is not anticipated that the Board will grant any further

variance beyond the date specified in the following

6~rtder,

There-

fore, Petitioner should diligently pursue approval of its Compliance

Plan now

to

insure

that

it does not face a similar problem in the

future.

Plano is granted variance from Rule 502(a)

of the Air Pollution

16—388

---

—3—

Control Regulations and Section

9(c)

of the Environmental

Protection Act until July 31,

1975.

This variance is subject

to the following conditions:

1.

Open burning shall be conducted only at the site

specified in the Petition for Variance and only when

atmospheric conditions will readily dissipate contaminants

in a direction away from the main residential area.

2.

Open burning shall be limited to landscape waste

collected after the date of this Order as part of Petitioner~s

municipal refuse collection and shall not exceed

4 dump-

truck loads per month.

3.

Petitioner shall submit to the EPA a Compliance

Plan for bringing its disposal of landscape waste into

compliance with the Regulations.

The~planshall provide

for compliance no later than July

3l, 1975.

4.

Petitioner shall submit monthly progress reports

the Agency.

Said progress reports shall commence on

May 1,

1975 and shall provide details of Petitioner~s

progress towards compliance and data on the amount of

materials burned, date and time of such burning, weather

conditions during the burning period and any complaints

received,

The first report shall also contain

a schedule

for bringing the activity into compliance.

5.

Petitioner shall apply for and obtain all necessary

permits from the Agency.

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

Board, hereby certify the ~bove Opinion and Order was adopted

this J~~day

of

~

1975 by a vote of

~

.....