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
—
695