Document gE2DzDeDDO7k29JdKGNko6p4Q

* Oct.15,1971 Field Maeera Roosevelt Hoad & Sooth Lake Shore Drive Chgo.I&l. 1 -.0C M. Proa these as*.tlags will coae a 'dlnaneo bann ''nrajing o* abeatos containing fire protection In t: j State of 111. s.Suggest r?a st on the agendas to deliver our vie *a OT 'Ct least "9 an obaer ar at REPLY -- --- - ? ' each westing to'check out the co.- 3nts of our cor. .itorr. Bill ' ice Don't tip off jour competitors to these mootings a ^e Is llibls to pass them up and only our story of \.K. 4 will be heard. Office of the 111. P.C.B. Is 189 W.Jladlaon(Spencer's Building) Suite 900 312-79b-S620 Chgo.Ill. 60602 .. ___________________________________________________ $:CNED scho m)te and pink copies with carsons is: -cr. pin* copy is return*: -hh reply. .*-** - a-aa ipc 25067301 D5 tac- *no f l z * At: its September 2 meeting in Freeport, the Illinois Pollution Control Board adopted strong, new regulations to greatly restrict open burning in the state (attached). The new regulations prohibit the burning of leaves, trees, grass, shrubbery and other landscape waste within the boundaries of any Illinois municipality. This restriction extends to one mile beyond the boundaries of any municipality having a population of 1,000 or more according to the latest federal census. The new __gulations also charge local governments co aid the Environmental Protection Agency in enforcement of the prohibitions. Some exemptions from the new regulations are: The setting of fires to combat or limit existing fires; The burning of fuels for legitimate campfire, recreational, domestic fireplace and cooking purposes; The burning of waste gases, provided that anti-pollution devices are used in conjunction with such burning; Small open flames for heating tar, welding, acetylene torches, highway safety flares, and the like. In the written opinion of the Board, Chairman David P. Currie commented on several aspects of the new regulations. With regard to leaf-burning, Currie said: 25067302 - J b /j JJ "A related issue is the burning of garbage in boilers intended for residential or other heating...The Environmental Protection Act specifically outlaws the burning of refuse in boilers or other vessels cot meeting incinerator standards, and we repeat that prohibition in the regulations in order to call attention to it..." In conclusion, the Board's opinion commented on the need for local enforcement: "We have added a provision making clear once more the statutory obliaation of local Governments to enforce the open-burning regulations. The (Environmental Protection) Agency cannot do it alor.e. If we are to have a clean environment, we must have the cooperation of governments at all levels." With the adoption of the Open Burning Regulations, the Board also dismissed the following cases: DONALD G. NICKEL; LISLE FIRE PROTECTION ) DISTRICT; LEMONT FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT; ) HATES BRANCH DRAINAGE DISTRICT; TUSCOLA ) DRAINAGE DISTRICT #4; CITY OF DECATUR; ) RIEGER TREE SERVICE; CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK; ) ELGIN FIRE DEPT.; CITY OF OGLESBY; SHELL ) OIL CO.; DIVISION OF FIRE PREVENTION; ) PROPELLEX; ROSELLE VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPT.; ) FLINN A DREFFBIN ENGINEERING CO.; ) MIDWEST CONSTR. CO; VILLAGE OF LOMBARD; ) CITY OF FREEPORT; MARATHON OIL CO.; ) TEXACO, INC.; BOB R. WINEMILLER; OLIN ) CORP.; OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC.; CITY OF ) MENDOTA; COOK COUNTY FORESTPRESERVE ) DISTRICT; AND CITY OF OLNEY ) ) v. ) ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ) ) #71-142, -175, -187, -207, -215, -221, -228, -245, -252, -147, -180, -191, -212, -216, -222, -229, -240, and -152 -182 -206 -213 -217 -224 -242 -251 -256 I `surveys-ofwaste treatment literature.' Theycovar 22 substances'and" present pertinent Information on existing methods of treatment, levels of treatment attainable, and costs associated with those methods and levels of treatment. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO PROCEDURAL RULES At the September 2 meeting, the Board authorized the p of proposed amendments to its procedural rules (attached). cation In proposing the amendments, the Board explained that r ring individual pollution cases are expensive and unnecessarily 2- consuming. Despite an increase in the Board's budget, it nas already incurred expenses for transcripts far in excess of those the budget can bear over the entire year. Considering this situation, the Board deemed it appropriate that some of the cost of a proceeding be borne by the party seeking relief from the law. The Board proposed to place the cost of the transcript on the petitioner for a variance or applicant for a per mit. A clause was also proposed permitting the Board to absorb the cost in cases of financial hardship. The Board also noted that in a number of recent cases, th hearings have been unnecessarily protracted, with excessive time, spent in proving facts not substantially in dispute. To remedy this situation, the Board proposed adopting the equivalr of Supreme Court Rules 216 and 219, which require a party to pc the cost of proving any fact he unreasonably refused to stipule : Public conments are invited on these amendments and will b ; accepted until October 1, 1971, with final action expected shortly thereafter. 250673 l^i^nBCp ^...B....u....i.i..^...o..ad^ beeri|cbarge<Iwith constructlng'ra^ad operating a wIFsuppling 40 hones^fith water without acquiring the permit required by the Environmental Protection Act. The Board also ordered Claremont to furnish the EPA with whatever supplementary data related to the water supply facility that the Agency may r . jest, and to make modifications to the facility as directed by ' Agency. In PCB 71-150, Effingham Equity v. EPA, the Board denied a variance to Effingham Equity to extend a compliance date to September 1, 1972. The original compliance date, set by the Air Pollution Control Board, was April 30, 1971. The present Board ruled that Effingham had had more than enough time to install and test scrubbers in order to control particulate matter emitted at its fertilize_r_ plant. .. ' ' ' In PCB 71-204, George E. Hoffman k Sons, Inc, v. EPA, the 5oard ..l. russed a petition for variance that had been previously filed by tre Hoffman firm, after the firm submitted evidence that control equipment had been installed on a portable asphalt plant, obviating the need for furtner action by the Board. In PCB 71-190, Park -ianor Nursing Home, Inc, v. EPA, the Board granted a variance to the petitioner to connect its nursing home facility to sewer lines of the North Shore Sanitary District. Hr. Currie dissented. In PCB 71-131, Willow Creek Drainage District v. EPA, the Board granted a variance allowing'the petitioner to carry on open burning of landscape waste which has contributed to flooding in the area. The variance was granted subject to conditions and for reasons to be stated in an opinion to be adopted in the near future. In PCB 71-149, Carrie F. Andracki et al v. EPA, the Board denied a variance for connection of a proposed new dwelling to the North Shore Sanitary District. The Board noted that no construction had begun and no substantial hardship would be caused. 2*. Ofc1 'P-- u 75, 2.-= . 'V- jwu.tu,|yy r PCB 71-242, B.R. Winemiller Tree Service Open burning variance request dismissed under new regulations. -V* PCB 243, EPA v. Harry A. Carlson _r.forcement action aliening various v:-s of air, land and water pollution at refuse disposal site in s^uthvEitcrn Cook County. A hearing is mandatory. PCB 71-244, Bath, Inc., John L. Walker i. John ii. -Vi 1 V&r Petitioner seeks a variance to continue a landfill operation near Decatur. No hearing authorized. PCB 71-245, utin rpera tion Open burning vi.-i:.nc* request iismased under new regulations. PCB 71-246, FPA v. Vetter Oil Company Enforcement irtion alleging various acts of water pollution in Troublesome ("reek near Colmar, Illinois. A hearing is mandatory. PCB 71-247, School Building Commission of State of Illinois Petitioner seeks a variance for a sewer tap for a new freshman classroom building in the Village of Flossmoor. A hearing was authori- zed. _i FCB 71-248, SPA v. Sterling Alloy Casting Corporation Enforcement action alleging air pollution at a foundry in Rock Falls. A hearing is mandatory. PCB 71-249, Owens-Illinois, Inc. Open burning variance request dismissed under new regulations. PCB 71-250, Witco Chemical Corporation Petitioner seeks a variance to continue with original construc tion schedule of anti-pollution devices at Lawrenceville plant granted by cld Air Pollution Control Board. A hearing was granted. 25067306 Citizen complaint alleging various acta of air and water pollu tion in Deerfield. A hearing was authorized. PCB 71-256, City of Olney v Open burning variance request dismissed under new regulations. PCB 71-257, EPA v. Mrs. Hilliard White Enforcement action alleging open dumping of refuse in a sanitary landfill near Pairfield. A hearing is mandatory. PCB 71*258, EPA v. Town of Hutsonville Enforcement action alleging open burning ar.d open dumping of garbage near Huusonville. A hearing is mandatory. PCB 71-259, EPA v. City of Monmouth Enforcement action alleging air pollution from a sewage lagoon in Monmouth. A hearing is mandatory. PCB 71-260, G.L. Miller Motor Sales, Inc. (NSSD) Petitioner seeks a variance for a sewer connection to the North Shore Sanitary District. No hearing was authorized pending receipt of further evidence from the petitioner. PCB 71-261, 262, 263, 264, Central Illinois Public Service Company Petitioner seeks variances to operate boilers at Coffeen, Hutsonville, Meredosla and Grand Tower. Hearings were authorized. PCB 71-265, Minerva Oil Company Petitioner seeks varianceto permit the installation of a dust collector in a mine near Cave In Rock. A hearing was authorized. 250b 1107 October 7 &8 October 11 October 15 October 19 20 S 21 October 20 21 & 22 1:00 p.m. 9:23 ci.m. 10:30 a.m. 10:00 a.m. 10:00 a.m. 9:30 a.m. Street, Suite 1100, Chicago, Illinois :Asbestos Regulations Control of Spray Insulation, Rtj-l6, Granite City Courthouse, Granite City, 111. EPA v. Granite City Steel Company, PCB 70-34, Granite City Courthouse, Granite City, Illinois EPA v. Granite City Steel Company, PCB 70-34, Granite City Courtnouse, Granite City. Illinois G___e_n__e__r_a_l___E__l_e__c__t"rPic*nyComp V. EPA, PCB 71-238, City Hall, Morris, Illinois Asbestos Regulations Control of Spray Insulation, R71-16, Field Museum, Roosevelt Road at South Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, 111. EPA v. City of Urbana v. Urbana and Champaign Sanitary District, and Saline Branch Drainage District, and The Board of Trustees cf the Univer sity o Illinois, PCB 71-51U, City Council Chambers, Urbana, Illinois EPA v. Granite City Steel Company, PCB 70-34, Granite City Courthouse, Granite City, Illinois 25067308 2506730<V December 1 December 2 December 10 10:00 a.m. 10:00 a.m. 10:00 a.m. Proposed Regulations for the Application of Plant Nutrients, R71-15, Wabash County Courthouse, Fourth and Market, Mt. Carmel, Illinois Proposed Regulations for the Application of Plant Nutrients, R71-15, carbondale TownshipOfficp Building, 21"7 East Main, Carccnuale, Illinois Proposed Regulations for the Application of Plant Nutrients, R71-15, St. Clair Room, University Center, Southern Illinois Univer sity, Edwardsville, Illinois September 13 2:00 p.m. September 14 10:00 a.m. September 14 15 & 16 10:00 a.m. ptember 14 10:00 a.r. eptember 15 10:00 a.m. BPA* v. Granite City Steel Company, PCB 70-34, Illinois Pollution Control Board, 189 West Malison Street Suite 900, Chicago, 111 nois Proposed Water Quality Standards, R71-14, City Hall Council Chambers, 150 West Jefferson, 2nd Floor, Joliet, Illinois Elgin Jaycees v. Tri-C , T A C ; i Company, et al, PCB 71 City Cour.. Chambers. gin Municir 1 Building. 150 Dexter St Elgin, .Hindis Union Ele PCB 71-20 Illinois t ic Company City Hall, reet, Belle'. . EPA, Jl South He, Illi; Effluent S ndards,1170- Field Museum, Lee_ ire Hall, Rocuevelt Road at South Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, Illinois September 17 & 21 September 21 10:00 a.m. 10:00 d.IQ* September 2: 3: 0 a.m. :< : 3 0 n.~.. 'Ct c "rtc r s 17:00 a.m. 3 vr tember 22, 23 & 24 September 2 0:30 a.m. 10:00 a.m. September 2 10:00 a. m. Ell ftmigon rvisor*s .... Illinoi 1 BoardMeetin .Burlington irteeRoom County^Sew' .Village ttee Room,; irs Grove --,* s-V Pubiic^Utfii^y PCB 71-15R, 400 Market Street. Ht. Carmel, Illinois Sewer Connection Bans, R71-9. Waukegan Public Library, 128 North County Street, Waukegan, Illinois ProDOsed W3 *-er Qualit-- " : andards, RJ71-14, C Hall Cou Chambers, 745 Secor Street, La le, Illinoi. Flintkct' Courtroom Fourth i .T.panv v. J'abash Cou.-. ket, Mt. C . PCB 71-63. Courthouse, mel, Illinoi. EPA v. Fro Salvage cCounty Cc Illinois Cobin d/b any, PCB rhouse, Mu. Cob in :34 , Jackson .ysboro, Sewer Cor.r. tion Bans, 71-19, Council Ch,, oers, City hall, 208 North 19th Street , Mattoon, Illinois EPA v. Granite City Steel Company, PCB 70-34, Granite City Courthouse, Granite Cit , Illinois Prooosed w. er Quality S -.andards, P.71-14, Cit Hall Counci Chambers, Bloomington , Illinois Proposed Water Quality Standards, R71-14, City Hall Council Chambers, 102 North Neil, Champaign, Illinois September 10:00 a.m. ptember 3C 2:00 October 1 10:00 a.~. tober 1 tober 6 October 6 : tober 6 .ober 7 &8 10:00 9:30 a.m. 10:00 a.m. 1:00 p. 9:30 a.m. dards................... 5th Street, Metropolis/ Illinois For- L Board Meeting, Marion City Hal*, Traffic Court, Public Square, Marion, Illinois General Electric Company v. EPA, PCB 71-238, 209 South LaSalli Street, Suite 1100, Chicago, Illinois Effluent Standards, R70-8, Southern Illinois University, University Center Building, ~ .st floor, liege and r ninary Stre s, Alton, I .inois Prop id Water Cu .ty Standar , R^l-j.*, Wabash Col ty Courthouse, Fourth and Market, Mt. Carmel, Illinois Asbestos Regulations Control Spray Ir.sulation, >.71-16, Granite _Citv Courthouse. Granite City, Illinois Proposed Water Quality Standards, R71-14, Peoria Publi~ Library" 107 N. '. Monroe, P ria, Illinois EPA v. Granite City Steel Company, feCB 70-34, Granite City Courthouse, Granite City, Illinois EPA v. Granite City Steel Company, PCB 70-34, Granite City Courthouse, Granite City, Illinois 25067312 5067313 October 20, 21 & 22 Octc.. - 22 November 3 Nov >er 4 December 1 Dec.. ir 2 9:30 a.ra. :00 a.m. 10:00 a.m. 10:00 a.m. 10:00 a.m. 10:00 a.m. EPA v. Granite City 5tee :ompany. PCB 70-34, Granite City Courthouse, Granite City, Illinois Proposed Regulations for the Application of Plan- Nutrients, R71-15, Illinois Stare Fairgrounds Illinois Building Auditorium, Springfield, Illinois ? ooosed Regulati ,s for the plication of PI . ~t Nutrients, : -15, Civic Cen. - Building, 1 } East Water Str-. :t, Urbana, IILinois Proposed Regulations for the 1 plication of Plant Nutrients, r.. 1-15, Ramada Inn, EffinghamiT Illinois Proposed Regulations for the Application of Plant Nutrients, F 1-15, Wabash Cc ;y Courthouse, i- urth and Market, it. Carmel, I.linois Proposed Regulations for the Application of Plant Nutrients, R71-15, Carbondale Township, Office Building, 217 East Main, Carbondale, Illinois 25067314 "W" ''ft - of refuse and for salvage, except as nay be specifically authorized by regulations of this 3oard. The regulations adopted today were proposed in order ts clarify the uncertain relationship between the old regulation? and the new statute and to draw a more accurate line between yerrr is?ib? o and impermissible burning in light of the experience gained in the first few months ci this Board's operation. Our authority to adopt these regulations stems from sections 9 (c) and 10 of the Act, which authorize the Board to adopt regulations to guar': against air pollution--whicb may go beyond refuse and salvage ca:ts--and to exempt harmless and necessary open burning from the statutory ban. This opinion ex plains and gives reasons fo: the new regulations. i. Refuse Dunes and Sol'-sce. The record contains ancle evidence as to the pollution caused by open burning of refuse dunes and of wrecked vehicles, and as to the lack of necessity for such burning. See Exhibits 4, 5, 7, and 8, giving some indication of the extent of smoke and other contaminants emitted by such operations, and Exhibits 3, 8, 9, 10, and 21, indicating methods of sanitary landfill and of automobile and boxcar hulk disposal methods in actual use that obviate any need for burning in such cases. Attention is particularly called to a letter received by the Air Pollution Control Board from an auto hulk processor in late 1969: Because of the nature of our shredder operation at Alton, Illinois, we do not require burned auto bodies; however, we do accept both burned and unburned auto bodies at the same price. (Ex. 10). The open burning of refuse dumps end open burning for salvage purposes have been illegal since 1965, and we reaffirm the prohibition with conviction. 2 5 0 6 /3 1 5 *. m >.u-'-"7'tin r'f.-?;--V^ 7 v ~-- jh.j/Lh/*., vV 3. Leaves and Othe Landscape Refuse: "Backyard Incineration.1' There has beer; cor.siderabie confusion over the status of leaf-burning under the new statute. Today's regulation stakes it clear that leaves and other landscape refuse may be burned on the premises only outside municipalities and a one mile buffer zone beyond towns of 1000 or more people. In populated sreis leaf burning is a nuisance. The City of Chicago has recently banned leaf burning, and it reports a significant reduction in complaints as a result (R. 131, 132). We have been urged b> numerous witnesses to ban leaf buriuac. Dr. George Arnold, on behalf of the Madison C art; Sir.: tatter, and Pollution Committee, argued that leaf burning rrcat.s a .-.atari of fire and of traffic accidents, contributes tc t. e viclaticn cf particulate air quality standards, reduces v:s:a : 1: ty, endangers health, and destroys valuable organic matter . 64-57). Several witnesses discussed from personal experience th*- .. I or.-c health effects of leaf burning, especially on perso...- vith respiratory problems (R. 214-32). An allergy specialist testified as to the serious health effects of burning leaves, especially those contaminated with pesticides, upon people witn allergies or respiratory diseases (R. 184-91). There was also much evidence as to alternative methods of leaf disposal, including municipal incineration and sanitary landfill (R. 135) as well as mulching and composting to make use of the organic material (R. 67-68, 100-02, 228-30). Cost studies have concluded that the cost of leaf collection is moderate ($2.58 per family per year in Detroit in 1967, R. 68), and that the cost of such collection is offset more than three to one by the benefits of reducing pollution, even without con sidering either health effects or the possible benefits of mulching (Ex. 11). 25067316 * niiV..--.`I "it**.?*^ y.'-F1 providing for more acceptable farms!veallow burning, but only available. disposal, no economic alternative Zt is therefore desirable in this case, as authorized by section 27 of the Act, to make different provisions for different parts of the State in terms of population density. It is obviously impossible to draw a scientific line to separate with logical precision those cases in which it is and is not acceptable to burn landscape refuse; one is reminded of the necessity for choosing a somewhat arbitrary voting age. We believe the distinction drawn is an appropriate one that will be easy to admi-'srer and to understand. A veri of caution is in order as to the disposition of leaves. We have some reservations about the spreading practice of placing leaves in plastic bags for collection. Plastic bags are relatively r.ondegradable and may interfere with normal decomposition of the leaves in a sanitary landfill. Moreover, the gaseous products of incineration of plastic bags may not be desirable additions to the air (R. 135, 139 ). We are not today outlawing the use of plastic for this purpose, since the issue is not before us, but we wish to warn people to take care that in avoiding one environmental problem they do not create another. 4. Fighting Fire with Fire. The exception permitting fires to stop the spread of other fires requires little comment. It is plain that in such cases open burning can reduce fire losses and air pollution too. 25067317 The provision allowing permits for open burning to instruct in firefighting techniques is similar. It is clear that experience with actual fires is indispensable in such instruction, and that such instruction is of enormous value. We have reauired oermits for such m* '*' . .-< . '? ' 'f >-, >f^QD^firesiaii3; fireplaces.untiV -<;' add that garbage is not to cases; -laws must be complied with; that snctl "activities may be stopped if they in fact cause pollution; and that this exception is not to be abused by calling a burning refuse heap a bonfire or by roasting wiener3 over a pile of leaves. 6. Gas Flares. Oil refining operations must provide safety vents for releasing explosive gases in the event of increased pressure, and burning of such gases is necessary to avoid th danger of explosion. The flares are kept burning at all times to provide a pilot for igniting emergency releases and to prevent explosive conditions in the pipes. By and large the combustion products are carbon dioxide and water, although some sulfur dievide results from the burning of hyd^oger 'vifide during upset renditions. We are convinced on this record that, so long as smokeless devices are employed, as the industry testified they should be, the hazards of explosion amply justify allowing refinery flares. We agree moreover that the relatively small amounts of sulfur dioxide emitted are far preferable to comparable amounts of hydrogen sulfide. (R. 200-09). Flares are also commonly used to burn small quantities of natural gas produced at oil wells in Illinois. Regulations of the state Department of Mines and Minerals forbid unnecessary waste of this gas, and it is utilized wherever economically feasible. Often, however, there are no nearby buildings to heat with this gas, and the quantities are so small as to make the cost of compressing and distributing it prohibitive. For safety reasons the Department of Mines and Minerals requires this waste gas to be burned. The combustion products are carbon dioxide and water, and we agree no significant pollution is caused. We have exempted such flares, and their conterparts in other industries such as coke-oven and blast-furnace gases, from the open burning restrictions (R. 75-100). No permit is required for safety flares because of the enormous number of flares and the consequent administrative burden. 25067318 HCjre-BVu*. *XJJ'lHS'fS'JW'WI. ......--....- -JfeSi fc' --: -: r;- ; ;:f ?<t' Jj^GtioF.icover;;; The Cifcyfof? Chicago has3 cowmendably pur chased efajffliig machine at a cost of over $60,000 that enables diseased^trees to be chopped tip and fed to a controlled incinerator, but we cannot say that this solution is within the financial range of all Municipalities on this record. On the other side of the coin, we do not believe the burning of wood to be among the more obnoxious forms of open burning. In short, we think the urgency of combatting plant diseases justifies a permit system allowing the burning of Infected vegetation under conditions that will miniaize pollution (R. 129, 136-38, 164-65, 177-83). We also agree it ii not feasible w.f-'ut J-stroyin-- t v, 6 ! that permits should be allowed in cases in which to remove the felled vegetation from its site t subs. <nt: i! segment of forest f. l*A. Ve have recei/ed, jr-i i' lost always denied, a great many ' : :f: ror vari t-ices V' t^nit the open burning of non-diseased s. The evidence is persuasive that alternative disposal methods r. .imply not practicable in most cases (June 3, pp. 51-53). n equently, after the most recent hearings, we omitted the limitation tz liueased trees and inserted a provision authorizing permits for juiai,ig any trees outside of restricted areas upon a showing of need. However, the evidence shows that a device called the air curtain destructor, available for only a very few thousand dollars and portable, can substantially reduce emissions from such burning by blowing air over the top of the fire (June 3, pp. 54-61; June 4^ pp. 34-35, 46-67). Cost of the unit, including its own motor, is from S6700 to $11,300, the cost of a permanent pit estimated at $2500-$3500, and operating costs estimated at 15-20C per ton (June 4, pp. 57-65). The Cook County Forest Preserve District is installing such a destructor (June 3, pp. 108-09, 113) , and they are required in St. Louis County, Missouri (June 4, p. 33). We have allowed several months for the acquisition of such devices, required their use after July 1, 1972, and allowed their use within restricted areas subject to a permit requirement. W. 2506731*) ,cr us that on rele safety! and state regulations require tfc<acctaralated in oil production (June 4( ; provided for such burning by permit and. a permit but with a reporting requireme; 11. local Enforcement. We have added a provision making cl; obligation of local governments to infor regulations. The Agency cannot do it al clean environment we must have the cooper all levels. The following changes were made in ; ceived after publication of the proposed of trade waste was added; the reference made explicit in Rule 403 to conform to i for agricultural and domicile waste have cf the different conditions applicable t has been added for domicile wastes where pickup service; the requirement has been waste can be burned only when there is no alternative; domestic fireplaces have bee the procedural requirements for permits 1 rewritten to be more specific. 'ons 1edges ave , without e the statutory Miming ; to have a linents at aments re A definition the Act was he exemptions id because ? period itly no `icultural easonable exempted; nixed and ^0 (a) Agricultural Wastes: Any refuse, except garbage and dead animals, generated on a farm or ranch by crop and livestock production practices, including such items as bags, cartons, dry bedding, structural materials, and landscape wastes. (b) Domicile Waste: Any refuse generated on singlefamily domiciliary property as a result of domiciliary activities. The term includes landscape waste, but excludes garbage and trade waste. (c) Garbage? Refuse resulting from the handling, processing preparation, cooling, and consumption of food or food products. (d) Landscape Waste: Any vegetable or plant refuse, except garbage. The term includes trees, tree trimmings, branches, stumps, brush, weeds, leaves, grass, shrubbery, yard trimmings, and crop residues. (e) Open Burning: The combustion of any matter in such a way that the products of the combustion are emitted to the open air without originating in or passing through equipment for which a permit could be issued under Section 9(b) of the Act. (f) Refuse: Any discarded matter; or any matter which is to be reduced in volume, or otherwise changed in chemical or physical properties, in order to facilitate its discard, removal or disposal. (Nl .dS'f.W- "(b) Rb person shall cause or allow the burning of any 4 4 refuse in any chamber or apparatus/ unless such chamber or' ) apparatus is designed for the purpose of disposing of the ; class refuse being burned. 403 Bxen4/cions. The following activities are not in violation of Section 9(c) of the Environmental Protection Act or of this Part unless they cause air pollution as defined in the Act. Nothing in this Rule shall exempt such activities from applicable local restrictions. (a) The open burning of agricultural waste, but only: and (1) on the premises on wnich such waste is generated; (2) in areas other than restricted areas; and (3) when atmospheric conditions will readily dissipate contaminants; and (4) if such burning does not create a visibility hazard on roadways, railroad tracks, or air fields; (5) more than' 1000 feet from residential or other populated areas; and (6) when it can be affirmatively demonstrated that no economically reasonable alternative method of disposal is available. restricted areas who So not: have refuse collection serviceavailable to thee, fcut only until July 1, 1972. (c) the setting of fires to combat or limit existing fires, when reasonably necessary in the judgment of the responsible government official. (d) l.-.e burning of fuels for legitimate campfire, recreatior.- l, and cooling purposes, or in domestic fire places, ir. ^reas where such burning is consistent with other laws, provi ' that no garbage shall be bui.ioJ in sue.; cases; (e) T e burning of waste gases, provided that in the case of refineries all s ucn flares shall be equipped with smokeless tips of com-arable cev.ces to reduce pollution; (f) Small open flames for heating tar, for welding, acetylene torches, highway safety flares, and the like. 404 Permits. (a) The Environmental Protection Agency may grant permits for open burning in the following instances; (1) For instruction in methods of fire fighting; or for testing of equipment for extinguishing fires, of flares and signals, or of experimental incinerators, or for research in control of fires; (2) For the destruction of vegetation on site under circumstances in which its removal would necessitate significant environmental damage; `'*V v f- (5) For the destruction of oil sludges in petroleum production for safety reasons where alternative means ir iud- ing product recovery re impracticable; vided, that n emergency conditions equire, such burn- may be done out a permit, and a report shall be filed w_. the Agency w _n ten days thereafter, indicating the plac id time of s. burning, the quantities burned, the netec. jical ccndit.. . ar.d the reasons why emergency burning was necessary. (b) An application for a permit shall be in such form and she I ' co.-.t-iin seen information as shall be required in procedure jJi gtod by `..he Agency. Such application shall contaia, ; i i . .1. . iita anj '.formation sufficient to rnrorm the Ag*\. y ~respect to: the exact quantities and typ of mate::a 1 * > he burned; the exact nator and exact a sntitno of 1 i ^ contaminant emissions w: .ch will result; -he exact fre- : I'.'nry, including dates where appropriate, wh :n such burning --ill 1 take place; the exact location of the burning site, including a map showing distances to residences, populated areas, roadways, air fields, etc.; the methods or actions which will be taken to reduce the emission of air contaminants; the reasons why alternatives * o open burning re not available; and the reasons why such burning is jecessary to the public interest. (c) No permit shall be granted unless the applicant roves to the satisfaction of the Agency that the open burning: necessary to the public interest; will be conducted in such a time, place and manner as to minimize the emission of air contaminants; and will have no serious detrimental effect upon adjacent properties or the occupants thereof. 25067324 . K- -: ` ' i v;-; ;f ;' ', ;:'; 'ln '.- '% $. '. *' ---'nay fcnpo*: 5$. accoap: (g) 'the Agency *ay revis to this Rule, or any condition 405 Explosive Wastes. Open burning of wastes creatir or other serious ham, unless in this Part, shall be permit*; and grant of a variance as prc 1 of these Rules and Regulate 406 Local Enforcement. It sh'11 be the obligation of ' as of the Environmental Protec.. appropriate means the prohibit; ted pursuant such permit. losion, fire, tr provisions cation for ind by Chapter is well enforce by 25067325