Extending Ban of Open Burning and Elimination of Burn Permit Requirement.
Text or summary was published
in the May 7, 2008 issue of the Register, I.D. No. ENV-19-08-00003-P.
Final rule as compared with last published rule:
No changes.
Revised rule making(s) were previously published in the State Register on
May 27, 2009.
Text of rule and any required statements and analyses may be obtained from:
Robert Stanton, P.E., NYSDEC, Division of Air Resources, 625 Broadway, Albany, NY 12233-3254, (518) 402-8403, email: airregs@gw.dec.state.ny.us
Additional matter required by statute:
Pursuant to Article 8 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, a Short Environmental Assessment Form, a Negative Declaration and a Coastal Assessment Form have been prepared and are on file. This rule was approved by the Environmental Board.
Assessment of Public Comment
The Department received almost 300 comments to the proposed changes to Parts 215, 191 and 621. The comments were categorized as follows:
AGRICULTURAL PLASTICS
Over half of the comments received were based on a Farm Bureau letter-writing campaign. While some of these commentors added their own specific text, they all shared a concern that the cost of disposing of agricultural plastics would be a logistical and financial burden to farmers. They also asked that the regulation not be finalized until Environmental Protection Fund money appropriated for an agricultural plastics collection program was spent to establish such a statewide program.
RESTRICTIONS ON THE BURNING OF BRUSH, DOWNED LIMBS AND BRANCHES
Most of the commenters supported the change to allow burning of brush in towns with population less than 20,000. Some of the comments stated that the general public lacked the resources needed to collect, process or transfer their brush/branches. Some raised concerns about excessive costs associated with disposal. Other comments cited a lack of adequate landfill and transfer station space, increased forest fire dangers, or the potential for pollution created from the transport and processing of brush, downed limbs and branches. However, some comments argued for promulgating the original proposal which did not allow open burning of brush.
COST ISSUES
These comments included concerns about costs associated with using an individual's car, landfill/transfer station permit increases, and landfill/transfer station equipment. Some were concerned about the lack of no-cost disposal alternatives.
HEALTH ISSUES
Many commenters supported extending open burning bans due to adverse health impacts. Some comments suggested that the Department has over-estimated the health risks associated with the open burning of trash and pure wood, such as branches and limbs while others provided anecdotal evidence of health impacts related to open burning of various materials. Comments included requesting exemptions for small amounts or specific types of trash while others called for strengthening the rule to ban burning of brush, outdoor firepits and chimineas.
DISPOSAL IMPACTS
These comments concerned the lack of refuse pick-up or the lack of adequate solid waste facilities.
ENFORCEMENT
These comments were regarding the difficulty of enforcement.
LEGAL ISSUES
These comments were regarding the control of open burning through legislation versus regulation, the Department's specific authority and the Department's adherence to the legal requirements of the rulemaking process.
MISCELLANEOUS
Comments were varied, regarding exemptions for fire training, campfires, bonfires, firepits, and burning of paper.
In addition to the above categories, the Department received several comments which were considered to be beyond the scope of the proposed regulation, and therefore, the Department did not respond to them.
