ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
April 5, 1973
ENV IRONMENTAL PROTECT ION AGENCY,
)
Complainant,
vs.
)
PCB 72—286
CITY OF EVANSTON, a municipal
)
corporation,
Respondent.
Mr. Richard W. Cosby, Assistant Attorney General for the EPA
Mr. Jack M. Siegel, Corporation Counsel for Respondent
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Henss)
Respondent City of Evanston, since 1955, has oper&ted a
municipal incinerator with a designed capacity of 180 tons per
day. In July 1972 the Environmental Protection Agency filed
a Complaint alleging that Respondent, through its operation
of the incinerator, caused air pollution in violation of
Sec. 9(a) Environmental Protection Act, emitted excessive
particulate matter in violation of Rule 3—3.232 of the Rules
and Regulations governing the control of air pollution promul-
gated by the Air Pollution Control Board, and that the City
failed to file with the Technical Secretary of the Air Pollution
Control Board or with the Environmental Protection Agency a
Letter of Intent to file an Air Contaminant Emission Reduction
Program.
The City stipulated that it never sent the Technical
Secretary of the Air Pollution Control Board or the EPA a
Letter of Intent, but denies that it is guilty of the various
charges. For affirmative defense the City asserts that as a
home rule unit it has the “power to operate its municipal
incinerator in the manner in which it sees fit” without regard
to the EPA; that the Complaint is vague, indefinite and uncertain;
that the Environmental Protection Act is unconstitutional; and
that the Attorney General cannot prosecute a case before the
Pollution Control Board since he represents the Pollution Control
Board.
We deny all of the affirmative defenses raised by Respondent.
The claim that a home rule unit can pollute at will without
7
—
449
—2—
intereference from governmental agencies is a gross misconception
of the law. See: EPA v. McHugh Construction Co., PCB 71-291,
Home rule should benefit those citizens who live in the larger
and
better financed and
presumably better
run
communities
and was
never intended to be used to their
detriment.
The Complaint
advises the Respondent with sufficient clarity of the nature of
the charge. We
have repeatedly
held the Act valid and consti-
tutional as has the Illinois J~opeflateCourt in EPA vs. Ford
—
Ill. App 2d_CFeb. 1973).
The
Attorney General’s right
and
his duty to represent the
En’~ironmentalProtection
Agency in
these
prosecutions is clear. The Illinois Suprene Court has
held that the Attorney fleneral is the sole official adviser of
all State agencies
and
it is his duty to conduct the law business
of the State
both
in and out of court. Fergus vs. Russell 270
Ill. 304; Department of !tental Health vs. Coty 38 Ill. 2nd 602.
Three short public hearings were held. The only public
testimony came from the League of Women Voters which reconwiemied
that the incinerator be closed and that the City use a landfill
system of waste disposal temporarily. The League also recoirnended
that no fine be imposed since the money could he used to finance
a new solid waste treatment system.
The EPA and City of Evanston have filed a Stipulation of
Facts but disagree whether those facts prove a violation. We
find from the Stipulation and Exhibits that Respondent has
committed all of the violations charged during the cast four
years.
Testimony of individuals residing near the incinerator
clearly shows that operation of the incinerator has unreasonably
irterfered with the enjoyment of life
and
property for that
period of time. Smoke, particulate matter and odors prevented
nearby residents fror~asing their yards, caused irritation of
sinus,
and
caused headaches. Smoke ranged from light grey to
dark grey or black. There was precipitation of a black tar-like
residue
and
charred paper; strong acrid odor of burning garbage;
soiling of automobiles and home interiors; and uncovered trucks
dropped burned garbage material on the streets near the incinerator.
Agency calculations reveal particulate emission of .945 grains per
standard cubic foot, more than
4 times the
allowable rate.
Evanston hired a consulting
firm
in 1968 and again in 1970
and 1972 to
make
recommendations for the inrovement of the
waste disposal system. The 1972 effort is resulting in a joint
venture with Skokie and Niles for a regional solid waste program.
As a result of this regional plan, the City of Evanston has
agreed to terminate the cperation of its municipal incinerator
by April 15, 1973. Volume of the incinerator overation has been
7—450
—3--
reduced for the past four months. The City further agrees
that any landfill utilized by the City as an alternate disposal
site will be a landfill permitted by the EPA.
We approve of these recent agreements by the City of
Evanston which will improve the environment for its citizens.
We agree with the League of Women Voters that municipal funds
are better spent on a waste treatment system than in monetary
penalties in this case. However, this Board believes that
serious violations of this type cannot go entirely unpenalized
and we will impose a relatively small penalty in the amount of
$500. Our Order will assure that the incinerator is closed
down on schedule and that it shall not operate again in violation
of the i~eaulations.
ORDER
It is ordered that:
1. City of Evanston shall cease operations of
its municipal incinerator located at 1016
Clark Street, Evanston by April 15, 1973.
Operations of the incinerator shall not resume
until such time as the Environmental Protection
Agency is satisfied that the incinerator can
he orerated in compliance with Regulations.
2. City of Evanston shall pay to the State of
Illinois by May 31, 1973 the sum of $500
as a penalty for the violations found in
this proceeding. Penalty payment by certified
check or money order payable to the State of
Illinois shall be made to: Fiscal Services
Division, Illinois EPA, 2200 Churchill Road,
Springfield, Illinois 62706.
I, Christan L. r’loffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify the above Opinion arid Order was adopted
this _____day of April, 1973 by a vote of _____to_____
1’
/ ;
I
7—451