ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
May 23, 1974
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
)
COMPLAINANT
)
)
)
V.
)
PCB 74-74
)
VILLAGE OF SKOKIE, a municipal
)
Corporation,
RESPONDENT
)
MR. R.W. COSBY, ATTORNEY, in behalf of the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
MR. H. SCHWARTZ, ATTORNEY, in behalf of the VILLAGE OF SKOKIE
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Marder)
This action involves a complaint filed on February 25, 1974, by
the Environmental Protection Agency against the Village of Skokie.
An amended complaint was filed on April 9, 1974. The amended corn-
~laint was accepted with no objection from Respondent (R. 5). This
ase thus centers around said amended complaint. The Environmental
Protection Agency alleges that the Village of Skokie violated Rule
3-3.232 of the Air Pollution Control Board from July 1, 1970, until
December 31, 1973. The complaint also alleges violations of Rule
203 (e) (2) of the Air Pollution Regulations of the Illinois Pollu-
tion Control Board from ~3anuary
1,
1974. Both violations are in re-
spect to the operation of an incinerator (particulates)
owned by the
Village of Skokie.
The Village of Skokie is a municipal corporation, organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Illinois, and is located in
Cook County. Respondent owns and operates an incinerator located at
8100 North Central Park Avenue. Said incinerator is used for the hand-
ling of village trash. Approximately 33,000 tons of garbage a year
are incinerated. The residue from this incinerator is then hauled to
a local landfill for disposal. Under unique situations (when the in-
cinerator is down for repair) the Village can haul raw garbage to the
landfill on a day-to-day basis.
Respondent has also been the subject of an enforcement action be-
fore the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Said notice of viola-
tion was followed up with a hearing (before the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency) on March 22, 1974. The transcript of this hearing
was entered as Exhibit #16 (hereinafter USEPAR). As a result of said
hearing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued its order (Ex-
~-iibit#2) holding that Respondent~s plan for abatement was adequate.
12—387
—2—
The Cook County Department of Environmental Control has also accepted
the proposed plan
(R.
40). Said plan calls for the shutdown of Re~-
spondent’s incinerator by August 1, 1974. The abovementioned plan was
an outgrowth of the so-called Weg~anReport. This report
was
a study
conducted by the villages of Skokie and Niles and the city of Evanstor
to assess the options open for garbage handling (USEPAR 17). It con-
tained a proposal that the Village would be better off to abandon its
incinerator and go to a landfill operation. Representatives of the
state and county, as well as the federal, environmental agencies were
present at this hearing.
The reason for the instant action is that the Illinois Environmen-
tal Protection Agency did not feel that Respondentts shutdown plan
was adequate. The Agency asks that an immediate shutdown order be
issued by the Board.
Hearing was held on April 16, 1974. Quite a bit of this hearing
was a reiteration of the facts elicited at the U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency hearing.
Mr. Manak (assistant director of public works, Village of Skokie)
was the main witness. His testimony centered about the Vi1lage~sde-
fense of the proposed compliance plan. Mr. Manak testified that the
Village could shut down its incinerator immediately; however, to do
so would put the Village at a potential disadvantage in its bidding
process (R. 30-31). Mr. Manak contended that the Village feels that
to immediately shut down would cause the three landfill operators in
the area to raise their bids. This is based on the theory that if
the landfill op~ratorsare aware that the Village is committed to a
shutdown, they would realize that the options of the Village are lim-
ited. Mr. Manak further testified that the Village would be seeking
a long-term contract rather than a day—to-day rate. Mr. Manak further
testified that the economics of direct handling vs. incineration are
not great. The Village would expect an additional cost burden of
about two dollars a ton or $66,000/yr. This would extrapolate out to
about $6,000 extra costs if the incinerator were to shut down
now.
Mr. Cosby (attorney for the Environmental Protection Agency) in
his opening remarks (R. 6) drew reference to Environmental Protection
Agency vs. City of Evanston, PCB 72-286. This case was cited as a
similar action, and it was stated that relief sought in that case
should be similar to relief in this case.
There is no dispute that violations have occurred. The Village
admitted said violations (R. 9, 10). There were no citizen witnesses
present, nor was there any testimony as to the severity of the viola-
tion. The only evidence presented as to the extent of violation can
be found in the appendix to Exhibit #1. This appendix, the statement
of Mr. C. H. Porter, relates that a stack test run on March 2, 1970,
had shown a grain loading of 0.287 grains/scf. This is opposed to a
0.08 gr/scf regulatory limit (Rule 203 (e) (2)
.
It must be noted
12—388
—3—
that Complainant did not at any time enter any evidence as to the sev-
erity of the violation (e.g., interference with life in the community).
This point is raised because the Board must take Section 33 (c) of the
Environmental Protection Act into consideration when rendering a final
decision.
The Board takes note of Environmental Protection Agency vs. City of
Evanston, PCB 72-286, in which testimony
as to interference with liv-
ing conditions
was elicited. In PCB 72-286 a stipulation for
settle-
ment was presented. The Board’s Opinion in PCB 72—286
states,
“Testimony of individuals residing near the incinerator
clearly shows that operation of the incinerator has un-
reasonably interfered with the enjoyment of life and
property for that period of time. Smoke, particulate
matter and odors prevented nearby residents from using
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.”
The instant action has no such showing. Also in Evanston the
Board’s Order for shutdown conformed with the anticipated plans for
such a shutdown. A comparison of compliance plans in the two instan
ces sheds some light on this:
Village of Skokie
Village of Evanston
Complaint filed
Feb. 25, 1974
July 7, 1972
Shutdown plan pre- March 22,
1974
November 21, 1972
sented
Anticipated shut- August 1, 1974
April 15, 1973
down
Thus in both cases the time from presentation of plan to actual
shutdown is the same. Although the Village of Evanston has shut down
one year before Skokie proposes to do so, there is nothing on the rec-
ord to show that such delay was unwarranted. The Village of Skokie
did indeed hire a consulting firm to attempt to explore its alterna-
tives, and this plan results from this study.
One further point was raised during the U.S. Environmental Protect-
ion Agency conference, which is noteworthy. Respondent has nine em-
ployees at its village incinerator (USEPAR 56). The additional time
would allow the Village to attempt to reassign the employees to other
locations.
The Village of Skokie, then, proposes a relatively short compliance
plan which the Board finds acceptable. Had this case been one of prov—
12—389
—4—
en interference with the neighbors or gross violations, the very severe
shutdown order would be used. In the instant case no such showing was
made. The Board in so finding states that every effort should be made
to speed up the
Village’s bidding process. In the event that bidding
can be concluded before August
1st, the Village will be ordered to shut
down at such an earlier time.
Violations have indeed been stipulated. The only other question
facing the Board is that of penalty. After taking into consideration
all of the arguments of Sect. 33 (c) of the Environmental Protection
Act, and consideration of the penalty imposed in PCB 72-286, which the
Board finds similar,
a penalty of $500 seems appropriate.
This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of law
of the Board.
ORDER
IT
IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that:
1. The Village of Skokie shall cease operations of its inciner-
ator located at 8100 N. Central Park Avenue by August i,
1974, or on such sooner date that the Village of Skokie has
reviewed bids for landfill operations. The Village of Skokie
shall inform
the Environmental Protection Agency, 2200 Church-
ill
Road, Springfield, Illinois 62706, of the following dates:
A) Date of bids for landfill operators let.
3) Date of bids received.
C)
Date of cessation
of
operations.
2.
Resoondent shall pay to the State of Illinois the sum of
$500 within 35 days from the date
of
this Order. Penalty
payment by
certified
check or money order payable to the
State of Illinois shall
be
made to: Fiscal Services Division,
Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency, 2200 Churchill
Road, Springfield, Illinois 62706,
IT IS
SO ORDERED.
Mr. Dumeile
dissents.
I,
Christan L. Moffett, Clerk
of
the Illinois Pollution Control
Board,
certify that the above Opinion and Order
was adopted by the
Board on the ~
day of
~
1974, by a vote
of
~/
to
12
—
390