ILLINOIS

POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

July

18,

1974

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

COMPLAINANT

v.

)

PCB 73—464

through

PCB 73—468

COMMONWEALTH

EDISON

COMPANY

RESPONDENT

MESSRS.

A.

DANIEL

FELDMAN

AND

GERALD

D.

MINDELL,

ATTORNEYS,

in

behalf

of

COMMONWEALTH

EDISON

COMPANY

MR.

FREDRICJ~

ENTIN,

ASSISTANT

ATTORNEY

GENERAL,

in

behalf

of

the

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY

OPINION

AND

ORDER OF THE

BOARD

(by

Mr.

Marder)

This action involves five separate cases involving four separate

generating facilities

(two complaints against different units at the

same facility)

,

and seventeen separate counts.

All seventeen counts

address themselves with Petitioner’s alleged failure to secure oper-

ating permits for various waste water discharges.

The complaints

were filed on November

5, ‘1973, and were consolidated by the Board

to facilitate matters in that all of the cases were of similar con-

tent.

The Agency and Edison have engaged in extensive discovery proced-

ures

in

an

attempt

to

present

the

Board with

a stipulation for settle-

ment.

On January

18,

1974,

hearing was held on the question of wheth-

er

the

Agency

was

to

be

compi~lled to

answer

certain

interrogatories.

At

the

close

of

this

hearing

the

hearing

officer,

Mr.

Dale

A.

Garwal,

stated

that

he

would

issue

orders

as

to

which

interrogatories

should

be

answered.

Presumably

this

question

was

resolved

to

the

satisfact-

ion of all parties in that

a

stipulation

was

submitted

to

the Board

on May 28,

1974.

The question before the Board is now whether the

proposed stipulation combined with

the

meager facts presented in this

case will suffice to terminate these actions.

A brief description of the five separate actions

is now in order.

PCB 73-464:

This action involves Edison!s Calumet Generating Sta-

tion located

at 3200 East 100th Street, Chicago, Cook County, Illinois.

The complaint consists of four counts, each alleging failure to obtain

operating permits for discharges

to the Calumet River.

1.

Non-Contact Cooling Water

-

required to have permit by June

30,

13—99

---

1973

Alleged vIolation of Rule 903

(a

and 12

(b)

of the Environment~

al Protection Act

2

Two~Basin Treatment

Systeir

required

to

have

permit

bI

Decem

ber

31

1972

Alleged

violatior

of

Rule

903’

(a

and

12

(b)

of

the

En~

vironmental

Protection

P~ct

3

~King

Hole~

Reservoir

receiving

plant

blowdowr,

drainage,

and

Jeaks

required

to

nave

permit

bt

December

31

l9~2

Alieged

viola~

tion of Pale

9

3

a

ard

12

(b)

of

the

Envrronmental

Protectio

Act

4~

“Queer Ho1e~Reservoir recetvinq plart coo1i~g,drarns and 1eak1~

reqw red to have penn.

by December 31, 1°7

Alleged vio1at~onof Rite

9V

and ~

~b

of the P vironmentai r~rote~tior.Ac

PC

j~6r

This action Involves Ldisor

s generating s at

or knowr

a

53Ue

Un~~ts an’

lo ated beti~eerP~1ter~orR ad and tIe De~

Piaine

R ye’

i

‘i

Jojiet

mo1nsh~p

Wi~l

CourLy

Iii a s,

Tie coinoai~

consasts

f

counts

at eging failure

o ottarn operatirj permits

f’r

discharge

to

tte

Des

P~~aes R~’er

I

Corta

aolir

~atcr

requr

d

t

have

p~rait

by

ire

~

1’

fl

‘gc

v~.

a

n

r

of Rine

3

a)

ard

~z

b)

f

ta’s

tnv;r

nrc

tal

Proter’ti

r

~

a

-t~

Tr

at~nt

vrte

~

re

~a”~d

o

I~v

rem

t

~

~eanra

ye

s

ci

nd

j,ss

is

cd ~o

r c~

r

r

‘,

~

L.

a~

1

t

.r,~cn~er,~i3

b

act o

inva~

~‘

~ er

I

~.

a

qn.

o a

y

eir

~iut.

~o~Laro

,~n ‘~atsr

r~‘~r~

I

h s~mx

m’~b

mi

1

a

~

Ru

3

3

3

1 the F~

nme

t

2

Ito

Blowdo’

“trear

req ired ~‘osave penn

I’

Decemb.

3

10

2

1

eged

v

latrar

of

903

(a)

aid

1

b

of

the

Environrer

~l

Prom~’ir A

I

House Scrv_

e

~Iater

required

to

have

permit

by

December

3.1.

1972

Alleged

violairor

of

Pule

903

(a)

and

12

(b)

of

the

Envronaental

Protectior

kct

4.

Demin~ralizerTreatment Tank

required to have permit by

Deceit—

ber

3.~., 1972,

Alleged violation ol Rule 903

(a

and 12

(b)

of the En-

vironmental Protection Act

5,

Pyrite Sluice Pond

-

requIred to have permit by December 31,

l97

Alleged violation of Rule 903

(a)

and 12

(b) of the EnvirOnmental

Protection Act

6~ Coal Pile Runoff

-

required to have permit by December 11, 1972

Alleged

violation

of

Rule

903

~a

and

12

(b)

of

the

Environmental

Pro-

tection Act,

7

Ash and Sluice Water Treatment System

required to have permit

by December 31,

1972,

Alleged violation of Rule 903

(a)

and 12

(b

of

the Environmental Protection Act

13

—

100

---

PCB 73~4~ This action involves Edison

s

Dixon generating facili-

ties

located at College Averue and

West

River Street, Dixon, Lee county

Illinois

Th~complain

corsistc of two counts aliecting failure to ob

tam

operating permits for discharges to the Rock River,

l~ Pon~Contac Coo~ig cater

required to have permit by June 3C,

l°73

Uleged ‘i latior

of RuTh 903

(a) and 12

(o

of the bnvironm r

tal Protectio

Act

2

S~urc~Water for Fly Asa Renova

eguirU

to have peni

Decenbe

I

IU”

Alleged violati

r

rf

Rule

-

3

a

aid 12

(b

of

In

Erv

~onme las Protect or~AU

p

U

~6

This act

or uvUve

Ui

or

s ?TaOc

ci ge cratina a

~rrj~a~n

ree.~n

P~er,a arU La

r

fLu

_a~

J~°grLa~

nt

I Ii,

is~

Ihc generan

a starr

i

‘ul

~

ak

y- ci

gar

w

to

cooci

g purpose

n r~~cntart

,

&d

~

reguired to obtain a

op r

a ii

ucnit

for ~aid drscharae by Jn_

3

~Ia

ilege’

f ilur

~o

c

~r*rtutcuav~csitcr

fPU

a

a

f

r

f~4

f

~

t

Pr

et

P

Tr~j

t

a.ov

~pnrsJ

Icr

eek

t

~-t

-a

~

U

-it cl-i

nr

f—ia

,

a

-

a

I

bard

aydeer

r

a

c

c

a

a ip

£

-,

a

c

a

0

\rC

iLiOnt

I

~r

~a.

ion-

c

p-

r

Icenctr

a

U

dii

3

t

r

C

C

oov-ri~nti

a

Y

if

i

I

r

a

Ui

0

in-

r

c

I

r

a

I

e

r

c

ic

Ii

a

e

r~r

Inc.

£

a

I

.a

nofcno--

net

anrf-

r

a

4

nut

~t

~o

r

ib

U

t

cv

1

U

bec

in

ad

a

n

ira

c

a

ba ed

exn

a

or n

c

h

ye e not urope~

cmnuru

atcd

-

ur

nto

U

inportart

i

I!

at ~

i di ite

~

I an

thu

ae U

,c

in

a

ii gue tior ten

-

i

the Age

p’s opin 0

c nsio

at

~i~h In

R- e~and Regula-~-io

rf

thio Board~

S

A defintte progran for obtasnina tn

remair~rgreq ire

ocnit~

applying for variance

or filing permit appea

cases has been

established

Or

its face the Stipulation and Proponi for Settienert seems ade

quake

The only question revolver about the issue

02 a

nenalt

Ar

mentioned, botl

partieo

feel that because

f mitigating circumstanes

a penalty is not warranted

In other cases before this Board involving

permit enforcement actions, we

Iavo orderec paymert of a penalty, F~

viroumentU_Protection Aqen~~j~~tainless

Prgg~~sinco

PCB U-415

—

system may be considered tne first line of actior

in the tota4. reguiato~

scene

It aflows the Agency to obtain records as to where dischargero

are and what they are d~scharginc

Without an adequate and enforceable

13

101

---

—4—

permit system the entire regulatory scheme would be doomed to failure.

The Agency by the powers granted to it in the Environmental Protection

Act has the responsibility of maintaining a viable permit system,

and

as such is cognizant of the above facts.

Therefore when the Agency

proposes no penalty in a permit action, and supplies facts which miti-

gate the failure of Respondent to obtain such permits, the Board will

give heavy weight to such

a request.

A second factor which enters into this decision is whether the fail-

ure to gain a permit resulted in any environmental damage.

In the in-

stant cases no such showing was made.

Failure to gain a permit in these

cases seems to be grounded on lack of communication rather than an at-

tempt to bypass

the

applicable regulations.

For the above reasons this

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of

law of

the

IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that:

A.

On or before Aug.

1,

1974, Respondent shall submit application

for permit for the following discharges:

1,

Dixon

—

wastewater discharge.

2.

Joliet

I

through

6

-

cooling water discharge.

3.

Joliet 1 through

6

(Lincoln Quarry)

-

wastewater discharge.

4.

Waukegan

-

B.

ied, the parties

C.

Within 30 days of the above meeting or such other time,

exceed 90

1.

Resubmit the denied applications in a form agreed upon,

2.

feels

is warranted, or,

3.

File a

permit

denial appeal before the Board.

Such extension of time for resubmittal shall be granted in writinc

with

a

copy

to

the

Board

detailing

the

reasons

for

such

extension

D.

Should any resubmittal pursuant to Order

C

(1)

above result in

denial, Respondent shall within

30 days of such denial either:

13—102

---

—5—

1.

Petition the Board for variance, or,

2.

File’a permit appeal with the Board.

E.

Respondent shall execute within

30

days of the date of this

Order a $40,000 performance bond guaranteeing compliance

with the above orders.

Said bond shall prov±defor forfeit-

ure of one—quarter of its face amount upon nonperformance

when timely of

any

of the requirements of the above Orders,

unless Edison can prove the noncompliance resulted for

reasons wholly beyond its control.

Bond shall be forwarded

to the Agency at: Fiscal Services Division, Illinois Environ-

mental Protection Agency,

2200 Churchill Road, Springfield,

Illinois 62706.

F.

The above Orders A,

B,

C, and D shall be mOdified to reflect

any different schedules or nature of submission which may be

required

by the Board~sNPDES regulations when promulgated.

Should such modifications be necessitated by action of the

Board, Respondent shall promptly make such submissions as

may be required.

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board,

certify

th~t. the

above

Opinjon

and

Order

was

adopted

by

t

e

Board

on

the

f~’~

day

of

_________

1974,

by

a

vote

of

_____

to

~L~__-

1~

13

—