ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    August 23, 1979
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    Complainant,
    v.
    )
    PCB 79—48
    CITY OF CHESTER,
    a municipal corporation,
    Respondent,
    MR.
    STEPHEN GROSSNARK, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON
    BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT.
    HON. STANLEY A. MACIEISKI, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF CHESTER, APPEARED
    ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT.
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Werner):
    This matter comes before the Board on the March 8, 1979
    Complaint brought by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
    (uAgency~r). Count I of the Complaint alleged that, from June 26,
    1978 until September 20, 1978 (including, but not limited to,
    September 5, 1978), the City of Chester bypassed untreated
    wastewater containing settleable solids, floating debris, visible
    oil, grease, scum, and sludge solids around its wastewater treat-
    ment facility and discharged the untreated wastewater into the
    Mississippi River. The Respondent allegedly failed to notify the
    Agency of this bypass and neglected to submit to the Agency a plan
    to prevent recurrence of such incidents in violation of a special
    condition in its NPDES Permit. Count I also alleged that, during
    the same time period~the Respondent caused and allowed the effluent
    of its wastewater treatment facility to contain BOD5 and total
    suspended solids in excess of the limits set out in its NPDES
    Permit No. IL-0028045. Such conduct allegedly constituted
    violations of Rules 403 and 602 of Chapter 3: Water Pollution
    Control Regulations (“Chapter 3”) and Section 12 of the Illinois
    Environmental Protection Act (“Act”). Count II of the Complaint
    alleged that,from October, 1977 to September, 1978, the Respondent
    failed to report influent BOD5 and influent suspended solids levels
    to the Agency and, for the month of August, 1978, failed to submit a
    discharge monitoring report to the Agency in violation of its
    ~35—209

    —2—
    NPDES Permit conditions and Rule 901 of Chapter 3 and Section 12 of
    the Act. A hearing was held on July 26, 1979. The parties filed a
    Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement on July 31, 1979.
    The Respondent, the City of Chester, is a municipal corporation
    organized under the laws of the State of Illinois and is located in
    Randolph County, Illinois. It operates a wastewater treatment
    facility which discharges effluent into the Mississippi River
    pursuant to a currently valid NPDES Permit which expires on July 31,
    1981.
    The relevant NPDES Permit condition reads as follows:
    “The diversion or bypass of any discharge from the treatment
    works by the permittee is prohibited
    ...
    The permittee
    shall notify the permit issuing authority in writing within
    72 hours of
    ...
    diversion or bypass
    ...
    The permittee
    shall within 30 days after such incident submit for
    approval a plan to prevent recurrence of such incidents.”
    It
    is stipulated that, from June 26, 1978 until September 20,
    1978, the City of Chester bypassed untreated wastewater containing
    settleable solids, floating debris, visible oil, grease, scum and
    sludge solids around its wastewater treatment facility and
    discharged the untreated wastewater into the Mississippi River in
    violation of the aforementioned NPDES Permit condition. (Stip. 3-4).
    Moreover, the City of Chester admittedly failed to notify the Agency
    of the bypass and neglected to submit to the Agency a plan to
    prevent recurrence of such incidents. (Stip. 4). Additionally,
    from June 26, 1978 until September
    20,
    1978, the Respondent allowed
    the effluent from its wastewater treatment facility to exceed the
    limits for BOD5 and total suspended solids which were delineated in
    its NPDES Permit. For example, on September 5, 1978, although the
    effluent limit for BOD5 in the Respondent’s NPDES Permit is 300 mg/l,
    the effluent from its wastewater treatment plant measured 440 mg/l
    of BOD5. Similarly, while the effluent limit in its NPDES Permit
    for total suspended solids is 195 mg/l, on September 5, 1978, total
    suspended solids in the Respondent’s effluent measured 300 mg/l.
    (Stip. 4-5). It is also stipulated that the City of Chester failed
    to submit a discharge monitoring report to the Agency for the month
    of August, 1978, and failed to report influent BOD,~and influent
    suspended solids levels to the Agency from Octob~r,1977 until
    September, 1978. (Stip. 5)
    The proposed settlement agreement provides that the Respondent
    shall: (1) immediately come into compliance with the Board’s Water
    Pollution Control Regulations and the Act, (2) cease and desist from
    further violations, and (3) pay a stipulated penalty of $1,750
    :35—21 C)

    —3—
    In evaluating this enforcement action and proposed settlement,
    the Board has taken into consideration all the facts and circum-
    stances in light of the specific criteria set forth in Section 33(c)
    of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act. The Board finds the
    stipulated settlement acceptable under Procedur~t1Rule 331 and
    Section 33(c) of the Act. The Board finds that the Respondent, the
    City of Chester, has violated Rules 403, 602, and 901 of Chapter 3:
    Water Pollution Control Regulations and Section 12 of the Act and
    orders the Respondent to cease and desist from further violations.
    The Respondent is hereby ordered to immediately come into compliance
    with the Board’s Water Pollution Control Regulations and the Act.
    The stipulated penalty of $1,750 is hereby assessed against the
    Respondent.
    The Board has also considered the NPDES Permit issue in light
    of the decision by U.S. Court of Appeals in Citizens for a Better
    Environment v. EPA, No. 78-1042, _____________F. 2d
    _____
    (7th Cir.
    1979), and finds that the Board has competent jurisdiction over the
    subject matter in the Complaint pursuant to Sections 11(b), 12(f)
    and 13(b) of the Act and the Board regulations established
    thereunder.
    This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
    conclusions of law in this matter.
    ORDER
    It is the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board that:
    1. The Respondent has violated Rules 403, 602, and 901 of
    Chapter 3: Water Pollution Control Regulations and Section 12 of
    the Act.
    2. The Respondent shall cease and desist from further
    violations.
    3. The Respondent shall immediately come into compliance with
    the Board’s Water Pollution Control Regulations and the Act.
    4. Within 45 days of the date of this Order, the Respondent
    shall, by certified check or money order payable to the State of
    Illinois, pay the stipulated penalty of $1,750 which is to be
    sent to:
    Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
    Fiscal Services Division
    2200 Churchill Road
    Springfield, Illinois 62706
    35—2 11

    —4
    5. The Respondent shall comply with all the terms and
    conditions of the Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement filed
    July 31, 1979, which is incorporated by reference as if fully set
    forth herein.
    Dr. Satchell abstains.
    I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Control Board, hereb~~ertifythat the above Opinion and Order were
    adopted ~the
    ~
    day of
    ~
    1979 by a
    ~
    Illinois Pollution C ol Board
    35—212

    Back to top