ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

April

17, 1972

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

v.

)

PCB

72—69

CITIZENS UTILITIES COMPANY OF

ILLINOIS

OPINION OF THE BOARD

(by Mr.

Kissel):

On February

25, 1972,

the Agency filed

a complaint against the

Citizens Utilities Company of Illinois

(“Citizens”)

regarding the

operation of its Fernway sewage treatment plant in Westhaven.

Various

violations

of the Act and of SWB-l4 were alleged by

this plant which

discharges

to Tinley Creek

and thence into the Calumet-Sag Channel.

The Agency also asked that the Board impose monetary penalties.

On March

17, the Agency filed

a. Motion to Dismiss in this case.

In

a letter to the Board, dated April

5,

1972,

the Assistant Attorney

General outlined the bases for the Agency’s motion.

The letter states

in part:

In accordance with the Consent Decree

(in

the Circuit Court of Cook County)

the respondent

(Citi-

zens)

has obtained an Agency permit for the construc-

tion of an interceptor sewer from its Fernway treat-

ment facilities

to the Metropolitan Sanitary District’s

Stickney Plant.

They are, also pursuant to the decree,

making

a good faith effort to install the interceptor

so

as

to meet the

July

1,

1972 deadline indicated in

Paragraph

2 of the decree.

It is our understanding

that,

once completed,

the interceptor will divert all

the sewage which the plant receives

to the Sanitary

District’s Stickney plant.

“Although it was our intention, prior to being made

aware of the Consent Decree,

to actively pursue our com-

plaint before the Board, seeking both abatement of the

problem and penalties,

such action no longer appears fea-

sible or warranted from the standpoint of the best utili-

zation of resources.

In addition to the time, effort

and cost of pursuing the complaint before the Board,

we are also faced with the respondent’s Motion for Injunc-

tion in the Circuit Court, seeking to restrain the

Board,

4

—

433

---

—2—

the Agency and the Attorney General from proceeding on

the complaint before

the

Board as

a consequence

of the

Circuit Court action.

Further litigation of

the latter

motion will take us into collateral areas

of jurisdic-

tion,

and will not necessarily advance the

goal of pol-

lution abatement.

The Board concurs

in the Agency’s conclusions.

The

case is dis-

missed without prejudice.

It

is

so ordered.

I, Christan

L. Moffett,

Clerk of the Pollution Control ~oard,

certify that the above Opinion and Order was adopted this

/7

~day

of April,

1972, by

a vote of

_____

4— 4~~4