ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    January
    22,
    1976
    CITIZENS FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT,
    an Illinois not-for-profit corporation,
    ~
    Complainant,
    v.
    UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION,
    Respondent.
    )
    PCB 74-202
    )
    and
    UNITED
    STATES
    STEEL
    CORPORATION,
    )
    PCB
    73-62
    Petitioner,
    V.
    ENVIRONMENTAL
    PROTECTION
    AGENCY,
    Respondent.
    Ms.
    Helga E. Huber appeared for Citizens
    for a Better Environment.
    Mr.
    John Bernbom appeared for the Environmental Protection Agency.
    Mr.
    James
    T. Harrington
    (Rooks,
    Pitts, Fullagar and Poust)
    appeared
    for United States Steel Corporation.
    OPINION
    AND
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by Mr.
    Goodman):
    This matter is a consolidation of two cases,
    the first of
    which, PCB 73—62,
    is
    a permit appeal by United States Steel Corporation
    (USSC)
    and the second, PCB 74—202,
    is an enforcement action against
    USSC by Citizens for a Better Environment
    (CBE),
    an Illinois not-
    for-profit corporation.
    The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
    (Agency)
    is Respondent in PCB 73-62.
    A Settlement Stipulation
    (Stipulation) was filed with the Board
    on September 29,
    1975, after which the Board ordered a hearing for
    the purpose of receiving public comment which hearing was held on
    November 24,
    1975.
    At the hearing the parties formally presented
    the previously filed Stipulation along with a joint exhibit consisting
    of an Illinois Operating permit to USSC for its Waukegan Works.
    No
    other evidence was presented at the hearing and no members of the
    public made an appearance.
    tJSSC owns and operates
    a large manufacturing facility, more
    commonly known as the “Waukegan Workstt,
    for the manufacture of
    a
    variety of steel and wire products.
    Waukegan Works
    is located in
    the cities of Waukegan and North Chicago, County of Lake,
    State of
    Illinois.
    19
    703

    —2—
    In the course of its operation,
    USSC withdraws approximately
    5.5 million gallons of water per day from Lake Michigan for the
    cleaning of its products
    in its Waukegan Works and for the cooling
    of various facilities.
    Sanitary wastes are discharged to the North
    Shore Sanitary District Treatment Facilities and spent acid and other
    chemicals are collected through a separate system of sewers and
    removed to other locations for treatment and disposal in accordance
    with local regulations.
    The remaining process wastewater,
    some of
    which is treated in settling basins,
    is
    discharged back into Lake
    Michigan through 11 separate outfalls.
    On September 29,
    1972, USSC submitted its Application for
    Operating Permits for the Waukegan facility and on January 12,
    1973,
    the Agency denied the application alleging that USSC failed to submit
    a project completion schedule.
    Subsequent to USSC’s application for
    permit but prior to its denial, an action was filed against USSC
    in
    the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
    Eastern Division, by the United States of America and the People of
    the State of Illinois, Case No.
    72 C
    2503.
    The relief requested in
    this case was the cessation of pollution of Lake Michigan by Waukegan
    Works and that USSC be required to install waste water treatment
    systems which would eliminate the discharge of contaminants into the
    Lake.
    USSC filed its appeal, PCB
    73-62, on February 13,
    1973,
    request-
    ing the Board overrule the denial of the operating permit and grant
    USSC a variance from the requirement to submit
    a project completion
    schedule.
    USSC has submitted waivers of the provisions of Section 38
    of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act
    (Act)
    from time to time.
    CBE commenced its action, PCB 74-202, on May
    29,
    1974, alleging that
    USSC discharges effluents into Lake Michigan without an operating
    permit in violation of Pollution Control Board Regulations
    (Regulations)
    903 (a)
    ,
    501 (a)
    ,
    408(a)
    ,
    404 (a)
    and 403.
    On August
    15,
    1975,
    the United States of America and the State
    of Illinois,
    USSC and CBE entered into a Consent Agreement in Settle-
    ment of Litigation in the United States District Court in Case No.
    72 C 2503.
    This Consent Agreement forms the basis of the Stipulation
    entered into by the parties herein.
    The Consent Agreement states,
    inter alia,
    that USSC will cease the discharge into Lake Michigan of
    all its process waters no later than July 1,
    1977.
    On July
    1,
    1977
    and.thereafter, USSC will discharge from its Waukegan Works into Lake
    Michigan only non—contact cooling water free from process and other
    wastewater discharges and uncontaminated storm water runoff.
    USSC
    shall install such recycle systems as
    are necessary to reduce its
    total wastewater
    flow
    from the present approximate
    3,~7O
    gallons per
    19
    704

    —3—
    minute discharged into the Lake to 155 gallons per minute discharged
    to the North Shore Sanitary District.
    In addition, during the
    period between the signing of the Consent Agreement and the completion
    of the process water collection treatment and recycle system, USSC
    shall operate its Waukegan Works
    so as to minimize the discharge of
    pollutants and shall monitor its effluents
    in accordance with the
    schedule and methods contained in the National Pollutant Discharge
    Elimination System permit which has been granted to Waukegan Works.
    The consent agreement is contingent on dismissal or settlement
    of the instant proceedings before the Board.
    In addition on page 13
    of the consent agreement,
    ¶13,
    the Plaintiffs,
    United States of
    America and the State of Illinois,
    agree
    to release USSC from any
    liability whatsoever arising out of discharges from USSC’s Waukegan
    Works
    to the date of the Agreement.
    The Board finds the Consent Agreement and the Stipulation pre-
    sented herein to be the best solution to the problem of Waukegan Works’
    discharges into Lake Michigan.
    The final result will be a zero dis-
    charge into the Lake of process waters by USSC by July 1,
    1977.
    The
    parties to these proceedings stipulate to the entry of a Board Order
    approving the consent agreement and to the entry of any order necessary
    to carry out the terms and conditions of the Consent Agreement, namely
    dismissing both the cnforcement proceeding, PCB
    74-202,
    and the Permit
    Denial Appeal, PCB 73—62.
    The Board will accept the Stipulation and
    the Consent Agreement and will order both of the aforementioned
    actions to be dismissed.
    The Stipulation also includes a discretionary monetary settlement
    or monetary penalty that the Board may assess USSC in view of the
    admission by the company
    in the Stipulation that they did not have a
    permit to operate Waukegan Works nor had they received a project comple-
    tion schedule issued by the Agency.
    It
    is the position of CBE that
    this monetary settlement should be assessed by the Board.
    USSC,
    however,
    alleges that the Board
    is bound by the terms and conditions
    of the Consent Agreement signed on behalf of the State of Illinois by
    William
    J.
    Scott, Attorney General,
    and therefore cannot assess such
    monetary penalty.
    The Board finds that the Attorney General has no
    power
    to speak for the Board except when specifically acting as the
    Board’s attorney.
    The Board therefore rejects the proposition that we
    arebound by the Attorney General’s participation in the Consent
    Agreement.
    In addition, since the subject matter of the action
    in the
    District Court is completely different from the subject matter before
    the
    Board,
    no
    allegation
    of
    privity
    can
    be
    sustained
    nor
    would
    the
    issues come within the doctrine of res judicata or estoppel by judgment.
    However the Board finds
    no useful purpose
    to be accomplished by
    imposing
    a monetary settlement or penalty
    in this case,
    especially
    considering the stipulated dismissal of both actions.
    Therefore, none
    shall be assessed.
    19
    705

    —4—
    This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions
    of law of the Board in this matter.
    ORDER
    It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that PCB 73—62
    and
    PCB
    74—202
    be
    and
    are
    hereby
    dismissed
    in
    accordance
    with
    the
    foregoing
    Opinion.
    Mr.
    Dumelle Concurs.
    Mr. Young abstains.
    I, Christan
    L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Constrol Board,
    hereby certify the above Opinion and Order
    were adopted on the
    ~
    day of
    _______________
    1976 by a vote of
    ~
    Christan L. Moffe
    lerk
    Illinois Pollution
    ntrol Board
    19
    706

    Back to top