BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
RECL~1VED
CLERK’S OFFICE
VILLAGE OF LAKE BARRINGTON, CUBA
)
TOWNSHIP, PRAIRIE RIVERS NETWORK,
)
FEB 02 2005
SIERRA CLUB, BETH WENTZEL and
)
STATE OF ILLINOIS
CYNTHIA SKRIJKRUD,
)
Pollution Control Board
)
Petitioners,
)
)
)
PCB
05-55
)
(3rd Party NPDES Permit
)
Appeal)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
)
AGENCY and VILLAGE OF WAUCONDA,
)
)
Respondents.
)
SLOCUM LAKE DRAINAGE DISTRICT OF LAKE
)
COUNTY, ILLINOIS,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
PCB05-58
)
(3rd Party NPDES Permit
)
Appeal)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
)
AGENCY and VILLAGE OF WAUCONDA,
)
)
Respondents.
)
THIS FILING PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1
AL PHILLIPS, VERN MEYER, GAYLE DEMARCO,
GABRIELLE MEYER, LISA O’DELL, JOAN LESLIE,
MICHAEL DAVEY, NANCY DOBNER, MIKE
POLITO, WILLIAMS PARK IMPROVEMENT
ASSOCIATION, MAT SCHLUETER, MYLITH PARK
LOT OWNERS ASSOCIATION, DONALD KREBS,
DON BERKSHIRE, JUDY BRUMME, TWIN POND
FARMS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, JULIA
TUDOR and CHRISTINE DEVINEY,
)
Petitioners,
)
V.
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY and VILLAGE OF WAUCONDA,
Respondents.
)
)
PCB
05-59
)
(3rd Party NPDES Permit
)
Appeal)
)
(Consolidated)
)
NOTICE OF FILING
Dorothy Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center, Suite 11-500
100 West Randolph Street
Chicago, IL 60601
Bradley P. Halloran
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center, Suite 11-500
100 West Randolph Street
Chicago, IL 60601
SEE
ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed with the Office ofthe Clerk ofthe Pollution
Control Board an original and four (4) copies the AMENDED RECORD 2 of the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency, a copy ofwhich is herewith served upon you.
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
By:
Sanjay K. Sofat, Assistant Counsel
Division ofLegal Counsel
Dated: January 31, 2005
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021 North Grand Avenue East
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
(217)
782-5544
THIS FILING PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
2
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOA~TF~
CLERK’S
C E
OFFICE~V
E D
VILLAGE OF LAKE BARRINGTON, CUBA
)
FEB 022005
TOWNSHIP, PRAIRIE RIVERS NETWORK,
)
STATE OF ILLINOIS
SIERRA CLUB, BETH WENTZEL and
)
Pollution Control Board
CYNTHIA SKRUKRUD,
)
)
Petitioners,
)
)
v.
)
PCB
05-55
)
(3rd Party NPDES Permit
)
Appeal)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
)
AGENCY and VILLAGE OF WAUCONDA,
)
)
Respondents.
)
SLOCUM LAKE DRAINAGE DISTRICT OF LAKE
)
COUNTY, ILLINOIS,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
PCB
05-58
)
(31d Party NPDES Permit
)
Appeal)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
)
AGENCY and VILLAGE OF WAUCONDA,
)
)
Respondents.
THIS FILING PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
3
AL PHILLIPS, VERN MEYER, GAYLE DEMARCO,
)
GABRIELLE MEYER, LISA O’DELL, JOAN LESLIE,
)
MICHAEL DAVEY, NANCY DOBNER, MIKE
)
POLITO, WILLIAMS PARK IMPROVEMENT
)
ASSOCIATION, MAT SCHLUETER, MYLITH PARK
)
LOT OWNERS ASSOCIATION, DONALD KREBS,
)
DON BERKSHIRE, JUDY BRUMME, TWIN POND
)
FARMS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, JUlIA
)
TUDOR and CHRISTINE DEVINEY,
.
)
)
Petitioners,
)
)
v.
)
PCB
05-59
)
(3rd Party NPDES Permit
)
Appeal)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
)
(Consolidated)
AGENCY and VILLAGE OF WAUCONDA,
)
)
Respondents.
)
AMENDED RECORD 2
Pursuant to the Hearing Officer’s suggestion, the Agency has properly indexed and paginated the
following documents and requests the Hearing Officer to make these documents aspart ofthe Agency
Record:
286.
E-mail dated July 31, 2003, 3:32 p.m., from Chris Kallis to Toby Frevert and others.
(p. 2263)
287.
E-mail dated June 13, 2003, 9:50 a.m., from Rick Cobb to Renee Cipriano and others.
(p. 2264)
288.
E-mail dated June
25,
2004, 11:28 a.m., from Marcia Willhite to Bruce Yurdin and others.
E-mail dated June 23, 2004, 12:11 p.m., from Gregg Good.
E-mail dated June 23, 2004, 10:42 a.m., from Marcia Willhite.
(pp. 2265-2266)
289.
E-mail dated June 23, 2004, 2:44 p.m., from Lalit Sinha to Toby Frevert and others.
(p. 2267)
290.
E-mail dated September 23, 2003, 4:17 p.m., from Blame Kinsleyto Connie Tonsor.
(p. 2268)
291.
E-mail dated October 17, 2003, 9:41 a.m., from Chris Kallis to Renee Cipriano and others.
(pp. 2269-2270)
4
292.
Consent order entered December 13, 2000, State ofIllinois v. Village ofWauconda,
(99 CH 720). (pp. 227 1-2285)
Respectfully Submitted,
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION AGENCY
By:________________________
SanjayK. Sofat
Assistant Counsel
Division ofLegal Counsel
DATED: January 31, 2005
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021 North Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
(217) 782-5544
THIS FILING PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
5
SERVICE LIST
Percy L. Angelo
Bonnie L. Macfarlane
Russell R. Eggert
Bonnie Macfarlane, P.C.
Kevin G. Desharnais
106 W. State Rd.
Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, LLP
P.O. Box 268
190 5. LaSalle St.
Island Lake, IL 60042
Chicago, IL 60603
Albert Ettinger
Jay J. Glenn
Environmental Law and Policy Center
Attorney at Law
35 E. Wacker Dr.
2275 Half Day Road
Suite 1300
Suite 350
Chicago, IL 60601
Bannockburn, IL 60015
William D. Seith
Total Environmental Solutions, P.C.
631 E. Butterfield Rd.
Suite 315
Lombard, IL 60148
THIS FILING PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
6
)
STATE OF ILLINOIS
COUNTY OF SANGAMON
)
)
SS
)
)
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, on oath state that I have served the attached
AMENDED RECORD 2
upon the person to whom it is directed, by placing a copy in an envelope addressed to:
Dorothy Gunn, Clerk
Pollution Control Board
100 West Randolph Street
Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
(FIRST CLASS)
Percy L. Angelo
Russell R. Eggert
Kevin G. Deshamais
Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, LLP
190 S. LaSalle St.
Chicago, IL 60603
(FIRST CLASS)
Albert Ettinger
Environmental Law & Policy Center
35 E. Wacker Dr.
Suite 1300
Chicago, IL 60601
(FIRST CLASS)
William D. Seith
Total Environmental Solutions, P.C.
631 E. Butterfield Rd.
Suite 315
Lombard, IL 60148
(FIRST CLASS)
Bradley P. Halloran
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
100 West Randolph Street, Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
(FIRST CLASS)
Bonnie L. Macfarlane
Bonnie Macfarlane, P.C.
106 W. State Rd.
P.O. Box 268
Island Lake, IL 60042
(FIRST CLASS)
JayJ. Glenn
Attorney at Law
2275 Half Day Road
Suite 350
Bannockburn, IL 60015
(FIRST CLASS)
7
and mailing it from Springfield, Illinois on January 31, 2005, with sufficient postage affixed as
indicated above.
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME
this day ofJanuary 31, 2005.
~otary Public
OFFICIAL SEAL
1
~ NOTARY
PENNY
PUBUC,
J.
STATE
TINDER
OF
IWNOIS
~
~
MY
COMMISSION EXPIRES
3.2.2~
~.
THIS FILING PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
8
)~9.tt Twt
-
Wauconda meeting
1EPA
EXHIBIT
_____
From:
Chris
Kallis
To:
Bob; Willhite, MarciaFrevert,
Toby; Gunnarson, Charles; Hammel, Bill; Keller, Al; Kluge, Tim; Mosher,
Date:
7/31/03 3:32PM
Subject:
Wauconda meeting
Here are my noted on the Wauconda meeting at the AGO. As a follow-up I recommend the following:
1. DLC should evaluate the allegation of the NPDES Permit application omitting required information.
2. Pe~mitsSection shOuld review, the data submitted by the Wauconda Task Group. I noted that there.
were some traces of Poly Aromatic Hydrocarbons but not those that mentioned of being of major concern
by the citizens. One thing I did note in my cursory review was that Iron was extremely high as expected
and so was the Boron. The one thing that may be of concern is that the Boron concentrations almost
always significantly exceed Wauconda’s rather stringent ordirtance lint. What little I know about Boron is
that it usually passes through the plant and Wauconda discharges to a zero flow stream. If the effluent
and downstream exceeds
I
mg/I, its a violation. That’s why I had out sampling tech sample forrnetals and
Boron recently. .
.
.
2263
• . .
ltYbt
t~AI11b1t...
Keller - Re: Wauconda
.
•
Np:’2~7
. Page
1
From:
Rick Cobb
To:
.
Cipriano, Renee; Frevert, Toby; Wilihite, Marcia
Date:
6/1312003 9:50:27 AM
Subject:
Re: Wauconda
Toby, please see the attached. This is the citizens group that I had some extensive dialog with in regard
questions that they had in regard to groundwater, drinking water and waste water.
Rick
.
.
0
Richard P. Cobb, P.G.
Deputy Manager
.
Division of Public Water Supplies.
Bureau of Water
Illinois EPA
Phone & Voice Mail: (217) 785-4787
Fax:(217)557-3182
E-mail: rick.cobb@epa.state.il.us
Renee Cipriano 06/13/03 09:42AM
.
.
I received a very concerned call from a good friend of mine regarding n NPDES permit that is pending for
the Village of Wauconda. The permit number is 1L0020 109 and is for an increase in discharge, I
understand, from 4 million to 8 million into a tributary to Lake Lakeland and Slocum Lake (and ultimately
the Fox Lake) called Fiddle Creek. Apparently, we had recently (I think within the Iast.couple of years)
allowed Wauconda and exemption for effluent disinfection for this same discharge.
There are many homes (approximately 100) in this area that are on private wells. My friend purchased a
home in the Robert Bartlett Lakeland Estates and
all
of the homes in that subdivision are on private well
water and are lobated along Fiddle Creek. Some of the neighbors have had their wells tested and the test
have revealed high levels of fécal. Additionally, I am told, people and children play in these waters and
fish in these waters. As you can imagine the neighbors are besidethemselves. They have contacted
Senator Peterson and Rep Beaubién. They are concerned that the permit will issue without their chance
to share their concerns. They are also concerned with the no effluent disinfection decision that was made.
At minimum, they want ~ hearing on the permit during the evening hours (after 6:00 pm~). Could someone
please brief me on this matter and also let me know if we were aware of the private well situation?
Monday is fine although 1 do not want the permit to issue before we have the chance to discuss. thanks
CC:
Callaway, Roger~Cox, Karen; Elzinga, Sherrie; Gunnarson, Charles; Keller, Al;
Killian, Bernie; Mosher, Bob; Pickens, Jessica
.
2264
JEPA EXHIBIT
Marcia Willhite - Re: Fiddle Creek
•
2qç~
Pa~j~j
No.
From:
Marcia Willhite
To:
Bruce.Yurdin~epa.state.il.us,Gregg.Good~epa.state.il.us1Toby.Frevert~epa.state.il.us
Date:
Fri, Jun 25, 2004 11:28 AM
Subject:
• Re: Fiddle Creek
0
agree that setting up criteria and informing folks ahead of time is most desirable. Agency rules would
probably be best.
0
Marcia 1. Willhite
•
Chief
BureauofWater
•
0
217/782-1654
.
•
•
marcia.willhite@epa.state.il.us
Bruce Yurdin 06/23/04 2:40 PM
You’re lurching toward rulemaking, which in this case may not be a bad idea. Simple Agency rules could
be done relatively quickly for the 2006 IR. The trick would be to keep them simple and away from data
quality issues (recall the problems with data quality laws in Iowa, Arizona, etc., most of which dealt with
data age). I also suggest you revise the too rigid time frame, as in “Data packages will be accepted
• through May 1, 2005.” Make the rule applicable to whatever year we want, as in “Data packages will be
accepted through May I of the year prior to Integrated Report submittal.”
If we stick with May I as the submittal date, rules will need to be drafted, vetted by a workgroup, published
and approved by JCAR by late March--early April of 2005.
bjy
Bruce Yurdin
Manager, Watershed Management Section
Bureau of Water
Illinois EPA
0
.
•
1021 North Grand Avenue East
0
Springfield, IL 62794
0
phone 21 7/7&2-3362.
0
fax 217/785-1225
•
Gregg Good 6/23/2004 12:11:30PM
0
.
. .
.
For our next report, the 2006 Integrated 305(b)/303(d) report, I have drafted a policy regardin9 the who’s,
what’s, where’s, when’s, and why’s of submitting “outside data” for use in that assessmentlllsting process
(see attached draft); This draft was developed to meet data solicitatiOn guidance from USEPA. Basically,
ISAPI wants to insure that states let outside entities knowihatweare required and will review (not
• necessarily use) “readily available data.”
0
Personally, I am opposed to any routinely used “mid-term” listing processc I believe we need to finalize the
attached, send it out to those we work with on a daily basis, send out a news release regarding it’s
availability, and put it on our website so that all of Illinois knows our requirements for using outside data in
our ultimately regulatory 303(d) program. It should be clear, simple, and if the data requirements aren’t
met, so be it. This is my biased monitoring/science (we must have a cutoff date) perspective!
However, like Toby suggests, I do believe that we have the obligation of reviewing and considering outside
data provided to us almost anytime, especially during a formal 303(d) comment period on a hot-button
issue like Lake BarringtonlWaUconda/Fiddle Creek. We shouldn’t automatically discount the data only on
the basis that it wasn’t QAPPed; In this case, we should say “thanks for the information; we need to
•
investigate your claim further,” and in Fiddle Creek’s case, “we’ll do some follow-up monitoring of our
own.” On the other hand, we shouldn’t and CANT just take outside data at face value.. We need to know
the objectives of monitoring programs, how data was gathered, how it was anal~ed,etc., before we can
use it. This takes time. If our objective is to find D.O. violations to prove a CWA violation, we can find
th.em if we simply monitor at i.e., 6:30 a.m. That objective is totally different than if our objective is to
2265
(Marcia
lihite - Re: Fiddle Creek
~‘
•
0
.
0
Pag~~J
0
collect appropriate data, for passage through IEPA assessment/listing methodologies, to get something on
or off the 303(d) list for any of a number of the uses that we assess.
Ultimately, if data is submitted to us “way after the fact,” but we ultimately find it credible after
0
investigation, we can and should use it in the NEXT listing cycle.
Marcia Willhite 6/23/2004 10:42:57 AM
•
• •
0
Can we modify a 303(d) list at any time? List something, for example? That may be our approach here.
Do our own work to further evaluate and assess, then initiate a “mid-term” listing process, if appropriate.
Marcia T. Willhite
Chief
.
‘
0
0
0
Bureau of Water
•
•
217/782-1654
•
0
rn arcia.willhite@epa.state.il.us
•
0
Toby Frevert 6/23/2004 10:30:53 AM
•
‘~
• .
My take on this matter is, that we have information from outside parties and an assertion that Fiddle Creek
exceeds applicable WQS and may be impaired to some degree. Irrespective of the veracity of the QAPP
associated with the info we cannot merely disregard it. The logical response is to view the situation as
indeterminate and warranting additional monitroing on our part. We have already started with avisit to the
creek yesterday and will be doing additional data collection in the future. We will probably also require
Wauconda to conduct stream monitoring as well through a permit condition.
Bruce Yurdin 6/22/2004 10:02:24AM
0
•
Based on a short talk with Al and another with Lalit, I assume a decision was made on 6/I 7/04 that the
data submitted by the Village of Lake Barrington in response to the draft 2004 303(d) List would not be
accepted and that Fiddle Creek would remain unassessed. If this is the case, Fiddle Creek would not be
added to the2004 List.
.‘
•
0
•
•
The unacceptability of the data seems to have focused on the lack of a QAPP, and not on the data proper.
• If this is the case, we have precedent to the contrary made during the’public participation process for the
2002 List. How we arrived at the Fiddle Creek decision in the face of a previous, opposing determination
will need to be clarified for the responsiveness summary. On the other hand if the lack of a QAPP was not
the basis for our decision, we will need to have Wally or staff review the data and documentwhy
•
impairment has not been identified. In either case we will need a written record of the decision for the
responsiveness summary and subsequent discussions with Region 5 on this matter.
bjy
•
0
.
Bruce Yurdin
Manager, Watershed Management Section
•
BureauofWater •
•
•
•,
Illinois EPA.
.
0
• •
•
1021 North Grand Avenue East
0
Springfield, IL 62794
0
phone 217/782-3362
.
0
•
0
•
• fax 2I7/7~85-1225
0
•
.
0
CC:
Al.KeIler~epa.state.il.us,LaIit.Sinha@epa.state.il.us,Mike.Henebry©epa.state.il.us
0 0
2266
*Ld&
L*
~JL~
Toby Frevert - Re: Fiddle Creek
‘•O’
0
0
.
Page 1
From:
Lalit Sinha
.
‘
‘
0
To: .
Frevert, Toby; Good, Gregg; Willhitè, Marcia; Yurdin, Bruce
Date:
Wed, Jun 23, 2004 2:44 PM
.
Subject:
Re: Fiddle Creek
What is the purpose of holding a public hearing if the Agency is not going to be truely responsive to
comments and data and information provided by public during this process?
Gregg Good 6/23/2004 12:11:30PM
For our next report, the 2006 Integrated 305(b)/303(d) report, I have drafted a policy regarding the who’s,
what’s, where’s, when’s, and why’s of submitting “outside data” for use in that assessment/listing process
(see attached draft). This draft was developed to meet data solicitation guidance from USEPA. Basically,
ISAPI wants to insure that states let outsideentities know that we are required and will review (not
necessarily use) “readily available data.”
•
Personally, I am opposed to any routinely used “mid-term” listing process. I believe we need to finalize the
attached, send it out to those we work with on a daily basis, send out a news release regarding it’s
availability, and put it on our website so that all of Illinois knows our requirements for using outside data in
o~rultimately regulatory 303(d) program. It should be clear, simple, and if the data requirements aren’t
met, so be it. This is my biased.monitoringfscience (we must have a cutoff date) perspective!
However, like Toby suggests, I do believe thatwe have the obligation of reviewing and considering outside
data provided to us almost ‘anytime, especially during a fo,rmal’303(d) comment period on a hot-button
issue like Lake Barrington/WaucondalFiddle Creek. We shouldn’t automaticallydiscount.the data only on
the basis that it wasn’t QAPPed. In this case, we should say “thanks for the information; weneed to
investigate your claim further,” and in Fiddle Creek’s case, “we’ll do some follow-up monitoring of our
own.” On the other hand, we shouldn’t and CAN’T just take outside data at face value. We need to know
the objectives of monitoring programs, how data was gathered, how it was analyzed, etc., before we can
use it. This takes time. If our objective is to find D.O. violations to prove a CWA violation, we can find
them if we simply monitor at i.e., 6:30 a.m. That objective is totally different than if our objective is to
collect appropriate data, for passage through IEPA assessment/listing methodologies, to get something on,
or off the 303(d) Iist’for any of a number of th.e uses that we assess.
.
.
Ultimately, if data is submitted to us “way after the fact,” but we ultimately find it credible after
investigation, we can and should use it in the NEXT listing cycle.
.
0
Marcia Willhite 6/23/2004 10:42:57 AM.
0
Can we modify a 303(d) list at any time? List something, for example? That may be our approach ~here.
Do our own work to further evaluate and assess, then ‘initiate a “mid-term” listing process, if appropriate.
Marcia T. Willhite
•
.
.
Chief
.
. .
Bureau of Water
217/782-1654
.
marcia.willhite~epa.state.il.us
~
Toby Frevert 6/23/2004 10:30:53AM
0
My take on this matter is that we have information from outside parties and an assertion that Fiddle Creek
exceeds applicable WQS and may be impaired to some degree. Irrespective of the veracity of the QAPP
associated with the info we cannot merely disregard it. The logical response is to view the situation as
indeterminate and warranting additiOnal monitroing on our part. We have already started with a visit to the
creek yesterday and will be doing additional data collection in the future. We will probably also require’
Wauconda to conduct stream monitoring as well through a permit condition.
•
Bruce Yurdin 6/22/2004 10:02:24 AM
Based on a short talk with Al and another with Lalit, I assume a decision was made on 6/17/04 that the
2267
~onr~eTônsor-Re:Wauconda
.,
JEPA
EXHIBFTpage i’
No.
2~’1O
From:
Blame Kinsley
.
To:
0
Tonsor, Connie
•
.
0
•
Date:
Tue, Sep 23, 2003 4:17 PM
.
Subject:
Re: Wauconda
Upon further review of 40 CFR 122.62,’ I agree with your determination of the need for major modification
to remove the disinfection exemption.
Connie Tonsor 09/23/03 03:23PM
0
Attached is a draft of the “immediate” modification options.. As indicated at the meeting, I do not believe
that we can eliminate the chlorine exemption without going through notice, etc. This would be a change in
a substantive condition and thus would be a major modification. This would not be sensiblen timewise
since it is proposed for elimination with the permit modification currently in post hearing comment.
However, we could with a little slight of hand and the cooperation of the perrnfttee-rnodificy to increase
monitoring to reflect the chlorination and as for fecal samples pending the issuance of the modified permit.
All correction and criticism accepted.
2268
_____
___
___
_____
IEPA EXHIBIT
-~onNeterneyer-Re:Waucond2
.
—
—~
.
:19-i----
Pa~i
From:
Chris Kallis
To:
Cipriano, Renee; Frevert, Toby; Keller, Al; Willhite, Marcia
.
.
Date:
‘
10/17/03 9:41AM
Subject:
Re: Wauconda
It just so happens that I talked with Mr. Devry two days ago on another matter. He did discuss the
problems he had with the content of my memo. One was using the Lake County Health Department
sampling data which showed high fecal coliform in the Bangs Lake Drain. He complained that LCHD did
not take an upstream sample at the Bangs Lake overflow and that there some rain the night before. I
found that complaint quite curious since Wauconda sewers entirely surround Bangs Lake. Nonetheless, I
informed that Wauconda was not cited for fecal Coliform violations since standards are based on
geometric mean. The sampling results were included in support of the LCHD stream site assessment
(which we routinely have them do for us by contract) as a follow-up tO this incident and was used in
support of the evidence I contributed.
0
‘ ‘ •
.
0
He also had problems with my comments on the lack of industrial monitoring. I reminded him that similar
incidents happened before and the Village did not have a clue on, how to track it down before their was
never any field confirmation on the industrial survey which they conducted by mail. It is a weak system
when ‘an outsider who has never seen the survey points them in the right direction. He countered that this
could have happened if they were on the pretreatment program. I countered that it would be highly unlikely
that a company would dump a slug load if they were aware of an ordinance which the likely cylprit didn’t.
They would be even less likely if they would be willing top enforce which we know they are not. He
disputed my statement that the Village does not have a handle on when industries move in, which was a
concern expressed by the POTW staff. He said the building department knows when a industry hooks up.
I asked do they inform the POTW. He could not answer. I asked if the building would know if. an
electroplater moved in the rental industrial park.’ He could not answer..
If anyone has a problem~withthe content of my findings let me know. In the meantime I got a phone
message and E mail from Howard Chin of the IAGO. He wants a copy of the Village Ordinance.
‘
Al Keller. 10/16/03 05:I2PM
I talked with Bob Devery, village consultant, today about the letter’I sent to the village and him concerning
the disinfection exemption withdrawal letter we requested from the village. .Devery’s main question was
what was, our definition of primary contact. He thought we were changing our definitio.n to fit Waucondà’s
situation. I said first of all we are not changing any rulesto fit Wauconda’s situation. I said the letter’
expressly said potential for primary contact and that was due to a change in the situation with housing
developments near the stream. I stated there was more of a potential for kids to play in or near the
stream. I acknowledged that it is not directly adjacent to the houses but there were actual paths leading to’
the stream area. He wanted to discuss boating, skiing and swimming in this 6 inch deep creek but I stated
wading was a subset of swimming activities and there was a potential f9r contact with kids wading or
playing near streams. I advised we knew there was not going to be any boating or swimming but there can
be contact thru wading. He finally somewhat agreed with me.
0
He also inquired what other issues maybe included with the disinfection exemption withdrawal. He asked
if nutrient removal or other special designations would be included. I said I thOught we were pretty clear
that we were only looking at the one issue. The withdrawal would only include requiring disinfection and
including a fecal coliforrn limit in the existing permit. That wOuld be all it would include. All other issues
would be addressed in the responsive summary for the stp expansion modification. He again asked if it
would slow down the other request and I said no.
.
‘, 0
He again advised that the village would have to decide on the issue and there meeting was Monday.(The
village attorney advised me that the meeting was next Tuesday) Devery asked how soon would we want
any letter. I said we wanted it ASAP and actually wish we already had the letter. He said he und’erstood the
urgency.
‘
0
I also talked to Rudy Magna, attorney for the village, and discussed 4 items. They were:
1; disinfection exemption withdrawal letter
2269
•~nNetemeyer-Re:WauCOnda
‘
Page2
2. joint press release
3.comments on his draft letter to Toby
,
0
4. changes to Agency memo and protocol.
•
Concerning the first 2 items, I first told him I had expressed to Bob Devery that the Agency wishes to
receive the letter as,ap after the meeting and that we had hoped to have it sooner. I further expresèed to
him that there were no hidden agendas and no other issues included with this. lt’only requires full time
disinfection and incorporation of a fecal coliform number in the permit. I said the Agency was still
interested in a press release. He understood the issue and will discuss at the village board meeting.
Concerning item 3, I advised that we actually had no comments on their letter. Magna discussed the
whole issue about rules for the committee, hidden agendas, the trust issue, timing of the project team, etc.
I said why don’t you propose some rules for the committee and also advise us what you want the
committee to discuss. I said the draft letter articulated more problems with the project team and what you
didn’t want to discuss. I said maybe you want to show a more positive side at what you want to have the
team discuss and offer some’ rules. He said he would consider that and will finalize the letter.
Concerning item 4, he asked how he could get us to change any correspondence specifically Chris’ memo
on the foaming incident. He said the village feels there were some inaccuracies in the memo. I said he
needs to express them’ to Chris and if they want to document anything ,they should do it by letter. He
inquired about how they got the letter from Bonnie T-C. I said that Bonnie sent in a FOIA request and
received the memo in that fashion. He understood that ok and inquired why didn’t proper authorities
receive copies if reports on their facilities. I advised him we are going to review our present policy on that
issue and he was ok with that response.
I said thanks and we will be talking to him and the village officials.
.
0
CC:
Kluge, Tim; Netemeyer, Don; Patel, Jay
2270
JEPA
ExHm1r°~
No,
~-~-
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR
THE
NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
LAKE COUNTY, ILLINOIS
CHANCERY DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
.
-
ex rel.
JAMES E.
RYAN,
)
State of Illinois,
‘)
Plaintiff,
. 0
99 CH 720
vs.
Lfl
VILLAGE OF WAtJCONDA, an
)
~:2000
Illinois municipal corporation,
)
.
Defendant.
)
CONSENT ORDER
.
Plaintiff, PEOPLE OF THE STATE.OF ILLINOIS,
ex
rel.
JAMES E.
RYAN, Attorney General of the State of Illinois, on his
own
motion and
at the request of the Illinois Environmental ProtectiOn, Agency
(‘Illinois’EPA”) and Defendant, VILLAGE OF WAUCONDA, (“Wauconda”) an
Illinois municipal corporation, have agreed to the ‘making of ‘this
Consent Order. These stipulated facts shall be the findings.of fact
by this Court and the conclusions herein shall be the conclusions of
law by thisCourt.
,
I.
•
STIPULATION OF USE AND AUTHORITY
The representatives for each party certify that they are fully
authoriz.ed by the party whom they represent to enter into the terms
and conditions of this COnsent Order andto legally bind the party
they represent to this Consent Order. This ‘Consent Order may be used
in any future enforcement action as evidence of a past adjudication of
O
‘violation of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act (“Acttt) for
purposes’ of Section 42(h) of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/42(h) (2000)
.
..1
2271
‘II.
STATE?’~NTOF FACTS
A. PARTIES
.
1.
‘
The
Attorney General of the State of
Illinois brin~s this
action on his
own
motion and at the request of the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to the statutory authority
vested in him under Section 42(d) and (e)’of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/42(d)
and (e) (2000)
2.
.
The Illinois EPA is an administrative agency established in
the executive,branch of the State government by Section 4 of theAct,
415 ILCS 5/4 (2000), and charged,
inter alia,
with the dut~,of
enforcing the Act. The Illinois EPA is further charged.under Section
4 of the Act with the duty to administer and abate violations of the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit
program under the Federal Clean Water Act (“CWA”), 33 U.S.C. Section
1342 (b) (7)
.
0
‘
3. Defendant, the Village of Wauconda (“Wauconda”) is an
Illinois mu~iicipal corporation located in Lake County, Illinois.’
B. FACILITY DESCRIPTION
0 ‘
At all ‘times relevant’ to this Consent Order, Wauconda owns and
0
opera.tes the Wa~.zcondaWastewater Treatment Plant (“WWWTP”) located at
302 Sloctirn Lake Road, Wauconda, Lake County, Illinois.
The
legal
description of the WWWTP is the Southeast Quarter of Section 26
Township 44N, Range 09E, Lake, County, Illinois.
The WWWT,P provides preliminary, primary, secondary and tertiary
treatment of wastewater, and consists of ‘a raw sewage pumping~station,
aerated grit tank, comminutor, primary clazifiers, primary. effluent
2
2272
pumping stations, bio-packed towers, solids contact tank, secondary
clarifiers, sand filters, chlorine contact tank, aerobic digesters an.d.
sludge pumps.
..
0
‘
-
The WWWTP discharges to a tributary of the Fox River, a water of
the State of Illinois, as that te~mis defined in Section 3.56 of the
Act, 415 ILCS 5/3.56(2000).
C. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS
On June 28, 1999, the Plaintiff, People of the State of Illinois,
filed a six-count Complaint against Wai.iconda alleging the following
violations.
.
WATER POLLUTION: Violation of Section 12~(a)
of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/12 (a) (2000)
VIOLATION OF GENE~AL EFFLUENT STANDARDS:
Violation of Section 12(a) of the Act, 415
‘ILCS 5/12(a) (2000), and 35 Ill. Adm. Code
304.120(c);
VIOLATION OF NPDES
PERMIT
EFFLUENT LIMITS:
Violation of Sections 12(a) and (f) of the
Act, 415 ILCS 5/12(a) and (f) (2000)’ and 35
Ill. Adm. Code’ 309.102(a), 304.141(a), and
.304.120(c);
VIOLATION OF NPDES PERMIT REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS: Violation of Section 12(f) of
the Act, 415 ILCS 5/12 (f) (2000)
,
and 35
Ill. Adm. Code~305.102(a) ‘and (b);
VIOLATION ‘OF PERFORMANCE CRITERIA:
Violation of Section 12(f) of the Act, 415
ILCS 5/12(f) (2000)1, and 35111. Adm. Code
306.303, 306.304 and 306.305(b);
VIOLATION OF NPDES PERMIT CONDITIONS:
Violation of Section 12(f) of the Act, 415
ILCS 5/12 (f) (2000)
,
and 35 Ill. Adm. Code
309.146 (a) (1-4)
COUNT I
COUNT II
COUNT III
COUNT IV
COUNT
V
COUNT VI
3
2273
D. WAUCONDA’S RESPONSE TO THE ALLEGATIONS
“
0
Wauconda neither admits’nor denies the material allegaticns
contained, in the Complaint. Wauconda is in the process of upgrading
its WWTP in accordance with the Compliance Directives contained in
Section VII.C. herein.
III.
APPLICABILITY
This Consent Order shall apply to and be binding upon Plaintiff
and Defendant and any official, director, agent, employee, department
or servant of Defendant, as well as Defendant’s successors and
assigns. The Defendant shall not raise
‘as
a defense to any .enforcement
action taken pursuant to this,Consent Order the failure of its
officials, directors, departments, agents’,, servants or employees to
take such action as shall be required to comply with the provisions of
this Consent Order.
0
IV.
COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS AND REGULATIONS
This Consent Order in no way affects the Defendant’s
responsibility to comply with any federal, state or local statutes or
regulations, including, but not limited to, the Act and the Board
Regulations, 35 Ill. Adm. Code Si.thtitles A through H.
V.
SEVERABILITY
It is the intent’ of the parties hereto that the provisions’ of
“this Consent Order shall be’ severable and should any provisions be
declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be inconsistent’w,ith
state or federal law, and therefore unenforceable, the remaining
4
2274
clauses shall remain in. full forte and e~ffect
VI.
VENUE
The parties agree that the venue of any action commenced in the
Circuit Court for the ourposes of interpretation, implementation and
enforcement of’ the terms and conditions of this Consent Order shall be
in the Circuit Court of Lake ~County.
VII.
‘ ‘
FINAL JUDGMENT ORDER
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and upon the
consent of the parties hereto, the Court having considered ~the
stipulated facts and being fully advised in the premises:
IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED,
ADJUDGED’ AND, DECREED:
‘
A.
JURISDICTION’
‘
This Oourt has jurisdiction of the subject matter herein and of
the parties consenting hereto pursu~n~to the Act, 415. ILCS 5/1, et
seq.
(2000)
.
0
B. OBJECTIVE
‘
‘
The objective of this Consent Order is to,have an enforceable
order which ‘will assure the protection of the public health, welfare
and the environment, and compliance with the.~Act and Board rules and
regul at ions promulgated thereunder.
‘
0
C.
COMPtiIANCE
DIRECTIVES
1. Wauconda shall undertake and complete certain improvements
to its WWTP in accordance with applicable permits and regulations
designedto:
,
0
‘
,
‘
-
5
2275
a. Eliminate the hydraulic bottleneck at the headworks of
the WWTP caused by the limited capacity of the
existing aerated grit tank and screening equipment;
b. Limit the hydraulic loading to the treatment units
downstrea~nof the lieadworks, with the exception of the
Bio Towers;
‘
c.
Conform
with the “Basis of Design” report for the WWTP
“Wet Weather Flow Improvements” dated May 1, 2000,
prepared by Devery Eng~.neering, Inc.,, and the plans
and specifications dated May 10, 2000, identified as
Job Number 1690’, as amended, approved, and permitte4
by the Illinois EPA under permit number 2000-A8-l966
dated October 11, 2000.
2. Wauconda shall complete construction of the improvements
referenced in paragraph one above ‘and contained in Illinois EPA permit
number 2000-A.B-1966 by October 14; 2001.
3.. Wauconda shall verify to the Illinois EPA ‘the dates of the
commencement of’ construction and the completion and placement on-line
of the improvements no later than 21 days after commencement and
completion of construction. Such written verification shall be sent
to:
Charles Gunnarson, Assistant Counsel
Division of Legal Counsel
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021 North Grand Avenue East
Post Office
Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
6
2276
D.
CIVIL PENALTY
1.
Wauconda shall pay the s’um of Twenty Thousand Dollars
($20,000.00) by certified check or money order made payable to the
Illinois EPA for deposit into the Environmental ‘Protection Trust Fund.
Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days from the date of entry
of this Consent Order. The certified check or money order shall be
sent by first class mail to:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Fiscal Services Section
1021 North Grand Avenue East
Post Office Box 19276’
Springfield,
Illinois
62794-9276
The name and number of the case and Defendant’s Federal Employer
Identifica’tion Number (“FEIN”) 36-6006136 shall appear on the face ~f
the ‘check or money order.
,
Further, a. copy of the check or money order
‘shall be sent by first-class mail to:
‘ ,
Zemeheret Bereket-Ab
Assistant Attorney General
‘
‘.
O
Environmental Bureau
‘
100 West Randolph Street, 11th Floor
ChicagO, Illinois 60601
.2.
,
For purposes of payment and collection, the Village of
Wauconda can be reached at the following add±ess:
Mr. Fred Dierker
‘
-
‘
O
‘
Village Administrator
Village of Wauconda
101
North Main Street
Wauconda, Illinois 60084
3. Pursuant to ‘Section 42(g) of the Ace, 415 ILCS
‘
5/42(g) (2000)’, interest shall accrue on any penalty amount not paid
within the time prescribed herein, at the
maximum
rate allowable under
Section 1003 (a) of the Illinois Income Tax Act, 35 ILCS
5/1003 (a) (2000).
‘
7
2277
a. Interest on unpaid payments shall begin to accrue frorn
the date the payment is
due and continue to accrue until date pavmne~t
is received;
b. Where partial payment is made on any payment amount
that is due, such partial payment shall be first applied to ar~y
interest on unpaid payments then owing; and
‘
-
c. All interest on payments owed the Plaintiff shall be
paid by certified check or money order made payable to’ the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency for deposit into the Environmental
Protection Trus? Fund and delivered to:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Fiscal Services Division
‘
‘
‘
1021 North Grand Avenue East
P. 0. Box 19276
‘
0
‘
Springfield, ‘IL 62794-9276
0
The name and’number of the case and Defendant’s FEIN, 36-6006136 shall
appear on the face of the certified check. A copy-of the certified
check and the transmittal letter shall be sent to:
Zemeheret Bereket-Ab
‘
Assistant Attorney General
‘ ‘
-
-
Environmental Bureau
-
188 West Randolph Street,, 20
th
Floor
Chicago, IL 60601
3.
STIPULATED PENALTIES
‘
- ‘
-
0
O
If Defendant fails to complete the wàrk by October 14, 2001,
Defendant shall pay stipulated penalties of Five ‘Hundred’ Dollars
($500.00) per day that Defendant fails’to’complete the work. All
stipulated penalties shall be paid’ in the same manner, as described in
Section VII.D. above. However, payment of stipulated penalties does
not preclude the State from taking other remedies to enforce the terms
O
of this Consent Order.
‘
‘
8
2278
E. CEASE AND DESIST
Defendant shall cease and desist from future violations of the
Act and Board regulations, including but- not limited to those Sections
of the Act and BOard regulations that were the subject matter of the
Complaint as outline
ii~iSection
II.C. of this Consent Order.
F. RIGHT OF ENTRY
In addition to any other authority, the Illinois EPA, its
employees and representatives, and the Illinois Attorney General,. his
agents and representatives, shall have a ri~htof entry to Wauconda’~
WWTP at all reasonable times for the purposes of conducting
investigations to determine compliance with’the Act, Board
regulations, ,and the terms and conditions of this Consent Order. In
conducting any inspection of Defendant’s WWTP, the Illinois EPA, its
employees and representatives and the’ IllinoisAttorney General, his
agents and repreâe’ntatives, may take any photographs ‘or samples as
they deem necessary in order to conduct their investigation.
G.
RETENTION OF JURISDICTION
The Lake County Circuit Court shall retain jurisdiction of this
matter for the purpose of amending, interpreting, implementing and
‘enforcing the terms and conditions of theConsent Order.
H.
COSTS AND EXPENSES
Each party to this Consent Order shall Ibear its
own
costs and
expenses, including attorneys’ fees.
-
I.
FORCE
MAJEURE
-
.
1.
‘
“Force mnajeure,” for purposes’ pf this Consent Order, is
defined as
an~jevent arising from causes beyond the control of’ the
Defendant, of any entity controlled by Defendant, or of Defendant’s
contractors, that delays or prevents the performance of any obligation
9
2279
under this Consent Order despite Defendant’s best efforts to fulfill
the obligation. The requirement that the Defendant exercise “best
efforts to fulfill the obligation” includes using best efforts to
anticipate any potential force majeure event and be~t’efforts to
address the effects of any potential force majeure event (1) as it. is
occurring and (2) following the potential force majeure event, such
that the delay is minimized to the greatest extent possible. “Force
Majeure” does not include financial inability to complete the work
described in Section VII.C. above.
2. If any event, occurs or has occurred that may’ delay the
performance of any obligation under this Consent Order, whether or not
caused by a force majeure
event, the Defendant shall notify the
Illinois Attorney General’s Office within twenty-four hours of when
Defendant first knew that the event might cause a delay’. Within 20
days thereafter, Defendant shall provide in writing to the Attorney
General an explanation and description of the reasons for the delay;
the anticipated duration of the delay; all actions taken or to be
taken to prCvent or minimize the delay; a sch&dule for implementation
of
any measures to be taken to
prevent or mitigate the delay or the
effect of the delay; the Defendant’s rationale for attributing such
delay to a force majeureevent if it intends to assert such a claim;
—1
an~a statement as to whether, in the’ opinion of the Defendant, such
event may cause or, contribute’ to an endangerment to public health,
welfare or the environment. The Defendant shall include with any
notice all available documentation supporting. its claim that.the delay
was attributable to a force majeure event. Failure to comply with th~
above requirements shall preclude Defendant from asserting any claim
10
2280
for force majeure for that. event for the period of time of such
failure to comply, and f’or any additional delay caused by such
failure. Defendant shall be deemed to know of any circurhstance of
which Defendant, any entity controlled by Defendant or Defendant’s
contractors knew, or should have known.
3. If Plaintiff, after a reasonable opportunity for review and
comment, agrees that the delay or anticipated delay
is
attributable to
a force majeure event, the time for performance of the obligations’
under thi’s Consent Order that are affected
by the force majeure event
will ,be extended for such time as is necessary tocomnplete those
obligations.
An extension of
the time for performance of the
‘I
obl~gation’saffected by the force majeure event shall not, of itself,
extend the time for performance of any other obligation. If
Plaintiff, after a
reasonable. opportunity for review and comment, does
not agree that the delay
or anticipated delay has been or will be
caused by a force majeure event, Plaintiff will notify the Defendant
in writing of its decision.
-
4.
I.f the
Defendant elects to invoke the Dispute Resolution,
,procedures set forth in Section J, below, it shall do so no later than
15 days after receipt of the Plaintiff’s notice. In any such
proceeding, Defendant shall
have the burden of demonstrating by a
preponderance of the evidence that the delay or an’ticipated delay has
been or ‘will be caused by ,a force majeure event, that ,the- duration of~
the delay or the extension sought was or will be warranted under the
circumstances, that best efforts were exercised to avoid and mitigate
the effects df the delay, and that Defendant complied with the
.
,
requirements of’ paragraphs 1 and 2’ above’. If Defendant carries this
11
2281
O
burden, the delay at issue. shall be deemed not to be’a violation by
Defendant of the affected ‘obligation of this Consent Order identified
to Plaintiff and the Court.’
J.’ DISPUTE RESOLUTION
1.
‘
Any dispute which arises with respect to the meaning’,
application, interpretation, amendment or modification of this Consent
Order, any report required hereunder, or with respect to any party’s
compliance herewith, shall in the first instance be the subject of
informal negotiations. If the Plaintiff and Defendant cannot resolve
the dispute within thirty (30) calendar days, however, it shall be
presented to the’ Court for, appropriate resolution upon written notice
by any par~ty. The
period for negotiations may be extended by ‘mutual
agreement among the parties. Unless the Plaintiff is seeking an
amendment, modification, clarification, ‘interpretation or enforcement
of this Consent Order, Defendant shall file the documents necessary to
notify the Court of the dispute, and thereafter the Court shall order
the parties to file such pleadings
as the Court deems necessary and
proper. I’f’ amendment, modification, clarification, interpretation or
enforcement of this Consent Order is sought by the Plaintiff, the
Illinois Attorney General’s Office shall have the responsibility for
filing the’ necessary papers.
,
‘
2.
,
Defendant shall file
any petition-,with the Court within
fifteen (15) calendar days after the informal negotiation period for
any extension has expired, and, where the, Plaintiff has the
responsibility of filing, the Plaintiff shall petition the Court
,
within fifteen (15) calendar days after the expiration of the informal
negotiation period (or,any extension).
‘
-
“
12
‘
.
2282
3. In any dispute resolution proceeding, Defendant shall have
the burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that its
position will adequately protect the public health, welfare -and the
environment.
‘
‘
4. The invocation of dispute resolution, in and of itself,
shall not
excuse
compliance with any requirement, obligation or
deadline contained herein, and stipulated penalties may be assessed
for adjudicated failures or adjudicated noncompliance during the
period of dispute resolution; provided, hOwever, that nothing herein
shall bar either party from raisins any matter in support of its
position to the Court that the failure or noncompliance is not a
violation pursuant to Section VII.C.
-
5.
Defendant shall have the burden of proving force
majeure’by
a preponderance of the evidence.
0
K. RELEASE FROM LIABILITY
.
-
In consideration of Defendant’s payment of Twenty Thousand
Dollars ($20,000.00) civil penalty as described in Section VII.D.
herein, Defendant’s commitment to complete the work as outlined in
Section VII.C.2. herein, Defendant’s commitment to refrain from
-
further violations of
the Act and Board regulations,
and
to comply’
with all applicable provisions of this Consent Order, and upon payment
of the penalty required herein,, the State releases, waives
and
discharges the Defendant from
any further liability or penalties from
violations of the Act which were the subject matter of, the Complaint,
upon the payment of allmonies owed
and
completion of all
activities.
required by Section VII.C. of this Consent Order. In the event that
this Consent Order shall become null and void, there shall be-no
‘
13
2283
release, waiver or discharge from liability or penalties resulting
from violations
of the Act and the Board Regulations.
However,
nothing in.this Consent Order shall be construed as a.waiverby
plaintiff of the .right to redress future or heretofore undisclosed
‘
violation or obtain pelialties with respect thereto.
.
L. ENFORCE~NT OF CONSENT ORDER
Following the entry of this Consent Order, any party hereto upon
motion may move this Court to enforce the terms and conditions of this
Conser~tOrder. The Plaintiff, at its discretion, can enforce the
terms of this Consent Order against the Defendant. This Consent Order
is a binding and enforceable Order of this Court and may be enforced
as such .through any and all available means.
.
14
2284
WHEREFORE, the parties, by their representatives, ‘enter into this
MATTHEW
J~ DUNN, Chief
Environmental Enforcement/Asbestos
Litigation Division
Assistant Attorney Gene~?a-1-..
ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
O PH
~
SVOBODA
‘
C ef Legal Counsel,
‘ “ 0
vz~r~~
.-
C!’
ENTER:
‘_
JUDGE
P~:\Co,
on\E~vi~on.n~a1\Car~te1\WaucondaCoz, nt
.
wpd
15
Consent Order and submit it to the Court that it may be approved and
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
ex
rel.
JAMES E. RYAN,’
Attorney General of the
State of Illinois
entered.
Date:
______
Date:
-~-
___________
BY:
/~.2
-
Date:
Date:
BY:
TITLE:
2285
