ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

September 15,

1977

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS and

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

Complainants,

v.

)

PCB 76—288

VILLAGE OF LAKE ZURICH,

an Illinois

municipal corporation,

Respondent.

Ms. Anne Markey, Assistant Attorney General, appeared on

behalf of Complainants.

Mr. Harvey

M.

Sheldon, Plunkett, Nisen, Elliott

& Meier,

appeared on behalf of Respondent.

Mr.

R.

Ford Dallmeyer, Tenney

& Bentley, appeared on behalf

of the Village of North Barrington and the other Intervenors.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Mr. Young):

This matter comes before the Board on a Complaint filed on

November 10,

1976,

by the People of the State of Illinois against

the Village of Lake Zurich.

The Respondent owns and operates

the Northwest treatment plant

(treatment works) which discharges

its effluent into a tributary of Flint Creek that flows through

the Village of North Barrington and into the Fox River.

The Complaint alleged violations

of Section 12(a)

of the

Environmental Protection Act

(Act)

and specific standards of

the Pollution Control Board Rules and Regulations, Chapter

3:

Water Pollution

(Rules).

In particular,

the Complaint alleged

violations of the effluent standards for phosphorus

in Rule

407(b),

for BOD5 and suspended solids

in Rule 404(f), and for

fecal coliform in Rule 405 of the Rules, and the water quality

standards for dissolved oxygen in Rule

203(d), Rule 203(f) of

the Rules.

The Complaint was amended on December

14, 1976,

to add the

Environmental Protection Agency

(Agency)

as Complainant.

7

~V’

7

---

1

‘

1

,j

;cc ct fort

I.

-

•r:t

r

tiled

a

-

l~p

,

tj

;;.a

Bca’4

I4r.1r

my

claim

a

-tar

it

-ct.t1.

Is

3dversely affected Py a Pirai

Board

Ordr

beavse

‘t

c..

.tccate’I

cc’q.nstrearn

f corn

~

l”rtlmest

treatnert

t~L’.

ret:tt~t‘~a ameM.~c

s

citferent

occasiont aac.a1s :‘tertQceC

a criau.1.is bhc

Gb

cC

property

along

flit. aftecte’

trthutaty.

c.

Jus-,

1.

1

tEl ‘eni’g

Otticer aczucd

tnt-

Petition

but

agreed

.~.

r

c..~icci

it.

at the hearing.

“113

t

-

.

~

~

.,t~

Zurich

on .7,~

c

1977.

The

Hearing

Or:i

c.

neirulea

his

earlier

Order

against

North

Barrington

and

con

e.

t1~e

Petition

with

certal.

limitations.

The

Intervenc.rs

~e..

-

named

as

parties

to

the

Mended

Complaint

and

the

Prodosa)

t

.

Settlenent.

but

they

were

rot

permitted

to

offer

testiirony

t

z

e

hearings

Thereafter,

the

parties

presented

their

Stipulation

of

Facts

and

Propc.sa~

for

Settlement

which

was

fik.d

with

the

Board

on

August

j~

b917,

and

amended

on

August

4,

19/7.

The

par’

‘A’

‘3i~~

4’

?~

i.t

ts

present

i.

t ‘Lnt

admissions

(see

jage

8

St.

p

t

1...,,

1

0:

tao

Etipulat:cr

ad

iroposal

for

Settlement)

tc suç .rt the ti

ij~q

that discharcse3 from the

Northwest

treat-ineir

works

were

in

violation

of

Section

12(a)

of

the

Act a

‘~

t?Iuent er?

t’a*er

quality

standazds

of

the

Rules:

—

Picet.

orus,

Rule

407(b);

-

a

.

d

cus~enut.c .~olsUs,

Rule

4()~tj,

-

Jecas

cjtrorn.

Rule

405;

issoled

Oxyqen

Rile

203W);

a;.c.

vn-

r:tyoq.I1.z

a3 k~,

Rule

e0!’.’

in

•aa~~..ae

a,

-

n...

~.

‘

nical

feed

equlgv

art

~

tza

i

t.t~

moutos

or

the

float a

lraer

and

determine

its

ott~.u

ra

cnemsca

teed

point

and

feed

rate

tithic

15

days

aftei

;nst~ i

t’c’

‘they

ban

‘irther

~greea

tc

eirplov

a

qualified

laboratory

ass~st.rt

and

to

hat.

two

full—time

perators

who

are

certified

1’v

‘he

c’enc’y.

Toe

aespondent

will

aao

prepare

composite

flow

diagt

ax

‘

bri

it”

.nd.ttots

f~,r

thi

two

treatment

works

as

apecix en

in

t”e

ccnp2iance

plan.

The

Sett

tcsn

nt

turther

x’qufles

Respondect

to

plug

any

bypasses

aot

,~‘ect

ted

by

the

lllisois

an~

.ab.

an’A

permits.

By-

passing

or

ts~

!.

sc~

treatment

SPa11

be

p:ohibiteo

acept

during

emergent

i

mas

tag

t

c.9e.Sb.

-aS-- *10.

d

efr

---

—3—

Respondent agrees to permit inspection of the Northwest

treatment plant by authorized representatives of the Attorney

General and qualified members of the intervening parties at

any time during daytime business hours.

Respondent further agrees to make any modification in

tertiary filter and backwash pond flow system which would im-

prove the efficiency of the treatment works.

While this compliance plan is in operation,

Respondent

agrees that it will send to the Agency and the Attorney General

all NPDES monitoring reports, engineering plans, monthly progress

reports

periodic discharge reports,

and reports of permit viola-

tions as specifically delineated in the Proposed Settlement.

During

‘this implementation period,

the Northwest treatment

works must comply with interim standards as set forth in the

Proposed Settlement.

These interim standards will, however,

expire at the end of nine months and Respondent will be required

to

meet then-existing effluent and water quality standards in

the

Rules, or obtain

a variance

therefrom.

The People and the Agency recommend that

no

penalty be

assessed against the Village of Lake Zurich.

The Board has

found it necessary to impose monetary penalties on public bodies

to deter violations of the Act and the Rules.

Springfield v.

EPA, PCB 70-55,

1 PCB 379 and EPA v. Village of Biggsville, PCB

77—29

(June

9,

1977).

However, the Board has also held that

public funds are better spent on meaningful pollution control

measures than on penalties for past transgressions.

EPA v.

Louis

Rokis,

PCB 74-215,

18 PCB 512.

In this matter, the

Respondent ~as shown

a willingness

to bring the Northwest treat-

ment plant into compliance with the effluent and water quality

standards of the Rules.

The Board, therefore, accepts the

recommendation of the People and the Agency and will impose no

penalty.

The Board finds the Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement

in compliance with the requirements of Procedural Rule 331.

The

Board also finds

the terms of the Settlement to be acceptable and

will require that the parties adhere to all provisions therein.

This Opinion constitutes

the Board~sfindings of fact and

conclusions of law in this matter.

ORDER

1.

Respondent, Village of Lake

Zurich,

is hereby found to

have discharged contaminants into the environment of Illinois

in

---

—~—

violation of Rules 203(d)

,

203(f),

404

f)

,

405 and 407(b)

of

Chapter

3,

and Section l2(~a) of the Environmental Protection Act.

2.

The Respondent shall adhere to all provisions of the

Settlement Proposal, which is hereby incorporated by reference

as if fully set forth herein.

IT

IS SO ORDERED.

Mr. Jacob D.

Dumelle concurred.

I,

Christan L. M~ffett,Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, hereby certify the above Ooinion and Order were

adopted on the /~‘~

day. of

_______________,

1977 by a vote

Christan

L.

Moffett)/~4~rk

Illinois Pollution ~~ro1

Board

26

52O~

~