ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL

BOARD

April

3,

1980

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENC’,

C~mpiai

narit:,

v.

)

PCB 78—135

VILLAGE

OF PALOS

PARK,

a municipal corporation,

Respondent.

MR.

THOMAS

R.

CHIOLA, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON

BEHALF

OF THE COMPLAINANT.

McCARTHY,

SCHEURICH,

flUFFY,

NIEDHART

AND

SNAKARD,

ATTORNEYS

AT

LAW

(MR.

THOMAS

J.

MONTGOMERY,

OF

COUNSEL),

APPEARED

ON

BEHALF

OF

THE

RESPONDENT.

0

P

t N

E ON

AN I)

OR D E R

01’,

TIlE

Ho

A RE)

(1

)~

ri

.r

.

We r

ii

This

matter

comes before

the

Board

on

the

May

10,

1978

Complaint

brought

by

the

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency

(“Agency”).

Count

I of the Complaint alleged that the Village of Palos Park

(“Village”) did not submit the requisite progress report by

December

31,

1977 pertaining to the submission of a formal appli-

cation to the State

of Illinois for a Step

1 grant as required by

its NPDES Permit,

thereby violating its NPDES Permit; Rule 901 of

Chapter

3:

Water Pollution Control Regulations

(“Chapter 3”);

and Sections 12(a),

12(b), and 12(f)

of the Illinois Environmental

Protection Act (“Act”).

Count

II alleged that the Village did not

enact an ordinance which would prohibit the connection of

non-complying industrial or domestic wastes into the existing storm

or existing field tile sewer system within the municipality’s

boundary and did not submit

a copy

of

such

an ordinance to the

Agency

by the October

31, 1977 due date established

in the NPDES

Permit,

thereby violating its NPDES Permit; Rule 901 of Chapter 3;

and Sections 12(a),

12(b), and 12(f)

of the Act,

On December 20,

1978,

the parties filed

a Joint Motion for

Stay.

On January

4,

1979,

the Board granted the parties’ Motion

to

Stay

the

proceedings

for

60

days

while

settlement

negotiations

were

in progress.

On January

10,

1980,

the Board entered an Order

mandating that a hearing be held within 60 days.

On February

8,

1980,

a hearing was held and the parties filed their Stipulation

and Proposal for Settlement.

---

—2—

The Village of Palos Park is a small community which includes

about 1,000 homes.

Because the Village has no municipal sewage

treatment facility,

some of the homes

are connected to the

Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago’s system,

while

other residences discharge

their sewage into

“Cavitettes” or septic

tanks and ultimately into an unnamed ditch

tributary to the Calumet

Sag Channel.

The Respondent’s NPDES Permit No. 0039012 treats all the

individual discharges

from the “Cavitettes”

as one discharge point.

(See:

Exhibit A).

Agency review of the situation indicated that

the Village

failed to comply with the conditions imposed upon it,

(See:

Exhibit

B;

Stip.

3—4).

Although the Respondent neither admits

or denies the allegations specified in the Complaint, the Village

does state

it is currently in compliance.

(Stip.

5).

The proposed settlement agreement provides that the Respondent

agrees

to:

(1) cease and desist from all further violations;

(2) submit all future reports

as required in

its NPDES Permit in a

timely fashion;

(3) take

6 random water samples per month, have

the samples analyzed, and send the sample results and analyses to

the Agency;

and

(4) pay a stipulated penalty of $200.00*.

(Stip.

5—7).

Tn eva

mat:

i nq

ti~

is

en

forcement action and the proposed settle-

ment agreement,

the Board has taken

into consideration all

the facts

and circumstances in light of

the

specific criteria delineated in

Section 33(c)

of the

Act.

The Board

finds the stipulated agreement

acceptable under Procedural Rule 331 and Section 33(c)

of the Act,

The Board

finds that the Respondent has violated Rule

901 of

Chapter

3:

Water Pollution Control Regulations and Sections 12(a),

12(b),

and 12(f)

of the Act.

The stipulated penalty of $200.00 is

assessed against the Village of Palos Park,

*The ambiguous wording of paragraph 14 of the Stipulation seems

to

suggest that $1,800.00 of a prospective penalty has been suspended

by the parties.

As the Board has repeatedly noted, the imposition of

contingent or suspended penalties is unacceptable.

(See:

EPA

V.

Village of ~

PCB 79—3;

EPA v. Village of Millstadt,

PCB 78—132;

EPA v.

Sundale Sewer Corporation,

PCB 78—88 and PCB 78-225 Consoli-

dated;

EPA

V.

International Harvester Company,

PCB 75-12;

EPA

V.

Granite~Tty Steel, PCB 78—233).

Since the determination of the

appropriate penalty is, by statute, solely within the Board’s

purview, the Board interprets paragraph

14 to imply that only a

penalty of $200.00 has been agreed to by both parties and the

mention of the $1,800.00 figure is merely dicta.

---

—3—

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, the Village of Palos Park, has violated

Rule 901 of Chapter

3:

Water Pollution Control Regulations and

Sections

12 (a),

12 (b), and 12 (f)

of the Illinois Environmental

Protection Act.

2.

Within 35 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 $200.00 which

is to be

sent

to:

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Fiscal Services Division

2200 Churchill Road

Springfield,

Illinois

62706

3.

The Respondent shall comply with all the terms and conditions

of the Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement filed February

8,

1980,

which is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein,

Chairman Dumelle and Mr. Goodman concur.

I,

Christan L.

Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, he~ebycertify that the above Opinion and Order were adopted

on the ~~day

of

~,

1980 by a vote of

,.?‘~0

Illinois Pollution

Board