1. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
RECEIVEL~
Complainant,
SEP 052003
-vs-
)
PCB No.
r~a
-•;~q
-‘
STA1E
OF ILLINOIS
TRI
-
K
DEVELOPMENT,
INC.,
)
Pollution
Control Board
an Illinois corporation,
Respondent.
NOTICE
OF
FILING
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that we have today,
September
5,
2003,
filed with the Office of the Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board an original and nine copies of the Stipulation and
Proposal for Settlement,
and Motion to Request Relief from
Hearing Requirement,
copies of are attached herewith and served
upon you.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
ex
rel.
LISA
MADIGAN
Attorney Ge ~ral of the
BY:
~fIl~s
STOPHER GPJ\NT
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Bureau
188 W. Randolph St.,
20th
Flr.
Chicago,
IL 60601
(312)
814-5388
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
CLERK’S
OF~1~F
SEP 052’
Complainant,
-
vs
-
)
PCE No.
c
q—
~j1Pollu
OCf
‘lOIS
TRI-K DEVELOPMENT,
INC.,
an Illinois corporation,
Respondent.
STIPULATION A1~1DPROPOSAL
FOR SETTLEMENT
Complainant,
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, by LISA
MADIGAN, Attorney General of the State of Illinois,
at the
request of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,
and
Respondent,
TRI-K DEVELOPMENT,
INC.,
do hereby agree
to this
Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement.
The parties agree that
the statement
of facts contained herein represents a fair summary
of the evidence and testimony which would be introduced by the
parties if a full hearing were held.
The parties further
stipulate that this statement of facts
is made and agreed upon
for purposes of settlement only and that neither the fact that a
party has entered into this Stipulation, nor any of the facts
stipulated herein,
shall be introduced into evidence in this or
any other proceeding except to enforce the terms of this
agreement.
Notwithstanding. the previous sentence,
this
Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement and any Illinois
Pollution Control Board
(“Board”)
order accepting same may be
-1-
used in any future enforcement action as evidence of a past
adjudication of violation
of the Illinois Environmental
Protection Act
(“Act”)
for purposes of Sections 39(i)
and 42(h)
of the Act,
415 ILCS 5/39(i) and 5/42(h) (2002).
I.
JURISDICTION
The Board has jurisdiction of the subject matter herein and
of the parties consenting hereto pursuant to the Act,
415 ILCS
5/1
et seq.
(2002)
II.
AUTHORI ZATION
The undersigned representatives for each party certify that
they are fully authorized by the party whom they represent
to
enter into the terms and conditions of this Stipulation and
Proposal for Settlement and to legally bind them to it.
III.
APPLICABILITY
This Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement shall apply to
and be binding upon the Complainant and Respondent,
and each of
them,
and on any officer, director,
agent,
employee or servant of
the Respondent,
as well
as the Respondent’s successors and
assigns.
The Respondent
shall not raise as a defense to any
enforcement action taken pursuant to this settlement the failure
of officers,
directors,
agents,
servants, or employees of the
Respondent to take such action as shall be required to comply
-2-
with the provisions of this settlement
Iv.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
A.
Parties
1.
The
Attorney General of the State of Illinois brought
this action on her own motion,
as well
as at the request of the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (“Illinois EPA”),
pursuant to the statutory authority vested in her under Section
31 of the Act,
415 ILCS 5/31
(2002)
2.
Illinois EPA is an agency of the State of Illinois
created pursuant to Section 4 of the Act,
415
ILCS. 5/4
(2002)
and is charged,
inter alia,
with the duty of enforcing the Act.
3.
Respondent,
TRI-K DEVELOPMENT,
INC.,
is an Illinois
corporation,
duly authorized to transact business in the State of
Illinois.
B.
Facility Description
The Respondent was the developer and builder of a 29 Unit,
6
acre residential development,
commonly known as
“Meadows Edge”,
located near the intersection of 59th Street and Interstate 355,
Lisle, Du Page County,
Illinois
(“Site”)
C.
Noncompliance
Complainant has alleged the following violations of the Act
against the Respondent:
COUNT
I:
WATER POLLUTION
Violation
of Section 12(a)
of the Act,
415 ILCS
5/12
(a)
(2002)
-3-
COUNT II:
FAILURE TO PROVIDE WATER POLLUTION CONTROLS
Violation of Section 12(a)
of the Act,
415 ILCS
5/12(a) (2002),
and 35
Ill. Adm.
Code 306.102;
COUNT
III: WATER QUALITY AND EFFLUENT VIOLATIONS
Violation of Section 12(a)
of the Act,
415 ILCS
5/12(a)
(2002), and 35 Ill. Adm.
Code 302.203;
COUNT IV:
NPDES PERMIT VIOLATION
Vi~lationof Section 12(f)
of the Act,
415 ILCS
5/12(f)
(2002),
and 35 Ill.
Adm.
Code 309.146.
D.
Response to allegations
The Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations in
the Complaint.
.v.
IMPACT ON THE PUBLIC RESULTING FROM NONCOMPLIANCE
Section 33(c)
of the Act,
415 ILCS.5/33(c) (2002), provides
as follows:
In making its orders and determinations, the Board shall
take into consideration all the facts and circumstances
bearing
upon
the
reasonableness
of
the
emissions,
discharges;
or
deposits
involved
including,
but
not
limited to:
1.
the
character
and
degree
of
injury
to,
or
interference
with
the
protection
of
the
health,
general
welfare
and
physical
property
of
the
people;
2.
the social and economic value of the pollution
source;
3.
the suitability or unsuitability of the pollution
source
to
the
area
in
which
it
is
located,
including the question of priority of location in
the area involved;
4.
the
technical
practicability
and
economic
reasonableness
of
reducing
or
eliminating
the
emissions,
discharges
or deposits
resulting
from
such pollution source;
and
-4-
5.
any subsequent compliance.
.~NALYSIS:
The parties mutually state
as follows:
1.
Character and Degree of Injury:
The impact to the public from the alleged violations was a
degradation of water quality in Prentiss Creek and the East
Branch of the Du Page River and an increased detrimental risk to
fish and aquatic vegetation.
2.
Social and Economic Benefit:
The parties agree that construction of Meadows Edge is of
social and economic benefit.
3.
Suitability to the Area:
The construction is suitable to the area,
provided that
discharges of sediment are controlled in conformance with the
requirements
of the Act and Board Water Pollution regulations.
4.
Technical Practicability:
The construction and maintenance of barriers and controls to
prevent sediment migration is both technically practicable and
economically reasonable.
5.
Subsequent Compliance:
Subsequent
to the alleged violations,
construction areas at
the Site were stabilized. Ownership and control of the Site has
been transferred to third parties.
—5-
VI.
CONSIDERATION
OF SECTION
42(h)
FACTORS
Section 42 (h)
of the Act,
415 ILCS 5/42 (h) (2002)
,
provides
as follows:
In
determining
the
appropriate
civil
penalty
to
be
imposed under
.
.
.
this Section, the Board is authorized
to
consider
any
matters
of
record
in
mitigation
or
aggravation of penalty, including but not limited to the
following factors:
1.
the duration and gravity of the violation;
2.
the
presence
or
absence
of
due
diligence
on the
part of the violator in attempting
to comply with
requirements of this Act and regulations thereunder
or to
secure relief therefrom as provided by this
Act;
3.
any
economic
benefits
accrued
by
the
violator
because of delay in compliance with requirements;
4.
the amount of monetary penalty which will serve to
deter
further
violations
by
the violator
and
to
otherwise
aid
in
enhancing
voluntary
compliance
with
this Act
by the violator
and other persons
similarly subject to the Act; and
5.
the
number,
proximity
in
time,
and
gravity
of
previously
adjudicated violations
of
this
Act by
the violator.
ANALYSIS:
1.
Duration and Gravity of the Violation:
•The conditions which caused the alleged violations existed
from at least July 19,
2001 until
at least May 5,
2002.
2.
Diligence of Respondent:
The Respondent was slow to address the alleged violations.
However,
since May 5,
2002,
exposed areas of the Site have been
-6-
stabilized and ownership transferred to third parties.
No
ongoing violations are alleged.
3.
Economic Benefit of Noncompliance:
The Respondent received a minimal economic benefit from the
alleged noncompliance,
through delay in stabilizing soils
at the
Site.
However,
the exact value of this benefit is difficult to
quantify accurately.
4.
Deterrence:
A penalty of Seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars
($7,500.00)
against the Respondent will deter future noncompliance by the
Respondent and others.
5.
Compliance History:
The Respondent has no previously adjudicated violations of
the Act.
VII.
TERMS
OF SETTLEMENT
1.
The Respondent neither admits nor denies the violations
as alleged in the complaint against
it.
2.
The Respondent
shall pay a penalty of Seven Thousand
Five Hundred Dollars
($7,500.00)within thirty
(30) days after the
date on which the Board adopts a final order approving this
Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement.
Payment shall be made
by certified check or money order, payable to the Illinois EPA,
designated for deposit into the Environmental Protection Trust
Fund
(“EPTF”), and shall be sent by first class mail to:
-7-
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Fiscal Services
1021 North Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield,
IL
62794-9276
3.
The Respondent’s Federal Employer Identification Number
(“p’EIN”)
shall be written on the face of the certified check or
money order.
For issues relating to the payment
of the penalty,
the Respondent may be reached at the following address:
Mr.
James Corso,
President
Tn-K Development,
Inc.
15811 Annico Drive,
Unit
6
Lockport,
Illinois 60441
A copy of each certified check or money order,
and all
related correspondence,
shall be sent by first class mail
to:
Christopher Grant
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Bureau
188 West Randolph,
20th
Flr.
Chicago, Illinois 60601
4.
Pursuant •to Section 42(g)
of.the Act,
415
ILCS 5/42(g)
(2002),
interest shall accrue on any penalty amount owed by the
Respondent 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) (2002)
5.
Interest on unpaid penalties
shall begin to accrue from
the date the penalty
is due and continue to accrue to the date
payment
is received by the Illinois EPA.
6.
Where partial payment
is made on any penalty amount
that is due,
such partial payment shall be first applied to any
-8—
interest on unpaid penalties then owing.
7.
All interest on penalties owed the Complainant shall be
paid by certified check or money order payable to the Illinois
EPA for deposit in the EPTF at the above-indicated address.
The
name,
case number, and the Respondent’s. FEIN shall appear on the
face of the certified check or money order.
A copy of the
certified check or money order and the transmittal letter shall
be sent to:
Christopher Grant
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Bureau
188 W. Randolph St.,
20th
Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60601
VIII.
CEASE AND DESIST
The Respondent 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 outlined in Section IV.C.
of
this Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement.
Ix.
COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS
This Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement in no way
affects the Respondent’s responsibility to comply with any
federal state or local regulations,
including but not limited to
the Act and Board regulations.
-9-
x.
RELEASE FROM LIABILITY
In consideration of the Respondent’s payment of a Seven
Thousand Five Hundred Dollar
($7,500.00)
penalty, and its
commitment to cease and desist from future violations,
the
Complainant releases,
waives and discharges the Respondent from
any further liability or penalties for violations of the Act and
Board Regulations that were the subject matter of the Complaint
herein.
The release set forth above does not extend to any
matters other than those expressly specified in the Complaint
filed on
____________
.
The Complainant reserves,
and this
Stipulation is without prejudice
to,
all rights of the State of
Illinois against the Respondent with respect to all other
matters,
including but not limited
to,
the following:
a.
criminal liability;
b.
liability for future violation of state,
federal,
local,
and common laws and/or regulations;
c.
liability for natural resources damage arising out of
the alleged violations; and
d.
liability or claims based on the Respondent’s failure
to satisfy the requirements
of this Stipulation.
Nothing
in this Stipulation is intended as a waiver,
discharge,
release, or covenant not to sue for any claim or cause
of action,
administrative or judicial,
civil or criminal, past or
future,
in law or in equity,
which the State of Illinois or the
-10-
Illinois EPA may have against any person,
as defined by Section
3.26 of the Act,
415 ILCS 5/3.26
(2002),
or entity other than the
Respondent.
WHEREFORE,
Complainant and the Respondent request that the
Board adopt and accept the foregoing Stipulation and Proposal for
Settlement as written.
AGREED:
FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
LISA MADIGAN
Attorney General of
the State of Illinois
Matthew J. Dunn,
Chief
Environmental Enforcement/
Asbesto~~~itigation
Division
By:~\~.
ROSE~RIE d~h~f
Environmental Bureau
Assistant Attorney General~
Dated:
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROT
T ON AGENCY
By:
______________________
J SEP
E.
SVOBODA
hief Legal Counsel
7
Dated:
/
(
-11-
FOR RESPONDENT
TRI-K DEVELOPMENT,
INC.
/1
BY:
~
~
Title:
President
Dated:
-12-
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
LERKSO~T~F
Complainant,
)
SEp
o
s
2003
-vs
-
)
PCB
No.
~q
_
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS
0
Jution
Contro/ Board
TRI-K
DEVELOPMENT,
INC.,
an Illinois corporation,
Respondent.
MOTION TO REQUEST
RELIEF FROM HEARING REQUIREMENT
NOW COMES the Complainant,
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
by LISA MADIGAN, Attorney General of the State of Illinois, and
requests
relief
from the requirement
of a hearing in this matter.
In
support
thereof, the Complainant states as follows:
1.
Along with this Motion,
Complainant
is filing a
complaint
against
Respondent TRI-K DEVELOPMENT,
INC.,
alleging
violations
of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act,
415 ILCS
5/i
et seq.
(2002)
(“Act”),
and Illinois Pollution Control Board
(“Board”)
regulations,
and a Stipulation and Proposal for
Settlement,
executed between Complainant and Respondent.
2.
Section
31 of the Act,
415 ILCS 5/31
(2002),
provides,
in
pertinent
part,
as follows:
*
*
*
(c) (2)
Notwithstanding the provisions
of.
subdivision
(1)
of this subsection
(c), whenever a complaint has
been filed on behalf of the Agency or by the
People of the State of Illinois,
the parties may
file with the Board a stipulation and proposal for
settlement accompanied by a request for relief
—1—
from the requirement of a hearing pursuant to
subdivision
(1).
Unless the Board,
in its
discretion,
concludes that a hearing will be held,
the Board shall cause notice of the stipulation,
proposal and request for relief to be published
and sent in the same manner as is required for
hearing pursuant to subdivision
(1)
of this
subsection.
The notice shall include a statement
that any person may file a written demand for
hearing within 21 days after receiving the notice.
If any person files a timely written demand for
hearing,
the Board shall deny the request for
relief
from
a hearing and shall hold a hearing in
accordance with the provisions of subdivision
(1)
*
*
*
3.
No hearing is now scheduled in this matter.
4.
The Complainant,
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
hereby
requests
relief from the requirement
of a hearing pursuant
to 415 ILCS 5/31(c)
(2)
(2002).
Respectfully submitted,
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
by LISA MADIGAN,
Attorney General
of the
State of Illinois
MATTHEW J. DUNN,
Chief
Environmental Enforcement/Asbestos
Litigation Div sion
BY:
__
~H~IST~PHER
GRANT
~iistant
Attorney General
Environmental Bureau
188 W. Randolph St.,
20th
Flr.
Chicago,
Illinois
60601
(312)
814-5388
-2-
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
-
Cl.
Complainant,
)
SEp
0520.
-vs-
)
PCB No..
f-~fL
~03
L)’1
‘~‘\
SThTEOFrr
ILLINOIS
TRI-K DEVELOPMENT,
INC.,
)
utlonCofltr/,9
an Illinois corporation,
)
OOr,-1
Respondent.
CERTIFICATE
OF
SERVICE
I,
CHRISTOPHER GRANT, •an attorney, do certify that
I caused
to be served this 5th day of September,
2003,
by first class
mail,
the foregoing Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement and
Motion to Request Relief from Hearing Requirement upon the person
listed below,
by placing same in an envelope bearing sufficient
postage with the United States Postal Service located at
100 W.
Randolph,
Chicago Illinois.
CHRISTOPHER GRANT
Service List:
Mr. George Arnold
Sosin Lawler & Arnold,
LLC
11800 South 75th Street,
Suite
300
Palos Heights,
Illinois 60463

Back to top