RECE~vEb
BEFORE
THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
CLERK’S
OFFcCE
JAN07
201)5
VILLAGE OF LAKE BARRINGTON, CUBA
)
STATE OF ILLh~OIS
TOWNSHIP, PRAIRIE RIVERS NETWORK,
)
Pollution Control
Board
SIERRA CLUB, BETH WENTZEL and
)
CYNTHIA SKRUKRTJD,
)
)
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
05-5
8
)
(3rd
Party NPDES Permit
)
Appeal)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
)
AGENCY and VJILLAGEOF WAUCONDA,
)
)
Respondents.
)
THIS FILI1~4GPRINTED
ON RECYCLED PAPER
1
AL PHILLIPS, VERN MEYER, GAYLE DEMARCO,
GABRIIELLE MEYER, LISA O’DELL, JOAN LESLIE,
MICHAEL DAVEY, NANCY DOBNER, MIKE
POLITO, WILLIAMS PARK iMPROVEMENT
ASSOCIATION, MAT SCHILUETER, 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,
)
PCB
05-59
)
(3rd
Party NPDES Permit
)
Appeal)
)
(Consolidated)
)
Respondents.
)
NOTICE OF FILING
Dorothy Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R.
Thompson Center, Suite 11-500
100 West Randolph Street
Chicago, IL 60601
SEE
ATTACHED
SERVICE
LIST
BradleyP. Halloran
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson
Center, Suite
11-500
100 West Randolph Street
Chicago, IL 60601
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed with the Office ofthe Clerk ofthe Pollution
Control Board an original and four (4) copies the RESPONSE
TO THE SLOCUM
DISTRICT AN)
THE
RESIDENT
GROUP’S
REQUEST
TO
ADMIT
of the Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency, a copy ofwhich is herewith served upon you.
ILLINOIS ENVIRO~~~~
CTION AGENCY
By:
Sanjay K.
Sofat, Assistant Counsel
Division ofLegal Counsel
Dated:
January 6, 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~3EC E
~V E D
LERK’S OFFICE
VILLAGE OF LAKEB~GTON,
CUBA
)
JAN 072005
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
)
(3rd
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.
)
ILLINOIS
EPA’S RESPONSE
TO THE SLOCUM DISTRICT
AND
THE RESIDENT
GROUP’S REQUEST TO ADMIT
NOW COMES, Respondent, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (“fllinois EPA”
or “Agency”), by one ofits attorneys, Sanjay K.
Sofat, Assistant Counsel and Special Assistant
Attorney General, and pursuant to
35
Ill. Adm. Code Parts
101
and
105
ofthe Illinois Pollution
Control Board (“Board”) regulations, the Illinois
Code ofCivil Procedures, the Illinois
Supreme
Court Rules,
and the Hearing Officer’s Order dated December
15,
2004, and hereby submits its
Response to the Slocum Lake Drainage District ofLake County and the Resident Group’s
(“Petitioners”) Request to Admit.
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
The Illinois EPA objects to each ofthe Petitioners’ request to admit to
the extent that,
individually or cumulatively, they purport to impose upon the Illinois EPA duties or obligations,
4
which exceed or are different from those imposed upon the Illinois EPA by the Illinois
Administrative
Code and the Illinois Code ofCivil Procedure.
THE AGENCY’S
RESPONSE
TO
THE SLOCUM DISTRICT AND THE
RESIDENT
GROUP’S REQUEST TO ADMIT ARE
IN
BOLD LETTERS:
The name ofthe Illinois EPA employee responding to the question is provided at the end ofthe
response.
A Verification from each ofthe respondent is
enclosed.
The objections to the request to
admit are made by the Agency attorney, Sanjay K.
Sofat.
1.
That on March 23, 2003, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (hereinafter
referred to as “IEPA”) received a letter of transmittal from the engineering and
architectural firm ofBonestroo Devery & Associates.
Admit.
Don
Netemeyer.
2.
That the letter oftransmittal was signed by Robert J. Devery, P.E.,
and William G.
Dinchak, P.E.,
DEE.
Admit.
Don
Neterneyer..
3.
The transmittal letter evidenced delivery ofthe final NPDES permit application from the
Village of Wauconda.
Deny in part.
Don Netemeyer.
Objection:
The request seeks a conclusion
by stating that the letter evidenced delivery
of the final NPDES permit application.
The transmittal letter indicates submission of
an NPDES permit application,
not a final NPDES permit application
as suggested by
the Petitioners.
At the time ofthis submission, the applicant was awaiting sample
results and was planning to submit section B.6 ofthe application upon receiving these
sample
results.
4.
That on April 3, 2003, the IEPA received the Final letter oftransmittal from the Village
Engineers containing Section B.6
on page 8 of2l ofthe NPDES Permit Application.
Deny in part.
Don Netemeyer.
5
Objection:
The
request seeks
a conclusion
by stating that the letter received by the
JEPA
was
the Final letter of transmittal from the Village Engineer.
5.
That on April 7, 2003,
the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (hereinafter referred
to as the “IEPA”) received the completed Table in Section B.6 from the Village of
Wauconda relating to its NPDES Permit Application.
Deny in
part.
Don Netemeyer.
Objection:
The request seeks
a conclusion by stating that the IEPA received the
completed Table
in Section B.6 for the effluent testing data from the Village of
Wauconda.
The last column (titled “MLIMDL”) concerning minimum detection limits
was
not completed.
6.
That on April
14, 2003, the IIEPA completed its anti-degradation Assessment.
Deny in
part.
Bob Mosher.
Objection:
The request seeks a conclusion by stating that on April 14, 2003,
the IEPA
completed
its anti-degradation Assessment.
April 14, 2003,
is the date of the
antidegradation
assessment memorandum.
Further commentary on the Agency’s
antidegradation
review was provided
in the NPDES information hearing
Responsiveness Summary document.
7.
That the
IEPA
has actual knowledge that the Fiddle Creek Wetlands include Fiddle Lake.
Deny.
Bob Mosher.
Objection:
The
request seeks a
conclusion by stating that the IEPA has actual
knowledge that the Fiddle Creek Wetlands include Fiddle Lake.
The Agency is
aware
of a Fiddle Lake
appearing on early plat maps, but modern topographic maps do not
show
a Fiddle Lake.
The Agency believes the lake has filled and
is now a part ofthe
Fiddle Creek Wetlands.
8.
That the IEPA anti-degradation assessment was based on
a
facility related‘stream survey
for Wauconda Creek in
1993.
Deny.
Bob Mosher.
Objection:
The request seeks a conclusion by stating that the IEPA anti-degradation
assessment was based on
a facility related stream survey for Wauconda Creek in
1993.
The 1993
facility related stream survey was noted
in the antidegradation assessment
memorandum dated April 13, 2004,
however, conclusions in the memorandum
concerning the antidegradation standard were not based on the past conditions ofthe
Creek.
But rather the future conditions of the stream should the sewage treatment
6
expansion project be allowed.
Past and present characteristics ofthe receiving stream
are part ofthe antidegradation assessment, however, they are not the basis ofthe
assessment.
9.
That on
May
18,
2003, the 1EPA forwarded to the Village ofWauconda its draft permit.
Admit.
Don Netemeyer.
10.
That the 1EPA issued a Draft ModifiedNPDES
Permit Knowing that the Permit
Application was incorrect or false.
Deny.
Don Netemeyer.
Objection:
The request seeks a conclusion
by stating that the IEPA issued a Draft
NPDES permit knowing the permit application was incorrect or false.
At the time of
issuing the draft NPDES permit, the Agency did not have any knowledge that the
permit application was
incorrect or false.
11.
That
the
IEPAa
did not request the Village of Wauconda to correct, amend or re-file its
NPDES permit application.
Deny.
Don Netemeyer.
Objection:
The request is
incomplete as to that it fails to state why the IEPA should have
asked the Village ofWauconda to amend it’s NPDES application, about what information,
and at what point oftime during the permitting decision process.
12.
(Listed as
10).
That the IEPA anti-degradation
assessment failed to note andlor assess
the Tarkowski superfund site (hereinafter referred to as “Superfund
2”).
Deny in
part.
Bob Mosher.
Objection:
The request is incorrect as to that it implies that the Tarkowski Site is
a superfund
site.
The Agency anti-degradation assessment did not consider the Tarkowski Site.
This site
is not a
USEPA Superlund Site.
13.
(Listed as
11).
That
the IEPA anti-degradation policy is mandated by 40
CFR
131.12.
Deny in
part.
Bob Mosher.
Objection:
The request is incorrect as to that it implies that the IEPA anti-degradation policy
is only what
is
provided in the federal, regulations at 40 CFR 131.12.
The Agency anti-
degradation policy is
simply the Board standard at
35
Ill. Adm.
Code 302.105.
The federal
regulation at 40
CFR
131.12 simply requires that states must adopt an antidegradation
standard.
14.
(Listed as 12).
That the IEPA has actual knowledge that the Fiddle Creek, Fiddle Marsh,
7
Fiddle Lake and Slocum Drainage District ofLake County channels (hereinafter referred
to as the “Fiddle Creek Wetlands”) has a number ofsubdivisions whose properties are
directly connected to the Fiddle Creek Wetlands.
Admit.
Bob Mosher,
15.
(Listed as 13).
That the EPA
has actual knowledge that the Fiddle Creek Wetlands has a
Lake County Preserve directly connected to the Fiddle Creek Wetlands.
Admit.
Bob Mosher.
16.
(Listed
as 14).
That the
IEPA
has actual knowledge that the Fiddle Creek Wetlands are
primary contact waters.
Deny in part.
Bob Mosher.
Objection:
The request is incorrect
as to that it implies that the IEPA always knew that
the Fiddle Creek Wetlands are primary contact waters.
Since the issuance ofNPDES
permit for the Village of Wauconda in August 23, 2004, the Fiddle Creek Wetlands are
considered protected waters for primary contact pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm.
Code 302.209.
The reissued permit no longer contains a year-round disinfection exemption.
17.
(Listed as
15).
That the
IEPA
has actual knowledge that on November 28,
1975,
no
sewer outfall from
any Sewer Treatment Plant discharged into the Fiddle Creek
Wetlands.
Deny.
Don
Netemeyer.
Objection:
The request is irrelevant to this permit appeal as no such
information was,
considered during the permitting issuance process.
18.
(Listed as 16).
That in the 1980’s the IEPA issued its first NPDES permit which allowed
the Village of Wauconda to re-locate its
Wauconda Wastewater Treatment Plant
(hereinafter referred to as “WWTP”) Outfall to discharge into the Fiddle Creek
Wetlands.
Deny.
Don Netemeyer.
Objection:
The request is irrelevant to this permit appeal as no
such information was
considered during the permitting issuance process.
19.
(Listed as 17).
That the IEPA has actual knowledge that the Fiddle Creek Wetlands have
suffered degradation sincethe IEPA issued the Village ofWauconda an NPDES permit
allowing discharges into the Fiddle Creek Wetlands.
Deny.
Bob Mosher.
8
Objection:
The request seeks a conclusion
by stating that the IEPA has actual knowledge
that the Fiddle Creek Wetlands have suffered degradation since
the IEPA issued the
Village of Wauconda an NPDES permit.
Further the request goes to an issue of ultimate
fact.
20.
(Listed as 18).
That on July 31, 2003, the IEPA has actual knowledge that the Wauconda
Task Group has failed to comply with NPDES permit number 200 1-EP-3444, in that its
Boron concentrations always significantly exceeded limits.
Deny.
Don Netemeyer.
Objection:
The request is incorrect as to that it implies that the permit number 2001-EP-
3444 is
an NPDES permit.
The above-mentioned permit is not an NPDES permit but a
State operating permit for pretreatment and discharge to a municipal system.
Further, the
request is irrelevant to this permit appeal as no such
information was
considered during
the permitting issuance process.
21.
(Listed as 19).
That on July 31, 2003, the IEPA has actual knowledge that the Village of
Wauconda has failed to comply with its current NPDES permit
111 0020109 in that the
Village ofWauconda’s WWTP discharges into a zero flow stream and the effluent
probably exceeded the
1
mg/i limit.
Deny.
Don Netemeyer.
Objection:
The request is incomplete as to that it fails to state the name of the constituent
in the effluent the could probably exceed the 1
mg/I limit.
Therefore, the Agency is unable
to respond to the request.
22.
(Listed as-20).
That on July 8, 2004, the IEPA had actual knowledge that the arsenic
concentration was in excess ofthe effluent limit and may violate acute waterquality
standards.
Deny.
Bob Mosher.
Objection:
The request seeks a conclusion by stating that on July 8, 2004, the JEPA had
actual knowledge that the arsenic concentration was in excess of the effluent limit.
The
Agency found
an arsenic concentration of 0.52
mg/i in
a grab sample of effluent collected
on February 18, 2004.
This concentration did not exceed an NPDES permit effluent limit
as no such limit exists in the permit.
Further, the sample value
did not exceed the effluent
limits standard contained in 35
IlL Adm.
Code 304.124,since those numeric values apply
as daily average values and individual instantaneous values within a daily average range
are expected to fluctuate within
a range up to five times that specified average.
However,
as no sample was collected within the receiving stream, no violation of the water quality
standard was actually demonstrated.
23.
(Listed as 21).
The JEPA has failed to bring enforcement action against the \Vauconda
Task Group for violations of its NPDES permit.
9
Deny.
Don Netemeyer.
Objection:
The request is
incorrect as to that it implies that the Wauconda Task Group’s
permit is an NPDES
permit.
The above-mentioned permit is not an NPDES permit but a
State operating permit for pretreatment and discharge to a municipal system.
Also, the
request is irrelevant to this permit appeal as it is outside the scope of the permitting
decision process to make such
decisions.
Further, the request is improper as to that the
matter before the Board relates to issuance of an
NPDES permit to the Village of
Wauconda, and not to the Wauconda Task Group’s State permit.
24.
(Listed as 22).
The IEPA has failed to bring enforcement action against the Village of
Wauconda for violations ofits current NPDES permit.
Deny.
Don Netemeyer.
Objection:
The request is
irrelevant to this permit appeal as it is outside the scope ofthe
permitting decision process to make such
decisions.
Further, the request is improper as to
that the matter before the Board relates to issuance of an NPDES
permit to the Village of
Wauconda, and not whether an enforcement action was warranted in this case.
25.
(Listed as 23).
That the Village ofBarringtonhas submitted
an application to have the
Fiddle Creek Wetlands as a 303(d) impaired waters.
Deny.
Don Netemeyer.
Objection:
The request is irrelevant to this permit appeal as it is outside the scope of the,
permitting decision process to consider such requests.
Further, the request is improper as
to that the matter before the Board relates to issuance of an NPDES permit to the Village
ofWauconda, and not regarding the Agency’s decision to list or not list the Fiddle Creek
Wetlands as impaired waters under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act.
26.
(Listed as 24).
That in June, 2004, the IEPA apparently denied the Fiddle Creek
Wetlands application to be
listed as a 303(d) impaired waters because of QAPP issues.
Deny.
Don Netemeyer.
Objection:
The request is irrelevant to this permit appeal as it is
outside the scope of the
permitting decision process to make such
decisions.
Further, the request is improper as to
that the matter before the Board relates to issuance of an NPDES permit to the Village of
Wauconda, and not whether the Fiddle Creek Wetlands be listed as impaired waters
under Section 303(d) ofthe Clean Water Act.
27.
(Listed as
25).
That there was a discussion among the TEPA staff and others that the
criteria used to
deny the 303(d) impaired waters classification for the Fiddle Creek
Wetlands was not in accordance with prior 303(d) evaluations.
10
Deny.
Don Netemeyer.
Objection:
The request is irrelevant to this permit appeal as it is outside the scope ofthe
permitting decision process
to make such
decisions.
Further, the request is improper as to
that the matter before the Board relates to issuance of an NPDES permit to the Village of
Wauconda, and not regarding the Agency’s decision to list or not list the Fiddle Creek
Wetlands as impaired waters under Section
303(d) ofthe Clean Water Act.
28.
(Listed as 26).
That the IEPA was advised of the alternative ofrunning a pipe to the Fox
Riverbut the EPA staff was directednot to consider this option.
Deny.
Toby Frevert.
Objection:
The request is incorrect as to that it implies that the IEPA staff was directed to
not consider the option of running pipe to the Fox River.
The Agency record contains
a
discussion on page 25 of the Responsiveness Summary regarding why discharge into the
Fox River is not a feasible alternative.
29.
(Listed as 27).
That from September 9, 2003, until August23, 2004, the IEPA held
numerous’ secret and closed discussions and meetings with the Village ofWauconda and
the Village ofLake Barrington and others.
Deny in part.
Toby Frevert.
Objection:
The request is incorrect as to that
it implies
that the IEPA held secret meetings
with the Village of Wauconda, the Village ofLake Barrington and others.
30.
(Listed as 28).
The Resident Group was excluded from all EPA discussions and
meetings.
Deny.
Toby Frevert.
Objection:
The request is incorrect as to that it
implies that the Resident Group was
intentionally barred from attending the meetings.
31.
(Listed as 29).
The Slocum Lake Drainage District attended the December, 2003 closed
meeting, but has been excluded from all other EPA discussions and meetings.
Deny in part.
Toby Frevert.
Objection:
The request is incorrect as to that it implies that the Slocum District was.
intentionally barred from attending the meetings.
32.
(Listed as 30).
The EPA failed to consider the history ofprior violations and Court
proceedings involving the Village of Wauconda and its current permit.
Deny.
11
Objection:
The Agency did consider a prior adjudicated noncompliance with the Act
during its permitting decision process.
33.
(Listed as 31).
The EPA has a policy ofmaking the Village ofWauconda “look good”.
Deny.
Toby Frevert.
Objection:
The request is
improper as to that the matter before the Board relates to
issuance of an NPDES permit to the Village ofWauconda.
34.
(Listed as 32).
The EPA has actual knowledge that out-of-bank conditions in the Fiddle
Creek Wetlands are anticipated.
Deny in part.
Bob Mosher.
Objection:
The request
is improper in part as to that it seems to imply that the IEPA has
actual knowledge that out of bank conditions in
the Fiddle Creek Wetlands are because of
the discharge from the Village ofWauconda’s treatment facility. The out-of-bank
conditions in the Fiddle Creek Wetlands are anticipated from watershed runoff events and
not from the Village ofWauconda’s treatment plant’s effluent discharge.
35.
(Listed as 33).
That the EPA has actual knowledge that there has been no analysis ofthe
influence from the Fox River Backwater and applied a nominal flow at the Siocum Lake
Drain confluence based
on the dataprovided in the FIS.
Deny.
Bob Mosher.
Objection:
The request is incomplete and confusing
and therefore, the Agency is unable to
answer.
36.
(Listed as 34).
That the EPA has actual knowledge that further detailed studies are
required to assess the full effects of the watershed variables.
Deny.
Bob Mosher.
‘I
Objection:
The
request is irrelevant to this permit appeal as it is outside
the scope of the
permitting decision process to make such decisions.
Further, the request is improper as to
that the matter before the Board relates to issuance ofan NPDES permit to the Village of
Wauconda, not whether detailed studies are required toassess the full effects of the
watershed variables.
37.
(Listed as
35).
The EPA has actual knowledge that on 09-10-04 the WWTP discharged
Bromodichloromethane in excess ofreporting limits.
Deny.
Don Netemeyer.
12
Objection:
The request is irrelevant to this permit appeal as no such information was
considered during the permitting decision process.
Further, the request is improper as to
that the matter before the Board relates to issuance of an NPDES permit that was issued
on August 23, 2004, to the Village ofWauconda.
The request seeks the Agency
to admit to
the facts that occurred after the permit
has been issued.
38.
(Listed as 36).
The EPA has actual knowledge that on 09-10-04 the WWTP discharged
Chloroform in excess ofreporting limits.
Deny.
Don Netemeyer.
Objection:
The request is irrelevant to this permit appeal as no such information was
considered during the permitting decision process.
Further, the request is improper as to
that the matter before the Board relates to issuance of an NPDES permit that was issued
on August 23, 2004, to the Village ofWauconda.
The request seeks the Agency to admit to
the facts that occurred after the permit has been issued.
39.
(Listed as 37).
The EPA has actual knowledge that on 09-10-04 that WWTP discharged
Dichioromethane in excess ofthe reporting limits.
Deny.
Don Netemeyer.
Objection:
The request is irrelevant to this permit appeal as no such information was
considered during the permitting decision process.
Further, the request is improper as to
that the matter before the Board relates to issuance of an NPDES permit that was issued
on August 23, 2004, to the Village ofWauconda.
The request seeks the Agency to admit to
the facts that occurred after the permit has been issued.
40.
(Listed as-38).
The EPA has actual knowledge that on 09-10-04, the WWTP discharged
Methyl-tertbutyl ether (MTBE) in excess ofthe reporting limits.
Deny.
Don Netemeyer.
Objection:
The request is irrelevant to this permit appeal as no such information was
considered during thepermitting decision process.
Further, the request is improper as to
that the matter before the Board
relates to issuance of an NPDES permit that was issued
on August 23, 2004, to the Village of Wauconda.
The request seeks the Agency to admit to
the facts that occurred after the permit has been issued.
41.
(Listed as 39).
The EPA has not conducted detailed independent analytical tests ofthe
effluent discharged into the Fiddle Creek Wetlands.
Deny.
Bob Mosher.
-
-
Objection:
The request is incorrect as to that it implies that the IEPA has never conducted
independent analytical tests of the Wauconda WWTP’s effluent discharge.
The Agency on
numerous occasions collected and analyzed BOD, TSS, and ammonia from the Wauconda
13
WWTP’s effluent.
42.
(Listed as 40).
The EPA has not conducted detailed independent analytical tests ofthe
sediment at the WWTP outfall and downstream.
Admit.
Bob Mosher.
43.
(Listed as 41). T he EPA is on actual knowledge that the Village of Wauconda uses deep
wells for part of its municipal water supply but the EPA has not conducted independent
analytical tests ofradium discharges into the Fiddle Creek Wetlands.
Admit.
Bob Mosher.
44.
(Listed as 42).
The EPA is on actual knowledge that the Wauconda Sand and Gravel
Superfund discharges leachate into the WWTP.
Admit.
Don Netemeyer.
45.
(Listed as 43).
The EPA has failed to require WWTP to
fullytreat this leachate prior to
discharge into the Fiddle Creek Wetlands.
Deny.
Don Netemeyer.
Objection:
The request seeks a
conclusion by stating that the IEPA has failed to require
WWTP fully treat this leachate prior to discharge into the Fiddle Creek Wetlands.
Permit
2001-EP-3444 has a special condition prohibiting discharge to the sewer system if a
bypassing
at the Village of Wauconda’s WWTP may occur due to the wet weather
conditions.
Further,
the NPDES
permit issued to the Village ofWauconda
requires the
WWTP to treat all influent prior to discharging into the receiving stream.
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION AGENCY
By:________________________
SanjayK. Sofat
Assistant Counsel
Division ofLegal Counsel.
DATED:
January 6, 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
14
STATE OF ILLINOIS
)
)
‘
SS
COUNTY OF
SANGAMON
)
VERIFICATION
Toby Frevert, being duly sworn, states that he is the Manager of the Division ofWater
Pollution Program, Illinois EPA; that he is
duly authorized to provide the foregoing
answers to request to admit on behalfofIllinois Environmental Protection Agency; and
that he makes said answers based upon his personal knowledge, his review ofdocuments
that he reasonablybelieves to be accurate, and information provided to him by other
section units that he reasonably believes to be accurate.
-
Toby Frevert
Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notarypublic in and for said County and
State, this
j\~
day ofJanuary, 2005.
-
OFFICIAL
SEAL
+
BRENDA
BOEHNER
Notary Public
NOTARY
PUBLIC,
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS
My Commission Expires:
STATE
OF ILLINOIS
)
)
SS
COUNTY OF
SANGAMON
)
VERIFICATION
DonNetemeyer, being duly sworn, states that he is the permit engineer, Water Pollution
Control Program, Illinois EPA; that he is duly authorized to provide the foregoing
answers to
request to admit on behalfof Illinois Environmental Protection Agency; and
that he makes said answers based upon his personal knowledge, his review ofdocuments
that he reasonably believes to be accurate, and information provided to
him by other
section units that he reasonably believes
to be accurate.
-
Don Netemeyer
Su4cribed and sworn to before me, a notarypublic in and for said County and
State, this
(~W\
day ofJanuary, 2005.
-
OFFICIAL
SEAL
Notary Public
BRENDA BOEHNER
NOTARY
PUBLIC,
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS
My
Commission Expires:
STATE OF ILLINOIS
)
)
SS
COUNTY OF
SANGAMON
)
VERIFICATION
Bob Mosher, being duly sworn, states that he is the Manager ofthe Water Quality
Standards Section within Water Pollution Control Program, Illinois EPA; that he is duly
authorized to provide the foregoing answers to request to admit on behalfofIllinois
Environmental Protection Agency; and that he makes said answers based upon his
personal knowledge, his review ofdocuments that he reasonablybelieves to be accurate,
and information provided to him by other section units that he reasonably believes to be
accurate.
Bob Mosher
/tfi1~~~~
Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for said County and
State, this
______
dayof January, 2005.
-
:..:
Notary Public
BRENDA
BOEHNER
NOTARY
PUBLIC,
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS
My Commission Expires:
Il—I
L)—Q~
SERVICE LIST
Percy L. Angelo
Russell R. Eggert
Kevin G. Desharnais
Mayer, Brown, Rowe &
Maw, LLP
190
S. LaSalle St.
Chicago, IL 60603
Albert Ettinger
Environmental Law and Policy Center
35 E.
Wacker Dr.
Suite
1300
Chicago, IL 60601
William D. Seith
Total Environmental
Solutions, P.C.
631
E. Butterfield Rd.
Suite 315
Lombard, IL 60148
Bonnie L. Macfarlane
Bonnie Macfarlane, P.C.
106 W. State Rd.
P.O.
Box 268
Island Lake, IL 60042
Jay J. Glenn
Attorney at Law
2275 Half DayRoad
Suite 350
Bannockburn, IL 60015
THIS FILING PRINTED
ON RECYCLED
PAPER
15
)
STATE
OF ILLINOIS
COUNTY OF
SANGAMON
)
)
)
)
SS
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, on oath state that I have served the attached RESPONSE
TO MOTION
TO COMPEL THE
AGECNY
TO PRODUCE THE
VIOLATION
AND
LITIGATION
RECORD 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
(OVERNIGHT MAIL)
Percy L. Angelo
Russell R. Eggert
Kevin G. Desharnais
Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, LLP
190 5. LaSalle St.
Chicago, IL 60603
(OVERNIGHT
MAIL)
Albert Ettinger
Environmental Law and Policy Center
35 E.
Wacker Dr.
Suite
1300
Chicago, IL 60601
(OVERNIGHT MAIL)
William D. Seith
Total
Environmental Solutions, P.C.
631
E. Butterfield Rd.
Suite 315
Lombard, IL
60148
(OVERNIGHT MAIL),
Bradley P. Halloran
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson
Center
100 West Randolph Street, Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
(OVERNIGHT MAIL)
Bonnie L. Macfarlane
Bonnie Macfarlane, P.C.
106 W. State Rd.
P.O. Box 268
Island Lake, IL 60042
(OVERNIGHT MAIL)
Jay J. Glenn
Attorney at ‘Law
2275
HalfDayRoad
Suite 350
Bannockbum, IL 60015
(OVERNIGHT
MAIL)
16
and mailing it from Springfield, Illinois
on January 6, 2005, with sufficient postage affixed as
indicated above.
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME
this day ofJanuary 6, 2005.
~9,
J~L~
Notary Public
~
OFFICIAL
SEAL
.+
CYNTHIA L WOLFE
5:
NOTARY PUBUC, STATE OF IWNOIS:?
~~MY
COMMISSION EXPIRES
3A~~
..
THIS FILING PRINTED ON RECYCLED
PAPER
17
