BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
VILLAGE OF LAKE BARRIN~~IQ~
~
CUBA TOWNSHIP, PRAIRIE
j~I~I~Jl)
n~ \
A
Ii
RECEIVED
NETWORK, SIERRA CLUB,
i~W~)
H)
I
CLERK’S OFFIcE
WENTZEL and CYNTHIA SK~U~9~I~J
N
FEB
28
2005
Petitioners
)
STATE OF
ILLfr’JOgS
)
Pollution Control Board
)
PCB
05-55
v.
)
(Permit Appeal -NPDES)
)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY and
)
VILLAGE OF WAUCONDA,
)
)
Respondents.
)
)
SLOCUM LAKE DRAINAGE
)
DISTRICT OF LAKE COUNTY,
)
ILLINOIS.
)
Petitioner
)
)
v.
)
PCB 05-58
)
(Permit Appeal-NPDES)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY and
)
VILLAGE OF WAUCONDA.
)
)
Respondents.
)
)
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, CHRISTINE DEVINEY)
Petitioners
V.
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY and
VILLAGE OF WAUCONDA,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
PCB
05-59
(Permit Appeal-NPDES)
NOTICE OF FILING
TO: See attached Certificate of Service
Please take notice that on February 28, 2005, I filed with the Illinois Pollution Control
Board an original and nine copies ofthis Notice of Filing and attached BRIEF IN LIEU
OF HEARING, which are hereby
Dated: February 28, 2005
BONNIE MACFARLANE, P.C.
106
W.
State Road, P.O.
Box 268
Island Lake, IL 60042
847-487-0700
RECE~V~O
CLERICS OFFICE
FEB
282005
STATE OF ILUNOIS
It is hereby certified
t~. t
fo
g BRIEF NR~I~AqF~ias
mailed, by federal express, on February 28, 2005 to each ofthe following person:
Dorothy M. Gunn
Bradley P. Halloran
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
100 W.
Randolph St.,
Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Percy L. Angelo
Russell R. Eggert
Kevin G. Deshamais
Mayer, Brown, Rowe &
Maw, L.L.P.
190 S. LaSalle Street
Chicago, Illinois 60603
Albert Ettinger
Environmental Law and Policy Center
35
E. Wacker Dr., Suite
1300
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Jay J. Glenn
Attorney at Law
2275 Half Day Road,
Ste. 350
Bannockburn, IL 60015
Dated: February 28, 2005
BONNIE MACFARLANE, P.C.
106 W. State Road,
P.O. Box
268
Island Lake, IL 60042
847-487-0700
Sanjay Kumar Sofat
James Allen Day
Division ofLegal Counsel
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021
North Grand Ave., East
P.O. Box
19276
Springfield,
IL 62794-9276
William D. Seith
Total Environmental Solutions, P.C.
631
E. Butterfield Rd., Suite 315
Lombard, IL
60148
Rudolph Magna
Magna & Johnson
495
N. Riverside Dr., Suite 201
Gurnee,
IL 60031
BEFORE
VILLAGE OF LAKE
CUBA TOWNSHIP, PRAIRIE RIVERS
)
NETWORK, SIERRA CLUB, BETH
)
WENTZEL and CYNTHIA SKRUKRUD)
)
Petitioners
)
)
)
)
)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY and
)
VILLAGE OF WAUCONDA,
)
)
Respondents.
)
SLOCUM LAKE DRAINAGE
DISTRICT OF LAKE
COUNTY,
ILLINOIS.
Petitioner
V.
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY and
VILLAGE OF WAUCONDA.
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CONTROL B~~E~V~D
CLERKS OFFICE
FEB
28
2005
STAEOF~O~d
PCB
05-55
(Permit Appeal -NPDES)
PCB
05-58
(Permit Appeal-NPDES)
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, CHRISTINE DEVINEY)
)
PCB 05-59
Petitioners
)
(Permit Appeal-NPDES)
)
V.
)
)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY and
)
VILLAGE OF WAUCONDA,
)
)
Respondents.
)
SLOCUM DRAINAGE DISTRICT OF LAKE COUNTY’S BRIEF IN LIEU OF
HEARING
THIS
COMES BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
(“Board”), by Slocum Lake Drainage District ofLake County’s (“District”) Third Party
NPDES Permit Appeal from the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s (“IEPA”)
issuance of a modification to Permit No. ILOO2O 109, which Permit was originally issued
on November 6, 2000, and was made effective December
1, 2000.
Thereafter, the IEPA
approved the requested modifications
to that Permit on December 30, 2003
and August
23, 2004. The Permit has an expiration date ofNovember 30, 2005’.
The last NPDES
modification request and issuance is the subject ofthis review by the Board.
‘IEPA Exhibit No. 285, Record p. 002210 thru 002250
I.
DISTRICT JURISDICTION FOR REVIEW BY THIS BOARD:
The District has established their abilityto have the NPDES Permit modification
reviewed by the Illinois Pollution Control Board because at the public hearing held on September
9, 2003 (as well as comments submitted in opposition to
the NPDES Permit during the public
comment period), many individuals, representatives and residents commented, testified, and
submitted exhibits, prior to
the District’s then representative, Ed McGlade.
Most importantly, at
the outset ofthe hearing, the Hearing Officer remarked, as follows:
.And lastly, I would like to avoid unnecessary repetition, if possible.
So, if anyone
before you has already presented testimony that
is contained in your written or oral comments,
please skip over those issues when you testify. And remember,
all written comments
whether or
not you say them out loud tonight will become part of the official hearing record and will be
considered.”2
In addition, the Hearing Officer defined the public hearing as strictly an informational
hearing; advised that the hearing was not “a contested hearing..”; no sworn testimony was taken;
prohibited speakers from arguing, cross-examining, or engaging in a prolonged dialogue with the
panel;
and the Hearing Officer also limited individuals to
five minutes
and representatives of
groups to ten minutes.3
The District maintains that any issues raised during and after Mr. McGlade’ s
testimony are issues that should be allowed by this Review before this Board4.
2IEPA Hearing Transcript p.
7 thru 9.
3IEPA Hearing Transcript p.
7
4IEPA Hearing Transcript p.
110 thru
114.
Moreover, for the purposes ofthis Review, testimony by any witness at the public hearing
held on September 9, 2003,
is repetitive ofthose that would have been espoused by the District if
the District’s representative would have been given the opportunity.5
Through comments and testimony, the District has raised legal and scientific issues
regarding deficiencies
in the NPDES
permit
modification and the IEPA’s NON-consideration of
those relevant legal and scientific issues.
Therefore, the District has demonstrated their
jurisdictional ability to have this Board determine the issues presented by the District.
II.
JURISDICTION:
Slocum Lake Drainage District ofLake County, Illinois
is
an Illinois
Drainage District
established pursuant to the Illinois
Drainage Code.6
The District is
a special purpose, non-profit
entity that was originally established by the Circuit Court of Lake County in 1915, for which its
purpose was to provide drainage ofagricultural land.
At present, the District
is responsible for
maintenance of approximately 17,900
linear feet of ditch line.
Even though the IEPA stated that
“Lake County Forest Preserve District (LCFPD) owns 2,600
lineal feet of Fiddle Creek which
constitutes the northern boarder (sic)
of the 517-acre Fox River Preserve,...” this property is
subject to the District’s rights ofway for drainage tiles, ditches, feeders and laterals.7
In 1973, the Illinois legislature imposed a statutory duty upon the Commissioners of any
drainage district to use all practicable means and measures to protect such environmental values
such as trees, fish and wildlife habitats, and to avoid erosion and pollution ofthe
land, water or
5IEPA Record at p. 000437
670
ILCS
605/1-1
et seq.
7Exhibit “A”
-
Legal description of Lake County Forest Preserve’s acquired property.
air.8
A
water ofthe
State ofIllinois as defined at Section
3.56
ofthe Illinois Environmental
Protection Act (“Act”)9
“WATERS” means all
accumulations of water, surface and underground, natural,
and artificial, public and private, orparts thereof, which are wholly or partially
within, flowthrough, or border upon this State.
Section 3.55 ofthe Act,’°defines “water pollution” as follows:
“WATER POLLUTION” is such alteration ofthe physical, thermal, chemical,
biological or radioactive properties ofany waters ofthe State, or such discharge ofany
contaminant into any waters ofthe State, as will or is likely to create a nuisance or render such
waters harmful or detrimental or injurious to public health,
safety or welfare, or to domestic,
commercial, industrial, agricultural, recreational, or other legitimate
uses, or to livestock,
wild
animals, birds, fish, or other aquatic life.
Section 3.06 ofthe Act, defines a “contaminant” is “any solid,
liquid, or gaseous matter,
any odor, or any form ofenergy, from whatever source.”11
Section 12(a) ofthe Act, provides, in pertinent part as follows:
No person shall:
a.
Cause or threaten or allow the discharge ofany contaminants into the
environment in any State so as to cause or tend to cause water pollution in Illinois,
either alone or in combination with matter from other sources, or so as to
violate regulations or standards adopted by the Pollution Control Board
under this Act.’2
870
ILCS
605/4-15.1
p415 ILCS
5/3.56
(2000)
10415
ILCS
5/3.55
(2000)
“415
ILCS
5/3.06
(2000)
12415
ILCS 5/12(a) (2000)
Section 304.120(c) ofthis Board’s Water Pollution Regulations’3 provides as follows:
Except as provided in Section 306.103, all effluents containing deoxygenating
wastes shall meet the following standards:
(c) No effluent whose dilution ratio is less than five to
one
Shall exceed 10 mg/i
of BOD or 12 mg/l of suspended solids
Section 12(f) of the Act’4, in pertinent part,
provides as follows:
No person shall:
f.
Cause,
threaten or allow the discharge ofany contaminant into the waters
of the State, as defined herein, including but no limited to, waters to any sewage
works, or into any well or from any point source within the
State, without an
NPDES permit for point source discharges issued by the Agency under
Section 39(b) ofthis Act, or in violation of any term or condition imposed by such
permit, or in violation ofany NPDES permit filing requirement established under
Section
39(b), or in violation of any regulations adopted by the Board or ofany
Order adopted by the Board with respect to the NPDES program.
Section 309.102(a) ofthe Board Water Pollution Regulations’5, titled, NPDES
Permit
Required, provides as follows:
a.
Except as in compliance with the provisions ofthe
Act, Board regulations, and
the Clean Water Act,
and the provisions and conditions
ofthe NPDES permit
issued to the discharger, the discharge of any contaminant or pollutant by any
person into the waters of the State from a point source or into a well shall be
unlawful.
Section 304.141(a) ofthe Board Water Pollution Regulation’6, provides as follows:
No person to whom an NPDES permit has beenissued may discharge any
contaminant in his effluent in excess ofthe standards and limitations for that
contaminant which are set forth in his permit.
In addition,
Section 309.146(a)(1-4) of the Board Water Pollution Regulations, titled
1335
Ill.Adm.Code
304.120(c), titled Deoxygenating Wastes
‘~415
ILCS
5/12(f) (2000)
1535
Ill.Adm.Code 309.102(a), titled NPDES Permit Required
1635
Ill.Adm.Code
304.141(a), titled NPDES Effluent Standards
Authority to Establish Recording, Reporting,
Monitoring and Sampling Requirements,’7 provides
as follows:
a.
The Agency shall require every holder ofan NPDES
Permit, as a condition
of the NPDES Permit issued to
the holder, to:
1.
Establish,
maintain and retain records;
2.
Make reports;
3.
Install, calibrate,
use and maintain monitoring
equipment or methods (including where
appropriate biological monitoring methods);
4.
Take samples ofeffluents (in accordance with
such methods, at such locations, at such
intervals,
and in such a manner as may be
prescribed).
For purposes ofthis document, we have adopted the acronyms as stated in the IEPA
Record at page 002249 and 001209, and those definitions set forth at IEPA Record p. 001729
and 001730.
The above constitutes jurisdictional (not all inclusive) bases for this Board to regulate the
holder ofa NPDES permit, and the administrative agency established and charged with the duty
of enforcing the Act.
III.
BACKGROUND OF WASTEWATER STREAM:
The Wauconda Wastewater Treatment Plant (“WWTP”) originally discharged its effluent
into the Bangs Lake Drain Creek, which flows into
Slocum Lake, exits through the Slocum Lake
Drain into the District’s Ditchwhich ultimatelyjoins the Fox River.
In 1977, this Board granted a variance to the Village of Wauconda from the phosphorus
1735
I11.Adm.Code 309.146(a)(1-4)
standard in order for Wauconda’s WWTP to have time to resolve the phosphorus problem.’8
It was Ms. Moreno ofthe IEPA that stated:
“Itwas the Pollution Control Board back in the ‘80’s who ordered the plant to change its
point ofdischarge.
And that was on the basis ofa series of what we call
variances, which
there was a phosphorous
limit in effect.
And they and
a lot ofother people weren’t being
able to meet the phosphorous limit.
So the Board said, Okay, under the Act we can give
you a variance ofa maximum of five years to give you time to
figure out what you are
going to
do.
As it turned out, what they ended up having to do was to move the
discharge.
So it was the Pollution Control Board that was in, I mean that was— It
basically is the equivalent of a court order.
And I would just like
to
make that clear
because I think there may have been some, you know,just some curiosity as to how it was
that that came about.
We didn’t do it, the Board did it basically.”9
Then in 1983, the Board terminated Wauconda’s variance, whereupon the WWTP
discharge was moved, by the Board’s order, away from Slocum Lake to its present location in
Fiddle Creek, which flows into the District’s ditch and thereafter ultimately flows into the Fox
River through the District’s ditch.2°
At the Public Hearing held on September 9,
2003, the IEPA
by Mrs. Moreno stated,
“...that Fiddle Creek has previously been designated in Wauconda’s NPDES
Permit and other
IEPA documents as ‘..an unnamed tributary to the Fox River’ and that the Fox River is an
IMPAIRED WATERWAY.”
(Emphasis added).2’
The Fox River is listed on the 303(d) list
with Fiddle Creek coming into the tail portion of DT-22.22
The stream is rated as a “C” stream
‘8IEPA Record at p.
002213
‘9IEPA Hearing Transcript at p.
15-16
20IEPA Record at p.
002213
21IEPA Record at p.
000305 thru 000310, 002213
22IEPA Record at p.
001979
on the BSC.23
The discharge point has been the same since 1983
into Fiddle Creek through the District’s
ditch to the Fox River.24
Because ofthe plans for expansion ofthe WWTP in Wauconda, a modification ofPermit
No. ILOO2O 109 was again requested and approved by the JEPA on August 23,
2004.25
The
contents of that Permit modification is the subject of this Review by this Board.
IV.
THE IEPA’S
ANTI-DEGRADATION ANALYSIS
FAILED TO COMPLY WITH
THE ANTI-DEGRADATION RULES26
The IEPA Anti-degradation Assessment dated February 20, 2003,
and the subsequent
JEPA Anti-degradation Assessment dated April
14, 2003
is insufficient and does not comply
with the relevant Rules.27
Both ofthe IEPA’s Anti-degradation Assessments were prepared
by JeffHutton ofthe IEPA.28
First, the JEPA anti-degradation assessment dated April 14, 2003
only refers to the water
quality data from a September
15,
1993
facility stream survey conducted by the IEPA,
which
found “fair environmental conditions in Wauconda Creek with minor impact from the Wauconda
23IEPA Record at p. 001979
24IEPA Record at p. 002271
thru 002285 and p.
002213; Hearing Transcript p. 15-16
25IE~pARecord
at p.
002211
2635
Ill.Adm.Code
302.105(A)
27IEPA Record at p. 001599 thru 001602
and.
000995 thru 000997
28IEPA Record at p. 001599 thru 001602 and 000995 thru 000997
sewage treatment plant discharge.”29
The survey identified elevated levels of conductivity,
nitrate plus nitrite, phosphorus, sodium, potassium, boron, strontium and oil downstream of the
Wauconda outfall.
Despite these findings by the IEPA, none ofthese contaminants were
evaluated by the IEPA anti-degradation assessment in 2003.~°Even the IEPA’s Anti-
degradation Assessment maintains that
..
.
.“The stream Wauconda
Creek
will nonetheless
experience an increase, over time, in loading due to the increase in the effluent discharge.”3’
The relevant data basis date for anti-degradation analysis, in this instance,
should be November
28,
1975,32
which was demonstrated by the Baxter & Woodman, Inc. report dated March 23,
1983.
Furthermore, the JEPA and the Village ofWauconda are required to
follow, as well, the
federal anti-degradation regulations.
“Where the quality of the waters exceed levels necessary to
support propagation
offish, shellfish, and wild-life and recreation in and on the water, that quality
shall be maintained and protected unless the
State finds.. .that allowing lower
water quality is necessary to
accommodate important economic or social
development in the area in which the waters are located.
In allowing such
degradation or lower water quality, the State
shall assure
water
quality
adequate to protect existing uses fully.
Further,
the
State shall assure that
there shall
be achieved the highest statutory and regulatory requirements for
all new and
existing point sources and all cost effective and
reasonable best
management practices for nonpoint source
control.”33
(Emphasis added).
29IEPA Record at p. 000995
30IEPA Record at p.
000995 thru00 1001
3’IEPA Record at p. 000995
32IEPA Record at p.
~~40CFR
131.12, Anti-degradation Policy
Section
105(A) ofthe Illinois Administrative Code
contain the Anti-degradation Rules
required to be followed by the IEPA:
The purpose ofthis Section
is to protect existing uses ofall waters of the State of
Illinois, maintain the quality of waters with quality that
is better than water quality
standards, and prevent unnecessarydeterioration ofwaters of the State.
(a) Existing Uses
1.
An action that would result in the deterioration ofthe existing aquatic
community, such as a shift from a community ofpredominantly pollutant-
sensitive species to pollutant-tolerant species or a loss of species diversity;
2.
An action that would result in a loss ofa resident or indigenous species
whose presence is necessary to sustain commercial or recreational
activities; or
3.
An action that would preclude continued use ofa surface water body or
water body segment for a public water supply or for recreational or
commercial fishing,
swimming, paddling or boating.
In addition,
Section 302.105(f) requires the IEPA to comply with certain procedures in
conducting an anti-degradation assessment, as follows:
(f) In conducting an anti-degradation assessment pursuant to this Section, the
Agency must comply with the following procedures:
1.
A permit application for any proposed increase in pollutant loading that
necessitates the issuance of a
. ..
.modified NPDES permit
..
.
.must include, to the
extent necessary for the Agency to determine that the permit application meets the
requirements ofthis Section,
the following information:
A.
Identification and characterization ofthe water body affected by the
proposed load increaseor proposed activity and the existingwater body’s
uses. Characterizationmust address physical,
biological and
chemical
conditions ofthe water body.
B.
Identification and quantification of the proposed load increases for the
applicable parameters and ofthe potential impacts ofthe proposed activity
on the affected waters.
C.
The purpose and anticipated benefits of the proposed activity.
Such
benefits may include:
i.
Providing a centralized wastewater collection and treatment
system for a previously unsewered community;
ii.
Expansion to provide service for anticipated residential or
industrial growth consistent with a community’s long range urban
planning;
iii.
Addition ofa new product line or production increase or
modification at an industrial facility; or
iv.
An increase or the retention of current employment levels at a
facility.
D.
Assessments ofalternatives to proposed increases in pollutant loading
or activities subject to Agency certification pursuant to
Section 401
ofthe
CWA that result in less of a load increase, no load increase or minimal
environmental degradation.
Such alternatives may include:
i.
Additional treatment levels, including no discharge alternatives;
ii.
Discharge ofwaste to
alternate locations, including publicly-
owned treatment works and streams with greater assimilative
capacity; or
iii.
Manufacturing practices that incorporate pollution prevention
techniques
2. The Agencymustcomplete
an Anti-degradation assessment in accordance with
the provisions ofthis Sectionon a case-by-case basis.
A. The Agencymustconsider the criteria stated in Section 302.105(c)(2),
which includes the
requirement that
“...All existing uses will be fully
protected.” 35 Ill.Adm. Code 302.105(c)(2)(B)(ii).34
A.
WATER QUALITY
The water quality from the outfall throughout the entire Fiddle Creek Ditch to the Fox
River was not evaluated on a current basis by the IEPA, and the many engineers who have
reviewed the conclusions ofthe IEPA disagree with those findings and
conclusions without
reservation.
For instance,
the Lake County Forest Preserve District retained the services ofV3
consultants and Baetis Environmental Services, Inc. regarding the Wauconda Wastewater
Treatment Plant Expansion.35
These engineers based theirfindings
on reports and data outlined
3435
Ill.Adm.Code
302.105(f)
35IEPA Record at p. 000314 thru 000345
beginning onPage 000335 ofthe IEPA Record. Upon field data obtained as well, these
engineerspublished their professional opinion in a report dated September 5, 2003.36
The findings of the Lake
County Forest Preserve’s report, after assessing the potential
impacts ofthe proposedexpansion
and
themodification to the existing permit, state that the
“..effluent is causingdownstream oxygen
deficits, and that the proposed DO
limits for the
effluent will not likely be met.”37 These Forest Preserve engineers further state that
“The proposed
effluent dissolved oxygen (DO) limit of
6 mg/L is not currently being met
atthe
outfall or downstream...Early morning DO
was measured as low as
3.3 mg/L in
Fiddle Creek. We attribute these violations of water quality standards to the Village’s
wasteloads.
The IEPA’
s Anti-degradation Assessment didnot properly
characterize the
affected water body, and
..
.we
.
.
.request that the IEPA review these data, and
information
on subsequent
sections of this report and to reconsiderthe Anti-degradation Assessment.
Additional bio-chemical oxygen demand (BOD) wasteloads will degrade DO resources in
the creek beyond existing conditions and the Village will not be
in compliance with
Special Condition
5
ofthe Modified NPDES Permit.”38
In addition, the Forest Preserve engineers went on to
elaborate on the Biological Oxygen
Demand (BOD), stating that,
“The Fiddle Creek channel at Roberts Road has a maintained lawn-type riparian
zone and lacks shade or canopy.
Because it is exposed to full sunlight,
photosynthetic processes supersaturate the water with oxygen.
At mid-day on
August
14, 2003, a sunny day, we measured DO to be
11.86 mg/L, or 144
of
saturation.
On August 22, 2003, at 9:24 AM,
DO at this same location was
measured to be 5.06 mg/L, or only 60
saturation.
We made DO
measurements
again at 5:20 AM on August 28, 2003
and found 3.34 mg/L
(37
saturation).
These large swings in DO concentration, particularly the nadirs (or low points),
stress the aquatic ecosystem.
We attribute the DO
swings to
high nutrient
wasteloads in the Wauconda effluent.
The nutrients feed algae and macrophytes,
which respire and consume oxygen at night, and produce oxygen during daytime.
There are parallel diel swings in dissolved carbon dioxide
and pH.
36IEPA Record at p.
000314
thru 000345
37IEPA Record at p.000333
38IEPARecord at p. 000321
The draft Modified NPDES Permit application projects BOD and nutrient
wasteloads to increase withplant expansion. Given thewater quality in the
system under the existing
wasteloads,
we disagree with the IEPA that the
higher wasteloads will not degrade Fiddle Creek.
Preliminary analysis of
wasteload assimilation in Fiddle Creek confirms this.”(Emhasis Added)39
“Inour report, wedocument existing violations ofDO standards in Fiddle Creek
and the likelihood of
future violations as well.”4°
“...all potential environmental effects ofthe projecthave notbeenevaluated.
In
particular, the effects on the wetland plantcommunitywithin the fen and within the
riparian areas along Fiddle Creek
are unknown.
The potential impacts ofthis
increased discharge on groundwater have not been investigated.
We are concerned
about the integrity ofthe vegetation community, particular within the fen.
The
Village ofWauconda should prepare an ecological risk assessment to evaluate
the effects of increased flows, groundwater changes, and higher nutrient
wasteloads
on the wetland communities....before a
modified NPDES permit
is
issuedby IEPA.”(Emphasis added)4’
The IEPA’s anti-degradation assessment is flawed when
it concludes thatthe dissolved
oxygen standards will notbe violatedby this discharge. As the
monitoring done by Lake
BarringtonlCuba Township has demonstrated, dissolved oxygen violations routinely occur due to
the Wauconda discharge.42
The final comment bythe Forest Preserve engineerswas that theyrequestedthe IEPA to
review the dataand
reconsider its conclusions in the Anti-degradation
Assessment.43 The District
concurs.
Yet, another environmental engineer retained by the Village ofLake Barrington and Cuba
39IEPA Record at p.
000333
40IEPA Record at p.
000335
41IEPA Record at p.
000335
42IEPA Record at p.
000571
43IEPA Record at p.
000335
Township, James E. Huff, advised that
“The February 20, 2003 IEPA memorandum regarding anti-degradation analysis
has serious deficiencies and is flawed in its conclusions;
and
.
.
.private water quality sampling of
Fiddle Creek identified it as an impaired waterway because ofelevated levels of nutrients
and
pathogens, and depressed levels ofdissolved oxygen...
.“~
Finding the same results as the Forest Preserve engineers, Huff&
Huff, engineers retained
by
Lake Barrington and Cuba Township, state the results oftheir investigation ofFiddle Creek,
wherein they
“...found
dissolved oxygen (D.O.) Levels below 5.0 mg/L from the Wauconda outfall and
along the entire
Fiddle Creek.
Near the outfall, total phosphorus averaged 3.9 mg/L and
nitrates were
18.0 mg/L in the Creek.
The Agency in 1993, found elevated nitrate plus
nitrite, phosphorus, strontium,
and oil downstream ofthe Wauconda outfall,
consistent
with the 2003 results... .in addition, the IDNR collected
fish from Fiddle Creek at Roberts
Road in September
1997. The Starhead topminnow was collected at this sampling location
by the IDNR. This fish species will be listed as a threatened species this summer....The
presence of a threatened species increases the importance of identifying this stream as
“impaired.”45
The Huff & Huff letter concluded by stating that with the current levels ofD.O.,
phosphorus, and nitrates, these properties alone were sufficient to list Fiddle Creek as “impaired”
and should be on the Agency’s
303(d) list.46
It should be noted that a Recording Form for the Citizen Monitoring Biotic Index taken on
44IEPA Record at p.
000460
45IEPA Record at p.
002106
46JEPA Record at p.
002106
to 002107
September
15,
1993 for Fiddle Creek at the Site I.D. as Cl reflected an Index Score of
1.67 when the Health of the Stream is shown as “Poor” when the score is between
1.0 and
~
The IEPA’s anti-degradation assessment utilized water quality samples taken in 1993
-
over ten (10) years old.
The statement in that assessment that “...ammonia and dissolved oxygen
standards would not be exceeded...” was made on ten year-old information.
When the IEPA, in
their 2003
anti-degradation assessment discusses the phosphorus and total nitrogen issues, the
analysis was deferred because the state standards were to be adopted in the future.
This JEPA
conduct does not comply
with the requirements of Section
3 02.105.
Coincidentally, the environmental engineer for the Illinois Attorney General’s office
articulated the same concern regarding the ten-year-old data when in a letter dated October 30,
2003, stated
“...Wauconda’s Anti-degradation Assessment indicated that the receiving stream has a
7QlO flow of 0 cfs and is classified as a ‘General Use’ water.
However, this evaluation
was based on a
1993 stream survey. We do not believe that it is advisable or appropriate to
rely on data generated ten years
ago.
The surrounding area has experienced
a
significant growth in residential development
since
1993
(that
is
the reason for the
proposed plant expansion).
The Anti-Degradation Assessment needs to evaluate
future conditions, and Wauconda and
the IEPA) should be
required to prepare a
new stream survey in
order to satisfy the requirements of 35
Il1.Adm. Code 302.105.48
(Emphasis added).
47IEPA Record at p.
001000
48IEPA Record at p.
1031
thru
1034.
Clearly, thephosphorus level concern was the precise reason that this Board changed the
location ofthe wastewater from the Wauconda plant to the Fiddle Creek.
Without recent
supporting data, the 2003 IEPA anti-degradation assessments conclude that the increased
discharge “..will result in improved effluent quality.”
Certainly, this Board should scrutinize
such an insufficient analysis which clearly fails to meet the rule requirements.
Therefore,
this
Board should require the IEPA to conduct additional evaluations ofrecent data gathered
in order
to comply with the anti-degradation Rules.
B.
A PRE-TREATMENT PROGRAM FOR WAUCONDA WWTP
Section 301.350 provides forthe definition of “Pretreatment Works” as follows:
“Pretreatment Works” means a treatment works designed and intended for the
treatment ofwastewater from an indirect discharge or industrial user as defined in
40
CFR 403, before introduction into a sewer system tributary to a publicly owned
or publicly regulated treatment works.49
The Office ofthe Attorney General in a letter dated October 30, 2003, stated that
“...although Wauconda currently operates under a disinfection exemption, it has indicated that it
will install an ultraviolet disinfection system and disinfect wastewater effluent upon startup ofthe
newplant.”5°
That same letter by the Office ofthe Attorney General to the Hearing Officer ofthe IEPA
stated that “...On September 19, 2000, Wauconda adopted an ordinance
establishing a
pretreatment Program.
It has completed a survey and compiled a list ofthe non-residential users
in the Village.
However, it appears that Wauconda has not implemented and
enforced the
49IEPA Record at p. 001010
50IEPA Record at p.
001033
Program.
The proposed modifications to the NPDES permit should include provisions for
Wauconda to provide monthly reports to the Agency, demonstrating its compliance with its
Pretreatment Program.
Recent events at the treatment plant, including a spill from the plant
digester, have demonstrated an urgent need to implement an approved Pre treatment Program
consistent with 35
Ill.Adm.Code Part 3l0.”~’
In a memorandum dated September 3, 2003, from IEPA Chris Kallis to Lisa Moreno, Mr.
Kallis states,
“.
.
.regarding the Superfund site (Wauconda Sand and Gravel)...this issue will and
already has expanded into different issues.
One is that the expired permit required that Wauconda
initiate a pretreatment program.
This is not on the new permit because USEPA has stated in
correspondence that Wauconda should not be required to administer one despite having at least
two categorical industries....The reports show that Wauconda Task Group constantly violates the
village ordinance for Boron and total dissolved solids.
However as long
as they are not on the
pretreatment program, the Agency has no legal authority to force Wauconda to enforce its
ordinance (self-imposed pretreatment program by Wauconda).
.
.
.the annual report does confirm the
presence of some organic compounds and poly aromatic hydrocarbons.
Do we know if this
affecting the plat or causing pass through?
No, because they are not on the pretreatment program.
Thus they are not required to sample and analyze for these compounds in their influent, effluent
and
sludge.”52
However, with respect to a recent and last minute research investigation, your Petitioner
has discovered that the Illinois Attorney General’s office filed a Complaint against the Village of
Wauconda on August
17, 2004,
relating to
a violation ofthe Board’s Regulations,
i.e.,
5’IEPA Record at p. 001033
52IEpA Record at p. 001766
1. 415 ILCS 5/12(a)(2002);
2.
415 ILCS 5/12(d)(2002)
3.
35 I1l.Adm. Code 302.203
4.
35 Ill.Am. Code 304.104 and 304.106~~
5.
415 ILCS
5/12(f)(2002)
andNPDES Permit No. 1L0020 109.
PLEASE NOTE that this filing occurred only days prior to the approval by the JEPA of the
modified permit for the Village ofWauconda.
The complaint involved a violation ofthe permit
which
occurred on September 24, 2003. The Consent
Order, entered on December
10, 2004,
mandates
thatthe Village ofWaucondamust implement andenforce the pretreatment program in
accordance withthe Village ordinance 2000-0-31, adoptedby the Villageon September 19, 2000.
The same ordinance thatwas not being implemented or enforced by the Village previously.
NOW, as of December 10, 2004,
the Village ofWauconda is court ordered to legally implement
its
Pretreatment Program.
Any permits issued by the Village ofWauconda to industrial users
shall, at a minimum, include the elements listed
in 40 CFR 403. 8(f)(1)(iii).
Furthermore, the
Village ofWauconda is required to file an annual report describing the year’s program activities.
Such a report must conform to the Illinois
EPA’s POTW Pretreatment Report Package.
The
Village ofWauconda is court ordered to maintain all pretreatment data and records for a
minimum of three (3) years.
However, what happens after the “minimum ofthree (3) years?”
Furthermore, the Village ofWauconda is ordered to
monitor its
influent, effluent and sludge
on an
annual basis for 24 different parameters.
In addition, within six (6) months ofthe entry date
(12/10/04) ofthe Consent Order, the Village of Wauconda is ordered to conduct an analysis of
110
organic priority pollutants identified in 40 CFR
122 Appendix D. Table II, as amended.
This
53Exhibit “B”
-
Consent Order entered 12/10/2004
-
Lake Cty.
Case No. 04CH1206
monitoring shall be done annually.
However, is the monitoring of these indices on an annual
basis enough in order to protect the receiving down stream waters as well as the overall
watershed?
Certainly, once again please note, the IEPA had knowledge and knew ofthe filing of this
complaint prior to the August
23id
permit approval announcement.
C.
THE RECEIVING WATER.
The September
5,
2003, Lake County Forest Preserve District study
was conducted by
engineers retained by the Lake County Forest Preserve District54
with respect to the Wauconda
Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion.
The findings of that report were as follows:55
“1.
Based on our findings regarding water quality within Fiddle Creek, we believe
that the Village ofWauconda should improve their wastewater treatment facility in
order to comply with the water quality standards already required by the existing
NPDES permit.
This warrants action regardless ofthe Modified NPDES
Permit
being issued by IEPA.
2.
We understand that the Village of Wauconda has recently withdrawn its request
for a renewed waiver of effluent disinfection.
We request that the IEPA consider
removing this waiver from the existing NPDES Permit, in the event that the
Modified NPDES Permit
is not issued.
3.
The Modified NPDES
Permit projects BOD and nutrient wasteloads to increase
with plant expansion.
Given the poor water quality in the suystem under the
existing wasteloads, we disagree with the IEPA that the higher wasteloads will not
54IEPA Record at p.
000314 thru 000345
55IEPA Record at p.
000335
further degrade Fiddle Creek.
In our report, we document exisit violations ofDO
standards
in Fiddle Creek and the oikelihood of future violations as well...
4.
Ifthe IEPA were to issue a Modified NPDES Permit for increased effluent
discharge, we recommend that the IEPA add nutrient (Phosphorus
and nitrogen)
monitoring in the Moidified Pemit....”
Moreover, the Office ofthe Attorney General in a letter dated October 30, 2003, stated
that “...the proposed increase in flowto Fiddle Creek from 1.4 million galls per day to 7.93
million gallons per day is significant.
It stated, “we
do not believe that Wauconda has
adequately demonstrated that the receiving waters have sufficient hydraulic capacity to
accept this
increased flow without contributing to
flood downstream segments during wet weather flows.
The Village needs to consider the possibility that, under these conditions, flood waters may
become contaminated with inadequately treated wastewater”~6
Their letter goes on to state “...Wauconda should provide appropriate documentation such
as Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) flood maps identifying the flood
plain and flood prone areas.
Wauconda should also conduct a risk assessment to determine the
potential risk to public
health under wet weather conditions. Because downstream wetlands would
be affected by a wet-weather flow increase, the Village should include U.S.
Army Corps of
Engineers or Lake County Advance Identification maps to delineate sensitive wetland areas.”57
The Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission, in their report dated July 2, 2002, with
respect to their Water Quality Review, stated that “...the Staff would recommend that a detailed
study of the impact ofthe increased flow on the receiving stream be conducted before issuing a
56IEPA Record at p.
001031 thru 001032
57IEPA Record atp.
001031 thru 001032
permit for the requested discharge.”58
In August, 2002, Marcia T. Willhite
“...
deferred action on the Village’s request to amend
the WQMP to reflect the expansion ofWauconda’s wastewater treatment plant from 1.4 mgd to
2.4
mgd.
The receiving stream for the discharge associated with the proposed wastewater
treatment plant does not appear to be included on the Illinois EPA’s Clean Water Action Section
3 03(d) list atthis time.
However, the point ofdischarge must be re-evaluated during the
preparation of engineering report(s) and permit application(s) to determine possible relevant
limitations upon the treatment plant’s size,
design, and location.”59
In a memorandum to James Cowles and Blame Kinsley from Al
Keller on September
15,
2003, Mr. Keller admonished Blame Kinsley by stating,. ..“we may need to make sure these
permits undergo more scrutiny, with actual finished water
supply data and effluent data form
compliance with Water Quality Standards.”6°
It should be noted that a letter dated May 24, 2004,
sent to
Bruce Yurdin, Manager of the
Watershed Management Section ofthe IEPA from James E. Huff, engineer forthe Village of
Lake Barrington and
Cuba Township, requested that Fiddle Creek in Lake County be added the
Illinois List of Impaired Waterways i.e., the 303(d) list.6’
The data was collected in August 2003
by Huff& Huff, in accordance with 40 CFR
130.7(b)(5), and the Quality Assurance Project Plans
were followed and was appropriate forthe IEPA to
consider the collected data in their 303(d)
listing.
The investigation conducted in August 2003 found dissolved
oxygen levels below 5.0
58IEPA Record at p.
1583
59IEPA Record atp. 001591; JEPA Exhibit 96
60IEPA Record at p. 001769
61IPEA Record at p. 002106 thru
002139
mg/L from the Wauconda outfall and along the entire Fiddle Creek, as well as levels of
phosphorus at 3.9mg/L and nitrates at 18.0 mg/L levels. The stream also has a threatened species
i.e., the Starheadtopminnow, which elevates the importance of identifying the stream as
“impaired”.
It is apparent that the anti-degradation assessments conducted by the IEPA were
inadequate and completely inconsistent with the findings and conclusions ofother professionals
investigating the current conditions ofthe District’s ditch,
i.e., Fiddle Creek.
Given the data
reviewedand analyzedfrommore current sources than usedby the IEPAallows this Board to
require the IEPA to re-investigate their assessment according to the statutory and federally
mandated requirements, and to
require the IEPA to utilize more current collected data prior to
allowing the issuance of the modified NPDES Permit to the Village of Wauconda.
V.
THE IEPA’S DISREGARD FOR THE PRIOR PERMIT VIOLATIONS
BY THE
VILLAGE
OF WAUCONDA
The IEPA has knowledge and has known ofthe many violations ofthe current NPDES
Permit by the Village ofWauconda.
Yet, the IEPA apparently those violations were not
significant enough while considering the issuance of a modification ofthe existing Permit for an
increase in wasteload to the watershed.
If as many violations occurred at a lower level of waste
stream loading, would it not be an appropriate consideration to determine how the increased
loading ofa modified permit would be monitored in order to lower significantly the possibility of
future violations ofan anticipated modified permit?
Apparently not, since the IEPA has
repeatedly stated in this proceeding that the prior violations were not a consideration in the
process ofmaking their decision to issue the modified NPDES Permit.
An IEPA attorney at the public information hearing on September
9, 2003,
stated62
“Now yes, it is true that through the ‘90’s, it (sic Wauconda) had a lot of problems.
No questions about that.
But it doesn’t have those
same problems anymore.
What happened basically is that in 2000,
1999 and 2000, we had the Attorney
General’s office file suit against the Village to force them to take care ofsome of
these problems.”
On June 28,
1999, the Attorney General ofthe State ofIllinois filed a complaint for
injunction and other relief against the Village of Wauconda for violations which occurred on
May 20,
1996, and February 20 and 21,
1997, when Wauconda allowed untreated raw sewage to
be pumped from six different locations
totaling approximately 1,530,390 gallons into Bangs Lake
Creek which contained 28.4 mg/L of total suspended solids.
A consent order was entered
December 13, 2000 between the Illinois Attorney General and the Village ofWauconda, which
states
“...Defendant shall cease and desist from future violations of the Act and
Board
regulations, ...nothing in
this Consent Order shall be construed as a waiver by Plaintiff of
the right to redress
future or heretofore undisclosed violation or obtain penalties with
respect thereto.”63
(Emphasis added).
The Complaint in that proceeding detailed violations of
the current NPDES Permit conditions.64
Notwithstanding the Consent Order directive, the records available through the USEPA’s
Permit Compliance System (PCS) database reflected that the effluent compliance records
for the
Village ofWauconda’s discharge for the period, April 2001 to May 2003,
included the following
recorded violations:65
62Hearing Transcript at p.
18-19.
63JEPA Record at p.
002271
thru 002285
64Exhibit “C” attached hereto and made a part hereof.
65IEPA Record at p.
000319
1.
September,
2001
-
Copper in discharge exceeded permit limitation
2.
November, 2001
-
Copper in discharge exceeded permit limitation
3.
June, 2002
-
Total ammonia nitrogen in the discharge exceeded the permit
4.
February, 2003
-
Copper in discharge exceeded permit limitation
In 1997, the IEPA stated that the results of a six-month monitoring ofthe WWTP effluent
exceeded water quality standards for Copper and
Silver, and recommended permit
limits
(1L0020109) be:66
Copper:
Daily Maximum
.05
mg/L
30 Day Average .03 mg/L
Silver:
DailyMaximum .005 mg/L
Yet, in 2001
and 2003, there continued to be violations ofthe Copper permit limits.
The
memorandum also concluded that “..no
mixing is available in this receiving
stream.”67
Again, on August 23, 29t~~
and
30th
2003, the Wauconda WWTP had foam leaking out of
the west aerobic digester, running downhill surrounding a control building and entering a storm
sewer tributary to the Bangs Lake Drain, which are violations ofthe permit requirements.68
A memorandum dated October 6, 2003 from Chris Kallis ofthe JEPA
to Roger Callaway
regarding the August 23,
2003 violation, stated that
“The Wauconda Wastewater Treatment Plan has been shown to be in violation of
Section
12 (a) and (d) ofthe Illinois Environmental Protection Act, 35
IllAdm.Code 304.106 and 35 IllAdm.Code3O4.105 because the discharge of sludge
66IEPA Record at p. 001520
67IEPA Record at p. 001520
-
001521
68IEPA Record at p.
000611
thru 000614
from the digesterto the Waters of the State
is considered an offensive discharge
that resulted in offensive conditions in Bangs Lake Drain in violation of 35
IllAdm.Code 302.203.~~69
Shortly thereafter, anotherviolation occurred during the night on September 23, 2003.
70
A Lakeland Newspaper article in October, 2003, reported the violation to the public, stating that
“...a foam out situation had occurred with the aerobic digester during the night of
September 23.
Foam containing fecal
coliform bacteria had overflowed a four-foot
containment wall, spilled onto the floor of the facility, out the door, and into a storm sewer
leading to the Bangs Lake drain
‘This wasn’t pure raw sewage, but it was diluted raw
sewage’....”71
Given the numerous violations ofthe current NPDES permit by the Wauconda WWTP in
the past, what basis does the Board believe would justify believing that the WWTP will comply
with the additional conditions set forth in the permit modification requested currently
or modified
by the Agency?
THIS BOARD
SHOULD TAKE NOTICE:
The IEPA failed to produce any records
during this proceeding relative to a Complaint
filed in Lake County, Illinois,
by the Attorney
General’s Office against the Village ofWauconda, on August
17, 2004, ---just six (6) days prior
to the IEPA’s approval ofthe NPDES permit modification on August 23,
2004.72
The complaint
concerned
the September 24, 2003
violation as discussed above.
The IEPA attorneys knew of the
pending lawsuit against the Village of Wauconda and
should have produced all ofthe documents
69IEPA Record at p. 001788 thru 001791
70IEPA Record at p. 000609 thru 000630
71IEPA Record at p. 000609
72Exhibit “B”
-
Consent Order
-
Case No. 04CH 1206
-
filed 12/10/2004 attached hereto.
surrounding
the complaint in this proceeding before this Board.
The IEPA attorneys had actual
knowledge, and by omitting such documents acted arbitrary and capriciously in excluding relevant
documents from your Petitioner, and in effect,
preclude this Board from having all relevant
information before it.
This Board has the authority to devise additional methods and conditions to ensure
Wauconda WWTP’s
compliance by denying the modification until additional objective data is
compiled, which would substantiate a more informed decision by this Board.
It should be noted that the data compiled by the Village ofWauconda’ s engineers has been
based solely upon the water quality standards at the outfall
and not on an
overall basis for the
watershed or for the receiving stream, the Fox River, which is an impaired waterway.
The engineers, other thanthe Village of Wauconda’s engineers, have repeatedly
determined that the compiled data is weak and inconclusive—that additional water quality data
should be collected and analyzed to determine the impact on thewatershed as a whole—notjust at
the point ofthe outfall.
Further, based on such additional collected data, the additional quantity
and quality of wastewater anticipated by the modified permit should be analyzed as to the
degradation to the receiving stream and ultimate receiving impaired waterway which would
comply with the federal and state anti-degradation rules.
VI.
RELIEF REQUESTED
Each and every point discussed herein and the conclusions drawn enables the District to
request the following relief from this Honorable Board:
1.
Order the IEPA to conduct a rule compliant anti-degradation assessment, including, but
not limited to the following:
A.
IEPA be ordered to review each and every alternative(s) for discharge other
than to Slocum Lake Drainage Ditch;
B.
IEPA be ordered to comply with all rules protecting the existing uses ofthe
receiving waters, and the Fox River
—
an impaired waterway.
C.
Consideration ofadditional treatment levels, i.e., the impact of chlorination on
the downstream environment and impaired waterway;
D.
Increase the Monitoring Requirements by the Village of Wauconda from the
Wauconda WWTP and in the downstream receiving waters (Fiddle
Creek
and the Fox River) for dissolved oxygen levels and other water quality
Standard requirements.
2.
Because ofWauconda’s numerous past permit violations, this Board should order the
IEPA to closely monitor and test (monthly basis) the Village ofWauconda’ s influent, affluent, and
sludge, as well as any discharge for organics and heavy metals and
all other priority toxic
pollutants.
3.
For such other relief as maybe deemed appropriate and reasonable under the
circumstances by this
Board.
SLOCUM LAKE DRAINAGE DISTRICT
OF LAKE
attorney
~1USIEES
n~
~usr
~—
i~~’_~
z.
~
~
•
1~ow All
laen, by
These
Presents,
TUE
TUE
GRANTOR,
Me1IENR?
STATE
BANK,
a
duly
organized
Trust
Coapany,
organized
and,
existing
under
the
laws
of
the
State
of
Illinois
as Trustee
under
the
provisions
of.a
Trust
Agreement~,.dated
1—30—84
and
known
as
Trust
tø._2915
and
party
of the
first
part,
and,:
having
its
principal businesS office
in
the
City of
HeNenry,
County.
of
Hcffenry,
and
State
of
Illinois,
for
the
consideration
Of
TEN
AND
NO/lOG
DOLLARS
does
hereby
CDTWCy
and
qutt.elaim
unto
Ahl.BICAN
RATIONAL
BANK
&
TRUST
CO.
OF
C
AC055
Trustee
under
the
provision
of
a
certain
Trust
Agreement
dated
the
29TH
day
of ~Jtpu~
,
19~,
and
known
as
Trust
~
party of
the
second
part,
the~followingdescribed
premises,
to
wit:
,,
SEE
1~T&CHEDEXHIBIT
“A”
k
~
-
r-~—
•
~‘
~•..
~.
c~
r,~
_____________________________________________________subject
to restrictions
of
record.
Peroanent
Index
Number
,3. c~4~
7~O~
ot
i3- ~
100-
q0)
13—a q
-?
oo
oo~,,
~3-Ø
~.
~4~28-.
~o
3
6’4~3
~
-Qog)
0q333
~
O’?..33..
3oo0
~)
O9~-
33-
L100.007)
~
-~
TO
IIAVE
Mm
TO
hOLD
the
said
real estate
with
the
appurtenances,
Upon
the
trusts,
and
for
the
tiaes
and
/j-cY_’co-~cJ
purposes
herein
and
in
said Trust
Agreement set
forth.
.
THE
TERNS
CONDITIONS
APPEARING
Oi~
TUE
REVERSE
SIDE
OF
THIS
INSTRUMENT
ARE
MADE
A
PART
HEREOF..
-.
CERALLI
L.
BELT
a,
cJ1
And
the
said
grantor
hereby
e.’cprcssiy
waives
and releases
any
and all
right of
benefit
under
and by’
~
virtue
of
any
and all
statutes
of
the
State
of Illinois,
providing
for
exeaption
or homesteads
from
sale
on
execution
or otherwise.
~
*
-•~i~,
—
-•.eu-.
This
deed
is
executed
by
the party of
the
first
part,
as
Trustee,
as
aforesaid,
pursuant
to direction
_~
t,,
and
in
the
exercise
of the
power
and
authority
granted
to
and vested
in it
by
the
terms
of
said
Deed
or
j
Deeds
in
Trust
and
the
provisions
of
said
Trust
Agreement
above
mentioned,
including
the
authority
to~1~
convey
directly
to
the Trustee
grantee
named
herein,
afld
of
every
other
power
and
authority
thereunto
~
~—‘
enabling.
This
deed
is
made subject
to
the liens
of all
trust
decds
and/or
mortgages
upon
said real
~
estate,
if
any,
recorded or
registered
in
~aLd county.
In
Testimony
h~creof,
the
MeRcury
State
Bank.
duly.organized
Trust
Company
of
Hdllenry,
Illinois
as
.
Trustee
as
aforesaid
bath
hereunto
caused
its
corporate
seal
to
be
affixed
and
these
presents
to
be
~‘
‘~
JI
,
signed
by
PHThTP
S.
xmc
,
its
Vice President
and
Sit.
TRUST
OFFICER
and attested
by
.~
~
~~51
~.
GERAI.D
L.
BELT
its
Trust
Officer,
this 24T~day
of
AUGUST
$
l~2.......
.
,~
HcUENKY
11*
,
as
Trust,
~Xorasaid,
By
/4~
?(‘~—~J
p
•
‘h.
STATE or~j~~
~rr
I,
the
undersigned
.
~HlE
E.
KERN
•
a Notary
Public
in
and
for
and
residing in
the
said
County
in
the
State
aforesaid,
DO
HEREBY
CERETEY,
‘TEAT
PHILIP
S.
KING
_presently
known
to
me
to
be
the
Vice
President
and
SR..
TRUST
OEYl~.K
‘
.
nf’
Hcflcnry
State
Dank,
&ffenry,
Illinois,
and
__________________________
personally
known
to
me
to be
the
Trust
Officer
of
said
Corporation,
whose
names
are
subscribed to
the
foregoing
instrument,
appeared
before me
this
day
in person
and
severally
acknowledged, that
aa.auth
VICE
PRESIDENT
and
TRUST
0W1~
they signed
and
delivered
the said
instrument of writing ~
officers
of
said
Corporation,
and
caused
the seal
of saidCorporationto’be
affixed
thereto
pursuant to
authority
given by
the
Board
of
Directors of
said
Corporation as
their
free and .voiuntary
act
and
deed
of said
Corporation
for
the
uses
and
purposes
therein
set
forth.
;:PC~’2O
~
--
GLven under
my
hand
and
not*5
cal,
this
~.I~’day
of
AC~ST
1989
.
~
0
g’
~
—
~IC~GO~TIT1.&
IN5URANCE
Co/P~TCd
by:
•
No’?arY
Public
Crintee’s
address:
ANER.1c.M MTIO~ALEARL
&
TRUST
CO.’
OF
CHICAGO.
•
33
18.
IA
s~j~
~
•
This
document prepclred
b~
~~~bH1/’P~P3
••
~
E; KERN
~
1~cHcn~-y
Stclo
Bank
3.333 I~Jaqk~opi
t~d~4-S-ioØ
P,~().
Box
DUB’
o’J~r4
u.
~oo~5~
BIID~13
6005003U8
-
Null’ power
and
authority
1t
hereby granted
to
s:it~lTrustee
to
inprove,
manage,
prot~et a~d~~ThSWrdt~
I’
said
real
estate
•or
any
part
thereof,
to iheilbeittu
~dsrhs,
streetu,
highways
or
alleys,
to
Vacate
any
subdivision
or
part
thereof,
and
to
resubdivi~iesaid
real
c~tstc as
often
as
desired,
to
contract
to
sell,
to grant
options
to purchase,
to sell
on
any
terms,
to
convey
either
with
or without
considera-
tion,
to
convey’
said
real
estate
or
any part
thereof
to a
auccessor(s)
in
trust
and
to
grant
to
such
successor(s)
in
trust
all
of
the
title,
estate,
powers
and
authorities
vested
in
said
Trustee,
to
donate,
to. dedicate,
to
mortgage,
pledge
or
otherwise
encunber
said
real
estate,
or
any’
part
thereof,
to
lease
said
real
estate,
or
any
part
thereof,
from
time
to
time,
in possession
or
rcversion,’by
leases
to
cocnce
in
praescnti
or
in
futuro,
and
upon
any
terms
and
for
any
period
or
periods
of
time,
not ex-
ceeding
in
the
case
of
any single
dcaise
the
tern
of
198
years,
and
renew or
extend
leaaes
upon
any
terms
and
for
any
period
or
periods
of
time
and
to amend,
change or
a~dify leases
and
the
terms
and
pro—
visions’
thereof at
any
time
or tia~s hereafter,
to
contract
to
make
leases
and
to
grant
options
to
lease
and
options
to
renew
leases
and
options
to
purchase
the
whole
or
any
part of
the
reversion
and
to
contract
‘respecting
the
manner
of
fixing
the
amount
or
present
or
future
rentals,
to
partition
or
to
exchange
said
real
estatc,
or
any
part
thereof,
for
other
real
or
personal
property,
to
grant
easements
or
charges
of
any
king,
to
relepse,
convey
or
assign
any right,
~tit’Ie
or
interest
in
or
about
or
easement
appurtenant
to
said
real
estate
or
any
part
thereof,
and
to’ deal
with
said
real
estate
and
every
part
thereof
in
all
other
ways
and
for
such
other
considerations
as
it
would
be
lawful
for
any
person
owning
the
same
to
deal
with
the
case,
whether
aimilar
to
or
different
from
the
ways
above
specified,
at any
time
or
times
hereafter.
In
no
case
shall
any
party
dealing
with
said
Trustee,
or
any successor
in
trust,
in relation to said
real
estate,
or
to
whom
satd
real
estate
or
any
part
thereof
shall be conveyed, contracted
to
be sold,
leased
or
mortgaged
by
said
Trustee,
or
any successor
in
trust,
b~obliged
to see
to
the
application
of
any
purchase
money,
rent or money borrowed or advanced
on
said
rent
estate,
or
be
obliged
to
see
that
the
terms
of this trust have been complied
with,
or
be
uhflged
to
Inquire
into
the
authority
necessity
or
expediency
of any act of said Trustee, or be obliged or privileged to inquire into any of the terms
of said Trust Agrecs~ntand every deed, trust deed, mortgage, lease or other instrument executed by said
~rustce, or
any
successor
in
trust, in relation to said real estate shall be conclusive evIdence in
ravor
0
CVCT~
person
C
Including
the
Registrar
at
Titles
of said county)
relying upon or claiming under
any
such
conveyance,
lease
or
other
instrument,
(a)
that
at
the tIe~
of
the
delivery
thereof
the
trust
created
by
this
Indenture
and
by
said
Trust
Agreement
was
in
full force
and
effect,
(b)
that
such
conveyance
or
other
instrument
was executed
in accordance
,iith
the
trusts,
conditions
and
limitations
contained
in
this
Indenture
and
in
said
Trust
Agreement
or
in all
amendments
thereof,
if
any,
and
binding
upon
all
beneficiaries
thereunder,
Cc)
that
said
Trustee
or
any
successor
in
trust,
was
duly
authorized,’
and
empowered
to execute
and deliver
every
such
deed,
trust
deed,
lease,
mortgage
or
oIlier
instrument
and
Cd)
if
the
conveyance
is
made
to
a
successor(s)
in
trust,
that
such
successor(s)
In
trust
have
been
properly
appointed
and
arc
fully
vested
with
all
the
title, estate, rights,
powera,
authorities,
duties
and obligations of its, his or their predecessor in trust.
This
conveyance
is
made
upon
the
express understanding and conditIon
that
neither
Grantee,
individually
or
as
Trustee,
nor it successor(s) in
trust
shall
incur
any
personal
liability
or
be
subjected
to
any
claim,
judgment
or
decree
for
anything
it
or they or its or their agents or attorneys
may
do
or
omIt to
do
in or about the said
real
estate
or
under
the
provisions
at
this
Deed
or
said
Trust
Agreement
or
any
amendment
thereto,
or
for
injury
to
person
or
property
happening
in
or
about
said
real
estate,
any
and
all
such
liability’
being
hereby
expressly
waived
and
released.
Any
contract,
obligation
or Indebtedness
incurred
or entered into by the Trustee in connection with said real estate may
be
entered
into
by ft
in
the
name
of
the
then
beneficiaries
under
said
Trust
Agreement
as
their
attorney—in-fact,
hereby
irrevocably
appointed
for
such,
purposes,
or
at
the
election
of
the
Trustee,
in
its
own
name,
as
Trustee
of
an
express
trust
and
not
individually
(and
the
Trustee
shall
have
no
obligation
whatsoever
wIth
respect
to
any
such
contract,
obligation
or
indebtedness
except
only
so
‘far, as’ the
trust
property
and
funds
in
the
actual
possession
of
the
Trustee
shall
bc
applicable
for
the
payment
and
discharge
thereof).
All
persons
and
corporations
whomsoever
and
whatsocver
shall
be
charged
with
notice
of
this
condition from
the
date of
the
filL,1
for
record
of this
Deed.
Ebe
interest
of
each
and
every
benefIciary
hereunder
mad
under
said
Trust
Agreement
and
of all persons
claiming
under
them
or any of
them
shall
b~only
in
the
earnings,
avails
and
proceeds
arisIng
from
the
sale
or
any
other disposition of said real
estato,
and such interest is hereby declared to bc
personal
property,
and
no
beneficiary
h,crcunder’sh,alt
have
any title
or
interest,
legal
or
equitable,
Ln
or
to
‘said
‘real
estate
as
such,
but
only
an
interest
in
earnings,
avails
and
proceeds
thereof
as
aforesaId,
the
intention
hereof
being
to
Vest
in
said
Cr.,utee
the
entire
legal
and
equitable
title
in
fee
Simple,
in
and
to all
of
the
real,
c~tatc
above
described.
If
the
title
to
any of
the
above
real
estate
is
now
or
hereafter
registered,
the
Registrar
of
Titles
is
hereby
directed
nor
to
register
or
note in
tho
certificate
of
title
or
duplicate
thereof,
or
memorial,
the
words
“in
trust,”
or
“upon
condition,”
or
“with,
limitations,”
or vord~of
similar
import,
in
accord-
ance
wIth
the statute
in
such case
made
and
provided.
EXHIBIT
“A”
TIlE
WEST
HALF
OF
LOT
1
OF
THE
NORTH
WEST
QUARTER
OF
SECTION
3,
TOWNSHIP
43
NORTH,
RANGE
9,
EAST
OF
THE
THIRD
PRINCIPAL
MERIDIAN,
IN
LAIR
COUNTY,
ILLINOIS.
TEAT
PART
OF
THE
SOUTH
EAST
QUARTER
OF
THE
NORTH
EAST
QUARTER AND
OF
THE
WEST
HALF
OF
THE
NORTH
EAST
QUARTER
OF
SECTION
4,
TOWNSHIP
43
NORTh,
RANGE
9.
EAST
OF,
THE
THIRD
PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN,
LYING
NORTHERLY
AND
EASTERLY
OF
FOX
RIVER,
IN
LAKE
COUNTY.
ILLINOIS.
THAT
PART
OF
TUE
EAST
HALF
OP
THE
EAST
HALF
OF
THE
NORTh
WEST
QUARTER
OF
SECTION
4,
TOWNSHIP
43
NORTH,
RANGE
9,
EAST
OF
THE
THIRD
PRINCIPAL
MERIDIAN,
LYING
NORTHERLY
OF
THE
FOX
RIVER,
IN
LAKE
COUI4IY,ILLINOIS.
TEAT
PART
OF
TUE
WEST
HALF
OF
TEE
SOUTHWEST
QUARTER
OF
SECTION
33,
TOWNSHIP
44
NORTH,
RANGE
9,
EAST
OF
TUE
THIRD
PRINCIPAL
MERIDIAN,
LYING
SOUTH
OF
THE
NORTH
LINE
OF
THE
SOUTH
5
ACRES
MO)
132
PERCHES
OF
THE
NORTHWEST
QUARTER
OF
TUE
SOUTHWEST
QUARTER
OF
SAID
SECTION
AND
SOUTHWESTERLY
OF
TEE
CENTERLINE
OF
THE
PUBLIC
HIGHWAY
KNOWN
AS
STATE
AID
ROUTE
I
35,
AS
SHOWN
ON
PLAT
OF
SURVEY
RECORDED
AS
DOCUMENT
#523755
IN
BOOK
29
OF
PLATS,
PACE
12,
(EXCEPT
TUE
WEST
2
RODS
THEREOF
AND
EXCEPT
THAT
PART
THEREOF
DESCRIBED
AS
FOLLOWS
•
TO—WIT:
COMMENCING
AT
THE
INTERSECTION
OP
TUE
CENTERLINE
OF
TUE
PUBLIC
HIGHWAY
AS
FORMERLY
LOCATED
AND
TEE
NORTH
LINE
OF THE
SOUTH
5
ACRES
AND
132
PERCHES
OF
THE
NORTHWEST
QUARTER
OF
TUE
SOUTHWEST
QUARTER
OF
SAID
SECTION
33,
THENCE
WEST
74
RODS;
THENCE
SOUTH
8
RODS;
THENCE
EAST
2
RODS;
THENCE
NORTH
6
RODS;
THENCE’
EAST
72
RODS
AND
THENCE
NORTH
2
RODS
TO
TUE
PLACE
OF
BEGINNING)
AND
(EXCEPTING
THEREFROM
FOX
RIVER
ESTATES,
ACCORDING
TO
THE
PLAT
THEREOF
RECORDED
OCTOBER
9,
1959,
AS
DOCUMENT
1
1047902
IN
LAKE
COUNTY,
ILLINOIS).
ALL
CONTAININC
27.70
ACRES
MORE
OR
LESS,
IN
LAKE
COUNTY,
ILLINOIS.
THE WEST
HALF
OP
THAT
PART
OF
THE
EAST
HALF
OF
TUE
NORTH
WEST
QUARTER
LYING
NORTH
OF
FOX
RIVER
IN
SECTION
4,
TOWNSHIP
43,NORTU,
RANGE
9,
EAST
OF
THE
‘flIIRI)
PRINCIPAL
MERIDIAN,
IN
LAKE
COUNTY,
ILLINOIS.-
THAT
PART
OF
THE
SOUTH
WEST
QUARTER
OF
TUE
SOUTH
EAST
QUARTER
OF
SECTION
33,
TOWNSHIP
44
NORTH,
RANGE
9,
EAST
OF
THE
THIRD
PRINCIPAL
MERIDIAN,
LYING
SOUTH
WESTERLY
OF
TIlE
CENTER
LINE
OF
STATE AID
ROUTE
135,
IN
LAKE
COUNTY,
ILLINOIS,.
ThAT
PART
OF
THE
FRACTIONAL
NORTH
HALF
OF
TUE
SOUTH
EAST
QUARTER
OF
SECTION 4,
TOWNSHIP
43
NORTH,
RANCE
9,
EAST
OF
THE THIRD
PRINCIPAL
MERIDIAN,
LYING
EAST
,OF
THE
FOX
RIVER
IN
LAKE
COUNTY,
ILLINOIS.
~
LOT
B
II~F~X RIVER
EST(ITES,
A
SUBDIVISION
IN
LAKE
COUNTY,
ILLINOIS.
~C(cfa.J9
lb
*~x-
,,t4rrecrtt~
Ccnr),tc.
q, ic,cq
A~
~/e,c~’~.zt’
/~7~O2.
SUBJECT
TO:
See
attached.
£JTC~I
/?-da’,ccs
2703Y
f~ek~ecfS
j~~a.d
~
L4~
it1
wolo
THAT
PART
OF
THE
EAST
1/2
OF
THE
SOUTH
WEST
1/4
OF
SECTION
33,
TOWNSHIP
44
NORTH,
RANGE
9,
EAST
OP
THE
THiRD
PRINCIPAL
MERIDIAN
LYING
SOUTHWESTERLY
OF
THE
CENTER
LINE
OF
STATE
AID
ROUTE
NO.
35
(ROBERTS
ROAD)
AS
SHOWN
ON
THE
PLAT
OF
SURVEY
RECORDED
AS
DOCUMENT
~23,s.s,
IN
SOO~
29
OF
FLATS,
PAGE
12,’IN
LAKE
COUNTY,
ILLINOIS.
-~-
(exc.~pri.,,g
iJ-4r’i~~
‘tk we4q~o
j~Zec~
c-~~hi&
C~
sr
7~Z~
3
I
I
SUBJECT TO:
RIGHTS OF WAY FOR DRAINAGE TILES, DITCHES, FEEDERS AND LATERALS.
/‘_
RIGHTS OF THE DUBLIC AND THE ADJOINING OWNERS TO THE FREE AND
UNOBSTRUCTED FLOW OF THE WATERS OF ANY UNNAMED STREAM OR BODY OF
WATER LOCATED ON THE LAND AND THE USE OF THE SURFACE OF SAID
STREAM OR BODY OF WATER.
(AFFECTS PARCELS 2,
3,
4,
5,
7 AND 9).
RIGHTS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, STATE OF
ILLINOiS, THE
MUNICIPALITY AND THE PUBLIC
IN AND TO THAT PART OF THE LAND LYING
WITHIN THE BED OF -THE FOX RIVER AND THE RIGHTS OF OTHER OWNERS OF
LAND BORDERING ON THE RIVER
IN RESPECT TO THE -WATER OF SAID
RIVER.
(AFFECTS PARCELS 2.
3,
7 AND 9).
RIGHTS OF THE PUBLIC AND OF THE STATE
U’
ILLINOIS,
IN AND TO SO
MUCH OF THE LAND AS DEDICATED FOR ROAD PURPOSES BY INSTRUMENTS.
ONE DATED AUGUST
‘14,
1942 AND RECORDED FEBRUARY
1,
1943
AS
DOCUMENT 523775; AND ONE DATED SEPTEMBER 19.
1942 AND RECORDED
FEBRUARY 2,
1943 AS DOCUMENT 523829-AND ANOTHER DATED DECEMBER
28,
1942 AND RECORDED FEBRUARY 2,
1943 AS DOCUMENT 523828 AND
SHOWN ON PLATS OF SURVEY RECORDED FEBRUARY
1.
1943 AS DOCUMENTS
523754,
523755 AND 523775
IN BOOK 29 OF PLATS PAGES
11 AND 12
(AFFECTS PART OF PARCELS4,
5 AND 6 LYING WITHIN 40 FEET O•FTHE
CENTER LINE OF ROBERTS ROAD).
RIGHTS.
IF ANY. OF THE SLOCUM DRAINAGE DISTRICT,.LAKE COUNTY
ILLINOIS,
IN AND TO THAT PART
•OF
THE LAND CONDEMNED FOR DRAINAGE
DITCHES AND DRAINAGE RIGHTS OF WAY OR TAKEN OR USED FOR DRAINAGE
PURPOSES BY PROCEEDINGS HAD IN THE COUNTY COURT! OF LAKE COUNTY,
ILLINOIS, (GENERAL NO.
6828) ON PEUTION FILED SEPTEMBER
17,
1914.
-
-
ffieiT er-tIenTiiEnt~ ILLU~9Is?AS EGM~AW!
AN IL~-IN9lS?9flP’9RA+I~ç-
WAY FOR THE PURPOSE OF LAYING, MAINTAINING
REPLACING AND REMOVING A GAS MAIN A
1-H~C~
FACILITIES APPURTENANT THERETO
10
RYG
OF ACCESS
ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS,
TO A PERPETUAL EASEMENT ‘A
RENEWJNG.
-
THERETO FOR SAID
ONG AND ACROSS THE
LAND HEREIN
IN AOSE~J~ON
~CM1tDN
SHOWN ON
ATTACHED THERETO.
AS GRANTED
APRI
,
~
DATED MARCH 24
__________________
1259529.
.
1965 AND RECORDED
EXISTING LEASES.
2S25~3O3
EASEMENT
FOR
UTILITIES
OVER
THE
EAST
10
FEET
OF
LOT
B
AS
SHOWN
ON
THE
PLAT
OF
SAW
SUBDIVISION.
(AFFECTS
PARCEL
10).
‘.
-
RIGHT
OF
INGRESS
AND
EGRESS
OVER
20
FEET
OF
LAND
LYING
SOUTH
OF
LOT
A
IN
FOX
RIVER
ESTATES
TO
CHANNEL
EAST
OF
LQT
12
TOGET!IER~..
WITH
THE
RIGHT
TO
BUILD
A
PIER
OR
MOOR
A
BOAT
IN
THIS
CHANNEL,
AS
GRANTED
IN THE AGREEMENT RECORDED JUNE
9,
1960 AS DOCUMENT
‘.
-‘
1071653 AND DEED RECORDED FEBRUARY
10,
1965 AS DOCUMENT 1253885,
AND AS AMPLIFIED
BY
AFFIDAVIT
RECORDED
APRIL
5,
1989 AS DOCUMENT
2780058.
(AFFECTS
THE
NORTH
10
FEET
OF
PARCEL
10
AND
PART
OF
THE
LAND
HEREIN COVERED BY THE CHANNEL.).
EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS OVER A TWENT’t FOOT.STRIP BETWEEN
GERALDINE LANE AND THE CHANNEL EAST OF FOX RIVER ESTATES
DESCRIBED AS COMMENCING AT
A POINT ON
THE WEST LINE AND 10 FEET
NORTH
OF
THE
SOUTHWEST
CORNER
OF
LOT
‘A’
IN SAID
SUBDIVISION;
THENCE SOUTH ALONG THE WEST LINE
OF
SAID
LOT
‘A’
AND
LOT
~B
A
DISTANCE OF 20 FEET;
THENCE EAST PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF
SAID LOT ‘A’ 245 FEET; THENCE NORTH 40 FEET. MORE OR LESS, TO THE
WATERS EDGE OF THE CHANNEL; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE WATERS
EDGE
OF SAID CHANNEL 20 FEET, MORE OR
LESS, TO A POINT 25 FEET EAST OF
THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT ‘A’; THENCE SOUTH 20
FEET. MORE QR
LESS, TO A POINT WHICH
IS
10 FEET NORTH OF THE EXTENSION EAST5OF
THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT
‘A’, SAID POINT ALSO BEING 25 FEET~
EAST OF THE EAST LINE OF~SAID LOT ‘A”; THENCE WEST 225 FEET,
ALONG A LINE
10 FEET NORTH OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF,
-
SAID LOT ‘A’ TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; TOGETHER WITH THE RIGHT
TO BUILD A PIER
IN THE CHANNEL AND THE RIGHT TO MOOR BOA-I
IN THE
CHANNEL, AS GRANTED BY WARRANTY DEED RECORDED JULY 26,
1966 AS
DOCUMENT 1311302,
CONVEYING LOT
13
IN SAID SUBDIVISION AND ALSO
CONTAINED IN VARIOUS OTHER GRANTS AND CONVEYANCES OF LOTS
IN SAID
SUBDIVISION, AND AS AMPLIFIED BY AFFIDAVIT RECORDED APRIL
5,
1989
AS DOCUMENT 2780058.
(AFFECTS THE NORTH
10 FEET OF PARCEL
10 AND PART OF PARCEL 4 AND
PART OF ‘THE LAND FALLING
IN THE-CHANNEL).
RIGHT OF COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY AND ILLINOIS BELL TELEPHONE
COMPANY, THIS SUCCESSORS AND ASSiGNS,
TO AN EASEMENT TO
CONSTRUCT,
MAINTAIN,
ETC.,
THEIR FACILITIES USED
IN CONNECTION
WiTH OVERHEAD AND UNDERGROUND TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION OF_
ELECTRICITY, SOUNDS AND SIGNALS, TOGETHER WITH RIGHT OF ACCESS
THERETO, ‘OVER -THE SOUTH
10 FEET OF THE NORTH 30 FEET OF PARCEL
1
AND THE SOUTH
10 FEET OF THE NORTH 30 FEET OF PART OF PARCEL 2
IN
THE SOUTHEAST
1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST
1/4 OF SECTION 4 AND ALSO OVER
THE SOUTH
10 FEET OF
THE NORTH 30 FEET OF THE EAST
140 FEET OF
THE SOUTHWEST
1/4 OF THE-NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 4 AS GRANTED BY
INSTRUMENT RECORDED MAY 6,
1977 AS DOCUMENT 1834912 AND CORRECTED
BV GRANT RECORDED APRIL
10,
1989 AS DOCUMENT 2781084.
(AFFECTS PARCELS
1 AND 2)..
2825909
-2-
5
I
—
•
a
RIGHT OF COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY,
ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS,
TO
AN
EASEMENT
TO
CONSTRUCT,
MAINTAIN,
ETC.,
THEiR
FACILITIES
USED
IN
CONNECTION
WITH
OVERHEAD
AND
UNDERGROUND
TRANSMISSION
~IND
DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRICITY, SOUNDS AND SIGNALS, TOGETHER WITH
RIGHT
OF
ACCESS’THERETO,
OVER THAT PORTION OF PARCELS 2 AND 9 AS
SHOWN ON EXHIBIT
“A’ OF THE INSTRUMENT AS GRANTED BY
INSTRUMENT
RECORDED JUNE
14,
1984
AS DOCUMENT-2289835. (AFFECTS PARCELS 2
AND
9).
‘
ATTENTION
IS DIRECTED TO ORDINANCES BY THE COUNTY OF LAKE ONE
RECORDED
AS
DOCUMENT
2037978.
OTHERS
RECORDED
FROM
TIME
TO
-TIME,
RELATING TO THE PAYMENT OF CERTAIN CHARGES AS A CONDiTION-
PRECEDENT TO PERMISSION TO TAP INTO A SEWER
OR
WATER
SYSTEM.
SAiD
INSTRUMENTS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED WHEN DEALING-WITH THE PROPERTY
INSURED HEREIN.
SLOCUM -DRAINAGE DISTRICT-. WARRANT
NO. 73 MR
107
(68 MR 3526
COUNTY COURT,
LAKE COUNTY,
ILLINOIS)
FOR DRAINAGE PURPOSES
CONFIRMED OCTOBER 9;
‘1968 FOR S16.OO ON THE NORTH
1/2 OF THE EAST
1/2
OF
THE
EAST
1/2
OF
THE
NORTH
OF
RIVER
OF
SECTION
4,
IOWNSHIP
43 NORTH, RANGE
9,
PAYABLE WITH GENERAL REAL ESTATE TAXES.
THE
1976 ANNUAL
INSTALLMENT HAS BEEN PAID
(NOT
LEVIED
FOR
THE
YEARS
1977
THROUGH
1987).
SLOCUM
DRAiNAGE
DISTRICT;
WARRANT
NO.
73
MR
107
(68
MR
3626.
COUNTY COURT,
LAKE COUNTY,
ILLINOIS)’FOR DRAINAGE PURPOSES
CONFIRMED OCTOBER 9,
1968 FOR. 5-14.00 ON THE EAST 20 ACRES(EXCEPT
FOX RIVER ESTATES AND EXC.EPT THE WEST 2 RODS) SOUTH WESTSOUTH.
,-‘
-
WEST
SECTION
33,
TOWNSHIP
44
NORTH,
RANGE
9,
PM’ABLE
WITH
GENERAL-.
-~ --
REAl.
ESTATE
TAXES.
THE
1987
ANNUAL
INSTALLMENT
HAS
BEEN
PAID
(NOT
LEVIED
FOR
THE
YEAR
1977
THROUGH
1984).
SLOCUM DRAINAGE DISTRICT, WARRANT NO.
73 MR
107
(68 MR 3626
COUNTY COURT, LAKE COUNTY,
ILLINOIS) FOR DRAINAGE-PURPOSES
CONFIRMED OCTOBER 9,1968 FOR $14.00
(EXCEPT CASHMORE ROBERTS
ROAD ACRE) PART LYING SOUTHERLY SLOCUM DRAINAGE DISTRICT PART OF
THE EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTH WEST
1/4 OF SECTION 33,.TOWNSHIP 44
NORTH. RANGE
9,
EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIqIAN; PAYABLE
WITH GENERAL REAL ESTATE TAXES. THE 1987 ANNUAL
INSTALLMENT HAS
BEEN
PAID.
(NOT LEVIED YEARS
‘1977 THROUGH
1984).
2825909
—3—
0
•
‘I
.1
SLOCUM DRAINAGE DISTRICT, WARRANT NO.
73 MR
107
(68 MR 3626
COUNTY COURT, LAKE COUNTY,
ILLiNOIS) FOR DRAINAGE PURPOSES
CONFIRMED OCTOBER 9,
1968 FOR S14.00
ON
PERMANENT
INDEX
NUMBER
1304100003,
PAYABLE
WITH
GENERAL
REAL
‘ESTATE
-TAXES.
THE
1987
ANNUAL
INSTALLMENT
HAS
BEEN
PA ID.
.
-
EN~R8ACH?,1L1~-1or
A
I~AM~
DAflN
AND
METAL
SHED
OVE~.P—THF ~
~
OY—D6CUMEM
52~DISCLOSEO
BY
A
RIGHTS
OF PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NORTHERN ILLINOIS,
ITS
SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS,
TO CONSTRUCT,
MAINTAIN AND RENEW
‘POLE
LINE EQUIPMENT’ AND ‘GAS MAIN EQUIPMENT’
IN THE PUBLIC HIGHWA-V
KNOWN
AS
ROBERTS
ROAD
AS
GRANTED
BY
AN
UNRECORDED
EASEMENT
DATED
MARCH
15,
1940,
A
COPY
OF
WHICH
IS
IN
OUR
FILE.
(AFFECTS
PART
OF
PARCELS
2.
4,
AND
5
I-N
ROBERTS
ROAD).
RIGHTS
OF
THE
COMMONWEALTH
EDISON
COMPANY
AND
ILLINOIS
BELL
TELEPHONE
COMPANY,
THEIR
SUCCESSORS
AND
ASSIGNS,
TO
CONSTRUCT,
LAY, MAINTAIN, ETC., THEIR EQUIPMENT CONSISTING OF POLES, ‘ETC.,
IN,
UPON,
UNDER
AND
ALONG
THE
WEST
10 FEET OF THE EAST 160 FEET
OF THE NORTH
1500 FEET OF THE WEST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER
OF SECTION 4..AS
GRANTED
BY
I
UMENfDATED JUNE
12,
1957 AND
--
RECORDED JUNE
19
1957 AS DOCUMENT 954371.
(AFFECTS PARCEL
2).
-
BUftDIN~
LI~~Ef~AST
OF7~E’~ESfiJINEOFLOT “B’AS
ON THE PLAT OF SAW SUBDIVISION.
(AFFECTS PARCEL
10).
-
MATTERS OF SURVEY
A~
THEII
RELATE TO T
ASTERLV BOUNDARY LINE OF
PARCEL
1 ONLY.
-
(AFFECTS PARCEL
1).
-
-4-
7
Certified
Copy
from
Circuit
Court
of
THE
NINETEENTH
JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT,
Lake
County,
Illinois
3230245
I
32
302
Li5
1~.~
--~‘-‘~
~
rr~(?:
17
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS
)
-
s
COUNTY OF L A K E
)
‘I.
‘~‘
--~---‘~
I,
SALLY D. COFFELT, Clerk of the Circuit Court of the
NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, LAKE COUNTY, in and for the State of
Illinois,
and the
keeper
of
the records,
files and seals thereof,
do
hereby
certify
the
above
and
foregoing
to
be
a
true,
perfect
and
complete
copy
of
a
certain
JDtXME1~1TORDER
________________________________,
General
Number
92
ED
69
filed
in
my
office
on
OCIOBER
5
19_92
in
a
certain
cause
L1~TELY
pending
in
said
Court,
wherein
LAKE
COUNTY FOREST
PRESERVE
DISTRC~
Plaintiff
and
N~1ERICANNATIONAL
BNSJK
AND
TRUST
CC~PP1Ny
et
al.,
Defendant.
TN
WITNESS
WHEREOF,
I
have
hereunto
set
my
hand,
and
affixed
the
seal
of
said
Court,
at
W’aukegan,
Illinois
OCTOBER
.
19
92
SALL
D. C FFELT
Clerk
of
the
Circuit
Court
BY:
~
b~uty~1e~k.
171—178
12/80
~1
32302~+5
-
STATE OF ILLINOIS
)
OCT
SS.
COUNTY OF L A K E
)
9
~
~
~
IN
THE
CIRCUIT
COURT
OF
THE
NINETEENTH
CIRCUIT
CI-ER1~
JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT,
LAKE
COUNTY,
ILLINOIS
LAKE
COUNTY
FOREST
PRESERVE
DISTRICT,
etc.,
et al.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
.
)
GEN.
NO,
92 ED 69
AMERICAN
NATIONAL
BANK
& TRUST
)
PARCEL NO. FRP-1
COMPANY,
etc.,
et al.,
Defendant,
JUDGMENT ORDE
This
cause
coming
on
to
be
heard
on
the
Second
Amended
Complaint
for
Condemnation
of
the
LAKE
COUNTY
FOREST
PRESERVE
DISTRICT
to
ascertain the just compensation for the taking of certain property for
forest preserve purposes,
as set forth in the Second Amended Complaint
for Condemnation;
AND
the plaintiff appearing by JOSEPH
T. MORRISON
of MORRISON
&
MORRISON,
P.C.,
and
the
defendants,
AMERICAN NATIONAL
BANK
& TRUST
COMPANY
OF CHICAGO,
as Trustee
under
Trust Agrement
dated
June
29,
1989,
and known as Trust Number 108688~00, and MOORINGS
ON FOX RIVER
LTD.
PARTNERSHIP,
appearing by Thomas
Z. Hayward,
Jr. ot BELL, BOYD
&
LLOYD;
and
defendant,
BOULEVARD
BANK
N.A.,
as
Mortgagee
under
the
Mortgage
recorded
as
Document
No.
2825912,,
appearing
by
Michael
Weininger
of KATZ,
RANDALL
& WEINBERG,
and defendant, VILLAGE
OP FOX
RIVER VALLEY GARDENS,
appearing by Samuel Diamond of DIAMOND,-LeSUEtJR
& ROTH ASSOCIATES;
3230245
AND
it
appearing
to
the
Court
that
all
defendants
to
this
proceeding have been served by process as provided by statute and have
entered their Appearances and have had due notice of these proceedings,
and that the Court
has
jurisdiction
of the subject
matter of
this
proceeding and of all parties hereto;
AND the Court being fully advised that all
of the parties have
entered into a Settlement Stipulation waiving view of the premises and
jury prove-up;
AND
the terms
of that
Settlement Stipulations
are incorporated
into this Judgment Order by agreement;
AND
the Court being fully advised in the premises,
On motion of plaintiff,
IT IS
THEREFORE
ORDERED
THAT:
1.
Pursuant to the Stipulation between the parties, the sum of
FIVE MILLION EIGHT
HUNDRED
THOUSAND
AND
NO/lOG ($5,800,000.00) DOLLARS
constitutes the just compensation to the
owner
or owners
of or party
and parties interested in Parcel
FRP—1
for the taking thereof by the
plaintiff of fee simple title thereto, and judgment is herein entered
accordingly.
2.
Upon payment by the plaintiff within thirty
(30)
days to the
Treasurer of Lake County,
Illinois,
of the sum of FIVE MILLION EIGHT
HUNDRED
THOUSAND
AND
NO/100 ($5,800,000.00) DOLLARS, and upon Motion of
plaintiff providing proof of deposit of said sum, the plaintiff shall
be vested with fee simple title to the following described land as of
October 15,
1992:
PARCEL FRP-1:
SEE EXHIBIT “A”
3230245
3.
The terms of the Settlement Stipulation filed herein as to
Parcel
FRP-l
are hereby incorporated into
and made
a. part
of this
Judgment
Order,
and
the
Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the terms
of that Settlement
Stipulation,
and further retains jurisdiction
to
place plaintiff in full, complete and quiet possession of Parcel
FRP—l
on October
15,
1992,
by writ of assistance or otherwise.
4.
This Court
shall retain jurisdiction to hear and determine
all claims and all rights in and to the just compensation for Parcel
PP.2—i
pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure,
Sections 7—123 and 7-
127.
5.
Prior to October 15, 1992, the defendants, except the VILLAGE
OF POX RIVER VALLEY GARDENS, will convey to the plaintiff by Bill of
Sale or otherwise, good and merchantable title to the personal property
described on Exhibit
“B”.
This personal property shall be in good and
working condition,
taking into account the age
of the equipment and
normal wear and tear.
6.
Prior to October 15, 1992, the defendants, except the VILLAGE
OF FOX RIVER VALLEY GARDENS,
will cause
to have
the
horses,. video
games,
Coke
machines,
other
vending
machines,
duck
blinds,
and
inoperable boats removed from the property.
7.
This cause is set for further status on October 14,
1992, at
9:00
a.m., to determine whether the plaintiff has been provided with
3
3230245
sufficient cooperation under the terms of the Settlement Stipulation to
take title to the subject property.
ORDER
PREPARED
BY:
Joseph
T.
Morrison
DONALD
T.
MORRISON
&
ASSOCIATES,
P.C.
32
N.
West
Street
Waukegan,
Illinois
708/244—2660
\fpdfrpi\jo
‘V
ENTER:
4
(0
~LO
JUDGE
3230245
6O~f
EXHIBIT
‘IA”
LEGAL
1)ESCRIPTION’
PARCEL NO.
1:
That
part
of
the West half of the Southwest Quarter of
Section
33,
Township
44 North,
Range
9,
East of the Third Principal
Meridian,
lying South of the
North
line of the South
5 acres and 132
perches
of
the Northwest
Quarter
of
the
Southwest
Quarter
of
sai..d
Section and Southwesterly of the Centerline of
the
Public Highway known
as State Aid Route ~35, as shown on plat of survey recorded as Document
No.
523755
in nook
29
of
Plats,
page
12,
(except
the West
2
rods
thereof and
except that
part
thereof
described
as
follows,
to—wit:
Commencing at the intersection of the Centerline of the public highway
as
formerly Located and the
North
line
of the South
5 acres and 132
perches
of
the Northwest
Quarter
of
the
Southwest
Quarter
of
said
Section
33; thence West
74
rods; thence South
8 rods;
thence East
2
rods; thence
North
6 rods; thence East 72 rods and thence North 2 rods
to the place of beginaing)
and
(excepting therefrom Fox River Estates,
except Lot 3,
according to the Plat thereof recorded October
9,
1959,
as Document No. 1047902), except any part thereof heretofore dedicated
and
used for highway purposes,
in Lake County, Illinois.
PARCEL NO.
2:
That part of the East half of the Southwest Quarter of
Section
33, Township 44
North,. Range
9,
East
of the Third Principal
Meridian,
(except that
pa~
thereof lying Northeast of the Centerline
of
Roberts
Road
State Aid Route
~35)
and
(except
any part thereof
heretofore
dedicated
and
used
for highway purposes),
in
Lake
County,
Illinois.
PARCEL
NO.
3:
The
West
half
of
that
part
of the East half of the North
West
quarter lying North
of
the
centerline
of
the
Pox
River
in
Section
4,
Township
43
North,
Range
9,
East
of
the
Third
Principal
Meridian,
in
Lake
County,
Illinois.
PARCEL
NO.
4:
That
Dart
of
the
East
half
of
the
East
half
of
the
North
West
Quarter
of
Section
4,
TowushiD
43
North,
Range
9,
East
of
the
Third
Prixici~a).
Meridian,
lying
Northerly
of
the
centerline
of
the
Fox
River,
in
Lake
County,
Illinois.
PARCEL
NO.
5:
That
part
of
the
South
East
Quarter
of
the
North
East
Quarter
and
of
the
West
half
of
the
North
East
Quarter
of
Section
4,
Townshi~ 43
North,
Range
9,
East’ of
the
Third
Prjnci~al
Meridian,
lying
Northerly
and
Easterly
of
the
centerline
of
the
Fox
River,
except
any
part
thereof
heretofore
dedicated
and
used
for highway
pu.rooses,
in
Lake County,
Illinois.
PARCEL NO.
6:
The West half
of Lot
1
of the North West Quarter
of
Section
3,
Township
43
North,
Range
9,
East
of the
Third
Principal
Meridian,
in
Lake
County,
Illinois.
PARCEL
NO.
7:
That cart of the Fractional
North
half
of the South East
Quarter of Section
4,
Township 43
North, Range
9,
East of the Third
Principal Meridian,
lying East of the centerline of the Fox River, in
Lake County, Ill~nois.
—1
1
3230245
PARCEL NO.
10:
That part of the Northeast
Quarter
of
the Northeast
Quarter of Section
4,
Township
43
North,
Range
9,
East of
the Third
Princibal Meridian, described as follows:
.
3eginning at the Southwest
corner of
Roberts
Road Estates
Su.bdivision,
a
subdivision recorded
January
13,
1981
as
Document
2097169;
thence
South
along
the
West
line
of said
quarter
quarter
section 270 feet to
the Southwest corner of
said
quarter
quarter
section;
thence
East
along
the
South
U.ne
of
the
said
quarter
quarter
section
to
a
point
61.3
feet
West
of
the
Southeast
corner
thereof;
thence
Northwesterly
200
feet
to
a
southeast
corner
of
premises
conveyed
by
Document
2307038
recorded
August
30,
1984;
thence
West
along
the
South
Line
of
premises
conveyed
by
Document
2307038
to
the
Southwest
corner
of
premises
conveyed
by
said
document;
thence
North
70
feet
along
the
West
line
of
premises
conveyed
by
sai.d
Document
and.
said
West
line
extended
to
a
point
270
feet
North
of
the
South
line
of
said
quarter
quarter
section
and
thence
West
along
the
North
line
of
the
South
270
feet
of
said
quarter
quarter
section
to
the
point
of
beginning,
in
Lake
County,
Illinois,
PARCEL
NO.
11:
That
part
of
the
South
West
quarter
of
the
South
East
quarter
of
Section
33,
Township
44
North,
Range
9,
East
of
the
Third
Principal
Meridian,
lying South Westerly of
the
centerline
of
Roberts
Road (State
Aid
Route 35), except
any
part thereof heretofore dedicated
and
used for highway purposes,
in Lake County, Illinois.
3230245
EXHIBIT
“B”
1.
All piers, both channels.
2.
Floating pier at launching ramp.
3.
1972 Dodge truck with tank.
4.
Center vise and workbench (on south side of shop wall).
5.
1 ton electric hoist and trolley on rail in shop.
6.
All office furniture in office.
7.
1 1/2 HP air compressor.
8.
Liquid Propane Pump.
9.
“Big boat” trailer.
10.
Hydraulic boat trailer.
11.
Pontoon boat trailer.
12.
Old huff for lifting boats.
13.
John Deere tractor
-
BackHoe
and
loader
3020.
14.
Case tractor and 6’ mower.
15.
1.1!.
140 and 5’ mower.
16.
Kubota G6200
and
4’ mower.
17.
Welder.
18.
Double
wide
trailer
with
existing
recreation
room
(and
no
washrooms).
q
3230245
82/8~/2805
15:44
PAGE
82
E~/~b;:*
~
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
NINETEENTH
JU~ICIAt.CIRCUIT
1~KE
COUNTY,
ILLINOIS
fl
f~
r~
CNANCSR.Y
DIVISION
IR
LI
L
PEOPLE OF
THE
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS,
)
u•
cx
~e1.
LISA
MADIGAN~
Attorney
)
3
0
2004
General
of the State of U1jnoi~,
?Lainti~f,
v.
)
No.
04 CH 1206
VILL~.CE
OF
WAUCONDA.
an Illinois fiunicipal Corporation,
Dsfendant.
cLQ~La!P1~
Plaintiff.
PEOPLE
OF
TNE
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS.
ex
rel.
LISA
y1ADzG~N.
,~ttorney
General
of
the
State
of
Illinoi.e.
the
Il1ino~.s
Envjrox~nenta1
Protection Agency (‘~IllinoisEPA”),
end
te~endant,
VIlLAGE OP
wMJCONOA.
have agreed to the ~nekingc~f
thi9
Cozeent
Order and submit it to thiB
Court
for approval.
The parties
agree that the statement o~facts contained herein represents a
~ir
s
i~ary
of the evidence
and
testin~onywhich would be
introduced
by
the parties if a trial were held.
The parties
further stipulate
that
this statament of facts
is made and agreed
upon f~rpurposes of settlement only
and
that
neither the
fact
that
a party has entered into this Consant order, nor any
of
the
facts atipulated herein,
shall be introduced into ev~dence
in any
other proceeding regarthng the
c1a~.rns
asserted in the
Complaint
except as othsrwi~eprov~e~1
herein.
If
this
Court
app~ov’esand
enters this Coneer~tOrder,
Defendant agrees to be
bound
by the
E?gE~94S
£48
dcg~Q ;~
ea
qa,~
PAGE
03
Consent
Order
anc3
not
to
contest
its
vaudity
in
any
subsequent
proeeec3ir.g
cc, implement or er.feree its terms.
I.
~zSI~ICTIQ$
This Court
has
jurisdiction
of
the
subject
matter
herein
arid
of
the parties consenting hereto pursuant to the Illinois
~rivironmenta1
Protection
Act
(‘~Act”),
415
ILCS
5/1
et
seq.
(2002)
rr.
At~O~XZA~ION
The undersigned
representatives for each party certify
that
they are gully authorized by the party whom
they
represent
to
enter into the terms and cond~.tionsof this Consent Order arid
to
legally
bind
them.
to
it.
lIZ-
~TATZHZWf~OP~
~
A.
~
1.
On
August
17,
2004.
a
Complaint
was
filed
an
behalf
of the People of the State of Illinois by
LISA
MADIGAN,
Attorney
General of the State of Illinois, en her
own
motion
and.
upon
the
request of the Illinois EPA, pursuant to Section 42(4) and
(e)
of
the Act,
4:L5 ILCS 5/42 (d)
and
Ce)
(2002),
against the Defendant.
2.
The Illinois EPA is an adm~.nistrativeagency of the
State
of
Illinois.
created
pursuant
to
Section
4 of the Act,
415
n,cs
5/4
(2002)
2
~cs:Lcgo ~
02/5~J2E105
15:44
PAGE
04
3.
~At
all
times relevant to the Complaint.
Defendant ~ae
~nd is an illincis municipal corporation,
organized and operat.thg
under the laws of the State
of
I11jnoj~.
B,
Site ~e~crthtion
At all times relevant to the Complaint,
Defendant
owr~dand operated a mun~cipalwaste water treatment plant
~‘POTW”)
•
located
at
302
Slocutn Lake Road,
qauconda, Lake County,
Illinois
V’faciUty” or
‘site”)
2.
On
September
24,
2003,
a
malfunction
at
Defendant~s
POTW resulted in
t~edischarge
of untreated and partially treated
sewage into
storri sewers leading to gangs Lake X~rain.
C.
AU.c~*tion
of
14pC~1jancs
PlaintiU
contends
that
the
Defendant
has
violated the
following provisions of the Act and Illinois Pollution
Control
Soard
Y’Soard”)
Regulations:
Count
I;
WATER POLLUTION,
vjolatio~of 415 ILCS 5/12(a) (2002);
Count II:
CREATING
A RATER POLL~YEZON1Ay.~JW,
violation of 415 ILC$ S/12(d) (2002);
Count III: VIOLATION OF WATER QUAL!D1 STANDARDS,
violation ~f 415 ILCS 5/12(*) (2002)
and
35
Iii. M~n.
Code
302.203;
Count
IV:
VIOLATION OF EFFLUENT
SIM~DARDS,
violation of 415 ILCS 5/12(a) (2002),
and 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 304.104 an~304.106;
Count V:
NPDES PERMIT VIOLATIONS,
violation of 415 ILCS 5/12(f) (2302), and NPDES
permit ~1o. 1L0020109.
3
SE8~-94S
£48
d~g:~rj
50
so
~
02/0~/2E1@5
15:44
PAGE
@5
D.
o~
Vi~l~i~
The Defendant neither admits
r.or
denies
the violations
allagedin the Complaint filed in this matter and referenced
here in.
Iv.
APPLIcABfl.,ITT
A.
This
Consent Order shall apply to and be binding
upon
the Flair.tiff and
the
Defendant,
and any officer,
director,
agent., or
employee of the Defendant,
as well as any
successors or
ase~.gnsof the
Defendant.
The Defendant shall
riot raise as
a
defense to
any
enforcement action taken pursuant. t~othis Consent
c~rderthe
failure of any of
its officers,
directors,
agents, or
employees to take such action
as
shall
be required to comply with
the provisions of this Consent Order.
a.
T~o
change
in ownership, corporate Status or operator of
the facility shall in any way alter
the
responsibilities of
the
Defendant under this Consent
Order.
In the event of any
conveyance of title, easement or other interest in the
facility,
the Defendant shall continue
to
be
bound
by
and
remain
liable for
performance of all obligations under thia Consent Order,
In
appropriate c~rcumetanCeS,however, the Defendant and a
contemplated future owner or operator of
‘the
facility may jointly
request.,
and
the
Plaintiff,
in
its
discretion
may
consider,
modification
of
this
Consent
Order
to obligate the proposed
4
5d
£48
~CS:~.0
50
80
q..~
~2/es.(2o@5
15:44
PAGE
@6
purch~uer
or
operator
to carry out
future
requi.re~rrentsof this
Conse~:
Order
in
place
of,
or ~.n
addition
to.
the Defen~ar~t.,
C.
In
the event that the Defendant proposes
to
s~l or
transfer
any
real
property or operations subject
to
this Consent~
Order,
the
Defendant
shall notify the Plaintiff 30
days prior to
the
conveyance
of
title,
ownership
or
other
interest,
including
a
l.~aeeholdintere.st
in the facility
or
a
portion
thereof. The
Defendant shall
make
the prospective purchaser or successor’s
compliance
with
this
Cth~sentOrder a condition of ~ny such sale
or .tran~ferand shall provide a copy of t~.nConsent
Order
to any
such
auccessor
in intere~t~
This provision does not relieve the
Defendant
from compliance w~thany
regulatory
requirement
regarding notice and transfer of applicable facility permits.
V.
~
v~ws
&N~
This
Conserit Order in no way affects the responsibilities of
the Defendant to
comply
with any other
fec~eral, state
or
local
laws
or
regulat~1ons~
includin9 but not limited to
the
Act
and
Board Regulati.cnS~
~5
Ill.
Adrri.
Code,
Subtitles A through H.
VI,
The parties agree that
the venue of any action comn~encedin
the circuit court for
the
purposes of interpretation
and
enforcement of the terms and conditions of
this
Consent
Order
shall be in
the Circuit Court of
Lake
County,
Illirio~s.
$
CE6~-9PS
£48
~
~+5~O
SO
80
q~
~2f~9/2@U5
15:
44
PAGE
@7
VII.
It
is the intent of the Plaint.ff and ~efer,dant
that
the
provisions
~f
this
Consent
Order
shall be sever~hle. and should
any
provision be declared by
a court of competent jurisdiction to
be
inconsistent
with
state
or
federal
law1
and therefore
unenforceable,
the
remaining clauses shall remain in
f~.i1l force
arid
effect.
VIII.
T
.QRD~
This
Court,
having
;ur~.sdiction
over
the parties
an~
subject
matter,
the parties having appeared?
due notice having been
given,
the Court having considered the stipulated facts
and. being
advised in the premises,
this Court
finds
the
following
relief
appropriate;
IT
IS
HEREBY
ORDERED,
AD~,TUDGED MID
D~C~EZ~
A.
p.nalt~
1.
a.
The Defendant shall pay a
civil
pet~altyof Ten
‘otisand Dollars
($10,000.00)
within thirty
(30)
days of the date
of
entry
of
this
Consent Order.
b.
Payment
shall be made by certified check or money
order, payable to the Illinois EPA for deposit into the
Environmental Protection Trust
Fund
(‘~EPTr) and
shall
be
sent
by
first cla~s
mall
and
delivered
to;
Illinois Environmental Proteetion
Agency
6
g~s~-9#g
L4’B
.*4’~S
~pg~i.o
So
80
q.4
Fiscal
Services
1021
~~rth
Grand
Avenue
East
P.O. Box 1927E
Springfie:.cl,
IL 627g4-~9276
c.
The name,
case
number,
and the Oefe~dants Federal
g~mployerIdentification Number
(“REIN”
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
ceneral
Environmental Bureau
188 West
Randolph
St.,
suite
20~1
Chicago,
Illinois 60601
2.
For purposes of
payment
arid collection,
the
Defendant’s
attorney may be reached at the following address;
Mr.
Rudolph
F.
I’iagna
Magna
~
~7ohnson
495
~.
Riverside Drive,
Suite 201
Gurnee,
Illinois 60031
3.
~or purposes of
payment
arict collection,
Defendant may
be reached at the following addresa~
Mayor
Village of Wauconda
103
South StateStreet
Waucortda,
Illinois
61065
4,
In the event of default,
the Plairitiff shall be
entitled to reasonable costs
of collection.
thcludir,g reasonable
attorney’s
fees.
B.~
Fu~r~
C~l~ancs
1.
The Defendant shall
implement
and
enforce
a
pretreatment program in accordance with
Village
of Wauconda
7
~D
80
~
~I2/~9.’2005
15:44
PAuE
09
Ordinance
2000-0-31,
adopted
on
Se~tentber
19,
2000,
end all
subsequent
mod.~ficatione
thereto.
The
Defendant shall ~uair~ta.in
legal authority adequate to fully implement
its Pretreatment
Program.
The Defendant shell:
a.
Carry out independent inspection and monitorIng
procedures
at
least
once per year,
which will
deternu.ne
whether
each
significant
industrial user
(“SItr’~ ~s in
compliance
with
applicable pretreatment standards;
b.
Perform an evaluation,
at
least
once
every
two
(2)
years,
to determine whether each
~IU
needs a slug
coritrol
plan.
If
needed,
the
Siti
slug control plan
shall
include
the
items specified in 40 CPR
‘
403.8
(f)
~2)
(v)
c.
Update its inventory of i.ndustrial
users
(W’a)
at
least annually and as needed,
or as required by an
NPDES
Permit,
to
ensure
that
all
SItJa
are
properly
identified,
characterized,
arid
categorized;
d.
Receive and rev~.ewself
monitoring
and
other
ItI
reports
to determine compliance with all pretreatnient
standards
and requirements, M~dobtain appropriate remedies for
noncompliance by any
I’J with any pretreatment standard
and/or requirement;
e.
Investigate
instancss
of
noncompliance,
collect and
analyze
samples,
and
compile
other
information
with
sufficient
care
as
to produce ev~denceadmissible
in
enforcement proceedings,
including judicial action;
f.
Require development,
as necessary,
of compliance
schedules by each industrial user for the Installation
of control technologies to meet applicable pretreatment
standards;
arid,
g.
Maintain an
adequate
revenue structure for continued
operation of Defendant’S pretreatment program.
2.
The Defendant shell
iseue/rei~suepermits or equivalent
control mechanisms to all SIUs prior to expiration of exist~ng
permits or prior to coem~encementof discharge
in the case of new
dss;Lo
SO 80
q~
02/59/2005
15:44
PAGE
10
discha~es.
The
perrru.ts
at
a
mirzirnum shall
iriclude the elements
listed
in 40 CPR 403.8(f~(I) (iii).
3.
The Defendant shall develop,
maintain, and enforce,
as
~c~eseary,
local, limits
to
implemen:
t.ne
prohibitions
in
40 CPR
403.S which prohibit
the introduction of specific pollutants to
the waste treatment system from
any source of nondomestic
discharge.
4.
In addition
to the
general limitations expressed in
Paragraph
3 above,
applicable pretreatment
standards must be met
by eli
industrial users of
the
POT~4.
These limitatIo~’is
include
speèifIC standards for certain industrial categories as
determined by Section 307(b) and S of the Clean Water Act,
State
limits, or local
limits, whichever are more stringent.
5.
The Defendant shall provide an annual report briefly
describing the Defendant’s pretreatmeri~prograt~activities over
the previous calendar year.
Such report shall be
submitted no
later than January
31 of the following
year,
and
shall
be in
the
tormat
set forth in Illinois EPA’s
POTW
Pre~treatmentReport
Package which OOntains &nformation regarding:
a.
Ax
updated listing of the Defendant’s industrial
users
b.
A descriptive
summary
of the compliance activitie;
including
numbers
o~
any
major
enforcement
actions,
(i.e.,
administrative orders, penalties,
civil actions,
etc.),
and the outcome of those
actions.
This
includes
an
assessment
of
the
compliance
status
of
the
Def~ndaut’sindustrial
users
and the
effectjveneg~
of
the Defendant’s
9
8~-94SL48
JJ~~S d9~~ØSD
80 ~
PAGE
ii
52/5S./2005
15:44
pretreatment program
in
meeting
its
needs and
objectives.
A
desOriptior.
of
all substantive
changes
made
to
the Defendant’s pretreatment program.
d.
Results
of
sampling and analysis of
POTW
influer.t,
effluent,
and sludge.
e.
A summary of the findings from the priority
pollutants samp~.ing.
6.
The
Defendant
shall mainta~nall pretreatment data
and
records
for
a
minimum
Of
three
(3)
years.
7.
The
Defendant
shall
provide
wr!~.ttennotification
t~
the
Sureau
of
Water’s
~BoW~SN)Managjflg
Attorney,
Illinois
EPA,
1021
z~orthGrand
Avenue
East,
P.O.
~
l~216,Springfield,
Illinois
~2794-92?6within five
(5) days of receiving notice
that
any
industrial user of
its
sewage treatment plant is appealing to
the
circuit
court
any
condition
ithposed
by
the
Deføndant
in
any
permit
issued
to
the industrial user by
the
Defendant.
A copy of
the industrial user’s appeal and
all
other pleadings filed by
all
parties
shall be mailed to the BOW
~&naging
Attorney
within
f~ve
(5) days of the pleadings being filed in circuit
court.
8.
The Defendant shall
‘nitc~r
itS influent,
effluent and
sludge and report concentrations of the following parameters on
monitoring report
forme provided
by
the
Illinois
EPA
and
include
their, in its annual
report.
Samples shall be taken at least once
per year,
at
the indicated detection limit
or
better
and
consist
of
a 24-hour composite unless otherwise specified below.
Sludge
d~:~,fl
~o
so
q~
02/I~,9/2E1E15
15:44
~am~les shall
be
taken
of
final
sludge
and
Consist
of
a
grab
.semple reported on
a
dry
weight
basis.
STORET
Minimum
CODE
_______
~tection
14,mit
01C97
Antimony
0.07
mg/La
01002
Arsenic
005
mg/La
0102.2
Boron*
0.005 mg/i
01007
Barium
0.5
mg/Li
01012
Beryllium
0.005
mg/La
01027
Cadmium
0.001
mg/La
01032
*Chromium
(hex
-
grab not to
exceed
24 hours~
3.01
mg/La
01034
Chz’oriuum(total)O.OS mg/La
01042
Copper
0,005 mg/La
0072.8
Cyanide
(grab)
(weak acid diasociable)
10.0
ug/La
00720
cyanide
(grab)
(total)
2,0.0 ug/La
00951
*pluorjde
0,1 mg/La
01045
Iron
(total)
0.5 mg/La
01046
~1ron
(Disso1ved~
0.5 mg/La
01051
Lead
0.05
trig/La
01055
Manganese
0.5
trig/La
71900
Mercury
0.2 ug/La
01057
t~Jicke1
0.005 rrg/L
oos~s
*0±1
(hexana soluble or equivalent)
(Grab)
10
mg/La
3273~)
Phenols
(grab)
0,005
mg/La
011.47
Selenium
0.002 mg/La
01077
Silver
(total)
0.333
mg/La
01059
Thallium
0.3 mg/ta
01092
Zinc
0.025 m~/L,
‘(Influent and effluent only)
Unless otherwise indicated,
concentrations refer to the
to~a.l
arr~unt
of
the
con~cituent present
in
all phases, whether
solid,
suspended or dissolved, elemental or combined
including
sil oxi~.at~,on
states,
Where constituentS are commonly
measured
~s
other
than
total,
the
phase
is
so indicated.
11
~
~
50 80
qaj
02/~S/2005
15:44
PAGE
13
9.
Within
six
(Si
t~nth~of
tkie
date Cf entry
of this
nsertt
0rc~r,
the
Def~rxdantsha:..l
conduct an analysis
for the
one
hundred
and ten
(110)
organic priority pouutants
ide.r.tified
in
40
~
122
Appe~dix
~),
Table
II
as amended.
This monitoring
shell
be
done
annually
and
reported
on
monitoring
report
forms
provided
by
the
llincis
EPA
and
shall
consist
of
the following~
a.
The
ifluent
arid
effluent
shall
be
sampled
and
ana.yzed
for
the
one
hundred
and
ten
(110)
organic
priority pollutants,
The ,ar~p1ing
shall
be
done
during
a day when industrial discharges are
expected ~o he occurring at
normal
to maximum
levels,
Samples for the analysis
of acid
and
base/neutral
extractable compounds shall be 24-hour con~oaites.
(5)
grab
samples
shall
be
collected
each
monitoring day
to be analyzed for volati.e organic
compounds.
.i~
single analysis
for
volatile
pollutants
(tlethod
624)
may be run for each
monitoring day by compositing equal volu~eeof
eac~igrab sample directly in
the
OC
purge and trap
apparatus
in the laboratory,
with no
lesa than one
(1)
mL
of
each
grab
included
in
the
mposite.
~‘Jascewater
samples must be handled, prepared,
and
analyzea by GC/MS in accordance with iJS~PAMethods
624
and
625
of
40
CFI( 136
as
amended.
B.
The
sludge
shall be sampled and analyzed for the
one hundred
and
ten
(110)
organic priority
pollutants.
A sludge sample shall be collected
concurrent with a wastewater sample and taken as
final aludge.
Sampling
and
analysis
shall
conform
to
USEP~
Methods
624
and
525
unless
an
alternate
method
hes
been
approved
by
Illinois
EPA.
z~.
sanp.e
collection,
preservation and
storage shall
confozm’.
to approved USEPA procedures
and
requirements.
c~
‘~
~
(~&S~L090 80 ~
PAGE
14
82f~S/2EJE15
15:44
:o.
In
addic~Dn,
the
De±~ndar,:
e~ia1l
monitor
any
new
toxic
substance3 as
defined by the clean Water Act,
~s amended,
~oliowing
no
ion
by
the
Illinois
E)~.
11.
The
~e~endant
shall
report
any
noncompUa.rtce
w~.th
ef~l~ent
or
water
quality atandards within
24 hours of
De.~er~dant’
s knowledge c~such occurrence.
Such report shall ~e
r~adeto ?laintiff’s representatives, ~s listed in Section ‘JI!t.~.
of
this
Ccn~r.t
Order.
~2.
Analytical
~etect~on
limits
&a11 be in accordance with
4~ C~’~
136.
M~nI!num
det.ect~.onlimits ~or
siud~eanalyses sh&1L
be
in
~ordance
with
40
CFR
503.
C,
~
1.
~f the Defenda1~tf.~ils
t2
complete any requi.red activity
as speciuie~in Section VItI~B. of this ~nsent
Order,
the
~ef~nd~nt
~iafl.
prov~4enotice to
the Plaintiff of each failure
to
comply
with
ti~iaConsent Order.
In addition,
the
Defendant
ahali
pay to
the
Plaintiff,
for payTnent
into
the
EPTF,
stipulated
penalties
p~r violation
for
each.
day
of
violation
in
the
amount
c’t
Two
~ur~dred
Fifty
~ollars
($250.00)
unti
such
time
that
compLiance is achieved.
2.
FolloW~,ngthe
PlaintiU’s
determination
that
the
p~fnt
~s
failed
to
cou~lete
performance
of
~ny
tas)~ or
other
portion
of
worX,
or
fa~.led
to
provide
a
required
submittal,
includi.ng
any
report
or
notification,
Pi~inti~f
may
make
a
~ootsc~
~o
ec
q.~
O2/~9/2~E~5
15:44
PAGE
15
for
~tipula;ed
pena.~.ties
upon
the
Defendant
for its nonccmpliante
c~j~i t~iis
Consent
Order.
Failure
by
the
Plaintiff
to
n~ake
this
demand
~all
rot
relieve
the Defendant of the obl.~ationto
pay
stipulated
petalcies.
3.
A2.1 penalties
owed the Plaintiff under
this
sect!on
of
th~
Consent
Ceder
that
have
not
been
paid
shall
be
payable
within
thirty
(30)
dayB
of
the
date
the
Defendant
knows
or
should
have
known
of
~ts
noricomplia.~ce
with
any
provision
of
this
Cor.sent
Order.
4.
a.
All
stipulated
penalties
~haJ.l
be
paid
by
cerci,fied
ohec)c
or
money
order
payable
to
the
Illirtois
EPA
for
deposit
in
the
EPTF
and
delivered
to;
Illinois
Environmental
ProteOtiort
Ager~cy
Fiscal
S*~rvtces
10~1t~orthGrand Avernie 2aat
P.O.
Box
19276
Sprin~fieid,
~.lincis
62794-9276
b.
The
r~amear~dnumber
of
the
case
and
the
Detendant~s
FEI~
shall appear
on
the
face
of
the
check,
A
copy
of
the
check(s)
and
the
transmittal
letter
shall
be
sent
to~
Christopher Grant
~ss~.stant
1~.ttorney
General
~nvironinental
~ureau
188
W.
Randolph St~,20~Floor
Chicago,
Illinois
601501
5.
The
stipulated
penalties
shall
be
enforceable
by
the
Pia~ntiff
and
shall
be
in
addition
to,
and
~h~ll
not preclude
the
14
s~~
PAGE
16
c~2/6S/2@05
15:44
use
of, any
other remedies
or
sanctions
arising
from
the
failure
to
comply
wit~hthis Consent Order.
D.
~
eu
Pe~~l
¶~jss
1.
Pursuar,t
to
SeCtion
42(gi
of
t~e’Act,
415
XLCS
~/12
(g)
~2Q02),interest shall accrue
on
any
penalty amount owed
by
the ~efendarit not paid within the time prescribed
herein,
at
the
~axim~im rate
allowable
under
Section
1003(a)
of
the
Illthoie
Income
Tax
Act,
35
IL~CS511003(a)
(2002)
z~
tntereat
on
unpaid
penalties shall begin
to
accrue from
the
date
the
penalty
is
due
and
continue
to
accrue
to
the
date
payment
15
received
by
the
Illinois EPA.
3.
Where partial payment
is
made on any penalty amount
that
is due, such partial
payment
shall
be
first applied to any
interest
on
unpaid
penalties
then
owing.
4.
Al). interest on
penalties owed the Plaintiff ~h~li be
paid by certified check or money order payable to the Illinois
~PA
for
deposit
in
the
EPTF
at
the
above-indicated
aidrees.
The
name,
case number, and
the
Defendant’s FEfl~ahall 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
Ass~9taflt Attorney
General
~nvj.
ronrqental Bureau
188 W. Randolph St.,
20th
Floor
chicago,
Illinois 6060.
15
6~-3~S
t~
3.?~~S
c1QO~aogo Uo
PAGE
17
~2/E1S/21i~5
15:44
Notw~tb8taflding
any
other
language
i~ this
Consent
Order
to
~e•
contrary,
this
Consent
Order
may
be
used
against
the
Defendant in any subsequent enforcement action or permit
proceeding as evidence of
a past adjudication of violation of the
Act.
and
the ~oard
Regulations
promulgated
thereunder,
for
purposes
of
Sections
39(a)
Ci)
and/or
42(h)
of
the
Ace,
415
iL~cs
5f39(a)
Ci)
and/or 5/42 (h)
(2002)
1.
~
)~aiei~,re
1.
For the purposes of this Consent Order,
force
majeure
an event arising
solely beyond the control of the Defendant
which
prevents
the
timely performance of
any
of
the rquirements
of
this Consent Order.
For
purposes
of
this
consent
order
force
~ajeure
shall
include,
but
is
not limited to
events such as
floods,
fires,
tornadoes,
other
natural
disasters,
and
labor
disputes
beyond
the
reasonable
control
of
the
Defendant.
2.
when,
~n the opinion
of
the Defendant,
a
force majetu-e
ev-er~toccurs
which
causes
or
may cause
a
delay
in
the performance
of
any
of
the
requirert~nte of
this
Consent Order, the Defendant
shall
orally
notify
the
Plaintiff
within
48 hours of the
occurrence.
Written notice shall
be given
to
the
Plaintiff as
soon as practicable, but no later than ten
(10) calendar days
after
the
claimed
occurrence.
~
j~e’s
dio~e0
so
so
q&~
PAGE
18
E12/8~/25
15:44
3
Failure
by
the
Defendant
to
comply
with
the
notice
requirements of
the preceding paragraph shall render
this
~ecti~ri
voidable
by
the
Plaintiff
as
to
the
specific
event
for
which
th~
Defendant has f~i2edto comply with
the
nobi.Oe
tequi.ret~enc.
tf
voided,
this section shall be of no effect
as
to
the
particular
event
involved.
4.
~7ithin 3.0
calendar days of
receipt of the force rnajeure
notice required
under Section VIII~F.2,
the Plaintiff
shall
respond to th~Defendant in writing regarding the
~efendant’s
claim
of
a
delay
or
impediment
to
performance.
tf
the
Plaintiff
agrees that the delay or impediment
to
performance has been or
will be caused by circumatantes beyond the control of the
Defendant,
including
any
entity
controlled
by
the Defendant, an~
that
the
Defendant
could
not
have
prevented
the
delay
by the
exercise
of
due
diligence,
the
pa~tiesshall stipulate to
an
extenSion of the
required deadline(s)
for all requirement(s)
affected
by
the delay, by
a
period
equivalent
to
the
delay
actually caused by such circumstances.
Such
stipulation
may
be
filed
as
a modification to this Consent Order pursuant
to the
r~odificatiOflprocedures establiehed in this Con~eritOrder.
Th~
Defendant
shall not be liable for stipulated penalties for the
period of any such delay.
S.
if the £laintiff does not accept
the
Defendant’s
claim
~ force
z~iajeu:eevent,
the Defendant may
submit
the matter to
tl
dSQ;5O
Sri
eo
~
PAGE
19
~2(esI2Ela~5
15:44
this Court
with~..ri
20 calend~rdays of
receipt.
cf ?ls~n:iff’~
determination
for
resolution
to
~void
payment
~f stii..ate~
penaltiea1
~y
filing
a
petiticn
for determination of the issue.
Once
the
De~er2dant
has
submitted
such a
petition
tc~the
Court,
the Plaintiff
shall
have
20 calendar days to file its response to
said
petition.
TE thi~Court determines that
the delay or
impediment to performance ha~been
o.r
will
be caused by
circutnSt~nCeSsolely beyond
the
control
of the Defendant,
incudirt~any entity controlled
by
the
Defendant,
and that
the
Deferidar.t could
not have prevented the delay by the exerotse of
due
dili;ence~ the Defendant ~ha1l be e~cuaed
as
to
that
event
(includthg any
i p~siti~n
of atipulated. penalt±es)
for all
te.~uirementsaffected by
the
delay,
~or a period
of
ti~
equivalent
to
the
delay or- such
other
period as may be
determined
by
this Court.
5.
An
increase
in ~ost.~
.as~ociated‘with ~u~plementingany
requirement of this Consent
Order
shall not, by itself,
e~ccuse
the Defendant under the provisions of this
section
of
this
Consent Order
from
a
failure
to
comply with auch a
requirement
~•
~
Re.~j~tio~
I.
The dispute resolut~c’n
procedure provided by
this
section shall be available
to
resolve all disputes arising under
this
Consent Order,
except as
otherwise provided in Section
vr~i~.regarding
force
~ajeu~-e,
a:~d
except where the Defendant
d~3:Oo
so
so
q~
PAGE
21
~inlessthe parties’ representatives agree to shorten or extend
this period-
4.
In the event that
the
parties are unable to reach
agreenent
during
the
informal
negotiation
period,
the
Plaintiff
shall
provide
the Defendant with a written summary
of
its
position
regarding
the
dispute.
The
position advanced by the
Plaintiff shall be considered bi
ing unless, within 20 calendar
days Ci
the
Defendant’s
receipt
of
the
written
summary
of
the
plaintiff’s
position,
the
Defendant
tiles
a
petition with this
Court seeking judicial resolution of the dispute.
The
Plaintiff
ahal~.respond to
the petition by
filirz~
the administrative record
of
the dispute
~nd arty argument within 20 calendar days of such
filing.
5.
The
invocation
of
dispute
resolution,
in and of itself,
shall
not excuse compliance
with
any
requirement,
obligation
or
deadline contained herein,
arid
stipulated penalties
may
be
assessed for failure or noncompliance during the period of
dispute resolution.
S.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Consent
Order, this Court ehall
make its
decision based on the
administrative record and shall not draw any inferences nor
estabUsh any presumptions adverse to any party as a result of
invocation
of
this
section
or
the parties’ inability to
reach
agreement with respect
to the
disputed issue.
20
t2’C~
~80
50
80
~
02/c9/2E1E15
15:44
PAGE
22
-7.
~s
part of the res~lut~on
of any
dispute,
the parties,
by
agro~mer1t.
or by order of this
Court.
ray,
in
appropriate
circumstances, extend or modify the schedule for completion of
wor)~under this Convent Order to account
for the delay in
the
work that occurred as
a result of dispute
resolution.
K.
C~~e
sDo~dsn~e,,Rppor~
Other
~ç~snts
~ny
arid all correspondence, reports
sAd
any
other
documents
required under this Consent
Order,
except
for payments
pursuant
t~
Sections
VIIIA.
and
C.
of
this
Consent Order shall
be
submitted as folIows~
~.s
to
~he.~~P1aint
~
Chris
Kallis
~rwironnenta3.Protection Specialist
Illinois ~Z’~
9511 W. Harrison Street
Des Plaines, I111noi~60016
Charles
rinarson
Assistant Counsel
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021 North Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield,
I1li~ois
62794-9276
As to the. Defendant
Mayor
Village of Wauconda
100
South State Street
Wauconda,
Illinois
61065
21
c~4Q~8Q50
80
q.~
~2/~S/2OO5
15:44
PAGE
23
I.
&~bt
of~ntry
In
addition
to
any
other
authorit~’,
the
Illinois
EPA,
~.ts
er~1riyeea and
represer.tatives~
and
the
~ttorney
General,
hex
ac~entsand representatives,
shall have the right of entry into
arid
upc~nthe
Defendant’s
POTW facility,
at all reasonable
times
for t~iepurposes of carryin~3out inspections.
Zn conducting such
ir~spect~ns,
the
Illinois EPA,
its enployees and representatives.
arid
the P.ttorney c~erieral, h~s
employees and representatives may
take
photographs,
samples,
and
collect
information,
as
they
d~rn
necessary.
~Y.
ç~a.a~d
~eaj~
The
Defendant
~ha1l
cease
and
desist
from
future
violations
of
the
Act,
and
hoard
Reguiations,
including but not
limited to
those
sections
of
the
Act
and
Soard
Regulations
that
were
the
subject
matter
of
the
Complaint
as
outlined
in
Section
IZI.C.
of
this
Consent
order.
-
~.
B..*leue
Iroci I4a~t3,i~y
Zn consideration of the Defenda~t’spayi~entof any specified
costs,
a Ten Thousand
Dollar
($10.000.C0)
penalty, and
upon
the
completion of all activities required hereunder,
the Plaintiff
releases,
waives and discharges the Defendant from any further
liability
or penalties for violations of the Act
and Board
Regulations
that
were
the
subject
matter
of
the
Complaint
here.~.n.
The reJ.ea~eset
forth
above
does not extend to any matters other
22
~so:eo
~o
so
q~
PAGE
24
~2~05
15:44
than
those ecpressly specified in
Plaintiff’s Complaint
filed on
August
17,
2004.
The
Plaintiff reserves,
and this
Consent Order
j~
without
pre~udice
to,
all rights of the State of
Illinois
against
the
Defendant
with
respect
to
all
other
matters,
ixlcludin9
but not
limited
to,
the
following:
a.
criminal liability1
b.
liability for future
violation of state,
federal,
local,
and common laws and/or
regulations;
c.
liability
for
r.atural
resources
damage
arising
out
of
the alleged violations; and
~,
liability
or claims
based
on
the Defendant’s
failure to
satisfy
the
requirements
of
this
Consent
Order.
Nothing
in this Consent Order is intended as a waiver,
discharge, release,
or covenant not to sue for any claim or cause
o~action, administrative or judicial,
civil or criminal, paet or
future,
in law or in equity. which th~State of tllinois or the
Illinois EPA may have
against any person,
as defined by Sect,~on
3315
of
the Act, 415
IL,CS
5/3.315
(2002),
or entity other than
the Defendant.
L.
Re~sntion~f
~Zuri~ictioq
This
Court shall retain jurisdiction
of
this matter for the
purposes of interpretIng and
enforcing the
terms
and
conditions
of
this
Consent
Order,
except
that
th~parties
may,
by
mutual
written
consent,
extend
any compliance dates or modify the terms
23
a~9Q~8O40
50
PAGE
25
~2/~9/2@@S
15:44
of thig Consent Order
without
leave o~
cc~rt. Any sk~chagreed
modification
sb~il
he
~
writing~
si.gned
by
authorized
reprezttati”~eSof each party,
ti1ed~with the court
and
incorporated into this
Consent.
Order by reference.
M.
~
~
i.
upon the entry of this Consent Order,
any party hereto,
upon motion,
t~y
reinstate these proceedings
solely for the
t~ur~ose
of
enforcing
the
terms and conditions o~this
Consent
Order.
This
Consent
Order is a
binding and enforceable
order of
this Court
and
may
be
enforced ~s
such through any and all
available
rneaflg.
2.
Defendant agrees
th~tt
notice of an~~ubse~uerit
proceeding to enforce this Consent Order may be
madø
by
r~ail
and
waives any requirement o~
service
of
process.
24
4~8O’8O
D
00
~1”~
.‘
PAGE
Et2/~9/2O0S
15:44
WHEREFORE,
the
partie& by their representatives, enter into
this
Consent
Order
and su~r~it
it to this Court that it
may
be
approved
and
entered;
FOR
?~*
PWiNT~YP:
PEOPL)~
OF T~E
STATE
OF
IL~L4NOIS
•ex rel.
LISA
MADIGAN.
.~.ttorney
~anera1
of
the
State otIlii~is
~
J.
D1JI~N,
Chief
Ev&ror.n~ental
Entorcee~eat/
A.sbe
Litigation
D.i
sion
Assistant Attorney general
DATE:
_____
23
ILLI2’~OIS
VZRONMEUThL
PRC?ECTIOW
AGR~CY
J
PR E, SVODO~A
ief
Legal Counsel
DADE:
~/~/1,
~
4’
CE6~9~
~.P8
80
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINETEENTH ~ItJDICIALCIRCUIT
LAKE COUNTY,
ILLINOIS
CHANCERY DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
ex
.rel.
JAMES
E.
RYAN,
Attorney
General
of the State of
)
-
Plaintiff,
)
‘
~
I
vs.
)
)
‘4
VILLAGE
OF WAUCONDA,
an
Illinois municipal
Defendant.
COMPLAINT
FOR. INJUNCTION .AND OTHER RELIEF
NOW COMES the Plaintiff,
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
ex
rel.
JAMES
E.
RYAN,
Attorney
General
of
the State of Illinois,
and
complains
of Defendant,
VILLAGE OF
WAUCONDA,.as
follows:
COUNT
I
WATER POLLUTION
1.
This Count is brought pursuant to Section 42(d) and
(e)
of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act
(“Act”),
415 ILCS
5/42 (d) and
(e)
(1996), on behalf of the 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, and is an action to restrain
ongoing violations
of the Act and for civil penalties.
2.
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(“Illinois
EPA”)
is an administrativ& agency established in the executive
branch of
the State government by Section 4 of the Act,
415
ILCS 5/4
(1996), and charged,
inter
alia,
with the duty of enforcing the Act.
1
The Illinois EPA is further charged 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.
Sec.
1342(b) (7).
3.
The Village of Wauconda
(“Wauconda”)
is an Illinois
municipal
corporation located in Lake County,
Illinois.
4;
Wauconda owns and operates the Wauconda Wastewater
Treatment Plant
(“WWWTP”)
located at 302 Slocum 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.
5.
At all times relevant to this Complaint,
the WWWTP
provides preliminary,
primary,
secondary and tertiary treatment,
and
consists
of a raw sewage pumping station,
aerated grit tank,
comminutor,
primary
clarifiers, primary effluent pumping station,
bio packed towers,
solids contact tank,
secondary clarifiers,
sand
filters,
chlorine contact
tank,
aerobic digesters and sluge pumps.
6.
The WWWTP discharges to an unnamed tributary to the.Fox
River,
a water of the State of Illinois as that
term
is
defined
in
Section 3.56 of the Act,
415 ILCS 5/3.56
(1996)
.
Section 3.56
“WATERS” means
all accumulations of water,
surface and
underground,
natural,
and artificial, public and private,
or parts thereof,which
are wholly or partially within,
flow through,
or border upon this State.
7.
Section 3.55 of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/3.55
(.1996), defines
water pollution as follows:
2
Section
3.55
“WATER
POLLUTION”
is such alteration of the physical,
thermal,
chemical, biological or radioactive properties
of any waters of the
State,
or such discharge
of any
contaminant into any waters of the State,
as will or is
likely to create
a nuisance
or render such waters harmful
or detrimental
or injurious
to public health, safety or
welfare,
or to domestic,
commercial, industrial,
agricultural,
recreational,
or other legitimate uses,
or
to livestock, wild animals,
birds,
fish,
or other aquatic
life.
8.
Section 3.06 of the Act,
415 ILCS 5/3.06
(1996), defines
a contaminant as “any solid,
liquid,
or gaseous matter,
any odor,
or
any form of
energy,.
from whatever source;”
9.
Section 12(a)
of
the Act,
415 ILCS 5/12(a)
(1996),
provides,
in pertinent part as
follows:
No person shall:
a.
Cause or threaten or allow the discharge of any
contaminants into the environment
in any State so as
to cause or tend to cause water pollution in
Illinois,
either alone or in combination with matter
from other
sources,
or so as to violate regulations
or standards adopted
by the Pollution Control Board
under this Act.
10.
On May 20,
1996,
and February 20,
and
21,
1997,
Wauconda
allowed untreated raw sewage to be pumped from six different
locations totaling approximately 1,530,390 gallons into Bangs Lake
Creek,
a
water
of
the
State
of
Illinois,
so
as
to
cause
or
tend
to
cause water pollution in Illinois, in violation of the Act.
11.
The untreated raw sewage is
a contaminant as that term is
defined in Section 3.06 of
the Act,
415 ILCS 5/3.06(1996).
12.
Defendant,
by its actions alleged herein,
has violated
Section 12(a)
of the Act,
415 ILCS 5/12(a)
(1996).
13.
Plaintiff
is without an adequate remedy at
law.
3
Plaintiff will
be irreparably injured and violations of the
pertinent environmental
statutes and regulations will continue
unless and until this Court grants equitable relief
in the form of
preliminary and,
after a
trial,
permanent injunctive relief.
WHEREFORE,
Plaintiff,
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
prays
that this Court grant
a preliminary injunction and after a trial,
a
permanent injunction in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant
Wauconda:
1.
Finding that Wauconda has caused or allowed violations
of
Section 12(a)
of the Act;
2.
Enjoining Defendant from further violations
of the
Section cited above,
by ordering Defendant to take whatever steps
are necessary to bring the WWWTP into compliance with the Act;
3.
Assessing a civil, penalty of Fifty Thousand Dollars
($50,000.00)
against Wauconda for each and every violation of
Section 12(a)
of the Act, plus
an additional Ten Thousand Dollars
($10,000.00) per day for each day the violation of Section 12(a)
continues;
4.
Taxing
all
costs
in
this
action,
pursuant
to
Section
42(f)
of the Act,
415 ILCS 5/42(f)
(1996),
including reasonable
attorneys
fees,
and the reasonable cost of expert witnesses and
consultants,
against the Defendant; and
5.
Granting such other relief as this Court deems just and
equitable.
,-r~rmvn1
r r
dUJ.~J.
.LJ
VIOLATION
OF
GENERAL
EFFLUENT
ST~DARDS
1-10.
Plaintiff
realleges
and
incorporates
by
reference
4
herein, paragraphs
1
through
10
of
Count
I as paragraphs
1 through
10 of this Count
II.
11.
Section 304.120(c)
of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board
(“Board”)
Water Pollution Regulations,
35
Ill. Adm.
Code
304.120(c),
titled,
Deoxygenating Wastes,
provides as follows:
Except as provided in Section 306.103,
all effluents
containing deoxygenating
wastes shall meet the
following
standards:
c)
No effluent whose dilution ratio is less than
five to one shall exceed 10 mg/i
of BOD5 or
12
mg/l
of suspended solids,
12.
In February 1997, Wauconda caused or allowed 28.4
milligrams per liter
(“mg/l”)
of total suspended solids
(“TSS”)
to
be discharged into Bangs Lake Creek,
a water of the State of
Illinois,
in violation of
35
Ill. Adm.
Code 304.120(c).
13.
Defendant,
by
its’ actions alleged herein,
has violated
Section 12(a)
of the Act,
415
ILCS
5/12(a) (1996),
and 35 Ill. Adm.
Code 304.120(c)
14.
Plaintiff is without an adequate remedy at
law.
Plaintiff will be irreparably injured and violations of the
pertinent environmental
statutes and regulations’ will continue
unless and until this Court grants equitable relief in the form of
preliminary and,
after
a trial, permanent injunctive relief.
WHEREFORE,
Plaintiff,
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
prays
that this Court grant a preliminary injunction and after a trial,
a
permanent
injunction
in
favor
of
Plaintiff
and
against
Defendant
Wauconda:
‘
1.
Finding that Wauconda has
caused or allowed violations of
Section
12(a)
of the Act and 35
Ill. Adm.
Code 304.120(c);
5
2.
Enjoining
Defendant
from
further
violations
of
the
Sections cited above,
by ordering Defendant to take whatever steps
are necessary to bring the WWWTP into compliance with the Act and
the Board Water Pollution Regulations;
3.
Assessing
a civil penalty of Fifty Thousand Dollars
($50,000.00)
against Wauconda for each and every violation of
Section 12(a)
of
the Act and 35
Ill. Adm.
Code
304.120(c),
plus
an
additional Ten Thousand Dollars
($10,000.00)
per day for each day
the violation of Section 12(a)
and 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 304.120(c)
continues;
4.
Taxing
all
costs
in this action, pursuant to Section
42(f)
of
the
Act,
415
ILCS
5/42(f)
(1996),
including
reasonable
attorneys
fees,
and
the
reasonable
cost
of
expert
witnesses
and
consultants,
against the Defendant;
and
5.
Granting
such
other
relief
as
this
Court
deems
just
and
equitable.
COUNT
III
VIOLATION
OF
NPDES
PERNIT
EFFLUENT
LIMITS
1-10.
Plaintiff
realleges
and
incorporates
by
reference
herein,
paragraphs
1
through
10
of
Count
I
as
paragraphs
1
through
10
of
this
Count
III.
11.
Section
12(f)
of
the
Act,
415
ILCS
5/12(f)
(1996),
provides
as
follows:
No
person
shall:
f.
Cause,
threaten
or
allow
the
discharge
of
any
contaminant
into the waters of the State, as defined
herein,
including but not limited to, waters to any
sewage
works,
or
into
any
well
or
from
any
point
source
within
the
State,
without
an
NPDES
permit for
6
point
source
discharges
issued
by
the
Agency
under
Section
39(b)
of
this
Act,
or
in
violation
of
any
term or condition imposed by such permit,
or in
violation
if any NPDES permit filing requirement
established under Section 39 (b),
or in violation of
any regulations adopted by the Board or of any Order
adopted by the Board with respect to the NPDES
program.
12.
Section 309.102(a)
of the Board Water Pollution
Regulations,
35
Ill. Adm.
Code 309.102 (a),
titled,
NPDES Permit
~guired,
provides
as follows:
a.
Except as in compliance with the provisions of the
Act,
Board regulations,
and the CWA,
and
the
provisions and conditions
of the NPDES permit issued
to the discharger,
the discharge of any contaminant
or
pollutant by
any
person
into
the waters
of the
State from
a point source or into
a well shall be
unlawful.
13.
Section 304.141(a)
of
the Board Water Pollution
Regulation,
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code 304.141(a),
titled, NPDES Effluent
~~ndards,
provides as follows:
a.
No person to whom an NPDES permit has been issued
may
discharge’
any
contaminant
in
his
effluent
in
excess of the standards and limitations for that
contaminant
which
are
set
forth
in
his
permit.
14.
Section
304.120(c)
of
the
Board
Water
Pollution
Regulations,
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
304.120(c),
titled,
Deoxygenating
Wastes,
provides
as
follows:
Except
as
provided
in
Section
306.103,
all
effluents
containing deoxygentating wastes shall meet
the following
standards:
No effluent whose dilution ration is less than five to
one shall exceed 10 mg/i of BOD5 or
12 mg/i of suspended
solids...
15.
The Illinois EPA issued to Defendant NPDES Permit No.
1L0020109
on June
7,
1995, with an expiration date
of May 31,
2000.
16.
Defendants’ NPDES Permit No.
1L0020478 contains effluent
7
limits
for,
among other things,
TSS and total residual chlorine.
17.
The NPDES effluent limit
for TSS
is 12 mg/i and 0.05 mg/i
for residual chlorine.
18.
Wauconda exceeded its NPDES permit limits
for TSS and
chlorine residual by discharging 28.4 mg/i of TSS on February 20,
1997,
and 0.68 mg/l and 0.69 mg/i
of residual chlorine on both
February 20 and 21,
1997.
19.
Defendant, by its actions alleged herein,
has violated
Section
12(a)
and
(f)
of.the
Act,
415
ILCS
5/12(a)and(f)
(1996),
and
Sections 309.102(a),
304.141(a)
and 304.120(c)
of 35
Ill. Adm.
Code
309.902(a), 304.141(a),
and 304.120(c).
20.
Plaintiff
is without an adequate remedy at
law.
Plaintiff will be irreparably injured and violations
of the
pertinent environmental statutes and regulations will continue
unless
and until this Court grants equitable relief in the form of
preliminary and,
after a
trial,
a permanent injunctive relief.
WHEREFORE,
Plaintiff,
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
prays
that this Court grant
a preliminary injunction,
and
after a trial, a
permanent injunction in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant
Wauconda:
1.
Finding that Wauconda has caused or allowed violations
of
Section 12(a)
and
(f)
of
the Act
and 35 Ill.
Adtn.
Code
309.102 (a),
304.141(a)
and 304.120(c);
2.
Enjoining Defendant from further violations
of the
Sections cited above, by ordering Defendant to take whatever steps
are necessary to bring ~he
WWWTP into compliance with the Act and
the Board Water Pollution Regulations;
8
3.
Assessing
a
civil
penalty
of Fifty Thousand Dollars
($50,000.00)
against
Wauconda
for
each
and
every
violation
of
Section 12(a)
of the Act and 35
Ill. Adm.
Code 304.l4l(a)and
304.120(c), plus an additional Ten Thousand Dollars
($10,000.00)
per
day for each day the violations
of Section 12(a) and 35
Ill.
24dm.
Code 304.141(a),
and 304.l20(c)continue;
and $10,000.00
(Ten
Thousand Dollars)
per day for each day of violation of Section
12(f)
of the Act and 35
Ill. Adm.
Code 309.102 (a);
4.
Taxing all costs
in this action,
pursuant
to Section
42
(f)
of
the
Act,
415
ILCS
5/42(f)
(1996),
including
reasonable
attorneys
fees,
and the reasonable cost
of expert witnesses and
consultants,
against
the Defendant;
and
5.
Granting
such
other
relief
as
this
Court
deems
just
and
equitable.
COUNT
IV
VIOLATION OF NPDES PERMIT REPORTING REOUIREMENTS
1-8.
Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference herein,
paragraphs 1 through
8 of Count
I and paragraph 11 of Count III as
paragraphs
1 through
9 of this Count
IV.
10.
Section 305.102(a)
and
(b)
of the Board Water Pollution
Regulations,
35 Ill. Adm. Code 305.102(a)and(b),
titled, Report~g
Reauirements,
provides
as follows:
a)
Every person within this’State operating a
pretreatment
works,
treatment works,
or wastewater
source shall submit operating reports to the Agency
at a frequency to be determined by the Agency.
“Agency” means the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency.
.
Such reports shall contain information
regarding the quantity of influent and of effluent
discharged,
or wastes bypassed and of combined sewer
overflows;
the concentrations
of those physical,
9
chemical,
bacteriological
and radiological
parameters which shall be specified by the Agency;
information concerning the biological impact of
the
discharge
as specified by the Agency, pursuant
to
Section 39
of the Act;
and any additional
information the Agency may reasonably require.
b)
Every holder of an NPDES
(National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System)
permit is required to
comply with the monitoring,
sampling,
recording and
reporting requirements
set forth in the permit and
this Chapter.
11.
Defendant did not provide representative flow monitoring,
as required by its NPDES Permit.
12.
By not providing representative flow monitoring,
as
required by its NPDES permit,
Wauconda violated 35
Iii.
24dm.
Code
305.102(a)
and
(b)
and
thereby
violated
Section
12(f)
of
the
Act,
415
ILCS
5/12
(f)
(1996)
13.
Plaintiff is without
an adequate remedy at
law.
Plaintiff will be irreparably injured and violations of the
pertinent environmental
statues
and regulations will continue unless
and until this Court grants equitable relief
in t’he form of
preliminary
and,
after
a
trial,
permanent
injunctive
relief.
WHEREFORE,
Plaintiff,
PEOPLE
OF
THE
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS,
prays
that this court grant preliminary injunction, and after a trial, a
permanent injunction in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant
Wauconda:
1.
Finding that Wauconda has caused or allowed violations of
Section 12(f)
of the Act and 35 Ill. Adm.
Code 305.102(a)and(b);
2.
Enjoining Defendant
from further violations of the
Sections cited above, by ordering Defendant
to take whatever steps
are necessary to bring the WWWTP into compliance with the Act and
10
the
Board
Water
Pollution
Regulations;
3.
Assessing
a civil penalty of Ten Thousand Dollars
($10,000.00)
per day against Wauconda for each and every violation
of Section
12(f)
of the Act and 35
Ill.
24dm.
Code 305.l02(a)and(b);
4.
Taxing all costs in this action,
pursuant to Section
42(f)
of the Act,
415
ILCS 5/42 (f) (1996),
including reasonable
attorneys
fees,
and the reasonable cost of expert witnesses and
consultants,
against the Defendant;
and
5.
Granting such other relief
as
t’his Court deems just and
equitable.
COUNT
V
VIOLATIOI~TOF PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
1-9.
Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference herein,
paragraphs
1 through
9 of Count Iv as paragraphs
1 though
9 of
this
Count
V.
10.
Section 306.303 of the Board
Water Pollution Regulations
35 Ill.
Adm.
Code
306.303,, titled,
Excess Infiltration, provides as
follows:
Excess infiltration into sewers shall be eliminated, and
the maximum practicable flow be conveyed to treatment
facilities.
11.
Section 306.304 of the
Board Water Pollution Regulations,
35 Ill.
24dm.
Code 306.304,
titled, Overflows, provides as follows:
Overflows from sanitary sewers are expressly prohibited.
12.
Section 306.305(b)
of the Board Water pollution
Regulations,
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
306.305(b),
titled,
Treatment
of
overflows
and
Bypasses,..provide
as
follows:
All combined sewer overflows and treatment plant bypasses
1~1
shall
be
given
sufficient
treatment
to prevent pollution,
or
the
violation
of
applicable
water
quality
standards
unless
an
exception
has
been
granted
by
the
Board
pursuant to Subpart
D.
Sufficient
treatment
shall
consist
of
the
following:
b)
Additional
flows,
as
determined
by
the
Agency
but
not
less
than
ten
times
the
average
dry
weather
flow
for the design year,
shall receive a minimum of
primary treatment and disinfection with adequate
retention time.
13.
On February 20 and 21,
1997,
Wauconda allowed excessive
inflow/infiltration into
its collection system leading to sewer
overflow
in violation of 35 Ill. Adm.
Code 306.303.
14.
On February 20 and 21,
1997,
Wauconda allowed sewer
overflows
to occur during wet weather periods that did not receive
primary treatment and disinfection prior to discharge to the
environment.
15.
By allowing excessive inflow/infiltration and overflows
and by failing to give primary treatment and disinfection prior to
discharge, Wauconda violated Sections 306.303, 306.304,
and
306.305(b)
of 35
Ill.
Adm.
Code, and thereby violated Section 12(f)
of the Act,
415 ILCS
5/12 (f) (1996)
.
16.
Plaintiff
is without an adequate remedy at law.
plaintiff
will be irreparably injured and violations of the
pertinent environmental statutes and regulations will continue
unless and this Court grants equitable relief in the form of
preliminary and,
after a trial, permanent injunctive relief.
WHEREFORE,
Plaintiff,
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
prays
that this Court grant
a preliminary injunction,
and after a trial,
a
permanent injunction
in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant
Wauconda:
1.
Finding that Wauconda has caused or allowed violations
of
Sections 306.303, 306.304,
and 306.305(b)
of 35 Ill.
24dm.
Code and
Section
12(f)
of the Act;
2.
Enjoining Defendant
from further violations of the
Sections cited above, by ordering Defendant to take whatever steps
are
necessary
to
bring
the
WWWTP
into
compliance
with
the
Act
and
the Board Water Pollution Regulations;
3.
Assessing against Wauconda
a civil penalty of Ten
Thousand Dollars
($10,000.00) per day for each day
of violation of
Section 12(f)
of the Act and 35 Ill. Adm.
Code 306.303,
306.304,
and
306.305(b);
4.
Taxing all costs in this action, pursuant to Section
42 (f)
of the Act,
415 ILCS
5/42
(f) (1996), including reasonable
attorneys fees,
and the reasonable cost of expert witnesses and
consultants,
against
the
Defendant;
and
5.
Granting such other relief as this Court deems just and
equitable.
COUNT
VI
VIOLATION
OF
NPDES
PERMIT
CONDITIONS
1-9.
Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference herein,
paragraphs
1 through
9 of Count V as paragraphs
1 through 9 of this
Count
VI.
10.
Section
309.146 (a)
(1-4)of
the
Board
Water
Pollution
Regulations,
35 Iii.
24dm.
Code 309.146
(a) (1-4)
titled, Authority to
Establish
Recording.
Reporting.
Monitoring and Sampling
Require-
ments,
provides as follows:
13
a)
The Agency shall require every holder of an NPDES
Permit,
as
a condition of
the NPDES Permit
issued to
the holder,
to:
1)
Establish,
maintain and retain records;
2)
Make reports;
3)
Install,
calibrate, use and maintain monitoring
equipment or methods
(including where
appropriate biological monitoring methods);
4)
Take samples of effluents
(in accordance with
such methods,
at such locations,
at such
intervals,
and
in
such
a
manner
as
may
be
prescribed).
11.
By failing to provide representative flow monitoring,
as
required by its
NPDES Permit, Wauconda violated
35 Ill.
24dm.
Code
309.146 (a) (3)
12.
By failing to take samples as per the requirements
of
its
NPDES Permit regarding
frequency,
Wauconda violated 35 Ill. Adm.
Code 309.146 (a) (4)
13.
By failing to submit its sludge analyses and its semi-
annual sludge management report as required by its NPDES
Permit,
Wauconda violated
35 Ill. Adm.
Code 309.146 (a) (2)
14.
By
failing to submit
a completed industrial survey to the
Illinois
EPA
as
required by its NPDES
Permit,
Wauconda violated. 35
Ill.
24dm.
Code 309.
146(a) (1) and
(2).
15,
Violations
of
35 Iii. Adm~Code 309.146(a)
(1-4)
are also
violations of Section 12(f)
of the Act,
415 ILCS
5/12(f) (1996).
16.
Defendant by its action alleged herein has violated
Section 12(f)of the Act,
415 ILCS 5/12(f) (1996), and 35 Ill.
24dm.
Code 309.146 (a) (1-4).
17.
Plaintiff
is without an adequate remedy at law.
14
Plaintiff
will
be
irreparably
injured
and violations
of the
pertinent
environmental
statues
and
regulations
will
continue
unless
and until this Court grants equitable relief in the form of
preliminary
and,
after a trial,
permanent injunctive relief.
WHEREFORE,
Plaintiff,
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, prays
that
this Court grant
a preliminary injunction,
and after a trial,
a
permanent
injunction in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant
Wauconda:
1.
Finding
that Wauconda has caused or allowed violations
of
Section
12(f)
of the Act and 35
Ill.
24dm.
Code 309.l46(a)(1-4);
2.
Enjoining Defendant from further violations of the
Sections cited above, by ordering Defendant to take whatever steps
are necessary to bring the
WWWTP
into compliance with the Act and
Board Water Pollution Regulations;
3.
Assessing against Wauconda
a civil penalty of Ten
Thousand Dollars
($10,000.00) per day for each day of violation of
Section 12(f)
of the Act, and 35 Ill. Adm.
Code 309.146(a) (1-4);
4.
Taxing all
costs
in
this
action,
pursuant
to
Section
42(f)
of the Act,
415 ILCS 5/42(f)
(1996), including reasonable
attorneys fees,
and the reasonable cost of expert witnesses and
consultants,
against
the Defendant;
and
5.
Granting such other relief as this Court deems just and
equitable.
iS
PEOPLE
OF
THE
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS
ex rel.
JAMES
E. RYAN
Attorney General of the
State of Illinois
MATTHEW
J.
DUNN,
Chief
Environmental Enforcement/Asbestos
Litigation Division
By:
OF COUNSEL:
ZEMEHERET BEREKET-243
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Bureau
100 W. Randolph St.,
11th Flr.
Chicago,
IL
60601
(312)
814-3816
C.
\WpWD~6O\wpDoCS\z~\WAuCONDA\vII.wAVx1.
Assi~tant
16
