REGULATORY TAKINGS
PUBLIC USE REQUIREMENT OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT
Exhibit E.
a) Application Forms
and conditions concerning monitoring, entry andinspection);
permitted discharge.
114. In Community Association for Restoration of the Environment v.
accommodate important economic or social development in the area in which the
waters are located.”
That this, the Honorable Illinois Pollution Control Board, Orderthe

002249

RECE~VED

CLERK’S OFFICE

BOA~

FEB 28 2O~

VILLAGE OF LAKE BARRINGTON,

STATE OF ILLINOIS

CUBA TOWNSHIP, PRAIRIE RIVERS

)

Pollution

Control 8oarc~

NETWORK, SIERRA CLUB, BETH

)

WENTZEL and CYNTHIA SKRUKRUD,

)

Petitioners,

)

PCB

05-55

)

(Third-Party NPDES Permit Appeal

ILLiNOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

)

Water)

PROTECTION AGENCY and

)

VILLAGE OF

WAUCONDA,

)

Respondents.

)

_________________________________________________________________

)

SLOCUM DRAINAGE DISTRICT

)

LAKE COUNTY, ILLiNOIS

)

Petitioner,

)

PCB

05-58

)

(Third-Party NPDES Permit Appeal

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

)

Water)

PROTECTION AGENCY and

)

VILLAGE OF

WAUCONDA,

)

Respondents.

)

THIS FILING PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

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 HOMEOWNERS)

ASSOCIATION, JULIA TUDOR and

)

CHRISTINE DEVINEY.

)

Petitioners,

)

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY and

VILLAGE OF WAUCONDA,

Respondent.

Dorothy Gunn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James R.

Thompson Center, Suite 11-500

100 West Randolph Street

Chicago, Illinois 60601

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I

Pollution Control Board an original and four,

FINDINGS OF

FACT AND BRIEF

NPDES PERMIT, a copy ofwhich is herewith

Jay J. Glenn,

Attorney at Law

2275 Half Day Road,

Suite

350

Bannockburn, Illinois 60015

(847) 526-9202

(847) 526-9207 Fax

PCB 05-59

)

(Third-Party NPDES Permit Appeal

)

Water)

NOTICE OF FILING

Bradley P. Halloran

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center, Suite 11-500

100 West Randolph Street

Chicago, Illinois 60601

)

ofthe Clerk of the

Group PROPOSED

~EOF WAUCONDA

Resident Group

THIS FILING PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

fl\

STATE OF ILLINOIS

~i~

FEB

282005

COUNTY OF LAKE

i \~\

...~i

P~TATE

OF ILLINOIS

“Ution Control Board

Jay J. Glenn,

an attorney, hereby certifies that a copy ofthe foregoing Notice of

Filing, Certificate of Service and PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND BRIEF

SUPPORTING DENIAL OF VILLAGE OF WAUCONDA NPDES PERMIT, were

served on the persons listed below by electronic transfer on February 28, 2005 and were

further served on the persons listed below by overnight mail on February 28, 2005.

Percy L. Angelo

Attorney at Law

Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, L.L.P.

190 5.

LaSalle Street

Chicago, Illinois

60603

William D. Seith

Attorney at Law

Total Environmental Solutions, P.C.

631

E. Butterfield Road, Suite 314

Lombard, Illinois 60148

Albert Ettinger

Environmental Law and Policy Center

35 East Wacker Drive, Suite

1300

Chicago, Illinois

60601

Sanjay K.

Sofat, Asst. Counsel

James Allen Day

Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency

1021

North Grand Avenue, East

P.O. Box

19276

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276

THIS FILING PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

ILLI~~)~*~OL

BOARD

VILLAGE OF LAKE BAI

)

\‘

Jfl\ ~

CUBA TOWNSHIP, PRAll~iE1~I’~tEkS”

L LI

U’’

FEB 282005

NETWORK, SIERRA CLUB, BETH

)

WENTZEL and CYNTHIA SKRUKRUD,

)

Petitioners,

)

PCB

05-5 5

)

(Third-Party NPDES

Permit Appeal

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

)

Water)

PROTECTION AGENCY and

)

VILLAGE OF WAUCONDA,

)

Respondents.

)

_________________________________________________________________

)

SLOCUM DRAINAGE DISTRICT OF

)

LAKE COUNTY, ILLINOIS

)

Petitioner,

)

PCBO5-58

)

(Third-Party NPDES Permit Appeal

ILLiNOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

)

Water)

PROTECTION AGENCY and

)

VILLAGE OF WAUCONDA,

)

Respondents.

)

THI5 FILING PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

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 HOMEOWNERS)

ASSOCIATION, JULIA TUDOR and

)

CHRISTINE DEVINEY.

)

Petitioners,

)

PCB

05-59

)

(Third-Party NPDES Permit Appeal

)

Water)

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

)

PROTECTION AGENCY and

)

VILLAGE OF

WAUCONDA,

)

Respondent.

)

PROPOSED FINDING OF FACT

AND

BRIEF

SUPPORTING DENIAL OF

VILLAGE OF WAUCONDA NPDES PERMIT

NOW COMES

the RESIDENT GROUP, by and through their attorney JAY J.

GLENN, and for their

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACTS, ARGUMENT

AND

BRIEF

SUPPORT OF DENIAL OF VILLAGE OF WAUCONDA NPDES

PERMIT

and states as follows:.

THIS FILING PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JURISDICTION

August 23, 2004 the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

(“Agency”), approved

the Final

Modified NPDES

Permit to the Village of

Wauconda

Wastewater

Treatment Plant

(“

WWTP”)

Permit No;1L0020 109

(“Permit”

)l,

further particularized as

follows:

Issue Date:

November 6, 2000

Modification Date #1:

December 30, 2003

Modification Date #3:

August 23, 2004

Expiration Date:

November 30, 2005 ~

In support of this decision, the Agency spread of record a collection of

documents entitled

Wauconda Wastewater Treatment Plant NPDES Permit ~

consisting ofthe Table of Contents5, Agency Decision6, Hearing Record7, Background

ofPermit Modification8, Discharge History9, Public Hearing,’0 September 9-10, 2003

Public Hearing’

Coliform Bacteria’2, Disinfection Exemption Modification for Current

Permit13, Local Government Meeting

—

December

10,

200314 and Response to

Comments, Questions

and Concerns’5, and a copy ofthe NPDES

Permit.

‘Reference to IPCB Doc. No.: _____,

are

to the Agency

document submission to the Illinois Pollution

Control Board.

IPCB Doc’s. No’s.:

#002195

‘

IPCB

Doc’s

No’s.:

#00225

thru #002262

~‘

IPCB Doc’s. No’s.:

#0022 10

thru

#002262

and

#00225

thru

#002262

~IPCB

Doc. No.: #0022 10

IPCB

Doc. No.: #002211

~IPCB

Doc. No. :#002212

IPCB

Doc.No.:

#002213

~IPCB Doc.

No.: #0022 14

10IPCB

Doe. No.: #0022 14

~ IPCB Doc.

No.: #0022 13

IPCB Doc.No.:

#0022 14

IPCB Doc.

No.: #0022 15

IPCB Doc.

No.: #0022 15

THIS FILING PRINTED ON RECYCLEDPAPER

Jurisdiction

—

Resident Group

On September 27, 2004 pursuant 415 ILCS 5/40(e)(1) and 35 Ill.

Administrative Code Section

105, the

Resident Group

filed before this, The Honorable

Illinois

Pollution Control Board

(“Board”)

this

THIRD-PARTY

PETITION FOR

REVIEW

OF A DECISION BY THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

(

“Resident Group Petition”).

Pursuant to 415

ILCS

5140(e)(2)(A)

members ofthe Resident

Group gave

statements, made extensive comments and submitted numerous documents to the Agency

at the September 9, 2003 and September

10, 2003

“informational hearing”

and filed

other documents prior to the

close ofthe public record.

The Hearing Officer dictated specific meeting rules for the September 9, 2003

and September

10, 2003 “informational meeting” and individual members ofthe Resident

Group participated and fully complied with the specific instructions ofthe Hearing

Officer

and the Resident Group is fully compliant with thejurisdictional requirements

necessary to prosecute this

Appeal from the Agency decision granting this Permit.

Additional jurisdictional compliance is ofrecord in theseproceedings in the

Resident Group Petition and

those facts are incorporated by reference herein as if frilly

set forth herein.

Most members ofthe Resident Group reside in the Village ofLake

Barrington and Cuba Township.

The Village ofLake Barrington and Cuba Township have, jointly,

filed a

separate NPDES Appeal, PCB

05-55

which is consolidated herein.

IPCB Doe’sNo’s.: #0022 16 thru #002250

THIS FILING PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

The Resident Group notes that the Village ofLake Barrington and Cuba

Township, (“Municipal Petitioners”) and others’6, are captioned as Petitioners in these•

Consolidated Proceedings but the Resident Group advises this, The Honorable Illinois

Pollution Control Board,

that the activities and recent pleadings ofthe Municipal

Petitioners are in conflict with the views of the Resident Group, and if implemented will

endanger the health and

safety ofthe Resident Group.

ACRONYMS

10.

The Resident Group adopts the Agency Acronyms17 and a copy is

attached

hereto as Exhibit A.

The Resident Group Supplements the Agency Acronyms and a

copy is attached as Exhibit B.

CONSTITUTIONAL AND PROCEDURAL OBJECTIONS

11.

This pleading is intended as a factual summary and

argument

supporting

denial of the

Permit based solely on the Record.

12.

The Resident Group will raise additional constitutional, jurisdictional and

procedural objections to the approval and/or implementation ofthis Permit in future

pleadings. A brief overview ofthese additional grounds is summarized as follows:

PROCEDURAL DUE

PROCESS

13.

The Resident Group has by testimony at the “informational hearing”,

post-hearing comments and its filings in these proceedings charge that the Agency has

institutionalized practices and procedures which result in the systematic denial of due

PCB

05-55

‘7IPCD Doe. No.: #00249

THIS FILING PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

process rights commonly associated with quasi-judicial proceedings guaranteed to

interested parties in accordance with

People ex re. ROBERT J.

KLAEREN

II et al. v.

Village of Lisle et al.

202 Ill. 2d 164; 781 N.E.2d 223; 2002 Ill. LEXIS 9411;

269 Ill.

Dec. 426 (2002).

REGULATORY TAKINGS

14.

1994, the

Court of Appeals in Loveladies Harbor, Inc. v. United

States, 28 F.3d

1171,

1179

(Fed. Cir.

1994) outlined a 2-step test for determining

whether a regulatory takings has occurred:

Tihere

has

been

a regulatory taking

if:

(1)

there was

denial of economically

viable

use

of the property

result

the

regulatory

imposition;

(2)

the

property

owner has

distinct investment-backed expectations; and

(3) it was an interest vested in the owner, as a

matter of

state property

law, and not within the power ofthe state

to regulate under common law

nuisance doctrine.18

15.

The land tracts ofthe Fiddle Creek Wetlands are privately

owned, they are not the property ofthe Village ofWauconda, Village of

Lake Barrington or Cuba

Township.

16.

Ifthe current

waste loading conditions are allowed to

continue, the Village

Wauconda wastestream will reduce the Fiddle

Creek Wetlands to a wastestream channel directly to the Fox River in 14

15 years’9.

Ifthis Permit

is allowed to proceed and become operational,

the aging process will accelerate.

‘8ABA

Environment, Energy,

and Resources Law

—

The Year in Review 2002 at page 346

IPCB Doe. No.: #000475

THIS FILING PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

17.

When the Village of Wauconda, apparently with Board

approval, moved its wastestream to the Fiddle Creek Wetlands,

the

predictable consequence ofthat

action, the death of the Fiddle Creek

Wetlands became possible.

18.

In 1993 the Fiddle Creek Wetlands open water had an area

of about 180

acres, at the present time little orno

open water is present20.

19.

No riparian owner or property owner in the Fiddle Creek

Wetlands has been told

“During the wet weather flow conditions an out-

of-bank

condition

occurs along the east-west portion ofFiddle Creek

during the 1-year, 12-hour

storm event”21

20.

No riparian owner or property owner in the Fiddle Creek

Wetlands has been told that

“The analysis did not include the influence

from the Fox River

backwater and applied a nominal

flow at the Slocum

Lake Drain confluence based on the data provided in the FIS.

Further

detailed studies would be required to assess the full effects ofthe

watershed variables.

The

analysis presented is intended to address the

anticipated overbank conditions and the impact ofthe increased flows

from the wastewater treatment plant as critical locations along

Fiddle Creek.22

IPCB Doe.

No.: #000475

IPCB Doe. No.: #002057

IPCB Doe.: #002058

THIS FILING PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

21.

Cooley v.

United

States23 324 F.3d 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2003)

the Court held that a takings claim became ripe upon issuance ofthe Corps

issuance of a

final decision.

PUBLIC USE REQUIREMENT OF THE

FIFTH AMENDMENT

22.

The United

States Supreme Court hasjust heard February,

2005

oral

arguments

Kelo,

et al.

City

of New London, et

al.

Case No. 04-108, and the

Supreme Court has been asked, as follows:

QUESTION PRESENTED

What protection does the Fifth Amendment’s public

use requirement provide for individuals whose property

being condemned, by to eliminate slums or blight, but

for the sole purpose of

“economic development” that

will perhaps increase tax revenues and improve the

local economy?

23.

While it

is true

that

Kelo

currently

undecided and focused on the use of

condemnation

for the sole purpose ofeconomic developmentthe language challenged in

Kelo

is substantially identical

to the language used by the Agency in its justification of

this Permit.

CONFLICTS OF

INTEREST

Agency

says

“We

didn’t do it, the Board

did it basically”

24.

On September 9, 2003, the Agency, by its attorney,

beganthe

“informational hearing”

with the following statement:

was

the

Pollution

Control

Board

back

the

‘80’s

who

ordered the plant to change

its point of

discharge.

And

that was on

the

basis

series

of what

we call

variances,

which

there

was

phosphorous

limit

effect.

And they and a

lot of other people weren’t being

able to

meet the phosphorous

limit.

So the Board said,

ABA

—

Environment, Energy, and Resources Law, The Year in Review 2003

at p.

142

THIS FILING PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

Okay,

under the

Act we can

give you

variance of a

maximum of five years

give you

time

figure

out

what

you

are going

to do.

turned out, what they

ended up having to do was to move the discharge.

So it

was

the Pollution

Control

board

that was

in,

mean

that was

—

It basically

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

how

was

that

came about.

didn’t do it, the Board did it basically.

25.

In a document entitled WAUCONDA WASTEWATER

TREATMENT

PLANT

decision25 the Agency stated in the

DISCHARGE

HISTORY, as

follows:

“In

1977,

the Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board

(Board)

granted

Wauconda

variance

from

the

phosphorus

standard

order to have

time to resolve the problem.

1983

the Board

terminated the variance, whereupon

the discharge was moved away from Slocum Lake to its

resent

location

Fiddle

Creek.

(Fiddle

Creek

has

previously

been

designated

Wauconda’s

NPDES

permit

and

other

Illinois

EPA

documents

“an

unnamed

tributary

the

Fox

River”

Wauconda

Creek;”

however,

the

permitted

discharge

point

has

been the same since 1983).~~26

26.

This Record

and

the relevant Statutes give this Board both

the

grounds and authority to

deny and/or terminate the Village of

Wauconda NPDES Permit.

Hearing Transcript at p.

—

IPCB Doe’s No’s.:

#002220 thru 002262

IPCB Doe.

No.:

#0022 13

THIS FILING PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

27.

Prior to the September 9, 2003

“informational hearing” the

Agency contacted numerous Residents near the Fiddle Creek Wetlands

and advised that this Permit would be granted.

A review ofthis Record

indicates that the Agency is in the business ofapproving NPDES

Permits

and is failing to protect our wetlands and surface waters.

28.

The Resident Group seeks Justice,

sees no worse

Municipal neighbor than the Village of Wauconda and no worse guardian

than

the Agency.

29.

The Agency has by words and documents has shifted the

responsibility for the current degradation ofthe Fiddle Creek Wetlands to

the Illinois Pollution

Control Board.

30.

This Record with these Respondents

creates a unique

opportunity review a past decision, revealing the environmental

consequences of that decision and

providing an opportunity to

correct

a problem.

The Resident Group believes, if there were ever grounds for

Permit denial

or revocation, this Record, the environmental history ofthe

Village ofWauconda warrant serious consideration.

TARKOWSKI SUPERFUND SITE

(“Superfund 2”)

31.

The Fiddle Creek Wetlands contains a Superfund Site the

second oftwo

involved in this Permit Appeal

identified as LAKELAND ESTATES, 431

S. Lakeview,

Wauconda, Illinois27 which is owned by a Mr. John Tarkowski.28

IPCB Doe.

#000382

Tr.: 187, 1PCB Doe’sNo’s.: #000382 thru #00387, #000580, #000807,

THIS FILING PRINTED ON RECYCLEDPAPER

32.

Prior to September 9, 2003, the Agency was, on actual knowledge, that

this Superfund Site would be raised by Residents at the “informational hearing”.

numerous documents and photographs were submitted during the hearing and in the post

hearing comment period.

33.

On September 9, 2003, the Agency, by its

attorney, advised that the

Agency was aware ofthe Tarkowski matter29 and advised the public ofa decision in

United States ofAmerica v. John Tarkowski

34.

Mayer, Brown & Platt, represented Mr. Tarkowski in those proceedings.

35.

Mayer Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP have filed their Appearance in these

proceedings and represents the Village ofLake Barrington and Cuba Township.

36.

The entrance to Superfund 2

is through Lakeland Estates and Superfund 2

a 16 acre tract which is in and adjacentto the Fiddle Creek Wetlands, and parts of

Superfund 2 are adjacent to the Slocum Lake Drainage District channels which currently

carries the WWTP wastestream to the Fox River.

37.

Superfund 2 has been come under aerial surveillance and the Agency has

produced no documents relating to this active investigation.

The Resident Group has

additional information relating to Superfund 2 which is Confidential, and cannotbecome

part ofthe public

record.

38.

The existence ofSuperfund 2 was raised by Residents at the

“Informational Hearing” and this Appeal but the Agency has failed to disclose any

29Tr.: 196-197

IPCB Doe’s No’s.: #000807 thru #000828

THIS FILING PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

information relating to Superfund 2 in any documents, and its antidegradation analysis

has failed to mention it

even

though eventhough the Wauconda wastestream flows

through Superfund 2.

RESIDENT GROUP

39.

The approximate 500 individuals,

standing before this Board,

represent

a small cross-section ofthe actual

Resident property owners ofCuba Township and

Wauconda Township.

Almost all members ofthe Resident Group live downstream ofthe

WWTP outfall, and are so situated as to be affected by this Permit

and by offensive

conditions and other violations ofthe water quality standards ofthe Environmental

Protection Act in the Fiddle Creek Wetlands, Fox River and Illinois River.

40.

The members ofthis Resident Group have children, and the Resident

Group represents

them in these proceedings, they swim, hike, play and

fish in the Fiddle

Creek Wetlands.

41.

Most members ofResident Group are in daily, intimate contact with the

Fiddle Creek Wetlands.

The Agency is on actual notice “It is reported that many ofthe

wells in the area use a very shallow aquifer”32.

Our wells are linked to groundwaters

under this wetland and the Resident

Group knowtheir wells are subject to surface and

subsurface contamination from the Village ofWauconda wastestream.

42.

On July 29, 2003

a group ofResidents requested a meeting with the

Illinois Attorney General and requested an investigation ofthe Agency33

43.

The Residents raised the possibility ofcontamination in wells near the

landfill.34

Resident Group Appearance in these proceedings

IPCB Doe. No.: #000475

“

IPCB Doe’s No’s.: #001744 thru #001746

THIS FILING PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

44.

The Residents then mentioned the possibility that contaminants associated

with Superfund

leachate going to the WWTP and passing through to receiving stream

and affecting the wells in North Barrington Lake

Barrington

45.

The consequences of aquifer pollution and existence of

a leachate plume

from Superfund

is now a

matter ofpublic record. It has been sixteen months since our

neighbors

in the Hillcrest Subdivision in un-incorporated Wauconda Township were told

that cancer causing chemicals (Vinyl Chloride) was in their wells.

46.

In the last

16 months, the Elmcrest, Spencer Highlands,

Wellesmere

Heights

and North Shore Subdivisions and

Residents living near Superfund

have been

made aware ofthe danger ofgroundwater contamination and several hundred residents

are receiving bottled water.

47.

The Agency is on actual notice that Superfund 1, under a 2’~’

NPDES

Permit issued to WTG recovers leachate runoffthrough a

system ofdrain tiles which

pumpedto the WWTP and

is dumped into the Village ofWauconda wastestream and

then is discharged into the Fiddle Creek Wetlands.

48.

The Residents then raised the possibility ofcontaminates associated with

leachate going to the STP and passing through to receiving stream affecting wells of

wells downstream ofthe WWTP Outfall on Anderson Road.36

49.

The Resident Group recognizes that the WWTP wastestream is a clear and

present danger to health and

safety of

downstream Residents, their families, theirwells

and the environment.

~‘

Ibid at #00 1745

~ Ibid

Ibid

THIS FILING PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

50.

The leachate

recovery system was specifically installed at Superfund

1 to

keep leachate from

discharging directlyto Mutton Creek.

51.

The Discharge ofleachate from the landfill to the City ofWauconda

(one ofthe PRP’s) was permitted by the Agency in

1991.

The leachate does contain

some VOC’s ,heavy metals,

and boron. Boron elevated.37

52.

A list ofSuperfund

1 PRP’s is attached hereto as Exhibit C.

Prior to

1983 there were no STP or WWTP

discharges into the Fiddle Creek

Wetlands.

False NPDES Application submitted by Village of Wauconda

and

Agency

approval of NPDES Permit

knowing Permit False

53.

Form

General

Information

for Consolidated

Permits

Program is

EPA

Form

3510-1 and the EPA Description of Consolidated Permit Application Forms, Form

Package Table ofContents, Section A

—

General Instructions, Section B

—

Form

line-

by-line instructions, Section C, Section D

—

Glossary and blank Form

are attached

hereto as

Group Exhibit D.

54.

Page

1-4 ofthe NPDES instructions in Item XIII state, in relevant part as

follows:

18 U.S.C.

Section

1001 provides that:

“Whoever,

any matter within the jurisdiction of any

department

agency

of he

United

States

knowingly

and

wilfully

falsffies,

conceals

covers

any

trick, scheme,

device

material

fact

makes

uses

any

false writing

document

knowing

same

contain

any

false,

fictitious

or fraudulent

statement

entry,

shall

fmed

not

more

than

$10,000

imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”

IPCB

Doe. No.:#00 1843

THIS FILING PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

Section 309(c)(2) ofthe Clean Water Act provides:

“any

person

knowingly

makes

any

false

statement,

representation,

certification

any

application,...

shall upon conviction,

be punished by

a fme of no more

than

$10,000

by imprisonment of not more than

six

months, or

both.”

Section 3008(d)(3) ofthe Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act provides:

“for a fine up to $25,000 per day or imprisonment up to one

year, or both, for a first conviction ormaking

a false

statement in an application under the Act, and for double

these penalties upon subsequent convictions”.

55.

In the

State of Illinois, the current statutory authority to deny an NPDES

permit is found at

35 Ill. Adm. Code 309.105,

a copy ofwhich is attached hereto as

Exhibit E.

56.

35 Ill.

Adm. Code 309.103

states as follows:

Application Forms

applicant

for

National

Pollution

Discharge

Elimination

System

(NPDES)

Permit

shall

file

application,

accordance

with

Section

309.223

hereof,

forms

provided

the

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency

(Agency).

Such

forms shall comprise the NPDES

application

forms

promulgated

by the U.S.

Environmental

Protection

Agency

for

the

type

discharge

for

which

NPDES Permit is being sought...”

57.

Pursuant to

Ill.

Adm. Code

309.182(b)(2)

this

Board

has Authority to

Modif~’,Suspend orRevoke Permits, as follows:

The Pollution Control Board,

after complaint and

hearing

accordance with the Act and

its

Procedural

Rules, may

modify,

suspend or

revoke any NPDES permit

in whole

part in

any manner consistent with the Act, applicable

THIS FILING PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

Board regulations and federal

requirements, upon proof of

cause including, but not limited to, the following:

Violation

any

terms

conditions

the

permit

(including,

but

not limited

to,

schedules of compliance

and

conditions

concerning

monitoring,

entry

and

inspection);

Obtaining

permit by misrepresentation

failure

disclose fully all relevant facts; or

change

any

circumstance that

mandates

either a

temporary or permanent reduction or elimination of the

permitted discharge.

58.

On March 19, 2003,

the Village

ofWauconda,

Bonestroo

Devery & Associates38

filed with the Agency two copies of an

executed

NPDES

Permit Application and supplemental documentation for

a wastewatertreatment plant39.

59.

Two completed NPDES Permit Applications,

withoutthe

Table in Section B.6 on page 8 of21

were received by the Agency on

March 23, 2003~°.

60.

On April 3,

2003, the Village ofWauconda, by Bonestroo

Devery & Associates filed with the Agency two copies ofthe completed

Table in Section B.6 on page 8 of 21

in its NPDES Permit Application41

61. On April 7, 2003 the Agency received the copies ofthe Table in B.6 on

page

8 of 12.

IPCB

Doe’sNo.: #001608

#001609

IPCB Doe’s

No’s.:

#001610 -001670

40IPCB

Doe. No.: #00 1608

IPCB Doe.

No.: #001671

THIS FILING PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

62.

Seven days latter, on April

14, 2003, J. Hutton in a Memorandum to D.

Netemeyer42

advisedthat the Antidegradation assessment was completed pursuant to 35

Ill.

Adm. Code

302.105 was compliant with Antidegradaton standard43.

63.

On July 31, 2003, a group ofResidents requested, and were granted,

meeting with the an Assistant Attorney General, Chris Grant, Esq. and the falseNPDES

Permit Application, filed by the Village ofWauconda, dated March 21, 2003 was

raised.44

64.

C. Kallis, an investigator with the IEPA was present and he

prepared the

above MEMORANDUM which was forwarded to Mr. Don Netemeyer45.

65.

At the “informational hearing” a Resident had reviewed the modified

permit and directly questionedthe truth of Village ofWauconda answers to the NPDES

Permit Application46.

66.

On the Village ofWauconda NPDES Application at page

19, under

CERCLA superfund wastewater, RCRA remediation, corrective action, wastewater, and

other remediation activity wastewater, the Village ofWauconda answered NA when they

knew they were receiving wastewater from Superfimd

going into the Village of

Wauconda

wastestream47.

VIOLATION OF PERMIT

67.

On September

9, 2003 the Agency, by

its attorney,

summarized the

history ofthe Village of Wauconda

and its Waste Water Treatment Plant as follows:

IPCB

Doe’s. No’s.: #00 1677

thru #00 1679

~ Further comment canbe found at Agency Response to Request to Admit p. 6

~ IPCB Doe’s No’s.: #001744 thru #00 1746

‘~

IPCB Doe’s No’s.: #00 1744 thru #00 1746

Tr. 90

~ Ibid

THIS FILING PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

“Now, yes, it is true

that through the ‘90’s it had

a lot of

problems.

No question

about that.

But it doesn’t have

those

same

problems

anymore.

What

happened

basically

that

2000,

1999

and

2000,

had

the

Attorney General’s office file suit against the Village to

force them to take care of some of these problems.

And

there was

consent

decree

entered

into

here

Lake

County

Chancery Court.

And

for

those

of you

who

might be

interested, it’s No.

99CH720.

It was

entered

December

12,

2000.

And

basically

what

did,

ordered Wauconda to fix its sewer problems

and

to put

in an excess-flow

facility, that that the excess flow when

there

---

and these guys will explain to you, when

there

is excess flow, this facility holds

it and treats

it.

48,,

68.

The 2001

SUMMARY

REPORT

SLOCUM LAKE

(“Slocum Report”)

which was prepared by the Lake County Health

Department

was

entered

into

the record.49

69.

The Slocum Report put the Agency on actual notice that the

eutrophication ofSlocum Lake was accelerated by years of discharge from

the Wauconda Wastewater Treatment Plant5°

70.

WWTP was built in the early

20th

century and discharged

treated

effluent

into Bangs Lake Drain which empties into Slocum

Lake51.

71.

Historically WWTP has had many problems with discharge

ofraw sewage into the Bangs Lake Drain when flow exceeded the plant’s

maximum

capacity52.

48Tr.p18—19

‘~

IPCB Doe’s.:

#0003 88 thru

#00042 1

IPCB Doe. No.:

#000392

IPCB Doe. No.:

#000392

IPCB

Doe. No.:

#000392

THIS FILING PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

72.

According to

the Lake County Health Department, in 1986

the Bangs

Lake Drain Bypass was built, and treated

effluent was to be

diverted into Fiddle Marsh Fiddle

Creek Wetlands

and eventually enter

the

Slocum Lake Drain,

downstreamofthe lake Slocum

Lake53.

73.

From

1986-1996, WWTP illegally bypassed the Bangs

Lake Drain bypass, continuing to discharge raw sewage into Slocum

Lake54.

74.

In 1997, the JEPA required WWTP to address this illegal

conduct.

75.

In 2002 LCHD concluded

“Regardless ofthe

improvements that have come about over the past decade, much ofthe

damage to the lake Slocum

Lake

has already been done55.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE

OF ILLINOIS

v. VILLAGE

OF WAUCONDA

CII 720

76.

June 28, 1999 in caseNo. 99 CH 720, Attorney General ofthe State

of Illinois, on behalfofthe Agency filed a

COMPLAINT FOR

INJUNCTION AND

OTHER RELIEF (“1999 Litigation”)

which is

attached hereto as

Group Exhibit F

Agency

did not disclose either the litigation or document.

77.

In Count

—

WATER POLLUTION, the State of Illinois alleged that on

May 20,

1996, February 20,

1997 and February 21,

1997, the Village ofWauconda

IPCB Doe.

No.:

#000392

54IPCB Doe.

No.:

#000392

IPCB Doe.

No.:

#000392

THIS FILING PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

violated Section

12(a) of 415 ILCS 5/12(a) (1996)

and allowed untreated raw sewage to

be pumped from six different locations totaling approximately 1,530,390 gallons into

Bangs Lake Creek.

78.

In Count II- VIOLATION OF GENERAL EFFLUENT STANDARDS,

the

State of Illinois alleged that in February,

1997, the Village of Wauconda violated the

Illinois Pollution Control Board, Water Pollution Regulations,

Ill. Adm., Code

304.120(c)

—

Deoxgenating Wastes in that in February,

1997 caused or allowed 28.4

milligrams per liter (“mg/l”) oftotal suspended

solids

(“TSS”) to be discharged into

Bangs Lake Creek.

79.

In Count III

VIOLATION OF NPDES PERMIT EFFLUENT LIMITS,

the State ofIllinois charged that the Village ofWauconda violated its NPDES Permit No

ILOO2O 109 which was issued on June 7,

1995 and expired on May 31, 2000 in that the

Village ofWauconda

with exceeded the chlorine residual limits by discharging 28.4 mg/l

TSS on February 20, 1997

and 0.68 mg/l and 0.69 mg/l ofresidual chlorine on both

February 20 and 21,

1997.

80.

In Count IV

VIOLATION OF NPDES PERMIT REPORTING

REQUIREMENTS the State ofIllinois

charged that Village of Wauconda did not provide

representative flow monitoring required under

the NPDES Permit.

81.

Count

—

VIOLATION OF ERFORMANCE CRITERIA the

State of

Illinois charged that the Village

of Wauconda on February

and 21,

1997 allowed

excessive

inflow/infiltration

into its collection

system leading to sewer overflow.

THIS FILING PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

82.

On February 20 and 21,

1997 the Village ofWauconda allowed overflows

occur during wet weather periods and did not receive primary treatment and

disinfection prior to discharge.

83.

In County VI- VIOLATIONS OF NPDES PERMIT

CONDITIONS, the

State of

Illinois charged that the Village ofWauconda

Failed to provide representative flow monitoring;

Failed to take samples;

Failed to submit its

sludge analyses and its semi-annual

sludge

management report;

Failed to submit a completed industrial survey.

84.

On December 13, 2000, the Village ofWauconda and State ofIllinois

entered into a CONSENT ORDER

which required, among other relief,

as follows:

Elimination ofhydraulic bottleneckat headworks;

Limit hydraulic loading to treatment units downstream ofheadworks,

with exception of Bio Towers; and

Conform “Basis ofDesign”

report for WWTP “Wet Weather Flow

Improvements”

Wauconda shall complete construction by October 14, 2001;

Cease

and Desist order was entered from future

violations

the Act

and Board regulations.

85.

The CONSENT ORDER charged the Village ofWauconda with a Civil

Penalty ofTwenty Thousand Dollars

($20,000.00).

PEOPLE OF

THE STATE OF

ILLINOIS

v. VILLAGE OF WAUCONDA

Case No. 04

CH 1206

86.

August

17, 2004, prior to the issuance ofthe

Permit,

the Attorney General ofthe State of Illinois,

in its own name and on

behalfofthe

Agency filed a complaint (“2004

—

Litigation”).

IPCB Doe’s.:

#2271

thru #2284 produced

in these proceedings in AMENDED RECORD 2

on January

31, 2005.

THIS FILING

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

87.

On December 10, 2004 a CONSENT ORDER was entered

in this proceedings, a copy ofsaid Order is attached hereto as

Group

Exhibit G.

Agency

did not disclose this document

88.

Thatthe CONSENT ORDER memorializes violations by

the

Village ofWauconda ofthe following Illinois Pollution Control Board

Regulations:

Water Pollution

violation of415 ILCS 5/12(d) 2002);

CREATING A WATER POLLUTION HAZARD

violation of415

ILCS

5/12(d)

(2002);

VIOLATION OF

WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

violation of

415 ILCS

5/12(a)

(2002), and 35 Ill. Adm.

Code 302.203;

VIOLATION OF EFFLUENT STANDARDS

—

violation of415

ILCS

5/l2(a)(2002), and 35

Ill. Adm.

Code 304.104;

NPDES PERMIT VIOLATIONS

—

violation of415 ILCS 5/12(f)(

2002) and NPDES

Permit No.

IL 00200109.

89.

The Resident Group did not receive any documents from the Agency

relating to the 2004

Litigation;

90.

The Resident Group notes for this record that the Attorney General for

the State of Illinois and Agency file a law suit against the Village of Wauconda on

August 17, 2004;

91.

The Agency choose to issue this contested NPDES Permit to the Village

ofWauconda

7 days after filing suit against this same Village ofWauconda

For:

Water

Pollution, Creating a Water Pollution Hazard;

Violation ofWater Quality Standards,

Violations of Effluent Standards and NPDES Permit Violations.

92.

The 2004 Consent Order mandates that the Village ofWauconda to

implement and enforce its pretreatment program in accordance with

its Ordinance 2000-

0-31, adopted September 19, 2000.

THIS FILING PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

93.

The 2004 Litigation resulted in

the Village of Wauconda being issued a

civil penalty of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00).

Additional Reported Violations

94.

V2 Consultants reviewed USEPA’S Permit Compliance System (PCS) and

in the period April 2001

to May 2003 found the following violations;

Total ammonia nitrogen in discharge exceeded the permit limitation in

June2002~~

Copper in the discharge exceed the permit limitation on three occasions

February 2003, November 2001, and September 200158.

95.

April 17, 2003 R. Coob advised that the Agency had sent the Village of

Wauconda a violation notice in regard to water main and sewer main permit violations in

the Liberty Lakes Development (Town and Country Homes)

96.

Agency records show that Wauconda Task Group constantly violates the

Village ofWauconda

Ordinance for Boron and total dissolved solids, however as long

VOW is not on the pretreatment program, the Agency has no legal authority to force

VOW to enforce its ordinance.

97.

The annual report confirms the presence ofsome organic compounds and

poly aromatic hydrocarbons.

Do we know ifthis is affecting the plant or causing pass

through ? No because they are not on the pretreatment program.

Thus they are not

required to sample and analyze forthese compounds in their influent, effluent and sludge.

IPCB

Doe.:

#0003

IPCB

Doe.: #0003 19

IPCB

Doe. No. #00 1766

THIS FILING PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

98.

Memo from Chris Kallis to

LisaMoreno, Al Keller, Don Netemeyer and

Scott Twait which states that there is a memo from DanRay to Don Netermeyer

concerning Wauconda’s omission ofthe landfill leachate

in their industrial survey that

was required under the old permit6°

Fecal Foam Out

99.

On September 24, 2003, WWTP foam was leaking out of

the west aerobic

digester, running downhill surrounding a control building

and entering a storm

sewer tributary to the Bangs Lake Drain.61

100.

This same problem with the aerobic digester was seen by

the

WWTP staff on August 29, 2003

and August 20, 2003, they didn’t

knowthe

source.62

RECORD

101.

On November 30, 2004, after requesting and being granted and extension,

the Agency filedherein, what it represented as the complete RECORD,

consisting of

Two Thousand Sixty- Two (2,262)

pages. On December

10, 2004 the Agency Amended

the Record herein for the First time with the inclusion ofthe Transcript ofthe September

9, 2003

—

September 10,

2003 Agency hearing.

102.

On December

17, 2004 Attorney Glenn representing the Resident Group

and

Attorney Macfarlane representing the Slocum Lake Drainage District ofLake

County, at the invitation ofthe Agency, traveled to Springfield and reviewed, what the

IPCB

Doe. No. #00 1766

IPCB

Doe

No. #000611

thru 000614

IPCB

Doe. No. #611

THIS FILING PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

Agency represented as all

documents not heretofore submitted

into the record. This

document review was highly controlled and restricted and resulted in the Resident Group

filing

a MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND TO COMPEL.

103.

In the Agency RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND TO

COMPEL, filed on

January 7, 2005, the Agency, in its Attachment A, filed

individual

responses

and attached

additional documents un-numbered.

104.

In the Agency RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL THE AGENCY

TO PRODUCE THE VIOLATION AND LITIGATION RECORD, filed on January 6,

2005, the Agency filed

19 individual responses but attached the CONSENT ORDER in

Case No. 99 CH 720 un-numbered.

105.

On January 31, 2005, the Agency filed its

AMENDED RECORD 2

which

numbered the above records from 2263

thru 2285.

106.

On February 8, 2005, the Agency filed its third amended record entitled

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO THE HEARING OFFICER ORDER

DATED FEBRUARY

3, 2005 and these third amended documents are numbered P-i

thru P-36.

107.

On February

10,

2005, the day ofthe IEPA Hearing, the Village of

Wauconda and Agency advised that the PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT for WWTP

was not in the record, and on or about February

15, 2005,

a copy of

this report was

tendered,

and

identified in this pleading as Amended Record 4,

and has identification

numbers HO-i through HO-47.

THIS FILING PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

ARGUMENT

Pursuant to

Ill. Adm.

Code 105.116 the Agency is required to file the Agency

Record with the Board within (30) days after receipt ofthe Petition. Section 40 ILCS

5/40(e)(3)

provides that the Board shall hear the petition “exclusively on the basis ofthe

record before the Agency. Pursuant to Section 105.2 12(b). The Agency states that it did

not rely upon information in making its final decision.

FEDERAL OVERVIEW

108.

The CWArequires that State water quality standards

include an

antidegradation policy and implementation procedures that are consistent with the

requirements ofthe federal policy outlined in 40 C.F.R.

131.12 a copy ofwhich is

attached hereto as

Exhibit H.

109.

Federal antidegradationpolicy delineates a different standard-of

protection for each of three different “tiers” ofwater.

110.

Tier

maintains and protects existing uses and water quality conditions

necessary to support such uses.

An existing use can be established by demonstrating that

fishing, swimming,

or other uses have

actually occurred since November 28,

1975, or

that the water quality is suitable to allow such uses to occur.

111.

Where an existing

use is established,

it must be protected even if it is not

listed in

the water quality standards as a designated

use.

Tier

requirements are

applicable to all surface waters.

112.

CWA prohibits the discharge ofany pollutant from a point source into

navigable waters unless the discharge is authorized by permit.

U.S.C.

1342

(2000)

THIS FILING PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

113.

“Navigable waters” are defined

as “waters of

the

United

States.”64

114.

In Community Association for Restoration of the Environment v.

Henry Bosma

Dairy65 Ninth Circuit reaffirmed previous decisions holding that

irrigation canals are waters ofthe United

States. In United States v.

New

Portland

Meadows66

the court held that an unnamed ditch which eventually discharged into the

Columbia Slough was a water of the United States.

115.

CWA section

4Q467

requires a permit for discharges offill or dredge

spoils

to “navigable waters”. In a post Solid Waste Agency ofNorthern

Cook

County

v. U.S.

Army Corps of

Engineers68 decision, the Fourth Circuit in

United States

Deaton

affirmed the Corps determination that wetlands, which were adjacent to and

drained into a roadside ditch and whose waters eventually flowed into a navigable river,

were

waters ofthe United States forpurposes of section 404.

The court emphasized that

“any

pollutant or fill material that degrades the water quality in a tributary ofnavigable

waters has

the potential to move downstream and degrade the quality ofthe navigable

waters themselves.70 Relying on Deaton, the Sixth Circuit in United States

v.Rapanos71

concluded that wetlands connected by a manmade drain to a creek, and in turn to a

navigable river, were waters ofthe United States, even though the wetlands were located

at least eleven miles from the nearest water that was in fact navigable.

6422

U.S.C.

1362(7) (2000)

65ABA- Environment, Energy, and Resources Law, The Year in Review

305 F.3d 943

(9~

Cir.

2002)

Ibid. 2002

U.S. Dist.

LEXIS

19153 (D.OR. 2002)

33 U.S.C.

1362(7) (2000)

68531

U.S. 159

(2001)

69ABA

—

Environment, Energy, and Resources Law, The Year in Review -332 F.2d 698

(4th

Cir. 2003)

Deaton at 707

F.3d 447

(6th

dr.

2003)

THIS FILING PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

116.

The EPA warned

Louisiana that it would consider withdrawing the

State’s authority to implement the NPDES program if Louisiana did not take specific

actions to restore the integrity ofthe program.72

CLEAN WATER ACT

117.

CWA water quality standards include an antidegradation policy and

implementation method. CWA requires States and Tribes to establish a three-tiered

antidegradatin program.

118.

CWA

Tier

is designed to maintain and protect existing uses and

water

quality conditions

necessary

support

such uses.

existing use can be established by

demonstrating that fishing,

swimming, or other uses have actually occurred since

November 28,

1975, or that the water quality is suitable to allow such uses to occur.

119.

Where an existing use is

established, it

must

be protected even if it is not

listed

in the water quality standards as a designated use.

Tier

requirements are

applicable to all

surface waters.

120.

Inno

case may water quality be lowered to

a level which would interfere

with existing or designated uses.

121.

Under 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.105 the Fiddle Creek antidegradation

analysis failed because it failed to address the November 28,

1975 baseline requirement.

122.

The CWA requires full satisfaction ofthe intergovernmental coordination

and public participation. The Agency

has failed to comply with the public participation

mandate

7224

Inside

EPA 9,

(2003)

~ CWA

101(a)(2)

THIS FILING PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

123.

The Agency decision, not to change the Fiddle

Creek uses because the

Agency

does not

have

data on the receiving stream on November 28, 1975~~

124.

The anticipated benefits to

communityat large75 is not the statutory

standard76.

125.

The CWA standard

“that allowing lowerwater quality

is necessary to

accommodate important economic or social development in the area in which the

waters are located.”

126.

The antidegradation analysis failed to evaluate anticipated benefits to the

Residents in the

Fiddle Creek Wetlands, if any.

127.

The only water quality data evaluated in the 2003

antidegradation

assessment was dated

September 15,

1993

and was a facility stream survey by the

Agency.

Survey

found

“fair conductivity, nitrate plus nitrite, phosphorus, sodium,

potassium, boron, strontium, and oil downstream ofthe WWTP outfall.

The Agency did

not evaluate any contaminants.

128.

Agency has concerns about lack of

current

basin

survey

data, Macro-

invertebrate date last collected in

Fiddle Creek in 1993, remains unclear whether any

fishery

assessment was ever

performed.~

129.

Cuba Township is area ofrapid urbanization and Fiddle Creek is a

relatively

small watershed, reliance on decade-old data seems

unjustified.78

74IPCB Doe.

No.: #00 1899

n IPCB Doe.

No.: #00 1899

7640

CFR 131.12

~‘

IPCB Doe.

No.:

#002002B

78IPCB Doe. No.:

#002002B

THIS FILING PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

130.

On 04-08-04 T.

Flattery, IDNR’s wetland specialist

advised the

Agency

that the

amount ofadditional water volume added to

the wetland from the increased

discharge would be detrimental79.

The Agency then sought another opinion from a non-

DNR

wetland

specialist who was skeptical ofIDNR’s statement.

131.

IDNR thought Fiddle Creek Wetlands had threatened and endangered

species.8°

132.

Internal critical discussion relating to nutrient loading. Antidegradation

analysis

says “Because

no adverse effects ofnutrient loading have been

observed since

discharging at this point began,

none will occur in the future even

though nutrient loading

will double.” Comment advises that this is Unreasonable and

illogical81.

133.

Fiddle Creek Wetlands has a high-quality fen wetland and at leasttwo

State-listed

endangered or threatened plants.

Proposed discharge volumes will result in

routing inundation ofthese fen wetlands, resulting in their degradation and loss oflisted

species.

134.

On 02-25-04 B. Mosher advised that the Wauconda antideg decisionwas

about as “easy” as they come.

There aren’t going to be any flashy references or

revelations. We concluded that the receiving stream would not suffer a diminishment of

existing uses because ofincreased pollutant loading due to the expansion ofthe plant.

we can’t make a case for our decision at Wauconda we can’t make it anywhere.83

135.

The Office ofthe Attorney General in letter dated October 30, 2003

states:

79IPCB Doe. No.: #00 1990

‘°IPCBDoe.

No.: #00 1990

IPCB Doe. No.: #002002B

IPCB

Doe.

No.: #002002B

IPCB Doe. No.:

#00 1946

THIS FILING PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

Wauconda has not

adequately demonstrated that receiving waters have

sufficient hydraulic capacity to acceptthis increased flow without

contributing to flooding of downstream segments during wet weather

flows. The Attorney General notes that flood waters may become

contaminated with inadequately treated wastewater.

Wauconda should provide appropriate documentation, such as Federal

Emergency ManagementAdministration (FEMA) flood maps

identifying the flood plain and flood prone areas.

Wauconda should conduct a risk assessment to determine the potential

risk to public

health under wet-weather conditions.

The Office ofthe Attorney General observed children’s recreation

equipment in backyards ofhomes along Creek. The Attorney General

notes there is risk ofincidental or accidental contact, and that the

Creek no longer meets the exemption requirements of35

Ill. Adm.

Code 302.209(a)(2).

The Office ofthe Attorney General noted Wauconda’s

Antidegradation Assessment indicated that

“.

.the treated domestic

waste that characterizes this proposed effluent would be similar to

other treated effluents ofpurely domestic origin.” Statement

inconsistent with its own user survey which identifies a significant

number ofnon-residential users, including a landfill and industrial

facilities.

Wauconda’s Anti-degradationAssessment indicated receiving stream

has a 7Q10 flow ofOcfs and is classified as a “General Use” water but

based on a 1993

stream survey, not advisable or appropriate to rely on

data generated ten years ago.84

REQUESTED RELIEF

Thatthis, The Honorable Illinois Pollution Control Board determine if

the

NPDES

Permit submitted by the Village ofWauconda is truthful in substance and if fact.

IPCB Doe’s. No’s.:

#00 1037

thru #00 1040

THIS FILING PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

If the Permit is false, deceptive

or evasive, the Resident

Group prays that

this The

Honorable Illinois Pollution Control Board

hold hearings pursuant to 35 Ill.

Adm. Code

309.182

to Revoke the

Village ofWauconda NPDES Permit.

That this, the Honorable Illinois Pollution Control Board, Orderthe

Agency

to conduct a new

anti-degradation assessment, including:

New assessment of all

alternate

discharge locations;

Perform an assessment ofthe Fiddle Creek Wetlands;

Hold a newpublic hearing for comment on any new Village ofWauconda

NPDES Permit;

Order the Agency to collect and test sediment cuts in the Fiddle Creek

Wetlands,

one immediately downstream ofthe WWTO outfall.

Order the Agency to prepare a contingencyplan to place WWTP into

Receivership if problems with this STP continue.

Deny this Permit;

Order the Agency to test the Fiddle Creek Wetlands forradium.

Order the Agency to monitor both the radium wastestream and the radium

sludges.

For such other relief as may be

deemed

Jay

J. Glenn

Attorney at Law

2275

Half Day Road

Suite

350

Baimockburn, Illinois

60015

(847) 526-9202

and reasonable.

THIS FILING PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

ACRONYMS

Agency

BOD

CFR

DMRs

Illinois

EPA

Illinois

PCB

LCFPD

MGD

mg/L

NPDES

ppm

SMC

STP

TSS

WWTP

303(d)

305(b)

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Biological

Oxygen Demand

Code ofFederal Regulations

Discharge MonitoringReports

Dissolved Oxygen

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Illinois Pollution Control Board

Lake County

Forest Preserve District

Million Gallons per Day

Milligrams per Liter

Milliliter,

one part per million;

100 mL is the normal sample size

and equals

about one-half

cup.

National Pollution Discharge Elimination System

Parts per Million

Lake County Stoniiwater Management Commission

Sewage

Treatment

Plant

Total Suspended Solids

Ultraviolet

Wastewater Treatment Plant

Federal Clean Water Act, Section 303(d)

Federal Clean

WaterAct, Section

305(b)

002249

EXHIBIT B

SUPPLEMENTAL ACRONYMS

RESIDENT GROUP

CWA

Clean Water Act

Superfund

Wauconda Sand & Gravel Superfimd Site

Superfund 2

John Tarkowski Superfund Site

Fiddle Creek Watershed

Geographical Designation for an approximate

360’ acre wetland complex which includes, Fiddle

Creek, Fiddle Marsh, Fiddle Lake and the

drainage channels ofthe Slocum Lake Drainage

District.

SLDD

Slocum Lake Drainage District

CFR

Code of Federal Regulations

wastestream

Agency terminology2 includes radium

wastestream, Superfund

leachate wastestream,

industrial user wastestream

and municipal

wastestream includes all discharges front

WWWTP

at the Anderson Road

Outfall.

PRP

Potentially Responsible Party

WTG

Wauconda Task Group

—

A partial list of

PRP’s, a

copy ofthe WTG group is attached hereto as

Exhibit.

Note that Lake County has received

notification of inclusion as a PRP, attached as

Exhibit C.

Director

The Honorable Renee

Cipriano

IPCB Doe.:

#000474

IPCB Doe.: #001803

EXHIBIT

This

Filing Printed on Recycled Paper

Wauconda

Task Group

(Respondents

UAO)

Contact Information

Basic Electronics Mfr.

Co.

Counsel forBasic Electronics Mfr

Co.:

Mr. James M. Porter, P.A.

2920 SunTrust International Center

One Southeast Third Avenue

Miami, FL 33131

Phone:

786-425-2299

Fax:

305-536-6495

Email: JamesMPorterPA@aol.com

Browning-Ferris Industries

Counselfor Browning-Ferris Industries:

Mr. William G. Beck

LATHROP, NORQUIST & MILLER

2600 MutualBenefit Life Building

2345 Grand Avenue

Kansas

City,

64108

Phone:

816-842-0820

Fax:

816-421-0500

Chroma Corporation

Mr. Robert Swain, Chairman

CHROMA CORPORATION

3900 WestDayton Street

McHenry,

IL 60050-8378

Phone: 815-385-8100

Fax: 815-385-1518

Exxon Corporation

Mr. Steven P. Schmidt

Superfund Consultant

Major Projects

EXXON

MOBIL CORPORATION

2401

Brooklawn Drive

c/o NPC Services, Inc.

Baton Rouge, LA 70807

Phone:

225-778-6224

Fax:

225-778-6293

Email:

steven.p.schmidt@exxonmobil.com

H.B. Fuller Company

Ms. Susan Mussell

H.B. FULLER COMPANY

P.O. Box

64683

St. Paul, MN

55164-0683

Courier:

1200 Wifiow Lake Boulevard

St. Paul, MN

55110-5101

Phone:

651-236-5216

Fax:

651-415-9582

Email:

susan.mussell@hbfuller.com

Honeywell, Inc.

Jean

Flynn

Litigation

Coordinator

HONEYWELL INC.

1985 Douglas Drive N.

Golden Valley, MN 55422

Phone:

763-954-4010

Fax:

763-954-6194

Email:

jean.flynn@honeywell.com

Illinois Bronze Paint Company

(I.B Distributors, Inc.)

Counsel for I.B. Distributors, Inc.

Mr. Bruce White

KARAGANIS, WHITE

& MAGEL

Suite 810

414 North Orleans Street

Chicago, IL 60610-4421

Phone: 312-836-1177

Fax: 312-836-9083

Ink Specialties Company, Inc.

Counselfor Ink

Specialties Company, Inc.:

Mr.

Louis

M. Rundio,

Jr.

MCDERMOTT, WILL &

EMERY

227 West MonroeStreet

Chicago, IL

60606-5096

Phone:

312-984-7710

Fax:

312-984-2098

Email:

lrundio@mwe.com

Wauconda

Task Group

(Respondents

of UAO)

Contact Information

Mail-Well

Envelope Company

Mr. Mark L. Zoeller

VicePresident-General Counsel

MAIL-WELL COMPANY

83105. Valley Highway, #400

Englewood, CO 80112-5806

Phone:

303-397-7407

Fax:

303-397-7400

Email:

mzoeller@mailwell.com

Morton International, Inc.

Mr. Jeffrey C. Wyant

ROHM & HAAS

100 Independence Mall West

Philadelphia, PA

19106

Phone:

215-592-6782

Fax:

215-592-3227

Email:

jwyant@rohmhaas.com

Waste Management of Illinois, Inc.

Counsel forWaste Management ofIllinois,

Inc.:

Mr. Peter Kelly

WINSTON

& STRAWN

35 W. Wacker Drive

Chicago, IL

60601-9703

Phone:

312-558-7929

Fax:

312-558-5700

Email:

pkelly@winston.com

Wells Manufacturing Company

Counselfor Wells Manufacturing Company:

Mr. Mark Steger

HOLLAND & KNIGHT

131

South Dearborn

30th

Floor

Chicago, IL

60661-2511

Phone:

312-715-5753

Fax:

312-578-6666

Email: mark.steger@hklaw.com

W.R.

Grace & Co.

Conn.

Ms.

Lydia Belknap Duff

Senior Environmental Counsel

W.R. GRACE & COMPANY

7500 Grace Drive

Columbia, MD

21044

Phone:

410-531-4210

Fax:

410-531-4783

Email:

lydia.duff@grace.com

Village

of Wauconda

Counsel for the Village of Wauconda:

Mr. Michael

Meyer

TRIBLER &

ORPETT

30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2200

Chicago,

60602

Phone:

312-201-6435

Fax:

312-201-6401

DESCRIPTION

OF CONSOLIDATED

PERMIT APPLICATION FORMS

The Consolidated Permit Application

Forms are:

Form

General

Information

(included in this part);

Form 2-

Discharges to Surface Water

(NPDES Permits):

2A.

Publicly Owned

Treatment Works

(Reserved

notincluded in

this package),

2B. Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations and

Aquatic Animal

Production Facilities

(not includedin this package),

2C. Existing

Manufacturing,

Commercial,

Mining, and Silvicultural

Operations

(not

included in this package),

and

2D.

New Manufacturing,

Commercial, Mining, and Silvicultural

Operations

(Reserved

not includedin

this package);

Form 3- Hazardous Waste Application Form

(RCRA Permits

not

included in thispackage);

Form 4-

Underground

Injection of Fluids

(UIC Permits- Reserved-

not included in this package);

and

Form 5- AirEmissions

in Attainment Areas

(PSD Permits- Reserved-

not included in this package).

SECTION A

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

Who Must Apply

With

the

exceptions

described

Section

these

instructions,

Federal laws prohibit you from conducting any of the following activities

without a permit.

NPDES

(National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination

System

Under the

Clean

Water Act,

U.S.C.

1251).

Discharge of pollutants

into

the

waters of the United States.

RCRA

(Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act,

U.S.

C. 6901).

Treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardouswastes.

UIC

(Underground Injection

Control

Under the

Safe

Drinking

Water

Act, 42

U.S.

C. 300t).

Injection offluids underground by gravity flow or

pumping.

PSD

(Prevention

of Significant Detericration

Under the

Clean Air Act,

72 U.S.

7401).

Emission

of an

air pollutant by a

new or modified

facility

in or near

area which has attained the

National

Ambient Air

Quality Standards for that pollutant.

Each of the

above permit programs is operated

in any particular State

by either the

United States

Environmental

Protection

Agency

(EPA)

by an

approved State

agency.

You

must

use this application form

apply for a permit for those

programs administered by EPA.

For those

programs

administered

approved

States,

contact

the

State

environmental agency for the proper forms.

If you have any questions aboutwhether you need a permit under any

of the

above

programs,

if you

need

information as

whether

particular program

is administered by EPA or a State agency, or if you

need

obtain

application

forms,

contact

your

EPA

Regional

office

(listed/n

Table 1).

Upon

your request, and

based

upon

information supplied by you,

EPA

will

determine

whether

you

are

required

obtain

permit

for

particular

facility.

sure

contact

EPA

if you

have

question,

because

Federal

laws provide

that

you may

heavily penalized if

you do not apply for a permit when

a permit is required.

Form

of the

EPA

consolidated

application

forms

collects

general

inforrration

applying

all

programs.

You

must

fill

out

Form

regardless

of which

permit you

are applying for.

addition, you

must

fill out

one of the supplementary

forms

(Forms 2

for each

permit

needed under each

the abode

programs.

Item

Form I v~tiI

guide

you to the appropriate supplementary forms.

You

should

note

that

there

are

certain

exclusions

the

permit

requirements

listed above.

The

exclusions are described

detail

Section

C of these

instructions.

If your

activities

are

excluded from

permit requirements

then

you do

not need

to complete and

return

any

forms.

FORM

PACKAGE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section A. General

Instructions

Section B. Instructions for Form

Section

C. Activities Which do Not Require Permits

Section

D. Glossary

Form

(two copies)

NOTE:

Certain

activities

listed

above

also

are

subject

EPA

administered

environmental

permit

requirements.

These

include

permits for

ocean

dumping,

dredged

fill

material

discharging, and

certain

types of air emissions.

Contact your

EPA Regional office for

further information.

Table

Addresses of EPA

Regional

Contacts and States Within

the

Regional Office Jurisdiction.

REGION

Permit Contact,

Environmental

and

Economic

Impact

Office,

U.S.

Environmental

Protection

Agency,

John

Kennedy

Building,

Boston, Massachusetts 02203,

(617) 223.4635,

FTS

223-4635.

Connecticut,

Maine,

Massachusetts,

New

Hampshire,

Rhode

Island, and Vermont.

REGION

Permit

Contact,

Permits

Administration

Brach,

Room

432,

U.S.

Environmental

Protection

Agency,

Federal

Plaza,

New

York,

NewYork 10007, (212) 264-9880,

FTS 264-9880.

New Jersey, New York, Virgin

Islands, and Puerto Rico.

REGION

Ill

Permit Contact

(3 EN

23),

U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency,

6th

Walnut

Streets,

Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania

19106,

(215)

597-8816, FTS 597-8816.

Delaware,

District

Columbia,

Maryland,

Pennsylvania,

Virginia, and West Virginia.

REGION

Permit

Contact,

Permits

Section,

U.S.

Environmental

Protection

Agency,

345 Courtland Street,

N.E., Atlanta,

Georgia

30365,

(404)

881-2017, FTS 257-2017.

Alabama,

Florida,

Georgia,

Kentucky,

Mississippi,

North

Carolina, South Carolina,

and Tennessee.

REG(Ot’4

Permit Contact

(5EP),

U.S. Environmental

Protection

Agency, 230

South

Dearborn

Street,

Chicago,

Illinois

60604,

(312)

353-2105,

FTS 353-2105.

Illinois,

Indiana,

Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and

Wisconsin.

1—1

SECTION A

GENERAL

INSTRUCTIONS

(continued)

Table

(continued)

REGION VI

Permit Contact

(6AEP),

U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

First

International Building,

1201

Elm

Street,

Dallas,

Texas 75270,

(214)

767-2765, FTS 729-2765.

Arkansas, Louisiana,

New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas.

REGION VII

Permit

Contact,

Permits

Branch,

U.S.

Environmental

Protecton

Agency,

324

East

11”

Street,

Kansas

City,

Missouri

64106,

(816)

758-5955, FTS 758-5955.

Iowa, Kansas,

Missouri, and

Nebraska

REGION VIII

Permit Contact

(8E-WE),

Suite

103,

U.S.

Environmental

Protection

Agency,

1860

Lincoln

Street,

Denver,

Colorado

80295,

(303)

837-4901,

FTS327-4901.

Colorado,

Montana,

North

Dakota,

South

Dakota,

Utah,

and

Wyoming.

REGION

Permit Contact, Permit Branch

(E-4),

U.S. Environmental

Protection

Agency, 215 Fremont Street, San Francisco, California 80295, (415)

556-3450, FTS 556-3450.

Arizona,

California,

Hawaii,

Nevada,

Guam,

American

Samoa,

and Trust Territories.

REGION X

Permit

Contact

(MIS 521),

U.S.

Environmental

Protection Agency,

1200

64h

Avenue,

Seattle,

Washington 98101, (206)

442-7176, FTS

399-7176.

Alaska,

Idaho, Oregon,

and Washington.

Where to File

The

application

forms

should

mailed

the

EPA

Regional

office

whose

Region includes

the

State

which

the facility

located

(see

Table

1).

If the State

in which the facility is located administers a

Federal permit

program

under

which

you

need

permit,

you

should

contact

the

appropriate

State

agency for

the

correct

forms.

Your

EPA

Regional

office

(Table

can

tell you

whom

apply

and

can

provide

the

appropriate address and phone number.

When to File

Because of statutory

requirements,

the deadlines for filing

applications

vary according to the type of facility you operate and the type of permit

you

need.

These deadlines are as follows:1

Table 2. Filing Dates for Permits

FORM

(permit)

WHEN TO

FILE

2A(NPDES)

180

days

before

your

present

NPDES

permit expires.

2B(NPDES)

180

days

before

your

present

NPDES

permit expires2, or 180 days prior to start-

up if you are a new facility.

2C(NPDES)

180

days

before

your

present

NPDES

permit expires2.

2D(NPDES)

180 days prior to startup.

(Hazardous Waste)

Existing facility:

Six monthsfollowing

publication of regulations listing

hazardous wastes.

New facility:

180 days before

commencing physical construction.

Table 2

(continued)

4(UIC)

reasonable

time

prior

to con-

struction for new wells; as directed

by the Director for existing wells.

5(PSD)

Prior

commencement

con-

struction.

1Please note that some ofthese forms are not yet available for use and

are

listed

“Reserved”

the

beginning

these

instructons.

Contact your EPA Regional office for information on current application

requirements and forms.

2If your

present permit

expires

or before November

30,

1980,

the

filing

date

the

date

which your

permt

expires.

If your

permit

expires

during the

period December

1, 1980-

May

31,

1981,

thefiling

date is 90 days before your permit expires.

Federal

regulations

provide that you

may not begin

construct

a new

source

the

NPDES

program,

new hazardous

waste managenlent

facility,

new injection well,

or a facility covered

by the

PSD

program

before the

issuance of

permit under the

applicable

program.

Please

not

that

you

are

required

obtain

permit

before

beginning

construction,

described abo~’e,you

may

need

to submit your

permit

application well

in advance of an applicable deadline listed

in Table 2.

Fees

The

U.S.

EPA does

not

require a fee

for applying for any permit under

the

consolidated

permit

programs.

(However,

some

States

which

administer one

or more of these programs require fees for the permits

which they issue.)

Availability of Information to Public

Information

contained

in these application forms

will, upon

request,

made available to

the

public for inspection

and copying.

However, you

may

request confidential

treatment

for

certain

information

which

you

submit on

certain

supplementary

forms.

The

specific

instructions

for

each

supplementary

form

state

what

information

on the

form, if any,

may

claimed as confidential

and what

p’ocedures

govern the

claim.

information

Forms

and

through

may

claimed

confidential.

Completion of Forms

Unless

otherwise

specified

instructions

the

forms,

each

item

each

form

must

answered.

indicate

that

each

item

has taen

considered, enter “NA,”for not applicable,

if a particular item does not fit

the circumstances or characteristics of your facility or activity.

If you

have

previously submitted

information to

EPA or to

an approved

State

agency

which

answers

question,

you

may

either

repeat

the

information

the

space

provided

attach

copy

of the

submission.

Some

items in

the

form

require

narrative

explanation.

more space is necessary to answer a question, attach a separate sheet

entitled “Additional

Information.”

Financial Assistance for Pollution Control

There

are

number

direct

loans,

loan

guarantees,

and

grants

available

firms

and

communities

for pollution

control

expenditures.

These are provided by the Small

Business Administration, the Economic

Development Administration, the Farmers

Home Administration,

and the

Department of Housing

and

Urban

Development.

Each

EPA

Regional

office

(Table

has

economic

assistance

coordinator

who

can

provide you with additional information.

EPA’s construction grants program under Title

ofthe Clean Water Act

is an additional source of assistance to publicly owned treatment works.

Contact your EPA Regional office for details.

1-2

SECTION

FORM

LINE-BY-LINE INSTRUCTIONS

This form must be

completed by all applicants.

Completing ThisForm

Please

typo

the

unshaded

areas

only.

Some

items

have

small graduation

marks

in the

fill-in

spaces.

These

marks indicate

the

number of characters that

may

entered

into our data

system.

The

marks

are

spaced

116”

intervals

which

accommodate elite ~‘pe

(12

characters per inch).

If you

use another type you may ignore the marks.

you

print,

place

each

character

between

the

marks.

Abbreviate

necessary to stay within the number of characters allowed for each item.

Use one space for breaks between words,

but not for punctuation marks

unless they are needed to clarify your response.

Item

Space

is provided at the upper right hand corner of Form I

for insertion

of your EPA Identification Number.

If you

have an existing facility,

enter

your Identification

Number.

If you

don’t

know your

EPA

Identification

Number,

please

contact your

EPA Regional

office

(Table

1),

which will

provide

you

with

your

number.

your

facility

new

(not

yet

constructed),

leave this item

blank.

Item

Answer

each

question

determine

which supplementary

forms

you

need

fill out.

sure to

check the

glossary

Section

D of these

instructions

for the

legal

definitions of the

bold faced

words.

Check

Section

C of these

instructions

determine

whether your

activity

excluded from permit requirements.

If you answer

“no” to every question, then you do not need a permit, and

you do not need to complete and return any of these forms.

If you answer “yes” to any question, then you must complete

and file the

supplementary form

the

deadline

listed

Table

along

with

this

form.

(The

applicable

form

number

follows

each

question

and

enclosed in parentheses.)

You need not submit

a supplementary form if

you

already

have

permit

under

the

appropriate

Federal

program,

unless your permit is due to expire and you wish to renew your permit.

Questions

(I)

and

(J)

Item

refer to

major new or modified

sources

subject

Prevention

of Significant

Deterioration

(PSD)

requirements

under the

Clean Air Act.

For the purpose

the PSD

program,

major

sources

are defined

as:

(A) Sources

listed

Table

3 which

have the

potential

to emit

100 tons or more per year emissions;

and

(B) All other

sources

with

the

potential

emit

250

tons

or more

per

year.

See

Section

C of these

instructions for

discussion

of exclusions

of certain

modified sources.

Table

Industrial

Categories

Listed

Section

169(1)

of the

Clean Air Act of

1977

Fossil

fuel-fired

steam

generators

of more

than

250

million BTU

per

hourheat

input;

Coal

cleaning plants

(with thermal dryers);

Kraft pulp mills;

Portland

cement plants;

Primary zinc smelters;

Iron and steel

mill

plants;

Primary aluminum ore reduction

plants;

Primary copper smelters;

Municipal

incinerators capable of charging more than 250 tons of refusa

per day;

Hydrofluonc acid

plants;

Nitric

acid plants;

Sulfuric acid plants;

Petroleum refineries;

Lime

plants;

Phosphate rock processing

plants;

Coke oven battenes;

Sulfur recovery plants;

Carbon

black plants

(furnace process);

Primary lead

smelters;

Fuel

conversion plants;

Sintering plants;

Secondary metal

production plants;

Chemical

process plants;

Fossil fuel

boilers

(or combination thereof)

totaling more than 250

million

BTU

per hour heat input.

Table

(continued)

Petroleum

storage

and

transfer

units

with

total

storage

capacity

exceeding 300,000

barrels;

Taconite ore processing plants;

Glass fiber processing plants; and

Charcoal production

plants.

Item Ill

Enter the facility’s official or legal name.

Do not use

a colloquial narrie.

Item IV

Give

the

name,

title, and

work telephone

number of

person who

thoroughly familiar with the operation of the facility and

with the facts

reported

this application

and who

can be

contacted by

reviewing

offices if necessary.

Item VII

List,

descending

order

significance,

the

four

4digit

standard

industrial

classification

(SIC)

codes which

best describe your facility

terms of

the

principal

products

or services

you

produce

provide.

Also, specify

each classification

in words.

These classifications may

differ

from

the

SIC

codes

describing

the

operation

generating the

discharge, air emissions, or hazardous wastes.

SIC

code

numbers

are

descriptions

which

may

found

the

“Standard

Industrial Classification

Manual” prepared

by the Executive

Office of

the

President,

Office of

Management and

Budget,

which

available from the

Government Printing

Office, Washington,

D.C.

Use

the

current

edition

the

manual.

you

have

any

questions

concerning

the

appropriate

SIC

code

for

your facility,

Contact

your

EPA Regional office

(see Table

1).

Item Vll-A

Give the

name,

as it

legally referred

to,

of the

person,

firm,

public

organization, or any other entity which operates the facility described

this application.

This may or may

not be the same

name as the facility.

The operator ofthe facility is the legal entity which controls the facility’s

operation

rather

than

the

plant

site

manager.

not

use

colloquial name.

Item Vlll-B

Indicate whether the entity which operates

the facility also owns

marking

the appropriate box.

ItemVIlI-C

Enter the

appropriate

letter to indicate the

legal

status of the

operator

of the

facility.

Indicate

“public”

for

facility

solely

owned

local

government(s) such as a city, town, county, parish,

etc.

Items

VlI-D-H

Enter the

telephone number

and

address of the

operator identified

Item VIII.A.

1-3

SECTION

FORM I

LINE-BY-LINE INSTRUCTIONS

(continued)

Item IX

Indicate whether the facility is located on

Indian Lands.

ltemX

Give the number ofeach

presently effective permit issued to the facility

for each

program

or,

you

have

previously

filed

application

but

have

not

yet received

a permit,

give the

number of the

application, if

any.

Fill

the

unshaded

area

only.

you

have

than

one

currently

effective

permit

for

your

facility

under

particular

permit

program,

you may list additional

permit numbers on

a separate sheet

of paper.

List

any relevant environmental

Federal

(e.g., permits under

the

Ocean Dumping Act,

Section

404

of the

Clean

Water Act

cr the

Surface Mining control and Reclamation Act),

State

(e.g.,

Statepermits

for new air emission sources in

nonattainment areas under Part D of

the

Clean Air Act

State permits

under Section

404

of the

Clean

WaterAct),

orlocal permits or applications

under “other.”

Item XI

Provide

a topographic

map or maps

of the

area extending

at least to

one

mile

beyond

the

property

boundaries of the

facility

which

cleariy

show the following:

The legal boundaries ofthe facility;

The

location

and

serial

number of

each of

your

existing

and

proposed intake and discharge structures;

All hazardous waste management facilities;

Each well where you inject fluids underground; and

All springs

and surface water bodies

in the area,

plus

all

drinking

water wells within

1/4 mile of the facility which are identified

in the

public record or otherwise known toyou.

If an

intake or discharge

structure,

hazardous waste

disposal

site,

injection

well associated with

the facility is

located more than

one mile

from

the

plant,

include

the

map,

possible.

not,

attach

additional sheets describing

the location of the

structure, disposal

site,

well,

and

identify

the

U.S.

Geological

Survey

(or other)

map

corresponding to the location.

On each map,

include the

map scale,

a meridian arrow showing north,

and latitude

and

longitude

at the

nearest whole second.

all

maps

of rivers,

show the direction

of the current,

and

tidal

waters, show

the

direction of the ebb and flow tides.

Use

a 7-112 minute series map

published

the

U.S.

Geological

Survey,

which

may

obtained

through the

U.S.

Geological

Survey

Offices

listed

below.

~1/2

minute

series

map

has

not

been

published

for your facility

site,

then

you

may use a 15 minute series

map from the

U.S. Geological

Survey.

If neither a

7-112 nor

15 minute series map has been published for your

facility site, use

plat map

or other appropriate map,

including

all

the

requested

information;

this

case,

briefly

describe

land

uses

the

map area (e.g.,

residential, commercial).

You may trace your map from

geological survey

chart,

or other map

meeting

the above

specifications.

If you

do, your map should

bear

note showing the number or title ofthe map or chart it was traced from.

Include the names of nearby towns, water bodies, and other prominent

points.

example of an

acceptable location map is shown

in Figure

1-1

these

instructions.

(NOTE:

Figure

provided

for

purposes of illustration only, and does notrepresent any actual

facility.)

U.S.G.S. OFFICES

AREA SERVED

Item

(continued)

Mid

Continent Mapping Center

National

Cartographic Information

Center

U.S.G.S.

1400

Independence Road

Rolla,

Mo.

65401

Phone No.

(314) 341-0851

Rocky Mountain Mapping Center

National

Cartographic Information

Center

U.S.G.S.

Stop 504,

Box 25046 Federal

Center

Denver, Co. 80225

Phone No. (303) 234-2326

Western

Mapping Center

National Cartographic Information

Center

U.S.G.S.

345 Middlefleld

Road

Menlo

Park,

Ca. 94025

Phone No.

(415) 323-8111

Item XII

Briefly describe the nature of your business

(e.g., products produced or

services provided).

Item XIII

Federal

statues

provide

for

severe

penalties

for

submitting

false

information on this application form.

18 U.S.C. Section

1001

provides that ‘Whoever,

in any matter within the

jurisdiction of any

department or agency of the

United

States knowingly

and

willfully

falsifies,

conceals

or covers

any trick, scheme, or

device

a material

fact, or makes or uses any false writing or document

knowing same to contain any false,

fictitious or fraudulent statement or

entry,

shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more tharF

five years, or both.”

Section

309(c)(2) of the

Clean Water Act and

Section

1 13(c)(2) of the

Clean AirAct each

provide that “Any person knowingly makes any false

statement,

representation,

or certification

any

application,

shall

upon

conviction,

punished

fine of

no more than

$10,000 or by

imprisonment for not more than six months, or both.”

addition,

Section

3008(d)(3)

the

Resource

Conservation

and

Recovery Act provides for a fine

up to $25,000 per day or imprisonment

one

year,

both,

for

first

conviction

for

making

false

statement

any

application

under

the

Act,

and

for

double

these

penalties upon subsequent convictions.

FEDERAl.

REGULATIONS

REQUIRE

THIS

APPLICATION

SIGNEDAS

FOLLOWS:

For

corporation,

by a

principal

executive

officer of at least the

level of vice

president.

However,

if the

only activity in Item

which

is marked

“yes”

is Question

the officer

may authorize

person

having

responsibility for the overall operations of the well or well

field

sign

the

certification.

that

case,

the

authorization

must

written and

submitted to the

permitting authority;

For

partnership

or sole

proprietorship,

general

partner or

the proprietor,

respectively; or

For

municipality,

State,

Federal,

other

public

facility,

either a principal executive officer or ranking elected official.

Ark.,

Ill., Iowa, Kans., La.,

Mich.,

Minn.,

Miss.,

Mo.,

N. Dak.,

Nebr.,

Okla., S. Dak.,

and Wis.

Alaska, Cob.,

Mont.,

Mex.,

Tex., Utah, and Wyo.

Ariz., Calif., Hawaii,

Idaho,

Nev., Oreg., Wash., American

Samoa, Guam,

and Trust

Territories

Eastern

Mapping Center

National Cartographic

Information

Center

U.S.G.S.

536

National Center

Reston, Va. 22092

Phone No. (703) 860-6336

~AJa.,

Conn., Del.,

D.C., Fla.,

Ga.,

Ind.,

Ky., Maine,

Md.,

Mass., N.H., N.J., N.Y.,

NC.,

S.C., Ohio,

Pa.,

Puerto Rico,

R.I., Tenn., Vt., Va., W. Va.,

and Virgin Islands.

1-4

SECTION C

ACTIVITIES WHICH

DO NOT RQUIRE PERMITS

National

Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System

Permits

Under

the Clean Water Act.

You are

not required to obtain

NPDES permit

if your discharge

is in

one of the following categories,

provided

the Clean Water Act

(CWA)

and

the

NPDES

regulations

(40 CFR

Parts

122—125).

However,

under Section

510

CWA a

discharge

exempt from the federal

NPDES requirements may still

be regulated by

State

authority;;

contact

your

State

environmental

agency

determine whether you need a

State permit.

DISCHARGES

FROM

VESSELS.

Discharges of sewage

from

vessels,

effluent from

properly functioning marine

engines, laundry,

shower,

and

galley-sink wastes, and

any other discharge incidental

the normal

operation of a

vessel do

not require

1”PDES permits.

However,

discharges

rubbish,

trash,

garbage,

other

such

materials

discharged

overboard

require

permits,

and

other

discharges when the

vessel

is operating

a capacity other than as

means of transportation, such

as when the vessel is being used

energy

mining

facility,

storage

facility,

seafood

processing facility, or is secured to the bed of the ocean,

contiguous

zone, or waters of the United States for the purpose of mineral or oil

exploration or development.

DREDGED

FILL

MATERIAL.

Discharges

of dredged

or fill

material

into

waters

the

United

States

not

need

NPDES

permits if the dredging

or filling is authorized by a

permit issued

the

U.S.

Army Corps of

Engineers

or an

EPA approved

State under

Section 404 of CWA.

DISCHARGES

INTO

PUBLICLY OWNED

TREATMENT WORKS

(P07W).

The

introduction of sewage,

industrial

wastes,

or other

pollutants into a P01W does not need an NPDES permit

You must

comply

with

all

applicable

pretreatment

standards

promulgated

under Section

307(b) of CWA, which

may

included in

the permit

issued to the

POTW.

If you

have

plan or an agreement to switch

to a POTW in the future, this does not relieve you ofthe obligation to

apply

for

and

receive

NPDES

permit

until

you

have stopped

discharging

pollutants into waters of the United States.

(NOTE:

Dischargers into privately owned treatment works

not

have

apply

for

obtain

NPDES

permits

except

othe,wise

required by

the

EPA

Regional

Administrator.

The

owner or operator of the treatment works

itself,

however,

must

apply

for

permit

and

identify

all

users

its

application.

Users so

identified

will receive public

notice of actions

taken

on the permit forthe treatment works.)

DISCHARGES

FROM

AGRICULTURAL AND SILVICULTURAL

ACTIVITIES.

Most

discharges

from

agricultural

and

silvicultural

activities

waters of

the

United

States

not

require

NPDES

permits.

These

include

runoff

from

orchards,

cultivated

crops,

pastures, range lands,

and

forest lands.

However,

the discharges

listed

below

require

NPDES

permits.

Definitions of the

terms

listed

below

are

contained

the

Glossary

section

these

instructions.

Discharges

from

Concentrated Animal

Feeding Operations.

(See Glossary for definitions of “animal feeding operations” and

“concentrated

animal

feeding

operations.”

Only

the

latter

require permits.)

Discharges

from

Concentrated

Aquatic

Animal

Production

Facilities.

(See Glossary for size cutoffs.)

Discharges associated with approved Aquaculture A~ojects.

Discharges from

Silvicultural Point Sources.

(See Glossary

for

the

definition

“silvicultural

point

source.

‘9

Nonpoint

source

silvicultural activities

are

excluded from

NPDES

permit

requirements.

However,

some

of these

activities,

such

stream

crossings

for

roads,

may

involve

point

source

discharges of

dredged

fill

material

which

may

require

Section 404 permit.

See 33 CFR 209.120.

DISCHARGES

COMPLIANCE

WITH

ON-SCENE

COORDINATOR’S

INSTRUCTIONS.

II.

Hazardous Waste

Permits

Under the

Resource

Conservation

and

Recovery

Act.

You

may

be exduded

from

the

requirement

obtain a permit under this

program

if you fall

into one

of the following

categories:

Generators

who

accumulate

their own

hazardous

waste

on—site

for less than 90 days as provided in

40 CFR 262.34;

Farmers

who

dispose

hazardous waste

pesticide

from their

own use as provided in 40

CFR 262.51;

Certain

persons

treating, storing,

or disposing of small quantities

of hazardous waste as provided

40 CFR 261.4 or 261.5; and

Owners

and

operators of totally

enclosed

treatment

facilities

defined in

40 CFR 20.10.

Check with

your

Regional

office for details.

Please

note

that even if

you

are excluded

from

permit requirements,

you may

required

Federal regulations to handle your waste in

a particular manner.

III.

Underground

Injection

Control

Permits

Under

the

Safe

Drinking

Water Act.

You are

not required

to obtain

permit under

this program if you:

Inject into existing wells

used to enhance

recovery of oil

and g~

or to store hydrocarbons

(note,

however,

that these underground

injections are regulated by Federal rules);

Inject into

or above a stratum

which contains,

within

1/4 nile of

the well

bore,

underground

source

of drinking

water

(unless

your injection is

the

type identified

in Item

Il-H,

for which you

need

permit).

However,

you must

notify EPA of your injection

and submit certain required

information on forms supplied

by the

Agency,

and

your

operation

may

phased

out

you

are

generator

hazardous

wastes

hazardous

waste

management facility which uses wells or septic tanks

to dispose

of hazardous waste.

IV.

Prevention

significant

Deterioration

Permits

Under

the

Clean

Air Act.

The

PSD

program

applies

newly

constructed

modified

facilities

(both

which

are

referred to

“new

sources’9

which increase air emissions.

The Clean Air Act Amendments of1977

exclude

small

new

sources

of air

emissions

from

the

PSD

review

program.

Any new source

in an

industrial category listed

in Table 3

these instructions

whose potential

emit

less

than

100

tons

per

year is

not required to get

a PSD

permit.

In addition,

any

new source

an industrial category not listed

in Table

3 whose

potential to emit is

less than 250 tons per year is exempted from the

PSD requirements.

Modified

sources

which

increase

their

net

emissions

(the difference

between

the total emission

increases and total emission

decreases at

the

source)

less

than

the

significant

amount

set

forth

EPA

regulations

are

also exempt

from

PSD

requirements.

Contact your

EPA Regional office

(Table

for further information.

1-5

ALIQUOT

means

sample

of specified

volume

used

make

total composite sample.

ANIMAL

FEEDING OPERATION

means

lot of facility

(other than an

aquatic

animal production

facility)

where the

following

conditions are

met:

A. Animals

(other than aquatic animals)

have been,

are, or will be

stabled or confined

and fed or maintained for a total of45 days or

categories

the

instructions

and which

will potentially

emit

listed

the instructions

and

which

will

potentially

100 Ions

per

year of

any

air

pollutant

regulated

emit

250

tons

per

year

any

air

pollutant

under

the

Clean

Air

Act

and

may

affect

e be

regulated

under the Clean

Air Act and may effect

—

located

in an

attainment area? (FORM

or be located in

attainment are?

(FORM 5)

NAME

OF FACILITY

~cL6.29L0

~_-

IV.

FACILITY CONTACT

—

A. NAME & TITLE

(last,

first,

& title)

~16

FACILITY MAILING ADDRESS

—

STREET OR P.O.

BOX

ii;:i

B. PHONE

(area code

& no.)

~~jI49

5lIL~~~

D. ZIP CODE

~—~-

B. CITY OR TOWN

C. STATE

Vt. FACILITY

LOCATION

A. STREET,

ROUTE NO.

OTHER SPECIFIC IDENTIFIER

—~-1

15116

COUNTY NAME

C. CITY OR TOWN

D. STATE

E. ZIP CODE

COUNTY CODE

LABEL

ITEMS

EPA

1.0.

NUMBER

III.

FACILITY NAME

V. FACILITY

MAILING

LIST

VI.

FACILITY

LOCATION

PLEASE

PLACE LABEL IN THIS SPACE

II. POLLUTANT CHARACTERISTICS

t,~J’~t~L.

IN~I ~

lUN~

If a

preprinted

label

has

been

provided,

affix

in the designated space.

Reviewthe

informatIon

carefully;

it,

an-i

incorrect,

cross

through

and

enter the

correct

data

the

appropriate

fill-in area

below. Also,

if any of the preprinted data

absent

(the

area

the

left

the

label

space

lists

the

inform~t(onthat

should

appeari

please provide

in the proper fill-

area(s)

below.

If the

label

complete

and

correct

you

need

not complete

terms

Ill,

and

Vt’except

V/-B which must be

completed regardless).

Complete

all

terms

if no

label

has

been .pro~ed. Refer

to the

instructions

for

detailed

item

descriptions

and for the legal authorization

underwhich

this data is collected.

—

EPA FORM 3510-1 (8-90)

CONTINUED ON

REVERSE

CON11NUED

FROM THE FRONT

VII.

SIC

CODES

(4-digit,

order ofpriority)

—

A. FIRST

B. SECOND

(specify)

(‘specify,)

C. THIRD

FOURTH

(specify,)

VIII.

OPERATOR

INFORMATION

(specify)

A. NAME

Is the

name listed

Item

Vlll-A also the owner?

119

DYES

DNO

C. STATUS OF OPERATOR

(Enter the appropriate letter into the answer box; if “Other, “specify.)

PHONE

(area

code

& no.)

FEDERAL

PUBLIC

(other

than federal or state)

STATE

OTHER

(specify)

PRIVATE

(specify)

E STREET OR

BOX

CITY OR TOWN

G. STATE

ZIP CODE

INDIAN LAND

Is the facility located

on Indian lands?

YES

El.

PSD

(AirEmissions

from Propused Sources)

EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL

PERMITS

A. NPDES

(Discharges to Surface

Water)

B. UIC

(Underground Injection ofFluids

E. OTHER

(specify)

(Specify)

________

uR~__________

_______________

I~IU~I

l.~I1UF~I:

-~~nP•uIr,-,

—

XI.

MAP

_____

Attach to

application

uyu~uuu

tie area

extenuuiy

IEdSt uu~ FlutE

uwyortu

fJtO~EItYuUUuuUdIiES.

~iemap must

show

the

outline

of the

facility,

the

location

each

its

existing

and

proposed

intake

and

discharge

structures,

each

its

hazardous waste

treatment, Storage, or disposal

facilities,

and each well where

injects fluids

underground.

Include

all

springs,

riversand other surface water bodies in the map area.

See instructions for precise requirements.

I certify under penalty of law

that I have personally examined and

am familiar with

the information submitted

this application and

all

attachments and

that, based on

my inquiry of those persons immediately responsible for obtaining

the information

contained in

the

application,

I believe

that

the information is

true,

accurate

and

complete.

I am aware

that

there

are

significant

penalties

for

submitting false information, including

the possibility of fine and imprisonment.

A. NAME & OFFICIAL TITLE

(type or print)

B. SIGNATURE

COMMENTS FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

~~IImIIIILuI~p-’

C. DATE SIGNED

~—__-----

-~1

15118

RCRA

(Hazardous Wastes)

E. OTHER

(specify)

(Specify)

EPA FORM 3510-1 (8-90)

substantially change in nature, or increase

in volume

or frequency, must

apply for an NPDES Permit either:

No later than

180 days in advance ofthe

date on which such

NPDES

Pennit

will

be required; or

sufficient

time prior

the anticipated commencement of the

discharge

insure

compliance with the requirements of Section

306 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)

(33

U.S.C.

1251

et seq), or

with any other applicable water quality standards and applicable

effluent standards and limitations.

Signatures

application submitted by a corporation shall be signed by a principal

executive officer of at least the level of vice president, or his duly

authorized representative, if such representative is responsible for the

overall operation of the facility from which the discharge

described in the

application form originates.

In the case of a partnership or a sole

proprietorship, the application shall be signed by a general partner or the

proprietor, respectively.

In the case of a publicly

owned facility, the

application shall be signed by either the principal executive officer,

ranking elected official, or other duly authorized employee.

(Source:

Amended at 20111. Reg.

5526,

effective April

1996)

Section

309.104

Renewal

Any

permittee

who wishes to

continue to discharge after the expiration

date of his

NPDES Permit

shall apply for reissuance of the

permit

not less

than

180 days prior to the expiration date of the permit.

The Agency shall circulate public notice

and

provide opportunity for

public hearing,

as provided for in this Subpart A, in the same manner as

for a new permit application.

(Source: Amended at 4 Ill. Reg. no. 34, page

159, effective August 7,

1980.)

Section 309.105

Authority

to Deny NPDES Permits

No NPDES Permit may be issued in

any

case

which:

The permit would authorize the

discharge of a radiological, chemical or

biological warfare agent or high-level radioactive waste;

fIB1T

The discharge would, in

the judgment of the Secretary of the Army acting

through the ChiefofEngineers, result in the substantial impairment of

anchorage

and navigation;

The proposed permit is objected to in writing by the AdministratQr of the

U.S.

Environmental

Protection Agency pursuant to

any right to object

given to the Administrator under Section 402(d) of the CWA;

The permit would authorize a discharge from a point source which is in

conflict with a plan approved under Section 208(b) of the CWA;

The applicant has not provided proof to the Agency that he will

meet any

schedule of compliance which may be established,

in accordance with the

Act

and

regulations, as a condition of his permit.

Section 309.106

Access to Facilities

and

Further

Enformation

If the Agency determines that either further information or a site

visit is necessary for the

Agency to evaluate an NPDES Permit application, it shall notify the applicant and make

arrangements to secure the additional information or make the site visit.

If adequate

information is not received within the period of time specified by the Agency, the

permit

shall either be issued on the basis of the information currently before the Agency or be

denied, and the applicant so notified.

Section 309.107

Distribution

Applications

VuThen the Agency determines that an application for an

NPDES

Permit is complete, it

shall:

Unless otherwise agreed, send a copy of the application to

the District

Engineer of the appropriate district of the U.S.

Corps of Engineers with a

letter requesting that the District Engineer provide, within 30 days

or as

otherwise stated in the Agencys letter, his evaluation of the impact of the

discharge on anchorage and navigation.

If the District Engineer responds

that anchorage and navigation of any of the navigation waters would be

substantially impaired by the granting of a permit, the permit will be

denied

and

the Agency shall notify the applicant.

If the District Engineer

informs the Agency that the imposition of specified conditions upon

the

NPDES Permit is necessary to

avoid any substantial impairment of any of

the navigable waters,

the Agency shall include in the permit those

conditions specified by the District Engineer.

Send

two

copies of the application

to the Regional Administrator of the

U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency with a letter stating that the

application is complete.

THE

CIRCUIT

COURT

THE

NINETEENTH

JDDICIAL

CIRCUIT

LAKE COUNTY,

 ILLINOIS

CHANCERY DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

ex i-el.

JAMES

E

 RYAN, Attorney

General

the

State

)

Q~CH

Plaintiff,

)

~..

vs.

VILLAGE

WAUCONDA,

Illinois municipal

corp~ç~~o~

Defendant.

COMPLAINT

FOR.

INITUNCTION

AND

OTHER

RELIEF

NOW

COMES

the

Plaintiff,

PEOPLE

THE

STATE

ILLINOIS,

rel.

JAMES E.

 RYAN, Attorney General of the State of Illinois,

and

complains

 of Defendant, VILLAGE OF WAUCONJA,.as

 follows:

COtJNT 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,

i-el.

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

~zOL)Q

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,

comininutor, 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:

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 iswithbut

 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;

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

($50,00000)

 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.

COUNT

VIOLATION

 GENERAL EFFLUENT STANDARDS

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, Deoxy~enatinqWastes, 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/l

of

 BOlD5 or

12

mg/i 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.

 Adra. 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

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

Recruired, 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 th~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

Standards,

 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,

 Deoxvgenating

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/l of BOD5 or

 12 mg/l

 of suspended

solids..

15.

 The Illinois EPA issued to Defendant NPDES Permit No.

IL0020l09

 on June

7,

 1995,

 with an expiration date

 of May 31,

 2000.

16.

 Defendants’ NPDES Permit No.

 1L0020478 contains effluent

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/l

 of TSS on February 20,

1997,

 and 0.68 mg/i 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. Adm.

 Code 309.102 (a),

304l41(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;

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 304.141(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.

 Adm.

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

NPDES

PERNIT

REPORTING

REQUIREMENTS

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,

 Reportina

Rea-uirements,

 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,

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 Ill.

 Adm.

 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 the 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.l02(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

the Board Water Pollution Regulations;

3.

 Assessing a civil penalty of Ten Thousand Dollars

($l0,oo0~oo) per day against Wauconda

 for each and every violation

of Section 12(f)

 of the Act and 35

 Ill.

 Adm. Code 305.102(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 this Court deems just and

equitable.

COUNT V

VIOLATION OF PERFORMANCE

 CRITERIA

1-9.

 Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference herein,

paragraphs

 1 through

 S 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’

eliminated,

and

the maximum practicable flow be conveyed to treatment

facilities

11.

 Section 306.304 of the Board Water Pollution Regulations,

35

 Ill. Adm.

 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,

Ill,

Adm.

Code

306.305(b),

titled,

Treatment

Overflows

and

Bypasses,..

provide

follows:

All

combined

sewer

overflows

and

treatment

plant

bypasses

shall

given

sufficient

treatment

prevent

pollution,

or

 the violation Qf applicable water quality standards

unless an exception has been granted by the Board

pursuant

 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

minimum

primary

treatment

and

disinfection

with

adequate

retention time.

13.

February

and

21,

 1997,

Wauconda

allowed

excessive

inflow/infiltration

into

its

collection

system

leading

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

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)

the

 Act,

 415 ILCS 5/12(f) (1996)

16.

 Plaintiff is without an adequate remedy at law.

Plaintiff

will

irreparably

injured

and

violations

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.

 Adm.

 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 W.auconda 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

VIOLATION

 OF NPDES PERMIT CONDITIONS

1-9.

 Plaintiff

 realleges and

incorporates

reference

 herein,

paragiaphs

 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 Ill.

 Adm.

 Code 309.146

 (a) (1-4)

 titled,

 Authority to

Establish

Recording,

Reporting,

Monitoring

and

Sampling

Require-

ments,

provides

follows:

1•~~~

a)

 The Agency shall require every holder of an NPDES

Permit,

condition

of

 the NPDES Permit issued to

the

holder,

to:

1)

 Establish,

 maintain and retain records;

Make

reports;

 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,

such

locations,

such

intervals,

and

such

manner

may

prescribed).

11.

failing

provide

representative

flow

monitoring,

required by

 its NPDES

 Permit,

 Wauconda violated

35

 Ill. Adm.

 Code

309.146

 (a) (3)

12.

failing

take

samples

per

the

requirements

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.

failing

submit

completed

industrial

survey

the

Illinois

EPA

required

its

NPDES

Permit,

Wauconda

violated.

Ill. Adm.

Code

309.

146(a)

(1)

and

(2).

15.

 Violations

of

 35 Ill. 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

Ill.

Adm.

Code 309.146 (a) (1-4).

17.

 Plaintiff

 is without an adequate remedy at law.

I’4

Plaintiff

will

irreparably

injured

and

violations

the

pertinent environmental

 statues and regulations will continue unless

and

until

this

Court

grants

equitable

relief

the

form

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)

the

Act

and

 Ill. Adm.

 Code 309.146(a)(1-4);

Enjoining

Defendant

from

further

violations

the

Sections

cited

above,

ordering

Defendant

take

whatever

steps.

are

necessary

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.

1’5

PEOPLE

 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:

 _________________________________

Envi

Bureau

Assi~tant

Attorney

General

OF COUNSEL:

ZEMEHERET BEREKET-AB

Assistant Attorney General

Environmental Bureau

100

W.

 Randolph St.,

 11th Flr.

Chicago,

IL

60601

(312)

814-3816

\wPwnT6o\wpooc~\z

\w~ucouDA\VILwAux1

02/09/2005

 17:57

8474970701

 BONNIE MACFARLANE PC

 PAGE

02

82,19/2085 :15:44

2475268421

LUK~4SNt ~#47

IN ThE

CIRCTflT

 COURt OF THE NINETEENTH

~fl3DJ5IAI.

CIRCTJI?

•

 LAXE

COt7Nfl~

ILLINCIS

1~-~

£1

CRANCERY

DIVZSZQW

PEOPL!

THE

STATE

ILLfl1O1S~

)

cx

 ,rtl.

LISA

HADX~AN~

Attorney

7

General

the

Stbbe

t~4inoie.

PIaintiU,

sr.

)

No.

 04 CM 1206

vx,jaoE

 Os’

WAUCONPA.

Illinois

nuni~ipal

Corporations

Defendant

COX8S~

O*D$k

•

Plaintit&

PEOPLE

TN!

 STATE

OF

 ILZaINOXS,.

tel.

 LISA

•MAtIGAN. Attorney

General

the

State

Zilincie.

the

Illinois

tnvfloniqszital ProtectSgn Agency (“Illinois ~PAfl1

and te~.n6,rtt,

vrt~QE

waVCQ~Jt4 have agr*cd

the

making

qf

thu

Cgnsent

Order

and

 submit

it

 tà this Court for

approval,

the

parties

agaa that the statement of facts

contained

herein

repreeents

•

fair

sumaryof

the

évi4wnce

 end testimony which would

be

• introduced

by

the

parties

triet

were

held.

 The ysrtiea

further

 stIpulate that this

 statement of facts is made and agreed

•

tipon

for

pi,irpo~eu

aettlewent

only

and

 that

neither the fact

that a party has entered into this Consent

Order,

 nor any

the

facts atipiAlatéd hereftt,

 shall be introduced into

evidence

 in any

otbe~’ptoceeding~regarding the cisints asserted Sn

the

Complaint

•

e*cápt

otherwise provided herein.

 If this

Court

app~o*as

and

enters this Con-lent Order.

Defendant

agrees

t~sbe

bound

the

:rd

?c62-Sfl

61’S

EXHIBIT

02/09/2005

17:57

8474870701

BONNIE

 MACFARLANE PC

 PAGE

03

• 02/08/2005

 •i5;44

8475268421

 LURAJ.Nt

)‘MV

COnsent

Order

 Sd nác to cQnttSt its

validity

 in any subsequent

prQceedir.g

implement

er.force

its

terms.

•

I..

•

rhisCourt

has

 jurisdiction of

trts

subject

matter

herein

and

•

the

parties

consenting

hazeto

pursuant

the

Illinois

•

~nvironmentSl

Protection

Att

VAct”L

415

ILOS

S/I.

sag-

(2O02)~

•

••

•

fly

•

__________

•

The

 wtderai;ned npresentStives for each party certify that

they are t~iflyauthoriged by the party whom they represent to

enter into the terms and

conditions

 this Consent

Order

arid

• legally bind them to

it.

•

 flI_

•

flflfltflT

OFfl.çt~

flrjiep

•

~,.

•

August

17,

 2004,

Complaint

was

 tiled on behaU

o~the People

the State of ILlinois by LISA

MADIGAN,

Attorney

General

the

state

Illinois,

her

own

motion

and

upon

the

requntof thetlUnois

 EPA,

pursuant

Section

42(d)

and

(e)

the

Ac,

4t5

ILCS

 5/42 (d)

 arid

Ce)

 (2002),

 against the Defendant.

•

The

Tilinois

E?~ La

administrative

agency

the

$tate

Illinois,.

created

p~rstaant to

Section

4

 the Act,

41$

ILC$

5/4

(2002)

•

£EaaSb’c

L!B

,tjefl

Jcs~tn

•q~j

02/09/2005

 17:57

8474870701

 BONNIE

82/09/2805

 15:44

•

 84752S~421

LORAIt4E ~~,FARLANE

vMP~GEeO4

•

3,

 At all

tImes

relevant

the

Complaint,

Defendant

was

~T~d

tllinois

rnanicjpl

corporation,

organized

&Dd

operating

•

 under the laws of

 the State of Illinois,

•

 Site~~4$~tiDtion

•

all

times

relevant

 to the Co~laint,Defendant.

owned and operated

municipal

waste

 water treatment plant

•

~“po’rw”),

located

 302 Slocurn Lake Road, Wauconda~Lake

County,

•

Illinois

(“faeil~ty”

‘site”)

•

OI~

Septemker

24,

2003,

malfunction

Eefendants

POTW

resulted

£n

tne

discharge

cxf

untreated

and

partially

treated

•

 sewage into storm sewers hiding to Basics

Lake

arain.

•

C-

•

Afls9~titflSOtj9krC0~1iSao1

•

~•

piaintiffàontsnds

that

 the Defendant has violated the

following

provisions

the

2~et and

Zllinoia

Pollution

Contrql

Board

 rBoard”~Reqolations;

•

CcatAt

1;

 WATER

POLWTIOU,

•

 i4olstjon of

4I,$

ILCS

 5/12(5) (2002);

Count

It:

•

CREATING

WATER

POLLUTION

 ljflAiW,

•

 violation of 415

ILC$

 5/12(d)

(2002);

Count IIfl YXOLATION OF WATER QUALITY

STJUThARDS,

violation of

415

 ILCS 5/12(t) (2002),

and

•

ILl;

Adtt.

 Cod.

 302.203;

•

 CouñtIV:

 VXOZATIO& OF EFFLWNt

STANDARDS,

•

violation

415

XLCS

5/12(a)

(2002),

arid

111.

•

Adm.

Coda

304.104

Srid

3O4.lCS~

•

Cou~it

•

NPDESPERNITVZOLflIONS,

• violation of

 41,5

 IZSCS 5/12(f) (2002), and NPDE$

•

 Permit NO.

 1L0020i09.

•

•i4~

•

.44•~5

J?S~L0

~S4

02/09/2005

17:57

8474870701

BONNIE

MACFARLANE

PAGE

82/89/2005

15:44

0475268421

 LORAINE RAY

 PAGE

05

•

 i1iniano~

Violatieaj

•

fle

Detendant

neither

admits

nor

denies

the

violations

alleged

the

complaint

filed

this

m&tter

and

referenced

hetein.

•

Iv.

•

WZJ~AS1LIT1

This

Consent

Order

nhall

 apply to and be binthn;

upon

the Plair.tiff and the Dehr*dsnt,

 arid any officer,

 director,

asent,

 or employee of the Defendant,

 as well

 as any stccessors or

assigns

C

 the Deftndant.

 The Defendant shall

 not raise as

a

defense

to

aaly

entorcemeñt

action

taicen

 pursuant to this Consent

Order the failure of any of

its

officers, directors,

agents,

employees

take

such

action

as

shall

 be required ~

cocnp),y

 with

the provisiona ot this Consent

 prder.

change

ownership,

corporate

atatus

 operator

the

facility

 shall in any way alter the responsibilities

of

the

•

Defonddnt

under

tins

Consent

 order.

 In the event of any

conveyance

title,

 eseettent or other interest in the facility,

•

the

Defendant

shall

continue

bound

by

and

zepisin

liable

for

•

perfornance

 of all Obligations

under

this

Consent

 Order.

In

appropriate

tircdutStaflCeS,

however,

the

tefendaAt

and

•

contemplated

futzre

owner

operator

the

facility

may

 jointly

•

request,

 and the Plaintiff,

 in its discretion may

consider,

modification à~this Consent Order to obligate the proposed

•

ttSZ-SIS

Lb’S

nfls

dçgs~

02/09/2005

17:57

8474870701

BONNIE

MACFARLANE

PAGE

o2/8g/2805

15:44

8475268421

 LORAINE

RAY

PAGE

•

 purchaser or operator to car~’out future require~nentsof this

Cor.sez-.;

Order

t.n

 place of, or ~..n

 addition

 to. the Delen~ant.

1.1

the event that the

Defendant

 proposes to sell or

transfer

 any real property or

operations

subject

this

Consent

Order.

the

Defendant

Shall

notify

the

 Plaintiff 30 days prio~’to

the conveyance of title, ownership or other interest,

 including a

leasehold interest in the facility or a portion thereof,

The

Defendant

shall

 ~nakethe prospect

lye

 purchaser or successor’s

con~liaacewith this consent Order a condition of any such sale

transfer

 and shall provide a copy

 this Consent Order to any

such

successor

interest..

This

provision

does

not

relieve

the

Defendant

from

conçli*tce

with

any

regulatory

requirement

regarøing notSce

and

transfer

applicable

facility

permits.

•

••

•

o~p~wt

w.crs

J?fl~. zaps a~fl~ga!flqpf.~

•

This

Consent

Order

way

affects

the

responsibilities

the

Defendant

oonçly

with

any

other

federal,

state

local

3,aws

reguia:ions,

includin9

but

not

limited

to

 the Act and

Board Regulations,

35

Itt.

Mni.

Code,

Subtitles

through

VI.

The patties agree that the venue of any action commenced in

the circuit court for the purposes

interpretation

and

eiifcrceucrxt

of

the

 terms and conditions

~,E

this Consent Order

shalibe

the

Circ~zit Court

of

Lake

County,

flhinoas.

•

Eeea-$s’St$’S

JJfls

S$.~:4Q SO

~‘~d

02/09/2005

17:57

0474870701

BONNIE

MACFARLANE

PAGE

•

 02/09/2005

 15: 44

8475268421

LORAINE

RAY

PAGE

•

S_Il.

I~ is

the

 intent

the

 Plaintiff

and

gefer.d~~~

that

the

provisions af thi$ Consent Order

shall

 seversbj.e, a~ should

•

any

 provision

 t’e cièclar~dby a court of eocçetent ~isrisdict~onto

be inconsistent: with state or federal law, and therefore

unenforceable,

 the remaining clauses shaH remain in fun

 force

and

effect.

•

\liIxe

•

fl~

This Court, having ;ur~sdictionover the

 parties

 and aub~ect

matter,

the

parties

having

 appeared~ due notice aving

been

given,

the

 Court having

 considered the stipulated facts

 and. óeixw

advised in the

 premists,

 this Court finds the

following

 relief

eppropriate

•

HSRESt

ORDERED.

ADJtWQSD

hID

nw*rr

j?*ntltyt

a;

The

 etendant shall pay a civil penalty of Ten

Thousand

tioflars

(510,00000)

iithin

thirty

(30)

 days of the date

•

entry

 of this Consent Order.

•

Payment

shkl~ be

made

certified

check

money

• çrder,

 payable to

the

 tlhiniols

~PA

for

deposit

into

the

•

 Zñvironcriental Protection trust Fund

 (‘~tPTP”)

and

 shall be sent by

•

first

class

mail

at4

delivered

to;

1114.nciis

Environmental

Protection

Agerity

•

EEs~-stc

LbS

•

ae*’*$

4dfliLO

~.4

02/09/2005

17:57

8474870701

BONNIE

MACFARLANE

PAGE

02/139/2005

15:44

84752b54~L

•

Sezvices

•

•.

•

1Q21’

North~,rand Avenue

Last

•

 P.O.

 Bo~cL927~

•

~pflngfsa.d,

Ii,

 62794-9276

•

name,

case

number,

and

the

Defendant~s

Federal

•

~mployer

 Identification Nurter (~‘PEIN”) shall appear on the face

•

the

çerttfied

cthaçk

 money

order.

 A copy of

the

 certified

•

 •che~kor money brder and the transmittal letter shall be sent

•

christopher

~rant

•

Assistant

 Attorney General

• •

•

 twironmental Bureau

•

1*5

Wqsc

 Randolph St.,

 Suite 200i

•

60601

•

For

purposes

payment

and

collection,

the

Defendant’s

attorney

may

reached

the

 following address:

•

Mr.

Rudelrth

l4agna

•

tiagn*.c

Johnson

•

i9SN.

Riverside

Drive,

Suite

~ol

•

 Ounce1.

Illinois 60031

•

Por

PU~P!aI~f

P~Y’~fl~

 collection,

 Defendant may

•

•••

•

••

•

 reached

the

following

address:

•

 Mayor

• •

•

Village

Wauconda

•

100

 South State Street

•

 •Waüconds,

 Illinois $1063

•

the

event

default,

the

flathtift

thsll

•

 entitled

reasonable

costs

collection,

inçludir.a

reasonable

•

attprrzsy’e.

(teaL

•

 Fu~g,fll&jn~

•

The

Delendant

shall

impler~env and

enforce

pretreatment

program

sccordance

 with Villa9. of Waucorida

•

SCfl-SPS

LbS

•

ia’~s

dnsto

qej

02/09/2005

17:57

8474870701

BONNIE

MACFARLANE

PAGE

•02/E’9/2005

15:44

•

347~2btt42i

•

Ordinance

2O0OO~3l, adopted

September

19,

2000,

and

all

•

rnsbaequent

moditications

thereto.

The

Detendant

ehall

mair,tairi

•

 1*qal •auehor~ty

Adequate

fully

implement

its

Pretreatment

The

tSfendent

shell:

•

a.

Carry

out

indepezident

inepecti;n

and

monitoring

•

proceduns

least

once

per

 year.

which

will

determine

•

 whether each sagnif

Scant

industrial

user

CMSItP)

complianea with applicable pretreatment standards;

Perfonan

evaluation,

 least

once

every

two

(2)

•

years,

determine

whether

each

flu

needs

slug

•

control

plan.

needed,

the

Sill

 slug control plan

•

 shall include

the

items

specified

 40 CFR

 403.8

•

(1)

~2 tv);

•c.

 Update

 itS inventory of industrial

users

 (ttJ’a)

least

annually

and

needed,

required

•

 ~4PDES

Permit,

 to ensure that all

 SILTs

are

properly

•

 identified,

 characterized, and categorized;

•

d.

 EtOsive ~

 review self monitoring and other

 11.1

reports

to

 determine

compliance

wiTh

 all pretreatment staj~d,rds

arid requSrenento,

 end obtain appropriate remedies for

noncomplianc,

 by any

 flY with any pretreatment

standard

•

and/or

requirement;

Investigate

instances

noncompliance,,

collect

and

•

 analyze samples,

 and compile ether ~ntormatSon with

•

 sufficient

care as to

produce efldence Admissible in

•

enforcement

proceedings,

including

judicial

action;

•

Require.

denlopment, as necessary, of

compliance

•

 schedules by each industrial user for the installation

of control

tectinologies

meet

 applicable pretreatment

•

standards;

 and,

• *

g•.

•

~aintain

adequate

revenue structure for continued

•

opefltïon

DeC

endsnt’e

 pretreatment

program.

•

2.

 •Th. Defendant shall

 issue/reissue permits or

equivalent

control

mechanisms

to

all

 SIlls prior to e~cpirationof existing

•

permitS

prior

cofltancement

discharge

the

 ease

of

new

•

~~sa-sss

ti’s

02/09/2005

 17:57

8474870701

 BONNIE MACFARLANE PC

 PAGE

10

ø2/~’~/200515:44

 947~2bU42J.

•

••

 discharges.

 The pqrtn~.ts

at a minimum shall include the

elements

•

 listed in 40 CPR 403.s(f, (1) (iii).

• 3-•

 The Utfindant shall develop, maintain, and enforce, a~

•

nscnflry,

 local

limits to

implemen:

the

prohibitions

 40 CPR

•

 403.5

which prohibit the

introduction

of specific pollutants to

•

the

waste treatment system from any source at nondomestic

•

disi~targe.

 ~ .~i~iti~n

to

 the general limitations expressed in

•

PAragraph

 above, applicable pretreatment standards

must

be met

all

industrial

users

tb~ POTW.

these

limitations

include

•

sp&cific

standards

for

certain

industris3,

 categories

•

determined

by Section 307(b) and ~ of tb~Clean

Wflez’ Act1

 State

•

 limits, or local. limits, whichaver are more stringent.

•

The

 Defendant shell provide en annual

report briefly

dosaribiag the Defendant’s pretreatment progrn activities over

•

 the previous calendar

year.

Such

report

 shall be

submitted

no

•

 later than.Janusry 31 of the

following

 year,

 and shall be

 in the

format

forth

 in Jllinois EPA’s POTW Pretreatment Report

•

 Packase

which

contlins

information

regarding;

•

••

•

updAted

listing

the

Defendant’s

industrial

•

users..

b.

descriptive

sunriary

 the compliance

activities

•

including

numbers

any

major

enforcement

•

actions,

(i.e.,

administrativ,

orders,

 penalties,

•

civil actions,

 etc.), end the

outcome

those

•

 actions.

This

includes

aSsessment

the

•

compliance

status

t~e

Defendint’s

industrial

•

 users

and

the

 effectiveness of the Defendant’s

•

£SSdmS#S

 Lfra

 44’3S

 dsi;to ~O SO

~

02/05/2005

 17:57

8474870701

 BONNIE

MACFARLANE

PAGE

•

02/~9/2O05 iS:44

8475268421

•

pretreatnent

program in

 meeting its needs and

•

 objectives.

•

 Adescriptior.

Of

 all substantive

changes

mad.,

•

••

•

 the Defendant’s pretreatment program.

•

Results

sampling

and

analysis

P0Th

irzfluent,

•

effluent,

 and sludge.

e.

 A suamary of the ~things

from

the

priority

•

 pollutants

sampling.

•

 The Defendant

 shall maintain all pretreatment

 data

and

•

records

for

minimum

 three

(3)

 years.

•

The

Defendant

 shall provide written notifià*tion

t~ the

Bureau

o~ WAter’s

•(~SOW’s”)ManagingAttorney,

flhinois

~PAF

1021

•

••

 North Grand Avenue ~aat, P.O. Box 1fl76, Sprin~tield, illinois

•

•.

•

62794-9276

within

Live

days

of

receiving

notice

that

any

•

industrial

user

 at its sewage treatment plant

 is appetling to the

•

circuit

court

any

èenditlon

ithpond

by

the

Defendant

any

•

•:

•

 permit j8su~dto the industrial act

by the Pefendant.

 A copy

•

 the indnstcial:user’s appeal and all other pleadings tiled by

all

•

•:

•

part±es

shallbe mailed to the BOW

Managing

Attorney

within

live

•

Is)

days

of the pleadings being fil.sd

ir.

circtiit

court.

•

•.

•

The

réfendant

shall

~flitor

it$

 influent,

effluent

and

•

sludge

aug

report

concentrations

the following parameters on

•

 ~nitoring report

forn

 provided

by

the tllirzoIs

EPA

and

include

•

 them in its

annual

report.

Se*rples

 shall be taken at

1,e~st

once

•

per

 year,

at

 the indicated detection limit

better

and

consist

•

 of a 24~-h6urconposite unins otherwise specified below

 Sludge

•

::i~.a

•

tpe

 J4t~

 d4,~:~Ø

 so so

02/09/2005

17:57

8474870701

BONNIE

MACFARLANE

PAGE

•

02/~S/2O0~

 15:44

 24752BH421

•

sarsolee

•

sem$è

 reported on a dry weight basis.

•

sro~fl

•

 Itninum

•

ço~&~

PARAØETEp

 ctstactioz

l~it

•

O1O97~

•

AntimOny

0.07

 ing/L

•

0i0~2

Arsenic

0.05

mg/I.

•

01022

Boron’

•

0.005

mg/i

•

01007

SaritaTo

0.5

mg/I..

•

•~l012

BerylliUm

0.005

rng/L

•

01027

•

C4dmiuf~

•

0.001

mg/L

01b32

 ‘Chromium (hex

grab

not

exceed

hours)

•

 0.01 mg/I.

•

01034

•

 Ctwomiun(tot*l)0.05

m9/b

•01042

 Copper

 0.005 mg/I.

• 0071S

 Cyanide

 Israb)

 (weak acid

disaociable)

••

•

10.0

ugfL.

•

00720

Cyanide

 (grab)

 (total)

•

10.0

 ugfL

•

00951

 ‘Fluoride

0.1

 mg/I.

•

01045

 Iron

 (total)

0.5

 mg/I.

•

 oio~

 ~Iton (Di.sotvsd)

•

0.Smg/L

•

01051

 0,05 rig/I.

•

doss

Nasiganese

0.5

mg/I.

•

71900

Mercury

0.2

 tag/b

•

01067

Uickel

•

0.005

ngJL~

•

00536

•

‘0±1 (bean.

soluble

 or equivalent)

 (Grab)

1-0

mg/I.

•

327J3

Phenols

(grab)

0,005

mg/I.

•

01197

Selenium

0.002

mg/I.

•

01077

Silver

(total?

0.003

mg/I.

01059

Thallium

0.2

mg/I.

•

01092

•

Zinc

0.02S

rng/L

•

 ‘(rnrluent and effluent

 only)

•

Unless

otherwiee

indicated,

 concentrations refer to cbs

•

totil

arcunt

the

conwtituent present in all phases,

~arhether

•

 solid,

suspended

 dissolved,

 elemental or cpnibin~d

including

all oxidation

stat~S. Where conStituents are

 ootmmonly measured

•

other

 than total,

the

pheas

 so indicated1

•

Ii

tcea-ssc

its

arts

d552j~0

soq.~

02/09/2005

17:57

8474870701

BONNIE

MACFARLANE

PAGE

02/(39/2005

 15:44

8475269421

LORAINE

RAY

tiAtt

Within

six

rcnth9

the

date

entry

this

Consent

order,

the

Defendant

sha).

conduct

analysis

for

the

ons

~wndred

ten

(110)

organic

priority

pollutants

identified

Ct’~

122 .ppendix

D,

 Table

 )~Tas amanded.

This

monitoring

shall

 dons annually and reported on monitoring report forms

provided

the

tltinbis

ZPA

and

shall

consist

the

followings

•

The

influenc

and

effluent

shall

sampled

and

anaZ.yzed for the one hundz’ed

and ten

 (110)

 organic

•

 priority pollutants.

the

sanpling

shall

dome

•

 4uring a day when

industrial

discharges

are

•

 expected to he oocurr±ngat

normal

ta~timum

levels.

Samples for the analysis

of

 acid and base/neutral.

extractable compounds shall be 24-hour composites.

•

flva

~5)

gnt

samples

shall

 be collected each

•

 monitoring day to be analyzed for volata.e Qr9anic

compounds-

single

analysis

for

volatile

pollutants

(l4ethod

624)

may

run

 LQC each

•

monitoring

day

ccmpositing

equal

volunes

each grab seriple directly

in

the

purge

and

trap

apparatus

the

laboratory,

with

less

than

one

(1)

each

grab

included

the

composite.

•

 Wastewater

 saripies must be

handled,

prepared,

and

•

analyzed

GC/MB

accordance

with

tJsEa;

Mflhods

624 and

625

 40 CFR 136 as amended.

•

 The sludge shall be aari~lu4

and

analyzed

fer

the

one hundred and ten

(no)

OtyazliC

priority

•

pollutants.

aludge

 sample shall be collected

concurrent with a wastewatar sample and taken as

fihal

sludge.

•

sattpling

and

analysis

shall

conform

USEPA

•

 MethOds 624 and 635 unless an

alternate

method

has

been approved by Illinois EPA.

Sartple

 collection, preservation and storage shall

conform to approved t7PflA procedures

and

•

requ.ixsnents,

12

ct’S

ccs~-s”s

tts

.*.ans

 .Ilss;c,o

 so so

qaj

82/09/2005

17:57

8474870701

BONNIE

MACFARLANE

PAGE

02/69/2005

15;44

~4752SS421

LLJP~M~LIMc.

10.

addition,

the

Defendant

snail

monitor

 any new toxic

•

substances

defined

the

Clean

Water

Ar:e,

amended,

~o1lotng

not~.fi~ation by

the

Illinois

EPA.

•

ii.

The

oef~ñdar~tshall

report

~flu’

 noncoutpl lance with

eUli~entor

 water

 quality standards w’ith±n

 hours of

Defey44ant’~knowledge of such occurrence,

such

 report shall be

made to PiatntiWs

 representatives,

 as listed in Section VIZI..K.

t~1a

 Consent Order.

:2.

Analytical

detect3,on

Units

shall

accordance

with

CFR

136.

MAnimun

detect~.on limits

for

alud9e

analyses

 shall

accordance

with

CFR

503.

•

 SkAn91.eS*4

1*~fl.tAst

•

the

vet

 endant

f~’tilsto

conçlete

any

required

activft.y

specifieS

Section

 V1EX.B.

this

çcnisent

 Order,

the

Defendant

sis13~provide

notice

the

Plaintiff

eac2i

failure

comply

with

this

 Consent Order.

eddition,

the

Defendant

~hall

 pay to

the

 fl4intiff,

for

 paynient

into

the

SPTP,

 stipulated

pe~taltiesper violation for each day of violation in

the

amount

Two

Hundred flfty

 Dollars

 ($2so.o0) unti.

 such time that

•

compliance

ach~L~ved.

•

rollàwtng

the

Plaintift’s

deternination

that

the

nefebdant

has

failed

complete

performance

any

tan

other

portion

work,

 faIled to provide

required

submittal,

irtcludin~ any

repor~

notification,

Plaintife

may

make

de,,*nd

•

‘3

LES2-St’S

 iS’S

.flV2S

4~pt~ç~

02/09/2005

17:57

8474870701

BONNIE

MACFARLANE

PAGE

•

02/E9/2005

l5~44

9475269421

LUFcM~INc.

flM’

•

for

stipulated

 p.na.~.ties

upo~i

the

Defendant

fox

its

 noncompliance

with

mis

Consent

Otder.

Failure

the

plaintiff

make

this

d~rnand

thiall tot relieve the

Defendant of

 the ohli9*tiOn

pay

• stipulated penalties.

•

All

 penalties

owed

the

Plaintiff

under

this

section

•

 this Consent Otder that

have

not

been

paid

shall

payable

within

 thirty

 (30.)

dayS

the

date

the

Defendant

knows

should

have vnown

of

its

 noncompliaflce with any provision of this

•

Consent

Order.

•

xl.

etipulated

 penalties shall be paid by certified

•

check

money

ordar

payable

the

Illinois

EPA

for

deposit

•

 the EPIF

 arid delivered

to:

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Aeacy

•

 Fiscal Services

•

1021

North

 crand

Avenue

!afl

•

P;O.

BoX

19276

Sprin~field, Illinois 6Z194-9276

•

The

name

 and number of

 the ease and the

Qetsndant’s

FEiH~hall

appear

the

face

the

check.

copy

•

the

check(s)

and

the

transmittal

letter

shall

sent

to;

•

Christopher

Grant

Assistant

 Attorney General

•

Environmental

Bureau

•

2~S W.

katdolph

St.,

3QW~ Floor

•

 Chics9o,

 Illinois

60601

The

stipulated

penalties

shall

enforceable

the

Plaintiff

and

shall

addition

to,

and shall

not

preclude

the

•

14

t552-’St’S

~.p5

ae;s

4*j

02/09/2005

17:57

8474870701

BONNIE

MACFARLANE

PAGE

02’OSf 2005,

15:44

8475268421

 LORAII~E

RAY

use

ot.

 any àther remedies or sanctions arisIng

from

 the failure

to comply with this Consent Order.

p,

 ~tnntJ~i~s

Pursuant

Section

 42(g) nt tne Act,

415

 XI,~S

~/42(g)

(2002),

SnEezes;

 shall accrue an any penalty

amount

owed

•

by

the

 tefendant

 not paid within the

time

 prescribed herein,

at

the

maxiltuam

rate

allowable

under

Section

1003(a)

the

IlUnois

income Taç Act,

35

ILICS

 5/1003(e) (2O0~)

•

 znterest on unpaid

penalties

 shall begin to accrue from

•

the

date

the

penalty

is

 due and continue

 to accrue to the

date

paymentasreceived by the Illinoiø

 EPA.

3~

 Where pafliel payment is made on any penalty

amount

that

due,

such

partSal

payment

shall

 first applied

any

•

interest

 unpaid penalties then owing.

•

All

inttrlst

penalties

owed

the

Plaintiff

shall

•

 paid by certified check or

money

order

payable to the Illinois

•

~PA

 fOr deposit in the EPTE

 at the above-indicated address.

The

name,

*se

number7

 and the pefendant’s FEIN shell appear on

the

face

the

certified

aheck

money

order.

copy

the

certified ch~ckor r~oneyorder and the transmittal letter shall

be sent

to?

•

Christopher

Grant

•

 Assistant Attorney Cieneral

•

Eiwiztanm.nt&l

 Bureau

aSBW.

Randolph

St.,

2OO~floor

•

Chicago,

Illinois

60603.

•

15

•at”

 tess-S~~

 ~JflS

 iloosso ;o so e•4

PAGE

@2/eY/2005

17:57

$474s787Sl

BONNIE

MACFARLANE

PAGE

U2’$9/2805

 1S;44

 $475269421

•

LORAINE

PAY

•

 7utnre9y.

Notwithstanding

any

other

language

this

Consent

 Order t~

the

 contrary,

this

 Consent Order may be used against the

Dofendant~in any subsequent enforcement action or permit

proceeding as avi@sgice of

 a past adjudication of violation

of

the

•

Act

and

the

 Board

Regulations

 promulgated

thereunder,

for

•

 purp&~eesof Sections 39(a) ~i)

 end/cr 42(h)

 of the Act,

 43.5

ZLCS

•

S/39(a)

(i)

and/or

si4a

(h)

(2002)

F~~Ct~I.VFC

•

 For the

purpoies

this

Consent

Order,

force

S&~Øug-~

evçrtt

arising

solely

beyond

 the control of the Defendant

•

which

ptev*nts

the

timely

performance

 of any of tbe requirements

of

this

Consent

Order.

For

purposes

 this consent order force

majec3z-e

shall

 include,

 but ~s not limited t~,events such as

floods,

tires,

tornadoes,

other

natural

diaustqrs,

and

labor

•

disputes

beyond

the

reasonable

control

the

Defendant.

•

when,

the

opinion

the

Defendant,

force

majeure

•

evtnt

occurs

which

causes

 may cause

 a delay

the

 performance

•

of

any

the

reqt4rfltns

this

Consent

Order.

the

Defendant

•

shall

 orally notify the Plaintiff within 48 hours of the

•

occurrence.

Written

notice

 shslt

 given,

the

Plaintitf

soon

practicabLe,

 but no later than ten

 (10)

 calendar days

after

the

 ~laimed

occurrence.

•

cn2-s*s

z..e

•

J4S$

d’o’eo

so

qsj

a2/o~/2o95 17:57

 84748707@1

 BONNIE MACFARLANE PC

 PAGE

82’gg/20@5

 15:44

9475268421

•

LORAINE

PAY

PAGE

•

Failure

the

Defendant

comply

 with

the

r7otiae

recp~irsmants of

the

preceding

paragraph

shall

 render

this

 section

~Msdsbla

the

 Plaintiff

the

apecif Sc

event

for

which

the

Defendant

 has failed

to comply with the notice requirement.

tf

•

voided,

 •th~.a

section

shall

 of no eUect

 the particular

•

event

involved.

•

 Within

 3.0 calendar days of receipt of th.

force

n’ajeun

•

notice

required

under

Section

VIII.P.2,

the

Plaintiff

shall

•

respond

the

Defendant

writing

regarding

the

t~efersdant’s

•

olsirn

of.a

delay

impediment

performance.

tl~e

Plajntifl

•

 agrees that the dtLsy or inçedim~ntto performance has been or

will

 caused by circumstances beyond the control

of

 the.

•

Defendant,

 including any entity controlled

by

the Defendant,

and

•

 that

 the ~efertdant

could

not

 have prevented the delay by the

•

excrc*se.of

due

diligence,

the

parties

shall

stipulate

•

extensiOn

the

requS:e4

de~dlSna(s)

for

all

requjrnnt(s)

•

affected

by.

thC

 dflay, by a period equivalent

 to the delay

•

actually

caused

such

circumstances.

Such

stipulation

may

•

 filed as a utodification to this Consent Order pursuant to

the

modification procedureS established in this

Consent Order.

The

•

DefendantS shall

not

 liable

for stipulated penalties for the

•

 perlad of

aay

such

 dólsy.

•

the flaintitf doss not

accept the Defendant’s

claim

•

force

 majeu:c event,

 the Deendant may

submit

 the matter

•

np’1

eesa-stS

ts-s

~jvis

flØrØo

;fi

02/09/2005

17:57

8474870701

BONNIE

MACFARLANE

•

02/09/2205

15:44

~47526042t

•

L.IJPAINE

RAY

this

Court

within

calendar

days

receipt

?laflitiff’e

deterir4nation

for

resolution

avoid

payment

 of stipu,*t’ed

•

penalties3

 filing a

petition

for

determination

the

anus.

OnCe

tht

DeEendanc

 has submitted such a

petititn

the

Court1

the

 PlaLntiff eMil

have

calendar

days

file

its

response

•

said

petition.

tEchis

Court

determines

chet

the

 deZay

or

•

impediment

performance

has

been

 or will

 be caused by

•

circutfltaflces

 aálely beyond

 the cont~cluf

~.)ie

Defendant,

•

j~r

spy

entity

conttclted

the

Defendant,

and

that

the

Defendar.; could not have prevented the delay

the

exercise

due

~i1i~ence,~

the

Defindant

shall

excused

that

event

•

 (including

 8fly irnpc~itiDnof StipUlated penalties),

 for all

•

reluirements

affected

the

 delay,

 tar a pniod of time

eqtziv-slsrat

to

 the delay or such other period ~s may be determined

by

this

Court-

•

incz~eaSe in

coetb

associated

with

 implementing any

requirement

this

consent

Order

shall

not,

itself,

excuse

the

Defendant

under

the

provision;

this

section

this

•

Consent

Order

from

feilure

comply

with

such

requirement

 fli~utgSflolytip

The

dispute

reSolution

procedure

provided

this

seotion shall be evailable

 to rasolve all disputes ariaira~under

th.t;

Consent

 Order,

 except as

otherwise

 provided in Section

VIZI.F. re~ardin~

force

majeL’re,

 a:~dezeept where the

 Defendant

5tS~$*’$

tI’S

14~40

S~:fl()

qS~

02/09/2005

17:57

6474870701

BONNIE

MACFARLANE

PAGE

62’09/2005

2:44

0475268421

LURAINt

RAY

has

tn.olated

any

payment

compliance

deadline

withIn

 this

Consent

Qrder.

tf

 the Defendant

 has ‘iioiated any payment or

compliar,ce

deadlir,e,

the

Plaintiff

may elect

file

petition

icr

adjudicati~on of

co;ite~rpt

rule

show

cause.

wotwithatanding

the

above.

 disputes

regarding

imminent

and

subatan;ial

endangerment

the

public

heaflh,

welfare

the

environment,

th~

E?h’s

approval,

Cocrent

on1

denial

any

report.

pier’

temediation

objective,

the

Illinois EPA’s decision regarding appropriate or necessary

tosponse acti’vity,

 are not

subject to the

dispute

resolution

provisions or

 this Consent Order.

the

dispute

resolution

procedure

shall

invoked

upon

the

giving

writz~n notthe

one

the

parties

this

Consent

Order

to another

describing

the

nature

 of the dispute and

the noticing party4S

position with regard

to

 such

 dispute.

the

party zeceiving such notice shall acknowledge receipt of the

nqt~,Ce:

thereafter the parties shalt

 schedule a meeting to

diseua the dispute

 infonitally not later than

 14 days from the

rec~ript

of such

notice.

3..

•

Disputes

submitted

dispute

 resolution shall,

in

the

first

inStaflOG,

Xte

the

subjQ~t

informal

negotiations

betweer..

the parties.

 Such period of informal negotiations shall be for a

•

pezicd

c~f

~

 calendar days from

the

date

of.

the

first

meeting

between representatives of the Plaintiff ard the Defendant,

•

2,

mt’S

•tcna—q#g

IA’S

ems

deosso

•

02/69/2605

17:57

6474876761

 BONNIE MACFARLANE PC

 PAGE

21

O2~89/2~5

~_,847526842l

LORAINE

RAY

PAGE

23.

unless the partiesw

 representatives agree

shorten

extend

•

this

period.

the

event

that

 the parties

are

unable

reach

•

agreement

during

the

Informal

negotiation

period,

the

Plaintiff

•

shall

provide

the

 Vttendant with a written summary of its

position regarding the dispute.

The

position

 advanced by the

Plaintiff shall be considered bind.icq

unit.., within 20 calendar

•

 clays of

the

Defendant’s

receipt

the

written

aumary

the

Plaintiff’s position, the pefendant files * petition with

this

Court

 seeking judicial resolution of the dispute.

The

Plaintiff

•

 shafl resppnd to the

petition

 filin~the administrative record

•

 of the dispute and any argument within

 calendar

days

 of such

filing.

The

invocation

 dispute resolution,

 in and of

itaelf,

sh~.llnec excuse

ccwpliance

with

any

x’equirsment,

 obligation or

deadline

contained

herein,

end

stipulated

penalties

 nay be

assessed

for

failure

noncompliance

during

 the period of

dispute resolution.

Notwithstandin9

any

other

provision

this

Consent

Order,

 this Court

 shall, make its decision based on the

administrative

record

and

shall

 not draw any interencn nor

establish any prer..zmptions 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.

•

irS

scs~-s4’S 1,49

,mats

S~~n~i

~ø

82/09/2085

17:57

8474870701

BONNIE

MACFARLANE

PAGE

82J’ø9/2005

15a44

6475268421

LORAINE

RAY

ri-uc.

part

the

resz’lution

any

 dtspt~te.thu parties,

by agroefflent.

 or by order of this Court,

nay,

 appropriate

circumstazces,’extend or

modify

the

schedule

for

completion

work w~dezthis Consent Order

 to account for the

delay

the

wc~rk

that caceurri’d ‘as a result of dispute resolution,

It.

 cg;renot4ance.

 .fltqfls azd Other Qqginets

Arty

and

 sIt correspondence, reports

and

any

other

documents

required’ under ‘this’ Consent Order,

 except

 for payments pursuant

3ections

VtII.A.

and

this

Consent

Order

shall be

st1~thittedas followsr

kg’tos~plainti~f

chris Icallis

Enflronjnental Protection Spucialist

Illinois

EPA

‘9511 W. Harrison Street

Des

Plaines,

IlLinois

60016

‘Charles

Qwmaraon

Assistant

Counsel

Illinois

anvironmontal

Protection

Agency

1021 North

Orand

Avenue

East

P.O.

 ~ox 19276

•

Springfield,

tilinois

62’794-~276

•

to•’

the Defendant

•

Mayo;

‘Village of”Wauconds

jOO

South

 State Street

Uaucondà,

Illinois

61065

•CflZ-$$’S

tie

#.b5

4#oteo

82/09/2005

17:57

8474870701

BONNIE

MACFARLANE

PAGE

92: e9/2005

15:44

9475268421

LUNAINt.

PMV

~gIitof,,Entty

addition

any

other

authority,

the

ILlinois

EPA,

its’

entployees an& ripresentatives4

and

the

Attortey Qanenl, he~

t~entsand representatives,

 shall have the right of entry

£fltt)

arid upon

the

Defendant’s

PODW

facility,

$11

reasonable

times

~or

the

purposes

of carrying

 ottt inspections.

 In conducting such

inspections,

the

Illinois

 EPA,

 its enployees sad representatives,

and,

ttie

 Attorney General,

 Ins employees and representatives may

take

photographs,

samples,

and

collect

jnforwatjon,

they

deurn

necessary.

cnn,and

 Dfli’Rt

The

Defendant

 shall

ceaSe

arid

desist

from

future

violations

the

‘Act

and

Board

Regulation.,

inc1udi~

but

not

limited

•

 those sections of

 the Act and Board Regulations

that

 were the

•

 subject matt~r

the Complaint as outlined in Section IIX.C.

of

this Consent order.

BslflP~

~79S

 T4JPflity

 co~gjdsretjan

 the Defendant’s’

payment

any

specified

•

 costs,

 a Ten Thousand Dollar (910.000.00)

 penalty, and

upon

the

completion

 all activities

required

 hereunder,

 the Plaintiff

,re~eases. waives and tscbarges the Dvfendant from any turther

liability

 penalties for ‘violation, of

 the Act sod Roard

Regulations

chat

were

the

aubject

mattet

the

Complaint

herein.

The

release

set

‘forth

 above

 does

not

extend

any

matters

other

22

een-*~.c

tie

44”tS

 ~S0D0

90

q.d

02/09/2005

17:57

8474870701

BONNIE

MACFARLANE

PAGE

02.0V200S

15:44

H4152bU421

LLi~MSf’C ~

than

those

expressly

specified

Plaintiff’s

Complaint

filed

•

‘

August

17,

2004.

The

 Plaintiff reserves,

and

this Consent Oc-der

is

withot~pre~tidice’tc, all rights of the

 State of

Illinois

‘

 against

the,

~etindant

with

 reapect

to

all

other

matters,

iticluding

but

not

limited

to,

the

fol1owin~

criminal

li&bS2ity;

b.

 ..iabilitt

 for future violation of state,

 federal,

local,

‘jnd

Ccnw~on

 laws and/or

 regulations;

c.

 liability for ntural

 resources

damage

 arising out of

‘the alleged v1olatians;

and

d.

 liability

Olaifl

based

the

Defendant’s

failure

to

satisfy

the

requirements

this

Consent

Order.

Uothing

this

tonsent

Order

intended

waiwr,

discharge,

 release, or covenant not to sue fg~any claim or cause

action,

adtr?inistr*tive

‘or

judicia),~’

civil

criminal,

past

Cucure,

law

equity.

which

the

State

fliinois

the

Illinois

~PA

may

have

against

any

 person,

as

defined

Section’

3315

Act,

 415 ILCS 5/3.315

 (200fl,

 or entity other

than

the

befendant.

L.

Ifls~tSczs

~tfJisttS44gfl~

This Court

shall

 retain jurisdiction

thjs

 matter for

the

purpQses of interpreting and enforcing the terms

and

 conditions

of this Consent

 Order.

except

that

the

parties

may,

 by mutual

‘written

consent.”

extend any compliance dates or modify the terms

23

ttdt~-flt5

4,*.’Ø

 •tIt~S

 d~tao

Øtj

Q•.d

PAGE

7(11

BONNIE

MACFARLANE

rc-’

02/09/2005

17:57

9474B7O~~1~H

PAGE

25

02.~aS/2005

1~44

B475268421

LORAINE

RAY

of this

Consent

 Order

without

leave

fl~ CC~tt.

Any

wach

agreed

mpdificaca.on

Shall

~fl

writing,

signed

 by authorized

ripresentat3.ves

‘each

party,

tiled

with

the

court

jncopovated

into

this

 Consent Order by reference.

it.

weree~enp~

Ccnseq~ .Qrdtç

Upo~tthe

enti)’

this

Consent

Order,

any

party

hereto,

~Ofl

 ~flOt~Oflr

ittay

reinstate

these

 proceedings solely

for

the

purpOse

enorcirzg

 the terns

 and conditions

 of this

r~’~nsent

order.

This

Consent

order

is

bSnding

and

 enforceable order of

this

 Court and ~naybe enforced ae such through any and all

available

meafl,j,

netendarit

a9rees

that

 notice of

any

subsequent

proceeding

enforCe’

this

Consent

Order

may

made

mail

and

waives

‘any

require1~nt

~

 service of proeres.

24

~jflS

 S90190

~u~-9P,c

ti’s

WAIS

Document

 Retrieval

 Yage

1

Code

Federal

Regulations

Title

40,

Volume

13,

Parts

135

Revised

July

1,

1998

From the U.S. Government

 Printing Office via GPO Access

CITE:

4OCFR131.12

Page

 856—857

TITLE 40--PROTECTION OF ENVIRONMENT

AGENCY

 (CONTINUED)

PART

 131--WATER QUALITY STANDARDS-—Table

 of Contents

Subpart

B——Establishment

Water

Quality

Standards

Sec.

131.12

Antidegradation

policy.

(a)

 The State shall develop and adopt

 a statewide antidegradation

policy and identify the methods

 for implementing such policy pursuant to

this

 subpart.

 The antidegradation policy and implementation methods

shall,

at

 a minimum,

 be consistent with the following:

(1)

 Existing instream water uses and the level of water quality

necessary

 to protect the existing uses shall be maintained and

protected.

(2)

 Where the quality of the waters exceed

levels necessary to

support propagation of

 fish,

 shellfish,

 and wildlife and recreation in

and on the water,

 that quality shall be maintained and protected unless

the State finds, after full satisfaction of the intergovernmental

coordination and public participation provisions of the State’s

continuing planning process,

 that allowing

Page

857

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.

(3)

 Where high quality waters constitute an outstanding National

resource,

 such as waters of National and Sta.te parks and wildlife

refuges and waters of exceptional recreational or ecological

significance,

 that water quality shall be maintained and protected.

(4)

 In those cases where potential water quality impairment

associated with

 a thermal discharge is involved,

 the antidegradation

policy and implementing method shall be consistent with section 316 of

the Act.

I~IT

http

://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi~bin!get-cfr.cgi?TITLE40&PART1 31 &SECTION...

12/21/2004