ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

July 21, 2005

 

 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

 

Complainant,

 

v.

 

LAKE EGYPT WATER AND

WASTEWATER DISTRICT,

 

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 

 

 

 

PCB 06-3

(Enforcement - Public Water Supply)

 

ORDER OF THE BOARD (by J.P. Novak):

 

On July 6, 2005, the Office of the Attorney General, on behalf of the People of the State

of Illinois (People), filed a complaint against Lake Egypt Water and Wastewater District.

See

 

415 ILCS 5/31(c)(1) (2004); 35 Ill. Adm. Code 103.204. The complaint concerns Lake Egypt

Water and Wastewater District’s drinking water filtering and purification facility at 11484 Lake

of Egypt Road, Marion, Williamson County. For the reasons below, the Board accepts the

complaint for hearing.

 

Under the Environmental Protection Act (Act) (415 ILCS 5/1

et seq

. (2004)), the

Attorney General and the State’s Attorneys may bring actions before the Board to enforce

Illinois’ environmental requirements on behalf of the People.

See

415 ILCS 5/31 (2004); 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 103. In this case, the People allege that Lake Egypt Water and Wastewater District

violated Section 18 of the Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS 5/18 (2004)) and 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 611.383(d) and 611.385. The People further allege that Lake Egypt Water and

Wastewater District violated these provisions by failing to demonstrate that total organic carbon

(TOC) removal ratios were either in compliance with Step 1 TOC removal requirements or to

meet alternative compliance criteria. The People ask the Board to order Lake Egypt Water and

Wastewater District to cease and desist from further violation and pay a civil penalty of not more

than the statutory maximum.

 

The Board finds that the complaint meets the content requirements of the Board’s

procedural rules and accepts the complaint for hearing.

See

35 Ill. Adm. Code 103.204(c), (f),

103.212(c). A respondent’s failure to file an answer to a complaint within 60 days after

receiving the complaint may have severe consequences. Generally, if Lake Egypt Water and

Wastewater District fails within that timeframe to file an answer specifically denying, or

asserting insufficient knowledge to form a belief of, a material allegation in the complaint, the

Board will consider Lake Egypt Water and Wastewater District to have admitted the allegation.

35 Ill. Adm. Code 103.204(d).

 

The Board directs the hearing officer to proceed expeditiously to hearing. Among the

hearing officer’s responsibilities is the “duty . . . to ensure development of a clear, complete, and

---

 

2

concise record for timely transmission to the Board.” 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.610. A complete

record in an enforcement case thoroughly addresses, among other things, the appropriate remedy,

if any, for the alleged violations, including any civil penalty.

 

If a complainant proves an alleged violation, the Board considers the factors set forth in

Sections 33(c) and 42(h) of the Act to fashion an appropriate remedy for the violation.

See

415

ILCS 5/33(c), 42(h) (2004). Specifically, the Board considers the Section 33(c) factors in

determining, first, what to order the respondent to do to correct an ongoing violation, if any, and,

second, whether to order the respondent to pay a civil penalty. The factors provided in Section

33(c) bear on the reasonableness of the circumstances surrounding the violation, such as the

character and degree of any resulting interference with protecting public health, the technical

practicability and economic reasonableness of compliance, and whether the respondent has

subsequently eliminated the violation.

 

With Public Act 93-575, effective January 1, 2004, the General Assembly changed the

Act’s civil penalty provisions, amending Section 42(h) and adding a new subsection (i) to

Section 42. Section 42(h)(3) now states that any economic benefit to respondent from delayed

compliance is to be determined by the “lowest cost alternative for achieving compliance.” The

amended Section 42(h) also requires the Board to ensure that the penalty is “at least as great as

the economic benefits, if any, accrued by the respondent as a result of the violation, unless the

Board finds that imposition of such penalty would result in an arbitrary of unreasonable financial

hardship.”

 

Under these amendments, the Board may also order a penalty lower than a respondent’s

economic benefit from delayed compliance if the respondent agrees to perform a “supplemental

environmental project”

 

(SEP). A SEP is defined in Section 42(h)(7) as an “environmentally

beneficial project” that a respondent “agrees to undertake in settlement of an enforcement action

. . . but which the respondent is not otherwise legally required to perform.” SEPs are also added

as a new Section 42(h) factor (Section 42(h)(7)), as is whether a respondent has “voluntary self-

disclosed . . . the non-compliance to the [Illinois Environmental Protection] Agency” (Section

42(h)(6)). A new Section 42(i) lists nine criteria for establishing voluntary self-disclosure of

non-compliance. A respondent establishing these criteria is entitled to a “reduction in the portion

of the penalty that is not based on the economic benefit of non-compliance.”

 

Accordingly, the Board further directs the hearing officer to advise the parties that in

summary judgment motions and responses, at hearing, and in briefs, each party should consider:

(1) proposing a remedy for a violation, if any (including whether to impose a civil penalty), and

supporting its position with facts and arguments that address any or all of the Section 33(c)

factors; and (2) proposing a civil penalty, if any (including a specific total dollar amount and the

portion of that amount attributable to the respondent’s economic benefit, if any, from delayed

compliance), and supporting its position with facts and arguments that address any or all of the

Section 42(h) factors. The Board also directs the hearing officer to advise the parties to address

these issues in any stipulation and proposed settlement that may be filed with the Board.

 

 

 

---

 

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, certify that the Board

adopted the above order on July 21, 2005, by a vote of 5-0.

 

Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board