RECEUVED
CLEFH(’S
OFFICE
JUN
172009
STATE
OF ILLINOIS
OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY
GENERAL
Pollution
Control
Board
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS
Lisa
Madigan
iVI”I’ORNEY GENERAL
June 12,
2009
John T. Therriault,
Assistant Clerk
Assistant Clerk
of
the
Board
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
James
R. Thompson
Center,
Ste.
11-500
100 West Randolph
Chicago,
Illinois 60601
Re:
People v. Birds
Pinkstaff Water
Dist.
PCB No. 09-47
Dear
Clerk:
Enclosed for
filing
please
find the original
and ten copies
of
a
Notice
of
Filing,
Motion
for
Relief from Hearing
Requirement
and Stipulation
and Proposal
for
Settlement
in regard
to
the
above-captioned
matter.
Please file the originals
and
return file-stamped
copies
to me in
the
enclosed
envelope.
Thank
you
for
your cooperation
and
consideration.
Very
truly yours,
Thomas
Davis, Chief
Environmental
Bureau
500
South
Second
Street
Springfield,
Illinois 62706
(217)
782-9031
TD/pjk
Enclosures
500
South Second Street,
Springfield, Illinois 62706
• (217) 782-1090
• TTY: (877) 844-5461
• Fax:
(217)
782-7046
100
West Randolph Street,
Chicago, Illinois 60601
• (312) 814-3000
• ‘l’TY: (800) 964-3013
• Fax:
(312)
814-3806
inn, u,,..- Ni.:.-, C’,,_I-.,,.-,4..I,, rn:.-:,,
L-,nni — /(1 o con LAnA
—
9”T’il
loon L’7C no’ fl — fl.
/fiOSc”iflfAl’
BEFORE THE
ILLINOIS POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
PEOPLE
OF THE STATE
OF
ILLINOIS,
Complainant,
vs.
)
PCB
No. 09-47
(Enforcement
- Water)
BIRDS PINKSTAFF
WATER DISTRICT,
)
an
Illinois not-for-profit
corporation,
)
Respondent.
NOTICE
OF
FILING
41%O9
To:
Birds Pin kstaff
Water District
do Ed
Bailey,
President
R.R.#2,Box2Ol
Lawrenceville,
IL 62439
PLEASE
TAKE
NOTICE
that on
this date I
mailed
for filing with the
Clerk of the Pollution
Control
Board
of the State
of Illinois, a MOTION
FOR
RELIEF
FROM
HEARING
REQUIREMENT
and
STIPULATION
AND PROPOSAL
FOR SETTLEMENT,
copies of
which are attached
hereto
and
herewith
served
upon you.
Respectfully
submitted,
PEOPLE OF THE STATE
OF
ILLINOIS
LISA MADIGAN,
Attorney General
of
the
State of Illinois
MATTHEWJ. DUNN,
Chief
Environmental Enforcement/Asbestos
Litigation
Division
BY:_____________________
Thomas
Davis, Chief
Assistant Attorney
General
Environmental Bureau
500
South Second Street
Springfield,
Illinois 62706
217/782-9031
Dated:
June 12,
2009
1
CERTIFICATE
OF
SERVICE
I hereby
certify that
I did on
June
12, 2009, send
by
First
Class
Mail, with
postage
thereon
fully prepaid,
by
depositing
in a United
States
Post Office
Box
a
true
and
correct
copy
of the
following
instruments
entitled
NOTICE
OF
FILING,
MOTION
FOR
RELIEF FROM
HEARING
REQUIREMENT
and
STIPULATION
AND
PROPOSAL
FOR
SETTLEMENT
To:
Birds Pinkstaff
Water
District
do
Ed Bailey
President
R.R.
#2,
Box
201
Lawrenceville,
IL 62439
and
the
original
and
ten
copies
by
First Class
Mail with
postage
thereon
fully prepaid
of
the
same
foregoing
instrument(s):
To:
John
T. Therrault,
Assistant
Clerk
Illinois Pollution
Control
Board
James
R.
Thompson
Center
Suite
11-500
100 West
Randolph
Chicago,
Illinois
60601
A copy was
also sent
by
First Class
Mail with postage
thereon
fully
prepaid to:
Carol Webb
Hearing
Officer
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
1021
North Grand
Avenue East
Springfield,
IL
62794
Thomas
Davis,
Chief
Assistant
Attorney General
This
filing
is submitted
on
recycled
paper.
BEFORE
THE ILLINOIS
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
CompIanant,
vs.
)
PCB No. 09-47
(Enforcement - Water)
BIRDS PINKSTAFF WATER DISTRICT,
)
Rs
OFF0
an Illinois
not-for-profit corporation,
)
Respondents.
)
F
LUOiS
Board
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM HEARING
REQUIREMENT
NOW COMES Complainant, PEOPLE OF THE
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS,
by
LISA
MADIGAN,
Attorney General of the
State of
Illinois,
and pursuant to Section 31 (c)(2)
of
the
Illinois
Environmental Protection Act
(“Act”),
415
ILCS 5/31(c)(2) (2006), moves that the
Illinois
Pollution
Control Board grant the parties in the above-captioned matter relief from the hearing
requirement
imposed
by Section 31(c)(1) of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/31(c)(1) (2006). In support of
this
motion,
Complainant states as follows:
1.
The parties have reached agreement on all outstanding issues in
this
matter.
2.
This agreement is presented to the Board in a
Stipulation
and
Proposal
for
Settlement, filed
contemporaneously with this motion.
3.
All parties agree
that
a
hearing
on
the Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement
is
not
necessary, and
respectfully request relief from such a hearing as allowed by Section
31(c)(2) of the Act,
415 ILCS 5!31(c)(2) (2006).
1
WHEREFORE,
Complainant,
PEOPLE OF
THE
STATE
OF ILLINOIS,
hereby
requests
that the
Board
grant this
motion for
relief from
the
hearing
requirement
set
forth
in Section
31(c)(1)
of the
Act,
415 ILCS
5/31(c)(1)
(2006).
Respectfully
submitted,
PEOPLE
OF
THE
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS
LISA
MADIGAN
ATTORNEY
GENERAL
MATTHEWJ.
DUNN,
Chief
Environmental
Enforcement/Asbestos
Litigation
Division
BY:____________________
STEPHEN
J.
JANASIE
Environmental
Bureau
Assistant
Attorney
General
500
South Second
Street
Springfield,
Illinois
62706
217/782-9031
Dated:
June 12,
2009
2
BEFORE
THE
ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
PEOPLE
OF
THE
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS,
)
)
Complainant,
)
)
V.
)
PCB
NO.
09-47
)
(Enforcement)
BIRDS
PINKSTAFF
WATER
DISTRICT,
)
CLERKSFCE
an
Illinois
Not-For-Profit
Corporation
)
)
JUN172009
Respondent.
)
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS
PoUutiOfl
Control
Board
STIPULATION AND
PROPOSAL
FOR
SETTLEMENT
Complainant,
PEOPLE
OF
THE STATE
OF
ILLINOIS,
by
LISA
MADIGAN,
Attorney
General
of the
State
of Illinois,
the
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(“Illinois
EPA”),
and Birds
Pinkstaff
Water
District,
(“Respondent”)
(“Parties
to the
Stipulation”),
have
agreed
to
the
making
of
this
Stipulation
and
Proposal
for
Settlement
(“Stipulation”)
and
submit
it to the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
(“Board”)
for
approval.
This
stipulation
of
facts is
made and
agreed
upon
for
purposes
of
settlement
only
and
as a
factual
basis for
the
Board’s
approval
of
this
Stipulation
and
issuance
of
relief.
None
of the
facts
stipulated
herein
shall be
introduced
into
evidence
in any
other
proceeding
regarding
the
violations
of
the Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Act
(“Act”),
415
ILCS
5/1
et
seq.
(2006),
and the
Board’s
Regulations,
alleged
in
the
Complaint
except
as otherwise
provided
herein.
It is
the intent
of the
Parties
to the
Stipulation
that
it be a
final
adjudication
of this
matter.
I. STATEMENT
OF FACTS
A.
Parties
1.
On
January
9, 2009,
a Complaint
was
filed
on
behalf
of the
People
of
the
State
of
Illinois
by
Lisa
Madigan,
Attorney
General
of the
State
of Illinois,
on
her
own motion
and upon
the request of the
Illinois EPA,
pursuant
to
Section 31 of
the
Act,
415
ILCS 5/31
(2006),
against
the Respondent.
2.
The Illinois
EPA is
an administrative
agency of the
State of Illinois,
created
pursuant
to Section 4 of the
Act,
415
ILCS
5/4 (2006).
3.
At
all times relevant to
the Complaint,
Respondent was
and is an Illinois
not-for-
profit corporation
that
is authorized
to transact
business
in the
State of Illinois. At
all times
relevant
to the Complaint,
Respondent
owned
and operated
a public
water
supply facility
located
in north-central
Lawrence
County,
Illinois
(“site”).
4.
The
Respondent serves
728 customers through
280 connections.
5.
On April 13, 2006,
the
Illinois
EPA
notified the Respondent
that
its
water supply
exceeded
the maximum
contaminant level (“MCL”)
for arsenic.
The Respondent
exceeded
the
MCL for arsenic
for the periods April through
June 2006, July
through
September
2006,
October
through December
2006, January through
March
2007, April
through
June 2007, and July
through September
2007.
6.
On November
1, 2006, the Illinois
EPA notified the Respondent
that
its water
supply
exceeded the MCL
for coliform bacteria
during the September
1,
2006
to September
30,
2006 monitoring period.
7.
In December
of
2008,
the Respondent connected
to the
Hardinville Water
Company
and
is now in full compliance.
B.
Allegations
of
Non-Compliance
Complainant
contends that
the Respondent has violated
the following
provisions of
the
Act and Board
regulations:
2
Count I:
Public
Water Supply Violations
By exceeding the
arsenic MCL of
0.010 mg/L, the
Respondent
violated Section 18
of the Act, 415 ILCS
5/18
(2006) and Sections 611.121
and 611.301 of the Board’s
Public Water Supplies
Regulations,
35
Ill.
Adm. Code
611.121,611.301 (2005).
By
have a presence of coliforms
in its water supply,
the
Respondent Section
18 of the Act, 415 ILCS
5/18 (2006)
and
Section
611.325 of the Board’s
Public
Water Supplies
Regulations,
35111. Adm. Code
611.325 (2005).
C.
Admission of Violations
The Respondent admits to the violations
alleged
in the Complaint filed in this
matter
and
referenced within Section I.B herein.
D.
Compliance Activities
to Date
•
Soon after learning of its arsenic exceedances, the
Respondent made plans to
abandon its existing water
treatment facility and
connect
to the Hardinville
Water
Company
as
a
bulk
water supplier
for their system.
•
The Respondent obtained
Construction Permit No. 2364-FY2007 from the Illinois
EPA to facilitate the
Hardinville connection.
•
In December of 2008,
the
Respondent connected
to the Hardinville Water
Company.
II. APPLICABILITY
This Stipulation shall apply
to and be binding upon the
Parties
to the Stipulation, and
any
officer, director, agent, or employee of the Respondent,
as
well
as any successors or assigns
of
the
Respondent.
The Respondent
shall not
raise
as a defense to any enforcement action taken
pursuant
to this Stipulation the failure
of any of its officers, directors, agents, employees or
successors or assigns to take such action as shall
be
required to
comply with the provisions
of
3
this Stipulation.
This
Stipulation
may be
used
against
the Respondent
in any
subsequent
enforcement
action
or
permit
proceeding
as
proof of
a
past adjudication
of
violation
of the
Act
and
the
Board
Regulations
for all
violations
alleged in the
Complaint
in
this matter,
for purposes
of Sections
39 and
42 of the
Act, 415 ILCS
5/39
and
42(2006).
III. IMPACT
ON
THE
PUBLIC
RESULTING
FROM
ALLEGED
NON-COMPLIANCE
Section
33(c)
of the Act,
415 ILCS
5/33(c)(2006),
provides
as
follows:
In
making its
orders
and determinations,
the Board
shall take into
consideration
all
the facts
and
circumstances
bearing
upon
the reasonableness
of
the
emissions,
discharges,
or deposits
involved
including,
but
not
limited
to:
1.
the character
and
degree
of injury
to,
or interference
with
the protection
of
the
health,
general
welfare and
physical
property
of
the people;
2.
the social
and economic
value
of the pollution
source;
3.
the
suitability
or unsuitability
of the
pollution
source to the
area
in
which it
is located,
including
the
question
of
priority
of
location
in the
area
involved;
4.
the technical
practicability
and economic
reasonableness
of
reducing
or
eliminating
the emissions,
discharges
or
deposits
resulting
from
such
pollution
source;
and
5.
any
subsequent
compliance.
In response
to
these
factors,
the Parties
to
the Stipulation
state the
following:
1.
The
health of the
Respondent’s
customers
was threatened
by
the
violations.
2.
There
is social
and economic
benefit
to the facility.
3.
Operation of
the facility
was suitable
for the
area in which
it occurred.
4.
Bringing
its facility
up to
date
and
holding
the bacteria
and
arsenic
levels
within
the MCL
is both
technically
practicable
and
economically
reasonable.
4
5.
Respondent has subsequently complied with the Act and the Board Regulations.
IV.
CONSIDERATION
OF
SECTION 42(h) FACTORS
Section 42(h) of the Act,
415 ILCS 5/42(h)(2006), provides as follows:
In determining the appropriate civil penalty to be
imposed
under. . . this Section,
the Board is authorized to consider any matters of record in mitigation or
aggravation
of
penalty, including but not limited to the following factors:
1.
the duration and gravity of the violation;
2.
the
presence or absence of due diligence on the part of the respondent
in
attempting to
comply with requirements of this
Act and
regulations
thereunder or to secure
relief therefrom
as
provided
by this Act;
3.
any economic benefits accrued by the respondent because
of
delay
in
compliance
with
requirements, in which case the economic
benefits shall
be determined by the
lowest cost alternative
for achieving compliance;
4.
the amount of
monetary
penalty
which will
serve to deter further
violations
by the respondent and to
otherwise
aid in enhancing voluntary compliance
with this Act by the
respondent
and
other
persons similarly subject to
the
Act;
5.
the number,
proximity
in
time, and gravity
of
previously
adjudicated
violations of
this Act
by
the respondent;
6.
whether the
respondent voluntarily self-disclosed, in
accordance with
subsection i of
this Section, the non-compliance
to the Agency; and
7.
whether the respondent has agreed to undertake
a “supplemental
environmental project,” which means an environmentally
beneficial
project that a respondent agrees to undertake in settlement
of an
enforcement action brought under this Act, but which
the respondent is
not
otherwise legally required to perform.
In response to
these factors, the Parties to the Stipulation state as follows:
The
Respondent exceeded the MCL for arsenic for over eighteen
months
beginning
in April 2006 through September 2007. The presence of arsenic in drinking
water
is
a
5
serious
violation,
as chronic
exposure poses a serious
health threat to
customers. The
Respondent exceeded
the MCL
for
coliform during
the September 1, 2006
to September 30,
2006 monitoring period.
2.
Respondent was diligent
in attempting to
come back into compliance
with
the
Act,
Board regulations and
applicable federal
regulations,
once
the Illinois EPA notified
it
of its
noncompliance.
3.
There is no
economic
benefit in this matter.
4.
Complainant
has determined, based
upon the
specific
facts of this
matter, that a
penalty of One Thousand
Six
Hundred and Twenty
Dollars
($1,620.00)
will serve to deter
further
violations
and aid in
future voluntary
compliance with the
Act
and
Board
regulations.
5.
To Complainant’s
knowledge,
Respondent has
no
previously
adjudicated
violations
of the
Act.
6.
Sample
results submitted by
the Respondent
to
the Illinois
EPA
disclosed
the
violations.
7.
The settlement
of this matter does
not include a
supplemental
environmental
project.
V.
TERMS OF
SETTLEMENT
A.
Penalty
Payment
1.
The Respondent
shall
pay
a civil penalty
in the sum of One
Thousand
Six
Hundred
and
Twenty Dollars
($1,620.00)
within
thirty
(30) days
from the date
the Board adopts
and
accepts this
Stipulation.
B.
Stipulated
Penalties,
Interest
and Default
6
1.
If
the Respondent
fails to make any
payment required
by this Stipulation
on or
before the date
upon which the
payment is due,
the
Respondent
shall be in default
and the
remaining
unpaid balance of
the penalty, plus
any
accrued
interest, shall
be due and
owing
immediately. In
the event of default,
the Complainant
shall be entitled
to reasonable costs
of
collection,
including reasonable
attorney’s
fees.
2.
Pursuant
to
Section 42(g)
of the Act, interest
shall
accrue
on any penalty amount
owed
by
the Respondent not paid
within
the time
prescribed herein.
Interest on unpaid
penalties
shall
begin to accrue from
the
date such
are due and continue
to accrue
to
the date full payment
is
received.
Where partial
payment is
made on any penalty
amount that
is due, such partial
payment
shall be first applied
to any interest on unpaid
penalties
then owing.
C.
Payment
Procedures
All payments
required
by this Stipulation
shall
be
made
by
certified
check
or money order
payable
to
the Illinois
EPA for
deposit
into the Environmental
Protection
Trust
Fund
(“EPTF”).
Payments shall
be sent by first class
mail and
delivered
to:
Illinois
Environmental Protection
Agency
Fiscal Services
1021
North Grand Avenue
East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield,
IL 62794-9276
The name, case
number and
the
Respondent’s
federal tax identification
number
shall appear on
the
face
of
the certified
check or money order.
A copy of
the certified check
or money order
and
any transmittal
letter
shall
be
sent to:
Environmental
Bureau
Illinois
Attorney General=s
Office
500 South
Second Street
7
Springfield,
Illinois
62706
D.
Future
Compliance
1.
In
addition
to
any other
authorities,
the
Illinois
EPA,
its employees
and
representatives,
and the
Attorney General,
her
employees
and representatives,
shall
have the
right
of entry
into
and
upon the
Respondent’s
facility
which
is the subject
of
this
Stipulation,
at
all
reasonable
times
for the
purposes
of conducting
inspections
and evaluating
compliance
status.
In
conducting
such
inspections,
the
Illinois
EPA,
its
employees
and representatives,
and
the
Attorney
General,
her
employees
and representatives,
may take
photographs,
samples,
and
collect
information,
as
they deem
necessary.
2.
This
Stipulation
in
no
way
affects
the
responsibilities
of
the Respondent
to
comply
with
any
other federal,
state
or local
laws or
regulations,
including
but not limited
to
the
Act
and the
Board
Regulations.
3.
The Respondent
shall cease
and desist
from
future violations
of the
Act
and
Board
Regulations
that
were
the
subject matter
of the
Complaint.
E.
Enforcement
and
Modification
of
Stipulation
1.
Upon
the
entry
of the
Board’s
Order
approving
and
accepting
this
Stipulation,
that
Order
is a
binding and
enforceable
order
of the Board
and may
be
enforced
as such
through
any
and
all
available
means.
F.
Execution
of Stipulation
The
undersigned
representatives
for the
Parties
to
the Stipulation
certify
that
they are
fully
authorized
by
the party
whom they
represent
to
enter
into the
terms and
conditions
of this
Stipulation
and
to
legally
bind
them
to it.
8
WHEREFORE,
the Parties
to
the Stipulation
request
that the
Board
adopt and
accept
the
foregoing
Stipulation
and
Proposal
for
Settlement
as written.
PEOPLE
OF
THE
STATE
OF ILLINOIS,
THE
ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
LISA
MADIGAN
Attorney
General
State
of Illinois
DOUGLAS
P.
SCOTT,
Director
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
MATTHEW
J. DUNN,
Chief
Environmental
Enforcement!
Asbestos
Litigation
Division
BY:
BY:
7
THOMAS
DAVIS,
Chief
ROBERT
A. MESSINA
Environmental
Bureau
Chief
Legaliounsel
Assistant
Attorney
General
DATE:
Z
DATE:
/
BIRDS
PINKSTAFF
WATER
DISTRICT
BY:
ED
S.
BAILEY’
Chairman
of the
Board
of
Trustees
DATE:________________
9
WHEREFORE,
the
Parties to
the Stipulation
request
that the Board
adopt
and accept
the
foregoing
Stipulation
and
Proposal
for
Settlement
as written.
PEOPLE
OF
THE STATE
OF
ILLINOIS,
LISA
MADIGAN
Attorney
General
State of
Illinois
MATTHEW
J.
DUNN,
Chief
Environmental
Enforcement!
Asbestos
Litigation
Division
FOR
THE
ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
DOUGLAS
P. SCOTT,
Director
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
BY:
DATE:
THOMAS
DAVIS,
Chief
Environmental
Bureau
Assistant Attorney
General
[RESPONDENT
NAME]
BY:
BY:
DATE:
DATE:
Chief Legal
Counsel
Name:
Title: