OFFICE
OF THE ATI’ORNEY
GENERAL
STATE OF
ILLINOIS
Lisa Madigan
ATTORNEY
GENERAL
July
21, 2009
John T. Therriault,
Assistant
Clerk
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
James R. Thompson
Center,
Ste.
11-500
100 West
Randolph
Chicago,
Illinois 60601
Re:
People
V. Dennis K. Stiegemeler,
d/b/a
l.L.C.
Development
PCB No. 06-77
Dear Clerk Gunn:
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,
self-addressed
envelope.
Thank you
for your cooperation
and consideration.
Very truly
yours,
Janasie
Environmental
Bureau
500 South
Second
Street
Springfield,
Illinois
62706
(217)
782-9031
SJJ/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
•TTY: (800)
964-3013
• Fax: (312)
814-3806
JUL
‘23
BEFORE THE
ILLINOIS POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD
PEOPLE
OF
THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
Complainant,
)
)
v.
)
PCB
No. 06-77
)
(Enforcement)
DENNIS
K. STIEGEMEIER, d!b!a
)
I.L.C. DEVELOPMENT,
)
Respondents.
)
°‘
NOTICE OF FILING
To:
Mr. J. Richard Meno
Denby, Meno, Bloomer
&
Denby
P.O.
Box 616
Carlinville, IL 62626
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..l’
i
BY:
A
4
NASIE
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Bureau
500
South Second Street
Springfield, Illinois
62706
217/782-9031
Dated:
July 21, 2009
CER11FJCATE
OF
SERVICE
I hereby certify
that
I did
on July 21, 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:
Mr. J.
Richard
Meno
Denby, Meno, Bloomer & Denby
P.O. Box 616
Carlinville, IL 62626
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 wfth postage thereon fully prepaid to:
Carol
Webb
Hearing
Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
1021
North Grand Avenue East
Springfield, IL 62794
General
This filing is submitted on recycled paper.
BEFORE THE
ILLINOIS
POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
PEOPLE OF THE STATE
OF ILLINOIS,
)
Complainant,
vs.
)
PCB No. 06-77
)
(Enforcement)
DENNIS K. STIEGEMEIER,
dibla
)
RCEVED
I.L.C. DEVELOPMENT,
)
S
OFFICE
)
JUL
232009
Respondent.
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS
Pollution
Control
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 5131(c)(l) (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 5131(c)(2) (2006).
I
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
Divisioj’
BY:________
STf
5
J.
JANASIE
Environmental Bureau
Assistant Attorney General
500
South
Second
Street
Springfield,
Illinois 62706
217/782-9031
Dated:
July 21, 2009
2
BEFORE THE
ILLINOIS
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PEOPLE OF THE STATE
OF ILLINOIS,
)
Complainant,
v.
)
PCB NO. 06-77
(Enforcement)
DENNIS K. STIEGEMEIER,
dibla
)
I.L.C. DEVELOPMENT,
)
JUL
2
32009
Respondent.
)
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS
Pollution
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
DENNIS K. STIEGEMEIER, d/bla I.L.C. DEVELOPMENT
(“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/let seq. (2006),
and
the Board’s
Regulations, alleged
in the Complaint except
as
otherwise
provided
herein.
It is the
intent of the parties to this Stipulation that it be a final
adjudication of this matter.
I. STATEMENT
OF FACTS
A.
Parties
1.
On November 15, 2005,
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, the Respondent
was and
is
a developer
doing business as “l.L.C. Development”.
4.
At
all times relevant
to the
Complaint,
the Respondent
was
engaged in the
construction of homes in
the Timberview Subdivision southwest
of Staunton in Macoupin
County, Illinois (“site”).
5.
In July
2002, the Respondent submitted a notice of intent
for
coverage
under
the
State’s general storm
water NPDES permit to the Illinois EPA.
The
Illinois
EPA granted
authorization on August 5,
2002. This permit required the implementation
of a
stormwater
pollution
prevention plan for the site.
6.
On March 26, 2004, the
Illinois EPA inspected the
site.
On
that
date, heavy
rainfall and storm
water runoff had formed numerous gullies in the disturbed ground. The
Respondent made no
apparent attempt to
stabilize
the
disturbed
areas. A crude ditch allowed
the discharge
of silt laden storm water into a
wooded area. Silt
fences and
dams
were
overloaded
by
sedimentation and were inadequate to reduce the transport of sediment to an
offsite pond and
other waterways.
7,
Upon inquiry by the
Illinois EPA during the March 26, 2004, inspection, the
Respondent’s
project
manager was unable to produce a copy of the stormwater pollution
prevention plan.
8.
On July 8 and
14, 2004, the Illinois EPA inspected the Timberview Subdivision
to
determine
whether progress had been
made as
to
the implementation
of a
stormwater pollution
2
prevention plan. On
these occasions,
the Respondent
had
not stabilized disturbed
areas.
The
silt
fences and
dams were
still overloaded
by sediment
and
were
inadequate
to prevent
the
sediment
from being transported
into
an offsite
pond
and other waterways.
Storm water
runoff
controls were completely
lacking
at other
locations resulting in
erosion
gullies.
9.
On September
14, 2004, the
Illinois
EPA
inspected
the
Timberview
Subdivision
and
determined that
some progress
had been
made as to the implementation
of
a
stormwater
pollution prevention
plan. However,
the measures
were still
inadequate
to
minimize
the
transport
of sediment to the
offsite
pond
and other waterways.
10.
On
December 14,
2004, the Illinois
EPA
inspected
the
Timberview
Subdivision
and
determined
that no further
efforts had
been taken
to
stabilize
the
site,
to
construct
detention
structures,
or
to
grade
and plant
grass
cover. The measures
were still
inadequate
to prevent
erosion and effectively
capture sediment
in
the
storm water runoff.
B.
Allegations
of Non-Compliance
The Complainant
contends
that
the
Respondent has
violated
the
following provisions
of
the Act
and Board regulations:
Count
I:
Count
II:
Section
12(a) and
(d)
of the Act, 415 ILCS
5/12(a) and
(d)
(2006).
The
Respondent caused
or allowed
the discharge
of silt and
other
contaminants
from
the site into waters
of
the State
so as
to cause
or tend to cause water
pollution. The
ongoing
construction
activities,
including
clearing, grading,
and excavating,
had resulted
in land disturbance
of equal
to or greater than
one
acre and
less
than
five acres and
the
site conditions
caused
or allowed the
discharge of
silt
and other
contaminants
from
a point source
onto
the land and
into waters of the
State so
as
to cause or tend
to
cause a
water pollution hazard.
Section
12(f) of the
Act, 415 ILCS 5/12(f)
(2006),
and
Section
309.102(a)
of the Board’s
Water
Pollution
Regulations,
35 Ill. Adm.
Code
309.102(a).
The
Respondent
discharged
silt
and other
contaminants from
the
site
into waters of
the State in violation
of
the Respondent’s
3
NPDES permit.
C.
Admission
of Violations
The Respondent
admits to the violations alleged
in the Complaint filed in this
matter
and
referenced within Section l.B herein.
D.
Compliance Activities
to Date
The Illinois EPA has determined
that Respondent has undertaken
the necessary
measures
to
prevent erosion,
to effectively capture sediment
in the storm water runoff, and
to
adequately implement
a stormwater pollution prevention plan.
As a result, the Illinois EPA
has
determined
that the Respondent
is
currently in
compliance with the
Act and
Board
Regulations.
Under current conditions, the Respondent
may continue to develop the eastern and southern
portions
of the
site. However, if the Respondent
chooses to develop the northwest portion
of
the site, the
Respondent must install the
storm pond as shown
on
the
Respondent’s
plans for
the site.
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
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).
4
III. IMPACT
ON THE
PUBLIC RESULTING
FROM
ALLEGED
NON-COMPLIANCE
Section
33©)
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 Respondent
caused
or allowed
the discharge
of
silt
and other
contaminants
from the site
onto the
land
and into
waters of
the State, threatening
human health
and
the
environment.
2.
A
housing
development
provides
social
and
economic
benefit.
3.
Construction
of
the housing
development
was
suitable
for
the
area in
which
it
was
sited.
4.
The
necessary
measures
to
prevent
erosion,
to
effectively
capture
sediment
in
the
storm
water
runoff,
and to adequately
implement
a
stormwater
pollution
prevention
plan
were
both technically
practicable
and economically
reasonable.
5.
The
Respondent
has
subsequently
complied
with
the Act
and
the
Board
Regulations.
5
IV.
CONSIDERATION OF SECTION
42(h) FACTORS
Section 42(h) of
the Act,
415
ILCS 5142(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
caused or allowed the discharge
of
silt
and other contaminants
from the
site onto the land and into
waters of the State, in violation of the Act
and Board
regulations, as well as the terms of the Respondent’s NPDES permit.
The
violations
began
on
or around March
2004,
and
were individually resolved
at
various times in the following
four and
a
half years.
6
2.
The
Respondent
was
not
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.
The Respondent
avoided
the annual
costs of labor and materials
for constructing
and
maintaining
storm water
erosion
controls
for the period of the
alleged violations,
resulting
in
economic
benefit.
4.
The Complainant
has
determined,
based upon the specific
facts of this
matter,
that a penalty
of Two Thousand Five
Hundred
dollars
($2,500.00)
will serve to deter
further
violations
and aid in futUre
voluntary
compliance
with the Act
and
Board
regulations.
5.
To
the Complainant’s
and the Illinois
EPA’s knowledge, the
Respondent
has
no
previously
adjudicated
violations
of the Act.
6.
Self-disclosure
is not at issue
in this matter.
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 Two Thousand
Five
Hundred
Dollars ($2,500.00)
within thirty
(30)
days from
the
date
the
Board
adopts and accepts
this Stipulation.
B.
Interest and
Default
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
7
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
numbershall
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
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
8
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.
Release from Liability
In consideration of
the Respondent’s payment of
the
$2,500.00
penalty,
its
commitment
to cease and desist as contained
in Section V.D. above, completion
of all activities
required
hereunder, and upon the Board’s approval
of this Stipulation, the
Complainant releases,
waives
and discharges the Respondent from
any further liability or penalties
for the violations of
the Act
and Board Regulations that were the subject matter
of the Complaint herein.
The
release
set
forth above does not extend to any matters other than
those
expressly specified
in
the
Complainant’s Complaint filed on November 15, 2005. The Complainant
reserves,
and this
Stipulation
is without prejudice
to,
all rights of
the State of Illinois against the
Respondent
with
respect to all other matters, including but not limited to, the following:
a.
criminal
liability;
b.
liability
for future
violation of state, federal, local,
and common laws and/or
regulations;
c.
liability
for
natural
resources damage arising out of
the
alleged
violations;
and
d.
liability
or claims based
on
the
Respondent’s
failure to satisfy
the requirements
of
this
Stipulation.
Nothing in this Stipulation is intended as a waiver, discharge,
release, or covenant
not
to
9
sue for any claim or cause of
action, administrative or judicial, civil or
criminal,
past or
future,
in
law or in equity, which
the State of
Illinois
may have
against
any person, as
defined
by Section
3.315 of the Act, 415 ILCS
5/3.315,
or entity
other than the
Respondent
F.
Enforcement of Stipulation
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.
G.
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.
10
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
BY:
THOMAS
DAVIS,
Chief
Environmental
Bureau
Assistant
Attorney
General
DATE:
THE
ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
DOUGLAS
P. SCOTT,
Director
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
BY:
DATE:
DENNIS
K.
STIEGEMEIER,
d!b/a
I.L.C.
DEVELOPMENT
BY:
DATE:
Title:
11