BEFORE
    THE
    ILLINOIS
    POLLUTION
    CONTROL
    BOARD
    PEOPLE
    OF
    THE
    STATE
    OF
    ILLINOIS,
    ex
    ret
    LISA
    MADIGAN,
    Attorney
    General
    of
    the
    State
    of
    Illinois,
    V.
    Complainant,
    MOHAMMAD
    AKRABAWI,
    d/b/a
    DEERFIELD
    CROSSINGS,
    LLC,
    Respondent.
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    OEVED
    CLERK’S
    OFFICE
    AUG
    26
    2009
    SThTE
    OFILJjNO,s
    POIIUtjOfl
    Control
    Board
    )
    PCB
    NO.
    09-131
    )
    (Enforcement
    -
    Water)
    )
    )
    )
    )
    NOTICE
    OF
    FILING
    To:
    Zemeheret
    Bereket-AB
    Assistant
    Attorney
    General
    Environmental
    Bureau
    69
    West
    Washington
    Street
    18th
    Floor
    Chicago,
    Illinois
    60602
    (312)
    814-3816
    Division
    Chief
    of
    Environmental
    Enforcement
    Office
    of
    the
    Attorney
    General
    69
    West
    Washington
    Street
    18t
    Floor
    Chicago,
    Illinois
    60602
    (312)
    814-3816
    Illinois
    Pollution
    Control
    Board
    Attn:
    Clerk
    James
    R.
    Thompson
    Center
    100
    West
    Randolph
    Street
    Suite
    11-500
    Chicago,
    Illinois
    60601
    PLEASE
    TAKE
    NOTICE
    that
    this
    26th
    day
    of
    August,
    2009,
    I
    filed
    with
    the
    Office
    of
    the
    Clerk
    of
    the
    Illinois
    Pollution
    Control
    Board
    Respondent’s
    Answer
    to
    Petitioner’s
    Complaint,
    Notice
    of
    Filing,
    and
    a
    Certificate
    of
    Service
    on
    behalf
    of
    Respondent
    Mohammad
    Akrabawi,
    d/b/a
    Deerfield
    Crossing,
    LLC,
    a
    copy
    of
    which
    is
    attached
    and
    herewith
    served
    upon
    you.
    Respectfully
    submitted,
    MOHAMMAD
    AKRABAWI,
    d/b/a
    DEERFIELD
    CROSSINGS,
    LLC
    By:
    Francis
    X.
    Lyon
    Allyson
    Wilcox
    Olson
    Bryan
    Cave
    LLP
    161
    North
    Clark
    Street
    Suite
    4300
    Chicago,
    Illinois
    60601-3715
    Telephone:
    312-602-5057
    Facsimile:
    312-698-7457
    THIS
    FILING
    IS
    SUBMITTED
    ON
    RECYCLED
    PAPER

    BEFORE
    THE
    ILLINOIS
    POLLUTION
    CONTROL
    BOARD
    PEOPLE
    OF
    THE
    STATE
    OF
    ILLINOIS,
    )
    ex
    rel.
    LISA
    MAD
    IGAN,
    Attorney
    )
    <
    S
    OFFg
    General
    of
    the
    State
    of
    Illinois,
    )
    AUG
    a
    2009
    Complainant,
    )
    PoSiTui1
    °jNOIS
    v.
    )
    PCB
    NO.
    09-131
    )
    (Enforcement
    -
    Water)
    MORAMMAD
    AKRABAWI,
    )
    d/b/a
    DEERFIELD
    CROSSINGS,
    LLC,
    )
    )
    Respondent.
    )
    ANSWER
    TO
    COMPLAINT
    Respondent,
    MOHAMMAD
    AKRABAWI,
    d/b/a
    DEERFIELD
    CROSSINGS,
    LLC
    (“Respondent”)
    hereby
    responds
    to
    the
    Complaint
    of
    the
    PEOPLE
    OF
    THE
    STATE
    OF
    ILLINOIS,
    ex
    rel.
    LISA
    MADIGAN,
    Attorney
    General
    of
    the
    State
    of
    Illinois,
    as
    follows:
    COUNT
    I
    CAUSE,
    THREATEN
    OR
    ALLOW
    WATER
    POLLUTION
    1.
    This
    Complaint
    is
    brought
    on
    behalf
    of
    the
    PEOPLE
    OF
    THE
    STATE
    OF
    ILLINOIS,
    cx
    rel.
    LISA
    MADIGAN,
    Attorney
    General
    of
    the
    State
    of
    Illinois,
    on
    her
    own
    motion
    and
    at
    the
    request
    of
    the
    Illinois
    Environmental
    Protection
    Agency
    (“Illinois
    EPA”),
    pursuant
    to
    the
    -
    terms
    and
    provisions
    of
    Section
    31
    of
    the
    Illinois
    Environmental
    Protection
    Act
    (“Act”),
    415
    ILCS
    5/31
    (2006).
    Response:
    Respondent
    states
    that
    415
    ILCS
    5/31
    (2006)
    speaks
    for
    itself.
    Respondent
    does
    not
    have
    sufficient
    information
    to
    form
    a
    belief
    as
    the
    remaining
    factual
    allegations
    in
    paragraph
    1,
    and
    Respondent
    thus
    denies
    the
    same.
    Moreover,
    to
    the
    extent
    that
    paragraph
    I
    contains
    a
    legal
    conclusion,
    no
    response
    is
    required.
    THIS
    FILING
    IS
    SUBMITTED
    ON
    RECYCLED
    PAPER

    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),
    and charged,
    inter
    a/ia,
    with
    the
    duty
    of
    enforcing
    the
    Act.
    The
    Illinois
    EPA
    is further
    charged
    with
    the
    duty
    to
    abate
    violations
    of
    the
    National
    Pollutant
    Discharge
    Elimination
    System
    (“NPDES”)
    Permit
    Program
    under
    the
    Federal
    Clean
    Water
    Act
    (“CWA”),
    33
    U.S.C.
    §1342(b)(7).
    Response:
    Respondent
    admits
    that
    the
    Illinois
    Environmental
    Protection
    Agency
    (“illinois
    EPA”)
    is a
    state
    agency.
    Respondent
    further
    states
    that
    415
    ILCS
    5/4
    (2006)
    and
    33 U.S.C.
    1342(b)(7)
    speak
    for themselves,
    and no
    response
    is required.
    3.
    At
    all times
    relevant
    to
    the
    complaint,
    RESPONDENT,
    Mohammad
    Akrabawi,
    d/b/a
    Deerfield
    Crossings
    LLC,
    owned
    and
    operated
    Deerfield
    Crossings,
    LLC
    (“LLC”)
    which
    is
    the owner/developer
    of Deerfield
    Crossings
    Subdivision
    (“Site”).
    The
    Site
    is 147
    acres
    in
    size.
    The
    Site
    is
    located
    at the
    southeast
    quadrant
    of
    the intersection
    of
    Illinois
    Route
    23
    and
    U.S.
    Route
    30 on
    the
    east
    side
    of the
    Village
    of
    Waterman,
    DeKalb
    County,
    Illinois.
    The
    closest
    receiving
    stream
    to
    the Site
    is
    Somonauk
    Creek.
    Response: Respondent
    admits
    that
    it is
    the current
    owner
    and
    operator
    of
    Deerfield
    Crossings,
    LLC,
    which
    is
    the owner/developer
    of Deerfield
    Crossings
    Subdivision.
    Respondent
    further
    admits
    that the
    site
    is approximately
    147 acres
    in
    size,
    located
    in
    the
    vicinity
    of the
    southeast
    quadrant
    of
    the
    intersection
    of
    Illinois
    Route
    23
    and
    U.S.
    Route
    30
    on
    the
    east side
    of
    the Village
    of
    Waterman in DeKalb
    County,
    Illinois.
    Respondent
    does
    not
    have
    sufficient
    information
    to form
    a
    belief
    as the
    remaining factual
    allegations
    in
    paragraph
    3,
    and
    Respondent
    thus
    denies
    the
    same.
    .3\0233543
    2 -
    THIS
    FILING
    IS
    SUBMITTED
    ON
    RECYCLED
    PAPER

    4.
    On
    March
    20,
    2006,
    the
    Illinois
    EPA
    received
    a
    Notice
    of Intent
    for
    general
    permit
    to discharge
    storm
    water
    from
    construction
    site activities from
    Mohammad Akrabawi
    for
    the
    Deerfield
    Crossings Site.
    Response: Respondent
    admits
    that
    on
    March
    10,
    2006
    it sent
    the
    Illinois
    EPA
    a
    Notice
    of
    Intent
    for
    general
    permit
    to discharge
    storm
    water
    from
    construction
    site
    activities from
    Mohammad
    Akrabawi
    for
    the
    Deerfield
    Crossings
    Site.
    5.
    On April
    19,
    2006,
    the
    Illinois
    EPA
    issued
    to
    Deerfleld
    Crossings
    Subdivision
    a
    notice
    of
    coverage for storm
    water
    discharge
    associated
    with construction
    site
    activities
    NPDES
    Permit
    No.
    ILR1OFI94.
    Response:
    Respondent
    admits
    the
    factual
    allegations
    contained
    in
    paragraph
    5.
    6.
    On
    March
    21,
    2007,
    the
    Illinois
    EPA,
    Rockford
    Regional
    Office
    inspected
    the Site
    and
    observed
    the following:
    (a)
    the
    letter
    granting
    coverage
    under
    the
    NPDES
    general
    storm
    water
    permit
    was
    not
    posted
    for
    public
    viewing
    at the
    Site
    as
    required
    by
    the
    permit;
    (b)
    the Site
    lacked
    the
    proper
    sediment
    stabilization
    required
    in
    the
    NPDES
    general
    storm
    water
    permit;
    (c)
    the
    berms
    of the
    detention
    basin
    located
    on
    the
    northern
    portion
    of
    the
    Site,
    and
    the
    discharge
    channel
    leading
    from
    the
    basin
    both
    lacked
    stabilization;
    (d)
    storm
    water
    discharge
    was
    leaving
    the
    basin,
    flowing
    through
    a culvert
    under
    railroad
    tracks
    to
    a
    roadside
    ditch
    and
    into
    Somonauk
    Creek;
    3\0233543
    -
    3 -
    THIS
    FILING
    IS
    SUBMIrrED
    ON
    RECYCLED
    PAPER

    (e)
    a
    portion
    of
    the silt
    fence
    along
    the
    western
    perimeter
    of
    the
    Site
    was
    down;
    and,
    (f)
    a portion
    of the
    silt
    fence
    on
    the
    eastern
    perimeter
    was
    down
    and
    water
    was
    flowing
    off-site,
    over
    the
    downed
    silt fence
    into
    an
    adjacent
    farm.
    Response:
    Respondent
    denies
    the
    allegations
    contained
    in paragraph
    6.
    7.
    On
    June
    27, 2007,
    the
    Illinois
    EPA
    issued
    a violation
    notice
    (“\TN”)
    to Respondent
    citing
    failure
    to
    comply
    with
    terms
    and
    conditions
    of
    the
    NPDES
    general
    storm
    water
    permit
    and
    storm
    water
    violations.
    Response:
    Respondent
    admits
    that
    on
    or
    about
    June
    27,
    2007,
    the
    Illinois
    EPA
    issued
    it
    a
    VN.
    Respondent
    denies
    that
    it failed
    to
    comply
    with
    terms
    and
    conditions
    of the
    NPDES
    general
    storm
    water
    permit
    and further
    denies
    that
    any
    storm
    water
    violations
    occurred
    at
    the
    Site.
    8.
    On
    July
    20,
    2007,
    Respondent
    responded
    to
    the
    VN
    letter
    by
    submitting
    his
    Compliance Comniitment
    Agreement
    (“CCA”).
    Response:
    Respondent
    admits
    that
    allegations
    contained
    in
    paragraph
    8.
    9.
    On August
    22, 2007
    the
    Illinois
    EPA
    rejected
    the
    CCA
    due
    to
    the
    nature
    and
    seriousness
    of
    the
    violations.
    Response: Respondent
    admits
    that
    the
    Illinois
    EPA
    rejected
    the
    CCA.
    Respondent
    does
    not
    have
    sufficient information
    to
    form
    a
    belief
    as the
    remaining
    factual
    allegations
    in
    paragraph
    9,
    and
    Respondent
    thus
    denies
    the
    same.
    10.
    On
    September
    13,
    2007,
    the
    Illinois
    EPA
    conducted
    a
    brief
    follow-up
    inspection
    of
    the Site
    and
    observed
    that
    the
    detention
    outlet
    from
    the
    north
    detention
    pond
    was
    overgrown
    with
    3\0233543
    - 4 -
    THIS
    FILING
    IS
    SUBMITrED
    ON
    RECYCLED
    PAPER

    vegetation,
    observed erosion
    in
    the
    ground
    sloping
    toward
    the
    silt
    fence,
    the
    silt
    fence
    on
    the
    south
    side
    of
    the
    Site
    was
    overgrown
    with
    vegetation
    and
    the
    Site
    as
    a
    whole
    was
    sparsely
    covered
    with
    weeds
    rather
    than
    proper
    ground
    cover.
    The Site
    was
    not
    properly
    stabilized.
    Response: Respondent admits
    that
    on
    or about
    September
    13,
    2007,
    the
    Illinois
    EPA
    conducted
    a
    follow-up
    inspection
    of
    the Site.
    Respondent
    denies
    all
    remaining
    factual
    allegations
    in
    paragraph
    10.
    11.
    On
    February 19, 2008,
    the
    Illinois
    EPA
    sent
    a notice
    of
    intent
    to
    pursue
    legal
    action
    (“NIPL’\”)
    letter
    to
    Respondent.
    Response:
    Respondent
    admits
    that
    sometime
    after
    February
    19, 2008,
    it
    received
    from
    the
    Illinois
    EPA
    the
    NIPLA
    letter.
    In
    so
    admitting,
    Respondent
    does
    not
    admit
    the
    truth
    or veracity
    of
    any
    the allegations
    or
    conclusions
    set
    forth
    in
    the NIPLA.
    12.
    On
    May
    5, 2008,
    the
    Illinois
    EPA
    conducted
    a third
    inspection
    of
    the Site
    and
    again
    observed
    that
    the
    Site
    was
    not
    properly
    stabilized
    and
    that some
    storm
    sewer
    inlets
    were
    chocked
    with
    vegetation
    that
    had
    been
    carried
    to
    the inlet
    by storm
    water.
    Sediment
    controls
    were
    not
    maintained
    and
    ground
    cover
    was
    lacking.
    The
    detention
    pond
    outlet
    was
    “heavily
    silted”
    and
    weeds
    were
    growing
    out
    of
    the grated
    outlet.
    Response:
    Respondent
    admits
    that
    on
    or about
    May
    5,
    2008,
    the
    illinois
    EPA
    conducted
    a
    third
    inspection
    of
    the Site.
    Respondent
    denies
    all remaining
    factual
    allegations
    in
    paragraph
    12.
    13.
    Section
    12(a)
    of
    the Act,
    415
    ILCS
    5/12(a)
    (2006),
    provides
    as
    follows:
    No
    person
    shall:
    .3\0233543
    - 5 -
    THIS
    FILING
    IS
    SUBMITrED
    ON
    RECYCLED
    PAPER

    (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,
    whether
    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.
    Response: The
    Section
    of the
    Act
    cited
    in paragraph
    13 speaks
    for
    itself
    and,
    therefore,
    no
    response
    is
    required.
    14.
    Section
    3.315
    of
    the Act,
    415
    ILCS
    5/3.315
    (2006),
    provides
    as follows:
    “Person”
    is
    any
    individual,
    partnership,
    co—partnership,
    firm,
    company,
    limited
    liability
    company,
    corporation,
    association,
    joint
    stock
    company,
    trust,
    estate,
    political
    subdivision,
    state
    agency
    or any
    other
    legal
    entity,
    or
    their
    legal
    representative,
    agent
    or
    assigns.
    Response:
    The Section
    of
    the
    Act
    cited
    in
    paragraph
    14
    speaks
    for
    itself
    and,
    therefore,
    no
    response
    is
    required.
    15.
    Mr.
    Mohammad
    Akrabawi,
    an individual,
    and
    Deerfield
    Crossings
    LLC
    are
    both
    a
    “person”
    as
    that
    term
    is
    defmed
    in
    Section
    3.315
    of
    the
    Act,
    415
    ILCS
    5/3.315
    (2006).
    Response:
    Paragraph
    15
    consists
    of
    a legal
    conclusion
    to which
    no
    response
    is
    required.
    16.
    Section
    3.545
    of the
    Act,
    415 ILCS
    5/3.545
    (2006),
    provides
    as
    follows:
    “WATER POLLUTION”
    is
    such
    alteration
    of the
    physical,
    thermal,
    chemical,
    biological
    or
    radioactive
    properties
    of any
    waters
    of
    the State,
    as
    will
    or likely
    to
    create
    a
    niisance
    or
    render
    such
    waters
    harmful
    or detrimental
    or
    injurious
    to public
    health,
    safety,
    or
    welfare,
    or
    domestic,
    commercial,
    industrial,
    agricultural,
    recreational,
    or
    other
    legitimate
    uses,
    or
    to
    livestock,
    wild
    animals,
    birds,
    fish,
    or
    other
    aquatic
    life.
    Response:
    The
    Section
    of
    the
    Act
    cited
    in
    paragraph
    16
    speaks
    for
    itself
    and,
    therefore,
    no
    response
    is required.
    .3\0233543
    -
    THIS
    FILING
    IS
    SUBMITTED
    ON
    RECYCLED
    PAPER

    17.
    Section 3.550
    of
    the
    Act,
    415
    ILCS 5/3.550 (2006), provides
    as
    follOws:
    “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
    the
    State.
    Response:
    The Section
    of
    the
    Act
    cited
    in
    paragraph
    17
    speaks
    for
    itself
    and,
    therefore,
    no
    response
    is
    required.
    18.
    The
    detention
    ponds, discharge
    channels,
    and
    Somonauk
    Creek
    are
    “waters,”
    as
    that
    term
    is
    defined
    in Section
    3.550
    of the
    Act,
    415
    ILCS 5/3.550
    (2006).
    Response:
    Paragraph
    18
    consists
    of
    a
    legal
    conclusion
    to
    which
    no
    response
    is
    required.
    19.
    Section
    3.165
    of
    the
    Act,
    415
    ILCS
    5/3.165
    (2006),
    provides
    as
    follows:
    “CONTAMINANT”
    is
    any
    solid,
    liquid,
    or
    gaseous
    matter,
    any
    odor,
    or
    any
    form
    of
    energy,
    from
    whatever
    source.
    Response:
    The
    Section
    of
    the
    Act
    cited
    in
    paragraph
    19
    speaks
    for
    itself
    and,
    therefore,
    no
    response
    is
    required.
    20.
    The
    silt-laden
    storm
    water
    runoff
    from
    the
    Site
    that
    flowed
    into
    the
    detention
    ponds
    and
    eventually
    into
    Somonauk
    Creek
    is
    a
    “contaminant,”
    as
    that
    term
    is
    defined
    by
    Section
    3.165
    of
    the
    Act,
    415
    ILCS
    5/3.165
    (2006).
    Response:
    Paragraph
    20
    consists
    of
    a
    legal
    conclusion
    to
    which
    no
    response
    is
    required.
    21.
    The
    discharge
    of
    contaminants,
    such
    as
    silt-laden
    runoff,
    from
    the
    Site
    into
    waters
    of
    the
    State,
    constitutes
    “water
    pollution,”
    as
    that
    term
    is
    defined
    by
    Section
    3.545
    of
    the
    Act,
    415
    ILCS
    5/3.545
    (2006).
    .3\0233543
    - 7
    -
    THIS
    FILING
    IS
    SUBMITrED
    ON
    RECYCLED
    PAPER

    Response:
    Paragraph
    21
    consists
    of a
    legal
    conclusion
    to
    which
    no
    response
    is
    required.
    22.
    By
    allowing
    disturbed
    soils
    to
    remain
    unstabilized
    and without
    adequate
    erosion
    control
    protection,
    Respondent
    caused,
    threatened
    or
    allowed
    the
    discharge
    of
    contaminants,
    into
    the
    environment.
    Response: Paragraph
    22
    consists
    of
    a
    legal
    conclusion
    to which
    no
    response
    is
    required.
    To
    the extent
    a
    response
    is required,
    Respondent
    denies
    the
    factual
    allegations
    set
    forth
    in
    paragraph
    22.
    23.
    By
    causing,
    threatening
    or
    allowing
    discharge
    of
    contaminants
    into
    the detention
    pond,
    discharge
    channels
    and
    Somonauk
    Creek,
    Respondent
    caused,
    threatened
    or
    allowed
    water
    pollution
    in Illinois,
    in
    violation
    of
    Section
    12(a)
    of the
    Act,
    415
    ILCS
    5/12(a)
    (2006).
    Response:
    Paragraph 23
    consists
    of
    a legal
    conclusions
    to
    which
    no
    response
    is required.
    To
    the
    extent
    a
    response
    is required,
    Respondent
    denies
    the
    factual
    allegations
    set
    forth
    in
    paragraph
    23.
    WHEREFORE,
    Complainant,
    PEOPLE
    OF
    THE
    STATE
    OF ILLINOIS,
    respectfully
    request that the
    Board
    enter
    an
    order
    in
    favor
    of Complainant
    and
    against
    Respondent
    with
    respect
    to
    this Count
    I:
    1.
    Authorizing
    a
    hearing
    in
    this
    matter
    at which
    time
    Respondent
    will
    be
    required
    to
    answer
    the
    allegations
    herein;
    2.
    Finding
    that
    Respondent has
    violated
    Section
    12(a)
    of the
    Act,
    415
    ILCS
    5/12(a)
    (2006);
    .3\0233543
    8-
    THIS
    FILING
    IS
    SUI3MITI’ED
    ON
    RECYCLED
    PAPER

    3.
    Ordering
    Respondent
    to
    cease
    and desist
    from any
    further
    violations
    of
    Section
    12(a)
    of
    the Act,
    415
    ILCS
    5/12(a)
    (2006).
    4.
    Assessing
    against
    the
    Respondent
    a
    civil
    penalty
    of
    Fifty
    Thousand
    Dollars
    ($50,000.00)
    each
    for
    each
    and every
    violation
    of
    the
    Act, with
    an additional
    penalty
    of
    Ten
    Thousand
    Dollars
    ($10,000.00)
    against
    the
    Respondent
    for
    each
    day of
    violation;
    5.
    Ordering
    Respondent
    to implement
    adequate
    erosion
    control
    protection
    measures;
    6.
    Ordering
    Respondent
    to pay
    all costs
    including
    attorney,
    expert
    witness
    and
    consultant
    fees
    expended
    by
    the
    State
    in its pursuit
    of
    this
    action;
    and
    7.
    Granting
    such relief
    as
    the Board
    deems
    appropriate
    and
    just.
    Response:
    Paragraphs
    I
    through
    7 of
    the Prayer
    for
    Relief
    contain
    legal
    conclusions
    and
    requests
    for
    relief
    to which
    no
    response
    is required.
    Respondent
    denies
    that Petitioner
    is entitled
    to
    the
    relief
    requested.
    COUNT
    II
    CREATING
    A
    WATER
    POLLUTION
    HAZARD
    1-22.
    Complainant
    realleges
    and
    incorporates
    by
    reference
    herein
    paragraph
    I through
    22
    of
    Count
    I
    as
    paragraphs
    I
    through
    22 of
    this
    Count
    II.
    Response:
    Respondent
    incorporates
    by reference
    its
    responses
    to
    paragraph
    I through
    22
    of Count
    I
    as if fully
    set
    forth
    herein.
    23.
    Section
    12(d)
    of
    the Act,
    415
    ILCS
    ILCS
    5/12(d)
    (2006),
    provides
    as
    follows:
    No
    person
    shall:
    3\0233543
    - 9 -
    THIS
    FILING
    IS
    SUBMITTED
    ON
    RECYCLED
    PAPER

    ***
    *
    (d)
    Deposit
    any
    contaminants
    upon
    the
    land
    in
    such
    place
    and
    manner
    so
    as
    to
    create
    a
    water
    pollution
    hazard.
    Response:
    The
    Section
    of
    the
    Act
    cited
    in
    paragraph
    23
    speaks
    for
    itself
    and,
    therefore,
    no
    response
    is
    required.
    24.
    By
    grading
    the
    entire
    147
    acres
    site
    without
    first
    implementing
    adequate
    erosion
    controls,
    Respondent
    allowed
    silt
    to
    be
    deposited
    and
    remain
    exposed
    at
    the
    Site
    in
    such
    place
    and
    manner
    as
    to
    create
    a
    water
    pollution
    hazard,
    in
    violation
    of
    Section
    12(d)
    of
    the
    Act,
    415
    ILCS
    5/12(d)
    (2006).
    Response:
    Paragraph
    24
    consists
    of
    a
    legal
    conclusion
    to
    which
    no
    response
    is
    required.
    To
    the
    extent
    a
    response
    is
    required,
    Respondent
    denies
    the
    factual
    allegations
    set
    forth
    in
    paragraph
    24.
    WHEREFORE,
    Complainant,
    PEOPLE
    OF
    THE
    STATE
    OF
    ILLINOIS,
    respectfully
    requests
    that
    the
    Board
    enter
    an
    order
    in
    favor
    of
    Complainant
    and
    against
    Respondent
    with
    respect
    to
    this
    Count
    II:
    1.
    Authorizing
    a
    hearing
    in
    this
    matter
    at
    which
    time
    Respondent
    will
    be
    required
    to
    answer
    the
    allegations
    herein;
    2.
    Finding
    that
    Respondent
    has
    violated
    Section
    12(d)
    of
    the
    Act,
    415
    ILCS
    5/12(d)
    (2006);
    3.
    Ordering
    Respondent
    to
    cease
    and
    desist
    from
    any
    further
    violations
    of
    Section
    12(d)
    of
    the
    Act,
    415
    ILCS
    5/12(d)
    (2006);
    .3\0233543
    -
    1() -
    THIS
    FILING
    IS
    SUBMITTED
    ON
    RECYCLED PAPER

    4.
    Assessing
    against
    the
    Respondent
    a
    civil
    penalty
    of
    Fifty
    Thousand
    Dollars
    ($50,000.00) each
    for
    each
    and
    every
    violation
    of the
    Act,
    with
    an additional penalty
    of Ten
    Thousand
    Dollars
    ($10,000.00)
    per
    day
    for
    each
    day
    violation;
    5.
    Ordering Respondent
    to
    implement
    adequate
    erosion
    control
    measures;
    6.
    Ordering Respondent
    to
    pay
    all costs
    including
    attorney,
    expert
    witness
    and
    consultant
    fees
    expended
    by
    the State
    in
    its pursuit
    of
    this action;
    and
    7.
    Granting
    such
    relief
    as the
    Board
    deems
    appropriate and just.
    Response:
    Paragraphs
    I through
    7
    of the
    Prayer
    for
    Relief
    contain
    legal
    conclusions
    and
    requests
    for
    relief
    to
    which
    no
    response
    is
    required.
    Respondent denies
    that
    Petitioner
    is entitled
    to
    the
    relief
    requested.
    COUNT
    III
    VIOLATION OF
    NPDES
    PERMIT
    1-22.
    Complainant
    realleges
    and
    incorporates
    by
    reference
    herein
    paragraph
    I
    through
    22
    of
    Count
    II as paragraphs
    I through
    22
    of
    this Count
    III.
    Response:
    Respondent
    incorporates
    by
    reference
    its responses
    to
    paragraph
    I through
    22
    of
    Count
    II
    as
    if
    frilly
    set forth
    herein.
    23.
    Section
    12(f)
    of
    the
    Act,
    415 ILCS
    5/12(f)
    (2006),
    provides
    as
    follows:
    No
    person
    shall:
    **
    *
    *
    .3\0233543
    - 11 -
    THIS
    FILING
    IS SUBMITTED
    ON
    RECYCLED
    PAPER

    (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
    of
    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.
    Response:
    The
    Section
    of the
    Act cited
    in
    paragraph
    23
    speaks
    for
    itself
    and,
    therefore,
    no
    response
    is
    required.
    24.
    Section 309.102(a)
    of the Board
    Water
    Pollution
    Regulations,
    35
    III.
    Adm.
    Code
    309.102(a),
    titled,
    NPDES
    Permit
    Required,
    provides
    as follows:
    a.
    Except
    as
    in
    compliance
    with
    the
    provisions
    of the
    Act, Board
    regulations
    and the
    CWA,
    and the
    provisions
    and
    conditions
    of
    the
    NPDES
    permit
    issued
    to
    the discharger,
    the discharge
    of any contaminant
    or pollutant
    by any
    person
    into the waters
    of the
    State from
    a point
    source or
    into
    a
    well
    shall
    be
    unlawful.
    Response:
    The
    Section of the
    Act cited
    in
    paragraph
    24
    speaks for
    itself
    and,
    therefore,
    no
    response
    is
    required.
    25.
    Respondent’s
    General
    NPDES
    Permit
    for
    Storm Water
    Discharges
    from
    Construction
    Site Activities
    No. ILR1OFI94,
    Part
    IV. D.2(a)
    provides
    in
    pertinent
    part
    as follows:
    “...stabilization measures
    shall
    be initiated
    as
    soon as practicable
    in
    portions
    of the
    site
    where construction
    activities
    have
    temporarily
    or permanently
    ceased,
    but in
    no
    case
    more
    than 14
    days
    after
    the
    construction
    activity
    in
    that portion
    of
    the site has
    temporarily
    or permanently
    ceased.”
    Response:
    The
    Section
    of the
    General
    NPDES
    Permit
    for
    Storm Water
    Discharges
    from
    Construction
    Site Activities
    cited in
    paragraph
    25
    speaks for
    itself
    and,
    therefore,
    no response
    is
    required.
    .3\0233543
    -
    12-
    THIS
    FILING IS SUBMITTED
    ON
    RECYCLED
    PAPER

    26.
    During
    the
    September
    13,
    2007
    inspection,
    the
    Illinois
    EPA
    inspector
    observed
    that
    oniy
    two houses
    on the
    147 acre
    site were
    built
    and the
    remaining
    areas
    of
    the
    Site
    remained
    dormant
    as of
    May
    2008,
    and
    the Site
    was
    not stabilized
    even
    though
    construction
    activity
    had
    ceased.
    Stabilization
    measures
    should
    have
    been
    initiated
    within
    14
    days of
    the cessation
    of
    construction
    activities
    as required
    by
    NPDES
    Permit
    No. ILR10
    Part
    IV.D.2(a).
    Response:
    Paragraph
    26
    consists
    of
    a
    legal
    conclusion
    to which
    no
    response
    is requird.
    To
    the extent
    a
    response
    is required,
    Respondent
    denies
    the
    factual
    allegations
    set forth
    in
    paragraph
    26.
    27.
    Failure
    to stabilize
    the
    Site
    as
    soon
    as
    possible
    in portions
    of
    the
    Site
    where
    construction
    activities
    had ceased
    is a
    violation
    of
    NPDES
    Permit
    ILRIOFI94
    and also
    a
    violation
    of Section
    309.102(a)
    of the Board
    Water
    Pollution
    Regulations,
    35 III.
    Adm. Code
    309.102(a).
    Response:
    Paragraph
    27 consists
    of
    a legal
    conclusion
    to which
    no
    response
    is required.
    To
    the
    extent
    a response
    is required,
    Respondent
    denies
    the factual
    allegations
    set
    forth in
    paragraph
    27.
    28.
    By
    failing
    to take
    stabilization
    measures
    as
    called
    for
    by
    NPDES
    Permit
    No.
    ILRIOF194
    Part
    IV.D.2(a),
    at
    its
    construction
    site,
    Respondent
    violated
    35
    III.
    Adm.
    Code
    309.l02(a)
    and
    Section
    12(f)
    of
    the Act,
    415
    ILCS
    5/12(f)
    (2006).
    Response:
    Paragraph
    28 consists
    of a
    legal
    conclusion
    to which
    no
    response
    is
    required.
    To the
    extent
    a
    response
    is
    required,
    Respondent
    denies
    the factual
    allegations
    set forth
    in
    paragraph
    28.
    .3\0233543
    - 13 -
    THIS
    FILING
    IS
    SUBMIrrED
    ON
    RECYCLED
    PAPER

    WHEREFORE,
    Complainant,
    PEOPLE
    OF
    THE
    STATE
    OF
    ILLINOIS,
    respectfully
    request
    that
    the
    Board
    enter an
    order
    in
    favor
    of Complainant
    and
    against
    Respondent
    with
    respect
    to this
    Count
    III:
    1.
    Authorizing
    a hearing
    in
    this
    matter
    at which
    time
    Respondent
    will
    be required
    to
    answer
    the
    allegations
    herein;
    2.
    Finding
    that
    Respondent
    has
    violated
    Section
    12(f)
    of the
    Act,
    415
    ILCS
    5/12(f)
    (2006),
    and
    35 III.
    Adm.
    Code 309.102(a);
    3.
    Ordering
    Respondent
    to cease
    and desist
    from
    any
    further
    violations
    of Section
    12(f)
    of the Act,
    415
    ILCS
    5/12(f)
    (2006),
    Section
    309.102(a)
    of
    the Board
    Water
    Pollution
    Regulations,
    35
    Ill. Adm.
    Code
    309.102(a),
    and
    NPDES
    permit
    conditions;
    4.
    Assessing
    a civil
    penalty
    of Ten
    Thousand
    Dollars
    ($10,000.00)
    per
    day
    of violation
    for each
    day
    of
    violating
    Section
    12(f)
    of the
    Act,
    415
    ILCS
    5/12
    (f) and
    35
    III. Adm.
    Code
    30
    9
    .l02(a)
    of
    the
    Board
    Water
    Pollution
    Regulations,
    35 III. Adm.
    Code 309.102(a);
    5.
    Ordering
    Respondent
    to
    implement
    adequate
    erosion
    control
    and
    protection
    measures;
    6.
    Ordering
    Respondent
    to pay
    all
    costs
    including
    attorney,
    expert
    witness
    and
    consultant
    fees expended
    by
    the
    State
    in its
    pursuit
    of this
    action;
    and
    7.
    Granting
    such
    relief
    as the
    Board
    deems
    appropriate
    and just.
    .3\0233543
    - 14 -
    THIS
    FILING
    IS
    SUBMITI’ED ON RECYCLED
    PAPER

    Response:
    Paragraphs I through 7 of the
    Prayer
    for Relief contain legal
    conclusions and
    requests for relief to
    which
    no
    response is required.
    Respondent denies that
    Petitioner is entitled to
    the
    relief
    requested.
    COUNT IV
    NPDES PERMIT VIOLATION- FAILURE TO POST
    NOTIFICATION OF
    COVERAGE
    1-22. Complainant
    realleges and incorporates
    by reference herein paragraphs 1 through 22
    of
    Count
    III
    as
    paragraphs I through 22 of this Count IV.
    Response: Respondent incorporates
    by
    reference
    its responses to paragraph I through
    22
    of Count III as if fully set forth herein.
    23.
    Part ILD.2 of NPDES Permit
    #ILRIOFI94 provides
    as follows:
    A copy of the letter of notification
    of coverage
    or other indication that
    storm water
    discharges
    from the site are
    covered under an NPDES
    permit shall
    be posted
    at the
    site in
    a prominent place for
    public viewing
    (such as alongside a building
    permit).
    Response: The
    Section of the General
    NPDES Permit
    for Storm
    Water Discharges
    from
    Construction
    Site Activities
    cited
    in paragraph
    23 speaks for
    itself and,
    therefore, no response
    is
    required.
    24.
    During
    the March
    21, 2007
    inspection,
    a copy of
    the letter
    of notification
    of
    coverage
    was not
    posted
    at the Site.
    Response:
    Respondent
    denies
    the allegations
    contained
    in paragraph
    24.
    25.
    By
    failing
    to
    post the
    notification
    of
    coverage,
    Respondent violated
    Part
    II.D.2
    of
    NPDES Permit
    No.
    1LR10F194.
    .3\0233543
    -
    15 -
    THIS
    FILING
    IS
    SUBMITTED
    ON RECYCLED
    PAPER

    Response:
    Paragraph
    25
    consists
    of
    a
    legal
    conclusions
    to
    which
    no
    response
    is
    required.
    To
    the
    extent
    a
    response
    is
    required,
    Respondent
    denies
    the
    factual
    allegations
    set
    forth
    in
    paragraph
    25.
    26.
    By
    violating
    Part
    ILD.2
    of
    the
    NPDES
    Permit
    No.
    ILRIOFI94,
    Respondent
    also
    violated
    Section
    12(f)
    of
    the
    Act,
    415
    ILCS
    5/12(f)(2006)
    and
    Section
    309.102(a)
    of
    the
    Board
    Water
    Pollution
    Regulations,
    35
    III.
    Adm.
    Code
    309.102(a).
    Response:
    Paragraph
    26
    consists
    of
    a
    legal
    conclusion
    to
    which
    no
    response
    is
    required.
    WHEREFORE,
    Complainant,
    PEOPLE
    OF
    THE
    STATE
    OF
    ILLINOIS,
    respectfully
    requests
    that
    the
    Board
    enter
    an
    order
    against
    the
    Respondent
    Mohammad
    Akrabawi,
    on
    this
    Count
    IV:
    1.
    Authorizing
    a
    hearing
    in
    this
    matter
    at
    which
    time
    the
    Respondent
    Mohammad
    Akrabawi
    will
    be
    required
    to
    answer
    the
    allegations
    herein;
    2.
    Finding
    that
    the
    Respondent
    has
    violated
    Part
    II.D.2
    of
    its
    NPDES
    Permit
    No.
    ILRIOFI94
    Permit,
    Section
    12(f)
    of
    the
    Act,
    415
    ILCS
    5/12(f)(2006),
    and
    Section
    309.102(a)
    of
    the
    Board
    Water
    Pollution
    Regulations,
    35
    III.
    Adm.
    Code
    309.102(a);
    3.
    Ordering
    the
    Respondent
    to
    cease
    and
    desist
    from
    any
    further
    violations
    of
    Part
    II.D.2
    of
    its
    NPDES
    Permit
    No.
    ILRIOFI94,
    Section
    12(f)
    of
    the
    Act,
    415
    ILCS
    5/12(f)(2006),and
    Section
    309.102(a)
    of
    the
    Board
    Water
    Pollution
    Regulations,
    35
    III.
    Adm.
    Code
    309.102(a);
    4.
    Assessing
    against
    the
    Respondent,
    pursuant
    to
    Section
    42(b)(1)
    of
    the
    Act,
    a
    civil
    penalty
    of
    Ten
    Thousand
    Dollars
    ($10,000.00)
    for
    each
    day
    of
    each
    violation
    of
    Section
    12(f)
    of
    the
    Act
    and
    35
    III.
    Adm.
    Code
    309.102(a);
    .3\0233543
    - 16 -
    THIS
    FILING
    IS
    SUBMITTED
    ON
    RECYCLED
    PAPER

    5.
    Ordering the
    Respondent, pursuant
    to Section
    42(f) of the Act, 415 ILCS
    5/42(f)
    (2006), to
    pay all costs expended
    by the State in its
    pursuit of this
    action,
    including
    attorney,
    expert
    witness,
    and consultant
    fees; and
    6.
    Granting
    such other relief
    as the
    Board
    deems
    appropriate and
    just.
    Response:
    Paragraphs I through
    7
    of the
    Prayer
    for
    Relief
    contain legal conclusions
    and
    requests
    for relief
    to which no
    response is required.
    Respondent
    denies that
    Petitioner is
    entitled
    to
    the
    relief requested.
    COUNT
    V
    NPDES
    PERMIT
    VIOLATION-
    FAILURE
    TO
    HAVE
    STORM
    WATER
    POLLUTION
    PREVENTION
    PLAN
    AVAILABLE
    AT THE
    SITE
    1-22.
    Complainant
    realleges
    and incorporates
    by
    reference
    herein
    paragraphs
    1
    through
    22
    of
    Count
    IV as
    paragraphs I
    through 22
    of this Count
    V.
    Response:
    Respondent
    incorporates
    by reference
    its
    responses
    to paragraph
    1
    through
    22
    of
    Count IV
    as
    if fully
    set forth
    herein.
    23.
    Part
    IV.B.1
    of NPDES
    Permit
    #ILRIOFI94
    provides
    as
    follows:
    Part IV.
    Storm
    water
    Pollution
    Prevention
    Plans
    ***
    *
    The
    plan
    shall
    be signed
    in
    accordance
    with
    Part
    \TLG
    (Signatory
    Requirements),
    and
    be
    retained
    on-site
    at the
    facility
    which
    generates
    the
    storm
    water
    discharge
    in
    accordance
    with
    Part
    VLE
    (Duty
    to Provide
    Information)
    of this
    permit.
    .3\0233543
    -
    17 -
    THIS
    FILING IS
    SUBMIrTED
    ON
    RECYCLED
    PAPER

    Response:
    The
    Section
    of
    the
    General
    NPDES
    Permit
    for
    Storm
    Water
    Discharges
    from
    Construction
    Site
    Activities
    cited
    in
    paragraph
    23
    speaks
    for
    itself
    and,
    therefore,
    no
    response
    is
    required.
    24.
    During
    the
    March
    21,
    2007
    inspection,
    Respondent
    did
    not
    maintain
    on
    Site
    a
    copy
    of
    the
    Stormwater
    Pollution
    Prevention
    Plan
    as
    required
    by
    NPDES
    Permit.
    Response:
    Respondent
    denies
    the
    allegations
    contained
    in
    paragraph
    24.
    25.
    By
    failing
    to
    retain
    and
    post
    at
    the
    Site
    a
    copy
    of
    the
    Stormwater
    Pollution
    Prevention
    Plan,
    Respondent
    Akrabawi
    violated
    Part
    IV.B.1
    of
    NPDES
    Permit
    ILRIOFI94.
    Response:
    Paragraph
    25
    consists
    of
    a
    legal
    conclusion
    to
    which
    no
    response
    is
    required.
    To
    the
    extent
    a
    response
    is
    required,
    Respondent
    denies
    the
    factual
    allegations
    set
    forth
    in
    paragraph
    25.
    26.
    By
    violating
    Part
    IV.B.1
    of
    NPDES
    Permit
    #JLRIOF194,
    Respondent
    violated
    Section
    12(f)
    of
    the
    Act,
    415
    ILCS
    5/12(f)(2006)
    and
    Section
    309.102(a)
    of
    the
    Board
    Water
    Pollution
    Regulations,
    35
    III.
    Adm.
    Code
    309.102(a)(2006).
    Response:
    Paragraph
    26
    consists
    of
    a
    legal
    conclusions
    to
    which
    no
    response
    is
    required.
    WHEREFORE,
    Complainant,
    PEOPLE
    OF
    THE
    STATE
    OF
    ILLINOIS,
    respectfully
    requests
    that
    the
    Board
    enter
    an
    order
    against
    the
    Respondent,
    on
    this
    Count
    V:
    1.
    Authorizing
    a
    hearing
    in
    this
    matter
    at
    which
    time
    the
    Respondent
    will
    be
    required
    to
    answer
    the
    allegations
    herein;
    .3\0233543
    - 18
    -
    THIS
    FILING
    IS
    SUBMITTED
    ON
    RECYCLED PAPER

    2.
    Finding that
    the Respondent
    has violated Part
    IV.B.1 of NPDES
    Permit
    #1LR10F194,
    Section 12(f)
    of the
    Act,
    415 ILCS 5/12(f)(2006),
    and Section 309.102(a)
    of
    the Board
    Water
    Pollution Regulations,
    35
    III. Adm.
    Code 309.102(a);
    3.
    Ordering the Respondent
    to
    cease and desist from
    any further violations of
    Part
    IV.B.1 of the General
    Stormwater Permit,
    Section 12(f)
    of the Act, 415 ILCS
    5/12(f) (2006),
    and
    Section
    309.102(a)
    of the Board Water Pollution
    Regulations,
    35
    III.
    Adm. Code 309.102(a);
    4.
    Assessing
    against
    the
    Respondent,
    pursuant
    to Section 42(b)(1)
    of the Act,
    a civil
    penalty of
    Ten Thousand
    Dollars ($10,000.00)
    for each
    day of each
    violation
    of
    Section 12(f)
    of
    the
    Act
    and 35 III.
    Adm. Code 309.102(a);
    5.
    Ordering
    the Respondent,
    pursuant
    to Section
    42(f)
    of the Act,
    415
    ILCS
    5/42(f)
    (2006),
    to pay all
    costs expended
    by the State in its
    pursuit
    of this action,
    including
    attorney,
    expert
    witness,
    and consultant
    fees; and
    6.
    Granting
    such other relief
    as
    the Board
    deems
    appropriate
    and
    just.
    Response: Paragraphs
    I
    through 7 of
    the Prayer
    for Relief
    contain
    legal
    conclusions
    and
    requests
    for
    relief
    to which
    no
    response
    is required.
    Respondent
    denies
    that Petitioner
    is
    entitled
    to
    the
    relief
    requested.
    .3\0233543
    - 19-
    THIS
    FILING
    IS
    SUBMIrrED
    ON RECYCLED
    PAPER

    DATE:
    August
    26,
    2009
    Respectfully
    submitted,
    MOHAMMAD
    AKRABAWI,
    d/b/a
    DEERFIELD
    CROSSINGS,
    LLC
    By:______
    Francis
    X.
    Lyons
    Allyson
    Wilcox
    (lson
    Bryan
    Cave
    LLP
    161
    North
    Clark
    Street
    Suite
    4300
    Chicago,
    Illinois
    60601-3715
    Telephone:
    312-602-5057
    Facsimil
    .
    312-698-7457
    CERTIFICATE
    OF SERVICE
    I,
    Francis
    X.
    Lyons,
    an Attorney,
    do
    certify
    that
    I caused
    to
    be
    served
    on
    this
    26
    th
    day
    of
    August
    2009,
    the
    foregoing
    Notice
    of Filing,
    and
    an Answer
    to Complaint,
    upon:
    Zemeheret
    Bereket-AB
    Assistant
    Attorney
    General
    Environmental
    Bureau
    69
    West
    Washington
    Street
    18th
    Floor
    Chicago,
    Illinois
    60602
    (312)
    814-3816
    Division
    Chief
    of Environmental
    Enforcement
    Office
    of the
    Attorney
    General
    69
    West
    Washington
    Street
    18th
    Floor
    Chicago,
    Iffinois
    60602
    (312)
    814-3816
    Illinois
    Pollution
    Control
    Board
    Attn:
    Clerk
    James
    R.
    Thompson
    Center
    100
    West
    Randolph
    Street
    Suite 11-500
    Chicago,
    Illinois
    60601
    via U.S.
    Mail
    by
    placing
    same
    in an
    envelope
    bearing
    sufficient
    postage
    with
    the
    United
    States
    Postal
    Service
    located
    at
    161
    North
    Clark
    Street,
    Chicago,
    Illinois.
    .3\0233543
    By:
    Francis
    X.
    Lyo
    -
    20 -
    THIS
    FILING
    IS
    SUBMITTED
    ON
    RECYCLED
    PAPER

    Back to top