)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
NOTICE OF
FILING
TO:
Gregory
E. Cox,
Esq.
Attorney
for
Village
of
Rockton
Nicolosi
&
Associates,
LLC
363 Financial
Court,
Suite
100
Rockford,
Illinois
61107-6671
Clerk
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
James
R.
Thompson
Center
100W.
Randolph
Street,
Ste.
11-500
Chicago,
Illinois
60601
PLEASE
TAKE
NOTICE
that
I have
today
filed
with
the
Office
of
the
Clerk
of
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
an
original and nine
copies
of
the Stipulation
and
Proposal
for
Settlement,
an
Agreed
Motion
for Relief
from
the Hearing
Requirement,
Notice
of Filing
and
a
Certificate
of Service,
a copy
of
which
is
attached
herewith
and
served
upon
you.
Respectfully submitted,
PEOPLE
OF
THE
STATE
OF ILLINOIS
DATE:
September
28,
2009
LISA
MADIGAN
Attorney
General
State
of
Illinois
BY: SM1LL4I14
ZEMEHERET
BEREKET-AB
Environmental
Bureau
Assistant
Attorney
General
69
W.
Washington
St.,
Suite
1800
Chicago,
Illinois
60602
(312)
814-3816
BEFORE
THE
ILLINOIS
PEOPLE
OF
THE
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS,
LISA
MADIGAN,
Attorney
General
of
the
State
of
Illinois,
Complainant,
vs.
VILLAGE
OF
ROCKTON,
Respondent.
CEVED
POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
CLKS
OFFICE
SEP
2 82009
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS
OIItion
Control
Board
)
PCBNo.09-104
)
(Enforcement
-
Water)
THIS
FILING
IS
SUBMITTED ON
RECYCLED
PAPER
BEFORE
THE
ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
PEOPLE
OF
THE
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS,
)
LISA
MADIGAN,
Attorney
General
)
of
the
State
of Illinois,
)
‘-
282009
STArE
F
ILL
INOi
Complainant,
)
OIIuto
Control
Bod
)
vs.
)
PCB
No.
09-104
)
(Enforcement
-
Water)
VILLAGE
OF
ROCKTON,
)
)
Respondent.
)
AGREED
MOTION
TO
REQUEST
RELIEF
FROM
THE
HEARING
REQUIREMENT
In
support
of this Motion,
the parties
state
as follows:
1.
Today,
the
People
of the State
of
Illinois, filed
a Stipulation
and Proposal
for
Settlement,
with the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board.
2.
Section
31
(c)(2)
of
the Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Act,
(“Act”), 415
ILCS
5/3
1(c)(2)(2008)
provides:
Notwithstanding
the
provisions
of subdivision
(1)
of this subsection
(c),
whenever
a complaint
has
been filed
on
behalf
of
the
Agency
or
by
the People
of
the
State of
Illinois,
the
parties
may
file with the
Board a
stipulation
and proposal
for
settlement
accompanied
by a request
for relief
from the
requirement
of a hearing
pursuant
to
subdivision
(1)....
3.
Complainant
and Respondent
agree
that
a formal
hearing
is
not
necessary
to
conclude
this matter
and wish
to avail
themselves
of Section
31 (c)(2) of
the
Act,
415 ILCS
5/31(c)(2)(2008).
WHEREFORE,
Complainant
and
Respondent
request
relief from
the
hearing
requirement
pursuant
to Section
31(c)(2)
of the
Act,
415 ILCS
5/31(c)(2)(2008).
Respectfully
submitted,
PEOPLE
OF
THE
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS
LISA
MADIGAN
Attorney
General
State of
Illinois
MATTHEW
J.
DU1’N,
Chief
Environmental
Enforcement!
Asbestos
Litigation
Division
BY:
ZEMEHERET
BEREKET-AB
Environmental
Bureau
Assistant
Attorney
General
69
W.
Washington
St.,
Suite
1800
Chicago,
illinois
60602
(312)
814-3816
DATE:
September
28,
2009
G:\Environmental
Enforcement\Z
BEREKET-AB\VILLAGE
OF
ROCKTON\Agreed
Mot to Req
Relief 9-28-09.doc
CLERK’S
BEFORE
THE
ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
SEP28
2009
PEOPLE OF
THE
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS,
)
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS
Complainant,
)
POflton
Control
Ba
)
v.
)
PCB
NO.
09-104
)
(Enforcement
- Water)
VILLAGE OF
ROCKTON,
)
)
Respondent.
)
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
Village
of
Rockton
(“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.
(2008),
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
April
30,
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 (2008),
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 (2008).
3.
At all times
relevant
to
the
Complaint,
Respondent
was and
is an Illinois
municipal
corporation
that
is
authorized
to transact
business
in the State
of
Illinois.
4.
At all
times relevant
to the
Complaint,
Rockton
owned
and
operated
a waste water
treatment
plant
(“WWTP”)
located
at 718
West
Union
Street,
Rockton,
Illinois,
Winnebago
County
(“Site”),
which
operates
under
NPDES
Permit
No.
1L0030791.
The
NPDES
permit was
issued
on
September
19,
2004, and
will
expire
on September
30,
2009. The
WWTP
operations
include a lift
station—River
Street
lift
station located
along
the Rock
River in
Rockton.
5.
The
River
Street
lift
station
pumps
untreated
sewage from
local residents
to
Rockton’s
WWTP.
The
receiving
waters
for
Rockton’s
effluent
discharge
is
the Rock
River.
6.
On July
23,
2007, the
Illinois
EPA Bureau
of
Water,
Rockford
Regional
Office
received
a
complaint
from an
employee
of the Rockton
hydroelectric
plant
of
a sewage
discharge
to
the
Rock
River from
the River
Street lift
station.
7.
The
Complainant
had
in turn
received
a
discharge report
from
a
fisherman
who
had
been
boating
on the Rock
River. The
Illinois
EPA
also
received
a
report
about
the
discharge
of
sewage
from
the
Chief
Operator
of
the Rockton
WWTP.
8.
On
July
23, 2007,
the Illinois
EPA inspected
both
the Rockton
hydroelectric
plant
and the
River
Street lift
station.
2
9.
The Illinois
EPA observed
wet paper,
fecal
matter
and
other
sewage
debris
below
the 8-inch
diameter
bypass
overflow
on the
bank
of
the
Rock
River
at
the base
of
the
lift
station
overflow
discharge
point.
10.
The
Illinois
EPA
also
observed
that
the
pumps
at the River
Street
lift
station
were
plugged
with
discarded
clothing
that
wound
around
the
pump
impellors
making
the pumps
ineffective.
The conduit
for
the telephone
line for
the
automatic
alarm
dialer
system
had
also
been damaged
and the
line disconnected
thereby
making
the
telephone
alarm
system
inoperable.
The lift
station
had
no
fencing
around
it
to
limit
access
to the
equipment.
11.
On
July
26,
2007,
the Illinois
EPA
re-inspected
the lift
station
and
observed
that
the
pumps
had been
cleaned
and
restored
to
full
service
and
that the
alarm
system
telephone
line
had
been reinstalled
in a
heavy
pipe conduit
as
was the
conduit
for the
float
pumps.
All
four
lift
station
control
floats
were replaced
with new
floats.
12.
The
Illinois
EPA
also
observed
that
the
alarm
light
and
horn
were
moved
and
reinstalled
on
a
metal
utility
pole
where
they could
be
observed
from
the street
and
nearby
residence.
13.
On
July
27, 2007,
the
Illinois
EPA
received
a
written
notice
of noncompliance
from
Rockton’s
engineers
regarding
the
situation
at the River
Street
lift
station.
14.
On
September 13, 2007,
the
Illinois
EPA
sent
to Rockton
a
Violation
Notice
(“VN”)
pursuant
to
Section
31(a)(l)
of
the
Act,
415
ILCS 5/31(a)(1)
(2008).
15.
On
October
1,
2007,
Rockton
responded
to the
VN
and proposed
its
Compliance
Commitment
Agreement
(“CCA”).
16.
On
November
21,
2007
the
Illinois
EPA
rejected
Rockton’s
CCA.
3
17.
On
April
21, 2008, the
Illinois EPA sent
to
Rockton a
Notice of
Intent to
Pursue
Legal Action pursuant
to
Section
3
1(b) of the
Act,
415 ILCS
5/31(b) (2008).
B.
Allegations of
Non-Compliance
Complainant
contends that
the
Respondent
has violated
the following
provisions
of the
Act
and
Board
regulations:
Count
I:
Cause,
Threaten
or Allow Water
Pollution in violation
of
Section
12(a)
of the
Act,
415 ILCS
5/12(a)
(2008);
Count
II:
Failure to Provide a
Reliable Alarm
System in violation
of 35 Ill.
Adm.
Code 306.102(a) and
Section
12(a)
of the Act, 415 ILCS
5/12(a) (2008);
Count III:
Failure to Control
Overflow in
violation of 35 Iii.
Adm. Code
306.304 and Section
12(a)
of
the
Act, 415 ILCS 5/12(a)
(2008).
C.
Non
-Admission
of Violations
The
Respondent
represents
that it has entered into
this
Stipulation
for the purpose of
settling
and
compromising
disputed
claims without
having
to incur
the expense
of contested
litigation. By
entering into
this Stipulation
and
complying
with its terms,
the
Respondent
does
not
affirmatively
admit
the
allegations of
violation within the
Complaint
and referenced
within
Section I.B
herein,
and this
Stipulation shall not
be
interpreted
as including such
admission.
D.
Compliance
Activities
to Date
Respondent
has
completed
the
following compliance
activities to
date:
1.
Float switches
were
checked. One displayed
an intermittent failure.
It was
determined
that as long
as
the electrician
was on
site, all four float switches
would be replaced.
A
new
junction
box for
the
float switches
was
located
outside
of
the wet well in a
buried location
to
prevent
possible
future
tampering with float
cables.
4
2.
The
pumper
truck
was
utilized
to remove
all of
the
floating
materials and
settled
grit from
the
wet
well.
3.
The
telephone
lines
were
reconnected
and
the
conduit
and
junction
box
relocated
to the
electric
service
pole
to
minimize
the
potential
for future
damage.
The
conduit
was
replaced
with
rigid
conduit.
4.
Pumps
and
check
valves
were
checked
for
foreign
materials.
Both
pump
impellers
had
significant
amounts
of
rags
and
debris.
It
appeared
that
a pair
of
blue
jeans
was
wrapped
around
one
of the
impellers.
All
debris
was
removed
from
the
pumps.
The
check
valves
were
disassembled
and
checked
for debris.
Both
check
valves
had
significant amounts
of
debris
in
the
seat
area
and
around
the
shaft.
The debris
was
removed
and
while
the valves
were
disassembled,
new
roll pins
were
installed.
Pumping
rates
were
checked
and the
pumps
are
pumping
at
normal
rates.
5.
The
telephone
dialer
was
checked
and
was
functioning
properly;
it had
simply
not
been
able
to
notify
staff
with
the
telephone
wires
disconnected.
6.
Visual
(warning
light)
and
audible
(horn)
alarms
were
reconnected
and tested.
Both
are
operational.
Respondent
contends
that
it is
uncertain
that
wastewater
was
discharged
to
the
river,
as
no
wastewater
was
observed
being
discharged
and
no
one personally
witnessed
wastewater
being
discharged.
The pump
station
is
now
operating
at full
capacity,
and all
of the
known
problems
have
been
addressed.
The
Village
has
spent
$29,850
in installing
new
security
measures.
5
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
(2008).
III.
IMPACT
ON
THE
PUBLIC
RESULTING
FROM
ALLEGED
NON-COMPLIANCE
Section
33(c)
of
the
Act,
415
ILCS
5/33(c)(2008),
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.
6
In response
to
these
factors,
the
Parties
to
the
Stipulation
state the
following:
1.
Complainant
contends
that
human
health
and
the
environment
were
threatened
by
the
discharge
of
untreated
wastewater
to
the
Rock
River.
Toilet
paper
and solid
sewage
debris
were
found
at the
base
of the
overflow
outfall
pipe.
Respondent
contends
that
it
is uncertain
a
wastewater
discharge
occurred
at the
lift
station
to the
Rock
River.
2.
There
is
social
and
economic
benefit
to
the
wastewater
treatment
plant.
3.
Operation
of
the facility
was
suitable
for
the area
in which
it
occurred.
4.
Maintaining
fencing
around
the
lift
station
to
prevent
unauthorized
access
was
both
technically
practicable
and economically
reasonable.
5.
Respondent
has subsequently
corrected
the
operational
deficiencies
and
constructed
a
fence
around
the
lift
station
and
replaced
the
conduit
for the
telephone
line
for the
automatic
alarm
dialer
system.
Respondent
maintains
it had
expended
significant
sums
to
implement
the
measures
described
herein.
IV.
CONSIDERATION
OF SECTION
42(h)
FACTORS
Section
42(h)
of the
Act,
415
ILCS 5/42(h)(2008),
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;
7
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:
1.
Complainant
contends
that
the overflow
occurred
at least
on
July
23, 2007,
and
involved
the
discharge
of
untreated
wastewater
to
the
Rock
River.
The
discharge might
have
occurred
on
additional
days
as
WWTP
influent
data
recordings indicate
a
drop
in overall
influent
flow
volume
immediately
prior
to July
23,
2007.
2.
Respondent
contends
it
is uncertain
a wastewater
discharge
occurred
at the
lift
station
to
the
Rock
River.
Respondent
promptly
investigated
the overflow
the
date
it
learned
of
it.
Respondent
repaired
the
telephone
line
and
reinstalled
the alarm
light
and
horn
at the
lift
station
on
July
23,
2007.
3.
Economic
benefits
accrued
by Respondent
are
believed
to be
minimal
and
are
accounted
for in
the
$10,000.00
penalty
agreed
herein.
8
4.
Complainant
and the
Illinois
EPA
have
determined,
based
upon
the
specific
facts
of this
matter,
that
a
penalty
of
Ten
Thousand
Dollars
($10,000.00)
will serve
to
deter
further
violations
and
aid in
future
voluntary
compliance
with
the Act
and
Board
regulations.
5.
Illinois
EPA
records
indicate
two
previous
enforcement
actions
against
Rockton.
In
1975 the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
(“PCB”)
ordered
Rockton
to cease
and
desist
operating
a
landfill
without
a permit.
There
was
no
monetary
penalty.
On July
5,
2008
in People
of
the
State
of Illinois
v.
Village
of
Rockton,
PCB
07
134,
the
Illinois
PCB
adopted
the
proposed
Stipulation
and
Proposal
for Settlement
between
the
State of
Illinois
and
Rockton
for a lift
station
overflow
incident
at Rockton’s
Hawick
Street
lift station
in
June 2006.
Rockton
was
ordered
to pay
a civil
penalty
of
$7,514.00
to resolve
that
matter.
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
Ten Thousand
Dollars
($10,000.00)
within
thirty
(30)
days
from
the
date
the
Board
adopts
and
accepts
this
Stipulation.
B.
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:
9
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:
Zemeheret
Bereket-Ab
Environmental
Bureau
Illinois Attorney
General’s
Office
69
W.
Washington
Street,
Suite
1800
Chicago,
Illinois
60602
C.
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.
10
D.
Release
from
Liability
In
consideration
of
the Respondent’s
payment
of
the
$10,000.00
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
Complainant’s
Complaint
filed
on
April
30, 2009.
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
andlor
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
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 5/3.3
15 (2008),
or entity
other
than
the Respondent.
11
E.
Correspondence,
Reports
and Other
Documents
Any
and all
correspondence,
reports and
any other
documents
required
under
this
Stipulation,
except
for
penalty
payments,
shall be
submitted
as follows:
As to the
Complainant
Zemeheret
Bereket-Ab
Assistant
Attorney
General
Environmental
Bureau
North
69 W.
Washington
Street,
Suite 1800
Chicago,
Illinois
60602
Chuck
Gunnarson
Assistant
Counsel
Illinois EPA
1021 North
Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box
19276
Springfield,
Illinois
62794-9276
As to the
Respondent
Attorney
Gregory E. Cox
363
Financial
Court,
Suite 100
Rockford, Illinois
61107
F.
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.
2.
The
Parties to the Stipulation
may, by
mutual
written
consent,
agree
to
extend any
compliance dates
or
modify
the
terms
of this Stipulation.
A request for any
modification
shall be
made in
writing and
submitted to the contact
persons
identified
in Section
V.G.
Any
such
request
shall be
made
by
separate
document,
and shall
not
be
submitted
within any
other report
12
or
submittal
required
by
this
Stipulation.
Any
such
agreed
modification
shall
be
in
writing,
signed
by
authorized
representatives
of
the
Parties
to
the
Stipulation.
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.
WHEREFORE,
the Parties
to
the
Stipulation
request
that
the
Board
adopt
and
accept
the
foregoing
Stipulation
and
Proposal
for
Settlement
as
written.
[THE
REMAINDER
OF THIS
PAGE
IS INTENTIONALLY
LEFT
BLANK]
13
PEOPLE OF
THE
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS,
THE
ILLiNOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
LISA
MADIGAN
Attorney General
State
of
Illinois
MATTHEW
J.
DUI’JN,
Chief
DOUGLAS
P. SCOTT,
Director
Environmental
Enforcement!
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Asbests-
tigation
Division
Environmental
Bureau
4jZ
Chief
Legal
Counsel
Assistant
Attorney
General
DATE:
110
DATE:
VILLE-eY
OCKT
N
BY
C
DATE:
9/i
y/
Name:
O.
4
,QJ
,(
ç
Title:_______________
G:\Environmental
Enforcement\Z
BEREKET-AB\VILLAGE
OF
ROCKTON\Pleading\Stipulation
7-24-09.doc
14
CLE
OFFICE
CERTIFICATE
OF SERVICE
SEP
28
2009
POIIutjn
STATE
OF
Contrng
ILLI
NO
g
I, ZEMEHERET
BEREKET-AB,
an
Assistant
Attorney
General,
do
certify
that
I caused
ar
to
be
served
on
this
28
day of
September,
2009,
the
foregoing
Notice
of
Filing,
a
Stipulation
and
Proposal
for
Settlement,
and an
Agreed
Motion
for
Relief
from
the
Hearing
Requirement,
upon
the persons
listed
on
said
Notice
by
placing
same
in an
envelope
bearing
sufficient
postage
with
the
United
States
Postal
Service
located
at 100
West
Randolph
Street,
Chicago,
Illinois.
ZEMEHERET
BEREKET-AB
G:\Environmental
Enforcement\Z
BEREKET-AB\VILLAGE
OF ROCKTON\NOF&Cert
9-28-09.Doc