BEFORE
THE
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
RE C E ~V ED
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLiNOIS,
)
CLERK’S
OFFICE
)
JUL
112003
Complainant,
)
)
STATE
OF ILLINOIS
VS.
)
No. PCB
03-73
Pollution
Control 3oard
)
R1VERDALE RECYCLING, INC., an
)
Illinois corporation, and TRI-STATE
)
DISPOSAL,
INC., an Illinois corporation,
)
)
Respondents.
)
NOTICE OF FILING
TO:
Ms. DorothyGunn, Clerk, Pollution Control Board, 100W. Randolph, Suite 11-500, Chicago,
IL
60601
Ms.
Paula Becker Wheeler,
Assistant
Attorney
General,
Environmental
Bureau,
188
W.
Randolph, Suite 2001, Chicago, Illinois
60601
Mr. Christopher Grant, Assistant AttorneyGeneral, Environmental Bureau, 188 W. Randolph,
Suite 2001,
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Mr. Brad Halloran, Hearing Officer, Pollution Control Board, 100 W. Randolph, Suite
11-500,
Chicago, IL
60601
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on
July
11,
2003
the undersigned filed an original
and nine
copies of RESPONDENTS’
RIVERDALE RECYCLING, INC.
AND
TRI-STATE
DISPOSAL,
INC.’S ANSWERTO COMPLAINT AND AFFIRMATIVEDEFENSES ,with Ms. DorothyGunn,
Clerk ofthe Illinois Pollution Control Board, 100 W. RandolphStreet, Suite 11-500, Chicago, Illinois
60601, a copy ofwhich is attached and hereby served upon you.
O2~-~~
G~u
One ofthe Attorneys
for Respondents
Mark A. LaRose
Clarissa C.
Grayson
LaRose & Bosco, Ltd.
AttorneyNo.
37346
734 N. Wells Street
Chicago, IL
60610
(312) 642-4414
Fax (312) 642-0434
THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER.
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PEOPLE
OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
)
JUL1~LZ0O3
Complainant
)
)
SThTE OFl~
Board
-vs-
)
No. PCB
03-73
poIlut10~~
Con
)
(Enforcement)
RIVERDALE RECYCLING, INC.,
)
an Illinois corporation,
and
)
TRI-STATE DISPOSAL, INC.,
)
an Illinois corporation,
)
)
Respondents.
)
RESPONDENTS’
RIVERDALE
RECYCLING, INC.
AND
Tifi-STATE DISPOSAL,
INC.’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
AND
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Respondents, Riverdale Recycling,Inc. and Tn-State Disposal, Inc. by theirattorney, LaRose
& Bosco, Ltd. hereby answers Complainant’s complaint and state as follows:
COUNT I
OPEN DUMPING OF WASTE
1.
This complaint is brought on behalfofthe PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS by
JAMES
E. RYAN, Attorney General ofthe State ofIllinois, on his own motion and
at his request
of
the
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(“Illinois
EPA”)
pursuant
to
the terms
and
provisions ofSection 31 oftheIllinois Environmental Protection Act (“Act”), 415 ILCS 5/31(2002).
ANSWER:
Respondents RiverdaleRecycling, Inc. and Tn-State Disposal, Inc. arewithout
knowledge as to this complaint being brought by JAMES
E. RYAN, Attorney General ofthe State
of Illinois, on his own motion and at the request ofthe Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency.
Further answering, Respondents deny any liability under Section 31
ofthe Act.
2.
illinois EPA is an administrative agency ofthe State ofIllinois,
established by Section
4 ofthe Act,
415 ILCS
5/4
(2002), and is
charged,
inter alia,
with the duty ofenforcing the Act.
ANSWER:
Respondents admit the allegations contained in paragraph 2.
3.
Respondent RIVERDALE RECYCLING, INC. (“RRI”) is an illinois corporation, duly
organized and
existing under the laws ofthe State ofIllinois.
ANSWER:
Respondent Riverdale Recycling,
Inc.
admits the allegations contained in
paragraph 3.
4.
Respondent TRI-STATE DISPOSAL, INC., is an Illinois corporation, duly organized and
existing under the laws ofthe State ofIllinois.
ANSWER:
Respondent Tri-State
Disposal,
Inc.
admits
the
allegations
contained in
paragraph 4.
5.
At all times relevant to this complaint,
RRT owned and controlled property commonly
known as 13901
South AshlandAvenue, Riverdale, Cook County, Illinois (“Site”).
At the Site,the
Respondents jointly operate a waste transfer and recyclingbusiness.
ANSWER:
RespondentRiverdale Recycling, Inc. admits owning theproperty commonly
known as
13901
South
Ashland Avenue,
Riverdale, Cook
County, Illinois
(“Site”).
Respondent
Riverdale Recycling, Inc. denies controlling thepropertycommonly known as 13901
South Ashland
Avenue, Riverdale, Cook County, Illinois (“Site”). The respondents denyjointly operating a waste
transfer and recyclingbusiness.
6.
The Respondents
transfer approximately
300
tons of mixed
refuse
to
the Site
daily,
including cardboard, construction, and demolition debris, metals, and otherdiscarded material.
This
refuse is accumulated from a number of off-site locations.
2
ANSWER:
Respondents deny transferring approximately 300 tons ofmixed refuse to the
Site daily,
including cardboard, construction,
and demolition
debris,
metals, and other discarded
material.
Respondents
admit that the refuse is accumulated
from a number ofoff-site locations.
7.
On June 24,
1998,
Illinois
EPA
issued
Permit No.
1995-107-OP
(“Permit”)
to
the
Respondents.
This permit authorizes the Respondents to operate a waste transferstation for general
municipal refuse and construction and demolition debris, and to engage in recycling activities.
The
permit limits operation to an 11.47 acre parcel atthe Site (“Permitted Area”).
A copyofthe Permit
is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”.
ANSWER:
Respondents
admit the allegations contained in paragraph 7.
8.
On
December 2,
1999,
Illinois
EPA
inspected
the
Site.
Approximately 200
tons
of
construction and demolition debris had beenaccumulated-bythe Respondentsfrom various sources,
and
had been deposited by the
Respondents outside of the Permitted Area,
on railroad-owned
property to the northeast ofthe transfer station.
An addition 50 yards oflandscape waste had been
brought to the Siteby the Respondents and had been dumped to the East ofthe transfer station, also
outside ofthe Permitted Area.
ANSWER:
Respondents
admit that an inspection was conducted on December 2,
1999.
Respondents deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 8.
9.
Section 21
ofthe Act, 415 ILCS
5/21
(2002), provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
No person shall:
(a) Cause or allow the open dumping ofany waste.
*
*
*
3
ANSWER:
Respondents make
no
answer to paragraph 9
as it states a legal conclusion.
To the extent that this paragraph requires an answer, Respondents deny any liability under Section
21 ofthe Act.
10.
Section 3.26 ofthe Act, 415 ILCS
5/3.26
(2002), provides the following definition:
“PERSON”
is
an individual, partnership, co-partnership,
firm, company,
limited
liability
company, corporation,
association,
joint
stock
company,
trust,
political
subdivision,
state agency,
or any other legal
entity,
or their legal
representative,
agent or assigns.
ANSWER:
Respondents make no answer to paragraph 10 as it states a legal conclusion.
To the extent that this paragraph requires an answer, Respondents deny any liability under Section
3.26 ofthe Act.
11.
The Respondents, Illinois corporations, are both “persons” as the term is defined in
the Act.
ANSWER:
Respondents make no answer to paragraph 11 as it states a legal conclusion.
To the extent that this paragraphrequires an
answer, Respondents deny any liability under Section
3.26 ofthe Act.
12.
Section 3.53 ofthe Act, 415 ILCS
5/3.53
(2002), provides, in pertinentpart as follows:
“WASTE” means
any
garbage...or
any
other
discarded material,
including
any
solid,
liquid,
semi-solid,
or contained gaseous material
resulting
from
industrial,
commercial, mining and agricultural operations, and
from community activities...
ANSWER:
Respondents make no answerto paragraph 12 as it states a legal conclusion.
To the extent that this paragraphrequires
an answer, Respondents deny any liability under Section
3.53 ofthe Act.
13.
Sections 3.31
of the Act,
415 ILCS
5/3.3
1
(2002), provides, as follows:
4
“REFUSE” means waste.
ANSWER:
Respondents make no answer to paragraph 13 as it states a legal conclusion.
To the extent that this paragraphrequires an answer, Respondents deny any liability under Section
3.31
ofthe Act.
14.
The construction and
demolition debris,
and the landscape waste, dumped outside of
the Permitted Area is
“waste” as that
term is
defined by
Section
3.53
of the Act
and therefore
“refuse” as defined by Section
3.31 ofthe Act,
415 ILCS
5/3.53
and
5/3.3
1
(2002).
ANSWER:
Respondents make no answer to paragraph 14 as it states a legal conclusion.
To the extent that this paragraph requires an answer, Respondents
deny any liability under Section
3.31 ofthe Act.
-
15.
Section 3.08 ofthe Act, 415 ILCS
5/3.08
(2002), provides,
as follows:
“Disposal” means the discharge, deposit,
injection,
dumping,
spilling,
leaking or
placing ofany waste or hazardous waste
into or on
any land or water or into any
well so that such waste or hazardous waste or any constitute thereofmay enter the
environment
or be
emitted
into the
air or discharged into any waters,
including
ground waters.
-
ANSWER:
Respondents make no answer to paragraph 15 as it states a legal conclusion.
To the extent that this paragraph requires an answer, Respondents deny any liability under Section
3.08 ofthe Act.
16.
Section 3.43 ofthe Act,
415 ILCS 5/3.43 (2002), provides, as follows:
“Site”
means
any
location, place,
tract of land,
and
facilities,
included
but
not
limited to
buildings, and improvements used for purposes subject to regulation or
control by this Act or regulations thereunder.
5
ANSWER:
Respondents make
no answer to paragraph 16 as it states a legal conclusion.
To the extent that this paragraphrequires
an answer, Respondents deny any liability under Section
3.43 ofthe Act.
17.
Respondents depositedwaste outside ofthe PermittedArea in a manner that exposed
it to the air and to the environment.
Theproperties ofthe East and Northeast ofthe transfer station
where construction and demolition debris, and landscape waste, were deposited, are therefore
“disposal sites”
as those terms are defined in the Act.
ANSWER:
Respondents deny the allegations contained in paragraph 17.
18.
Section 3.24 ofthe Act, 415 ILCS
5/3.24 (2002) provides, as follows:
“OPEN DUMPING” means the consolidation ofrefuse from one or more sources
at the disposal site that does not fulfill the requirements ofa sanitary landfill.
ANSWER:
Respondents make no answer to paragraph 18 as it states a legal conclusion.
To the extent that this paragraph requires an answer, Respondents deny any liability under
Section
3.24 ofthe Act.
19.
Section 3.41 ofthe Act, 415 ILCS 5/3.41
(2002),provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
“SANITARY
LANDFILL”
means
a
facility
permitted
by
the
Agency
for
the
disposal ofwaste on land meeting the requirements ofthe Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act, P.L 94-580
ANSWER:
Respondents make no answer to paragraph 19 as it states a legal conclusion.
To the extent that this paragraph requires an answer, Respondents deny any liability under Section
3.41
ofthe Act.
20.
The railroad property to the Northeast ofthe transfer station, and the area to the East of
the transfer station where landscape waste was accumulated, were not permitted by the EPA for the
6
disposal ofwaste, and thus did not fulfill the requirements ofa “sanitary landfill” as defined in the
Act.
ANSWER:
Respondents deny the allegations contained in paragraph 20.
21.
By consolidatingwaste from one ormore sources at disposal site that did not fulfill the
requirements ofa sanitarylandfill, Respondents, on orabout December 2, 1999, caused and allowed
the open dumpingofwaste, and thereby violatedSection 21(a) ofthe Act, 415 ILCS 5/21(a) (2002).
ANSWER:
Respondents deny the allegations contained in paragraph 21.
WHEREFORE, Respondents respectfullyrequest that the Board enter an order denyingthe
reliefrequested by Complainant in Count I..
COUNT
II
CONDUCTING A WASTE STORAGE OPERATION WITHOUT A PERMIT
1-10.
Complainant realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs
1
through 7,
and
paragraphs
10 through 12, of Count I as paragraphs
1 through
10 ofthis Count II.
ANSWER:
Respondents reallege and incorporate by reference its answer-s to paragraphs
1
through 7,
and paragraphs
10 through
12 of Count I as its paragraphs
1
through
10 ofthis Count
II.
11.
On March 12, 2001 Illinois EPAinspectors visited the Site, and notedthat two large
accumulationsofconstruction and demolition debrisiiad beenpJ~cecIouisideof,and
to the southeast
of, thePermitted Area. On information and belief, the Respondents placed the waste accumulations
at this location for the purpose ofseparating saleable metal debris, consisting ofless than seventy
fiveper cent (75)
ofthe accumulated waste, prior to disposing ofthe residualwaste in a permitted
landfill.
7
ANSWER:
Respondents
admit that on March
12,
2001,
an inspection was conducted.
Respondents deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 11
of Count II.
12.
Section 21 ofthe Act, 415
IILCS
5/21
(2002) provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
No person shall:
(d)
Conduct any waste-storage, waste-treatment, orwaste-disposal operation:
1.
without
a
permit
granted
by
the
Agency or
in
violation
of any
conditions imposed by suchpermit....
ANSWER:
Respondents make no answer to paragraph 12 ofCount II as it states a legal
conclusion. To the extent that this paragraph requires an answer, Respondents
deny any liability
under Section 21
of the Act.
13.
The construction
and demolition debris
deposited by Respondents
outside of the
PermittedArea on or aboutMarch21, 2001, is “waste” asthat term is definedby Section
3.53 ofthe
Act, 415
ILCS 5/3.53
(2002).
ANSWER:
Respondents make no answer to paragraph 13 ofCount II as it states a legal
conclusion. To the extent that this paragraph requires an answer, Respondents
deny any liability
under Section 3.53
ofthe Act.
14.
Section 3.46 ofthe Act, 415 ILCS 5/3.46 (2002), provides, as follows:
“Storage” meansthe containment ofwaste, either on a temporary basis orfor a period
of years, in such a manner as not to constitute disposal.
-
ANSWER:
Respondents make no answer to paragraph 14 ofCount II as it states a legal
conclusion. To
the extent that this paragraph requires an answer, Respondents
deny any liability
under Section 3.46 ofthe Act.
8
15.
The Respondents, on or aboutMarch 12, 2001, placed the two waste accumulations
outside ofthe Permitted Area for the purpose ofremoving saleable recyclable material, prior to the
waste’sultimate disposal in a landfill. Respondents’ activities constitutedwaste “storage” asthat term
is defined by Section 3.46 ofthe Act, 415 ILCS 5/3.46
(2002).
ANSWER:
Respondents deny that on oraboutMarch 12,2001 theyplaced the two waste
accumulations outsideofthe permitted are for the purpose ofremoving saleablerecyclable material
prior to the waste’s ultimate disposal in
a landfill.
Respondents make no answer to that portion of
paragraph 15 as to their alleged activities constituting waste “storage”as it states a legal conclusion.
To the extent that this paragraph requires an answer, Respondents deny any liability under Section
3.46 of the Act.
16.
Respondents,
on
or about March
12,
2001,
conducted
a
waste
storage operation
outside ofthe Permitted Area, and therefore in violation oftheir permit.
The Respondents thereby
violated Section 21(d) ofthe Act, 415 ILCS
5/21(d) (2002).
ANSWER:
Respondents
deny that on or about March
12, 2001
they conducted a waste
storage
operation
outside of the
Permitted
Area,
and
therefore
in
violation
of their
permit.
Respondents make no
answer to
that portion ofparagraph 16 as to their alleged activities thereby
violating Section
21
ofthe Act as it states a
legal conclusion.
To
the extent that this paragraph
requires an answer, Respondents deny any liability under Section 21
ofthe Act.
-
First Affirmative
Defense
-
The waste observed on December 2,
1999 and March 12, 2001 outside ofthe permitted area
was general construction and demolition debris
(415 ILCS 5/3.78) which is authorized for storage
9
without a permit pursuant to Section 22.38 ofthe Act (415 ILCS 5/22.38).
Respondents are
therefore in compliance with the Act pursuant to
Section 22.38 ofthe Act (415 IILCS 5/22.38).
Second Affirmative Defense
At
a
pre-enforcement
conference
held
on
September
15,
1999
in
Maywood,
Illinois,
Respondents were advisedby Cliff Gould and James Haennicke ofthe JEPA that itwas acceptable
forRespondents to
store general construction and demolition debris in any unpermitted area ofthe
Sitepursuant to Section 22.38 ofthe Act as long as proper notice was givento the IEPA and proper
procedures were followed.
Therefore, the activities
undertaken by the Respondents were both in
compliance with Section 22.38 ofthe Act and undertaken in a manner specifically suggested and
approved by personnel in the Agency’s enforcement division.
WHEREFORE, Respondents respectfullyrequestthat the Board enter an order denying the
relief requested by Complainant in Count II.
Respectfully submitted,
-
By:_____________
One ofPlaintiff’s Attorneys
Mark A. LaRose
Clarissa C. Grayson
LaRose & Bosco, Ltd.
Attorney No. 37346
734 N. Wells Street
Chicago,IIL
60610
(312) 642-4414
Fax (312) 642-0434
10
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The
undersigned,
an
attorney,
certifies
that
a
copy of the
foregoing RESPONDENTS’
ItIVERDALE
RECYCLING,
INC.
AND
TRI-STATE
DISPOSAL,
INC.’S
ANSWER
TO
COMPLAINTAND AFFIRMATIVEDEFENSESwas served upon thefollowingpersonsbyp-lacing
same in U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, this ~
1th
day ofJuly, 2003.
Ms. Dorothy Guim
Clerk, Pollution Control Board
100 W.
Randolph, Suite 11-500
Chicago,IL
60601
Ms. Paula Becker Wheeler
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Bureau
188 W. Randolph, Suite 2001
Chicago, IL
60601
Mr. Christopher Grant
Assistant Attorney General
-
Environmental Bureau
188 W. Randolph, Suite 2001
Chicago, IL
60601
Mr. Brad Halloran
Hearing Officer
Pollution Control Board
100 W. Randolph, Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL
60601
-
One ofthe Attorneys for Respondent
Mark A. LaRose
Clarissa C. Grayson
LaRose & Bosco, Ltd.
AttorneyNo. 37346
734 N. Wells Street
Chicago,IL
60610
(312) 642-4414
Fax (312) 642-0434