1. COUNT II
      2. PROOF OF SERVICE
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PEOPLE OF
THE STATE OF ILLiNOIS,
)
LERK’S
Oj~p~
)
iiLIG
i•
Complainant,
)
-L
2003
STATE
OF
ILL~~~
v.
)
PCB No. 03-223
POIIU~~0,~
Control
IS
)
(Enforcement)
ard
ELYSIUM ENERGY, an Illinois
)
limited liability corporation,
)
)
Respondent.
)
ANSWER
NOW COMES Respondent, ELYSIUM ENERGY, by its attorneys, Sorling, Northrup,
Hanna, Cullen &
Cochran, Ltd., Charles J. Northrup, of counsel, and hereby answers the People
of the State ofIllinois’
Complaint.
COUNT!
1.
Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations set out in paragraph
1
of
Count I of Complainant’s Complaint as Respondent lacks knowledge sufficient to
form a belief
as to
those allegations, and further states that the matters alleged therein are known better by
Complainant.
2.
Respondent generally admits the allegations set out in paragraph 2 ofCount I of
Complainant’s Complaint, but does note that the duties of the Illinois EPA are more specifically
set out in the referenced Illinois Environmental Protection Act.
3.
Respondent admits the allegations set out in paragraph three of Count I of
Complainant’s Complaint.
4.
Respondent admits the allegations set out in paragraph four ofCount I of
Complainant’s Complaint.
Printed on Recycled Paper
1
S0412294.1
7/30/2003
CJN CJN
5.
Respondent admits the allegations set out in paragraph five ofCount I of
Complainant’s Complaint.
6.
Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations set out in paragraph 6 of
Count I ofComplainant’s Complaint as Respondent lacks knowledge sufficient to form a belief
as to those allegations, and further states that what representatives ofthe Illinois EPA observed is
known better by Complainant.
7.
Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations set out in paragraph 7 of
Count I of Complainant’s Complaint as Respondent lacks knowledge sufficient to form a belief
as to those allegations, and further states that what representatives ofthe Illinois EPA observed is
known better by
Complainant.
8.
Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations set out in paragraph
8 of
Count I of Complainant’s Complaint as Respondent lacks knowledge sufficient to
form a belief
as to those allegations, and further states that what representatives of the Illinois EPA observed is
known better by Complainant.
9.
Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations set out in paragraph 9 of
Count I ofComplainant’s Complaint as Respondent lacks knowledge sufficient to
form
a belief
as to those allegations, and further states that what representatives ofthe Illinois
EPA observed is
known better by Complainant.
10.
Respondent admits that its
representatives provided copies ofMSDS sheets to an
Illinois EPA inspector on or about August 28,
2001
at the facility.
Respondent neither admits
nordenies the remaining allegations set out in paragraph
10 of Count I of Complainant’s
Complaint.
Printed on
Recycled Paper
2
S04 12294.1
7/30/2003
CJN CJN
11.
Respondent admits that the definition of “waste” set out in paragraph
11 ofCount
I ofComplainant’s Complaint is found verbatim at Section 3.53 ofthe Illinois Environmental
Protection Act.
12.
Respondent admits that the definition of “open Dumping” set out in paragraph 12
of Count I ofComplainant’s Complaint is found verbatim at Section 3.24 ofthe Illinois
Environmental Protection Act.
13.
Respondent admits that paragraph 13 of Count I ofComplainant’s Complaint sets
out verbatim Section 21(a) ofthe Illinois Environmental Protection Act.
14.
Respondent admits that paragraph 14 of Count I ofComplainant’s Complaint sets
out verbatim Section 21(e) of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act.
15.
Respondent admits that paragraph 15
ofCount I of Complainant’s Complaint sets
out verbatim a portion of Section 21(p) of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act.
16.
Respondent admits that paragraph
16 of Count I ofComplainant’s Complaint sets
out verbatim Section 722.111 ofthe Illinois Environmental Protection Act.
17.
Respondent admits that paragraph
17 of Count I of Complainant’s Complaint sets
out verbatim Section 808.121 ofthe Illinois Environmental Protection Act.
18.
Respondent denies the allegations set out at paragraph
18 ofCount I of
Complainant’s Complaint.
19.
Respondent denies the allegations set out at paragraph
19 of Count I of
Complainant’s Complaint.
20.
Respondent denies the allegations set out at paragraph 20 of Count I of
Complainant’s Complaint.
Printed
on
Recycled Paper
3
S0412294.1
7/30/2003
CJN CJN
WHEREFORE, Respondent, Elysium Energy respectfully requests that this Board enter
judgment in its favor and against Complainant in Count I ofComplainant’s Complaint and to
grant such other and further relief as this Board deems appropriate.
COUNT II
1-
12.
Respondent restates and incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs one
through 12 ofCount
I
as its answers
to
paragraphs one through 12
ofthis Count II.
13.
Respondent admits that the definition of“Air Pollution” set
out in paragraph
13 of
Count II of Complainant’s Complaint is
found verbatim at Section
3.02 of the Illinois
Environmental Protection Act.
14.
Respondent admits that the definition of“Contaminant” set out in paragraph
14 of
Count II ofComplainant’s Complaint is found verbatim at Section 3.06 ofthe Illinois
Environmental Protection Act.
15.
Respondent admits that the definition of “Open Burning” set
out in paragraph
15
of Count II of Complainant’s Complaint is found verbatim at Section
3.23 ofthe Illinois
Environmental Protection Act.
16.
Respondent admits that paragraph 16 of Count II ofComplainant’s Complaint sets
out verbatim Section 237.101 of 35 Ill. Administrative Code.
17.
Respondent admits that paragraph 17 of Count II of Complainant’s Complaint sets
out verbatim, in part,
Section
9 ofthe Illinois Environmental Protection Act.
18.
Respondent admits that paragraph
18 ofCount II ofComplainant’s Complaint sets
out verbatim, in part,
Section
21 ofthe Illinois Environmental Protection Act.
19.
Respondent denies the allegations set out in paragraph 19 of Count II of
Complainant’s Complaint.
Printed
on
Recycled
Paper
4
S0412294.1
7/30/2003
CJN CJN
WHEREFORE, Respondent, Elysium Energy respectfully requests that this Board enter
judgment in its favor and against Complainant in Count II ofComplainant’s Complaint and to
grant such other and further relief as this Board deems appropriate.
COIJT~T
III
1-16.
Respondent restates and incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs one
through 16 of Count I as its answers to paragraphs one through 16 of this Count III.
17.
Respondent admits that paragraph 17 of Count III of Complainant’s Complaint
sets out verbatim, in part,
Section
55 ofthe Illinois Environmental Protection Act.
18.
Respondent denies the allegations set out in paragraph 18 ofCount III of
Complainant’s Complaint.
WHEREFORE, Respondent,
Elysium Energy respectfully requests that
this Board enter
judgment in its
favor and against Complainant
in Count III of Complainant’s Complaint and to
grant such other and
further relief as this Board deems appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
ELYSIUM ENERGY, Respondent
By
~
7fl?~
One ofIts
Attorneys
Sorling, Northrup, Haima,
Cullen &
Cochran, Ltd.
Charles J. Northrup, ofCounsel
Suite 800 Illinois Building
P.O. Box 5131
Springfield, IL 62705
Telephone:
217.544.1144
Printed on Recycled Paper
5
S04 12294.1
7/30/2003
CJN CJN
PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy ofthe foregoing document was served by
placing same in a sealed envelope addressed:
Ms. Jane McBride
Assistant Attorney General
500
5. Second
Street
Springfield,
IL 62706
and by depositing same in the United States mail in Springfield, Illinois, on the
30
~~ay
of
July, 2003, with postage fully prepaid.
Printed
on
Recycled Paper
6
S0412294.1
7/30/2003
CJN CJN

Back to top