BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD REE
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLiNOIS,
)
AUG
1
12003
-
Complainant,
STATE OF
ILLiNOIS
•
)
Pollution
Control Bocird
V.
)
No. PCB 03-222
/
)
(Enforcement)
MECALUX ILLiNOIS, iNC., a Delaware
•)
corporation,
)
•
)
Respondent.
)
NOTICE OF FILING
To:
Christopher Grant
Assistant Attorney General
EnvirOnmental Bureau
188 West Randolph St., 20th Floor
Chicago, IL
60601
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that ~n August
11,
2003, Icaused to
be filed with the Clerk of
the Illinois
Pollution
Control Board
an APPEARANCE and MECALUX
ILLINOIS,
INC.’S
ANSWER
TO
COMPLAINT, copies ofwhich are attached hereto and hereby served upon ydu.
/
Respectfully submitted,
MECALUX ILLINOIS, INC.
~
Richard M. Saines
BAKER & McKENZIE
One Prudential Plaza
130 East Randolph Drive
Chicago, Illinois
60601
(312)861-8000
THIS FILING IS
SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER.
30
POST
CONSUMER CONTENT
•
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I
certify
that
a
true
and
~orrect
copy
o~’the
APPEARANCE
and
MECALUX
ILLINOIS, INC.’S
ANSWER
TO
COMPLAINT
were
served
on
the
person~
to
whOm the
foregoing Notice
is
addressed ~by’mailing
a
copy
via
first
class
mail,
postage
prepaid,
on
• August 11,2003.
S
•
•
•
•
~••~
e ofIts Attome~’s
cHIDocso2,
589269.1
-•
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROlS BOARD
•
•
RECE~V
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLiNOIS,
)
.
CLERK’S OFFICE
•
.
•
•
AUG11ZOO3
•
Complainant,
S
S
)
)
.
STATE OF ILLINOIS.
V.
)
No. PCB °3~IutioflControl
Board
-
•
•
)
•
(Enforcement)
MECALUX ILLINOIS, INC., a Delaware.
)
corporation,
.
.
)
S
)
Respondent.
)
•
S
S
.
•
APPEARANCE
.
S
•
-
/.
I, Richard M. Saines, hereby file my Appearance in this proceeding on behalf of Mecalux
Illinois, Inc.
•
•
•
••
•
•
•
•
•
RichardM. Saiiies
Richard M. Saines
BAKER & McKENZIE
.
S
One Prudential Plaza
130 East Randolph Street
S
Chicago, Illinois
60601
(312)861-8000
••
CLIIDOCSO2,
589260.1
/
•
RECEIVED
-•
•
CLFR~’S
OF~”~
BEFORETHE
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
•
•
AUG
11’
2003
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
•
•
S
•
)
S
•.~
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Complainant,
•
Pollution
Control
Board
S
5
•
)
‘v’.
•
)
No. PCB 03-222
•
)
(Enforcement)
MECALUX ILLINOIS, INC., a Delaware
)
corporation,
•
S
)
)
Respondent.
)
•
MECALUX ILLINOIS, INC.’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
Mecalux
Illinois,
.
Inc.
(“Mecalu5x”), ~by
its
attorneys,
Baker
&
McKen~ie,answers
Complainant’s Complaint as follows:
•
•
••
COUNTI
•
•
S
•
VIOLATION OF VOM STANDARDS
•
S
1.
This
Complaint
is
brought
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
at the
request
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(“Illinois
EPA”)
pursuant
to
the
•
terms
and provisions
of Section
31
of the
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Aót
(“Act”),
415
ILCS
5/31(2002).
•
S
ANSWER:
Paragraph
1
is
a
legal
conclusion
to
which
no
answer
is
required and
contains no allegations related to Mecalux.
•
•
•
S
•
2.
Illinois
EPA
is
an
administrative agency
of the
State of Illinois,
established
by
•
Section
4 ofthe Act,
415
ILCS
5/4
(2002)
and
is charged,
inter aliá,
with the duty of enforcing
the Act,
and regulations promulgated by the Illinois Pollution
Control
Bqard (“Board”).
ANSWER:
Paragraph
2
is
a
legal
conclusion
to
which
no
answer
is
required
and
contains no allegations related to Mecahix.
S
•
•
I
-
3.
At all times relevant to this complaint, Respondent MECALUX
ILLINOIS,
iNC.
(“Mecalux”)
was,
and
is,
a
corporation,
duly
authorized to
transact
business
in
the
State of Illinois.
S
•
•
•
ANSWER:
Mecalux admits the factual
allegations in Paragraph 3
but denies that any
liability results from such allegations.
•
S
4.
Mecalux owns
and
operates a manufacturing facility,located
at
1600
North 25th
Avenue,
Meirose
Park,
Cook
County,
Illinois
(“Facility” or
“Site”).
At
its
Facility,
Mecalux
manufactures
and coats metal storage system components.
-
S
ANSWER:
Mecalux admits the allegations in Paragraph 4.
-
5.
•
Mecaliix’ coating lines consist, inter alia, of a hydrb-soluble process, consisting of
degreasing and demineralization equipment
and a paint
spray booth (“Hydro-Soluble process”),
and
a catophoresis
coating process, consisting of a catophoresis painting
dip tank
and
an
open
top degreaser (“Catophoresis
process”).
Both the Hydro-Soluble process
and the Catophoresis
process emit
volatile organic compounds
(“VOC’s”) to the atmosphere
inside and outside ofthe
•facility.
S
-
S
,
S
-
ANSWER:
Mecalux
denies
the
factual
allegations
in
sentence
one of Paragraph
5.
Mecalux
admits
the
factual
allegations
in
Sentence
2
of Paragraph
5
but
denies
that
these
allegations result in any violations ofthe Act, regulations or its permit.
‘~
-
6.
On
or
about Novémbei~21,
2000,
Mecalux
began
construction
of the
Hydro-
Soluble
coating
line.
On
or
about
December
4,
2000,
Mecalux
began
construction
of the
Catophoresis
coating process.
Mecalux
did
not
apply for and obtain
construction or operation
permits prior commencing construction ofthe two coating lines.
,
S
ANSWER:
.
Mecalux denies the allegations in Paragraph 6.
•
•
S
7.
On August 14,
2001, the Illinois EPA issued a Construction and operating permit
(“Permit”)
for
the
two
coating
lines
at
Mecalux’
facility.
•
A
-true
and
accurate
copy
of
Respondent’s Permit, is attached hereto as~’Exhibit
A.’
S
ANSWER:
Mecalux admits the allegations in Paragraph
7, but denies that
any liability~
results from such allegations.
S
•
-
•
8.
From approximately May
25,
2001
until a date better known to respondent, but no
laterthan
A-ugust
14,
2001,
Mecalux used and
applied
coatings
containing a
VOC
content
in
excess of2.8 pounds per gallon
(“noncomplying coatings”) in the Hydro-Soluble coating process
at
the
facility.
The
noncomplying
coatings
were
used
to
coat
the
metal
storage
system
components produced at the Facility.
‘~
.
-
S
ANSWER:
Mecalux denies the allegations in Paragraph 8.
-S
9.
During the period from May 25,
2001
until August
14,
2001,
Respondent applied
approximately 537
gallons ofnoncomplying coatings to various metal parts at its facility.
ANSWER:
Mecalux admits
the allegations in Paragraph 9.
-2
.J.
Section 9(a) ofthe Act,
415 ILCS 5/9(a) (2002) provides, as follows:
No
person
shall
cause
or
threaten
or
allow
the
discharge
or
•
emission of any contaminant into the environment in
any State so
•
as to cause or tend to
cause air pollution in
Illinois, either alone or
in
combination with contaminants
from
other sources,~orso as
to
•
S
violate regulations
or standards
adopted
by
the Board under
this
Act.
S
5
ANSWER:
The allegations of Paragraph
10
are
legal conclusions to which no
answer
is required.
S
S
S
-
11.
Section 3.26 ofthe Act, 415
ILCS 5/3.26
(2002), provides, as follows:
-
-
S
“PERSON”
is
any
individual,
pa~ner~hip~
co-partnership,
firm,
•
S
•
company, limited
liability company, corporation,
association, joint
stock company, trust,
estate, political
subdivision,
state agency, or
any
other
legal
entity,
or
their
leg~l representative,
agent
or
S
S
assigns.
S
S
•
ANSWER:
The allegations ofParagraph
11
are legal conclusions to which no
answer
is required.
S
S
S
S
S
S
/
12.
The Respondent,
a Delaware corporation,
is
a “person” as that term is
defined in
Section 3.26 ofthe Act, 415
ILCS 5/3.26 (2002).
5
~.
.
.~
S
-
ANSWER:
The allegations of
Paragraph
12
are legal
conclusions to which
no answer
is required.-
S
•
S
S
•
-
S
13.
Pursuant
to
authority
granted
under
the
Act, ‘the
Board
has
promulgated
S
regulations
governing the discharge of contaminants into the
air, codified
at
35
III. Adm.
Code
Subtitle B (“Board Air Pollution regulations”).
•
ANSWER:
The allegations ofParagraph
13
are legal conclusions to which no
answer
is required.
S
,
S
-
S
•
S
S
14..’
Section
201:141
of
the
Board
Air
Pollution
regulations,
35
-
Ill.
Adm.
Code
S
201.141 provides,
as follows:
S
-
/
S
/
No
person
shall
cause
or
threaten
Or
allow
the
discharge
or
emission of any contaminant
into the environment in
any state
so
S
-
as,
either
alone
or in
combination
with
contaminants
from other
sourcesto
cause or tend
to
cause air pollution
in Illinois,
or so as
‘•
S
-
-3-
to
violate the provisions
of this
Chapter,
or so
as to
prevent
the
S
attainment5
or
maintenance
Of
any
applicable
ambient
air
quality
S
standard.
~
S
S
ANSWER:
The allegations of Paragraph
14
are legal conclusions td
which
no an~wer
is required.
-
S•
5
15.
Part
218
of Subtitle
C
of the
Board
Air Pollution
regulations,
titled
“Organic
Material Emission
Standards
and Limitation
for the
ChiCago Area” regulates the VOM content
Coatings used at the
Respondent’s
facility.
Respondent’s
coating
operations are
regulated
51
under the category of“Miscellaneous Metal Parts and ,Products.”
S
ANSWER:
The allegations ofParagraph
15
are legal conclusion~
to
which no
answer
is required.
‘
-
5
16.
Section
218.204
of the
Board
Air
Pollution
iegulations,
35
Ill.
Adm. ‘Code
2 18.204, provides,
in pertinent part, as follows:
Except
as
provid~din
Sections
218.205,
218.207,
218.208
and
218.216
of this
Subpart,
no
owner or o~eratorof a
coating
line
S
•
shall
apply at
any
time
any
coating
in
which
the
VOM
content
exceeds
the
following
emission
limitations
for
-the
specified
coating.
Except
as
provided in
Section
218.204(1),
compliance
with
the
emission
imitations
marked
~an
asterisk
in
this
Section
is required and after March
15,
1996 and compliance
with
S
emission Jimitations not
marked with
an
asterisk
is
required until
-
March
15,
1996
‘...
the
emission limitations
are as follows:
*
*
*
S
S
j)
-Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Coating
-
•
*5
*
S
-*
5
5
-
4)
All other coatings
‘
S
S
kg/l
•
lbs/gal
S
S
•
-
Baked
034*
•
2.8
-
S
S
5
ANSWER:
The allegations ofParagraph
16
are legal conciusions tO
which no answer
is required.
-
S
S
17.
BetweenMay 25,
2001
and i~ugust14, 2001, the Respondent applied at 1eas~537
gallons of a coating which
exceeded the applicable VOM
limitation.
Resppndent has therefore
-
S
--4-
violated Sections 218.204 and 201.141 ofthe Board Air Pollution regulations, 35 Ill.
Adm.
Code
Secticms
218.204
and
201.141,
and
thereby also
violated
Section
9(a)
of the
Act,
415
ILCS
5/9(â) (2002).
•
5
-
5
5
ANSWER:
Mecalux admits
to the allegations in sentence
1 ofParagraph
17.
Mecalux
denies that is has violated Section 9(a) ofthe Act.
•
S
-
-
S
•
COUNT
II
-
S
S
CONSTRUCTION
WITHOUT
A PERMIT
1-10.
Complainant realleges
and incorporates
by reference herein
paragraphs
1. through
7 and paragraphs
11
through
13 ofCount I as paragraphs
1
through 10 ofthis Count II.
S
ANSWER:
•
Mecalux
re-answers
and
incorporates
by
reference
herein
Paragraphs
1
through 7 and Paragraphs
11
through
13 ofCount I as its Answers to Paragraphs
1
through
10 of
this Count II.
-
5~
S
11.
Section
9 ofthe Act, 415
ILCS 5/9 (2002), provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
S
No person shall:
-
S
S
/
S
*
*
*
,
-
(b)
Construct,
install, or operate
any
equipment,
facility,
vehicle,
-
-
vessel,
or
aircraft
~capable of
causing
or
contributing
to
air
pollution
or
designed
to
prevent
air
pollution
of
any
type
designated by
Board
regulations, without
a permit
granted by
the
-
Agency, or in violation of any conditions imposed by such permit.
S
ANSWER:
The allegatiohs ofParagraph
11 ofCount II are legal conclusions to which
no answer is required.
S
S
S
12.
Section
201.142
of the
Board
Air
Pollution
regulations,
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
201.142, provides, as follows:
S
•
-
No
person
shall
cause
or
allow
the
construction
of
any
new
emission
source
or
any
new
air
pollution
control
equipment,
S
without
first
obtaining
a
construction
permit
from
the
Agency,
except as provided in Section 201.146.
5
-
S
ANSWER:
The allegatiOns ofParagraph
12 ofCount II are legal conclusions to which
no answer is required.
S
•
S
S
-5-
13.
Section 3.06 ofthe Act, 415
ILCS
5/3.06 (2002), provides, as follows:
“CONTAMINANT” is any solid,
liquid•, gaseous thatter, any odor,
S
or any form ofenergy, from whatever source~
ANSWER:
The allegations ofParagraph
13 ofCount II are legal conclusions to
which
no answer is required.
S
S
•
S
14.
The
VOM
emitted
from
the
two
coating
lines
at
Respoi-~dent’
s
facility,
is
a
“contaminant”, as
that term is defined in Section 3.06 ofthe Act, 415 ILCS
5/3~06(2002).
ANSWER:
The allegations ofParagraph14 ofCount II are legal conclusions to which
no answer is recjuired.
S
S
15.
Section
201.102
of
the
Board
Air
Pollution
regulations,
35
Ill.
Adm.
code
201.102, provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
•
S
“Emission Source”:
any equipment or facility of a type capable of
emitting
specified air contaminants to the atmosphere.
S
“New Emission Source”:
any emission source,
the construction or
.
S
S
modification ofwhich is commenced on or after April
14, 172.
ANSWER:
The allegations ofParagraph
15 ofCount II are legal conclusions to which
no answer is required.
‘
•S
-
.
/
16.
Respondents
coating lines are “emission sources”
and “new
emission sources”
as those terms are defined in 35
Ill.
Adm. 201.102.
ANSWER:
The allegations of Paragraph 16 ofCount II are legal conclusions to which
-
S
no answer is required.
-
.
S
•
•
S
17.
Sec•tion
3.02
of
the
Ac5t,
415
ILCS
5/3.02
(2002),
contains
the
following
S
definition:
‘
/
S
S
S
“AIR POLLUTION”
is
the presence in
the atmosphere of one or
more
contaminants
in
sufficient
quantities
and
of
such
S
characteristics
‘and
duration
as to
be
injurious
to
human,
plant,
or
S
•
animal
life, to
health, or to
property, or .to
unreasonably in-terfere
withthe enjoyment oflife or property.•
5
55
ANSWER:
‘
The allegations ofParagraph
17 ofCount II are legal conclusions
tO which
no answer is required.
S
-
S
•
S
-6-
5
S
•
18.
Respondent’s
two
coating
lines
emit, or
~re
capable
of
emitting
VOM,
a
•contaminant injurious
to
human health, to
the atmosphere,
and
therefore
are capable ofcausing
or contributing to
air pollution.
S
S
ANSWER:
Mecalux denies the allegations ofParagraph
18.
•
-
19.
•
On
or
about
N9vember
2’l,
2000
and
December
4,
20O0,
the
Respondent
commenced construction
of,. respectively,
the Hydro-Soluble
line
and
the Catophore~iscoating
•line, without
first having applied for or obtained construction permits from IllinOis EPA:
ANSWER:
Mecalux denies the allegations ofParagraph 19 of Count II.
20.
By
conimencing
construction
of the
two
coating’ lines,
Respondent
caused
or
allowed
the
construction
of two
new
emission
sources
without
having
applied
for
or
obtained a permit from Illinois EPA.
Respondent therefore violated Section 9(b) ofthe Act, 415
ILCS
5/9(b)
(2002),
and
Section
201.142 of the Board Air Pollution
iiegulations,
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code 201.142.
:
•
5S
S
-
5
ANSWER:
Mecalux denies the allegations ofPara~aph
20 of Count II.
S
/
S
S
•
S
Respectfully submil~ted,
S
5
5
5
-
S
MECALUX’ ILLINOIS, INC.
S
5
~
~
S
S
()ii~
ofits
Attorneys
,
S
Richard M. Saines
S
S
BAKER & McKENZIE-
S
S
S
•
Attorneys for Petitioner
S
S
One Prudential Plaza
•
S
•
S
130 East Rand6lph Street
S
S
•
Chicago, illinois
6060-1
(312)
861-8000
5
5
CHIDOCSO2,
588845.1
.
S
-7-
-
S
,