REcE~vED
CLERK’S OFFICE
BEFORE THE
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
STATE
OF
~LUNO~S
PEOPLE OF THE
STATE OF ILLiNOIS,
)
PoUution Contro’ Board
by LISA MADIGAN, Attorney General
)
ofthe State ofIllinois,
)
)
No. PCB 04-9
Complainant
)
(Enforcement
-
Air)
)
v.
)
)
AARGUS
PLASTICS, iNC.,
)
an Illinois corporation,
)
)
Respondent.
)
NOTICE OF FILING
To:
See Attached Service List
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on February 3, 2004, we filed with the Clerk ofthe
Illinois Pollution Control Board,
100 West Washington Street, Suite 11-500, Chicago,
Illinois 60601, an original and nine (9) copies ofthe Answer to Complaint ofAargus
Plastic, Inc.,
a copy of which is attached hereto and hereby served
upon you.
AARGUS
PLASTICS, INC.
By
O~
Leo P. Dombrowski
WILDMAN HARROLD ALLEN & DIXON, LLP
225
West Wacker Drive, Suite 2800
Chicago, IL 60606
312-201-2000
THIS FILING IS MADE ON RECYCLED PAPER
RECE~VED
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION
CONTROL BOAR~LERK’S
OFFICE
PEOPLE
OF
THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, by
)
FE~3
32004
LISA MADIGAN, Attorney General ofthe
)
STATE OF ILLtNOIS
State ofIllinois
)
Pollution
Control Board
)
Complainant,
)
)
V.
)
No.
PCB 04-9
)
AARGUS PLASTICS, INC.,
)
an Illinois corporation,
)
)
Respondent.
)
AARGUS PLASTICS,
INC.’S ANSWER AND DEFENSES
TO
COMPLAINT
Respondent,
AARGUS
PLASTICS,
INC.
(“Aargus”),
by
and
through
its
attorneys,
Wildman, Harrold, Allen
& Dixon LLP,
and FageiHaber LLC, answers the Complaint as follows:
COUNT
I
1.
This
Complaint
is
brought
on
behalf of the
People
(“Complainant”)
by
the
Attorney
General
on
her
own
motion
and
upon
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
(2002).
ANSWER:
Aargus admits
that
the
State has brought a complaint
against it, but denies
that
the
State
is
entitled
to
its
requested relief and
denies
all
remaining allegations
set
forth
in
Paragraph
1.
2.
The
Illinois
EPA
is
an
administrative
agency of the
State
of Illinois,
created
pursuant to Section 4 ofthe Act,
415
ILCS
5/4
(2002), and charged,
inter alia,
with the duty of
enforcing
the
Act.
This
Complaint
is
brought
pursuant
to
Section
31
of the
Act,
415
ILCS
5/31(2002).
ANSWER:
Aargus admits that
the
JEPA is an
administrative agency and
that the
State
has brought a complaint
against Aargus.
Aargus denies that the
State
is entitled
to
its
requested
relief and denies all remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 2.
THIS FILINGIS MADE
ON RECYCLED
PAPER
3.
At
all
times
relevant
to
this
Complaint,
AARGUS
PLASTICS,
INC.
(“Respondent”) was
and
is an
Illinois corporation
duly organized and existing under the laws of
the State ofIllinois and is in good standing.
ANSWER:
Admitted.
4.
At all
times relevant to this
Complaint, Respondent has operated a facility located
at
1415 Redeker Road,
Des Plaines, Cook County,
Illinois, 60016 (“facility”).
ANSWER:
Admitted
(referred to
herein as the “Facility.”)
5.
Respondent operates a polyethylene bag manufacturing plant at its facility.
ANSWER:
Admitted
that Aargus
operated a polyethylene bag
manufacturing plant
at
•the
Facility.
Answering further, Aargus states that
it moved its
operation to
540
W.
Allendale,
Wheeling, Illinois in 2003.
6.
As
part
of
its
operations
at
the
facility,
Respondent
prints
ink
images
onto
polyethylene bags using flexographic printing presses.
ANSWER:
Admitted
that
Aargus
printed
ink
images
onto
polyethylene bags
using
flexographic printing presses.
7.
The facility emits
volatile
organic material
(“VOM”)
into
the environment from
16 fiexographic printing presses and associated dryers.
ANSWER:
Admitted
that
the Facility emitted volatile
organic material (“VOM”) from
16 flexographic printing presses and some associated dryers.
8.
Illinois
EPA
issued
Clean
Air
Act
Permit
Program
Operating
Permit
No.
95110088
(“CAAPP
Permit 95001188”)
to
Respondent, a Clean Air Act Permit Program source
(“CAAPP
source”),
on February
10,
2000 pursuant
to
Section 39.5 ofthe Act, 415
ILLS
5/39.5
(2002). CAAPP Permit
95001188 expires on February 10,
2005.
ANSWER:
Aargus
admits that the IEPA
issued CAAPP Permit 95001188
(the “CAAPP
Permit”) to
Aargus on
February
10, 2000.
Answering further, Aargus states that it has moved to
the
Wheeling
facility,
which
has
been
issued
a
FESOP.
As
part
of the
move,
the
JEPA
terminated the CAAPP Permit.
-2-
9.
Section
3.315
of
the
Act,
415
ILCS
5/3.315
(2002),
provides
the
following
definition:
“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.
ANSWER:
Aargus admits
that
Complainant
has quoted
a portion of the
Act.
Aargus
denies that it is liable under any part of the Act.
10.
Respondent
is a “person” as the term is
defined in
Section
3.3 15
of the
Act,
415
ILLS
5/3.3 15
(2002).
ANSWER:
The
allegations
of Paragraph
10
are
legal
conclusions
that
require
no
answer.
11.
Section
3.165
of the
Act,
415
ILCS
5/3.165
(2002),
provides
the
following
definition:
“Contaminant”
is
any solid,
liquid,
or gaseous matter, any odor, or
any form of energy, from whatever source.
ANSWER:
Aargus
admits
that Complainant
has quoted a portion of the
Act.
Aargus
denies that it is liable under any part of the Act.
12.
VOM
is
a
contaminant,
as that
term
is
defined in
Section
3.165
of the Act, 415
ILCS
5/3.165
(2002).
ANSWER:
The allegations of Paragraph
12 are
legal conclusions that require no answer.
13.
Section
3.115
of the
Act,
415
ILCS
5/3.115
(2002),
provides
the
following
definition:
“Air pollution”
is
the presence
in
the atmosphere of one
or more
contaminants
in
sufficient
quantities
and
of such
characteristics
and duration
as to
be
injurious
to
human,
plant,
or animal
life, to
health,
or
to
property,
or
to
unreasonably
interfere
with
the
enjoyment of life or property.
ANSWER:
Aargus
admits
that Complainant
has quoted
a portion of the
Act.
Aargus
denies that it is liable under any part ofthe Act.
14.
Section 9(a) ofthe Act,
415 ILCS 5/9(a)(2002), provides as follows:
-3-
No person shall:
(a)
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,
or
so
as
to
violate regulations
or standards
adopted by
the Board
under
this
Act;
ANSWER:
Aargus
admits
that Complainant has
quoted a portion of the Act.
Aargus
denies that it is liable under any part of the Act.
15.
Section
39.5(6)(a)
ofthe Act, 415
ILCS
5/39.5(6)(a)
(2002), provides as follows:
It
shall
be
unlawful
for
any
person
to
violate
any
terms
or
conditions
of a
permit
issued
under
this
Section,
to
operate
any
CAAPP source
except
in
compliance
with
a permit
issued
by the
Agency
under
this
Section
or
to
violate
any
other
applicable
requirements.
ANSWER:
Aargus admits
that
Complainant
has quoted
a portion of the
Act.
Aargus
denies that it is liable under any part ofthe Act.
16.
Section 211.4370
of the Illinois
Pollution
Control Board (“Board”) Air Pollution
Regulations,
35
Ill.
Adm. Code 211.4370, provides the following definition:
“Owner or Operator” means any person who owns, operates, leases,
controls,
or supervises
a source,
an
emission unit, or air pollution
control equipment.
ANSWER:
Aargus
admits
that
Complainant
has
quoted
a
portion
of the
Illinois
Administrative Code (the “Code”).
Aargus denies
that it is liable under any part ofthe Code.
17.
Section
218.401(a)
of the
Board Air Pollution
Regulations,
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
218.401(a), provides as follows:
No
owner
or
operator
of
a
subject
flexographic,
packaging
rotogravure or publication
rotogravure printing
line
shall apply at
any
time
any
coating
or
ink
unless
the
VOM
content
does
not
exceed
the limitation specified in either subsection (a) (1) or (a) (2)
below...
1)
Forty
percent
VOM by
volume of the coating
and
ink
(minus
water
and
any
compounds
which
are
specifically exempted from the definition ofVOM), or
-4-
2)
Twenty-five
percent
VOM
by
volume
of
the
volatile content in the coating and ink.
ANSWER:
Aargus admits
that Complainant has quoted a portion ofthe
Code.
Aargus
denies that it is liable under any part ofthe Code.
18.
Respondent
is
an
operator of a
subject
flexographic
printing
line
pursuant
to
Section 218.401(a) ofthe Board Air Pollution Regulations,
35
Ill. Adm. Code 211.401(a).
ANSWER:
The allegations of Paragraph
18 are legal conclusions that require no answer.
19.
Condition 7.1.3.(c) ofCAAPP Permit 95110088 provides as follows:
The
Permittee
shall
only
apply
inks
or
coatings
on
the
affected
printing
lines
that
comply
with one of the following requirements
pursuant to 35 IAC 2 18.401
(Flexographic Printing Regulations):
i.
Twenty-five
percent
VOM
by
volume
of
the
volatile content in the ink and coating
ii.
Twenty-five
percent
VOM
by
volume
of
the
volatile content
in
the
ink
and coating on
a daily weighted
average basis
35
IAC 218.401(b)(2)
iii.
Forty
percent
VOM by
volume of the
coating
and
ink
(minus
water
and
any
compounds
which
are
specifically exempted from the definition ofVOM)...
ANSWER:
Aargus admits that Complainant has quoted a portion of the CAAPP Permit.
Aargus denies that it is liable under any part ofthe CAAPP Permit.
20.
Pursuant to Section 218.106(c) ofthe Board Air Pollution Control Regulations,
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
218.106(c),
Respondent
was
to
come
into
compliance
with
the
Board
Air
Pollution Printing and Publishing Regulations
(35
Ill. Adm.
Code Part 218
Section H) by March
15,
1995.
ANSWER:
The allegations of Paragraph 20 are legal conclusions that require no answer.
21.
In
1998,
Respondent claimed
to
be using
inks that
complied with
the Board Air
Pollution
Regulations.
In
November
2001,
Respondent
informed
Illinois
EPA
that
it
would
require more time to
find compliant inks and would not be able to achieve compliance
until 2003.
ANSWER:
Aargus admits that in
1998
it was
using inks
that complied with the Board
Air Pollution Regulations.
Answering further, Aargus states
that in or about November 2001,
it
-5-
informed IEPA that
it would require additional time
to
find additional
compliant
inks, which it
did
soon thereafter.
Aargus denies the remaining allegations ofParagraph 21.
22.
Since
at least March
15,
1995
and
continuing to
2003
or dates better known
to
Respondent,
Respondent has been applying inks
to polyethylene bags at its
facility that
contain
over 40
VOM by volume.
ANSWER:
Aargus admits,
that at certain times
after March
15,
1995,
it applied inks to
polyethylene
bags
that
contained
over 40
VOM by
volume.
Aargus denies
the
remaining
allegations of Paragraph 22.
23.
Respondent,
by
its
conduct
alleged
herein,
has
violated
Sections
9(a)
and
39.5(6)(b)
of the Act,
415
ILCS
5/9(a)
and
39.5(6)(b)(2002),
Section
218.401(a) of the
Board
Air
Pollution
Regulations,
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
218.401(a),
and
Condition
7.l.3.(c) of CAAPP
Permit 95110088.
ANSWER:
The allegations ofParagraph 23
are legal
conclusions that require no answer.
COUNT II
1-17. Complainant
realleges
and
incorporates by
reference herein paragraphs
1
through
13,
paragraphs
15
though
17,
and
paragraph 20
of Count
I as paragraphs
1
through
17 of this
Count
II.
ANSWER:
Aargus repeats and incorporates by reference its answers to Paragraphs
1-13,
15-17 and 20
ofCount I as if fully set forth herein.
18.
Section 9(b) ofthe Act, 415 ILCS 5/9(b)(2002),
provides as follows:
No person shall:
(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 ofany conditions imposed by such permit;
ANSWER:
Aargus admits
that
Complainant has quoted
a portion of the Act.
Aargus
denies that
it is liable under any part ofthe Act.
19.
Condition
7.1.13
of
CAAPP
Permit
95110088
provides,
in
pertinent
part,
as
follows:
-6-
b.
The
flexographic
printing
lines
shall
comply
with
the
following schedule of compliance
to
address compliance
with
the
alleged violations of35 JAC Part 218.401:
Milestone
Timing
The flexographic printing lines
shall comply with the
compliant ink and
coating
regulations listed
in Condition
7.1.3(c)
No later than May 1, 2001 or any
earlier date established in a
Compliance Commitment
Agreement (CCA), enforcement
action or an accepted
Compliance Plan
The Permittee shall achieve
full compliance with any
requirements resulting from
resolution ofany enforcement
issues regarding the alleged
violation ofany
enforcement
issues regarding the alleged
violation of35
IAC 218.401.
No later than May 1, 2001 or any
earlier date established in
a Compliance Commitment
Agreement (CCA), enforcement
Action or an
accepted
Compliance Plan.
c.
To
comply
with
condition
7.1.3(b),
the
Permittee
shall
comply
with
the
following
schedule of
compliance
to
address
compliance
with
35
IAC
2 18.401
for
the
affected
flexographic
printing lines:
Milestone
Timing
Construction ofCustom-Made
Ink Dryers Completed
No later than May 1, 2001
Printing Lines and
Custom-
Made Dryers fully operational
and in complete compliance
No later than May 1, 2001
ANSWER:
Aargus admits
that Complainant has quoted a portion of the CAAPP Permit.
Aargus denies
that it is liable under any part ofthe CAAPP Permit.
20.
At the time Respondent applied for CAAPP Permit 9511088, Respondent was not
in
compliance with
all
applicable
laws and regulations.
As
a
condition of obtaining
a permit,
Respondent
committed
to
taking
certain
actions
to
become
fully
compliant
with
the
Board’s
flexographic
printing
regulations
by
May
1,
2001.
One
of those
conditions
was
the
use of
compliant inks after May 1, 2001.
ANSWER:
The allegations of Paragraph 20 are legal
conclusions that require no answer.
21.
As
a result of Respondent’s
failure
to
use compliant
inks
as required by
Section
218.401(a) of the Board’s Air Pollution Regulations by May
1, 2001
and continuing until
at least
June 2002, Respondent violated Condition 7.1.3(b) and (c) ofCAAPP Permit
95110088.
-7-
ANSWER:
The allegations ofParagraph 21
are legal conclusions that require no answer.
22.
Condition
7.1.13
and of CAAPP
Permit
95110088
provides,
in
pertinent part, as
follows:
d.
Submittal ofProgress Reports
A Progress Report shall be
submitted every six
months begiiming
six
months from
the date of issuance of this permit.
The Progress
report shall contain at least the following:
i.
The required time
frame for achieving the milestones
in
the
schedules for compliance,
and
actual
dates when such
milestones were achieved.
ii.
An
explanation of why any required
time
frame
in
the
schedules
of
compliance
were
not
met,
and
any
preventative or corrective measures adopted.
iii. Progress made in the most recent 6 month time
period.
ANSWER:
Aargus admits
that Complainant has quoted a portion ofthe CAAPP Permit.
Aargus denies that it is liable under any part ofthe CAAPP Permit.
23.
Respondent was
required
to
submit
its
first
Progress
Report
for
its
facility to
Illinois
EPA by August
10,
2000,
its
second
Progress Report
by February
10,
2001,
its
third
Progress
Report
by
August
10,
2001,
and
its
fourth
Progress
Report
by
February
10,
2002.
Respondent failed to submit any Progress Reports until March 28, 2002.
ANSWER:
Aargus admits that it did not submit written progress reports until March 28,
2002, and
further admits
that it repeatedly advised the Agency of its compliance progress before
that date.
24.
Respondent,
by
its
conduct
alleged
herein,
has
violated
Sections
9(b)
and
39.5(6)(b)
ofthe Act,
415
ILCS
5/9(b)
and
39.5(6)(b)(2002);
and
Conditions 7.1.13(b),
(c),
and
(d) ofCAAPP Permit
95110088.
ANSWER:
The allegations ofParagraph 24 are legal conclusions that require no
answer.
COUNT III
1-15.
Complainant realleges and
incorporates by reference herein paragraphs
1
through
15
of Count I as paragraphs
1 through
15 ofthis Count III.
-8-
ANSWER:
Aargus repeats and incorporates by reference its
answers to Paragraphs
1-15
of Count I as if fully set forth herein.
16.
Illinois
EPA
issued
Operating
Permit
No.
94020104
(“Permit
94020104”)
to
Respondent on May 4,
1994.
Pursuant
to
Section
39.5(4)(b)
ofthe Act, 415
ILCS
5/39.5(4)(b)
(2002), Permit 94020104
remained in
effect until February 10, 2000.
ANSWER:
Aargus admits the allegations contained in the first sentence ofParagraph 16.
The allegations of the second
sentence of Paragraph
16
are
legal
conclusions
that
require no
answer.
17.
Condition
1 ofPermit 94020104 provides as follows:
1.
Emissions
and operations ofthe
17
flexographic printing presses shall not
exceed
the following limits:
Material
Operating Hours
Material Usage
VOM Content
VOM Emissions
(Hour/Year)
(Lb/Hr)
(Wt.
)
(Lb/Hr)
(TonlYr)
Ink
8568
12
53
6.36
27.25
Alcohol
8568
4
100
4.0
17.14
44.39
ANSWER:
Aargus admits
that
Complainant has quoted a portion of Permit
94020104
(the “1994 Permit”).
Aargus denies that it is liable under any part ofthe
1994 Permit.
18.
Condition 7.1.6 ofCAAPP Permit 95110088 provides as follows:
7.1.6
Emission Limitations
In
addition
to
Condition
5.2.2
and
the
source
wide
emission
limitations
in
Condition
5.5,
the affected
printing
lines are subject
to
the following:
Emissions
and operations of the flexographic printing presses shall
not exceed the following limits:
VOM Usage
VOM Emissions
Lb/Month
TonIYr
Lb/Month
Ton/Yr
7,500
44.39
7,500
44.39
These
limits
are
based
on
maximum
operating
conditions
and
material
balance.
Compliance
with
annual
limits
shall
be
determined from a running
12 months ofdata.
-9-
ANSWER:
Aargus
admits that Complainant
has quoted
a portion of the
1994
Permit.
Aargus denies that it is liable under any part ofthe
1994 Permit.
19.
For calendar years
1994 through 2000,
Respondent emitted more than 44.39
tons
per year of VOM from its facility.
ANSWER:
Aargus
admits
that
its
Aimual
Emissions
Reports
showed that
it
emitted
more than 44.39
tons
per
year of VOM for calendar
years
1994 through
1999.
Aargus denies
that it emitted more than 44.39 tons for calendar year 2000.
20.
Condition
5.5.1
of
CAAPP Permit 95110088 provides as follows:
5.5.1
Permitted Emissions for Fees
The
annual
emissions
from
the
source,
not
considering
insignificant
activities
as addressed by
Section
3.0 of this
permit,
shall
not
exceed
the
following
limitations.
The
overall
source
emissions
shall
be
determined
by
adding
emissions
from
all
emission
units.
Compliance with
these
limits
shall be
determined
on
a calendar year basis. These
limitations (Condition
5.5.1)
are set
for
the
purpose
of
establishing
fees
and
are
not
federally
enforceable.
Permitted Emissions ofRegulated Pollutants
Pollutant
Tons/Year
Volatile Organic Material (VOM)
45
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
1.01
Particulate Matter (PM)
0.05
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)
1.0
HAP, not included in VOM or PM
Total
47.06
ANSWER:
Aargus admits that Complainant has quoted a portion ofthe CAAPP Permit.
Aargus
denies that it is liable under any part ofthe CAAPP Permit.
21.
During
calendar
year
2000,
Respondent’s
VOM
emissions
from
its
facility
exceeded the 45 ton VOM limit set
for the payment of air pollution site fees in
CAAPP permit no.
95110088.
-10-
ANSWER:
Denied.
Answering further,
Aargus
states that during calendar year 2001
it
emitted approximately 42 tons ofVOM, and during calendar year 2002 it emitted approximately
14.5
tons
of
VOM.
This
severe
downward
trend
demonstrates
how
Aargus’s
extensive
compliance efforts have resulted in
it emitting VOM far below its permitted limit.
22.
Respondent,
by
its
conduct
alleged
herein,
has
violated
Sections
9(a)
and
39.5(6)(b)
of the Act,
415
ILCS
5/9(a)
and
39.5(6)(b)12002);
Condition
1
ofPermit
94020104;
and Conditions
5.5.1
and 7.1.6 ofCAAPP
Permit 95110088.
ANSWER:
The allegations ofParagraph 22 are legal conclusions that require no answer.
COUNT IV
1-15.
Complainant realleges
and
incorporates by
reference herein Paragraphs
1
through
13
and Paragraph
16 of Count I and Paragraph
18 of Count
II as Paragraphs
1 through
15 ofthis
Count
N.
ANSWER:
Aargus repeats and incorporates by reference its
answers to
Paragraphs
1-13
and
16 ofCount I and Paragraph
18 of Count II as if fully set
forth herein.
16.
Section
201.302(a)
of the
Board Air Pollution
Regulations,
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
201.302(a), provides as follows:
Section 201.302
Reports
a)
The owner or operator of any emission unit or air pollution
control
equipment,
unless
specifically
exempted in
this
Section,
shall submit to the Agency
as a minimum, annual reports detailing
the nature, specific
emission units
and total
annual quantities of all
specified
air contaminant
emissions;
provided,
however,
that
the
Agency
may
require
more
frequent
reports
where
necessary
to
accomplish the purposes ofthe Act and this
Chapter.
ANSWER:
Aargus admits
that Complainant has quoted a portion of the Code.
Aargus
denies that it is liable under any part ofthe Code.
17.
Section
201.102
of
the
Board
Air
Pollution
Regulations,
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
201.102, provides the following definitions:
“Emission
Source”:
any equipment or facility of a type capable of
emitting specified air contaminants to
the atmosphere.
—11—
“Air Contaminant”:
any solid,
liquid or
gaseous matter,
any
odor
or any form
of energy,
that
is
capable
of being released
into the
atmosphere from an emission source.
ANSWER:
Aargus admits that Complainant has quoted a portion ofthe Code.
Aargus
denies that it is liable under any part ofthe Code.
18.
Respondent
is the operator of an
emission unit or emission source
as that term is
defined in
Section 201.102 ofthe Board Air Pollution Regulations,
35 Ill.
Adm.
Code
201.102.
VOM is an
air contaminant as that term is defined in Section 201.102 ofthe Board Air Pollution
Regulations, 35 Ill. Adm. Code 201.102.
ANSWER:
The allegations ofParagraph
18 are legal conclusions that require no answer.
19.
Section
254.303
of the Illinois
EPA’s Air
Pollution
Regulations,
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code 254.303, provides,
in pertinent part, as follows:
Section
254.303
Contents
of
Subpart
C
Annual
Emissions
Report
The Annual Emissions
Report to
be
filed pursuant to
this
Subpart
shall contain the following information:
a)
Source identification information:
1)
Source
name, physical location
and
mailing
address;
2)
SIC code;
3)
Source contact; and
4)
Source contact telephone number.
b)
Source-wide
totals
of
actual
emissions
for
all
regulated air pollutants emitted by the source.
c)
The
following
certification
statement,
unless
another statement
is
required
to
be
submitted
pursuant
to
the source’s permit:
“I
certify under penalty oflaw that this
document
and
all
attachments
were
prepared
under
my
direction
or
supervision
in
accordance
with
a
system
designed to
assure that qualified personnel properly gather
and
evaluate
the
information
submitted.
Based
on
my
inquiry
of the
person
or persons
directly responsible
for
gathering
the information,
the information submitted
is,
to
the
best
of my
knowledge
and
belief,
true,
accurate
and
-12-
complete.” The certification statement
shall be
signed
and
dated by
the certifying individual
and
accompanied by the
printed
full
name,
title,
and
a
telephone
number of the
certifying individual.
ANSWER:
Aargus
admits
that Complainant has quoted a portion of the Code.
Aargus
denies that it is liable under any part ofthe Code.
20.
Section
254.101
of the
Illinois
EPA’s
Air
Pollution
Regulations,
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code 254.101, provides the following definition:
“Actual
emissions” means the rate
of emission of a
regulated air
pollutant
from
a
source or an
emission unit for the calendar
year,
seasonal period, day or other period oftime, as specified, based on
the
best
information
available
to
the
owner
or operator of that
emission
unit. Actual
emission rates include
startup, shutdown or
malfunction
emissions.
The calculation
of actual
emissions
must
follow an “emission determination method”.
Where, for any reason,
a source has measured any ofits
emissions, the source must report
the
measured
total
as
its
“actual
emissions”
for
those
pollutants
rather than
using
an estimation
method
to
derive the total
for that
period oftime during which the measurements were taken.
ANSWER:
Aargus admits
that Complainant has quoted a portion ofthe
Code.
Aargus
denies
that it is liable under any part ofthe Code.
21.
Section
211.5500
of the
Board’s
Air Pollution
Regulations,
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
211.5500, provides the following definition:
a)
“Regulated air pollutant” means the following:
1)
Nitrogen
oxides
(NOx)
or
any
volatile
organic compound.
2)
Any pollutant for which a
national ambient
air quality standard has been promulgated.
3)
Any pollutant that
is
subject to
any standard
promulgated
under
Section
111
of the
Clean
Air
Act...
ANSWER:
Aargus admits
that Complainant has quoted a portion of the Code.
Aargus
denies that it is liable under any part ofthe Code.
-13-
22.
VOM
is
a
regulated
air
pollutant
as
that
term
is
defined
in
the
Board’s
Air
Pollution Regulations.
ANSWER:
The allegations ofParagraph
22
are legal conclusions that require no answer.
23.
Respondent
submitted
inaccurate
Annual
Emission
Reports
(“AERs”)
for
its
facility for the calendar years
1998 through 2001.
The AERs that Respondent submitted reported
emissions ofVOM from its
facility that were lower than actual emissions from its
facility.
ANSWER:
Denied.
24.
Respondent,
by its
conduct alleged
herein,
has violated Section
9(b) of the
Act,
415
ILLS
5/9(b)(2002),
Section 201.302(a) ofthe Board Air Pollution Regulations,
35 Ill.
Adm.
Code
20 1.302(a),
and
Section
254.303
of the
Illinois
EPA’s
Air Pollution
Regulations,
35
Ill.
Adm. Code 254.303.
ANSWER:
The allegations ofParagraph 24
are legal conclusions that require no answer.
COUNT V
1-22.
Complainant realleges and incorporates by reference herein paragraphs
1
through
13
and
paragraph
15
of Count
I,
paragraph
18
of Count
II, and
paragraphs
16
through
22
of
Count IV as paragraphs
1
through 22 ofthis Count V.
ANSWER:
Aargus realleges and
incorporates by reference its
answers
to
Paragraphs
1
through
13
and
15 of Count I, Paragraph
18 of Count II, and
Paragraphs
16
through 22 ofCount
IV as if fully set forth herein.
23.
Section 9.8(b) ofthe Act, 415
ILCS
5/9.8(b) (2002), provides as follows:
The
Agency
shall
design
an
emissions
market
system
that
will
assist
the
State
in
meeting applicable
post-1996
provisions
under
the
CAAA
(Clean
Air
Act
Amendments
of
1990,
provide
maximum flexibility for designated
sources that reduce emissions,
and
that
takes
into
account
the
findings
of the
national
ozone
transport assessment,
existing
air quality conditions,
and
resultant
emissions levels necessary to achieve or maintain attainment.
ANSWER:
Aargus admits
that
Complainant has
quoted a portion
ofthe
Act.
Aargus
denies that it is liable under any part ofthe Act.
24.
Section
205.300(b)(1) of the
Board’s
Air
Pollution
Regulations,
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code 205.300(b)(1), provides as follows:
-14-
In addition
to
any
information required
pursuant
to
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
254,
the
seasonal
emissions
component
of
the
Annual
Emissions
Report shall
contain the
following information for the
proceeding
seasonal
allotment
period
for
each
emission
unit
emitting or capable of emitting VOM, except that such information
is
not
required
for
emission
units
excluded
pursuant
to
Section
205.220 of the Part of for VOM emissions
attributable to
startup,
malfunction or breakdown, as specified in
Section 205.225 ofthis
Part:
1)
Actual seasonal emissions ofVOM from the source;
ANSWER:
Aargus admits that
Complainant has quoted a portion of the
Code.
Aargus
denies
that it is liable under any part ofthe Code.
25.
Condition 6.7(a)(i) of CAAPP Permit 95110088 provides as follows:
For
each
year in
which
the
source
is
operational,
the
Permittee
shall
submit,
as
a
component
of
its
Annual
Emission
Report,
seasonal
VOM
emission
information
to
the
Illinois
EPA
for the
seasonal
allotment
period.
This
report
shall
include
the following
information
(35
IAC 205.300:
i.
Actual seasonal emissions of VOM from the source;
ANSWER:
Aargus admits that
Complainant has quoted a portion of the CAAPP Permit.
Aargus
denies that it is liable under any part ofthe CAAPP Permit.
26.
Section
205.130
of the
Board’s
Air Pollution
Regulations,
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
205.130, provides the following definitions:
“Seasonal allotment period” means the period from May
1
through
September 30 of each year.
“Seasonal
emissions” means
actual
VOM
emissions
at
a
source
that occur during a seasonal allotment period.
ANSWER:
Aargus admits
that Complainant has quoted a portion of the Code.
Aargus
denies that it is liable under any part ofthe Code.
27.
Respondent’s
seasonal
emission reports
for
2000
and
2001
did
not
reflect
its
actual season emissions ofVOM for its facility.
-15-
ANSWER:
Aargus
admits
that,
because of
a
miscalculation,
its
seasonal
emission
reports
did
not
reflect its
actual
seasonal
emissions.
Answering further,
Aargus states that
it
promptly submitted corrected seasonal emission reports to the Agency.
28.
Condition 6.3(a) ofCAAPP Permit Number 95110088
provides as follows:
6.3
Obligation to Hold Allotment Trading Units
(ATUs)
a.
Pursuant
to 35
IAC 205.150(c)(1)
and
205.720,
and
as
further addressed by
Condition
6.8,
as of December
31
of each year,
this
source
shall hold ATUs
in
its account
in
an
amount
not
less
than
its
VOM
emissions
during
the
preceding seasonal allotment period (May
1
-
September 30)
not
including
VOM
emissions
from
the
following,
or the
source
shall
be
subject
to
emissions
excursion
compensation,” as described in Condition &.4.
ANSWER:
Aargus admits
that Complainant has quoted a portion of the CAAPP Permit.
Aargus denies that it is liable under any part ofthe CAAPP Permit.
29.
Section
205.150(c)(1)
of the
Board’s
Air Pollution
Regulations,
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code 205.150(c)(1), provides as follows:
At
the
end
of each reconciliation
period,
on
and
after the
dates
specified
in
Section
205.200 of this Part,
each participating source
shall:
1)
Hold
ATUs
in
an
amount
not
less
than
its
VOM
emissions
during
the
preceding
seasonal
allotment
period...
ANSWER:
Aargus admits
that Complainant has quoted a portion of the Code.
Aargus
denies
that it is liable under any part ofthe Code.
30.
Section
205.130
of the
Board’s
Air Pollution
Regulations,
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
205.130, provides the following definition:
“Reconciliation period” means the period
from
October
1
through
December 31
ofeach year during which the owner or operator ofa
participating
source
or
new
participating
source
must
compile
actual VOM
emissions
for the previous
seasonal
allotment period
and may also buy or sell ATUs so
that sufficient ATUs
are held by
the source by the conclusion of the reconciliation period.
-16-
ANSWER:
Aargus admits that
Complainant
has quoted a portion ofthe
Code.
Aargus
denies that it is liable under any part ofthe Code.
31.
At the end ofthe reconciliation periods in 2000
and 2001, Respondent held fewer
ATUs
in
its
account
than
its
VOM
emissions
from
its
facility
for the
2000
and
2001
seasonal
allotment periods.
ANSWER:
Aargus
admits
that
at the
end
of the reconciliation
periods,
it held
fewer
ATUs in its
account than its VOM emissions from the Facility for the seasonal allotment periods.
Answering further, Aargus states that it promptly corrected any shortfall.
32.
Respondent,
by
its
conduct
as
alleged
herein,
has
violated
Sections
9(b)
and
39.5(6)(b)
of the
Act,
415
ILLS
5/9(b)
and
39.5(6)(b)(2002);
Sections
205.300(b)(1)
and
205.150(c)(1)
of the
Board Air
Pollution
Regulations,
35
III.
Adm.
Code
205.300(b)(1)
and
205.150(c)(1); and Conditions 6.7(a)(i) and 6.3(a) of CAAPP Permit
95110088.
ANSWER:
The allegations of Paragraph 32
are legal conclusions that require no answer.
COUNT VI
1-15.
Complainant realleges and
incorporates by reference herein paragraphs
1
through
13
and paragraph
15 of Count I and
paragraph
18 of Count II as paragraphs
1
through
15 ofthis
Count vi.
ANSWER:
Aargus realleges
and
incorporates by reference its
answers
to
Paragraphs
1
through
13
and
15 ofCount I and Paragraph
18 ofCount II as if fully set
forth herein.
16.
Condition 9.8 ofCAAPP Permit 95110088 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
Pursuant
to
Section
39.5(7)(p)(v) of the
Act,
the
Permittee
shall
submit
annual
compliance
certifications.
The
compliance
certifications
shall
be
submitted
no
later
than
May
1
or
more
frequently as specified
in the applicable requirements or by permit
condition.
The compliance
certifications
shall be
submitted
to
the
Air Compliance Section,
Air Regional
Field Office,
and
USEPA
Region
5
-
Air Branch.
ANSWER:
Aargus admits that Complainant has quoted a portion of the Permit.
Aargus
denies that it is liable under any part ofthe Permit.
-17-
17.
Respondent
was
required
to
submit
its
Annual
Compliance
Certification
for
calendar year 2000 to the Illinois EPA no
later than May 1, 2001. Respondent did not submit its
annual compliance certification to Illinois EPA for calendar year 2000 until November 6, 2001.
ANSWER:
The
allegations of the
first
sentence of Paragraph
17
are legal conclusions
that require no answer.
Aargus admits the allegations ofthe second sentence ofParagraph 17.
18.
Respondent,
by
its
conduct
as
alleged
herein,
has
violated
Sections
9(b)
and
39.5(6)(b)
of the Act,
415
ILLS
5/9(b)
and
39.5(6)(b)(2002),
and
Condition
9.8
of CAAPP
Permit 95110088.
ANSWER:
The
allegations ofParagraph
18
are legal conclusions that require no answer.
COUNT VII
1-15.
Complainant
realleges and
incorporates by reference herein paragraphs
1
through
15
ofCount VI as paragraphs
1
through 15 ofthis Count VII.
ANSWER:
Aargus
realleges
and
incorporates by reference its
answers
to Paragraphs
1
through
15 ofCount VI as if fully set
forth herein.
16.
Condition
5.7.1
of
CAAPP
Permit
95110088
provides,
in
pertinent
part,
as
follows:
5.7.1
General Source-Wide Reporting Requirements.
The Permittee shall notify the Illinois EPA, Compliance Section of
noncompliance
with
the
permit
requirements
within
30
days,
pursuant to
Section 39.5 (7) (f) (ii) of the Act.
Reports
shall describe the probable cause
of such deviations,
and
any corrective actions or preventative measures taken.
ANSWER:
Aargus admits that Complainant has quoted a portion ofthe CAAPP Permit.
Aargus
denies that it is liable under any part ofthe CAAPP
Permit.
17.
Respondent has failed
to notify Illinois EPA of many instances when it has failed
to
comply
with
CAAPP Permit
95110088
within
30
days of failure
to
comply.
Respondent
failed
to
notify Illinois
EPA within
30
days of its
use of noncompliant
inks
in the flexographic
printing
presses,
its
failure
to
achieve VOM
emission
limitations,
its
violations
of Emission
Market Reduction System Conditions,
and its failure to timely submit compliance certifications.
ANSWER:
Denied.
-18-
18.
Respondent,
by its
conduct as alleged herein, has violated Sections 9(b) and 39.5
(6)
(b) of the
Act,
415
ILLS
5/9
(b)
and
39.5(6)
(b) (2002),
and
Condition
5.7.1
of CAAPP
Permit 95110088.
ANSWER:
The allegations ofParagraph
18
are legal conclusions
that require no answer.
COUNT VIII
1-15.
Complainant realleges and incorporates by reference herein paragraphs
1
through
15
ofCount VI as paragraphs
1 through 15 ofthis
Count VIII.
ANSWER:
Aargus realleges and
incorporates by reference its
answers
to
Paragraphs
1
through
15 ofCount VI as if fully set forth herein.
16.
Condition
9.2.1
of
CAAPP
Permit
95110088
provides,
in
pertinent
part,
as
follows:
9.2.1
Duty to Comply
The Permittee must
comply with
all
terms
and
conditions
of this
permit.
Any permit
noncompliance
constitutes
a
violation
of the
CAA
and
the Act,
and is
grounds
for any termination,
revocation
and
reissuance,
modification,
or
denial
of
a
permit
renewal
application Section
39.5(7)(o)(i) ofthe Act.
The
Permittee
shall
meet
applicable
requirements
that
become
effective
during
the
permit
term
in
a
timely
manner
unless
an
alternate
schedule for compliance with the applicable requirement
is established.
ANSWER:
Aargus admits that Complainant
has quoted a portion of the CAAPP Permit.
Aargus denies that it is liable under any part of the CAAPP Permit.
17.
Respondent
has
violated
numerous
conditions
of
CAAPP
Permit
95110088
including
using
noncompliant
inks
in
the
flexographic
printing
presses,
exceeding
VOM
emission limitations,
violating Emission Market Reduction
System
Conditions,
failing
to timely
submit
compliance
certifications,
and
failing
to
notify
Illinois
EPA
within
30
days
of
noncompliance.
ANSWER:
The allegations of Paragraph
17
are legal conclusions that require no
answer.
18.
Respondent,
by
its
conduct
as
alleged
herein,
has
violated
Sections
9(b)
and
39.5(6)(b) of the
Act,
415
ILCS
5/9(b)
and
39.5(6)(b)(2002),
and
Condition
9.2.1
of CAAPP
Permit 95110088.
-19-
ANSWER:
The allegations ofParagraph
18 are legal
conclusions that require no
answer.
WHEREFORE,
the
Respondent
Aargus
Plastics,
Inc.
denies
that
the
Complainant
is
entitled to any relief against it whatsoever,
and denies each and every allegation contained in the
Complaint
not
specifically admitted
herein.
Having
fully
answered
Complainant’s
Complaint,
Aargus offers the following defenses in
further response thereto:
First Defense
Complainant’s Complaint fails
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Second Defense
The IEPA did not issue and serve
a violation notice upon Aargus within
180
days after it
became aware ofthe alleged violations, as required by Section 31(a)(1).
Accordingly, the Board
lacks jurisdiction over this matter.
Third Defense
Complainant’s
claims
are
barred,
in
whole
or
in
part,
by
the
applicable
statute
of
limitations.
Fourth
Defense
Complainant’s
claims
are barred,
in
whole
or in part, by the doctrine of laches because
the Agency had
known of the alleged violations
for years,
but waited until January 31,
2002
to
issue and serve a Violation Notice upon Aargus.
Fifth Defense
Complainant’s claims have been waived, in whole or in
part, because Complainant knew
or should have known of its
rights
to take enforcement action
against Aargus, but
relinquished
those rights by failing to take action.
-20-
Sixth Defense
Complainant’s claims
are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine ofestoppel because
the Agency regularly
inspected the Aargus facility,
knew or should have known of the alleged
violations,
yet did
not
inform Aargus
that
it was
allegedly violating
applicable
requirements.
Consequently, the Agency authorized Aargus’s practices and
operations.
Seventh Defense
The alleged violations did not result in any economic benefit to Aargus.
Eighth Defense
The alleged violations
did not result in
any harm or threat ofharm to
the environment.
Ninth Defense
The alleged violations
did not impair IEPA’s administration of the air permit program.
Tenth Defense
Water-based
inks do not represent RACT for printers like Aargus.
Eleventh Defense
The
IEPA
failed
to
fairly
advise
Aargus
of
the
applicable
requirements
and
did
not
provide fairnotice ofthose requirements.
Twelfth Defense
The IEPA did not include in its
Violation Notice any allegation that Aargus violated any
requirement of the
1994 Permit.
This portion ofCount III is therefore barred by the Act.
Thirteenth Defense
The IEPA did not include in its Violation Notice any allegation regarding a failure on the
part ofAargus to
hold the appropriate number ofATUs
at the end of the reconciliation period in
2001.
This portion ofCount V is therefore barred by the Act.
-21-
Fourteenth Defense
The IEPA did not include in its
Violation Notice any allegation regarding a failure on the
part of Aargus
to
timely submit
its
Annual
Compliance
Certification for calendar
year
2000.
Count VI is therefore barred by the Act.
Respectfully submitted,
By:
~
One ofthe attorneys for AARGUS
PLASTICS, iNC.
Dated: February 3, 2004
Leo P. Dombrowski
WILDMAN, HARROLD, ALLEN & DIXON LLP
225
W. Wacker Drive,
Suite 3000
Chicago, IL
60606
T: (312) 201-2000
F:
(312) 201-2555
dombrowski@wildmanharrold.com
John J. Cullerton
Thomas B. Golz
FAGELHABER LLC
55
East Monroe Street,
40th
Floor
Chicago, IL
60603
T:
(312)
346-7500
F:
(312) 580-2201
j
cul1erton(~fagelhaber.com
tgolz(~fage1haber.com
-22-
