RECE~VE~
CLERK’S OFFICE
BEFORE
THE
ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD
APR
222004
STATE
OF ILLINOIS
PEOPLE
OF
TIlE
STATE
OF ILLINOIS,
)
Pollution Control Board
Complainant,
)
)
vs.
)
PCB
03-183
)
(Enforcement
-
Air)
PASSAVANT
AREA
HOSPITAL,
)
an illinois
not-for-profit
corporation,
)
Respondent.
)
NOTICE OF
FILING
TO:
Ms.
Sally
A.
Carter
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Bureau
500
S.
Second St.
Springfield,
IL 62706
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE
that I have today
mailed for filing with
the Office of the Clerk ofthe
Pollution
Control Board the an original and ten copies of the following:
1.
Notice of Filing
2.
Respondent’s
Motion for Leave to
File Answer to Second Supplemental and
Amended Complaint;
3.
Respondent’s
Answer
to Second
Supplemental
and
Amended Complaint;
and
4.
Certificate of Service
copies of which
herewith served
upon you.
Re
ectfully sub
itt~~
~
Date
/
/
9
~
Babette P.
Salus
Schwing
&
Salus
P.C.
1100 S.
Fifth
St.
Springfield,
IL 62703
(217)
544-3232
(217) 544-3273
(fax)
This
filing
is
submitted
on recycled paper.
RECE~VED
CLERK’S OFFICE
BEFORE THE
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOA9PR
222004
PEOPLE
OF
TIlE
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Complainant,
)
Pollution Control
Board
)
vs.
)
PCBO3-183
)
(Enforcement
-
Air)
PASSAVAiNT
AREA
HOSPITAL,
)
an Illinois not-for-profit corporation,
)
Respondent.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I,
the undersigned,
certify
that
on April
19,
2004,
I served
the Notice of Filing,
Respondent’s
Motion
for Leave
to
File
Answer to
Second
Supplemental
and
Amended
Complaint; and Respondent’s Answer to Second Supplemental
and Amended Complaint by
U.S.
mail,
first class postage pre-paid,
upon:
Ms.
Sally A.
Carter
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Bureau
500
S. Second
St.
Springfield,
IL 62706
and
that a copy
said documents was
also
sent by first class
mail
postage prepaid to:
Ms. Carol Sudman,
Hearing Officer
Illinois
Pollution Control Board
1021
N.
Grand Avenue,
East
P.
0.
Box
19274
Springfield,
IL
62974-9274
/1
ve~
Babette
P.
Salus
Schwirìg
& Salus
P.C
1100
S.
Fifth St.
Springfield,
IL 62703
(217) 544-3232
(217) 544-3273
(fax)
RECE~VED
CLERK’S OFFICE
BEFORE
TIlE
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARI)
APR
222004
STATE
OF ILLINOIS
Pollution Control
Board
PEOPLE
OF
THE
STATE
OF ILLINOIS,
)
Complainant,
)
)
vs.
)
PCB
03-183
(Enforcement
-
Air)
PASSAVANT
AREA
HOSPITAL,
)
an illinois not-for-profit corporation,
)
Respondent.
RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO
FILE
INSTANTER
RESPONDENT’S ANSWER TO SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL
AN)
AMENDED
COMPLAINT
Respondent,
PASSAVANT
AREA
HOSPITAL,
an
Ill mois
not-for-profit corporation,
hereby requests
leave
to
file
instanter
its
Answer
to
Complainant’s
Second
Supplemental
and
Amended Complaint.
On
April
8,
2003,
Complainant
filed
a three count
complaint
alleging
violations
of
the
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Act,
provisions
of
the
Pollution
Control
Board’s
Rules
and
conditions
of
permits
issued
by
the
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
to
Respondent Passavant
Area
Hospital.
A timely answer
was filed
on
June 4,
2003.
On
August
15,
2003,
Complainant
submitted
for
filing
its
First
Supplemental
and
Amended
Complaint,
the
filing
of
the
First
Supplemental
and
Amended
Complaint
was
allowed.
On
November
21,
2003
Complainant
submitted
for
filing
a
Second
Supplemental
and
Amended
Complaint.
Prior to
the date due for filing
its Answer
Respondent asked
for additional
time
to
in
which
to
file
its
Answer
because
(1)
Respondent
had
undergone
a
change
in
engineering
management and therefore
required additional
time
to
research the allegations contained the
1
Second
Supplemental
and
Amended
Complaint,
and
(2)
Respondent felt
it
more pressing
to
devote
its
engineering
resources
on
resolving
problems
associated
with
the
pollution
control
device,
rather
than
expending
resources
on
determining
its
history
of
compliance.
This
decision
was
justified
by
the
fact
that
Respondent
is
not
operating
its
Medical
Waste
Incinerator.
Respondent required the additional
time
in
order
to
research and
accurately answer the
allegations
set
forth
in
the
Second
Supplemental
and
Amended Complaint.
Respondent
notes
that at
no
point
has
Respondent attempted
to
delay or
impede
enforcement efforts
and,
to
the
contrary,
has attempted
to expedite
them by voluntarily waiving Section
31
requirements.
WHERERFORE,
Respondent respectfully requests
that this
Motion be
granted and
that
it
be
allowed
leave
to
file
instanter
Respondent’s
Answer
to
Second
Supplemental
and
Amended Complaint.
Respectfully submitted,
PASSAVANT AREA HOSPITAL,
an Illinois
not-for-profit corporation,
RESPONDENT
BY:
~
Ba
ette
P.
Salus
Babette
P.
Salus
Schwing
& Salus,
P.C.
1100 S.
Fifth St.
Springfield,
IL
62703
(217) 544-3232
(217) 544-3273
(fax)
7
REC~VED
CLERK’S
OFFICE
BEFORE
THE ILLINOIS
POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
~,
STATE OF ILLINOIS
PEOPLE
OF
THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
pollution
Control Board
Complainant,
)
vs.
)
PCB
03-183
)
(Enforcement
-
Air)
PASSAVANT
AREA
HOSPITAL,
)
an
illinois
not-for-profit corporation,
)
)
Respondent.
RESPONDENT’S ANSWER TO SECOND
SUPPLEMENTAL
AND
AMENDED
COMPLAINT
Respondent,
PASSAVANT
AREA
HOSPITAL,
an
Illinois
not-for-profit corporation,
answers
the
Second
Supplemental
and
Amended Complaint previously
filed
in
this
matter as
follows:
COUNT I
1.
Respondent
admits
the
allegations
contained
in
paragraph
1
of
Count
I
of the
Second Supplemental
and
Amended Complaint.
2.
Respondent
admits
the
allegations
contained
in
paragraph
2
of
Count
I
of the
Second Supplemental
and
Amended Complaint.
3.
Respondent
admits
the allegations
contained
in
paragraph
3
of
Count
1
of the
Second
Supplemental
and Amended Complaint.
4.
Respondent
denies
the
allegations
contained
in
paragraph
4
of
Count
1
of the
Second
Supplemental
and Amended Complaint but
does admit
that until
November 20,
2001,
it
did
operate a medium
hospital
medical/infectious waste incinerator at
its hospital
located at 1600
1
West Walnut Street,
Jacksonville,
Morgan County,
Illinois.
5.
Respondent
admits
the
allegations
contained
in
paragraph
S
of Count
1
of the
Second Supplemental
and Amended Complaint.
6.
Respondent
admits
the
allegations contained
in
paragraph
6
of
Count
1
of the
Second Supplemental
and Amended Complaint.
7.
Respondent
admits
the
allegations
contained
in
paragraph
7
of Count
I
of
the
Second Supplemental
and Amended Complaint.
8.
Respondent
admits
the
allegations
contained
in
paragraph
8
of Count
I
of the
Second Supplemental
and Amended Complaint.
9.
Respondent
admits
the
allegations
contained
in
paragraph
9
of Count
I of
the
Second Supplemental
and
Amended Complaint.
10.
Respondent
admits
the allegations
contained
in
paragraph
10
of Count
I
of the
Second Supplemental
and Amended Complaint.
11.
Respondent admits
the
allegations
contained
in
paragraph
11
of Count
I
of the
Second
Supplemental
and Amended
Complaint.
12.
Respondent admits
the allegations
contained
in
paragraph
12
of Count
I
of the
Second
Supplemental and
Amended Complaint.
13.
Respondent admits
the allegations
contained
in
paragraph
13
of Count
I
of the
Second
Supplemental and
Amended Complaint.
14.
Respondent admits
the allegations
contained
in
paragraph
14
of Count
I of the
Second
Supplemental
and Amended Complaint.
15.
Paragraph
15
ofCountl of the
Second Supplemental
and Amended Complaint sets
forth Complainant’s conclusion of law,
to
which
no
answer
is
required.
16.
Paragraph
16 of Count I of the Second Supplemental and Amended Complaint sets
forth Complainant’s conclusion of law,
to
which no answer
is
required.
17.
Paragraph
17 of Count I of the Second Supplemental and Amended Complaintsets
forth Complainant’s conclusion of law,
to
which
no
answer
is
required.
The remainder of Count I of the Second Supplemental and Amended Complaint consists
of
the Complainant’s prayer for relief to which no answer is required, however to the extent that ita
response is
deemed to
be required,
Respondent Answers
as follows:
A.
Respondent admits that Complainant
is entitled
to the relief requested in paragraph
A of Count
I of the Second Supplemental
and
Amended Complaint.
B.
Respondent denies that Complainant is entitled
to the relief requested in paragraph
B
of Count I of the Second Supplemental
and
Amended Complaint.
C.
Respondent denies
that Complainant
is entitled
to the relief requested in paragraph
C
of Count I of the Second
Supplemental
and
Amended Complaint.
D.
Respondent denies that Complainant
is entitled
to the relief requested in paragraph
D of Count
I of the Second Supplemental
and Amended Complaint.
E.
Respondent denies that Complainant
is entitled
to the relief requested
in paragraph
E of Count
I of the Second
Supplemental
and Amended Complaint.
F.
Respondent
lacks sufficient
information to
determine whether the Complainant
is
entitled
to
the
relief
requested
in
paragraph
F
of
Count
I
of
the
Second
Supplemental
and
Complaint.
3
COUNT II
1-8.
Respondent restates its answers and
incorporates by reference herein paragraphs
1
through
8
of
its
answer to
Count
1
as paragraphs
1
through
8
of its answer to
Count II of the
Second Supplemental
and
Amended Complaint.
9.
Respondent
admits
the allegations
contained
in
paragraph
9
of
Count
II of the
Second Supplemental and Amended Complaint.
8.
Respondent admits
the allegations contained
in
paragraph
10
of Count II of the
Second
Supplemental
and
Amended Complaint.
9.
Respondent admits
the allegations contained
in
paragraph
9
of Count
II of the
Second Supplemental
and
Amended Complaint.
10.
Respondent admits
the allegations contained
in
paragraph
10
of Count
II
of the
Second Supplemental
and
Amended Complaint.
11.
Respondent admits
the allegations
contained
in
paragraph
11
of Count
II of the
Second
Supplemental
and
Amended Complaint.
12.
Respondent admits
the allegations
contained
in
paragraph
12
of Count
II of the
Second
Supplemental
and
Amended Complaint.
13.
Respondent
admits
the allegations
contained
in paragraph
13
of Count
II of the
Second Supplemental
and
Amended Complaint.
14.
Respondent
admits
the allegations
contained
in paragraph
14 of Count
II of the
Second Supplemental
and
Amended Complaint.
15.
Respondent
admits
the allegations
contained
in paragraph
15
of Count
II of the
Second Supplemental
and
Amended Complaint.
4
16.
Respondent admits
the allegations contained
in
paragraph
16
of
Count II of the
Second Supplemental and Amended Complaint.
17.
Respondent denies
the allegations contained
in
paragraph
17
of Count
II of the
Second
Supplemental and Amended Complaint
18.
Respondent admits
the allegations contained
in
paragraph
18
of Count
II of the
Second Supplemental
and Amended Complaint,
and
further affirmatively states that:
(a)
prior
to
September
15,
2001,
the
Respondent
was
in
the
process
of
installing
Continuous
Emission Monitoring System
(CEMS)
equipment and
therefore
opacity
testing
was
postponed
until
the equipment
was
installed
and
that
Respondent
notified
Illinois
EPA of this
decision and
that the agency concurred
in this
decision;
and
(b) on November 20,
2001,
Respondent voluntarily ceased operation of the HMIWI
until
an
additional
air
pollution
control system
(scrubber)
is
installed.
From
November
20,
2001,
through September 15,
2002,
the HMIWI was operated
only in conjunction with the installation of
the additional air pollution control system,
as necessary to
determine that the correct installation,
operation,
calibration,
and
balancing
that
system.
Because
Respondent
voluntarily
ceased
operations
of the
HMIWI
pending
completion
of the
installation
of
the air
pollution
control
system,
it
was not prudent
to
operate the HMIWI for the
sole purpose of conducting
an
annual
opacity test
in 2002.
Further,
since the HMIWI was
not being operated during
the period from
November 20,
2001
through
September
15, 2002,
and
later,
the results of an opacity test would
have been
meaningless.
19.
Respondent admits
the allegations contained
in paragraph
19
of Count
II of the
Second Supplemental
and
Amended Complaint
and,
further,
affirmatively
states that:
5
(a)
The Continuous
Emissions Monitoring System (CEMS) was installed beginning the
week ofJuly 23,
2001.
The CEMS installation was complete and the system commissioned prior
to the emissions
testing.
Because of delays that were the result of Johnson Control, Inc. ‘s failure
to properly install and commission the CEMS, the annual performance test was delayed and could
not be conducted
until September 25 and 26, 2001, approximately
10 days after the dateby which
annual
performance
test
was
to
be
conducted.
However,
prior
to
September
15,
2001,
engineering
contractors
for
the Respondent
notified
Illinois
EPA
of the
problems
regarding
installation and certification of the CEMS and
the resultant delay of the annual performance test;
and
(b)
On
November
20,
2001,
the
Respondent
voluntarily
ceased
operations
of
the
HMIWI pending installation of the additional air pollution control system.
Except to the extent
necessary
to
determine
that
the correct
installation,
operation,
calibration,
and
balancing
that
system,
the HMIWI was not operated after November 20,
2001.
Because Respondent voluntarily
ceased operations of the HMIWI pending
completion of the installation of the air pollution control
system,
it was
not
prudent to operate
the HMIWI for the
sole purpose of conducting an
annual
performance test.
20.
Respondent
denies the allegations
contained
in
paragraph 20
of Count
II of the
Second
Supplemental
and
Amended Complaint.
21.
Respondent lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained
in paragraph
21
of Count II of the
Second
Supplemental and Amended Complaint.
22.
Paragraph
22 of Count II of the Second Supplemental
and Amended Complaint sets
forth
Complainant’s conclusion of law,
to
which
rio answer
is required,
but to
the extent that an
6
answer
is
deemed required,
Respondent denies the allegations.
23.
Paragraph
23 of Count II of the Second Supplemental and Amended Complaint sets
forth
Complainant’s conclusion of law, to
which no
answer
is
required, but
to the extent that an
answer
is
deemed
required, Respondent denies the allegations.
24.
Paragraph 24 of Count II of the Second
Supplemental and Amended Complaint sets
forth
Complainant’s conclusion of law,
to
which no
answer
is required, but to
the extent that an
answer
is
deemed required, Respondent denies
the allegations.
25.
Paragraph 25 of Count II of the Second Supplemental and Amended Complaint sets
forth
Complainant’s conclusion of law,
to
which no
answer
is
required, but to
the extent that an
answer
is
deemed
required, Respondent denies the allegations.
26.
Paragraph 26
of Count II of the Second
Supplemental
and Amended Complaint sets
forth
Complainant’s conclusion of law,
to
which no answer
is required, but to
the extent
that an
answer
is
deemed
required, Respondent denies
the allegations.
27.
Paragraph 27 of Count II of the Second Supplemental and Amended Complaint set
forth
Complainant’s conclusion of law,
to
which
no
answer is required, but to
the extent
that an
answer is
deemed
required,
Respondent denies
the allegations.
The remainder of Count II of the Second Supplemental and
Amended Complaint consists
of the Complainant’s prayer for relief to which no answer is required, however to the extent that
it
a
response
is
deemed
to be
required,
Respondent Answers
as follows:
A.
Respondent admits that Complainant
is entitled
to the relief requested
in paragraph
A of Count II of the Second
Supplemental
and
Amended
Complaint.
7
B.
Respondent denies that Complainant is
entitled
to the relief requested
in paragraph
A of Count II of the Second Supplemental and Amended Complaint.
C.
Respondent denies that Complainant
is entitled to the relief requested
in paragraph
C of Count II of the Second
Supplemental
and
Amended Complaint.
D.
Respondent denies that Complainant
is entitled
to the relief requested in paragraph
D
of Count II of the Second
Supplemental
and
Amended Complaint.
E.
Respondent denies that Complainant
is entitled
to the relief requested
in paragraph
E of Count II of the Second
Supplemental and
Amended Complaint.
F.
Respondent lacks sufficient
information to
determine whether the Complainant
is
entitled
to
the
relief
requested
in
paragraph
F
of
Count
II
of the
Second
Supplemental
and
Amended Complaint.
COUNT III
1-8.
Respondent restates its answers
and
incorporates by reference herein paragraphs
1
through
8
of
its
answer
to
Count I as paragraphs
1
through
8
of its
answer
to
Count
III of the
Second Supplemental
and Amended Complaint.
9.
Respondent admits
the allegations contained
in paragraph
9
of Count
III of the
Second
Supplemental
and
Amended Complaint.
10.
Respondent denies
the allegations
contained
in paragraph
10
of Count
III of the
Second
Supplemental
and
Amended Complaint.
11.
Respondent admits
the allegations
contained
in
paragraph
11
of Count III of the
Supplemental
and
Amended Complaint.
8
12.
a.
Respondent admits the allegations contained
in subparagraph a ofparagraph
12
of Count
III of the Second
Supplemental
and
Amended
Complaint and
further affirmatively
states that
as
the CAAPP permit was
issued
on June
18, 2001,
a record of total annual emissions
for the calendar year 2001
would not
have been available and a record for total
annual emissions
for calendar year 2000
was
not required
to
be
maintained.
b.
Respondent admits the allegations contained in subparagraph b of paragraph
12
of Count III and further affirmatively states
that
as of the date of the September
5,
2001,
the
CO monitoring
unit
had
not been calibrated,
was
not
certified and
was
not
operable,
therefore
Respondent could not make these records available.
c.
Respondent denies the allegations contained in
subparagraphc ofparagraph
12
of Count III of the Second Supplemental
and Amended Complaint.
d.
Respondent denies the allegations contained in subparagraph d ofparagraph
12
of Count
III of the Second Supplemental
and
Amended Complaint.
e.
Respondent admits the allegation contained in paragraph 12(e) of Count III
and
further affirmatively states
that the
unit
was
not
certified until
October
2001
and
records
covering the period
from
October
2001
through
November
2001
were
submitted to
the Illinois
EPA
in response to
a
letter request from
Illinois
EPA dated November 29,
2001.
13.
Paragraph
13
of Count III of the
Second
Supplemental
and
Amended Complaint
sets forth Complainant’s conclusion of law,
to which no
answer is
required, but to the extent that
an
answer
is
deemed required, Respondent denies
the allegations.
14.
Paragraph
14
of Count III of the Second
Supplemental
and
Amended Complaint
sets forth Complainant’s conclusion of law,
to which no answer is required, but to the extent that
9
an
answer
is
deemed
required,
Respondent denies the allegations.
15.
Paragraph
15
of Count III of the Second
Supplemental
and Amended Complaint
sets forth
Complainant’s conclusion of law,
to
which no answer
is
required, but to the extent that
an answer
is
deemed
required,
Respondent denies
the allegations.
16.
Paragraph
16
of Count III
of the Second Supplemental
and Amended Complaint
sets forth
Complainant’s conclusion of law,
to which no answer
is required, but to
the extent that
an answer
is
deemed required,
Respondent denies
the allegations.
17.
Paragraph
17
of Count III of the
Second
Supplemental and
Amended Complaint
sets
forth Complainant’s conclusion of law,
to which no answer is
required, but to the extent that
an
answer
is deemed required, Respondent denies the allegations.
The remainder of Count III of the Complaint consists of the Complainant’s prayer for relief
to which no answer
is required, however to the extent that
it a response
is deemed to be required,
Respondent Answers as follows:
A.
Respondent admits that Complainant
is entitled
to the relief requested in paragraph
A of Count III of the Second Supplemental
and
Amended Complaint.
B.
Respondent denies
that Complainant
is entitled
to the relief requested
in paragraph
A of Count III of the Second Supplemental
and
Amended Complaint.
C.
Respondent denies
that Complainant
is entitled to the relief requested
in paragraph
C of Count III of the Second Supplemental
and
Amended Complaint.
D.
Respondent denies that Complainant
is entitled
to the relief requested
in paragraph
D of Count
III of the Second
Supplemental
and
Amended Complaint.
10
E.
Respondent denies
that Complainant is
entitled to
the relief requested in paragraph
E of Count III of the Second Supplemental
and
Amended Complaint.
F.
Respondent lacks sufficient
information to
determine whether the Complainant
is
entitled
to
the
relief
requested
in
paragraph F of Count
III
of the
Second
Supplemental
and
Amended Complaint.
COUNT
IV
1-7.
Respondent restates its answers and incorporates by reference herein paragraphs 2
through
6
of its
answer
to
Count I as paragraphs
1
through
7
of its
answer
to
Count IV of the
Second
Supplemental
and Amended Complaint.
8.
Respondent
admits
the allegations
contained
in
paragraph
8
of Count IV of the
Second
Supplemental
and Amended Complaint.
9.
Respondent admits
the allegations
contained
in
paragraph
9
of Count
IV
of the
Second
Supplemental
and
Amended Complaint.
10.
Respondent admits
the allegations
contained
in
paragraph
10
of Count IV of the
Second
Supplemental and Amended Complaint.
11.
Respondent denies
the allegations contained
in paragraph
11
of Count
IV of the
Second Supplemental
and Amended Complaint.
12.
Respondent
admits
that,
as
alleged
in
paragraph
12
of Count
IV of the
Second
Supplemental and Amended Complaint, the CAAPP annual compliance certification submitted by
Respondent did
not expressly
address the CAAPP permit conditions that apply specifically to the
CO monitor,
however,
Respondent
affirmatively
states
that the
cover letter
that
was
submitted
11
with
the report explained that during calendar year 2002,
the incinerator had not been operated on
a
continuous basis and that during the year the incinerator had been operated for a total of
104.5
hours and that was for the purpose of testing and balancing the incinerator in conjunction with the
installation of a new wet scrubber
system that was being
installed.
13.
Respondent admits
that,
as alleged
in
paragraph
13
of Count
IV of the
Second
Supplemental
and Amended Complaint, that
it did
not conduct a stack test in 2002 and
therefore,
could
not provide data that would
establish compliance with the standards for particulate matter,
hydrogen
chloride,
cadmium,
carbon
monoxide,
and
dioxins/furans.
However,
as
noted
in
Answer
to
the allegations set forth
in
paragraph
19 of Count
II of the Second Supplemental and
Amended Complaint,
on November 20, 2001,
the Respondent voluntarily ceased operations ofthe
HMIWI pending
installation of the additional
air pollution control system.
Except to the extent
necessary
to
determine
that
the correct
installation,
operation,
calibration,
and
balancing
that
system,
the HMIWI was not operated after November 20, 2001.
Because Respondent voluntarily
ceased operations of the HMIWI pending completion ofthe installation ofthe air pollution control
system,
it was
not
prudent
to
operate
the HMIWI for the
sole purpose of conducting
an
annual
performance test.
14.
Paragraph
14
of Count III of the
Second
Supplemental
and
Amended Complaint
sets
forth
Complainant’s conclusion of law,
to which no
answer is required,
but to
the extent that
an answer
is
deemed
required, Respondent denies the allegations.
The
remainder
of Count
IV
of the Complaint
consists
of the
Complainants
prayer
for
relief
to
which
no
answer
is
required,
however
to
the extent that
it a
response
is
deemed
to
be
12
required,
Respondent Answers
as follows:
A.
Respondent admits that Complainant
is entitled
to the relief requested in paragraph
A of Count
IV of the Second
Supplemental
and
Amended Complaint.
B.
Respondent denies that Complainant
is entitled
to the relief requested
in paragraph
A of Count IV of the Second Supplemental
and Amended Complaint.
C.
Respondent denies that Complainant
is entitled
to the relief requested in paragraph
C
of Count IV of the Second
Supplemental
and Amended Complaint.
D.
Respondent denies that
Complainant
is entitled
to the relief requested in paragraph
D of Count
IV of the Second
Supplemental
and
Amended Complaint.
E.
Respondent denies that Complainant
is entitled
to the relief requested in paragraph
E of Count
IV of the Second
Supplemental
and
Amended Complaint.
F.
Respondent lacks sufficient
information to
determine whether the Complainant
is
entitled
to
the
relief requested
in
paragraph
F of
Count
IV of the
Second
Supplemental
and
Amended Complaint.
COUNT V
1-7.
Respondent restates its answers and
incorporates by
reference herein paragraphs 2
through
6
of its
answer to
Count I
as paragraphs
1
through
7
of its
answer to
Count
V of the
Second
Supplemental
and
Amended Complaint.
8-9.
Respondent restates its answers
and incorporates
by reference herein paragraphs 8
and
10
of
its
answer
to
Count
IV
as paragraphs
8
through
9
of its
answer
to
Count
V of the
Second
Supplemental
and Amended Complaint.
13
10.
Respondent admits
the
allegations
contained
in
paragraph
10
of Count V of the
Second Supplemental
and
Amended Complaint.
11.
Respondent admits
the
allegations contained
in
paragraph
11
of Count V of the
Second Supplemental
and
Amended Complaint.
12.
Respondent admits
the
allegations contained
in
paragraph
12
of Count V of the
Second
Supplemental
and
Amended Complaint.
13.
Respondent admits
the allegations
contained
in
paragraph
13
of Count
V
of the
Second
Supplemental and
Amended Complaint.
14.
Respondent admits
the
allegations contained
in
paragraph
14
of Count V
of the
Second
Supplemental and
Amended Complaint.
15.
Respondent admits
the
allegations contained
in
paragraph
15
of Count
V
of the
Second Supplemental
and
Amended Complaint.
16.
Respondent admits
the
allegations contained
in paragraph
16
of Count
V of the
Second Supplemental
and
Amended Complaint.
17.
Respondent admits
the allegations
contained
in paragraph
17
of Count
V of the
Second Supplemental
and
Amended Complaint.
18.
Respondent admits
the
allegations contained
in paragraph
18
of Count
V of the
Second Supplemetnal
and
Amended Complaint and further states that the purpose for operating the
incinerator for these additional
100.5 hours was to determine whether the pollution control device
was properly
installed and
to
make appropriate adjustments.
19.
Respondent denies
the allegations
contained
in paragraph
19
of Count V
of the
Second Supplemental
and
Amended Complaint.
14
20.
Respondent admits
that
due
to
the limited
operation
of the
incinerator in
2002,
Respondent reported miniscule amounts of carbon monoxide,
nitrogen oxides,
particulate matter,
and sulfur dioxide and
no calculatable emissions of hydrogen chloride,
mercury or dioxin/furans.
Respondent denies
the remainder of the allegations
set forth
in
paragraph 20
of Count V of the
Second
Supplemental
and
Amended Complaint.
21.
Paragraph 21
of Count V of the Second Supplemental
and Amended Complaint sets
forth
Complainant’s conclusion of law,
to
which
no answer
is
required, but to the extent that an
answer is
deemed
required,
Respondent denies
the allegations.
The remainder of Count V of the Complaint consists of the Complainant’s prayer for relief
to which
no answer is required, however to the extent that
it a response is deemed to be required,
Respondent Answers
as follows:
A.
Respondent admits
that Complainant is entitled
to the relief requested in paragraph
A of Count V of the Second
Supplemental and
Amended Complaint.
B.
Respondent denies that Complainant is entitled
to the relief requested in paragraph
A of Count V of the Second
Supplemental and
Amended Complaint.
C.
Respondent denies that Complainant is entitled
to the relief requested in paragraph
C
of Count
V of the Second Supplemental
and Amended Complaint.
D.
Respondent denies that Complainant
is entitled
to the relief requested in paragraph
D of Count V of the Second
Supplemental and
Amended Complaint.
E.
Respondent denies that Complainant
is entitled
to the relief requested in paragraph
E of Count
V of the Second Supplemental
and Amended
Complaint.
15
F.
Respondent
lacks sufficient
information to
determine whether the Complainant
is
entitled
to
the
relief
requested
in
paragraph
F
of
Count
V of
the
Second
Supplemental
and
Amended
Complaint.
COUNT
VI
1-5.
Respondent restates
its answers and incorporates by
reference herein paragraphs
2
through 4 and paragraph
8 and paragraph
10 of its answer to Count I as paragraphs
1 through
5
of
its answer
to
Count VI of the Second
Supplemental
and
Amended Complaint.
6.
Respondent admits
the allegations
contained
in
paragraph 6
of Count
VI of the
Second
Supplemental
and Amended Complaint.
7.
Respondent
admits
the allegations
contained
in
paragraph 7
of Count
VI
of the
Second
Supplemental
and Amended Complaint.
8.
Respondent admits
the allegations
contained
in
paragraph
8
of Count
VI
of the
Second Supplemental
and Amended Complaint.
9.
Respondent
admits
the allegations
contained
in
paragraph
9
of Count
VI
of the
Second Supplemental
and
Amended Complaint.
10.
Respondent admits
the allegations contained
in paragraph
10
of Count VI of the
Second Supplemental
and
Amended Complaint.
11.
Respondent admits
the allegations contained
in
paragraph
11
of Count VI of the
Second
Supplemental
and
Amended
Complaint
and
further
states
that
wet
scrubber
system
as
originally
designed was
not
able
to
achieve
compliance.
The
adjustments
to
the
wet
scrubber
system outlined in paragraph
11
were identified as being necessary for the wet scrubber system to
16
operate within performance parameters.
Further,
the relocating pH probe on June 30,
2003,
was
done during a test burn at which representatives of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
were
present.
12.
Respondent admits
the allegations
contained
in
paragraph
12
of Count VI of the
Second
Supplemental
and
Amended Complaint.
13.
Respondent admits
the allegations contained
in
paragraph
13
of Count VI of the
Second
Supplemental
and
Amended
Complaint
and
further
states
that
it
believed
that
the
construction permit
issued on
March
8,
2002,
was the requisite permit.
14.
Respondent admits
that upon being advised that
its
March 8,
2002, permit did not
authorize
construction
of
the
wet
scrubber
system
as
modified,
on
September
18,
2003,
Respondent applied for an amendment to
its
construction permit.
15.
Paragraph
15
of Count VI of the Second Supplemental
and
Amended Complaint
sets forth Complainant’s conclusion of law,
to
which no answer is required, but to the extent that
an
answer
is
deemed
required, Respondent denies the allegations.
The remainder
of Count
VI
of the Complaint
consists
of the Complainant’s
prayer for
relief to
which
no
answer
is
required,
however to
the extent
that
it a response
is
deemed
to
be
required,
Respondent Answers as follows:
A.
Respondent admits that Complainant
is entitled
to the relief requested in paragraph
A
of Count
VI of the Second Supplemental
and
Amended Complaint.
B.
Respondent denies
that Complainant
is entitled
to the relief requested in paragraph
A of Count VI of the Second
Supplemental and
Amended Complaint.
17
C.
Respondent denies that Complainant
is entitled
to the relief requested in paragraph
C
of Count VI of the Second Supplemental
and Amended Complaint.
D.
Respondent denies that Complainant
is entitled
to the relief requested
in paragraph
D
of Count VI of the Second Supplemental
and
Amended Complaint.
E.
Respondent denies that Complainant
is entitled
to the relief requested in paragraph
E of Count
VI of the Second Supplemental
and
Amended Complaint.
F.
Respondent
lacks sufficient
information to
determine whether the Complainant
is
entitled
to
the
relief requested
in
paragraph
F
of Count
VI
of
the Second
Supplemental
and
Amended Complaint.
PASSAVANT AREA HOSPITAL,
an
Illinois
not-for-profit corporation,
RESPONDENT
BY:
~
(~.
~
Babette P.
Salus
Babette
P.
Salus
Schwing
&
Salus, P.C.
1100 S.
Fifth
St.
Springfield,
IL
62703
(217) 544-3232
(217) 544-3273
(fax)
18
