BEFORE THE ILLIN~
~ECE~VE~
CLERK’S OFFICE ‘
I
OL
BOARD
SEP 1 02004
LLINOIS
trot Board
NOTICE OF FILING
To:
Bradley Halloran
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 W. Randolph St.-1 ith Fir.
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Christopher P. Perzan, Esq.
Office ofthe Attorney General
Environmental Bureau
188 W. Randolph St., 20th Fir.
Chicago, Illinois 60601
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed with the Office of the Clerk of the
Pollution Control Board Roberts Environmental Control Corp.’s Answer and Affirmative
Defenses to Complaint, a copy ofwhich is herewith served upon you.
Edward L. Filer, Esq.
Darren R. Bertram, Esq.
FageiHaber LLC
55
East Monroe St.-4Oth Fir.
Chicago, Illinois 60603
Phone:
312 346-7500
Attorney No. 90041
ROBERTS ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL CORP.
By:
~
f2~X~
STATE flF
Pollution Co~
PCB No. 04-100
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
ILLINOIS,
Complainant,
V.
MARC
REALTY, INC., an illinois
corporation,
11 EAST
ADAMS
L.L.C., an
Illinois limited liability company, and
ROBERTS
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONTROL, INC., an Illinois
corporation,
Respondents.
(Enforcement
—
Air)
R ~E
CE ~V ED
~
~
CLERK’S OFFICE
PR
L
SEP 102004
STATE OF ILL1NO~S
Pollution
Controi Board
I, Sherry Follmer, a non-attorney, certify that I served Roberts Environmental
Control Corp.’s Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Complaint by mailing a copy
thereof to the above named parties at their address, by depositing the same in the U.S.
mail at
55
East Monroe Street, Chicago, Illinois before 5:00 p.m. on the 10th day of
September, 2004, with proper postage affixed thereto.
REC~VED~CLERK’S
OFFICE
BEFORE THE
BOARD
SEP 102004
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
PollutionSTATE
OFControlILLINOISBoard
Complainant,
PCB
No. 04-1 00
V.
(Enforcement
—
Air)
MARC
REALTY, INC.,
an Illinois
corporation, 11 EAST ADAMS
L.L.C.,
an
Illinois limited liability company, and
ROBERTS
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONTROL,
INC., an Illinois corporation,
Respondents.
ROBERTS
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONTROL
CORP.’S
ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
TO COMPLAINT
Respondent, Roberts Environmental Control Corp. (“Roberts”), improperly named as
Roberts Environmental Control, Inc., by and through its attorneys, FagelHaber LLC, and in
Answer to the Complaint of Complainant, People ofthe State ofIllinois, states as follows:
COUNT I
AIR POLLUTION
1.
This Complaint is brought by the Attorney General against Marc Realty, Inc. and
Roberts Environmental Control, Inc., on her own motion and upon the request of the Illinois
Enviromiiental Protection Agency (“Illinois EPA”). and against 11 East Adams, L.L.C. on her
own motion, pursuant to the terms and provisions of Section 31 of the Illinois Environmental
Protection Act (“Act”), 415 ILCS 5/31 (2002).
Answer:
Roberts admits that this is an action brought by the Attorney General, but lacks
sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity as to whether this matter was
brought upon the request of the Illinois EPA, and therefore neither admits nor denies same, but
demands strict proof thereof. Answering further, Roberts objects to the remaining allegations
contained in Paragraph 1 as they require legal conclusions and therefore no answer is required.
2.
The Illinois EPA is an administrative agency of the State of Illinois, created
pursuant to Section 4 of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/4 (2002), and charged, inter alia, with the duty of
enforcing the Act.
Answer: Roberts objects to the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 as they require legal
conclusions and therefore no answer is required.
3.
Respondent, Marc Realty, Inc. (“Marc Realty”), is an Illinois corporation and is
headquartered at 200 W. Jackson St., Chicago, Illinois 60606.
Answer: Roberts lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity as to the
allegations contained in Paragraph 3, and therefore neither admits nor denies same, but demands
strict proofthereof.
4.
Respondent, 11 East Adams, L.L.C., is an Illinois Limited Liability Company.
Answer: Roberts lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity as to the
allegations contained in Paragraph 4, and therefore neither admits nor denies same, but demands
strict proof thereof.
5.
Respondent, Roberts Environmental Control, Inc. (“Roberts”), is an Illinois
corporation and is headquartered at 7410 Duvan Drive, Tinley Park, Illinois 60477.
Answer: Roberts admits that it is an Illinois corporation that has offices at 7410 Duvan Drive,
Tinley Park, Illinois, but states that its proper name is Roberts Environmental Control Corp.
Roberts denies that remaining allegations contained in Paragraph
5.
6.
Marc Realty is the operator and manager ofa sixteen floor office building located
at 11 E. Adams Street, Chicago, Cook County, Illinois (“Adams Street building”). Marc Realty
manages the property and leases space within it to various tenants for use as office space. The
majority ofthe building was occupied by tenants at all times relevant to this complaint.
Answer: Roberts lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity as to the
allegations contained in Paragraph 6, and therefore neither admits nor denies same, but demands
strict proofthereof.
7.
11 East Adams, L.L.C., is the owner ofthe Adams Street Building.
2
Answer:
Roberts lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity as to the
allegations contained in Paragraph 7, and therefore neither admits nor denies same, but demands
strict proofthereof.
8.
During the month of August, 2002, Marc Realty was engaged in the renovation of
the fourth floor ofthe Adams Street building.
Answer: Admitted.
9.
Marc Realty contracted with anlor arranged for Roberts to install a heating,
ventilation and air conditioning system (“HVAC system”) on the fourth floor as part of the
renovation.
Answer: Roberts admits the it entered into a contract with Marc Realty relating to the heating
and ventilation and air conditioning system at 11 E. Adams Street, Chicago, Cook County,
Illinois, but the contract speaks for itself. Roberts denies all remaining allegations contained in
Paragraph 9.
10.
In the course of installing the HVAC system, Roberts removed or disturbed
materials located in and around the ceiling that contained between 35
and 40
chrysotile
asbestos.
Answer: Denied.
11.
The Respondents’ removal and/or disturbance ofthe materials containing asbestos
caused emissions ofasbestos fibers.
Answer: Denied.
12.
An Illinois EPA inspection and sampling on August 7, 2002 determined that
materials containing asbestos were disturbed on the fourth floor of the Adams Street Building
and also dispersed into the elevator and the first floor of the Adams Street Building.
Answer: Roberts lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity as to the
allegations contained in Paragraph 12, and therefore neither admits nor denies same, but
demands strict proof thereof.
3
13.
Section 9(2) ofthe Act, 415 ILCS
5/9(a)
(2002), provides as follows:
No person shall:
a.
Cause, threaten or allow the discharge or emission ofany contaminant into
the environment of 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: Roberts objects to the allegations contained in Paragraph 13 as they require legal
conclusions and therefore no answer is required.
14.
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, join stock company, trust, estate,
political subdivision, state agency, or any other legal entity, or their legal
representative, agent or assigns.
Answer: Roberts objects to the allegations contained in Paragraph 14 as they require legal
conclusions and therefore no answer is required.
15.
Marc Realty is a “person” as that term is defined in Section 3.3 15 ofthe Act, 415
ILCS
5/3.3
15 (2002).
Answer: Roberts objects to the allegations contained in Paragraph 15 as they require legal
conclusions and therefore no answer is required.
16.
Roberts is a “person” as that term is defined in Section 3.315 of the Act, 415 ILCS
5/3.3
15 (2002).
Answer:
Roberts objects to the allegations contained in Paragraph 16 as they require legal
conclusions and therefore no answer is required.
17.
Section 3.165 of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/3.165 (2002), provides the following
definition:
“CONTAIVIINANT” is any solid, liquid, or gaseous matter, any odor, or any form
ofenergy from whatever source.
4
Answer:
Roberts objects to the allegations contained in Paragraph 17 as they require legal
conclusions and therefore no answer is required.
18.
Section 201.102 of the Illinois Pollution Control Board Air Pollution Regulations
(“Board regulations”), 35 Ill. Am. Code 201.102, provides the following definition:
“Air Pollution”: the presence in the atmosphere ofone or more air 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 oflife or property.
Answer: Roberts objects to the allegations contained in Paragraph 18 as they require legal
conclusions and therefore no answer is required.
19.
Section 201.141 of the Board regulations, 35 Ill. Adm. Code 201.141, 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, either alone or in
combination with contaminants from other sources, to cause or tend to cause air
pollution in Illinois, or so as to violate the provisions ofthis Chapter, or so as to
prevent the attainment or maintenance ofany applicable ambient air quality
standard.
Answer: Roberts objects to the allegations contained in Paragraph 19 as they require legal
conclusions and therefore no answer is required.
20.
Asbestos is a contaminant as defined in Section
3.165
of the Act, 415 ILCS
5/3.165 (2002).
Answer:
Roberts objects to the allegations contained in Paragraph 20 as they require legal
conclusions and therefore no answer is required.
21.
Asbestos is a known human carcinogen and can be injurious to human health
when inhaled.
Answer: Roberts lacks sufficient information to fonn a belief as to the truth or falsity as to the
allegations contained in Paragraph 21, and therefore neither admits nor denies same, but
demands strict proof thereof.
5
22.
The emission of asbestos as alleged constituted air pollution.
Answer: Roberts specifically denies that it caused the emission of asbestos. Answering further,
Roberts objects to the allegations contained in Paragraph 22 as they require legal conclusions and
therefore no answer is required.
23.
From at least August 7, 2002 until, when the abatement and cleanup was
completed Respondents, by their actions as alleged herein, violated of Section 9(a) of the Act,
415 ILCS
5/9(a)
(2002) and 35 Ill. Adm. Code 201.141.
Answer: Roberts specifically denies that it caused the emission ofasbestos. Answering further,
Roberts objects to the allegations contained in Paragraph 23 as they require legal conclusions and
therefore no answer is required.
WHEREFORE, Respondent, Roberts Environmental Control Corp., respectfully requests
that this Honorable Court dismiss Count I ofthe Complainant’s Complaint and grant judgment in
favor of Roberts against the Complainant, People ofthe State ofIllinois, for all costs associated
with this action, and for any and all other and further relief that this Court deems just, equitable
and proper.
COUNT II
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH
NATIONAL EMISSIONS STANDARDS FOR
HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
1-19. Respondent incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 12, 14 through 18,
and 20 through 21 ofCount I as paragraphs 1 through 19 ofCount II as if fully set forth herein.
Answer: Roberts incorporates by reference its answers to Paragraphs 1 through 12, 14 through
18, and 20 through 21 of Count I, as its answers to Paragraphs 1 through 19 of Count II as if
fully set forth herein.
20.
Section 9.1 of the Act, 415 ILCS
5/9.1
(2002), provides in pertinent part, as
follows:
6
(b)
The provisions of Section 111 ofthe federal Clean Air act (42 USC 7411),
as amended, relating to standards of performance for new stationary
sources, and Section 112 of the federal Clean Air Act (42 USC 7412), as
amended, relating to the establishment ofnational emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants are applicable in this State and are enforceable
under this Act.
(d)
No person shall:
(1)
violate any provisions ofSections 111, 112, 165 or 173 ofthe
Clean Air Act, as now or hereafter amended, or the federal
regulations adopted pursuant thereto;
Answer: Roberts objects to the allegations contained in Paragraph 20 as they require legal
conclusions and therefore no answer is required.
21.
Subpart M ofPart 61, Title 40 ofthe Code of Federal Regulations (“C.F.R.”) was
adopted pursuant to the Section 112 of the Clean Air Act as part of the National Emissions
Standards~for Hazardous Air Pollutants (“NESHAP”) and promulgated the National Emission
Standard for Asbestos and is enforceable in the State of Illinois pursuant to Section 9.1 of the
Act, 415 ILCS 5/9.1 (2002).
Answer: Roberts objects to the allegations contained in Paragraph 21 as they require legal
conclusions and therefore no answer is required.
22.
40 C.F.R.
§
6 1.141 (2002) provides the following pertinent definitions:
Asbestos means the asbestiform varieties ofserpentinite (chrysotile), reibeckite
(crocidolite), cummingtonitegrunerite, anthophyllite, and actinolite-tremolite.
Asbestos-containing waste materials means mill tailings or any waste that
contains commercial asbestos and is generated by a source subject to the
provisions ofthis subpart. This term includes filters from control devices, friable
asbestos waste material, and bags or other similar packaging contaminated with
commercial asbestos. As applied to demolition and renovation operations, this
term also includes regulated asbestos-constraining material waste and maters.
Category I nonfriable asbestos containing material (ACM) means asbestos-
containing packings, gaskets, resilient floor covering, and asphalt roofing
products continuing
(sic)
than 1 percent asbestos as determined using the method
specified in appendix B, subpart E, 40 CFR 763, section 1, Polarized Light
Microscopy.
7
Category II nonfriable ACM means any material, excluding Category I
Nonfriable ACM, containing more than 1 percent asbestos as determined using
the methods specified in. appendix B, subpart B, 40 CFR part 763, section 1,
Polarized Light Microscopy that, when dry, cannot be crumbled, pulverized, or
reduced to powder by hand pressure.
Friable asbestos material means any material containing more than 1 percent
asbestos as determined using the method specified in appendix B, subpart E, 40
CFR part 763, section 1, Polarized Light Microscopy, that, when dry, can be
crumbled, pulverized or reduced to powder by hand pressure.
Owner or operator of a demolition or renovation activity means any person who
owns, leases, operates, controls, or supervises the facility being demolished or
renovated or any person who owns leases, operates, controls, or supervises the
demolition or renovation operation, or both.
Regulated asbestos containing material (RACM) means (a) Friable asbestos
containing material, (b) Category I nonfriable ACM that has become friable, (c)
Category I nonfriable ACM that will be or has been subjected to sanding,
grinding, cutting, or abrading, or (d) Category II nonfriable ACM that has a high
probability ofbecoming orhas become crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to power
by the forces expected to act on the material in the course ofdemolition or
renovation operations regulated by this subpart.
Renovation means altering a facility or one or more facility components in any
way, including stripping or removal ofRACM from a facility component.
Operations in which load-supporting structural members are wrecked or taken out
are demolitions.
Answer: Roberts objects to the allegations contained in Paragraph 22 as they require legal
conclusions and therefore no answer is required.
23.
Respondents engaged in a renovation of the fourth floor as defined in 40 C.F.R.
§
61.141 (2002).
Answer:
Roberts objects to the allegations contained in Paragraph 23 as they require legal
conclusions and therefore no answer is required.
24.
Respondent Marc Realty was an operator of a renovation activity as defined in 40
C.F.R.
§
61.141 (2002).
Answer: Roberts objects to the allegations contained in Paragraph 24 as they require legal
conclusions and therefore no answer is required.
8
25.
11 East Adams, L.L.C. is the owner of a renovation activity as defined in 40
C.F.R.
§
61.141 (2002).
Answer: Roberts objects to the allegations contained in Paragraph 25 as they require legal
conclusions and therefore no answer is required.
26.
Respondent Roberts was an operator of a renovation activity as defined in 40
C.F.R.
§
61.141 (2002).
Answer: Roberts objects to the allegations contained in Paragraph 26 as they require legal
conclusions and therefore no answer is required.
27.
Neither Roberts, 11 East Adams, L.L.C., nor Marc Realty was licensed to perform
any asbestos abatement related activities pursuant to the Commercial and Public Building
Asbestos Abatement Act, 225 ILCS 5-201/1, et seq, (2002).
Answer: Roberts admits that it is not licensed to perform asbestos related activities pursuant to
the Commercial and Public Building Asbestos Abatement Act, 225 ILCS 5-201/1, et seq, (2002).
Roberts lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity as to the remaining
allegations contained in Paragraph 27, and therefore neither admits nor denies same, but
demands strict proofthereof.
28.
The material disturbed during the renovation contained more than 1 per cent
chrysotile asbestos.
Answer: Roberts specifically denies that it caused the emission of asbestos. Answering further,
Roberts lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity as to the remaining
allegations contained in Paragraph 28, and therefore neither admits nor denies same, but
demands strict proofthereof.
29.
The material disturbed in the course of the renovation constituted RACM as
defined in 40 C.F.R.
§
61.141 (2002).
9
Answer:
Roberts specifically denies that it caused the emission of asbestos. Answering further,
Roberts objects to the allegations contained in Paragraph 29 as they require legal conclusions and
therefore no answer is required.
30.
The RACM removed during the renovation, as well as materials contaminated
with asbestos through contact with RACM, constituted asbestos-containing waste, materials
(“ACWM”) as defined in 40 C.F.R.
§
6 1.141 (2002).
Answer: Roberts specifically denies that it caused the emission of asbestos. Answering further,
Roberts objects to the allegations contained in Paragraph 30 as they require legal conclusions and
therefore no answer is required.
31.
40 C.F.R.
§
61.145 (2002) provides as follows:
(a)
Applicability. To detenTnine which requirements of paragraphs (a), (b),
and (c) ofthis section apply to the owner or operator ofa demolition or
renovation activity and prior to the commencement ofthe demolition or
renovation, thoroughly inspect the affected facility or part ofthe facility where the
demolition or renovation operation will occur for the presence of asbestos,
including Category I and Category II nonfriable ACM. The requirements of
paragraphs (b) and (c) ofthis section apply to each owner or operator ofa
demolition or renovation activity, including the removal ofRACM as follows:
***
(4)
In a facility being renovated, including any individual nonscheduled
renovation operation, all the requirements of paragraphs (b) and (c) ofthis section
apply if the combined amount of RACM to be stripped, removed, dislodged, cut,
drilled, or similarly disturbed is
(i)
At least 80 linear meters (260 linear feet) on pipes or a (sic) least
15 square meters (160 square feet) on other facility components, or
(ii)
At least 1 cubic meter
(35
cubic feet) offfacility components
where the length or area could not be measure (sic) previously.
(b)
Notification requirements. Bach owner or operator ofa demolition or
renovation activity to which this section applies shall:
(1)
Provide the Administrator with written notice ofintention to
demolish orrenovate. Delivery of the notice by U.S. Postal
Service, commercial delivery service, or hand delivery is
acceptable.
10
(3)
Postmark or deliver the notice as follows:
(i)
At least 10 working days before asbestos striping or
removal work or any other activity begins (such as site
preparation that would break up, dislodge or similarly
disturb asbestos material), if the operation is described in
paragraphs (a) (1) and (4) (except (a) (4) (iii) and (a) (4)
(iv) ofthis section.
(c)
Procedures for asbestos emission control. Bach owner or operator ofa
demolition activity to whom this paragraph applies, according to
paragraph (a) ofthis section, shall comply with the following procedures:
(1)
Remove all RACM from a facility being demolished orrenovated before
any activity begins that would break up, dislodge, or similarly disturb the
material or preclude access to the material for subsequent removal.
(6)
For all RACM, including material that has been removed or
stripped:
(i)
Adequately wet the material and ensure that it remains wet
until collected and contained or treated in preparation for
disposal in accordance with
§
6 1.150; and
(ii)
Carefully lower the material to the ground and floor, not
dropping, throwing, sliding or otherwise damaging or
disturbing the material.
***
(8)
Effective 1 year after promulgation of this regulation, no RACM
shall be stripped, removed, or otherwise handled or disturbed at a facility regulations by this
section unless at least one on-site representative, such as a foreman or management-level person
or other authorized representative, trained in the provisions ofthis regulation and the means of
complying with them, is present.
***
Answer: Roberts objects to the allegations contained in Paragraph 31 as they require legal
conclusions and therefore no answer is required.
11
32.
40 C.F.R.
§
61.150(b) (2002) provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
***
(b)
All asbestos-containing waste material shall be deposited as soon as is
practical by the waste generator at:
(1)
A waste disposal site operated in accordance with the provisions of
§
61.154;
Answer:
Roberts objects to the allegations contained in Paragraph 32 as they require legal
conclusions and therefore no answer is required.
33.
The amount of RACM disturbed, dislodged or removed during the renovation
exceeded 160 square feet, 260 linear feet or 35 cubic feet.
Answer: Roberts lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity as to the
remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 33, and therefore neither admits nor denies same,
but demands strict proofthereof.
34.
The Respondents failed to thoroughly inspect facility for the presence of asbestos
and failed to the sic make the notification required by 40 C.F.R.
§
61.145(a~and (b).
Answer: Roberts denies that it failed to inspect the facility forthe presence ofasbestos. Roberts
lacks sufficient information as to the truth offalsity of the inspection conducted by the remaining
Respondents, and therefore neither admits nor denies same, but demands strict proof thereof.
Roberts’ objects to the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 34 as they require legal
conclusions and therefore no answer is required.
34. sic
The Respondents failed to remove all RACM from the area ofthe Adams
Street building in which the renovation was planned although the renovation activities would
break up, dislodge or disturb the material, in violation of 40 C.F.R.
§
61 .145(c)(l) (2002).
Answer: Roberts denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 34 to the extent they are directed
at Roberts. Roberts lacks sufficient information as to the truth of falsity of the remaining
Respondents activities, and therefore neither admits nor denies same, but demands strict proof
12
thereof Roberts objects to the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 34 as they require
legal conclusions and therefore no answer is required.
35.
The Respondents failed to avoid disturbing the RACM, failed to adequately wet
the RACM and failed to ensure that the RACM remained wet until collected and contained for
disposal in violation of40 C.F.R.
§
61.145(c)(6)
(2002).
Answer: Roberts denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 35 to the extent they are directed
at Roberts. Roberts lacks sufficient information as to the truth of falsity of the remaining
Respondents activities, and therefore neither admits nor denies same, but demands strict proof
thereof Roberts objects to the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 35 as they require
legal conclusions and therefore no answer is required.
36.
The Respondents failed to provide for the on-site presence of a representative
trained in the provisions of the asbestos NESHAP regulations in violation of 40 C.F.R.
§
61
.145(c)(8)
(2002).
Answer:
Roberts denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 36 to the extent they are directed
at Roberts. Roberts lacks sufficient information as to the truth of falsity of the remaining
Respondents activities, and therefore neither admits nor denies same, but demands strict proof
thereof Roberts objects to the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 34 as they require
legal conclusions and therefore no answer is required.
37.
The Respondents failed to deposit the RACM generated by the renovation at an
appropriate waste disposal site in a timely manner in violation of 40 C.F.R.
§
61.150(b)(1)
(2002).
Answer:
Roberts denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 37 to the extent they are directed
at Roberts. Roberts lacks sufficient information as to .the truth of falsity of the remaining
Respondents activities, and therefore neither admits nor denies same, but demands strict proof
thereof Roberts objects to the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 37 as they require
legal conclusions and therefore no answer is required.
13
38.
Bach violation of the provisions of Part 61, Subpart M, of Title 40 of the C.F.R.
cited above constitutes a violation of Section 9.1(d) of the Act, 415 ILCS
5/9.1(d)
(2002)
Answer: Roberts objects to the allegations contained in Paragraph 38 as they require legal
conclusions and therefore no answer is required.
WHEREFORE, Respondent, Roberts Environmental Control Corp., respectfully requests
that this Honorable Court dismiss Count I ofthe Complainant’s Complaint and grant judgment in
favor of Roberts against the Complainant, People ofthe State of Illinois, for all costs associated
with this action, and for any and all other and further relief that this Court deems just, equitable
and proper.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
NOW COMBS the Respondent, Roberts Environmental Control Corp. (“Roberts”),
improperly named as Roberts Environmental Control, Inc., by and through its attorneys,
FagelHaber LLC, and pleading in the alternative and without prejudice to its general denial of
liability set forth in its Answer to the Complainant, People of the State of Illinois’s Complaint,
states as its Affirmative Defenses to the Complaint, the following:
First AffirmatiVe Defense
1.
Roberts contracted with Marc Realty, Inc. (“Marc Realty”) to perform certain
heating, air conditioning and ventilation work at 11 B. Adams Street, Chicago, Cook County,
Illinois (the “Property”).
2.
At all times Roberts complied with the asbestos abatement contractor at the
Property. Indeed, Roberts’ employees wore breathing apparatus, worked within protected spaces
with a negative air pressure machine operating.
3.
Roberts did not disturb any asbestos covered material.
4.
Roberts did not remove any material from the Property.
14
5.
Claimant improperly seeks recovery against Roberts for violations that were
caused in whole or in part by the acts or omissions of others, including the other Respondents in
this matter and the abatement contractor, for which Roberts had no responsibility.
WHEREFORE, Respondent, Roberts Environmental Control Corp., respectfully requests
that this Honorable Court dismiss the Complainant’s Complaint and grant judgment in its favor
against the Plaintiff, People of the State of Illinois, for all fees and costs associated with this
action, and for any and all other and further relief that this Court deems just, equitable and
proper.
Respectfully submitted,
ROBERTS ENVIRONMENTAL
CONTROL, INC.
By:____________________
One ofits Attorneys
Edward L. Filer, Esq.
Darren R. Bertram, Esq.
FageiHaber, LLC
55 East Monroe Street, 4O~~Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60603
Phone: (312) 346-7500
Attorney No.: 90041
380914
15
