)
)
)
)
)
PCBO5-13
)
Air Enforcement
)
)
)
)
)
STATE OF
ILLNOIS
Pottutiofl Cofltr0~
Board
NOTICE OF FILING
To:
Ms.
Katherine A. Kelly
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Bureau
188
W. Randolph Street
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Mr. Bradley P. Hálloran
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center, Suite 11-500
100 W. Randolph Street
Chicago, Illinois 60601
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that we have today filed with the Clerk ofthe Illinois Pollution
Control Board the
Respondents’
Appearance,
Respondent
Paul
DiFranco,
Sr.’s
Answer
to
Complaint and Respondent Mark’s Construction,
Inc.’s Answer to
Complaint,
copies of which
are attached hereto and served upon you.
JosephR.
Podlewski, Jr.
David Seidman
Schwartz, Cooper,
Greenberger & Krauss, Chtd.
180 North La Salle
Suite 2700
Chicago, IL
60601
(312) 346-1300
Dated: Septembero’272004
~~CE~VEO
CLERK’S OFFICE
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
SEP
27
200k
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
ILLINOIS,
Complainant,
v.
PAUL DiFRANCO, SR., an Illinois resident,
and MARK’S CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
an Illinois corporation,
Respondents.
RECEflVED
CLERK’S OFFICE
SEP 27
200’i
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
STATE OF
ILLINOIS
Pollution Control Board
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
)
Complainant,
)
)
v.
)
PCBO5-13
)
Air Enforcement
PAUL DiFRANCO, SR., an Illinois resident,
)
and MARK’S CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
)
an Illinois corporation,
)
)
Respondents.
)
APPEARANCE
Schwartz.
Cooper,
Greenberger
&
Krauss,
Chtd.,
hereby
files
its
appearance
in
this
proceeding on behalfofRespondents Paul DiFranco, Sr. and Mark’s Construction,
Inc.
Joseph R. Podlewski, Jr.
David Seidman
Schwartz, Cooper, Greenberger & Krauss,
Chtd.
180 North La Salle
Suite 2700
Chicago, IL
60601
(312)346-1300
Dated:
September
—,
2004
RECE~VED
CLERK’S OFFICE
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
SEP
272004
STATE OF ILLINOIS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
ILLINOIS,
)
Pollution Control Board
)
Complainant,
)
)
v.
)
PCBO5-13
)
Air Enforcement
PAUL DiFRANCO,
SR., an Illinois resident,
)
and MARK’S CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
)
an Illinois corporation,
)
)
Respondents.
)
RESPONDENT
PAUL
DiFRANCO, SR.’S
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
Respondent
Paul
DiFranco,
Sr.,
by
his
attorneys,
Schwartz,
Cooper,
Greenberger
&
Krauss, Chtd.,
and for his
answer to the Complaint ofthe People of the State of Illinois, states as
follows:
COUNT I
AIR POLLUTION
1.
On information and belief, Paul
DiFranco, Sr. (“DiFranco”) admits the allegations
of Paragraph
1.
2.
DiFranco admits the allegations of Paragraph 2.
3.
DiFranco denies that he
is the record owner ofthe property and building located
at
911
W.
Busse, Park Ridge, Illinois
(the “Site”).
Title to the
Site
is
held
by
an
Illinois
land
trust.
DiFranco denies the allegations ofthe second sentence of Paragraph 3.
4.
DiFranco
admits
only that Mark’s
Construction,
Inc.
(“MCI”)
conducted
certain
renovation
activities
at the
Site.
To
the extent that the allegation in this
Paragraph 4
that
MCI
was the “operator and supervisor ofthe renovation” is inconsistent with MCI’s actual activities at
the Site, it is denied
5.
Without admitting
he is the “owner” of the
Site,
DiFranco
admits the allegations
of the first
sentence of Paragraph
5.
With respect to
the allegations of the second
sentence of
Paragraph
5,
DiFranco
admits
only
that
samples
of suspect
asbestos-containing
material
were
collected by
Bay Environmental.
DiFranco
lacks knowledge sufficient to
form a belief as to the
truth ofthe remaining allegations ofthis paragraph.
6.
DiFranco
lacks
knowledge
sufficient
to
form
a
belief
as
to
the
truth
of
the
allegations ofParagraph 6.
7.
DiFranco
lacks
knowledge
sufficient
to
form
a
belief
as
to
the
truth
of the
allegations ofParagraph 7.
8.
DiFranco
lacks
knowledge
sufficient
to
form
a
belief
as
to
the
truth
of the
allegations ofParagraph
8.
9.
DiFranco
denies that he
retained an
asbestos abatement contractor to
conduct an
asbestos
abatement
at the
Site.
DiFranco
admits
only
that asbestos
abatement
activities
were
conducted
at
the
Site
with
the
knowledge
and
concurrence
of
the
Illinois
Environmental
Protection Agency.
DiFranco lacks knowledge sufficient to
form
a belief as to
the truth
of the
remaining allegations of Paragraph 9.
10.
DiFranco lacks knowledge sufficient to
form a belief as to the truth of the factual
allegations of Paragraph
10.
In addition,
this
paragraph alleges
legal
conclusions to
which no
answer is necessary or required.
11.
DiFranco
admits the allegations of Paragraph 11.
2
12.
DiFranco admits the allegations ofParagraph
12.
13.
DiFranco admits the allegations ofParagraph
13.
14.
DiFranco admits the allegations ofParagraph
14.
15.
DiFranco admits the allegations ofParagraph
15.
16.
DiFranco
admits the allegations ofParagraph
16.
17.
DiFranco
admits the allegations of Paragraph 17.
18.
Paragraph
18
alleges
legal
conclusions
to
which
no
answer
is
necessary
or
required.
19.
DiFranco
denies he is the record owner of the Site.
Title to the Site is held
by an
Illinois
land trust.
The remaining allegations ofthis paragraph are legal conclusions to which no
answer is necessary or required.
20.
Paragraph
20
alleges
legal
conclusions
to
which
no
answer
is
necessary
or
required.
21.
Paragraph
21
alleges
legal
conclusions
to
which
no
answer
is
necessary
or
required.
WHEREFORE, Respondent Paul DiFranco,
Sr. prays that Count I be dismissed
COUNT II
FAILURE TO PROVIDE NOTIFICATION OF DEMOLITION/RENOVATION
ACTIVITIES
1-15.
DiFranco realleges and
incorporates his
answers to Paragraphs
1-10 and
13-17 of
Count I herein as and for his answers to Paragraphs
1-15 ofthis Count II.
3
16.
DiFranco admits the allegations ofParagraph
16
17.
DiFranco admits the allegations of Paragraph
17.
18.
DiFranco admits the allegations of Paragraph
18
19.
DiFranco admits the allegations of Paragraph
19
20.
On information and belief, DiFranco admits the allegations ofParagraph 20.
21.
DiFranco
admits
the allegations of Paragraph 21.
However, DiFranco
notes that
the citation provided for the asbestos NESHAPs is incomplete.
22.
DiFranco admits the allegations ofParagraph 22.
23.
Paragraph
23
alleges
legal
conclusions
to
which
no
answer
is
necessary
or
required.
To the extent Paragraph 23 alleges facts, they are denied.
24.
DiFranco
denies he is the record owner ofthe
Site.
Title to the Site is held by an
Illinois
land trust.
The remaining allegations ofParagraph
24 allege legal
conclusions to
which
no answer is necessary or required.
25.
Paragraph
25
alleges
legal
conclusions
to
which
no
answer
is
necessary
or
required.
To
the
extent Paragraph
25
alleges
facts,
DiFranco
admits
only
that
MCI conducted
certain renovation activities
at the
Site.
To
the extent that the allegations in this
Paragraph 25
that
MCI
“operated,
controlled or supervised”
such renovation
activities
are inconsistent
with
MCI’s actual activities at the Site, they are denied
26.
DiFranco admits the allegations of Paragraph 26.
27.
DiFranco admits the allegations ofParagraph 27.
4
28.
DiFranco denies he is the record owner ofthe Site.
DiFranco admits
only that no
written notice was
given to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.
The implication that
such
notice
was required to
have been given by
the respondents
under the facts alleged
in the
complaint
is a legal conclusion to
which no answer is necessary or required..
29.
Paragraph
29
alleges
legal
conclusions
to
which
no
answer
is
necessary
or
required.
WHEREFORE, Respondent Paul DiFranco,
Sr. prays that Count II be dismissed
COUNT III
FAILURE TO FOLLOW PROPER EMISSION CONTROL PROCEDURES
1-26.
DiFranco
realleges
and
incorporates
his
answers to
Paragraphs
1-26 of Count
II
herein as and for his answers to Paragraphs
1-26 ofthis Count III.
27.
DiFranco admits the allegations of Paragraph 27.
28.
Paragraph
28
alleges
legal
conclusions
to
which
no
answer
is
necessary
or
required.
To
the extent
Paragraph
28
alleges
facts, DiFranco
admits
only
that MCI
conducted
certain renovation
activities
at the
Site.
To the extent
the allegation
in this
Paragraph
28
that
MCI is an
“operator” ofsuch renovation activities
is
inconsistent with MCI’s
actual activities
at
the Site, it is denied
DiFranco denies he is the record owner ofthe Site.
29.
Paragraph
29
alleges
legal
conclusions
to
which
no
answer
is
necessary
or
required.
WHEREFORE, Respondent Paul DiFranco,
Sr. prays that Count III be dismissed
5
COUNT IV
FAILURE TO ADEQUATELY WET
ALL
RACM
1-26.
DiFranco
realleges
and incorporates
his
answers
to
Paragraphs
1-26
of Count
II
herein as and for his’ answers to Paragraphs
1-26 ofthis Count
W.
27.
DiFranco admits the allegations ofParagraph 27.
28.
The first sentence ofthis
paragraph alleges legal conclusions to which no
answer
is necessary or required. DiFranco
lacks knowledge sufficient
to form a belief as to
the truth of
the factual allegations in the second sentence ofthis paragraph
29.
Paragraph
29
alleges
legal
conclusions
to
which
no
answer
is
necessary
or
required.
WHEREFORE, Respondent Paul DiFranco, Sr. prays that Count IV be dismissed
COUNT V
FAILURE TO FOLLOW PROPER DISPOSAL PROCEDURES
1-26.
DiFranco
realleges
and
incorporates his
answers
to
Paragraphs
1-26 of Count
II
herein as and for his answers to Paragraphs
1-26 ofthis Count V.
27.
DiFranco admits the allegations ofParagraph 27.
28.
Paragraph
28
alleges
legal
conclusions
to
which
no
answer
is
necessary
or
required.
29.
Paragraph
29
alleges
legal
conclusions
to
which
no
answer
is
necessary
or
required.
WHEREFORE, Respondent Paul DiFranco,
Sr. prays that Count V be dismissed
6
PAUL DiFRANCO,
Joseph R. Podlewski
David
Seidman
Schwartz, Cooper,
Greenberger &
Krauss, Chtd.
180 North La Salle
Suite 2700
Chicago, IL 60601
(312) 346-1300
Dated: Septembe~~
2004
7
RECEIVED
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARItLERK’S
OFFICE
SEP
27
2004
PEOPLE OF THE
STATE OF ILLiNOIS,
)
STATE
OF ILLINOIS
)
POlI~tjonControl Board
Complainant,
)
)
v.
)
PCB 05-13
)
Air Enforcement
PAUL DiFRANCO, SR., an Illinois resident,
)
and MARK’S CONSTRUCTION, iNC.,
)
an Illinois corporation,
)
)
Respondents.
)
RESPONDENT
MARK’S
CONSTRUCTION, INC.’S ANSWER TO
COMPLAINT
Respondent Mark’s Construction,
Inc.,
by
its
attorneys,
Schwartz,
Cooper,
Greenberger
& Krauss,
Chtd., and for its answer to
the Complaint of the People ofthe
State ofIllinois, states
as follows:
COUNT I
AIR POLLUTION
1.
On
information
and
belief,
Mark’s
Construction,
Inc.
(“MCI”)
admits
the
allegations ofParagraph
1.
2.
MCI admits the allegations ofParagraph 2.
3.
MCI denies that Respondent Paul DiFranco,
Sr. (“DiFranco”) is
the record owner
of the property and building
located at 911
W.
Busse, Park Ridge, Illinois (the “Site”).
Title to
the
Site
is
held by
an
Illinois
land trust.
MCI denies the allegations of the
second
sentence of
Paragraph 3.
4.
MCI admits only that it conducted certain renovation activities at the Site.
To
the
extent that the allegation
in this Paragraph
4
that MCI was the “operator
and
supervisor of the
renovation” is inconsistent with MCI’s actual activities at the Site, it is denied
5.
Without
admitting
that
DiFranco
is
the
“owner”
of the
Site,
MCI
admits
the
allegations of the first
sentence of Paragraph
5.
With
respect to
the allegations of the
second
sentence ofParagraph
5,
MCI admits
only that
samples of suspect
asbestos-containing material
were collected by Bay Environmental.
MCI lacks knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the
truth of the remaining allegations ofthis paragraph.
6.
MCI lacks knowledge sufficient
to
form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
ofParagraph 6.
7.
MCI lacks knowledge sufficient
to
form a belief as to the truth ofthe allegations
ofParagraph 7.
8.
MCI lacks knowledge sufficient
to
form a belief as to
the truth ofthe allegations
ofParagraph 8.
9.
MCI denies that DiFranco
retained
an
asbestos abatement
contractor to
conduct
an
asbestos
abatement
at
the
Site.
MCI admits
only
that
asbestos
abatement
activities
were
conducted
at
the
Site
with
the
knowledge
and
concurrence
of
the
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
MCI
lacks knowledge
sufficient
to
form
a belief
as to
the
truth
of the
remaining allegations ofParagraph 9.
10.
MCI
lacks knowledge
sufficient
to
form
a
belief as
to
the truth of the
factual
allegations of Paragraph
10.
In addition,
this
paragraph alleges
legal
conclusions to
which no
answer is necessary or required.
2
11.
MCI admits the allegations ofParagraph
11.
12.
MCI admits the allegations ofParagraph 12.
13.
MCI admits the allegations of Paragraph 13.
14.
MCI admits the allegations ofParagraph 14.
15.
MCI admits the allegations ofParagraph 15.
16.
MCI admits the allegations ofParagraph 16.
17.
MCI admits the allegations ofParagraph
17.
18.
Paragraph
18
alleges
legal
conclusions
to
which
no
answer
is
necessary
or
required.
19.
MCI denies DiFranco
is the record owner of the
Site.
Title to the Site is
held by
an Illinois land trust.
The remaining allegations ofthisparagraph are legal conclusions to
which
no
answer is necessary or required.
20.
Paragraph
20
alleges
legal
conclusions
to
which
no
answer
is
necessary
or
required.
21.
Paragraph
21
alleges
legal
conclusions
to
which
no
answer
is
necessary
or
required.
WHEREFORE, Respondent Mark’s Construction
Inc. prays that Count I be
dismissed.
3
COUNT II
FAILURE TO PROVIDE NOTIFICATION OF DEMOLITION/RENOVATION
ACTIVITIES
1-15.
MCI
realleges
and
incorporates
its
answers
to
Paragraphs
1-10
and
13-17
of
Count I herein as and for its answers to Paragraphs
1-15 ofthis Count II.
16.
MCI admits the allegations ofParagraph
16
17.
MCI admits the allegations ofParagraph
17.
18.
MCI admits the allegations ofParagraph
18
19.
MCI admits the allegations ofParagraph
19
20.
On information and belief, MCI admits the allegations ofParagraph 20.
21.
MCI
admits
the
allegations
of Paragraph
21.
However,
MCI
notes
that
the
citation provided forthe asbestos NESHAPs is incomplete.
22.
MCI admits the allegations ofParagraph 22.
23.
Paragraph
23
alleges
legal
conclusions
to
which
no
answer
is
necessary
or
required.
To the extent Paragraph 23
alleges facts, they are denied.
24.
MCI denies DiFranco
is the record owner of the
Site.
Title to
the
Site
is
held by
an
Illinois
land
trust.
The remaining
allegations of Paragraph 24
allege
legal
conclusions
to
which no answer is necessary or required.
25.
Paragraph
25
alleges
legal
conclusions
to
which
no
answer
is
necessary
or
required.
To
the extent
Paragraph
25
alleges
facts,
MCI admits
only
that it conducted
certain
renovation activities
at the
Site.
To the extent that the allegations in this Paragraph 25
that MCI
4
“operated, controlled or supervised” suchrenovation activities are inconsistent with MCI’s actual
activities at the Site, they are denied
26.
MCI admits the allegations ofParagraph 26.
27.
MCI admits the allegations ofParagraph 27.
28.
MCI denies DiFranco
is
the record owner ofthe
Site.
MCI admits
only
that no
written notice
was given to the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency.
The implication that
such notice
was required to
have been given by the respondents
under the
facts alleged in the
complaint is a legal conclusion to which no answer is necessary or required..
29.
Paragraph
29
alleges
legal
conclusions
to
which
no
answer
is
necessary
or
required.
WHEREFORE, Respondent Mark’s Construction,
Inc. prays that Count II be dismissed
COUNT III
FAILURE TO FOLLOW PROPER EMISSION CONTROL PROCEDURES
1-26.
MCI realleges
and incorporates its answers to Paragraphs
1-26 of Count II herein
as and for its answers to Paragraphs
1-26 ofthis Count III.
27.
MCI admits the allegations ofParagraph 27.
28.
Paragraph
28
alleges
legal
conclusions
to
which
no
answer
is
necessary
or
required.
To
the
extent Paragraph
28
alleges
facts,
MCI admits
only that
it conducted
certain
renovation activities
at the Site.
To the extent the allegation in this Paragraph 28 that MCI is
an
“operator” of such renovation activities
is inconsistent with MCI’s actual activities at the
Site, it
is
denied MCI denies DiFranco is the record owner ofthe Site.
5
29.
Paragraph
29
alleges
legal
conclusions
to
which
no
answer
is
necessary
or
required.
WHEREFORE, Respondent Mark’s Construction,
Inc. prays that Count III be dismissed.
COUNT IV
FAILURE TO ADEQUATELY WET ALL RACM
1-26.
MCI realleges and incorporates its
answers to Paragraphs
1-26 of Count II herein
as and for its answers to
Paragraphs 1-26 of this Count IV.
27.
MCI admits the allegations ofParagraph 27.
28.
The first sentence ofthis
paragraph alleges legal
conclusions to which no
answer
is
necessary or required.
MCI lacks knowledge sufficient to form
a belief as to the truth ofthe
factual allegations in the second sentence of this paragraph
29.
Paragraph
29
alleges
legal
conclusions
to
which
no
answer
is
necessary
or
required.
WHEREFORE, Respondent Mark’s Construction,
Inc. prays that Count IV be dismissed
COUNTY
FAILURE TO
FOLLOW PROPER DISPOSAL PROCEDURES
1-26.
MCI realleges and incorporates its answers to
Paragraphs
1-26 of Count II herein
as and for its answers to Paragraphs
1-26 ofthis Count V.
27.
MCI admits the allegations of Paragraph 27.
6
28.
Paragraph
28
alleges
legal
conclusions
to
which
no
answer
is
necessary
or
required.
required.
29.
Paragraph
29
alleges
legal
conclusions
to
which
no
answer
is
necessary
or
WHEREFORE, Mark’s Construction,
Inc. prays that Count V be dismissed
Joseph R. Podlewski
David Seidman
Schwartz, Cooper, Greenberger & Krauss,
Chtd.
180 North La Salle
Suite 2700
Chicago, IL
60601
(312) 346-1300
Dated: September~2004
7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I,
the
undersigned,
an
attorney,
certify
that
I
caused
a
copy
of the
foregoing
Notice of Filing
and
Respondents’
Appearance,
Respondent
Paul
DiFranco,
Sr.’s
Answer
to
Complaint and Respondent Mark’s Construction, Inc.’s Answer to Complaint to be served upon:
Ms. Katherine A. Kelly
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Bureau
188 W. Randolph Street
Chicago, Illinois
60601
Mr. Bradley P. Halloran
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center, Suite 11-500
100 W. Randolph Street
Chicago, Illinois 60601
by enclosing the same in an envelope with first-class postage prepaid, certified mail, return
receipt
requested
and depositing the s
me
in the U.S. Mail Chute located at 180 N. LaSalle
Street, Chicago, Illinois, on this
2
ay of
?E~,4~~2004.
