•
RECEIVEO
CLERIcS OFFICE
BEFORE THE ILLIN~
BOAR)
MAY
~7
1997
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
POLLWiON~ORO~Q~
Complainant,
)
vs.
)
No.97-
MIDWEST GRAIN PRODUCTS
)
(Enforcement)
OF ILLINOIS, INC.,
)
an Illinois corporation,
)
Respondent.
)
NOTICE OF FILING
To:
Jane E. McBride
Assistant Attorney General
500 South Second Street
Springfield, IL
62706
Dorothy Guim,
Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
State ofIllinois Center,
100 West Randolph
Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL 60601
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed with the Office ofthe Clerk ofthe.
Pollution Control Board
Respondent Midwest Grain Products ofIllinois, Inc.’s Answer to the
Complaint filed by People of the State of Illinois, copies ofwhich are herewith served upon you.
Respectfully
submitted,
•
HUSCH and EPPENBERGER
•
By_____
•
A’my
ij
Wachs
190 N~
Broadway,
Suite 1300
•
St. Louis, Missouri
63102
(314) 421-4809
THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED
ON RECYCLED PAPER
STL—558972 .01
•
•
•
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOA
MAY
~
7
1997
•
STATE OF
IWNOI
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
POLLUTION
CONTROL
SO.ARD
Complainant,
•
)
)
vs.
)
No. 97-
)
MIDWEST
GRAIN PRODUCTS
•
•
)
(Enforcement)
OF ILLINOIS, INC.,
)
an Illinois
corporation,
)
Respondent.
•
)
•
ANSWER
COMES NOW
Respondent’Midwest Grain Products ofIllinois, Inc.
(“Midwest Grain”),
by its attorneys, Husch &
Eppenberger, and answers the Complaint of the People ofthe State of
Illinois (“Complainant”) as follows:
•
Count I
Prevention of Significant Deterioration Violation
1.
•
Midwest Grain lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to
the truth o~T
the’
allegations ofparagraph
1
and thereby denies same.
2.
Midwest Grain admits the allegations ofparagraph 2.
Midwest Grain admits the allegations of paragraph 3.
4.
Midwest Grain admits the allegations ofparagraph 4.
5.
•
Midwest Grain admits the, allegations ofparagraph
5.
6.
Midwest Grain admits the allegations ofparagraph 6.
STL—55 90 12
.
01
7.
Midwest Grainadmits the allegations ofparagraph 7.
•
8.
•
Midwest Grain submits that the permit is the best evidence ofits contents.
To
the extent that the allegations of paragraph 8 deviate from the permit terms, Midwest Grain
denies same.
9.
Midwest Grain submits that the permit is the best evidence ofits contents.
To
the extent that the allegations ofparagraph 9 deviate from the permit terms, Midwest Grain
denies same.
10.
Midwest Grain admits that it commenced construction ofeach new feed dryer
after obtaining construction permit #93 02006 and #93 080045.
Midwest Grain denies each and
every allegation in paragraph
10 that is not specifically admitted.
11.
•
Midwest Grain admits that itconducted a stacktest in May, 1995, which
measured particulate matter emissions of 17.1 pounds per hour but denies any allegation in
paragraph 11 not specifically admitted.
12.
Midwest Grainadmits that the stack testing was designed to be representative
ofboth dryers, but denies any allegation
in paragraph 12 not specifically admitted.
13.
Midwest Grain admits the allegations ofparagraph
13.
14.
Midwest Grain lacks knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as
to the truth ofthe allegations in paragraph
14 and therefore
denies the same.
15.
Paragraph 15
alleges a legal conclusion to which no response is required.
To
the extent that paragraph 15
alleges facts against Midwest Grain, Midwest Grain denies the same.
•
16.
•
Paragraph 16 alleges a legal conclusion to
which no response
is required,
To
•the extent that paragraph
16 alleges facts against Midwest Grain, Midwest Grain denies the same.
—2—
•
STL—559012.01
17.
Paragraph 17
alleges a legal conclusion to which no response is required.
TO
the extent that paragraph
17 alleges facts against Midwest Grain, Midwest Grain denies the
same.
•
18.
Paragraph
18 alleges a legal conclusion to which no response
is required.
To
the extent that paragraph 18 alleges facts against Midwest Grain, Midwest Grain denies the same.
19.
•
Midwest Grain denies the allegations ofparagraph 19.
20.
Midwest Grain denies the allegations ofparagraph 20.
21.
Midwest Grain denies the allegations ofparagraph 21.
22.
Midwest Grain denies the allegations ofparagraph 22.
23.
Midwest Grain denies the allegations ofparagraph 23.
24.
Midwest Grain admits that its
facility was considered a major source for
particulate matter at the time it constructed a fluidized bed boiler in 1982.
Midwest Grain denies
eachand
every allegation in paragraph 24 not specifically admitted herein.
25.
Midwest grain denies the allegations ofparagraph 25.
26.
‘
Midwest Grain denies the allegations ofparagraph 26.
27.
Midwest grain denies the allegations ofparagraph 27.
•
•
Countil
•
•
•
•
Air Pollution
1-14.
Midwest Grain realleges and incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs
1 through
14 ofCount I as paragraphs
1 through
14 ofCount II.
15.
Paragraph
15 alleges a legal
conclusion to which no response is required.
To
the extent that paragraph
15 alleges facts against Midwest Grain, Midwest Grain denies the same.
16.
Paragraph 16 alleges
a legal conclusion to which no response is required.
To
•
—3—
STL—559012.01
the extent that paragraph 16 alleges facts against Midwest Grain, Midwest Grain denies the same.
17.
Midwest Grain lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of
the allegations ofparagraph
17 and thereby denies same.
-
•
•
Count III
Permit Violations
1-14.
Midwest Grain realleges and incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs
1 through
14 of Count I as paragraphs
1
through
14 of Count III.
•
15.
Paragraph
15 alleges a legal conclusion to
which no response is required.
To
the extent that paragraph 15 alleges facts against Midwest Grain, Midwest Grain denies the same.
16.
Midwest Grain denies the allegations ofparagraph 16.
17.
Midwest Grain admits that it did not operate the scrubbers on certain dates but
denies
any other allegation ofparagraph
17.
Midwest
Grain further submits that the scrubbers
provide no additional
emission control and the impact ofnot operating the scrubbers is
negligible.
•
•
•
18.
Midwest Grain submits that the permits
are the best evidence oftheir contents.
To the extent that the allegations ofparagraph 8 deviate from the permit terms, Midwest Grain
denies same.
19.
Midwest Grain admits that on certain dates it has not operated the.scrubbers
but denies all other allegations ofparagraph
19. Midwest Grain further submits that the scrubbers
provide no additional
emission control and the impact ofnot operating the scrubbers
is
negligible.
20.
Midwest‘Grain denies the allegations ofparagraph 20.
•
—4—
STL—559012.01
Count IV
•
Operating Without Operating Permit
1-14.
Midwest Grain realleges and incorporates by reference its
responses to paragraphs
1 through
14 of Count I as paragraphs
1 through
14 of CountIV.
15.
Paragraph
15 alleges a legal conclusion to which no response is required.
To
•
the extent that paragraph 15 alleges facts against Midwest Grain, Midwest Grain denies the same.
16.
-
Paragraph 16
alleges a legal conclusion to which no response is required.
To
the extent that paragraph
16 alleges facts against Midwest Grain, Midwest Grain denies the same.
-17.
•‘
Midwest Grain admits it has submitted a CAAPP application for the facilities,
including the new dryers.
Midwest Grain deniesany other allegation of paragraph 17.
18.
Midwest Grain submits that the permits are the best evidence oftheir contents.
To the extent that the allegations of paragraph 18 deviate from the permit terms, Midwest Grain
denies same.
19.
Midwest Grain admits it has operated dryer #651
but denies any other
allegation ofparagraph 19.
20.
Midwest Grain submits that the permit is the best evidence ofits contents.
To
the extent that the allegations of paragraph 20 deviate from the permit terms, Midwest Grain
denies same.
•
21.
Midwest Grain admits that it has operated dryer 661, but denies any other
allegation ofparagraph 21.
—
22.
Midwest Grain denies the allegations ofparagraph 22.
—5—
STL—559012 .01
Affirmative Defenses
Further answering, Midwest Grain states the following affirmative defenses:
A.
Midwest Grain discontinued use of its fluidized bed coal boiler in 1994.
At the
time the coal boiler use was discontinued, Midwest Grain ceased its status as a “major stationary
source” and the PSD program requirements were no longer applicable to Midwest Grain.
B.
Midwest Grain acted in good faith and built an emission control system for its
grain dryers which was designed to
restrict emissions
from the dryers to a level below the
level
for a “major modification” subject to PSD program requirements.
This emission control system
was reviewed and approved by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (“IEPA”) as part of
Midwest Grain’s construction permit application.
Through no fault ofMidwest Grain, the
system did not function as designed and has had difficulty restricting the emission ofvery small
particles.
Midwest Grain has worked steadily to
improve upon the emission control system.
Midwest Grain has been in frequent contact with IEPA regarding its
difficulties with the system.
To the extent Midwest Grain is
in violation ofPSD regulations, the Act or its permit terms, if at
all, the violation is due to an unavoidable mistake in that its emission control equipment has
failed to live up to its
design specifications.
•
C.
Pursuant to
discussions with IEPA, Midwest Grain has agreed to purchase and
install additional emission control equipment, at substantial expense.
Midwest Grain’s
commitment to IEPA to install new emission control equipment constitutes a Compliance
Commitment Agreement.
Midwest Grain is in compliance with the Compliance Commitment
Agreement,
therefore, these allegations should not have been brought.
D.
Midwest Grain filed an application for an operating permit on March 16,
1995.
—6—
STL—559012.01
•
To date, IEPA has not acted upon the operating permit application, although Midwest Grain has
extended the reviewperiod for the operating permit application three times (the last time for an
indefini~period).
Midwest Grain has also filed an application for a Clean Air Act Permit.
•
Midwest Grain has been in frequent contact with IEPA and IEPA has not alleged that an
operating permit is required at this time.
At no time has Midwest Grain disregarded the’
provisions ofthe Board’s air permit regulations
and it has worked steadily with IEPA to remedy
the difficulties it has had as a result of the uliexpected difficult engineering for its emissions.
•
WHEREFORE, Midwest Grain, by and through its attorneys, Husch & Eppenberger,
respectfully requests dismissal ofthis Complaint, in whole or in part, or, in the alternative,
determining the appropriate penalties, and granting such other relief as may be
appropriate.
•
•
/
•
•
Respectfully submitted,
-
•
•
HUSCH and EPPENBERGER
~
Charles E./vIerrill #06211606
Amy L. Wachs,
Pro hac vice
Tracy S. Menges#06231131
100 N. Broadway, Suite
1300
•
•
•
•
•
•
St. Louis, Missouri
63102
(314) 421-4800
—7—
STL—559012.O1
•
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I did on the~ay ofMay,
1997, send a true and accurate copy of
the foregoing instrument by first class mail, postage prepaid to Complainant’s attorney:
Jane E.
McBride
•Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Bureau
500 South
Second Street
•
Springfield, IL
62706
and the originals and ten copies ofthe foregoing instrument by first class mail, postage prepaid
to:
•
•
Dorothy Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
• State ofIllinois
Center
•
Suite 11-500
•
100 West Randolph
•
•
Chicago, IL60601
•
7
ttorney’
•
-
THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
—8—
•
STL—559012 .01
