ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7,2006
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTItOL BOARD
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
Complainant,
1
PCB NO. 06-181
v.
1
(Enforcement)
)
QUAD-COUNTY READY MIX CORPORATION,)
an Illinois corporation,
1
Respondent.
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
NOW COMES the Respondent, QUAD-COUNTY READY MIX CORPORATION, an
Illinois corporation, by
and thro~~gh
its attorneys. Brown, I-Iay
&
Z;tephens, LLP, and as and for
its Answer to the Complai~lt of the Complainant, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
states as follows:
COUNT 1
NOTIFICATION AND FEE PAYMENT V10LATIONS
1.
This count is brought on behalf of the People of the !State of Illinois, by Lisa
Madigan, the Attorney General of the State of Illinois, on her own inotion and at the request of
the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (
"Illinois EPA"), pur ;uant to Section 3 1 of the
Illinois Environmental Protection Act (
"the Act"), 415 lLCS 5131 (2004)
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
ANSWER:
Respondent has no knowledge of whether
\his case is brought on the
Attorney General's own motion or pursuant to Section
31 of tht Act and demands strict
proof that Section
31 has been followed prior to the initiation of this Complaint.
2.
The Illinois EPA is an agency of the State of Illinois created by the Illinois
General Assembly in Section 4 of the Act, 41
5
ILCS 514 (2004), ani charged, infer
din,
with the
duty of enforcing the Act.
ANSWER: Respondent admits that the statements conklined in Paragraph 2 are
accurate.
3.
The Respondent, Quad
-County Ready Mix Corporat~on ("Quad Co."), is an
Illinois corporation in good standing. Quad Co. has at all times relc vant to thls Complaint owned
and
opcrated a concrete ready inix plant located at 300 Old fuller to^^, Swansca, St. Clair County,
Illinois
("S~te"). The registered agent for Quad Co. is Herbert J.
H~stedde, P.O. Box 158, 300
West
12'" Avenue, Oltawville, 62271-01
58.
ANSWER:
Respondent admits the statements contained in Paragraph 3.
4.
Section
9.l(d)(l) ofthe Act, 415 ILCS 519.l(d)(l) (;l.004), provides as follows:
No person shall:
(1) violate any provisions of Sections
1 1
1,
1
2, 165 or 173 of the
Clean Air Act, as
now or herearter amended, or federal regulations
adopted pursuant thereto;
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
ANSWER:
Respondent admits that 415 ILCS
5/9.l(d)(l) is set out at Paragraph
4.
5.
The regulations
on National Emission Standards for I-Iazardous Air Pollutants
(
"NESHAP") for asbestos, 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart M, were adopted pursuant to Section 112 of
the Clean Air Act, 42 USC
57412. Asbestos is regulated as a hazar~lous air pollutant because it is
a carcinogen. Regulated asbestos
-containing materials ("RACM) 1:ontain more than one percent
asbestos
and are generally "friable," which means such materials, mhen dry, can be crumbled,
pulverized, or reduced to powder by hand pressure.
ANSWER:
The allegations contained in Paragraph 5 are legal conclusions of the
pleader to which no answer is required. To the extent that the
s~llegations in Paragraph 5
may be considered allegations of fact, Respondent has no
laowl~edge of the facts alleged in
Paragraph
5 therein sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations
contained therein, hut Respondent demands strict proof thereof.
6.
40 CFR 561.145 provides in pertinent part as follows:
Standard for demolition and renovation
(a)
Applicnhilily.
To determine which
requil'einents of paragraphs (a), (b),
and (c) of this section apply to the owner or
{)perator of a demolition or
renovation activity and prior to the commencement of the
de~nolition or
renovation,
tlioroughly inspect the affected f,icility or part of the facility
where the demolition or renovation
operatio11 will occur for the presence of
asbestos, including Category
I and Category I1 nonfriable ACM. The
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
requirements of paragraphs (b) and (c) of thi
;
section apply to each owner
or operator of a demolition or renovation
actvity, including the removal of
RACM as follows:
(1)
In a facility being demolished, all
the requirements of
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section apply, except as
provided in paragraph
(a)(3) of this szction, if the
combined amount of RACM is
(i)
At least
80 linear meters (260 linear feet) on pipes
or at least
15 square meters (1 60 square feet) on
other facility components, or
(ii)
At least 1 cubic meter (35
cukic feet) off facility
components where the length or area could not be
measured previously.
(2)
In a facility being demolished, only t
lhe notification requirements
of paragraphs
(b)(l), (2), (3)(i) and (v), and (4)(i) through (vii) and
(4)(ix) and (xvi) of this section applq, if the combined amount of
RACM is
(i)
Less than 80 linear meters (2(,0 linear l'eet) on pipes
and less than 15 square meter (160 square feet) on
other Cacility components, ant1
(ii)
Less than one cubic
meter (32 cubic feet) off
facility components where
tht length or area could
not be measured previously o
.there is no asbestos.
(b)
Nol~ficrrrion reqziirenzents.
Each owner clr operator of a demolition or
renovation activity to which this section applies shall:
(1) Provide the Administrator with written notice of intention to
demolish or renovate. Delivery of
th~: notice by U.S. Postal
Service, coinmercial delivery service or hand delivery is
acceptable.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
ANSWER:
Respondent admits that a portion of
40 CIIFR 561.145 is set out at
Paragraph
6, and that the Illinois Environmental Protection Avt attempts to adopt these
federal provisions into Illinois state law by statute.
7.
40 CFR §145(c) provides in pertinent part as follow'i:
(c) Procedures for asbestos emission control Each owner or operator of a
demolition or renovation activity to whom
tlis paragraph applies,
according to paragraph (a) of this section, shall comply with the
lollowing
procedures:
(1)
Remove all RACM from a facility being demolished or renovated
before any activity begins that would break
LIP, dislodge, or
similarly disturb the material or
precl~t~de
access to the material for
subsequent removal. RACM need
nct be removed before
demolition if:
(i)
It is Category I nonfriable AC M that is not in poor
condition and is not friable.
(ii)
It is on a facility
colnpoilent tlhat is encased in
concrete or other similarly
hard material and is
adequately wet whenever exposed during
demolition: or
(iii)
It was not accessible for
testi~ ~g and was, therefore,
not discovered until after
denolition began and, as
a result of the demolition, the material
cannot be
safely removed. If not removed for safety reasons,
the exposed
RACM and my :sbestos-contaminated
debris must be treated as asbestos-containing waste
material and adequately wet at all times until
disposed of.
(iv)
They are Category
11
nonfriat~le ACM and the
probability is low that the maerials will
beconle
crumbled, pulverized, or redwed to powder during
demolition.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
(6)
For all RACM, including material
thit has been removed or
stripped:
(i)
Adequately west the material and ensure that
it
remains wet until collected ard contained ore
treated in preparation for disposal in accordance
with
661.150; and
(ii)
Carefully lower the material
tso
the grou~d and
floor, not dropping, throwing sliding, or otherwise
damaging or disturbing the
mriterial.
(iii)
Transport the material to the
1:ro~uld via leak-tight
chutes or containers if it has keen removed or
stripped more
than 50 feet ab~~ve
ground level and
was not removed as units or ill sections.
(iv)
RACM contained in
leak-tigk t wrapping that has
been removed in accordance
with paragraphs (c)(4)
and (c)(3)(i)(B)(3) of this secion need not be
wetted.
ANSWER:
Respondent admits that a portion of 40 CFR §145(c) is set out
at Paragraph 7, and that the Illinois Environmental Protection Act attempts to adopt these
federal provisions into Illinois state law by virtue of Section 9.1 of the Act.
8.
40 CFR $61.150 provides in pertinent part as follo~
s:
561.150 Standard for waste disposal
ibr manuCacturng, fabricating,
demolition, renovation, and spraying operations.
Each owner or operator of any source covered
ullde~ the provisions or
5861.144, 61.145, 61.146, and 61.147 shall comply with the following
provisions:
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
(b)
All asbestos
-containing waste material shall be deposited as
soon as is practical by
the waste generator at:
(1)
A waste disposal site
operatecl in accordance with
the provisions of 561.154, or
(2)
An EPA-approved site that ccnverts RACM and
asbestos
-containing waste material into nollasbestos
(asbestos-free) material accor~iing to the provisions
of 561.155.
(3)
The requirements of paragraph (b) of this section do
not apply to Category
I nonfr able ACM that is not
RACM.
ANSWER:
Respondent admits that a portion of
40 C FR
561.150
is set out
at Paragraph
8,
but denies the applicability and relevance of su1:h federal rule to this
proceeding. Respondent states that no such corresponding
stat^. rule exists.
9.
Section
9.13(b) of the Act, 415 IL,CS 519.13(b) (2004). provides as follows:
Sec. 9.13. Asbestos fees.
(b)
If demolition or renovation of a site
has coln~nenced without prior filing
of the
10-day Notice, the fee is double the
alnount otherwise due. This
doubling of the fee is in addition to any
other penalties under this Act, the
federal NESHAP, or otherwise,
and does 1101 preclude Agency, the
Attorney General, or other authorized persors from pursuing an
enforcement action against the owner or operator for failure to file a
10-
day Notice prior to commencing delllolition or renovation activities.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
ANSWER:
Respondent admits that 415 ILCS
5/9.13(b) is set out at
Paragraph 9.
10.
On a date prior to September 28, 2004 and better lu13wn to the Respondent, thc
Respondent colnlnenced demolition activities at the Site, includillg knocking down a batch house
covered with transite
pancls. The Respondent was simultaneously constructiilg a new batch
house in
the demolitioll area. The demolition activities disturbed tl le transite panels which
contained more than one
(I) percent asbcstos. The Sitc is a "facility" and the Respondent is an
"owner" and "operator" of a "demolition" as these terms are defincd at 40 CFR s61.141.
ANSWER:
Respondent admits the allegations that it ibommenced demolition
activities at the Site on a date prior to September
28,2004
and hat it was simultaneously
constructing a new batch house in the demolition area. Respondent has no knowledge of
the allegation that the demolition activities disturbed the transit panels or that the transit
panels contained
morc than one (1) percent asbestos therein
su ficient to form a belief as to
the truth or falsity of the allegations contained therein, and
Re2pondent demands strict
proof thereof. The remaining allegations contained in Paragraph
11 are legal conclusions
of the pleader to which no answer is required, and asserts that
no corresponding state rule
exists or has been adopted identical to the federal rule alleged
h~erein,
40
CFR
tj61.141.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
11.
On September 28, 2004, the Illinois EPA inspected he facility in response to a
citizen complaint alleging improper asbestos removal, and
observe(i a substantial amount of
suspect transite panel debris within and on the ground adjacent to
tlie batch house
demolition/construction area. The debris was crushed, dry, and friible waste material suspected
to contain asbestos. In
some cases, the removed transite panels were deposited on the ground
and
pulverized by passing trucks.
ANSWER:
Respondent admits the allegation that the Illinois EPA inspected the
facility on September
28,2004. Respondent has no knowledge )f the remaining facts
alleged in Paragraph
11 therein sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the
allegations contained therein, and Respondent
dcmands strict 11roof thereof.
12.
Approxi~nately ten (1 0) percent of the demolition/ct~nstr~~ction
area was covered
in poured concrete,
fro111 which inspectors observed pieces of transite protruding.
ANSWER:
Respondent has no Itnowledge of the facts alleged in Paragraph 11
therein sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of thc allegations contained
thercin, and Respondent demands strict proof thereof.
13.
In total, the inspectors estimated that approximately fifteen hundred (I 500) square
leet oltransite material had been i~nproperly removed and deposite~i on the ground.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
ANSWER:
The allegations contained in Paragraph 1:11 are legal conclusions of the
pleader to which no answer is required. To the extent that the allegations in Paragraph
13
may he considered allegations of fact, Respondent has no lmow ledge of the alleged facts
therein sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of
thc allegations contained
therein, and Respondent demands strict proof thereof.
14.
The Inspectors obtained three (3) samples of dry, frilblc transite from the Site.
ANSWER:
Respondent has no knowledge of the facts alleged in Paragraph 14
therein sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of thc: allegations contained
therein, and Respondent demands strict proof thereof.
15.
Analytical testing of these ~naterials revealed the prc,sence of Inore than one
percent asbestos. The renovation activity is subject to NESHAP
rc~quircments and work
practices as the quantity of RACM was greater than
fiftecn (15) sqi~are meters (160 square reel).
ANSWER.
The allegations contained in Paragraph li8i are legal conclusions of the
pleader to which no answer is required.
Rcspondent has no knowledge of the remaining
facts alleged in Paragraph
15 therein sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of
the allegations contained therein, and Respondent demands strict proof thereof.
16.
The Respondent did not submit any written notification ofthe demolition activity
to the
llli~lois EPA.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
ANSWER:
Respondent admits that it did not submit written notification to the
Illinois
EPA
prior to the demolition as it was unaware of the al'lplicability of any such
requirement.
17.
The Respondent did not conduct a thorough inspection of the facility to determine
the presence of asbestos
-containing materials (including Category I! and
I1
nonfriable ACM)
prior to
commenci~lg renovation activities that would break, dislodge or similarly disturb the
material, thereby violating Section
9.l(d)(l) of the Act, 415 lLCS 5/9.l(d)
(2004), and 40 CFR
$61.145(a).
ANSWER:
The allegations contained in Paragraph 1
1
are legal conclusions of the
pleader to which no answer is required, and denies the
applicaI1)ility and relevance of such
federal rule, 40
CFR
§61.145(a), to this proceeding. Responde~~t
states that no such
corresponding state
rule exists. To the extent that the allegations in Paragraph 17 may hc
considered allegations of fact, Respondent denies the allegations contained in Paragraph
17, and demands strict proof thereof.
18.
The owner and operator of a demolition activity subject to the NESHAP for
asbestos is required by 40
CFR $61.145(b)(l) to provide to the Illiilois EPA notification of
renovation activity at least
10 working days prior to commencing such activity. The Respondent
did not provide written notification to the Illinois EPA prior to the
:ommencement of demolition
activities at the facility, thereby
violati~lg 40 CFR $61.145(b)(l) and Section 9.l(d) of the Act,
415
ILCS 519.l(d) (2004).
11
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
ANSWER:
The allegations contained in Paragraph
1
are legal conclusions of the
pleader to which no answer is required, and denies the
applical~ility and relevance of such
federal rule,
40 CFR
§61.145(b)(l),
to this proceeding. Respondent states that no such
corresponding state rule exists. To the extent that the allegations in Paragraph
18
may
be
considered allegations of fact, Respondent has no knowledge ol the alleged facts therein
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegalions contained therein, and
Respondent demands strict proof thereof.
19.
The Defendant has not paid the doubled statutory fee of three hundred dollars
($300.00) required by Section
9.13(b) ol'the Act, 415 ILCS
519.131 b) (2004).
ANSWER:
Respondent admits that it has not paid three hundred dollars
($300)
to the Illinois EPA. The remaining allegations contained in Pa~.agraph 19 are legal
conclusions of
thc pleader to which no answer is required.
COUNT
ll
FAILURE TO FOLLOW PROPER EMISSION CONT KOL PROCEDURES
1-14
Colnplainant realleges and incorporates hereby by r1:ference paragraphs 1 through
8 and 10 through 15 of COLIII~
I as paragraphs 1 through 14 of this ('ount 11.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
ANSWER:
Respondent incorporates hereby by reference its Answers to
paragraphs
1 through 8 and 10 through 15 of Complainant's Count I as its Answers to
paragraphs
1 through 14 of this Count
11.
15.
The Respondent did not re~nove all RACM from lhe facility before any activity
began that would
brcalc up, dislodge, or similarly disturb the mat8:rial or preclude access to the
material for subsequent removal in violation of Section
9.l(d) c~f the Act, 415 ILCS 5/9.l(d)
(2004), and 40 CFR 561.145(~)(1).
ANSWER:
The allegations contained in Paragraph 15 arc legal conclusions of the
pleader to which no answer is required, and
denies the applic ~bility and relevance of such
federal rule,
40 CFR §61.145(~)(1), to this proceeding. Resipondent states that no such
corresponding state rule exists. To the extent that the
allcgations in Paragraph 15 may be
considered allegations of fact, Respondent has no
ltnowledgc of the alleged facts therein
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the
alleg;~~tions
contained therein, and
Respondent demands strict proof thereof.
16.
The Respondent failed to adequately wet and keep
\vet all RACM removed during
renovation activities until collected and contained
in leak-tight wrapping in preparation for
disposal,
in violation of Section 9.l(d) of the Act, 415 lLCS 9.l(d) (2004), and 40 CFR
§61.145(~)(6).
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
ANSWER:
The allegations contained in Paragraph
116 are legal conclusions of the
pleader to which no answer is required, and denies the
app1ic:itbility and relevance of such
federal rule,
40 CFR §61.145(~)(6), to this proceeding.
Resipondent states that no such
corresponding state rule exists. To the extent that the
allegati'ons in Paragraph 16 may he
considered allegations of fact, Respondent has no knowledge of the alleged facts therein
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the
alleg;~tions contained therein, and
Respondent demands strict proof thereof.
COUNT
111
IMPROPER DISPOSAL OF REGULATED ASBESTOS CONTAINING MATERIALS
1-14.
Complainant realleges and incorporates hereby by
rcference paragraphs 1 thro~~gh
8
and 10 through 15 of Count I as paragraphs 1 through 14 of this (:aunt
111.
ANSWER:
Respondent incorporates hereby by rcference its Answers to
paragraphs
1 through 8 and 10 through 15 of Complainant's Count I as its Answers to
paragraphs
1 through
14
of this Count
111.
15.
The Respondent failed to deposit as soon as pracicable all regulated
asbestos-
containing waste material at a site permitted to accept such waste. in violation of Section 9.l(d)
of the Act, 415 lLCS
9.l(d) (2004), and 40 CFR $61.150(b)(l).
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
ANSWER:
The allegations contained in Paragraph 15 are legal conclusions of the
pleader to which no answer is required, and denies the
appli~:~tbilily
and relevance of such
federal rule,
40 CFR §61.150(b)(l), to this proceeding. Resipondent states that no such
corresponding state
rule exists. To the extent that the allegati~ons in Paragraph 15 may he
considered allegations of fact, Respondent has no knowledge of the alleged facts therein
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the
alleg;~~tions
contained therein, and
Respondent demands strict proof thereof.
16.
The Respondent failed to adequately wet all
regulited asbestos-containing wastc
material during handling and collection, failed to seal all RACM waste in leak tight containers,
and failed to label the
containers
using warning labels as prescribed by the NESHAP for
asbestos,
in violation of Section 9.l(d) of the Act, 415 ILCS 9.l(d) (2004), and 40 CFR
$61,15O(a)(I).
ANSWER:
The allegations contained in Paragraph lili are legal conclusions of the
pleader to which no answer is required, and denies
the applic:~bility and relevance of such
federal rule,
40 CFli §61.150(a)(l), to this procecding. Resl~ondent states that no such
corresponding state rule exists. To the
extent that the allegati~ms in Paragraph 16 may be
considered allegations of fact, Respondent has no knowledge of the alleged facts therein
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained therein, and
Respondent demands
strict proof thcreof.
COUNT IV
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
AIR POLLUTION VIOLATIONS
1-21. Complainant realleges and incorporates herein by r~sference paragraphs 1 through
8
and 10 through 18 of Count I, paragraphs 15 and 16 of Count I
[
and paragraphs 15 and 16 of
Count 111 as paragraphs
1 through 21 of this Count IV.
ANSWER:
Respondent incorporates hereby by reference its Answers to
paragraphs 1 through 8 and 10 through 15 of Complainant's Count I, paragraphs 15 and
16 of Count I1 and paragraphs 15 and 16 of Count 111 as irs Answers to Paragraphs 1
through 21 of this Count IV.
22.
Section 9(a) of the Act, 415 ILCS 519(a) (2004), prcvides:
No person shall:
(a)
Cause of threaten or allow the discharge or ,:mission of any
containinant into the enviroinnent in any State so as to
cause or tend to cause air pollution in
Illin(~~is,
either along
or in coinbination with contaminants from other sources, or
so as to violate regulations or standards
idopted by the
Board under this Act;
ANSWER:
Respondent admits that 415
ILCS 5/9(a) ilr set out at Paragraph 22.
23.
Sectioil 201.141 of the Board's Air Pollution Rei:ulations, 35 Ill. Ad111. Code
20
1 .I 4 1, provides:
No person shall cause of
thrcaten or allow tlle discharge or
emission of any contaminant
into the environment in any State so
as,
eithcr along or in colnbination with contamin?nts from other
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
sources, to cause or tend to cause air poll~ltion in Illinois, or so as
to violate the provisions of this Chapter, or so
a; to prevent the
attainment or maintenance of any applicable
aml)ient air quality
standard.
ANSWER:
Respondent admits that 35 Ill. Adm. 1l3ode 201.141 is set out at
Paragraph
23.
24.
Section 3.1 15 of the Act, 415 ILCS 513.1 15
(21304), provides the following
definition:
'AIR POLLUTION' is the presence in the atmoslphere of one or
more contaminants
ill sufficient quantities and of such
characteristics and
d~~ration
as to be injurious to l~uman, plant, or
animal life, to health, or to property, or to unreas~~nably
interfere
with the enjoyment of life or property
ANSWER:
Respondent admits that
415 ILCS 513.1 15 is set out at Paragraph 24.
25.
By failing to adequately
wct and keep wet all RACM removed during the
delnolition activities ~lntil collected and contained in leak-tight wrapping in preparation for
disposal, to utilize
equipment or neth hods to properly control the emission of asbestos, and to
deposit as soon as practicable all regulated asbestos
-containing wa!ite material at a site permitted
to accept such waste, the Respondent has threatened the emission of contalninants into the
environment so as to tend to cause air pollution and
thcreby violatcd Section 9(a) of the Act, 415
ILCS 519(a) (2004), and Section 201.141 of the Board's Air Polluion Regulations, 35 Ill. Adm.
Code201.141.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
ANSWER:
The allegations contained in Paragraph 25 are legal conclusions of the
pleader to which no answer is required. To the extent that the allegations in Paragraph
25
may be considered allegations of fact, Respondent has no knowledge of the alleged facts
therein sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained
therein, and Respondent demands strict proof thereof.
COUNT
V
OPEN DUMPING
1-3.
Coinplainant realleges and incorporates herein by r',:ference paragraphs 1 through
3 of Count I as paragraphs
1 through
3
of this Count V.
ANSWER:
Respondent incorporates hereby by reference its Answers to
Complainant's paragraphs
1 through 3 of Count 1 21s its Answers to paragraphs 1 through
3 of this Count V.
4.
Section 21 of the Act, 415 ILCS 5121 (2004), provides, in pertinent part, as
follows:
No person shall:
a.
Cause of allow the open
dumping of waste.
e.
Dispose, treat, store, or abandon and waste, or transport any
waste into this State for disposal,
treatn-cnt, storage or
abandonment, except at a site or
hcility cihich ineets the
requirements of this Act and
of regulations and standards
thereunder.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
p.
In violation of subdivision (a) of this St
ction, cause or
allow
the open dumping of any waste in
;I
manner which
results in any of the following occurrence
a1 the dump site:
1.
Litter:
***
4.
Deposition of waste in standing or fl~)wing waters;
7.
Deposition of:
(i) general construction or demolition debris as
defined in Section
3.16O(a) of this AI:~; or
(ii) clean
constr~~ction or de~nolition debris as
defined
in Section 3.16-(b) of this At:t.
ANSWER:
Respondent admits that 415 ILCS 5/21 is
ret out at Paragraph 4.
Respondent denies the relevance of 415 lLCS 5/21 to this case.
5.
Scction 3.305 of the Act, 415 ILCS 513.305 (2004). provides the following
definition:
"OPEN DUMPING" means the consolidation of reiuse from one or
more sources at a disposal site that does not f~~lfill
the requirements
or a sanitary landfill.
ANSWER:
Respondent admits that 415 ILCS 5/3.3(115 is set out at Paragraph 5.
Respondent denies the relevance of 415 ILCS 513.305 to this casi.e.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
6.
Section 3.445 of the Act, 415 ILCS 513.445 (;!004), provides the following
definition:
'SANITARY LANDFILL" means a facility p~:rmitted by the
Agency for the disposal of waste on land meeting the requirements
of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,
P.L. 94-580, and
regulations thereunder, and without creating nuisances of hazards to
public health or safety, by confining the refuse to the smallest
practical volume and covering it with a layer of
earth at the
conclusion of
each day's operations, or by such other methods and
intervals as the Board may provide by regulation.
ANSWER:
Respondent admits that 415 ILCS 513.445 is set out at Paragraph 6.
Respondent denies the relevance of 415 ILCS 513.445 to this cage.
7.
Section 3.535 of the Act, 415 ILCS 513.535 (2004), provides, in pcrtinent part, the
following:
"WASTE" means any garbage, sludge from waste treatment plant,
water supply treatment plant, or air pollution
cc:~ntrol facility or
other discarded material, including solid, liquid, semi
-solid, or
contained gaseous material resulting
from indust~ial, commercial,
mining and
agric~~ltural
operations, and from comr!nunity activities,
but does not include solid or dissolved material in clomestic sewage,
or sold or dissolved materials in irrigation
returli flows, or coal
combustion by
-products as defined in Section 3.135, or industrial
discharges which are point sources subject to
perinits under Section
402 of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as now or hereafter
amended, or source, special nuclear, or
by-prod~uct materials as
defined by
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as ar~lended (68 Stat.
921) or any solid or dissolved
material from any f:,cility subject to
the Federal Surface Mining Coal and Reclainati~~n
Act of 1977
(P.L. 95
-87) or the rules and regulations thereund,:r or any law or
rule or regulation adopted by
the State of lllinois p~rsuant thereto.
ANSWER:
Respondent admits that 415 ILCS 513.535 is set out at Paragraph 7.
Respondent denics the relevance of 415 ILCS 513.535 to this cacl.e.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
8.
Section 3.160 of the Act, 415 ILCS 513.160 (2004), provides, in pertinent part, the
following:
(a)
"GENERAL
CONSTRUCTION
OR
DEMOLITION
DEBRIS
" means non-hazardous, uncontaminated materials
resulting from the construction, remodeling, repair, and
demolition of utilities, structures, and
road,';, limited to the
followi~~g:
bricks, concrete, and other ma;onry materials;
soil;
rock; wood, including non-hazardous painted, treated,
and coated wood and wood products; wall coverings;
plaster; drywall, plumbing fixtures;
non-asb~:stos insulation;
roofing shingles and other roofing coverings; reclaimed
asphalt pavement; glass; plastics that are not sealed in a
manner that conceals waste; electricil wiring and
components containing no hazardous
substa~lces; and piping
or metals incidental to any of those material::.
General construction or demolition debris
tioes not include
uncontaminated soil generated
during
construction,
remodeling, repair, and demolition of
util~~ties,
structures,
and roads
the uncontaminate~i soil is not
commingled with any general constructio~~
or demolition
debris or other waste.
(b)
"CLEAN CONSTRUCTION OR DEMOLI'TION DEBRIS"
means uncontaminated brolccn concretc without protruding
metal bars, bricks, rock, stone, reclaimed asphalt pavement,
or soil generated
froin construct~on or dcmolition activities.
Clean construction or demolition debris
d13cs not include
uncontaminated
soil generated during
construction,
remodeling, repair, and
denlolition of util~ties, structures,
and roads provided the
~incontaminate~i soil is not
commingled with
any clean construction or
delllolition
debris or other waste.
ANSWER:
Respondent admits that a portion of 41
i
lLCS 513.160 is set out at
Paragraph
8. Respondent denies the relevance of 415 ILCS 513.160 to this case.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
9.
On a date prior to September 28, 2004, and better known to the Respondent, the
Respondent
stacked approximately forty (40) tires next to a storagc shed located at the Site, some
of which contained water.
ANSWER:
Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations contained in
Paragraph
9, but demands strict proof thereof.
10.
011 a date prior to Scpteinber 28, 2004, and better k111own to the Respondent,
Respondent caused or allowed the
accumulatioil of onc-half acrc oj spcnt concrete, water, and
lill material in the area behind the storage shed.
ANSWER:
Respondent neither admits nor denies
-he allegations contained in
Paragraph
10, but demands strict proof thercof.
11.
On or before September 28, 2004, and continuing through at least June 6, 2005,
the Respondent has caused or allowed the open dumping ol'wasie
;
t a disposal site upon its
property through the
consolidatio~i of rcfusc.
ANSWER:
The allegations contained in Paragraph 11 are legal conclusions of the
pleader to which no
answer is required. To the extent that the :~llegations in Paragraph 11
may be considered allegations of fact, Respondent has no knowledge of the allcged facts
therein sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained
therein, and Respondent demands strict proof thereof.
22
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
12.
By causing or allowing the open dumping of waste, the Respondent has violated
Section
21(a) of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/21(a) (2004).
ANSWER:
The allegations contained in Paragraph I:! are legal conclusions of the
pleader to which no answer is required. Respondent denies tht relevance of 415 ILCS
5/21(a) to this case. To the extent that the allegations in Parag~aph 12 may be considered
allegations of fact, Respondent has no knowledge of the alleged facts therein sufficient to
form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations
contain:d therein, and Respondent
demands strict proof thereof.
13.
On or before Septenlber 28, 2004, and continuing through at least June 6,2005,
the Respondent has disposed, abandoned or stored waste at a site
u ]on its property, or
transportcd waste lor disposal or storage to a site upon its property. and such site does not meet
the requirements of the
Act and of the standards and regulations promulgated tliereundcr.
ANSWER:
The allegations contained in Paragraph 1: are legal conclusions of the
pleader to which no answer is required. To the extent that the
illcgations in Paragraph 13
may be considered allegations of fact, Respondent has no knowledge of the alleged facts
therein sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of tht allegations contained
therein, and
Respondcnt demands strict proof thereof.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
14.
By disposing, abandoning, or storing or transportink waste at or to a site which
does not meet the requirements of the Act and
or the standards and regulations promulgated
thereunder, the Respondent has violated Section
21(e) of the Act, 4 15 ILCS 5/21(e)(2004).
ANSWER:
The allegations eontained in Paragraph
111
are legal conclusions of the
pleader to
which no answer is required. Respondent denies thc relevance of
415
ILCS
5/21(e) to this ease. To the extent that the allegations in Paragraph
14
may be considered
allegations of fact, Respondent has no knowledge of the alleged facts therein sufficient to
form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations
contain1:d therein, and Respondent
demands strict proof thereof.
15.
On or before September 28, 2004, and co~liinuing tl-rough at least Junc 6, 2005,
the Respondent has caused or allowed ihe open dumping of waste in a manner which has resulted
in litter.
ANSWER:
The allegations eontained in Paragraph
I!;
are legal conclusions of the
pleader to which no answer is required. To the extent that the allegations in Paragraph
15
may be considered allegations of fact, Rcspondent has no knowledge of the alleged facts
therein sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of
thc: allegations contained
therein, and Respondent demands strict proof thereof.
16.
By causing or allowing ihe open dumping of waste in a manner which has
resulted in litter at or
fro111 ihe dump site, the Respondent has violaed Section 21(p)(1) of the
Act, 41 5
ILCS 5121(p)(l) (2004).
24
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
ANSWER.
The allegations contained in Paragraph 11';
are legal conclusions of the
pleader to which no answer is required. Respondent denies
thts. relevance of 415 ILCS
5/21(p)(l) to this case. To the extent that the allegations in Palagraph 16 may be
considered allegations of fact, Respondent has no knowledge
o1"the alleged facts therein
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained therein, and
Respondent demands strict proof thereof.
17.
011 or before September 28, 2004, and contin~ling tkrough at least June 6, 2005,
the Respondent has caused or allowed the open
duinping of waste in a inanner which has resulted
ill t11c deposition of waste in standing or flowing waters.
ANSWER:
The allegations contained in Paragraph
1''
are legal conclusions of the
pleader to which no answer is required. To the extent that the allegations in Paragraph
17
may be considered allegations of fact, Respondent has no knowledge of the alleged facts
therein sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of
this allegations contained
therein, and Rcspondent demands strict proof thereof.
18.
By causing or allowing the open dumping of waste in a maliner which has
resulted in the deposition of waste in standing or flowing waters, the
Rcspondent has violated
Section
21(p)(4) of the Act, 415 ILCS 5121(p)(4) (2004).
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
ANSWER:
The allegations contained in Paragraph
It1 are legal conclusions of the
pleader to which no answer is required. Respondent denies
thc relevance of 415
ILCS
5/21(p)(4) to this case. To the extent that the allegations in Palagraph 18 may be
considered allegations of fact, Respondent has no
Itnowledge of the alleged facts therein
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained therein, and
Respondent demands strict proof thereof.
19.
On or before September 28, 2004, and continuing through at least June 6, 2005,
the Respondent has caused or allowed the open dumping of waste
in a manner which has resulted
in the deposition of both general and clean
coilstn~ction or demolition debris.
ANSWER:
The allegations contained in Paragraph
1"
are legal conclusions of the
pleader to which no answer is required. To the extent that the allegations in Paragraph 19
may be considered allegations of fact, Respondent has no
linowledge of the alleged facts
therein sufficient to form
a belief as to the truth or falsity of thc allegations contained
therein, and Respondent demands strict proof thereof.
20.
By causing or allowiilg the open dumping or waste
in
a manner which has
resulted
in the deposition of both general and clean constructio~l or deinolitioil debris, the
Respoildeilt has violated Section 21(p)(7) of the Act, 415 ILCS 512 l(p)(7) (2004).
ANSWER:
The allegations contained in Paragraph 2(l1 arc legal conclusions of the
pleader to which no answer is required. Respondent denies the relevance of 415
ILCS
26
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
5/21(p)(7) to this case. To the extent that the allegations in Paragraph 20 may be
considered allegations of fact, Respondent has no knowledge of the alleged facts therein
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained therein, and
Respondent demands strict proof thereof.
COUNT VI
OPEN BURNING
1-5
Complai~lant realleges and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1 thro~~gh
3
or Coullt 1 and paragraphs
5
and 7 of Cou~lt V as paragraphs 1 through
5
of this Count VI.
ANSWER:
Respondent incorporates hereby by reference its Answers to
Complainant's paragraphs 1 through 3 of Count I and paragraphs 5 and 7 of Count V as
its Answers to paragraphs
1
through 5 of this Count V1.
6.
Section
9(c)
of the Act, 415 ILCS
519(c) (2004). provides, in pertinent part, as
follows:
No person shall:
(c) Cause or allow the open
burning of refuse, co~lduct any salvage operation by
open burning, or cause or allow the burning of any
r~fuse in any chamber not
specifically designed for the purpose
and approved 1)y the Agency pursuant to
regulatio~~s
adopted by the Board under this Act; ex1:ept that thc Board may adopt
regulatioils permitting open burning of refuse in cel~ain cases upon a .finding that
110 harm will result from such burning, or that any
a1
ternative method of disposiilg
ol'such ref~~se
would create a safety hazard so extreme as to justify the pollution
that would result from such
burning;
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
ANSWER:
Respondent admits that
415 ILCS 5/9(c) i:'; set out at Paragraph 6.
Respondent denies the relevance of 415 ILCS 5/9(c) to this case.
7.
Section 21 of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/21
(2004), provitles, in pertinent part, as
follows:
No person shall:
p.
In violation of subdivision (a) of this Section, cause or allow the
open dumping of any waste in a manner which results in any
olthe lbllowing
occurrences at the dump site:
3.
Open burning:
ANSWER:
Respondcnt admits that a portion of 415 ILCS 5/21 is set out at
Paragraph
7. Respondent denies the relevance of 415 lLCS 512 1 to this case.
8.
Section 3.300 ofthe Act, 415 ILCS 513.300 (2004), provides the lbllowing
definition:
"OPEN BURNING is the colnbustion of any matter in the open or in an open
dump.
ANSWER:
Rcspondent admits that a portion of 415 IILCS 513.300 is set out at
Paragraph
8. Respondcnt denies the relevance of 415 ILCS 513.300 to this case.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
9.
On a date prior to September 28,2004, and better known to the Respondent.
Respondent burned residential waste, cans, insulation, glass bottles, cardboard, wood and
landscape waste in a
burn pile approximately thirty (30) feet by twenty (20) feet surrounded by
standing water located behind a storage located on the Site. In
doi~lg so, the Respondent has
caused or allowed the open burning of refuse upon its property in violation of
Sectioll9(c) of the
Act, 41
5
ILCS
519
(c) (2004).
ANSWER:
The allegations contained in Paragraph
9 are legal conclusions of the
pleader to which no answer is required.
liespondent denies the relevance of 415 ILCS 519
to this case. To the extent that the allegations in Paragraph 9 nlay be considered
allegations of fact, Respondent has no
Itnowledge of the alleged facts therein sufficient to
form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations
containcbd therein, and Respondent
demands strict proof thereof.
10.
On or before September 28, 2004, and continuing through at
lcast Junc 6, 2005,
the Respondent has caused or allowed
the open dumping of waste in a lnanner which has resulted
in open burning in violation of Section 21(p)(3) of the Act, 415 ILC'S 5/21(p)(3) (2004).
ANSWER:
The allegations contained in Paragraph
1( are legal conclusions of the
pleader to which no answer is required. Respondent denies the relevance of 415
ILCS
5/21(p)(3) to this case. To the extent that the allegations in Parz~lgraph 10 may be
considered allegations of fact, Respondent has no knowledge of the alleged facts therein
29
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegat~ions eontained therein, and
Respondent demands strict proof thereof.
COUNT VII
WATER POLLUTION
1-3
Coillplainailt realleges and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs I through
3 of Count 1 as paragraphs 1 through 3 ofthis Count VII.
ANSWER:
Respondent incorporates hereby by reference its Answers to
Complainant's paragraphs
1
through 3 of Count
1
as its Answf rs to paragraphs
1
through
3 of this Count VII.
4.
Section 12 of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/12 (2004), provices, in pertinent part, as
follows:
No person shall:
(a)
Cause or threaten or allow the discharge of
ally co~lta~llinants
into
the
enviroilmeilt in any State so as to cause c
r
tend to cause water
pollutio~l in Illinois, cither alone or in combilatioil with matter .from other
sources, or so as to violate regulations or
stai~dards adopted by the
Pollution Control Board under this Act;
ANSWER:
Respondent admits that a portion of
415
ILCS
5/12
is set out at
Paragraph
8. Respondent denies the relevance of
415
ILCS
5/12
to this case.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
5.
Section 3.165 of the Act, 415 ILCS 513.165 (2004), defines "contaminant as
follows:
"CONTAMINANT" is any solid, liquid or gaseous matter, any odor, or any form
of energy, from whatever source.
ANSWER:
Respondent admits that 415 ILCS
513.165 is set out at Paragraph 5.
Respondent denies the relevance of 415 ILCS
513.165 to this cam.
6.
Scction 3.545 of the Act, 415 ILCS 513.545 (2004), delines "water pollution" as
follows:
"WATER POLLUTION" is such alteration of the pl~ysical, thermal, chemical,
biological or radioactive properties
of' any waters of thc State, or such discharge
of any
co~ltaminant into any waters of the State, as b~iill or is lilcely to create a
nuisance or render such waters
harmful or detrimental or inj~~rious
to public
health, safety or
welfarc, or to domestic, con~merciall, industrial, agricultural,
recreational, or other
legitinlate uses, or to livestock wild animals, birds, fish or
other aquatic life.
ANSWER:
Respondent admits that 415 ILCS 513.545 is set out at Paragraph 6.
Respondent denies the rclcvancc of 415 ILCS 513.545 to this case.
7.
Section 3.550 orthe Act, 415 ILCS 513.550 (2004), defines "waters" as follows:
"WATERS" means all accumulations of water, surfz~ce and underground, natural,
and artificial, public and private, or parts thereof, wl1ich are wholly or partially
within, flow through, or border
upon this State.
ANSWER:
Respondent admits that 415 ILCS 513.550 is
sct out at Paragraph 7.
Respondent denies the relevance of 415 ILCS 513.550 to this care.
3
1
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
8.
Illinois EPA inspectors returned to the Site on September 29,2004. At this time,
Quad Co. was unable to produce the required storm water permit, storm water pollution
prevention plan (
"SWPPP"), and inspection records.
ANSWER:
Respondent admits that the Illinois EPA inspectors returned to the
Site on September
29,2004,
and that Respondent could not, at that time, produce a storm
water pcrmit. Respondent has no knowledge of the remaining alleged facts therein
sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained therein, and
Respondent demands strict proof thereof.
9.
Subsequently, the Illinois EPA determined that pernlit ILR003761 was issued to
the previous owner, but had
not been transferred into Quad Co.'s nime.
ANSWER:
Respondcnt has no Itnowledge of the facts alleged in Paragraph 9
therein sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of thct allegations contained
therein, but Respondent demands strict proof thereof.
10.
On
Jan~~ary
24, 2006, the Illinois EPA re-inspected I he hcility to determine
whether Quad Co. was complying
with its storm water perinit (i.e., a current and complete
SWPPP with the necessary inspection, maintenance, and training rt cords).
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
ANSWER:
Respondent admits that the Illinois EPA illspectors returned to the
facility on January
24,2006.
Respondent has no knowledge of the remaining alleged facts
therein sufficient to form
a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained
therein,
but Respondent demands strict proof thereof.
I I.
Quad Co. was unable to produce a SWPPP
ANSWER:
Respondent has no knowledge of the facts alleged in Paragraph 11
therein sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of thr: allegations contained
therein, but Respondent demands strict proof thereof.
12.
An Illinois EPA inspector returned on January 26, 2106, at which time Quad Co.
produced the SWPPP. The plan was last revised
on July 1, 1999, aid lacked ~iiuch of the
required information. Specifically, the plan was laclcing employee training records, a copy of the
general storm water permit, a cornplete and accurate site map, and i:ompleted annual inspection
for~ns.
ANSWER:
Respondent admits an
lllinois EPA inspector returned on January
26,
2006
and that Respondent produced a SWPPP on that date. Respondent has no linowledge
of the remaining alleged facts therein sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of
the allegations contained therein, but Respondent demands
stri1:t proof thereof.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
13.
From at least September of 2004,
and continuing to he date this Coinplaint is
filed, the Respondent caused or allowed the discharge of
contaminsnts into the environment by
allowing wash water to enter a wooded area containing a creek. In so doing, the Respondent has
caused water pollution and thereby has violated Section
12(a) of th~: Act, 415 ILCS 5112(a)
(2004).
ANSWER:
The allegations contained in Paragraph 12 are lcgal conclusions of the
pleader to which no answer is required. Respondent denies the
relevance of 415 ILCS
5/12(a) to this case. To the extent that the allegations in Paragraph 13 may be considered
allegations of fact, Respondent has no knowledge of the alleged facts therein sufficient to
form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations
containc d therein, but Respondent
demands strict proof thereof.
COUNT
Vlll
NPDES PERMIT VIOLATIONS: UNLAWFUL 1)ISCHARGES
1
-
12
Complainant
rcalleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 12 of
Co~ult VII as paragraphs I through 12 ofthis Count VI11.
ANSWER:
Respondent incorporates hereby by reference its Answers to
Complainant's paragraphs
1 through 12 of Count VII as its Answers to paragraphs 1
through 12 of this Count
VIII.
13.
Section 12(9 of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/12(f) (2004), p,ovides, in pertinent part, as
follows:
34
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
No person shall:
f.
Cause, threaten or allow the discharge of an] contaminant into the waters
of
the State, as defined herein, including b~lt not limted to, waters to any sewage
works, or into any well or from any point source wit
Ihin the State, without an
NPDES permit for point source discharges issued
bj the Agency under Section
39(b) of this Act, or in violation of any term or condition imposed by such permit,
or in violation of any NPDES permit filing
rcquirernent established under Section
39(b), or in violation of any regulations adopted by the Board or of any order
adopted by the Board with respect to the NPDES program.
ANSWER:
Respondcnt admits that
415
ILCS
5/12(f) IS
set out at Paragraph
13.
Respondent denies the relevance of
41 5
ILCS
5/12(f)
to this cas
I:.
14.
Illinois is a state with delegated responsibility to enforce the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1251
el.
(1993)) and its regulations. 'The Illinois EPA, pursuant to Section 39(b) of
the Act, 415 ILCS
5/39(b) (2004), may issue National Pollutant Di;;charge Elimination System
(
"NPDES") permits containing effluent limitations for the discharg~: of contalni~lants into
navigable waters on behalf of the State of Illinois. The Illinois
EPti is also charged with the duty
to
enrorce and abate violations of the NPDES permit program.
ANSWER:
Thc allegations contained in Paragraph
lil
arc legal conclusions of the
pleader to which no answer is required. Respondcnt denies the relevance of
415
ILCS
5/39(b)
to this case.
15.
By failing to maintain a SWPPP required by the NPIES pcrmit at the Cacility, the
Rcspondent has violated Scction 12(f) of the Act, 41 5 ILCS 511 2(f, (2004), NPDES Perillit No.
lLR00376 1.
3
5
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
ANSWER:
The allegations contained in Paragraph
1:;
are legal conclusions of the
pleader to which no answer is required. Respondent denies the relevance of
415
ILCS
5/12(f)
to this case. To the extent that the allegations in Para~sraph 15 may be considered
allegations of fact, Respondent has no knowledge of the
alleg~ed facts therein sufficient to
form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations
contai~ned therein, but Respondent
demands strict proof thereof.
WI-IEREFORE, Respondent, QUAD-COUNTY READY NIIX CORPORATION,
respectfully requests this Court to dismiss the Complainant's
Comy'laint, award the111 costs and
attorneys' fees in defending this action and all other just and
approl~riate relief.
QUAD-COUNTY READY MIX CORPORATION,
an Illinois corporation,
BROWN, HAY
&
STEPHENS, LLP
Claire A. Manning
Reg.
No.3124724
Charles Y. Davis
Reg. No. 628601 0
205
S. Fifth Street, Suite 700
P.O. Box 2459
Springfield,
IL 62705-2459
(21
7)544-8491
By:
One of Its Attcmeys
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE', AUGUST 7,2006
PROOF OF' SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that an original and tc'n (10) copies of the
foregoing doculnent were served by U.S. mail to:
Ms. Dorothy
Gunn, Clerk
Pollution Control Board
100 West Randolph Street, Suite 11
-500
Chicago,
1L 60601
and one copy to:
Ms. Carole Webb
Hearing Office
Illinois Pollution Control Board
102
1 North Grand Avenue, East
Post Office Box 19276
Springfield, IL
62794-9274
Mr. Thomas Davis
Illinois Attorney General's Office
Environmental
Bureau
500 South Second Street
Springfield. IL 62706
Mr. Michael
D. Manlcowski
Illinois Attorney General's Officc
Environmental Bureau
500
South Second Street
Springfield, IL 62706
and
by depositing same in the United States inail in Springfield, I11 nois, on the 7"' day of
August, 2006, with
postagc fully prepaid.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
Back to top
