BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
)
Complainant,
)
)
v.
)
)
BARGER ENGINEERING, INC., an
)
Indiana Corporation,
)
)
Respondent.
)
PCB 06-82
ANSWER
NOW COMES Respondent, BARGER ENGINEERING, INC. by its attorneys Sorling,
Northrup, Hanna, Cullen
&
Cochran, Ltd, Charles J. Northrup, of Counsel, and for its Answer to
Complainant's Complaint states as follows:
COUNT I
(Water Pollution Violations (September 23, 2005»
1.
Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations set out in paragraph one and
fllrther states it possesses insufficient knowledge to form a belief
as to the allegations.
2.
Respondent admits the allegations set out in paragraph two.
3.
Respondent admits the allegations set out in paragraph three.
4.
Respondent admits the allegations set out in paragraph four.
5.
Respondent admits the allegations set out in paragraph five.
6.
Respondent admits that on September 23, 2005 a leak occurred fi"Oln aPVC line at the
identified facility and that approximately 1,000 to 1,500 barrels
of salt water were released.
Respondent neither admits nor denies that the subjeet line "'ruptured"
as that term is vague and
ambiguous. Respondent further denies that
10 to 20 barrels of crude oil were released, but suggests
that only 5 to
10 balTels of crude oil may have been released.
S0567308,1 1/14/2008 CJN BLF}
Printed
0/'1
Recveled Poper
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 14, 2008
7.
Respondent admits that the saltwater from the September 23, 2005 leak traveled
approximately I
y,
miles from the leak site. Respondent denies the remaining allegations in
paragraph seven.
8.
Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations set out in p<lragraph eight and
fllrther statcs
it possesses insufficient knowledge to fonn a beliefas to the allegations. Respondent
admits that at some points along the path
ofthe leak certain amounts ofvegetation were covered with
crude oil.
9.
Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations set out in paragraph nine and
tllrther states
it possesses insufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the allegations.
10.
Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations set out in paragraph tcn and
further states
it possesses insufficient knowledge to limn a belief as to the allegations.
11.
Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations set out in paragraph 11 and
fi.lrther states it possesses insuJIieient knowledge to form a belief as to the allegations.
12.
Respondent admits that Section 3.550 of the Act is set out at paragraph 12.
13.
Respondent admits that Section 3.545 of the Act is set out at paragraph f3.
14.
Respondent admits that a portion of Section 12 of the Illinois Environmental
protection Aet
C
Act") is set out at paragraph
14.
15.
Respondent admits that Section 302.203 of the Illinois Pollution Control Board's
CBoard") water pollution regulations is set out at paragraph 15.
16.
Respondent admits that Section302.208(g) ofthc Board'swater pollution regulations
rcferences a general usc qnality standard for chloride.
17.
Respondent denies the allegations set out in paragraph 17 as it calls for a legal
conclusion.
18.
conclusion.
19.
conclusion.
Respondent denies the allegations set out in paragraph
18 as it calls for a legal
Responclent denies the allegations set out in paragraph
19 as it calls for a legal
20.
Respondent denies the allegations set out in paragraph 20 as it calls for a legal
conclusion.
21.
Respondent denies the allegations set out in paragraph 21 as it calls for a legal
conclusion.
S056
7
308.2 1//4/2008 CJN HLF}
2
Printed
on
Recycled Pnper
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 14, 2008
WHEREFORE Respondent, Barger Engineering, Inc. respectfully requests that this Board
deny all
limns of Relief prayed for by the Complainant in Count I of its Amended Complaint.
COUNTH
(Water
Pollution
Violations (May 18, 2006))
1- 10. Respondent restates and incorporates herein by reference its Answers for paragraphs 1
through 5 and
12 through 16 of Count 1 for its Answer to paragraphs I through 10 ofthis Count II.
II.
Respondent admits that Section 12(d) of the Illinois Environmental protection Act
("Act") is set out at paragraph 11.
12.
Respondent admits that
on May 18, 2006 a leak occurred Irom a fiberglass line at the
identified facility and that approximately 200 barrels
ofsalt water were released. Respondent neither
admits nor denies that the subject line
"breached" as that term is vague and ambiguous.
13.
Respondent neither admits nor denies that the subject release occurred at the same
facility as the September 23, 2005 release as the term "facility" is vague and ambiguous.
Respondent admits that the
two releases were located in close proximity to each other but did not
originate
Irom the same location.
14.
Respondent admits that the saltwater Ii-om the May 19, 2006 leak traveled
approximately 1
Yz
miles from the leak site. Respondent denies the remaining allegations in
paragraph
seven.
15.
Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations set out in paragraph 15 and
further states
it possesses insufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the allegations.
IS.
Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations set out in paragraph 15 and
further states
it possesses insufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the allegations.
16.
Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations set out in paragraph
16 and
further states it possesses insufficient knowledge to form a
belief as to the allegations.
17.
Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations set out in paragraph 17 and
further states it possesses insufficient knowledge to
fonn a belief as to the allegations.
18.
conclusion.
19.
conclusion.
Respondent denies the allegations set
out in paragraph 18 as it calls for a legal
Respondent denies the allegations set
out in paragraph 19 as it calls for a legal
S0567308.1 J1/4/:.'008 CJN ELF)
3
Printed on Recycled Paper
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 14, 2008
20.
Respondent denies the allegations set out in paragraph 20 as it calls for a legal
conclusion.
21.
Respondent denies the allegations set out in paragraph 21 as it calls for a legal
conclusion.
22.
Respondent denies the allegations set out in paragraph 22 as
it calls Ilx a legal
conclusion.
23.
Respondent denies the allegations set out in paragraph 23 as it calls for a legal
conclusion.
WHEREFORE Respondent, Barger Engineering, Inc.
respecttiIlly requests that this Board
deny all forms
of Relief prayed for by the Complainant in Count
II
of its Amended Complaint.
COUNTlII
(Water Pollution Violations
(April 20,
2007))
1- 1I. Respondent restates and incorporates herein by reference its Answers for paragraphs I
through 5 and
12 through 16 of Count I for its Answer to paragraphs 1 through 10 ofthis Count III as
well as its Answer for paragraph
11 of Count II as its Answer to paragraph 11 of this Count Ill.
12.
Respondent admits that on April 20, 2007 a leak occurred from a steel flowline
at the
identified facility and that approximately 200 barrels
of salt water were released. Respondent denies
that
10 barrels ofcrude oil was leaked but that it believes approximately six barrels ofcrude oil were
released.
13.
Respondent admits that salt water eventually made its way to an unnamed creek.
Respondent denies that it traveled 800 feet but affinllatively states the distance was approximately
1500 feet or that
it traveled through "drain tiles."
14.
Respondent denies the allegations set out in paragraph 14 as it calls for a legal
conclusion.
15.
Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations set out in paragraph 15 and
further states it possesses insufficient knowledge to form a belief as
to the allegations.
16.
Respondent denies the allegations set out in paragraph
16 as it calls for a legal
conclusion.
50567308.2 111412008 C1N BLF/
4
Printed on Rec}'cled Paper
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 14, 2008
17.
Respondent denies the allegations set out in paragraph 17 as it calls for a legal
conclusion.
18.
Respondent denies the allegations set out in paragraph 18 as it calls for a legal
conclusion.
19
conclusion.
Respondent denies the allegations set out in paragraph
19 as it calls for a legal
WHEREFORE Respondent, Barger Engineering, Inc. respectfully requests that this Board
deny all forms
of Relief prayed for by the Complainant in Count III of its Amended Complaint.
COUNT IV
(Water Pollution Violations (August 2, 2007))
1- 1I. Respondent restates and incorporates herein by reference its Answers for paragraphs 1
through 5 and
12 through 16 ofCouut 1for its Auswer to paragraphs 1 through 10 ofthisCount IV as
well as its Answer for paragraph 1I of Count II as its Answer to paragraph 11 of this Count IV.
12.
Respondent admits that on August 2, 2007 a leak occurred from a PVC line at the
identified
f~lcility
and that approximately 2 barrels of crude oil and 40 barrels of salt water were
released. Respondent denies the remaining allegations set out in paragraph
12.
13.
Respondent neither admits nor denies that the subject release entered a "creek" as the
tcrm "creek"
is vague and ambiguous. Respondent admits that the salt water entered into a ditch.
14.
Respondent denies the allegations set out in paragraph 14 as it calls for a legal
conclLlsion.
IS.
Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations set out in paragraph 15 and
further states it possesses insufficient knowledge to fonn a belief
as to the allegations.
16.
Respondent denies the allegations set out in paragraph 16 as it calls for a legal
conclLlsion.
17.
Respondent denies the allegations set out in paragraph 17 as it calls for a legal
conclusion.
18.
Respondent denies the allegations set out in paragraph 18 as it calls for a legal
conclusion.
19
conclusion.
Respondent denies the allegations set out
in paragraph 19 as it calls for a legal
SOj():'308.2 1/14/2008 C.flY JJLF}
5
Printed on Recycled Poper
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 14, 2008
WHEREFORE Respondent, Barger Engineering, Inc. respect/blly requests that this Board
deny
all forms of Reliefprayed for by the Complainant in Count
IJI
of its Amended Complaint.
Respectfully submitted
BARGER ENGINEERING, INC., Respondent
Sorling, Northrup, Hanna,
Cullen
&
Cochran. Ltd.
Charles
J. Northrup
Suite 800 Illinois Building
PO. Box 5131
Springfield, IL 62705
Telephone: (2]
7) 544-1 ]44
Facsimile: (217) 522-3] 73
E-Mail
S'05673082 j,}4/2008 C/N JJLF)
6
Printed
011
Recycled Paper
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 14, 2008
PROOF OF
SERVICE
The undersigned herehy certifies that the foregoing document was served by electronic mail
to:
Ms. Dorothy Gunn, Clerk
Pollution Control Board
100 West Randolph Street, Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL 6060 I
and a copy
to the following:
Ms. Carol Wehb
Hearing Office
llIinois Pollution Control Board
Ion
North Grand Ave. East
Post
Office Box 19276
Springfield,
IL 62794-9274
Ms. Kristin Gale
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Bureau
500
S. 2"<1 St.
Springfield, JL 62706
depositing same m the United States mail in Springfield,
.,IL!.~~",,-·').
...
_~.
__,
2008, with postage fully prepaid.
/ ti
-til.
Illinois, on the
~I_'
day of
S'0567308.2 j/14/2008 CJN BLF}
7
Printed on Recycled Paper
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 14, 2008
