BEFORE
THE
ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
PEOPLE
OF
THE
STATE OF
ILLINOIS,
)
Complainant,
)
LERK’S
OFFICE
)
vs.
)
PCB
No.
2009-107
)
(Enforcement
AirTAT
OF
ILLINOIS
TATE
AND
LYLE
INGREDIENTS
)
OIIutIon
Control
Board
AMERICAS,
INC.,
an
Illinois
corporation,
)
)
Respondent.
)
NOTICE
OF
FILING
To:
Stephen
J.
Janasie
Environmental
Bureau
Assistant
Attorney
General
500
South
Second
Street
Springfield,
Illinois
62706
PLEASE
TAKE
NOTICE
that
on
the
1st
day
of
July,
2009,
we
filed
Tate
and
Lyle
Ingredients
Americas,
Inc.’s
ANSWER
AND
AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSES,
before
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board,
a
copy
which
is attached
and
served
upon
you.
Respectfully
submitted,
TATE
AND
LYLE
INGREDIENTS
AMERICAS,
INC.
By____
Jeryl
L. Olson
James
L.
Curtis
Elizabeth
Leifel
Ash
Seyfarth Shaw
LLP
131 S. Dearborn
Street
Suite
2400
Chicago,
Illinois
60603
(312)
460-5000
(THIS
FILING
IS
SUBMITTED
ON
RECYCLED
PAPER)
CHI
11758895.1
BEFORE
TIlE
ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
R
CLERç’S
E
—
i
V
E
D
OFFICE
PEOPLE
OF
THE
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS
)
)
Complainant,
)
S1ATE
OF
ILLINOIS
V.
Pollution
Control
Board
)
PCB
NO.
2009-107
TATE
AND
LYLE
iNGREDIENTS
)
(Enforcement)
AMERICAS,
fNC,
an
illinois
corporation
Respondent.
RESPONDENT’S
ANSWER
AND
AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSES
Respondent,
TATE
AND
LYLE
INGREDIENTS
AMERICAS,
iNC.,
by
and
through
its
attorneys,
Seyfarth
Shaw
LLP,
hereby
makes
answer
to
Complainant’s
Complaint
as
follows:
COUNT
I
EMISSION
OF
CONTAMINANTS
IN
VIOLATION
OF
REGULATIONS
OR
STANDARDS
COMPLAINT
¶
1:
This
Complaint
is
brought
by the
Attorney
General
of the
State
of
Illinois
on
her
own
motion.
ANSWER:
Respondent
admits
the
allegations
contained
in Paragraph
1
of
the
Complaint.
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,
415
ILCS
5/4
(2006),
and
charged, inter
alia,
with
the
duty
of
enforcing
the
Act
in
proceedings
before
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board.
ANSWER:
Respondent
admits
the
allegations
contained
in
Paragraph
2
of the
Complaint.
COMPLAINT
¶
3:
Respondent,
Tate
&
Lyle
Ingredients
Americas,
Inc.
(“TLIA”)
is
an
Illinois
corporation
registered with
the
Secretary
of
State’s
Office
and
is
in
good
standing.
Its
registered
agent
is CT
Corporation
System,
208
South
LaSalle
Street,
Suite
814,
Chicago,
Illinois
60604.
TLIA’s
corporate
offices
are
located
at
2200
East
Eldorado
Street,
Decatur,
Illinois.
This
filing
is
submitted
on
recycled
paper
CHI
11734046.3
ANSWER:
Respondent
admits
the
allegations
contained
in Paragraph
3 of
the
Complaint
except
that
Respondent
states
that
TLIA
is
a
Delaware
corporation.
COMPLAINT
¶
4:
At
all
times
relevant
to
this
Complaint,
Respondent
has
owned
and
operated
a
Corn
Wet
Mill
multi-plant
complex
(“the
Complex”)
at
2200
East
Eldorado
Street,
Macon
County,
Decatur,
Illinois.
ANSWER:
Respondent
admits
the
allegations
contained
in
Paragraph
4 of
the
Complaint.
COMPLAINT
¶
5:
The
Complex
is
a
grain
processing
facility engaged
in
the
manufacture
of
various
food
and
industrial
grade
ingredients
from
renewable
crops.
ANSWER:
Respondent
admits
the
allegations
contained
in
Paragraph
5
of
the
Complaint.
COMPLAINT
¶
6:
One
of
the
plants
located
within
the
Complex
is
the
Utilities
Area
Plant,
also
known
as
the
Co-Generation
Plant.
The
Co-Generation
Plant
is
comprised
of
two
buildings
containing
a
combined
total
of
six
boilers.
These
boilers
provide
steam,
compressed
air,
cooling
and
process
water
services
to
the
Complex.
ANSWER:
Respondent
admits
that
it
operates
a
co-generation
plant
within
its
Decatur
complex.
Respondent
denies
the
remaining
allegations
contained
in
Paragraph
6
of
the
Complaint.
COMPLAINT
¶
7:
Emissions
sources
at the
Co-Generation
Plant
include
two
coal-fired
boilers:
boiler
numbers
1
and
2.
Each
boiler
is
a
source
of
sulfur
dioxjde
(“S02”)
emissions.
ANSWER:
Respondent
admits
the
allegations
contained in
Paragraph
7 of
the
Complaint.
This
filing
is
submitted
on
recycled
paper
2
CHI
11734046.3
COMPLAINT
¶
8:
On
August
12,
2003,
based
upon
information
contained
within
Respondent’s
Clean
Air
Act
Permit
Program
(“CAAPP”)
permit
application,
the
Illinois
EPA
issued
CAAPP
permit
number
96020099
(“CAAPP
permit”)
to
Respondent
as
a CAAPP
source.
The
CAAPP
permit
would
allow
operation
of the
Complex
as
a
major
source.
ANSWER:
Respondent
admits
that
the
Illinois
EPA
issued
CAAPP
permit
number
96020099
to
Respondent
as
a
major
source.
Respondent
states
that
the
CAAPP
permit
speaks
for
itself
as to
its
contents
and
denies
any
allegations
contained
in Paragraph
8 of
the
Complaint
that
are
inconsistent
therewith.
COMPLAINT
¶
9:
The
CAAPP
permit
contains
permit
condition
7.7.3(g),
stating
coal
boiler
-numbers
1
and
2
are
subject
to
New
Source
Performance
Standards
(“NSPS”)
and
emissions
standards
applicable
to
steam
generating
boilers.
Permit
condition
7.7.3(g),
CAAPP
permit
96020099,
provides,
in pertinent
part:
g.
The
affected
boilers
#1
and
#2
are
subject
to
emission
limits
and
requirements
of
40
CFR
Part
60
Subparts
D
and
Db
and
shall
not
exceed
the
following
limits:
ii.
S02:
1.2
lb/mmBtu
(Subpart
D)
ANSWER:
Respondent
states
that
the
CAAPP
permit
speaks
for
itself
as to
its
contents.
Respondent
denies
any
allegations
contained
in Paragraph
9 of
the
Complaint
that
are
inconsistent
with
the
CAAPP
permit
as referenced.
COMPLAINT
¶
10:
On
September
28,
2005,
Respondent
informed
Illinois
EPA
that,
during
the
period
July
through
September 2005,
coal-fired
boiler
operations
at boiler
numbers
1
and
2 caused
excess
S02
emissions.
This
filing
is
submitted
on recycled
paper
3
CHI
11734046.3
ANSWER:
Respondent
admits
that
it
met
with
officials
from
the
Illinois
EPA
on
or
about
September
28,
2005.
Respondent
states
that
the
remaining
allegations
contained
in
Paragraph
10 of
the
Complaint
contain
legal
conclusions
for
which
no
answer
is required.
To
the
extent
that
an
answer
is
required,
Respondent
denies
the
remaining
allegations
contained
in
Paragraph
10 of
the
Complaint.
COMPLAINT
¶
.11:
On
November
3, 2005,
the
Illinois
EPA
received
Respondent’s
third
quarter
2005
excess
emissions
report
and
compliance
emission
monitor
downtime
performance
report
(“the
Third
Quarter
2005
Reports”).
Respondent
submitted
the
Third
Quarter
2005
Reports
for
the period
July
through
September
2005,
as prescribed
by CAAPP permit
condition
7.7.10.
ANSWER:
Respondent
admits
that
it
timely
submitted
a report
to the
Illinois
EPA
which,
on
information
and
belief,
was
received
on
or
about
November
3, 2005.
Respondent
states
that
the
report
speaks
for
itself
as to
its
contents.
Respondent
denies
any
allegations
contained
in
Paragraph
11
of
the
Complaint
that
are
inconsistent
with
the report
as submitted,
including
any
legal
conclusions
drawn
therefrom.
COMPLAINT
¶
12:
The
Third
Quarter
2005
Reports,
in part,
informed
Illinois
EPA
that
coal-fired
boiler
#1
ceased
operation
during
the
period
September
9
through
15,
2005
to facilitate
the
replacement
of
three
broken
primary
air nozzles
that
had
caused
fuel
solids
to
fuse
within
the
boiler’s
combustion
chamber,
resulting
in
S02
emissions
in excess
of the
applicable
NSPS
and
CAAPP
permit
limit.
ANSWER:
Respondent
admits
that
it timely
submitted
a
report
to the
Illinois
EPA
which,
on
information
and
belief,
was
received
on
or
about
November
3,
2005.
Respondent
states
that
the
report
speaks
for
itself
as
to its
contents.
Respondent
denies
any
allegations
contained
in
This filing
is submitted
on
recycled
paper
4
CHI
11734046.3
Paragraph
12
of the
Complaint
that
are
inconsistent
with
the
report as
submitted,
including
any
legal
conclusions
drawn
therefrom.
COMPLAINT
¶
13:
The
Third
Quarter
2005
Reports
also
informed
Illinois
EPA
that
limestone
utilized
by
the
facility
from
September
15
through
29,
2005,
as a
measure
to
control
S02
emissions
during
coal-
fired
boiler
operations,
was
introduced
into
the
fuel
combustion
system
wet,
causing
the
emission
of S02
in excess
Of
CAAPP
permit
and
regulatory limits.
ANSWER:
Respondent
admits
that
it timely
submitted
a
report
to
the Illinois
EPA
which,
on
information
and
belief,
was
received
on
or about
November
3, 2005.
Respondent
states
that
the
report
speaks
for
itself
as to
its
contents.
Respondent
denies
any
allegations
contained
in
Paragraph
13
of
the
Complaint
that
are inconsistent
with
the report
as
submitted,
including
any
legal
conclusions
drawn
therefrom.
COMPLAINT
¶
14:
On
November
3,
2008,
Illinois
EPA
received
Respondent’s
third
quarter
2008
excess
emissions
report
and
compliance
emission
monitor
downtime
performance
report
(“the
Third
Quarter
2008
Reports”).
Respondent
submitted
the
Third
Quarter
2008
Reports
for
the
period
July through
September 2008,
as prescribed
by
CAAPP
permit
condition
7.7.10.
ANSWER:
Respondent
admits
that
it timely
submitted
a report
to
the
Illinois
EPA
which,
on
information
and
belief,
was
received
on
or about
November
3,
2008.
Respondent
states
that
the
report
speaks
for
itself
as
to
its contents.
Respondent
denies
any
allegations
contained
in
Paragraph
14
of
the
Complaint
that
are
inconsistent
with
the
report
as submitted,
including
any
legal
conclusions
drawn
therefrom.
COMPLAINT
¶
15:
The
Third
Quarter
2008
Reports,
in
part,
informed
Illinois
EPA
that,
during
the
period
July
3
through
July
27,
2008,
limestone
gravimetric
feeder
R7,
utilized
to convey
limestone
This
filing
is
submitted
on
recycled
paper
5
CH1
11734046.3
material
into
boiler
#1,
ceased
operation
on
numerous
occasions
and
introduced limestone
into
the
boiler
at
an
inconsistent
rate.
This
issue
resulted
in S02
emissions
in excess
of
the
applicable
NSPS
and
CAAPP
permit
limit.
ANSWER:
Respondent
admits
that
it
timely
submitted
a report
to the
Illinois
EPA
which,
on
information
and
belief,
was
received
on or
about
November
3,
2008.
Respondent
states
that
the
report
speaks
for
itself
as
to its
contents.
Respondent
denies
any
allegations
contained
in
Paragraph
15
of
the
Complaint
that
are
inconsistent
with
the
report
as
submitted,
including
any
legal
conclusions
drawn
therefrom.
COMPLAINT
¶
16:
In addition,
the
Third
Quarter
2008
Reports
informed
Illinois
EPA
that
on
various
dates,
during
the
period
July
through
September
2008,
events
that
include
process
problems,
boiler
load
changes,
soot
blowing,
and
the
failure
of
its
boiler
equipment
control
process,
in
addition
to
undetermined
causes,
resulted
in
the
emission
of S02
in excess
of
CAAPP
permit
and
regulatory
limits.
ANSWER:
Respondent
admits
that
it
timely
submitted
a
report
to
the
Illinois
EPA
which,
on
information
and
belief,
was
received
on
or about
November
3,
2008.
Respondent
states
that
the
report
speaks for itself
as
to
its
contents.
Respondent
denies
any
allegations contained
in
Paragraph
16
of
the
Complaint
that
are
inconsistent
with
the report
as
submitted,
including any
legal
conclusions
drawn
therefrom.
COMPLAINT
¶
17:
On
February
2,
2009,
Illinois
EPA
received
Respondent’s
fourth
quarter
2008
excess
emissions
report
and
compliance
emission
monitor
downtime
performance
report
(“the
Fourth
Quarter
2008
Reports”).
Respondent
submitted
the
Fourth
Quarter
2008
Reports
for
the
period
October through
December
2008,
as
prescribed
by
CAAPP
permit
condition
7.7.10.
This
filing
is
submitted
on
recycled
paper
6
CHI
11734046.3
ANSWER:
Respondent
admits
that
it
timely
submitted
a
report
to the
Illinois
EPA
which,
on
information
and
belief,
was
received
on
or
about
February
2,
2009.
Respondent states
that
the
report
speaks
for
itself
as
to its
contents.
Respondent
denies
any allegations
contained
in
Paragraph
17
of
the
Complaint
that
are
inconsistent
with
the
report
as
submitted,
including
any
legal
conclusions
drawn
therefrom.
COMPLAINT
¶
18:
The
Fourth
Quarter
2008
Reports,
in part,
informed
Illinois
EPA
that,
during
the
period
October
through
December
2008,
friction
belts
located
on
limestone
gravimetric
feeders
utilized
to
convey
limestone
material
into
boilers
#1 and
#2
ceased
operation
on
numerous
occasions,
as
the
result
of
large
limestone
blocks
becoming
wedged
between
discharge
chutes
and
friction
belts.
Due
to
this
issue,
the
limestone
gravimetric
feeders
introduced
limestone
into
each
boiler
at
an inconsistent
rate.
The
issue
resulted
in S02
emissions
in excess
of the
applicable
NSPS
and
CAAPP
permit
limit.
ANSWER:
Respondent
admits
that
it timely
submitted
a
report
to the
Illinois
EPA
which,
on
information
and
belief,
was
received
on
orabout
February
2,
2009.
Respondent
states
that
the
report
speaks
for
itself
as
to
its
contents.
Respondent
denies
any
allegations
contained
in
Paragraph
18 of
the
Complaint
that are
inconsistent
with
the
report
as submitted,
including
any
legal
conclusions
drawn
therefrom.
COMPLAINT
¶
19:
In addition,
the
Fourth
Quarter
2008
Reports
informed
Illinois
EPA
that
on
various
dates,
during
the period
October
through
December 2008,
events
that include
process
problems,
boiler
load
changes,
soot
blowing,
and
the
failure
of its
boiler
equipment
control
process,
in
addition
to
undetermined
causes,
resulted in
the
emission
of S02
in
excess
of
CAAPP
permit
and
regulatory
limits.
This
filing
is submitted
on
recycled
paper
7
CHI
11734046.3
ANSWER:
Respondent
admits
that
it
timely
submitted
a
report
to
the
Illinois
EPA
which,
on
information
and
belief,
was
received
on or
about
February
2,
2009.
Respondent
states
that
the
report
speaks
for
itself
as
to
its contents.
Respondent
denies
any
allegations
contained
in
Paragraph
19
of
the
Complaint
that
are
inconsistent
with the
report
as
submitted,
including
any
legal
conclusions
drawn
therefrom.
COMPLAINT
¶
20:
Another
facility
within
the
Complex
is the
Xanthan
Gum
Plant.
The
Xanthan
Gum
Plant
operations
include
batch
fermentation,
alcohol
mix
and
precipitation,
desolventization,
drying,
distillation,
packaging
and
storage
operations
to facilitate
the manufacture
ofxanthan
gum.
ANSWER:
Respondent
admits
the allegations
contained
in Paragraph
20
of the
Complaint.
COMPLAINT
¶21:
The
Xanthan
Gum
Plant’s
emissions
include
isopropyl
alcohol
(“IPA”)
emissions
and
volatile
organic
material
(“VOM”)
emissions
generated
during
xanthan
gum
production.
ANSWER:
Respondent
admits
the
allegations
contained
in
Paragraph 21
of
the
Complaint.
COMPLAINT
¶
22:
On
July
10,
2003,
the
Illinois
EPA
received
Respondent’s
construction
permit
application
to
construct
the
Xanthan
Gum
Plant
situated
within
the
multi-facility
complex.
Data
contained
within
the
application
documented
xanthan
gum
production
would
result
in total
IPA
and
VOM
emissions discharged
to
the
atmosphere
of less
than
31.5
tons
per
year
(“t/yr”)
and
35
t/yr,
respectively, determined
based
upon
rolling,
12-month
average
emissions
data.
ANSWER:
Respondent
admits
that
it
submitted
an
application
for
a
permit
to construct
the
Xanthan
Gum
Plant
within
the
Decatur
complex
which,
on
information
and
belief,
was
received
on
or
about
July
10,
2003.
Respondent
states
that
the
permit
application
speaks
for
itself
as to
its
This
filing
is
submitted
on recycled paper
8
CHI
11734046.3
contents.
Respondent
denies
any
allegations
contained
in
Paragraph
22
of
the
Complaint
that
are
inconsistent
with
the
permit
application
as
submitted.
COMPLAINT
¶
23:
On
February
25,
2004,
based
upon
information
contained
within
the
construction
permit
application;
the
Illinois
EPA
issued
to
Respondent
construction
permit
03070016
(“the
construction
permit”).
ANSWER:
Respondent
admits
the
allegations
contained
in Paragraph
23
of
the
Complaint.
COMPLAINT
¶
24:
The
construction
permit
contains
construction
permit
condition
6(a),
which
states
that:
a.
Total
facility
emissions
of
VOM
shall
not
exceed
35
tons
per
year.
Compliance
with
this
limit
shall
be
determined
on a
rolling
12
month
basis,
calculated
monthly
in
accordance
with
Condition
12.
ANSWER:
Respondent
admits
that
it
received
construction
permit
03070016
on
or about
February
25,
2004. Respondent
states
that
the
permit
speaks
for
itself
as
to
its
contents.
Respondent
denies
any
allegations
contained
in Paragraph
24 of
the
Complaint
that
are
inconsistent
with
the
permit
as
referenced.
COMPLAINT
¶
25:
The
construction
permit
also
contains
construction
permit
condition
5(a)(ii), which
states
that:
ii.
The
Permittee
shall
track
solvent
(isopropyl
alcohol)
inventory
and
perform
mass
balance
calculations
sufficient
to verify
whether
losses
to
the
atmosphere
are
less
than
31.5
tons
on
a
12-month
rolling
basis
(see
Condition
6(a).)
ANSWER:
Respondent
admits
that
it received
construction
permit
03070016
on
or
about
February
25,
2004.
Respondent
states
that
the
permit
speaks
for
itself
as
to
its
contents.
Respondent
This
filing
is
submitted
on
recycled
paper
9
CH1
11734046.3
denies
any allegations
contained
in Paragraph
25 of
the
Complaint
that are
inconsistent
with
the
permit
as referenced.
COMPLAINT
¶
26:
On
March
6, 2006,
the Illinois
EPA received
from
Respondent
a letter
notifying
the
Illinois
EPA
of the
emission
of
VOM in
excess
of
the limits
set
forth
in
construction
permit
condition
6(a),
as
well
as
the
emission
of IPA
in excess
of
construction
permit
condition
5(a)(ii).
ANSWER:
Respondent
admits
that
it timely
submitted
a letter
to the
Illinois
EPA
which,
on
information
and
belied,
was
received
on or
about
March
6, 2006.
Respondent
states
that
the
letter
speaks
for
itself
as
to its
contents.
Respondent
denies
any
allegations
contained
in
Paragraph
26 of
the Complaint
that
are
inconsistent
with
the
letter
as
submitted,
including
any
legal
conclusions
drawn
therefrom.
COMPLAINT
¶
27:
On
March
6, 2006,
Respondent
informed
the
Illinois
EPA
that
based
upon an
internal
audit,
Respondent determined
material
balance
calculations
utilized
to
calculate
IPA
losses
discharged
to the
environment
incorrectly
determined
IPA
and
VOM
emissions.
Revised
mass
balance
calculations
based
upon
12-month,
rolling
average
data for
the
periods
December
2004
through
November
2005,
January
2005
through
December
2005,
and
February
2005
through
January
2006
revealed
IPA
and
VOM
emissions
totaled
43.41
tlyr,
41.96
t/yr, and
40.06
tlyr,
respectively.
ANSWER:
Respondent
admits
that
it timely
submitted
a
letter
to
the Illinois
EPA
which,
on
information
and
belief,
was received
on
or
about
March
6, 2006.
Respondent
states
that
the
letter
speaks
for
itself as
to its
contents.
Respondent
denies
any
allegations
contained
in
Paragraph
27
of
the Complaint
that
are
inconsistent
with
the letter
as
submitted,
including
any
legal
conclusions
drawn
therefrom.
This
filing
is submitted
on recycled
paper
10
CHI
11734046.3
COMPLAINT
¶
28:
Section
9
of the
Act,
415
ILCS
5/9 (2006),
provides,
in pertinent
part:
No
person
shall:
a.
Cause
or
threaten
or
allow
the
discharge
or emission
of
any contaminant
into the
environment
in any
State
so as
to
cause
or
tend
to
cause
air
pollution
in
Illinois,
either
alone
or
in combination
with
contaminants
from
other
sources,
or
so
as to
violate
regulations
or
standards
adopted
by the
Board
under
this Act;
ANSWER:
Respondent
states
that
the
allegations
contained
in
Paragraph
28
of the
Complaint
contain
a
statement
of
law,
for
which
no
answer
is
required.
To
the
extent
that
an
answer
is
required,
Respondent
states
that
the Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Act
speaks
for
itself
as to
its
contents.
Respondent
denies
any
allegations
contained in
Paragraph 28
of the
Complaint
that
are
inconsistent
with
the
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Act
as cited.
COMPLAINT
¶
29:
Section
201.141
of
the
Board’s
Air Pollution
Regulations,
35
III.
Adm.
Code
201.141,
provides,
as follows:
Prohibition
of Air
Pollution
No person
shall
cause
or
threaten
or allow
the discharge
or
emission
of any
contaminant
into
the
environment
in any
State
so as,
either
alone
or.in
combination
with
contaminants
from
other
sources,
to cause
or
tend
to
cause
air
pollution
in
Illinois,
or
so
as
to violate
the
provisions
of this
Chapter,
or
so as
to prevent
the attainment
or
maintenance
of any
applicable
ambient
air quality
standard.
ANSWER:
Respondent
states
that
the
allegations
contained
in Paragraph
29
of
the Complaint
contain
a
statement
of
law,
for which
no answer
is
required.
To
the
extent
that
an answer
is
required,
Respondent
states
that
the
Illinois
Administrative
Code
speaks
for itself
as
to its
contents.
Respondent
denies
any
allegations
contained
in Paragraph
29
of
the
Complaint
that
are
inconsistent
with the
Illinois
Administrative
Code
as cited.
This
filing
is submitted
on recycled
paper
11
CHI
11734046.3
COMPLAINT
¶
30:
Section
3.06
of
the Act,
415
ILCS
5/3.06
(2006),
defines
“contaminant”
as
follows:
“CONTAM1I’JANT”
is any
solid,
liquid,
or
gaseous
matter,
any
odor,
or
any
form
of
energy,
from
whatever
source.
ANSWER:
Respondent
states
that
the
allegations
contained
in
Paragraph
30 of
the
Complaint
contain
a
statement
of
law,
for which
no answer
is
required.
To
the
extent
that
an answer
is
required,
Respondent
states
that the
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Act speaks
for
itself
as
to its
contents.
Respondent
denies
any allegations
contained
in
Paragraph
30
of the
Complaint
that
are
inconsistent
with
the
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Act
as
cited.
COMPLAINT
¶
31:
During
the period
July
through
September
2005,
Respondent’s
coal-fired
boiler
operations
at
the
Co-Generation
Plant
resulted
in the
emission
of S02
in
excess
of the
regulatory
standard
specified
in
40 CFR
Part
60,
Subparts
D
and
DB,
in violation
of Section
9(a)
of
the Act,
415
ILCS
5/9(a)
(2006)
and
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
Section
201.141.
ANSWER:
Respondent
states
that
the
allegations
contained
in Paragraph
31
of the
Complaint
contain
a
conclusion
of
law,
for
which
no
answer
is
required.
To the
extent
an
answer
is
required,
Respondent
denies
the
allegations
contained
in Paragraph
31
of
the
Complaint.
COMPLAINT
¶
32:
During
the
period
July
through
September
2008,
Respondent’s
coal-fired
boiler
operations
at
the Co-Generation
Plant
resulted
in the
emission
of S02
in
excess
of
the regulatory
standard
specified
in 40
CFR
Part
60,
Subparts
D and
DB,
in violation
of
Section
9(a)
of the
Act,
415
ILCS
5/9(a)
(2006)
and
35
III. Adm.
Code
Section
201.141.
This
filing
is submitted
on
recycled
paper
12
CHI
11734046.3
ANSWER:
Respondent
states that
the allegations
contained
in Paragraph
32
of
the
Complaint
contain
a conclusion
of law,
for which
no answer is required.
To the extent
an answer is required,
Respondent
denies the
allegations
contained in Paragraph
32 of
the Complaint.
COMPLAINT
¶
33:
During
the
period
October
through
December
2008,
Respondent’s coal-fired
boiler
operations
at the
Co-Generation
Plant
resulted
in the emission
of S02 in excess
of the regulatory
standard
specified
in 40
CFR Part 60,
Subparts D and DB,
in violation
of Section 9(a) of the
Act,
415
ILCS
5/9(a)
(2006) and
35 III. Adm.
Code
Section
201.141.
ANSWER:
Respondent
states that
the allegations
contained
in Paragraph 33 of
the Complaint
contain
a conclusion
of law, for which
no
answer
is required.
To the extent an answer
is required,
Respondent denies
the allegations
contained
in Paragraph
33 of
the
Complaint.
COMPLAINT
¶
34:
During the
period
beginning
approximately
December
2004
through at least March
2006,
TLIA’s
xanthan gum production
operations
at the
Xanthan Gum Plant
resulted
in the emission
of
IPA and
VOM in
excess
of construction
permit
conditions
6(a) and
5(a)(ii)
in violation
of
Section
9(a) of
the
Act;
415 ILCS
5/9(a)
(2006) and 35 III.
Adm. Code
Section
201.141.
ANSWER:
Respondent
states
that the allegations
contained
in
Paragraph
34
of the Complaint
contain
a conclusion
of law, for
which no answer is required.
To
the extent an answer is
required,
Respondent
denies the allegations
contained
in
Paragraph
34 of the Complaint.
COUNT II
CLEAN AIR
ACT
PERMIT
PROGRAM
PERMIT
VIOLATIONS
COMPLAINT
¶
1:
Complainant repeats
and realleges
paragraphs
1 through
27
of
Count
I as paragraphs
1
through
27 of Count II.
This filing
is
submitted on recycled
paper
13
CHI
11734046.3
ANSWER:
Respondent
restates
its
answers
to
Paragraphs
1 through
27
of
Count
I as
if fully
set
forth
herein
in
response
to
Paragraphs
I
through
27
of
this
Count
11.
COMPLAINT
¶
28:
Respondent’s
excess
emission
report
for the
period
of
July
through
September
2005
states
that
S02
emissions
generated
during
the
operation
of
coal-fired
boilers
#1
and
#2
exceeded
1.2 lb/mmBtu.
ANSWER:
Respondent
admits
that
it
submitted
a
report
to the
Illinois
EPA
relating
to
S02
emissions
from
coal-fired
boilers
#1 and
#2
for
the
period
of
July
through
September
2005.
Respondent
states
that
the report
speaks
for itself
as
to
its
contents.
Respondent
denies
any
allegations
contained
in Paragraph
28 of
the
Complaint
that
are
inconsistent
with
the
repurt
as
submitted,
including
any
legal
conclusions
drawn
therefrom.
COMPLAINT
¶
29:
Respondent’s
excess
emission
report
for the
period
of
July
through
September
2008
states
that
S02
emissions
generated
during
the
operation
of
coal-fired
boilers #1
and
#2
exceeded
1.2
lb/mmBtu.
ANSWER:
Respondent
admits
that
it submitted
a
report
to
the
Illinois
EPA
relating
to
S02
emissions
from
coal-fired
boilers
#1
and
#2 for
the
period
of July
through
September
2008.
Respondent
states
that
the
report
speaks for
itself
as
to its
contents.
Respondent
denies
any
allegations
contained
in
Paragraph
29 of
the
Complaint
that
are
inconsistent
with
the
report
as submitted,
including
any
legal
conclusions
drawn
therefrom.
This
filing
is
submitted
on
recycled paper
14
CHI
11734046.3
COMPLAINT
¶
30:
Respondent’s
excess
emission
report
for
the period
of October
through
December
2008
states
that
SO2 emissions
generated
during
the
operation
of coal-fired
boilers
#1 and #2
exceeded
1.2
lb/mmBtu.
ANSWER:
Respondent
admits
that
it
submitted
a
report to the
Illinois EPA
relating
to S02 emissions
from
coal-fired
boilers
#1 and
#2 for
the
period
of October
through
December
2008.
Respondent
states that
the
report speaks
for itself
as to
its contents.
Respondent
denies
any allegations
contained
in
Paragraph
30 of the
Complaint
that
are
inconsistent
with
the
report
as submitted,
including
any
legal conclusions
drawn
therefrom.
COMPLAINT
¶31:
Based upon
emissions
data
received
from
Respondent
on
March 6,
2006,
Respondent’s
IPA
and VOM
emissions
from
approximately
December
2004
through
at
least
March
2006
exceed
the limits
set
by
construction
permit
conditions
5(a)(ii)
and
6(a).
ANSWER:
Respondent
admits
that it
timely submitted
a letter
to
the Illinois
EPA which,
on
information
and belief,
was
received
on
or about
March
6,
2006.
Respondent
states
that the
letter
speaks
for itself
as
to
its
contents.
Respondent
denies
any
allegations
contained
in
Paragraph
31
of the Complaint
that
are
inconsistent
with
the letter
as
submitted,
including
any
legal
conclusions
drawn
therefrom.
COMPLAINT
¶
32:
Section 39.5
of
the
Act,
415 ILCS
5/39.5
(2006),
provides, in
pertinent
part:
6.
Prohibitions.
a. It
shall be
unlawful
for
any person
to
violate
any terms
or
conditions
of a
permit issued
under
this
Section,
to operate
any CAAPP
source
except
in
compliance
with
a
permit
issued by
the
Agency
under this
Section
or to violate
any other
applicable
requirements.
All terms
and
conditions
of a permit
issued
under this
Section
are enforceable
by USEPA
This filing
is
submitted
on recycled
paper
15
CHI 11734046.3
and
citizens
under
the
Clean Air
Act,
except
those,
if any,
that
are
specifically
designated
as
not being
federally
enforceable
in
the permit
pursuant
to
paragraph
7(m)
of this
Section.
b.
After
the
applicable
CAAPP
permit
or renewal
application
submittal
date, as
specified
in
subsection
5
of this
Section,
no person
shall
operate
a
CAAPP
source without
a
CAAPP
permit
unless
the
complete
CAAPP
permit
or renewal
application
for
such
source
has
been
timely
submitted
to
the
Agency.
ANSWER:
Respondent
states
that
the
allegations
contained
in Paragraph
32
of the
Complaint
contain
a
statement
of law,
for
which
no
answer
is
required.
To
the extent
that
an answer
is required,
Respondent
states
that
the Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Act
speaks
for
itself
as
to its
contents.
Respondent
denies
any
allegations
contained
in Paragraph
32
of the
Complaint
that
are
inconsistent
with the
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Act
as
cited
COMPLAINT
¶
33:
Section
39.5 of
the
Act, 415
ILCS
5/39.5
(2006),
provides,
in
pertinent
part:
6.
Definitions.
*
*
*
“CAAPP”
means
the Clean
Air
Act Permit
Program,
developed
pursuant
to Title
V
of the
Clean
Air
Act.
***
“CAAPP
Permit”
or “permit”
(unless
the
context
suggests
otherwise)
means
any
permit
issued,
renewed,
amended,
modified
or
revised
pursuant
to Title
V
of
the Clean
Air
Act.
*
*
*
“CAAPP
source”
means
any
source
for which
the
owner
or
operator
is required
to obtain
a CAAPP
permit
pursuant
to subsection
2
of this
Section.
***
“Major
source”
means
a source
for
which
emissions
of one
or
more
air
pollutants
meet
the
criteria
for
major
status
pursuant
to paragraph
2©) [sic]
of
this Section.
This filing
is
submitted
on recycled
paper
16
CHI
11734046.3
*
*
*
“Owner
or
operator”
means
any
person
who
owns,
leases,
operates,
controls,
or
supervises
a
stationary
source.
*
*
*
“Source”
means
any
stationary
source
(or any
group
of
stationary
sources)
that
are
located
on
one
or
more
contiguous
or
adjacent
properties
that
are
under
common
control
of
the
same
person
(or
persons
under
common
control)
and
that
belongs
to a
single
major
industrial
grouping.
For
the
purposes
of
defining
“source,”
a
stationary
source
or
group
of
stationary
sources
shall
be
considered
part
of
a single
major
industrial
grouping
if all
of
the pollutant
emitting
activities
at
such
source
or
group
of
sources
located
on
contiguous
or adjacent
properties
and
under
common
control
belong
to
the
same
Major
Group
(i.e.,
all have
the
same
two-digit
code)
as
described
in
the
Standard
Industrial
Classification
Manual,
1987,
or such
pollutant
emitting
activities
at
a
stationary
source
(or
group
of
stationary
sources)
located
on
contiguous
or
adjacent
properties
and
under
common
control
constitute
a
support
facility.
The
determination
as
to
whether
any
group
of
stationary
sources are
located
on
contiguous
or
adjacent
properties,
and/or
are
under
common
control,
and/or
whether
the
pollutant
emitting
activities
at
such
group
of
stationary
sources
constitute
a support
facility
shall
be
made
on
a case
by
case
basis.
“Stationary
source”
means
any
building,
structure, facility,
or
installation
that
emits
or
may
emit
any
regulated
air
pollutant
or
any
pollutant
listed
under
Section
112(b)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act.
ANSWER:
Respondent
states
that
the allegations
contained
in
Paragraph
33
of the
Complaint
contain
a statement
of
law,
for
which
no
answer
is required.
To
the extent
that
an
answer
is required,
Respondent
states
that
the
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Act speaks
for
itself
as
to its
contents.
Respondent
denies
any
allegations
contained
in
Paragraph
33
of
the
Complaint
that
are
inconsistent
with
the
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Act
as
cited.
COMPLAINT
¶
34:
Respondent caused
or allowed
the
emission
of S02
in
excess
of the
1.2
lb/mmBtu
NSPS
emission
standard
so
as to
cause
air
pollution
in
violation
of
CAAPP
permit
condition
7.7.3(g),
as
well
as
Section
39.5(6)(a)
of
the
Act,
415
ILCS
39.5(6)(a)
(2006).
This
filing
is
submitted
on
recycled
paper
17
CHI
11734046.3
ANSWER:
Respondent
states
that
the allegations
contained
in Paragraph
34
of
the
Complaint
contain
a conclusion
of
law,
for
which
no
answer
is required.
To
the
extent
an answer
is required,
Respondent
denies
the
allegations
contained
in Paragraph
34 of
the
Complaint.
COMPLAINT
¶
35:
Respondent
caused
or
allowed
the excess
emission
of
IPA for
the period
beginning
approximately
December
2004
through
at
least March
2006,
resulting
in
the
exceedance
of
VOM
emission
limits
prescribed
by
construction
permit
conditions
5(a)(ii)
and
6(a).
Tn
doing
so,
Respondent
operated
a CAAPP
source
without
first
submitting
a revised
permit
application
accurately
setting
forth
VOM
emissions
discharged
by
the facility
in
violation
of
Section
39.5(6)(a)
of the
Act, 415
ILCS
39.5(6)(a)
(2006):
ANSWER:
Respondent
states
that
the
allegations
contained
in
Paragraph
35 of
the Complaint
contain
a
conclusion
of
law, for
which
no
answer
is required.
To the
extent
an
answer
is required,
Respondent
denies
the
allegations
contained
in
Paragraph
35
of
the
Complaint.
COMPLAINT
¶
36:
Due
to
IPA
and
VOM
emissions
in
excess
of
limits
set
by construction
permit
conditions
5(a)(ii)
and
6(a),
Respondent
operates
a facility
without
the requisite
CAAPP
permit
for the
entire
source,
in
violation
of Section
39.5(6)(b)
of
the Act,
415 ILCS
5139.5(6)(b)
(2006).
ANSWER:
Respondent
states that
the allegations
contained
in Paragraph
36
of
the Complaint
contain
a
conclusion
of
law, for
which
no answer
is
required.
To the
extent
an
answer
is required,
Respondent
denies
the
allegations
contained
in
Paragraph
36
of the
Complaint.
COUNT
III
VIOLATION
OF NEW
SOURCE
PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS
COMPLAINT
¶
I:
Complainant
repeats
and
realleges
paragraphs
1 through
19 of
Count
I as paragraphs
1
through
19 of
Count
III.
This
filing
is submitted
on
recycled
paper
18
CHI
11734046.3
ANSWER:
Respondent
restates its
answers
to
Paragraphs
I through
19
of Count
I as
if
fully
set forth
herein
in response
to
Paragraphs
I through
19 of
this Count
III.
COMPLAINT
¶20:
Respondent’s
excess
emission
report
for
the
period of July
through
September
2005
states that
S02
emissions
generated
during
the operation
of coal-fired
boilers
#1 and #2
exceeded
1.2
lb/mmBtu.
ANSWER:
Respondent
admits
that
it submitted
a report
to the Illinois
EPA
relating
to
502 emissions
from
coal-fired
boilers #1
and #2 for
the period
of
July
through
September
2005.
Respondent
states that
the
report
speaks
for itself
as
to
its
contents.
Respondent
denies
any
allegations
contained
in
Paragraph
20
of the Complaint
that
are inconsistent
with
the
report
as submitted,
including
any legal
conclusions
drawn
therefrom.
COMPLAINT
¶
21:
Respondent’s
excess emission
report for
the
period
of July through
September
2008
states
that
S02
emissions
generated
during
the operation
of coal-fired
boilers
#1 and
#2
exceeded
1.2 lb/mmBtu.
ANSWER:
Respondent
admits that
it submitted
a
report
to the Illinois
EPA
relating
to
S02
emissions
from
coal-fired
boilers
#1
and #2 for
the period
of
July
through
September
2008.
Respondent
states
that the
report speaks
for itself
as to
its
contents.
Respondent
denies
any
allegations
contained
in Paragraph
21 of
the
Complaint
that
are inconsistent
with
the report
as
submitted,
including
any legal
conclusions
drawn therefrom.
This
filing is submitted
on recycled
paper
19
CHI
11734046.3
COMPLAINT
¶
22:
Respondent’s
excess
emission
report
for
the
period
of
October
through
December
2008
states
that
SO2
emissions
generated
during
the
operation
of
coal-fired
boilers
#1
and
#2
exceeded
1.2
lb/mmBtu.
ANSWER:
Respondent
admits
that
it
submitted
a
report
to
the
Illinois
EPA
relating
to
S02
emissions
from
coal-fired
boilers #1
and
#2
for
the
period
of
October
through
December
2008.
Respondent
states
that
the
report
speaks
for
itself
as
to
its
contents.
Respondent
denies
any
allegations
contained
in
Paragraph
22
of
the
Complaint
that
are
inconsistent
with
the
report
as
submitted,
including
any
legal
conclusions
drawn
therefrom.
COMPLAINT
¶
23:
Section
9.1
of
the
Act,
415
ILCS
5/9.1
(2004),
provides,
in
pertinent
part:
(d)
No
person
shall:
(1)
violate
any
provisions
of
Sections
111,
112,
165
or
173
of
the
Clean
Air
Act,
as
now
or
hereafter
amended,
or
federal
regulations
adopted
pursuant
thereto;
or
(2)
construct,
install,
modify
or
operate
any
equipment,
building,
facility,
source
or
installation
which
is
subject
to
regulation
under
Sections
111,
112,
165
or
173
of
the
Clean
Air
Act,
as
now
or
hereafter
amended,
except
in
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
such
Sections
and
federal
regulations
adopted
pursuant
thereto,
and
no
such
action
shall
be
undertaken
without
a permit
granted
by
the
Agency
or
in
violation
of
any
conditions
imposed
by
such
permit.
Any denial
of
such
a
permit
or
any
conditions
imposed
in
such
a permit
shall
be
reviewable
by
the
Board
in
accordance
with
Section
40
of
this
Act.
ANSWER:
Respondent
states
that
the
allegations
contained
in
Paragraph
23
of
the
Complaint
contain
a
statement
of
law,
for
which
no
answer
is
required.
To
the
extent
that
an
answer
is
required,
Respondent
states
that
the
Illinois Environmental
Protection
Act
speaks
for
itself
as to
its
contents.
Respondent
denies
any
allegations
contained
in Paragraph
23
of
the
Complaint
that
are
This
filing is
submitted
on
recycled
paper
20
CHI
11734046.3
inconsistent
with
the Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Act
as
cited
and denies
that it violated
Section
9.1 of the
Act, 415 ILCS
5/9.1
(2004).
COMPLAINT
¶
24:
Section
60.43 of the
Code of
Federal Regulations,
40
CFR 60.43,
provides, in pertinent
part:
(a)
On and
after
the
date
on which
the
performance
test required
to be conducted
by
§
60.8 is
completed,
no owner
or operator subject
to the provisions
of this subpart
shall
cause
to
be discharged
into the
atmosphere
from any affected
facility any gases
which
contain
sulfur dioxide
in excess
of:
(2)
520
nanograms
per
joule
heat
input (1.2 lb per million
Btu) derived
from
solid
fossil
fuel
or solid fossil
fuel and wood
residue, except
as provided in paragraph
(e) of this
section.
ANSWER:
Respondent
states
that the allegations
contained
in
Paragraph 24
of the Complaint contain
a
statement of law,
for
which
no
answer
is required.
To the
extent that an answer
is required,
Respondent
states that
the
Code
of Federal
Regulations
speaks
for
itself as to its
contents.
Respondent denies
any allegations
contained
in Paragraph 24
of the Complaint
that are
inconsistent with the
Code of Federal
Regulations
as cited.
COMPLAINT
¶
25:
TLIA caused or
allowed
the
emission of S02
in excess
of the applicable New
Source
Performance
Standard,
Section
60.43(a)(2) of the
Code
of Federal
Regulations, 40 CFR
60.43(a)(2),
and
therefore
in violation
of Section
9,1(d) of the Act, 415
ILCS 5/9.1(d) (2006).
ANSWER:
Respondent
states that the
allegations
contained
in
Paragraph 25 of the Complaint
contain
a
conclusion of law,
for
which no
answer
is required.
To the extent
an
answer
is
required,
Respondent
denies
the
allegations contained
in Paragraph
25
of the
Complaint.
This filing
is submitted
on recycled
paper
21
CH1
11734046.3
COUNT
IV
CONSTRUCTION
PERMIT
VIOLATIONS
COMPLAINT
¶
1:
Complainant repeats
and realleges
paragraphs
1 through
6
and
20 through 27
of Count I
of this
Complaint,
as paragraphs 1 through
14
of Count
IV.
ANSWER:
Respondent restates
its answers to
Paragraphs
1 through 6 and
20
through
27 of
Count I
as if
fully set forth
herein in response
to Paragraphs 1
through 14
of
this
Count IV.
COMPLAINT
¶
15:
Section
9
of the Act,
415
ILCS 5/9
(2006),
provides, in
pertinent
part:
No
person
shall:
b.
Construct, install,
or operate
any
equipment,
facility,
vehicle, vessel,
or
aircraft
capable
of causing
of contributing
to air pollution or
designed to prevent
air
pollution,
of
any type designated by
Board
regulations,
without
a permit
granted
by the Agency, or
in violation
of any conditions imposed
by
such
permit
ANSWER:
Respondent
states that the
allegations
contained in Paragraph
15 of the Complaint
contain
a statement of law,
for which no answer
is required.
To the extent that an answer
is required,
Respondent
states
that the Illinois
Environmental
Protection Act
speaks for itself
as to its
contents.
Respondent denies
any allegations
contained in Paragraph
15 of the Complaint
that
are
inconsistent
with
the
Illinois Environmental
Protection
Act
as
cited and
denies
that it violated
Section
9
of the Act,
415 ILCS 5/9 (2006).
COMPLAINT
¶
16:
Based upon emissions
data Illinois EPA
received
from
Respondent on March
6, 2006,
IPA and
VOM emissions generated
by
TLIA beginning
approximately
December
2004
through
at
least
March
2006
exceed the
limits
set by
construction permit conditions
5(a)(ii)
and 6(a),
respectively,
in violation
of Section
9(b) of the Act,
415 ILCS
5/9(b)
(2006).
This
filing is submitted
on recycled paper
22
CHJ
11734046.3
ANSWER:
Respondent
states that the
allegations
contained in Paragraph
16 of
the Complaint contain
a
conclusion of law,
for which
no answer
is required. To the
extent an ansWer
is required,
Respondent
denies
the allegations
contained
in Paragraph
16 of the Complaint.
COUNT
V
VIOLATION
OF PSD
REQUIREMENTS
COMPLAINT
¶
1:
Complainant
repeats
and realleges
paragraphs
1 through 6 and
20 through 27
of Count I
of this Complaint,
as paragraphs
I through
14
of Count
V.
ANSWER:
Respondent
restates
its answers
to
Paragraphs
1 through 6 and 20 through
27 of Count
I
as if fully set forth
herein in
response
to
Paragraphs
1
through 14 of this Count
V.
COMPLAINT
¶
15:
Information
and emissions
data
contained
within Respondent’s
construction
permit
application, dated
July 7, 2003,
states
that
construction
of the Xanthan Gum
Plant would not
result in a
significant increase in
VOM emissions
and, therefore,
the
project is not
subject
to
Prevention of
Significant
Deterioration
(“PSD”)
requirements.
ANSWER:
Respondent
admits that it
submitted an application
for
a permit to construct
the Xanthan
Gum
Plant within the
Decatur complex
which,
on
information and belief,
was received
on or
about
July 7, 2003. Respondent
further
states that the permit
application
speaks for itself as
to
its
contents.
Respondent
denies
any allegations
contained in
Paragraph 15
of the
Complaint
that
are
inconsistent
with the permit application
as submitted,
including any
legal conclusions
drawn
therefrom.
COMPLAINT
¶
16:
The application
also indicated
the multi-facility
complex
was a
major
source
for
VOM
emissions prior to
the submission of the
permit
application
to construct the
Xanthan Gum
Plant.
This
filing
is
submitted
on recycled paper
23
CHI 11734046.3
ANSWER:
Respondent
admits
that
it submitted
an
application
for a permit
to
construct
the Xanthan
Gum Plant
within
the Decatur
complex on
or about
July
7,
2003.
Respondent
further
states
that
the permit
application
speaks
for
itself as
to its
contents.
Respondent
denies
any
allegations
contained
in
Paragraph
16 of the
Complaint
that
are
inconsistent
with
the
permit
application
as
submitted,
including
any
legal
conclusions
drawn
therefrom.
COMPLAINT
¶
17:
Section
165
of the Clean
Air Act,
42 USCS
7475(a)
(1997)
states in pertinent
part:
(a)
Major emitting
facilities
on
which
construction
is
commenced
No
major
emitting facility
on which
construction
is
commenced
after
August
7,
1977, may
be constructed
in
any area to
which this
part applies
unless-
1)
a permit
has
been issued
for
such
proposed
facility
in
accordance
with
this part
setting forth
emission
limitation
for
such
facility
which
conform
to the
requirements
of this
part;
***
4)
the proposed
facility
is subject
to the
best available
control
technology
for
each
pollutant
subject
to regulation
under
this chapter
emitted
from,
or which
results
from,
such
facility;
ANSWER:
Respondent
states
that
the
allegations
contained
in Paragraph
17
of
the
Complaint
contain
a statement
of law,
for
which
no answer
is required.
To
the extent
that an answer
is required,
Respondent
states that
the
Clean
Air Act speaks
for itself
as
to its
contents.
Respondent
denies
any allegations
contained
in Paragraph
17 of
the Complaint
that are
inconsistent
with
the Clean
Air Act
as cited
and denies
that it violated
the
Clean
Air
Act.
COMPLAINT
¶
18:
Section 52.21
of Title 40
of
the
Code
of Federal
Regulations,
40
CFR 52.21
(1995),
provides
in pertinent
part:
This
filing
is submitted
on recycled
paper
24
CHI
11734046.3
Prevention
of
significant
deterioration
of
air quality.
*
*
*
(2)
Applicability
procedures.
**
*
(ii)
The
requirements
of
paragraphs
(j)
through
®) [sic]
of
this
section
apply
to the
construction
of any
new major
stationary
source
or the major
modification
of any existing
major
stationary
source,
except
as this section
otherwise
provides.
(iii)
No
new major
stationary
source
or major modification
to
which
the
requirements
of paragraphs
(3)
through
(r)(5)
of this
section
apply
shall
begin
actual construction
without
a permit
that states
that the major
stationary
source
or major
modification
will
meet
those
requirements.
The
Administrator
has authority
to issue
any
such
permit.
*
**
(b)
Definitions.
For
the purposes
of
this Section:
(1)(I)
Major
stationary
source
means:
(a)
Any
of
the
following
stationary
sources
of
air pollutants
which
emits, or
has the potential
to emit,
100
tons
per
year
or more
of any
regulated
NSR
pollutant.
. .fossil-fuel
boilers
(or combinations
thereof)
totaling
more
than 250
million British
thermal
units
per
hour
heat
input...
*
*
*
(ii)
A
major
source
that
is
major
for volatile
organic compounds
or
NOx
shall
be considered
major for
ozone.
*
**
(2)(I)
Major modification
means
any
physical
change
in or change
in the method
of operation
of
a
major
stationary
source
that would
result in:
a significant
emissions
increase
(as defined
in paragraph
(b)(40)
of this
section) of
a
regulated NSR
pollutant
(as
defined in
paragraph
(b)(50) of
this section);
and
a significant
net
emissions
increase
of that
pollutant
from
the major
stationary
source.
*
*
*
This
filing is
submitted on
recycled
paper
25
CHI 11734046.3
(23)(I)
Significant
means,
in reference
to a net emissions
increase or the potential
of a
source
to emit
any
of the following
pollutants, a
rate of
emissions
that
would
equal or
exceed any of the following
rates:
Pollutant
and
Emissions
Rate
*
*
*
Ozone:
40 tpy
of
volatile
organic
compounds or nitrogen
oxides
*
*
*
(j)
Control Technology
Review.
(1)
A
major stationary
source
or major modification
shall
meet each
applicable
emissions
limitation
under
the State Implementation
Plan and
each
applicable emissions
standard
and standard of performance
under
40
CFR
Parts
60 and 61.
*
*
*
(3)
A
major
modification
shall
apply best available
control technology
for
each
regulated
NSR
pollutant
for which
it would result in
a significant net
emissions
increase
at the source.
This requirement
applies
to each
proposed
emissions
unit at which
a net emissions
increase
in the
pollutant
would
occur
as a result
of a
physical
change
or
change in the method
of
operation
in
the unit.
ANSWER:
Respondent
states
that the
allegations
contained
in
Paragraph
18
of the
Complaint
contain
a statement
of law,
for
which
no
answer
is required.
To the
extent
that
an answer is required,
Respondent
states
that
the
Code
of Federal
Regulations
speaks
for itself
as to its contents.
Respondent
denies
any allegations
contained
in Paragraph
18 of the Complaint
that are
inconsistent
with
the
Code
of Federal
Regulations
as
cited
and denies that it violated
any of
said
Code
sections.
COMPLAINT
¶
19:
Respondent’s
Complex is
a major
stationary
source
located in an
attainment
area for
ozone.
This
filing
is submitted
on recycled
paper
26
CH1
11734046.3
ANSWER:
Respondent
admits
the allegations
contained
in
Paragraph 19
of the Complaint.
COMPLAINT
¶
20:
Respondent’s
revised
mass
balance
calculations
for
the
periods
December
2004
through
November
2005,
January 2005
through
December
2005,
and
February 2005
through January
2006
revealed
IPA and
VOM emissions at
the Xanthan
Gum
Plant
totaled
43.41
t/yr,
41.96
t/yr,
and 40.06
t/yr,
respectively.
ANSWER:
Respondent
admits that it timely
submitted
a letter to the Illinois
EPA
which,
on
information
and belief,
was received
on or about March
6, 2006. Respondent
further
states
that
the letter
speaks for itself
as to its contents.
Respondent
denies any
allegations contained
in
Paragraph
20 of the Complaint
that
are inconsistent
with
the letter as submitted,
including
any
legal
conclusions drawn
therefrom and denies
that it violated
the PSD
requirements
as alleged.
COMPLAINT
¶
21:
Respondent’s construction
of
the Xanthan
Gum Plant resulted
in a significant
net increase
in VOM
emissions in excess
of 40 t/yr.
As
a result, Respondent’s
construction
of the Xanthan
Gum
Plant
constitutes
a
major modification
of a major
stationary source
subject to Prevention
of
Significant
Deterioration (“PSD”)
requirements.
ANSWER:
Respondent
states that the
allegations contained
in Paragraph
21
of
the Complaint
contain
conclusions
of
law,
for which no
answer is required.
To
the extent
an
answer
is required,
Respondent
denies the
allegations
contained
in
Paragraph
21
of
the Complaint.
COMPLAINT
¶
22:
Respondent failed to
conduct
the
requisite
best
available control
technology
(“BACT”)
analysis,
consisting
of a
control technology review
to facilitate
calculation
of an emission
limitation
which is determined
to
be
BACT.
Respondent
failed to acquire
the requisite
Prevention
of Significant Deterioration
(“PSD”)
construction
permit
setting
forth
the
BACT
limitation
prior
to
constructing
the facility, and
thereafter failed
to implement
BACT, in
violation
of Section(s)
165(a)(1) and (4) of
the
Clean Air
Act, 42
USCS
7475(a)(1)
and (4) (1997),
as well
This filing
is submitted on recycled
paper
27
CHI 11734046.3
as
Section(s)
52.21(a)(2)(ii)
and (iii),
as well
as (j)(1) and
(3)
of Title
40 of
the
Code
of Federal
Regulations,
40 CFR
52.2 l(a)(2)(ii)
and (iii), (j)(1)
and
(3) (1995).
ANSWER:
Respondent
affirmatively
states
that the
allegations
contained
in Paragraph
22 of the
Complaint
contain
conclusions
of law,
for which
no answer
is required.
To the extent
an answer
is
required,
Respondent
denies
the
allegations
contained
in Paragraph
22 of
the Complaint.
AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSES
Respondent
asserts
the following
affirmative
defense
without waiving
Complainant’s
obligation
to meet its
burden of proof
and
without
assuming
any
burden
of
proof
not
otherwise
imposed
by
law. Respondent
reserves
the right to
raise other
defenses
of
which it
may become
aware
of during
discovery
or at the
time
of hearing.
1.
Respondent
states
that to
the
extent
the Board
determines
that it emitted
any
pollutant
or
pollutants
in excess
of permitted
limits
at any time
during the
period
relevant
to this
Complaint,
such
emissions
occurred
during
start-up, shut-down,
and/or
malfunction
and
are
therefore
not subject
to
enforcement
pursuant
to
40 C.F.R.
§
60.8(c),
35 Ill.
Adm.
Code
§
201.149,
201.265,
and
Conditions
7.7.5(g)
and
7.7.5(i)
of
CAAPP
Permit
No. 96020099.
2.
Respondent
states that
to
the
extent
the
Board determines
that Respondent,
at any
time,
did not have
a
required
operating
permit,
Respondent
had submitted
a timely
and
complete
application
for
a
CAAPP permit
and
was
operating
under
a valid
construction
permit
and
therefore
is not
subject
to
enforcement
pursuant
to 415
ILCS 5/39.5(5)(h)
and Condition
14
of
Construction
Permit
No. 03070016.
This
filing
is submitted
on
recycled
paper
28
CHI 11734046.3
DATED:
July
1, 2009.
Respectfully
submitted,
TATE
AND
LYLE
INGREDIENTS
AMERICAS,
INC.
By______
‘One
of Its
Atto
s
Jeryl
L.
Olson
James
L.
Curtis
Elizabeth
Leifel
Ash
SEYFARTH
SHAW
LLP
131
S.
Dearborn
Street,
Suite
2400
Chicago,
Illinois
60603
(312)
460-5000
(telephone)
(312)
460-7000
(facsimile)
This
filing
is
submitted
on
recycled
paper
29
CHI
11734046.3
CERTIFICATE
OF
SERVICE
Elizabeth
Leifel
Ash,
an
attorney
certifies
that
she
caused
a
true
and correct
copy
of Tate
and
Lyle
Ingredients
Americas,
Inc.
NOTICE
OF
FILING
and
RESPONDENT’S ANSWER
AND
AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSES
to be
served
via U.S
Mail,
postage
prepaid,
this
1st day
of
July
2009,
To:
Stephen
J.
Janasie
Environmental
Bureau
Assistant
Attorney
General
500 South
Second
Street
Springfield,
Illinois
62706
and the
original
and ten
copies
of
the
same
foregoing
instruments
by
hand delivery,
To:
John
T.
Therriault,
Assistant
Clerk
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
James
R.
Thompson
Center
Suite 11-500
100
West
Randolph
Chicago,
Illinois
60601
1t4dhW4J/
Elizabeth
eifel
Ash
This
filing
is
submitted
on
recycled
paper
CHI 11734046.3