ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 16, 2006
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
BY
:
PEOPLE OF THE, STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
Complainant,
vs
.
PCB 04-16
PACKAGING PERSONIFIED, INC .,
(Enforcement)
an Illinois corporation,
Respondent
.
)
NOTICEOFELECTRONICFILING
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that we have today, February 16, 2006,
filed with the Office of the Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board its Response to Respondent's Motion to Compel, a
copy of which is attached herewith and served upon you
.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
By LISA MADIGAN
Attorney General of the
State f Illinois
STOPHER GRANT
istant Attorney General
Environmental Bureau
188 W. Randolph St ., 20 th Flr
.
Chicago, IL 60601
.
(312) 814-5388
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERKS OFFICE, FEBRUARY 16, 2006
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
Complainant,
vs
.
PCB 04-16
PACKAGING PERSONIFIED, INC .,
(Enforcement)
an Illinois corporation,
Respondent
.
)
RESPONSETORESPONDENT'S MOTION TO COMPEL
NOW COMES Complainant, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, by
LISA MADIGAN, Attorney General of the State of Illinois, and in
Response to Respondent's, PACKAGING PERSONIFIED INC .'s, Motion to
Compel Responses to. Written Discovery, states as follows
:
I. INTRODUCTION
On March 17, 2005, Complainant answered Respondent Packaging
Personified, Inc .'s ("PPI's") written discovery requests
.
Complainant fully objected to a number of interrogatories and
document requests on the basis of relevance, that the requests
r
were oppressive, and that they created an unreasonable burden
on Illinois EPA. A
copy
of Complainant's responses are attached
hereto as Exhibit `A'
.
Complainant now responds to PPI's Motion with the
understanding that the decision will be made by the Hearing
Officer pursuant to 35 Ill . Adm . Code 101 .616(a)
.
Complainant has fully and appropriately responded to all
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 16, 2006
relevant discovery requests,
excepting those to which
it properly
objected
.
PPI has not moved to compel responses to
Interrogatories
numbers 3 and
5,
or Document Requests 1 and 5,
and therefore Complainant
will
not discuss the basis for its
objections
in this Response . Along with its Interrogatory
responses,
Complainant
has produced thousands of pages of
responsive documents
to
PPI,
and will supplement as appropriate
.
The Interrogatories and Document Requests objected to by
Complainant are overbroad, deal with matters completely
irrelevant to the Board's determination of this case, and place
an unreasonable burden on Illinois EPA . PPI's motion must be
denied
.
II. THE REQUESTED INFORMATION IS NOT RELEVANT TO THIS CASE
Complainant has objected to Interrogatories 6-12 on the
basis of relevance . "Relevance" for discovery purposes includes
not only what is admissible at trial, but also that which leads
to what is admissible . However, the right to discovery is
limited to disclosure of matters that will be relevant to the
case at hand in order to protect against abuses and unfairness,
and a court should deny a discovery request where there is
insufficient evidence that the requested discovery is relevant
.
TTX Company v. Whitley,
295 Ill . App . 3d 548, 556 (1s` Dist
.
1998)
;
Mistier v. Mancini, ill
Ill . App . ed 228, 233 (2d Dist
.
1982) . A court must carefully exercise its discretion in matters
2
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERKS OFFICE, FEBRUARY 16, 2006
pertaining to discovery "in order balance the needs of truth and
excessive burden to litigants . General Motors v. Bua,
37 Ill .2d
180, 193 (1967)
.
a .
The Promulgation o "R93-9'" is Not Relevant to this
Matter .
PPI's Interrogatory Requests 6, 7, 8, and 11, and document
requests 13, 14, and 15 provide, as follows
:
6 .
Identify
all entities who were listed on any IPCB notice
lists
and
service lists for R93-9
.
7
.
Identify all entities who, prior to or during the pendency
of R93-9 or after adoption of the
Flexographic
Printing
Rules, received correspondence from or engaged in
communications with
IEPA
related to R93-9 or the
Flexographic
Printing Rules
.
8
.
For each entity identified in response to either
Interrogatory 6 or 7, provide the following
information :
a
.
Identify any communications between the entity and
IEPA
relating to R93-9 or the Flexographic Printing Rules
.
.
b .
Describe the type of business, including the types of
product printed,
the inks used, whether the inks
.used
are
water-based or solvent-based, and the processes
used by the
entity .
c
.
Identify the
control equipment used
by the
entity
to
comply with
the
Flexographic
Printing
Rules,
the
cost
associated with the control equipment,
and the date the
control equipment was
employed .
11
.
Identify each
and every communication between
USEPA
and the
State
of
Illinois or any Illinois state Agency relating
to
the
Flexographic
Printing Rules,
including but not
limited
to promulgation,
SIP approval, and
enforcement of the
Flexographic
Printing Rule's and variances
and
adjusted standards
from
the Flexographic
Printing Rules
.
3
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 16, 2006
The Related Document Requests Provide
:
13
.
All
documents
relating to R93-9,
including but not limited
to comments
received
during the notice-and-comment period .
14
.
All documents relating to R93-9
provided
by IEPA
to
Packaging
Personified
either before the rulemaking,
during
the
pendency of R93-9, or after adoption of
the Flexographic
Printing Rules
.
[NOTE :
this
request
has been complied with,
but
is
included
in PPI's Motion, seemingly in error .]
15
.
All documents relating to any notice provide by
the
IPCB to
Packaging
Personified
related to R93-9
.
As seen, PPI's discovery requests repeatedly seek
information regarding "R93-9" . This Board rulemaking began March
16, 1993, and concluded November 22, 1993 . The Board web site
lists 24 separate activities, including 3 hearings . The Final
Order, published on September 9, 1993, runs 616 pages
.
In R93-9, the Board enacted the VOM RACT Rules, and created
or modified regulations in parts 203, 211, 218, and 219 . Almost
all of the regulations adopted or modified in R93-9 are
totally
unrelated to PPI's business, or to this Case . For example, Part
218 contains regulates emissions from sources as varied as
petroleum storage tank emissions [218 .123], Coating operations
[218 .204], pharmaceutical centrifuges [218 .481], and marine
terminals [218 .760] . Part 219 applies only to the St . Louis
area. The only relation between this case and R93-9 is that
Organic Material emission limitations for flexographic,printers,
were added through this regulatory process . In Counts VII and
VIII of the Amended Complaint, Complainant alleges the PPI
4
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 16, 2006
violated certain of these regulations
.
PPI's discovery requests do not seek information regarding
PPI's compliance or non-compliance with the Flexographic Printing
rules. Rather PPI seeks information, and huge volumes of
documents, regarding the promulgation of the rules themselves
.
Such information could only be material, if at all, if PPI was
challenging either the constitutionality or validity of the
regulations . They have not done so
.
PPI states
:
"[t]hese discovery requests are relevant because Packaging
is entitled to determine if other companies received notice
or other documents regarding the Flexographic Printing Rules
that Packaging did not receive, and if other companies were
able to participate in R93-9 at a level of involvement that
was not available to Packaging." [PPI Motion, p . 2] .'
Notably, PPI does not claim that the regulations are invalid
due to a lack of notice, nor does it make claims of violations of
due process or equal protection . Rather, its Motion appears to
be making the claim that it was not aware of the Flexographic
Printing Rules until cited by Illinois EPA . PPI also makes many
such representations in its Answer to the Amended Complaint,
e .g
.
:
"Packaging states that it was the owner of the site prior to
1993 when it was not subject to specific VOM limitations,
and hence, was not aware of the subsequent potential
applicability of environmental regulations, including CAAPP
requirements, to its operation. As soon as Packaging
learned of the potential applicability of the regulations,
it took steps to come into compliance". [Answer, Count IV,
Par . 25 .]
5
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 16, 2006
However,
PPI's alleged ignorance of
the requirements of the
Flexographic Printing Rules does not provide a defense. A
Respondent or Defendant is presumed to know the law ;
ignorance of
it
is no excuse
.
People v . Acosta,
331
Ill
. App
.
3d
1,
6
(2d
.
Dist
.
2001)
People v
. Draw Drape Cleaners,
Inc
.
PCB 03-51 (August
19,
2004)
(slip op .,
at
5)
.
The material
issues
in our case are whether the regulations
were violated,
not whether PPI received notice of
the
1993
rulemaking
.
PPI's Motion to Compel Answers
to Interrogatories
6,
7,
8 and
11,
and Document Requests 13 and 15 should be denied as
irrelevant
to this case
.
b
.
Information Regarding Other Flexographic Printing
Companies is not relevant to this matter
.
Interrogatories No . 9, 10, and 12, and Document Requests 16,
17, and 18 seek volumes of information regarding other
flexographic printers in the Chicago Area, as follows
:
9. Identify each and every communication, related to clean air
regulation with respect to permitting,
Flexographic Priting
Rules,
or emissions reduction systems, between
IEPA
and the
following companies
:
a
.
Formel
Industries,
Inc
.
b .
Vonco Products, Inc
.
c
.
Bema Film Systems,
Inc .
10. Identify each and every flexographic or rotogravure printer
business in the Chicago area,
as that area is
described
at
35 IAC 218 .100(a)
.
12. Identify each
and
every communication between
and
among
IEPA, USEPA, and
the companies listed in Interrogatory 9
relating to USEPA approval as SIP revisions of
the
adjusted
standards
from the Flexographic Printing Rules granted to
6
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 16, 2006
those companies, captioned before
the IPCB as AS-00-11,
AS-00-12,
and AS-00-13
.
As justification for this broad request,
PPI states
:
Interrogatories
9 and 10 ask for information on air
regulation and permitting pertaining to companies in
the
same industry as Packaging Personified . Document Requests 16
[sic] ask for documents relating
to adjusted standards and
variances sought by companies in
the same industry as
Packaging Personified
.
These Discovery Requests are relevant
to
the extent that other similarly-situated companies
received regulatory relief that Packaging could also have
received .
[PPI Motion, pp
.
2-3]
.
PPI did not seek adjusted standards or variances prior to
the filing of this case, and its failure to do so is not at
issue. Seemingly, it could have made such application, although
whether such relief would have been granted is
unknowable .
However, adjusted standards or variances sought or obtained by
other companies have no relevance to any claim or defense in this
case
.
PPI's requests are analogous to those addressed in
TTX
Company v .
Whitley, 295 Ill . App . 3d 548 (1st Dist . 1998), an
appeal of an Illinois corporate tax assessment . TTX Company
sought records of other companies who used the same method of tax
calculation as TTX, and disputed by the Illinois Department of
Revenue. The Appellate Court reversed an order compelling
production of this material, deeming the information irrelevant
.
Significantly, the Appellate Court noted that TTX had not claimed
a denial of equal protection or due process . Whether TTX was
7
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERKS OFFICE FEBRUARY 16 2006
treated differently from other companies was not relevant . 295
Ill . App . 3d 548, 557
.
Here, PPI seeks extensive information from Illinois EPA
regarding actions taken by three unrelated companies in their
petition to the Board for adjusted standards
.
Section 101 .202 of the Board regulations provides
:
"Adjusted Standard" or "AS" means an alternative standard
granted by the Board in an adjudicatory proceeding pursuant
to Section 28 .1 of the Act and 35 111 . Adm. Code 104,
Subpart D. The adjusted standard applies instead of the
rule or regulation of general applicability .
Section 104 .400 of the Board regulations provides
:
a)
Description. An adjusted standard has the effect of an
environmental regulation that would apply to
petitioner, if granted, in lieu of the general
regulation that would otherwise be applicable to a
petitioner and the regulated community .
In other words, companies who obtain adjusted standards are
governed by those standards . Those who do not, are governed by
the rule of general applicability : in our case the Flexographic
Printing Rules as promulgated
.
PPI cannot claim that it lacks lack knowledge of the subject
matter of these adjusted standard petitions : the Board orders
granting [and, later withdrawing] these adjusted standards are
viewable on the Board's web site . Moreover, Illinois EPA has
already provided copies of any correspondence with PPI relating
to a possible adjusted standard
.
In any event, the requested information s clearly not
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 16, 2006
relevant to this case . PPI did not apply for or obtain an
adjusted standard. Rather, as alleged by Complainant, PPI
continued to operate in violation of the Flexographic Printing
Rules . Companies operating under an adjusted standard were bound
by that standard, not the Flexographic Printing Rules . Thus none
of the information requested by PPI is relevant to this case
.
PPI's Motion to Compel responses to Interrogatories Numbers 9 &
12, and Document . Requests 16, 17, and 18 should be denied
.
PPI also seeks to compel Illinois EPA to identify `each and
every flexographic or rotogravure printer in the Chicago
area
.
. .', without providing any reasonable explanation as to how
this information could be relevant to its case . Illinois EPA
does not make or keep such records [see : Affidavit of Donald
Sutton,
Exhibit B,
par. 11], and should not be required to
assemble information which is equally available to PPI . PPI's
Motion to Compel a response to Interrogatory No . 10 should also
be denied
.
III. PRODUCTION OF THE REQUESTED INFORMATION
WOULD BE OVERLY BURDENSOME
The right to discovery is limited to the disclosure of
matters that will be relevant to the case at hand in order to
protect against abuses
.
Leeson v
.
State Farm, 190 Ill . App . 3d
359 (1 a` Dist . 1989) . Discovery is not a tactical game to be
used to obstruct or harass the opposing litigant
.
Williams v .
A.E. Staley,
83 Ill. 2d 559 (1981)
.
9
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 16, 2006
In addition to seeking irrelevant information, PPI's
discovery requests are clearly overbroad in scope, unrealistic,
and oppressive
.
PPI seeks to compel Illinois EPA to search
thousands of pages of documents
for information unrelated to any
claim or legitimate defense, and seeks information and documents
made, kept, and communicated by other entities, including USEPA,
the Board, and other State Agencies
.
a. PPI's Requests are Overbroad
As seen above, PPI seeks all information', all
communications', and `all documents' regarding R93-9, despite the
fact that most of the requested information affects industries
and/or geographical regions completely unrelated to its business,
and regulations unrelated to this case . For example, the R93-9
rulemaking process significantly modified regulations (in Part
219), applicable only in the Metro East area, adjacent to St
.
Louis . In addition, PPI seeks to compel Illinois EPA to produce
information obviously in the possession of third parties . For
example, Document Request No . 15 requests "All documents relating
to any notice provide by the IPCB to Packaging Personified
related to R93-9" . Interrogatory number 12 seeks to compel
Illinois EPA to identify USEPA communications . As shown by the
Affidavit of Donald Sutton, Illinois EPA does not possess (and
should not be expected to possess) much of the information
demanded by PPI
.
Exhibit B, par's 8-12
.
PPI certainly must know
10
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE FEBRUARY 16, 2006
that Illinois EPA cannot provide information, for example, inthe
possession of the Board or USEPA-its demands are clearly an
attempt to harass Complainant through overbroad discovery,
b
.
PPI's Requests are Oppressive
As shown by the Affidavit of Donald Sutton,. answering PPI's
discovery would involve searching thousands of pages, numerous
email communications, and computer generated data . It is
estimated that at least thirty-seven hours would be required to
search for this irrelevant information . Because of the absence
of any showing of relevancy for the produced information, PPI's
requests are abusive and clearly oppressive . See, e .g
:
General
Motors v. Bua,
37 Ill . 2d 180,193-4 (1967) (extensive production
denied absent showing of materiality and relevancy)
.
IV. CONCLUSION
As shown by Exhibit A, Complainant has properly and
completely responded to all of PPI's discovery responses . Where
PPI sought relevant information it has been provided . Thousands
of pages of documents have been made available to PPI, including
responses to Document Request No . 14, mistakenly included in
PPI's Motion to Compel
.
Where PPI's requests have sought the production of
information unrelated to any issue in this matter, Complainant
has objected on the basis of relevance . Where PPI's requests
were completely unreasonable and oppressive, Complainant has also
11
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 16, 2006
objected
.
Information regarding the
1993 promulgation of
the
Flexographic Printing Regulations,
is not material
to this case,
absent a claimed defense regarding the validity of
the
regulations or the constitutionality of this enforcement action
.
None have been raised by PPI . Information relating to the Board
Petitions of unrelated entities also does not relate to PPI's
alleged violations, or any defense thereto . PPI, which did not
seek an adjusted standard, was regulated by the Flexographic
Printing Rules. Companies which had obtained an adjusted
standard, were not
.
WHEREFORE, Complainant respectfully requests that the
Hearing Officer deny Respondent's Motion to Compel Responses to
Written Discovery
. .
RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT ED,
BY :
ISTOPHER GRANT
A sistant Attorney General
Environmental Bureau
188 W . Randolph St ., 20 th Flr
.
Chicago, Illinois 60601
(312) 814-5388
12
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 16, 2006
Exhibit A
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 16, 2006
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
Complainant,
)
v .
)
PCB 04-16
(Enforcement- Air)
PACKAGING PERSONIFIED, INC .,
)
Respondent
.
)
COMPLAINANT'S RESPONSES TO RESPONDENT'S FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES AND REOUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Complainant, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, by LISA MADIGAN, Attorney
General of the State of Illinois, responds to Respondent's First Set of Interrogatories and First
Request for Production of Documents, as follows
:
DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS
2
.
Claim of Privileee.
If any information or documents are withheld
because the interrogatory is objected to on grounds of attorney-client privilege, work product or
any other grounds, please specify with particularity:
(a)
The portion of the interrogatory to which the withheld information or
document is responsive ;
(b)
The parties participating in the production, conversation or creating the
document,
i.e., author, originator, addressee, recipient, and copyee
;
(c)
(g)
Date of origin or preparation of the document ;
(d)
The character of the information or document and its subject matter, as
well as a summary of its contents
;
(e)
Length in pages of any relevant document
;
(t)
The file in which any relevant document was located or from which it is
being withheld;
The present location of any relevant document
;
1
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERKS OFFICE, FEBRUARY 16, 2000
Custodian of any relevant document ;
The number of copies of any relevant document being withheld ; and
(j)
The factual and legal basis upon which a privilege is claimed and/or any
other reason for withholding the information or document
.
3
.
"Document".
As used herein, the term "document" or "documents" is used in
the broadest possible sense, as defined in Rule 201(b)(1) of the Illinois Supreme Court Rules,
and means without limitation all written, printed, typed, photostatic, photographed, recorded,
machine readable or graphic matter, or otherwise reproduced communication or representation,
whether comprised of letters, words, numbers, pictures, sounds or any estimation thereof
however produced or reproduced of every kind and description in your actual or constructive
possession, custody, care or control. Without limiting the foregoing, the term "document" shall
include the original (or copies where the original is not available) and any copy that differs from
the original. or other versions or drafts of the document,. such as copies containing notations,
insertions, corrections' or any other variations. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing,
"document" shall also include correspondence, letters, memoranda, accounting and 'financial
records, financial statements, notes, diaries, summaries, statements, financial analyses, loan
titles, computation sheets, budgets, expense reports, investigation reports ; field notes, opinions,
forecasts, audits, projections, trade letters, press releases, comparisons, telegrams, drafts, work,
papers, microfilm, paper and magnetic tapes, computer memory storage devices such as floppy
disks or hard disks, sound and video recordings and transcripts of such recordings, charts,
computer cards and printouts, computer memory and data bases, e-mail or electronic mail or
messages of any kind, . minutes, publications, calendars, telephone pads, bulletins, directives,
pamphlets, manuals, books diaries, periodicals, photographs, memorials of telephone
conversations or meetings or conferences, interoffice communications, records, reports, studies
estimates, contracts, amendments, and addenda to such contracts, agreements, invoices, . receipts,
ledgers, books of account, analytical records, journals, logs, statistical records, costs sheets, time
sheets, photographs in job or transaction files, magazines, newspapers, booklets, brochures,
pamphlets, circulars, notices, drawings, diagrams, tables, instructions, notes of minutes,
questionnaires, surveys, graphs, and any preliminary versions of drafts of the foregoing
.
4 .
"Person" .
As used herein, the term "person" or "persons" means any natural
person, sole proprietorship ; firm, corporation, partnership, joint venture, group, association,
organization, trust, government or governmental agency, group or any other form 'of business
activityy and any other legal entity. Any reference to a "person" shall mean that "person" and all
affiliates, divisions, controlled companies, subsidiaries or otherwise related entities and all to his,
her or' its current and former officers, directors, employees, agents, representatives, attorneys,'
and accountants
.
5
.
"Relate" .
As used herein, the term "relate" or "relating to" any given subject
means in whole or, part constituting, containing, defining, describing, discussing, detailing,
embodying, reflecting, identifying, mentioning, stating, referring to, demonstrating, evidencing,
alleging to referring, hinting at, dealing with, underlying, supporting or in any way pertaining,
concerning or being relevant to that subject, and is meant to include, among other documents, all
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 16, 2006
documents
consisting
of,
constituting,
containing,
referring
to,
discussing,
describing,
concerning, reflecting or being legally, logically or factually connected in any way with the
matter discussed. This term includes, but is not limited to, information underlying, supporting,
or necessary for the understanding of any document relating to each interrogatory or answer
thereto .
6 .
"Communications" .
As used herein, the term "communication" is used in the
broadest possible sense and refers, without limiting the generality of this meaning, to any and all
forms of transferring information, including discussion, conversations, meetings, conferences,
interviews, negotiations, agreements, understandings, inquiries, discussions, contacts, proposals,
memoranda, letters, telegrams, telexes, cables, telephone calls, electronic communication, or any
other communication, or notes thereof, or document relating thereto, whether formal or informal
.
7 .
"Identify" .
As used herein, the term "identify," when used with reference to an
individual natural person, means that the answer should include the full name, address and
telephone number of the person, as well as the name and address of the person's most recent
known employer. When used in reference to any other legal entity, the term "identify" means
that the answer should include the most recent known name and address of that entity . When
used with reference to a document, the term "identify' means that the answer should include a
description of the nature and subject matter of the document, the dates of its preparation, the
identify of the author and recipient, and the present location of the document . When used with
reference to any other form of communication, the term "identify" means that the answer should
include a description of the nature and subject matter of the communication, the date of the
communication, and the identity of the persons who participated in or were present at any part of
the communication .
When used with reference to facts supporting the allegation, the term
"identify" means that the answer should include every act, occurrence, transaction, statement,
communication or conduct which you claim supports the allegation and every document which
you claim supports the allegations .
8
.
"Basis" .,
As used herein, the term "basis" shall mean that the answer should
include the specific facts and legal or business principles which support or tend to support the
allegation made .
9 .
"And" and"Or" .
As used herein, "and" and "or" shall be construed
interchangeably so as to bring within the scope of this request any facts which might otherwise
be construed as outside the scope
.
10 .
"You" or "your".
As used herein, the terms "you" and "your" refers to the
People of the State of Illinois by Lisa Madigan, Attorney General of the State of Illinois, State of
Illinois employees, contractors, agents, and attorneys and any other persons acting or purporting
to act on behalf of the
•
People of the State of Illinois .
11
.
"Packaging Personified" .
As used herein, the term "Packaging Personified"
refers to Packaging Personified, Inc . or any of its officers,, directors, employees, contractors, or
agents
.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERKS OFFICE, FEBRUARY 16, 2006
12 .
"IEPA" .
As used herein, the term "IEPA" refers to the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency or any of its current or former employees, including but not limited to
Director Renee Cipriano, Dave Kolaz, Bharat Mathur, Julie Armitage, David Bloomberg, and
Kevin Mattison
.
13
.
"IPCB". As used herein, the term "IPCB" refers to the Illinois Pollution Control
Board or any of its current or former employees
.
14 .
"USEPA".
As used herein, the term "USEPA" refers to the United States
Environmental Protection Agency or any of its current or former employees
.
.
15
.
"Act".
As used herein, the. "Act" shall refer to the Illinois Environmental
Protection Act, 415 ILCS 5/1 et seq .
16 .
"Complaint" .
As used herein, the term "Complaint" shall mean the
administrative complaint filed by the Illinois Attorney General in this matter captioned People of
the State of Illinois v. Packaging Personified, Inc., PCB 04-16 :
.
17 .
"VOM" or"VOC" .
As used herein, the terms "VOM" and "VOC" refer
interchangeably to volatile organic material or volatile organic compounds as defined by or
under the Act .
18 .
"Facility" .
As used herein, the term "Facility" refers to Packaging Personified
Inc.'s operations located at 246 Kehoe Boulevard, Carol Stream, DuPage County, Illinois
.
19
.
"FlexoeraphicPrinting Rules" .
As used herein, the term "Flexographic
Printing Rules" refers to the IPCB rules at 35 IAC .218.401
et seq ., which regulate organic
material emissions from flexographic and rotogravure printing operations in the Chicago area
.
20
.
"R93-9" or"Rulemaking". As used herein, the terms "R93-9 or "Rulemaking"
refers to the rulemaking before the Illinois Pollution Control Board captioned as R93-9 that
resulted in the adoption of the Flexographic Printing. Rules found at 35 IAC 218.401 et seq.
21 .
"SIP".
As used herein, the term "SIP" refers to the USEPA-approved Illinois
State Implementation Plan for regulation under the Clean Air Act in Illinois
.
22
.
Other terms .
As used herein, the singular shall be deemed to include the plural;
the use of one gender shall include all genders, as appropriate in context; and the present tense
shall include the past tense .
23
.
"Time Period" .
The time period referred to in these interrogatories, unless
specifically indicated to the contrary, is from January 1, 1989 to the present
.
4
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 16, 2006
COMPLAINANT'S GENERAL OBJECTIONS
Complainant objects to Respondent's Interrogatories and Document Request to the extent
that Respondents seek information protected by attorney client, work product, or other legally
recognized privilege .
In addition Complainant objects to "Definitions and Instructions",
paragraphs 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, to the extent that they may be construed as overbroad, overly
burdensome, or that they seek the production of information neither relevant nor material to this
matter .
INTERROGATORIES
1
.
Identify the person or persons providing the answers to these Interrogatories,
and, for each answer, identify the information provided by each such person
.
ANSWER :
David Bloomberg, Unit Manager, Illinois EPA Bureau of Air, Springfield, Illinois
:
Interrogatories No . 1, 2, 4, and 14
.
Maureen Wozniak, Illinois EPA Division of Legal Counsel : Interrogatories No . 1, 2, 4,
13, and 14 .
Christopher Grant, Attorney for Complainant, assisted and provided the answers to
Interrogatories No.'s 3, and 5 through 12
.
2 .
Identify each and every basis in support of your allegations in Paragraph 5 of
Count I of the Complaint that the Facility has the potential or capacity to emit in excess of 25
tons ofVOMper year" and that the Facility's "actual 2002 VOM emissions were at least 44
tons . "
ANSWER :
5
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERKS OFFICE, FEBRUARY 16, 2006
Complainant objects on the basis that the meaning of the phrase "
.
..each and every basis"
is ambiguous and vague. Further answering, operational information and emissions data, in part
contained within annual emission reports (AERs), Seasonal Emissions Reports (SERs), permit
applications, compliance commitment agreement (CCA), and communications received by the
Illinois EPA from Packaging Personified, Inc ., document that the Facility has the potential to
emit VOM at levels in excess of the major source threshold specified by the Act and Board's
regulations thereunder for the Chicago nonattainment area . In addition, Illinois EPA inspection
memoranda setting forth observations by the Illinois EPA resulting from inspections of the
Facility, violation notice letters (VNs), and documents generated by the Illinois EPA relative to
VOM emissions by the Facility in excess. of 25 tons/year in violation of the Act and Board
regulations by Respondent further support violations that are the subject of the State's complaint
.
Documents upon which the State will rely have been provided in response to Respondent's
document requests . l through 12, and 17. Investigation into these matters continues
.
3 .
Identify each and every basis in support ofyour allegations in Paragraphs 18 and
19 of Count Y.
ANSWER:
Complainant objects to Interrogatory No. 3. The Interrogatory is improper in form . It is
vague, overbroad, and requires Complainant to speculate as to the information sought by
Respondent .
4.
Identify each and every basis in support
of
your allegation in Paragraph 14 that
the Facility emitted more than 10 tons of VOM during the
f
ve monthperiod from May I until
September 30 for each year from 1997 until the filing of the Complaint
.
ANSWER:
6
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 16, 2006
Complainant objects insofar as the meaning of the phrase "
.
..each and every basis" is
ambiguous and vague. Further answering, operational information and emissions data, in part
contained with AERs, SERs, permit applications, CCAs, and communications received by the
Illinois EPA from Packaging Personified, Inc ., document actual and/or potential VOM
emissions of at least 10 tons, the threshold for a participating source under the Emissions
Reduction Market System, during the period of May 1 to September 30 each year from 1999
until the present. Documents upon which the State will rely have been provided in response to
Respondent's document requests 1 through 12 and 17
5 .
Identify each and every basis in support of your allegations in Paragraphs 10, 11,
17, and 19 of Count VII of the Complaint .
ANSWER :
Complainant objects to Interrogatory No . 5. The Interrogatory is improper in form. It is
vague, overbroad, and requires Complainant to speculate as to the information sought by
Respondent .
6.
Identify all entities who were listed on any IPCB notice lists and service lists for
R93-9.
ANSWER:
Complainant objects to Interrogatory No . 6 as it seeks information that is immaterial,
irrelevant, and not reasonably calculated to lead to relevant information . The promulgation of
this section of 35 Ill. Adm. Code, and R93-9 as herein defmed, does not relate to any claim or
defense in the instant case
.
7
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 16, 2006
Identify all entities who, prior to or during the pendancy of R93-9 or after
adoption of the Flexographic Printing Rules, received correspondence from or engaged in
communications with IEPA related to R93-9 or the Flexographic Printing Rules
.
ANSWER:
Complainant objects to Interrogatory No. 7 as it seeks information that is immaterial,
irrelevant, and not reasonably calculated to lead to relevant information. Neither the
promulgation of the Flexographic Printing Rules nor the identity of correspondents, other than
the Respondent; relates to any claim or defense in the instant case
.
8 .
For each entity identified in response to either Interrogatory 6 or 7, provide the
following information:
a .
Identify any communications between the entity and IEPA relating to R93-
9 or the Flexographic Printing Rules .
b .
Describe the type of business, including the types
of
product printed, the
inks .used, whether the inks used are water-based or solvent-based, and
the processes used by the entity .
Identify the control equipment used by the entity to comply with the
Flexographic Printing Rules, the cost associated with the control
equipment, and the date the control equipment was employed .
ANSWER :
Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No.8 as immaterial and irrelevant. See: Answers to
Interrogatories 6 and 7. Nothing in the information sought in Interrogatory No . 8 relates to any
claim or defense in the instant case . Moreover, Interrogatory No. 8 is overly burdensome
.
Obtaining the requested information would require Complainant to search thousands of records,
and assemble information not regularly kept in the course of its operations
.
9.
Identify each and every communication, related to clean air regulation with
respect to permitting, Flexographic Printing Rules, or emissions reduction systems, between
IEPA and the following companies:
8
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 16 2006
a.
Formel Industries, Inc .
b.
Vonco Products, Inc
.
C.
Bema Film Systems, Inc
.
ANSWER :
Complainant objects to Interrogatory No . 9 as it seeks information that is immaterial,
irrelevant, and not reasonably calculated to lead to relevant information . Correspondence
between Complainant and the above-listed entities does not relate to any claim or defense in this
matter.
10.
Identify each and every flexographic or rotogravure printer business in the
Chicago area, as that area is described at 35IAC 218 .100(a) .
ANSWER:
Complainant objects to Interrogatory No. 10 as it seeks information that is immaterial,
irrelevant, not reasonably calculated to lead to relevant information, and is overly burdensome
.
11 .
Identify each and every communication between
USEPA
and the State of Illinois
or any Illinois state agency relating to the Flexographic Printing Rules, including but not limited
to promulgation, SIP approval, and enforcement of the Flexographic Printing Rules and
variances and adjusted standards from the Flexographic Printing Rules
.
ANSWER :
Complainant objects to Interrogatory No. i I as it seeks information that is immaterial,
irrelevant, and not reasonably calculated to lead to relevant information . The information
sought does not relate in any way to the claims or defenses
in
the instant matter .
12 .
Identify each and every communication between and among
IEPA, USEPA,
and
the companies listed in Interrogatory 9 relating to
USEPA
approval as SIP revisions of the
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 16, 2006
adjusted standards from the Flexographic Printing Rules granted to those companies, captioned
before the IPCB as AS 00-11, AS 00-12, and AS 00-13
.
ANSWER :
Complainant objects to Interrogatory No. 12 as it seeks information that is immaterial,
irrelevant, and not reasonably calculated to lead to relevant information. The information
.
sought does not relate in any way to any claim or defense in the instant matter
.
13 .
Identify each and every basis in support ofthe amount ofpenalty you are seeking,
including but not limited to:
a .
The determination ofthe amount ofeconomic benefit that you assert
Packaging Personified received as a result ofthe non-compliance alleged
in the Complaint .
b .
The basis for the economic benefit determination, including all
informational inputs, all formulas used, any software used to calculate the
economic benefit, and all assumptions of the economic benefit model used .
c.
Identify the individuals involved in determining the penalty amount and
economic benefit amount.
ANSWER :
.
Complainant objects insofar as the meaning of the phrase "
. ..each and every basis" is
ambiguous, vague and not defined. Further answering, Complainant has not yet determined the
penalty it will ask the Board to assess in . this matter. Complainant notes that penalties sought are
found it the prayer for relief in each count of the Complaint, and that Statutory penalties are
contained in 415 ILCS 5/42 (2002). Additional counts may be added by amendment, which will
increase the amount of penalties sought by Complainant . Complainant may also seek avoided/
past due costs and fees, expert witness cost and attorney fees. The amount of these costs and
fees is not yet determined
.
a .
Complainant will seek from Packaging Personified, Inc . a civil penalty, in part,
representative of the economic benefit of noncompliance (BEN) derived by Respondent from
10
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 16, 2006
violations of New Source Review (NSR) and State permitting requirements, the Illinois
Environmental Protection Act, and Pollution Control Board regulations thereunder alleged in the
State's Complaint. Using USEPA's BEN Windows Computer Model, Illinois EPA originally
estimated Respondent's BEN at approximately $585,000.00. However, Illinois EPA will not
rely upon the BEN computer model in preparation for and at hearing in this matter
.
Accordingly, the civil penalty the State will seek is subject to revision dependant upon the
economic benefit analysis and specific methodology Complainant will utilize at hearing,
additional information received by Complainant relative to compliance costs, and the gravity of
violations that are the subject of the State's Complaint. The Illinois EPA will determine the
economic benefit of noncompliance based upon an economic benefit analysis performed by
Illinois Office of Internal Audit, Audit Manager, Gary Styzens .
b .
The Illinois EPA used the USEPA's BEN Model as the basis for its initial penalty
calculation. Inputs and assumptions used in the model were based upon information provided by
the Facility, and are set forth within the BEN calculation sheet provided in response to
Respondent's document requests. However, the Illinois EPA does not intend to rely on the BEN
Model as support for its penalty calculation; rather, Mr. Gary Styzens will perform an
independent economic benefit analysis
.
c
.
Complainant objects on the basis that the Board, not Complainant, assesses
appropriate penalties, using pertinent provisions within the Act . Further answering, the
Following persons were involved in determining Economic Benefit
:
Maureen Wozniak
Assistant Counsel
Division of Legal Counsel
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021 North Grand Avenue East
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
11
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERKS OFFICE, FEBRUARY 16, 2006
Julie Armitage
Managing Attorney
Division of Legal Counsel
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021 North Grand Avenue East
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
Christopher Grant
Assistant Attorney General
The economic benefit derived by Respondent resulting from noncompliance with the Act
and Board regulations thereunder was calculated by Illinois EPA Assistant Counsel Maureen
Wozniak utilizing the USEPA BEN Windows computer model and compliance cost data
received by Illinois EPA from Respondent to facilitate settlement discussions
.
This interrogatory will be supplemented as appropriate .
14 .
Identity all witnesses whom you intend to have testify at the hearing, including the
following information :
a .
For each lay witness, identify the subjects on which the witness will testify .
b.
For each independent expert witness, identify the subjects on which the
witness will testify and opinions you expect to elicit .
For each controlled expert witness, identify : (i) the subject matter on
which the witness will test; (ii) the conclusions and opinions of the
witness and the bases therefor; (iii) the qualifications of the witness; and
(iv) any reports prepared by the witness about the case .
ANSWER:
a.
David Bloomberg, Compliance Unit Manager/Bureau of Air; Illinois, EPA
Springfield, Illinois. Mr. Bloomberg will offer testimony on the Emissions Reduction Market
System (ERMS) and NSR requirements; flexographic printing, in general ; applicable regulatory
provisions; the Facility's compliance with the applicable regulatory provisions ; and other
specific information regarding the Facility
.
12
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 16, 2006
b .
As of the date of Answering these Interrogatories, Complainant has not identified
expert witnesses that will be called to testify, and opinions have not been obtained
.
c .
At the present, the State has not identified a controlled expert witness that will be
called to testify at hearing, with the exception of Mr . Gary Styzens. Mr. Styzens will offer
testimony that provides an analysis of the time value of money specifically pertaining to
economic benefits derived by Packaging Personified, Inc . resulting from costs avoided and/or
delayed resulting from its failure to operate in compliance with the Act and Board regulations
thereunder. Gary Styzens has not, to date, finalized an economic benefit analysis or generated
reports setting forth opinions and conclusions based upon his review of all pertinent information
relative to Packaging Personified
.
The State will seasonably supplement this Answer consistent with Supreme Court Rule
213 and 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.616 .
DOCUMENT REQUESTS
1
.
All documents relating to the allegations in the Complaint
.
RESPONSE :
Complainant objects the Document Request No . 1 as being overly vague
.
2.
All documents identified in your responses to Interrogatories 1-14 or reviewed in
the course of responding to Interrogatories 1-14
.
RESPONSE :
See: Answers to Interrogatories No . 1 through 14, and objections thereto, which are
incorporated by reference into this Response . Complainant will produce relevant, non-
privileged documents at a time agreed between the parties. Documents will be produced at 188
13
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 16, 2006
W. Randolph, #2001, Chicago Illinois, and 1021 N. Grand Avenue East, Springfield, Illinois .
Complainant will consult with Respondent regarding the location of production
.
3 .
All documents you intend to use at any depositions in this case .
RESPONSE: .
Complainant does not currently have depositions scheduled, and does not have
documents selected for deposition . This Response will be supplemented as required
.
4.
All documents you intend to offer as evidence at the hearing in this case,
RESPONSE:
Complainant does not yet have documents selected for use at hearing, and will
supplement this Response as required .
5.
All documents you intend to use in any manner or for any purpose at the hearing
in this case.
RESPONSE :
Complainant objects to Document Request No. 5 as overly vague. See: Response to
Document Request No . 4 .
6 .
All photographs, models, slides, films, videotape, drawings or other depictions of
the Facility .
RESPONSE:
Complainant will produce responsive photographs, etc., at a time agreed between the
parties. Documents will be produced at 188 W . Randolph, #2001, Chicago Illinois, and 1021 N
.
Grand Avenue East, Springfield, Illinois . Complainant will consult with Respondent regarding
the location of production .
14
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 16, 2006
7.
All documents referring or relating to any communications between IEPA and
Packaging Personified
RESPONSE :
Complainant will produce relevant, non-privileged documents at a time agreed between
the parties. Documents will be produced at 188 W. Randolph, #2001, Chicago Illinois, and 1021
N. Grand Avenue East, Springfield, Illinois . Complainant will consult with Respondent
regarding the location of production .
8 .
All documents relating to submittals to IEPA from Packaging Personified,
including but not limited to permit applications, reports, and other information
.
RESPONSE :
Complainant objects on the basis that the requested documents are already in the
possession of Respondent. Further Answering, Complainant will produce relevant, non-
privileged documents at a time agreed between the parties . Documents will be produced at 188
W. Randolph, #2001, Chicago Illinois, and 1021 N. Grand Avenue East, Springfield, Illinois
.
Complainant will consult with Respondent regarding the location of production
.
9.
All documents relating to any inspection or site visit performed at the Facility by
IEPA or any other State of Illinois employee or agency
.
RESPONSE :
Complainant will produce relevant, non-privileged documents at a time agreed between
the parties. Documents will be produced at 188 W. Randolph, #2001, Chicago Illinois, and 1021
N. Grand Avenue East, Springfield, Illinois . Complainant will consult with Respondent
regarding the location of production
.
15
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 16, 2006
10.
All documents referring or relating to communications of any kind within IEPA
concerning the Facility or the allegations of the Complaint .
RESPONSE :
Complainant objects to Document Request No. 10 as overly vague. Further answering,
Complainant will produce relevant, non-privileged documents at a time agreed between the
.parties. Documents will be produced at 188 W . Randolph, #2001, Chicago Illinois, and 1021 N
.
Grand Avenue East, Springfield, Illinois. Complainant will consult with Respondent regarding
the location of production.
11 .
All documents referring or relating to communications of any kind between IEPA
and any third party concerning the Facility or the allegations of the Complaint .
RESPONSE:
Complainant objects to Document Request no. 11 as overly vague. Further answering,
.
Complainant will produce relevant, non-privileged documents at a time agreed between the
parties. Documents will be produced at 188 W . Randolph, #2001, Chicago Illinois, and 1021 N
.
Grand Avenue East, Springfield, Illinois. Complainant will consult with Respondent regarding
the location of production .
12.
All documents relating to your computation, calculation or estimation of a
penalty for the violations alleged in the Complaint.
RESPONSE :
Complainant will produce relevant, non-privileged documents at a time agreed between
the parties. Documents will be produced at 188 W. Randolph, #2001, Chicago Illinois, and 1021
N. Grand Avenue East, Springfield, Illinois. Complainant will consult with Respondent
regarding the location of production
.
16
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERKS OFFICE, FEBRUARY 16, 2006
13.
All documents relating to R93-9, including but not limited to comments received
during the notice-and-comment period .
RESPONSE :
Complainant objects to Document Request No. 13 as it. seeks information that is
immaterial, irrelevant, and not reasonably calculated to lead to relevant information . The
proceedings of R93-9, and promulgation of the Flexographic Printing Rules do not relate to any
claim or defense in this matter. Moreover, Respondent's request is overly burdensome
.
14.
All documents relating to R93-9 provided by IEPA to Packaging Personified
either before the Rulemaking, during the pendancy ofR93-9, or after adoption of the
Flexographic Printing Rules
.
RESPONSE :
Complainant objects to Document Request No. 14 to the extent that it seeks information
that is immaterial and irrelevant to the instant case. Complainant also objects on the basis that
any responsive documents are is already in the possession of Respondent . Further answering,
Complainant will produce relevant, non-privileged documents at a time agreed between the
parties. Documents will be produced at 188 W . Randolph, #2001, Chicago Illinois, and 1021 N
.
Grand Avenue East, Springfield, Illinois . Complainant will consult with Respondent regarding
the location of production .
15.
All documents relating to any notice provided by the IPCB to Packaging
Personified related to R93-9 .
RESPONSE :
17
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 16, 2006
Complainant objects to Document Request No . 15 as vague, and that it seeks information
that is immaterial, irrelevant, and not reasonably calculated to lead to relevant information . See :
Response to Document Request No. 14 .
16.
All documents relating to the following Adjusted Standard Petitions before the
JPCB:
a .
In the Matter of Petition ofFormel Industries, Inc . for an Adjusted
Standard, AS 00-13
b .
In the Matter
of
Petition
of
Vonco Products, Inc. for an Adjusted
Standard, AS 00-12
c.
In the Matter ofPetition ofBema Film Systems, Inc. for an Adjusted
Standard, AS 00-11
RESPONSE :
Complainant objects to Document Request No . 16 as it seeks information that is
immaterial, irrelevant, and not reasonably calculated to lead to relevant information . Adjusted
Standard petitions filed by third parties in an unrelated Board matter have no relation to the
instant case .
16. [Sic] All documents relating to the followingPetitions for Variance from the
Flexographic Printing Rules before the IPCB :
a .
Formel Industries, Inc., PCB 99-165
b .
Vonco Products, Inc., PCB 99-167
c.
Bema Film Systems, Inc., PCB 9-170
RESPONSE :
Complainant objects to this document request as it seeks documents that are immaterial,
irrelevant, and not reasonably calculated to lead to relevant information . See: Response to
Document Request No. 16 [above] .
17.
All documents relating to the Flexographic Printing Rules, including but not
limited to promulgation of the Flexographic Printing Rules, variances and adjusted standards
18
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 16, 2006
from the Flexographic Printing Rules, and enforcement of the Flexographic Printing Rules by
USEPA, the State of Illinois, or any other entity with administrative or judicial enforcement
authority with respect to the Flexographic Printing Rules
.
RESPONSE :
Complainant objects to Document Request No . 17 as it seeks information that is
immaterial, irrelevant, and not reasonably calculated to lead to relevant information. Further
objecting, Respondent's request is highly oppressive and overly burdensome
.
18.
All documents relating to USEPA approval as SIP revisions of the adjusted
standards cited in Document Request 16
.
RESPONSE :
Complainant objects to Document Request No . 18 as it seeks information that is
immaterial, irrelevant, and not reasonably calculated to lead to relevant information in the instant
case .
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
by LISA MADIGAN, Attorney General of the State
of Illinois,
MATTHE
of
Env
Division
By :
CH
OPHER GRANT
Assi!sta t Attorney General
Envi nmental Bureau
188 W. Randolph Street, 20ih Fl
.
Chicago, Illinois 60601
(312) 814-5388
19
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 16, 2006
VERIFICATION
1, DavidBloomnberg,B
ePose
and state, tall have read the attached Responses to
protection
espondent s
rest set
o Interrogatories Agency,
Interrogatories 1, 2, 4, and andare true and correct, d
to
to the best of my knowledge and belief
David Blooinberg/
SUBSCRIBE
AND SWO
TO BEFORE 2005
me this
DAY OF
'-Tt)FKCIAL SEAL"
Vi* Vonlanken
Notary Public, State of Illinois
My Commasi~20D8
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 16, 2006
VERIFICATION
I, Maureen Wozniak, Assistant Counsel for the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, depose
and state, that I have read the attached Responses to Respondent's First Set of Interrogatories and
Request for the Production of Documents, and that the answers to Interrogatories 1, 2, 4, 13, and
14 are true and correct, and that the production of documents is complete, to the best of my
knowledge and belief.
Mae, .,&.
Maureen zniak
SUBSCRIBED AND
SWTRY!
TFORE
me this
Ilk
DAY OF , 2005
TARP 'UBLIC
"OFMCIAL SEAL"
Vicky Vonlauken
Nuury Public, State of
Wins
My Commission Exp . 01/12/7008
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERKS OFFICE, FEBRUARY 16, 2006
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
Complainant,
)
vs
.
)
PCB 04-16
PACKAGING PERSONIFIED; INC .,
)
(Enforcement)
an Illinois corporation,
)
Respondent
.
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, CHRISTOPHER GRANT, an attorney, do certify that I caused
to be served this 18th day of March, 2005,,Complainant's
Responses to Respondent's First Set of Interrogatories and
Requests for the Production of Documents, upon he person listed
.
below, by hand delivery
.
Service List
:
Mr. Roy Harsch
.
Gardner Carton Douglas LLP
191 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 3700
Chicago Illinois 60602
CHRISTOPHER GRANT
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 16, 2006
Exhibit B
ELECTRONIC FILING' RECEIVED, CLERK'S
FFICE, FEBRUARY 16, 2006
FEB-15-2006
0849
DLC LE AL
P.03
AFFIDAVIT OF DONALD SUTTON
I, DONALD SUTTON, after being duly sworn on oath, state that if called upon to testify
in this matter, I would competently testify as follows
:
1. I am employed by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency ("Illinois EPA")
as Manager of the Permit Section for the Bureau of Air . I have held this position title for, and
have worked for Illinois EPA for a total of
Sec
years .
2. My current responsibilities include overseeing -all facets of air permitting and the
records unit. I am familiar with the reports and records maintained by Illinois EPA, Bureau of
Air .
3 .
1 am familiar with the enforcement case People v. Packaging Personified, Inc .,
now pending before the Illinois Pollution Control Board as case No. PCB 04-16 .
4 .
I have reviewed the Interrogatories and Document Requests submitted by
Packaging Personified Inc . in PCB 04-16, and am familiar with the subject matter of the request .
5. The Pollution Control Board rule making process referred to as "R93-9" resulted
in the promulgation of certain regulations now found in 35 Ill. Adm. Code Parts 203, 211, 218
and 219. Part 203 regulates all defined sources of any regulated contaminant . Part 211 provides
definitions. Part 218 regulates emissions of organic material from stationary sources in the
Chicago area. Part 219 regulates emissions of organic material from stationary sources in the
Metro East region of Illinois
.
6. PPI's Interrogatories 6, 7, 8, and 11, would require Illinois EPA to search
hundreds of documents, comprising thousands of pages, including hundreds of records regarding
emission sources unrelated to PPI's business . Assuming that each document would require at
1
ELECTRONIC FILING RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 16, 2006
FEB-15-2006 08 :49
DLC LEUAL
P.04
least five minutes review to determine its relevancy, I estimate that approximately 37 person-
hours would be required to assemble the information requested
.
7. PPI's Interrogatories 9 and 12 would require the Illinois EPA to search hundreds of
pages of information, including information archived and no longer readily available to the
Illinois EPA and information regarding entities not related to this matter . Assuming that each
document would require at least five minutes review to determine its relevancy, I estimate that
37 person-hours would be required to assemble the information requested
.
8 .
Interrogatory No. 11 also requests `every communication between USEPA and
the State of Illinois or any Illinois state agency
.
. ..'. Illinois EPA does not have access to all such
correspondence by USEPA.
9. Interrogatory No. 6 requests "the identity of all entities list on ICPB notice lists and
service lists." The Illinois EPA does not have access to all such correspondence by the ICPB
.
10. Interrogatory No. 7 requests "each and every communication between and among
IEPA, USEPA, and companies listed in Interrogatory 9 .
. .". The Illinois EPA does not have
access to all such correspondence by USEPA and by the referenced companies . Further, the
information does not relate to this matter
.
11 .
PPI's Interrogatory No. 10 requests a list of 'each and every flexographic or
rotogravure printer business in the Chicago area, as that area is described at 35 IAC 218 .100(a)."
Illinois EPA does not keep or maintain a list of all flexographic or rotogravure printing business
in the Chicago area, and would have to expend considerable resources to compile such a list
.
12 .
PPI's Document requests numbers 13 through 17 would also require a search of
many thousands of pages of documents, numerous email communications and computer
2
ELECTRONIC FILING RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 16, 2006
FEB-15-2006
08:50
DLC LEGAL
P.05
generated data. Moreover, much of the requested subject matter would be in the custody of the
Illinois Pollution Control Board, not the Illinois EPA.
FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT
Subscribed and Sworn to
before me thisJ&a day of
Fef'rx
006
b
L
NOTARY PUBLIC
O~FFIC SEAL
BRENDA BOEHNER
NOTMYPUBUC, STATE OFIUWW
4+e
000
D,W
aa
fl-3-
Donald Sutton
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, FEBRUARY 16, 2006
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
Complainant,
vs
.
PACKAGING PERSONIFIED,
INC .,
(Enforcement)
an Illinois corporation,
Respondent
.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I,
CHRISTOPHER GRANT,
an attorney,
do certify that
I caused
to be served this 16" day of February, 2006, the foregoing
Response to Motion to Compel, and Notice of Electronic Filing,
upon the persons listed below, by placing same in an envelope
bearing sufficient postage with the United States Postal Service
located at 100 W . Randolph, Chicago Ill ois
.
Service List
:
Mr. Roy Harsch
Garder Carton Douglas
191 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 3700
Chicago, Illinois 60606-1698
Mr. Bradley P . Halloran
Hearing Officer, IPCB
100 W. Randolph, Chicago IL
via hand delivery
PCB 04-16
CHRISTOPHER GRANT
