PCB
03-95
(Permit Appeal
—
Air)
CLERR~S
o~PrCE
JUN
~
2003
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Pollution
Control Board
NOTICE
OF FILING
TO:
Division of Legal Counsel
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021
North Grand Avenue
East
P.O. Box
19276
Springfield, Illinois
62794-9276
Carol
Sudman
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
600
S.
Second
Street, Suite 402
Springfield, Illinois 62704
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed with the Office ofthe Pollution Control Board
the
ABITEC
CORPORATION’S RESPONSE
TO IEPA’S FIRST
SET
OF
INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENT,
copies of
which are herewith served upon you.
Neal H. Weinfield, Esq.
Bryan E. Keyt, Esq.
Thor W. Ketzback, Esq.
Bell, Boyd
&
Lloyd LLC
Three First National Plaza
70 West Madison Street
Chicago, Illinois
60602
Telephone:
312.372.1121
Facsimile: 312.827.8000
O~(~
/
~
Neal
i-f
Weinfield
BEFORE
ABITEC CORPORATION,
Petitioner,
BOARD
v.
)
)
)
)
)
)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, certify that I have served the attached
ABITEC CORPORATION’S
RESPONSE
TO
IEPA’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENT
by depositing said document in the United States Mail via
Certified Mail in Chicago, Illinois
on June 6, 2003, upon: the following persons:
Robb
Layman, Esq.
Division ofLegal Counsel
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021 North Grand Avenue East
P.O.
Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois
62794-9276
Neal H. Weinfield, Esq.
Bryan E. Keyt,
Esq.
Thor W. Ketzback, Esq.
Bell, Boyd
& Lloyd LLC
Three First National Plaza
70 West Madison Street
Chicago, Illinois
60602
Telephone:
312.372.1121
Facsimile:
312.827.8000
Ms.
Carol Sudman
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
600
S.
Second Street, Suite 402
Springfield, Illinois 62704
Neal H. Weinfield
Ii
CLERR~OFFICE
BEFORE
(~
~~1AJJ
~
(
CONTROL BOARD
JUN
6
~oo~
ABITEC CORPORATION,
‘~‘J\\LJ
\sJIJ Ii\i
~
Pollution
Control
&ard
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
PCB 03-95
)
(Permit Appeal
—
Air)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
)
Respondent.
)
ABITEC CORPORATION’S RESPONSE TO IEPA’S FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Petitioner, ABITEC
CORPORATION (“ABITEC”), byand through its attorneys, Bell,
Boyd
&
Lloyd LLC, submits its Answers to Respondent’s First Set of Interrogatories and
Request For Documents pursuant to 35
Illinois Administrative Code (“IAC”)
§~
101.616 and
101.620.
ABITEC states as follows:
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
1.
ABITEC objects to each ofdefendant’s Interrogatories and to the accompanying
Definitions and Instructions to
the extent those Interrogatories, Definitions and Instructions
purport to impose any burden on ABITEC not imposed by the applicable
discovery provisions of
the Illinois Pollution Control Board (“IPCB”), the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure and Illinois
Supreme Court Rules.
2.
ABITEC objects to
the Definitions and Instructions accompanying defendant’s
Interrogatories on the grounds that they are
overbroad, unduly
burdensome and call for
information which is neither relevant to the subject matter of this Petition norreasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
With respect to specific Definitions
and Instructions, ABITEC objects as follows:
(a)
ABITEC objects to the definition of“identify” with respect to a natural
person as overbroadand unduly burdensome to the extent that it
requires
information in excess ofthat reasonably necessary
for defendant to
ascertainthe identity ofa person and/or enable defendant to contact that
person, ifappropriate;
(b)
ABITEC objects to the definition of “identify” when
referring to an entity
other than a natural person as overbroad andunduly burdensome to the
extent that it requires information in excess ofthat which is
reasonably
necessary for defendant to ascertainthe identity ofa firm, corporation,
proprietorship, joint venture, association or other organization or entity
and/or to enable
defendant to
contact that firm, corporation,
proprietorship, joint venture, association or other organization or
entity, if
appropriate;
(c)
ABITEC
objects to the definition of “identify” when referring to
a
document or other tangible item
as overbroad and unduly burdensome to
the extent that it requires information in
excess ofthat which is reasonably
necessary to
identify the document; and
(d)
ABITEC objects to the definition of “identify” when referring to an
activity or oral communication as overbroad and unduly burdensome to
the extent that it requires information in excess ofthatwhich is reasonably
necessary for defendant to
ascertainthe nature ofthe activity
or the
content of the oralcommunication
3.
ABITEC objects
to Respondent’s Interrogatories to the extent thatthey seek the
disclosure ofinformation:
(a)
constituting, reflecting or disclosing any information protected by an
immunity or privilege, including, but not limited to attorney
work product
and confidential attorney-client communications;
(b)
constituting, reflecting or disclosing trade secrets or other
confidential
commercial, financial or business information until such time or the Court
has entered an appropriate protective order; and
(c)
which defendants, their attorneys or their agents already have in their
possession (including but not limited
to all pleadings, correspondence,
filings and
other matters of public record) and to which defendants, their
attorneys or their agents haveequal or superior access.
4.
Additionally,
ABITEC makes these responses without intending to waive, and
intending to preserve all of:
2
(a)
its objections to the competency, relevancy, materiality, authenticity, and
admissibility of
any documents produced, or to the subject matter thereof;
(b)
its rights to object on any ground to the use ofany information disclosed,
or the subject matter thereofin any subsequent proceedings,
including the
trial ofthis or any other action;
(c)
its
rights to
object on any ground to any request for further responses to
these or any
other discovery requests, involving or related to the subject
matter of these discovery requests; and
(d)
its rights to amend any responses and
objections herein.
5.
ABITEC objects to the production of documents produced by third-parties
pursuant to subpoena or to the production of any other documents already in the possession of
defendant.
ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES
1.
For each Interrogatorybelow, identify the
person(s) responding to the
Interrogatory and all persons who were consulted or otherwise assisted withthe preparation of
the Interrogatory.
ANSWER:
In addition to the foregoing objections, ABITEC
objects to Interrogatory No.
1
on the grounds
that it is vague and overbroad.
Subject to
all the foregoing objections, the following list of
individuals assisted in responding to these interrogatories.
Bernie Hinkle, Plant Manager
Mike Beesley, Production Manager
Dale Sarrazin, Area Manager
Ken Cram, Plant Engineer/Maintenance Manager
Paul Meisner, Plant Comptroller
Larry Werner, Director of Sales and Marketing
Jerald Kroehn, Consultants
Harold Karnes, Consultants
JeffDeToro, Trinity Consultants
Brad Sims,
Trinity Consultants
2.
Identify each person having knowledge of facts relevant to the subject matter of
this appeal.
3
ANSWER:
In addition to
the foregoing objections, ABITEC
objects to
Interrogatory No. 2 on the grounds
that it is vague, overbroad and unduly burdensome.
Subject to all the foregoing objections, see
response to Interrogatory No.
1.
3.
Identify each person whom you intend to
call as a fact witness
at the hearing on
this matter.
ANSWER:
Subject to
all the foregoing objections, ABITEC may call any witness listed
in Interrogatory No.
1.
ABITEC reserves its right to supplement these interrogatories to designate
witnesses at a later
date.
4.
Identify each person you intend to
call as an opinion witness
at the hearing on this
matter and for each person identify:
a.
The subject matter which
each such witness
is expected to testify;
b.
The conclusions and opinions of each such witness and the bases therefor;
c.
The qualifications of each such witness;
e.
The identity of any reports or analyses that have been prepared by each
such witness relating to this matter; and
f.
The curriculum vitae and resume for each such witness.
ANSWER:
Subject to all the foregoing objections, ABITEC has not designated
expert witnesses at this time.
ABITEC reserves its right to supplement these interrogatories to
designate expert witnesses at a
later date.
5.
State whether Abitec is affiliated with, or possesses a corporate
or
business-related interest in, a parent and/or subsidiary company and, if so, identify the name,
address and the nature ofthe business ofeachparent and/or subsidiary company.
4
ANSWER:
In addition to the foregoing objections,
ABITEC
objects to
Interrogatory No.
5
on the grounds
that it is vague, overbroad and unduly burdensome.
Subject
to all the foregoing objections,
ABITEC’s parent corporation is ABF North America (“ABF”), 7171
Goodlett Farms Pilce,
Cordova, Tennessee.
Additional information regarding ABF
and other business entities related
to ABF can be found at www.abfoods.com.
6.
Identify whether Abitec’s sterol refining processes produce a commercial product
other than prills that are sold or distributed by Abitec and, if so, describe in detail the facts and
any documents that relate to the product’s
nature, composition and
uses.
ANSWER:
In addition to the foregoing objections, ABITEC objects to Interrogatory No.
6 on the grounds
that it is vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome,
calls for information that is irrelevant to the
subject matter ofABITEC’s Petition and is not likely to
lead to
the discovery of admissible
evidence.
Subject to all the foregoing objections, all ofthe products produced in the sterol
refining process at ABITEC’s Paris Facility are prilled.
7.
Identify and describe in
detail the purpose and/or the role of prills in margarine
products and salad dressings.
ANSWER:
In addition to the foregoing objections, ABITEC objects to
Interrogatory No. 7 on the grounds
that it is vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome and irrelevant and calls for expert opinion
testimony.
Subject to all the foregoing objections, scientific literature
provides that sterols are
added into food products to
lower cholesterol in the human body.
For a complete list of
scientific literature that ABITEC is
relying upon,
see Attachment A.
The documents listed in
Attachment A are also being produced pursuant to the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency’s (“IEPA”) document production request.
5
8.
Identify and
describe in detail any facts and
supporting documents relating to
Take Control®, as referenced in Abitec’s Petition For Hearing
and Appeal filed in this cause.
ANSWER:
In addition to the foregoing objections, ABITEC objects to Interrogatory No.
8 on the grounds
that it is vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome and calls for expert opinion testimony.
Subject
to all the foregoing objections,
Take Control has been the subject of scientific studies
that
indicate that the sterol ingredients contained within the spread help reduce cholesterol in the
human body.
Also, see the scientific literature identified in Interrogatory No. 7.
9.
Identify and describe in detail any facts and
supporting documents relating to the
meaning ofthe term “phytosterols.”
ANSWER:
In addition to the foregoing objections, ABITEC objects to Interrogatory No.
9 on the grounds
that it is vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome and calls for expert opinion testimony.
Subject
to all the foregoing objections, Phytosterols is a term that encompasses both plant sterols and
stanols.
Plant sterols
and stanols are similar in chemical structure to
cholesterol.
Because ofthe
chemical similarity to cholesterol, plant sterols and stanols block the absorption ofcholesterol in
the human body by mimicking
cholesterol.
Accordingly, phytosterols have been designated as a
substance Generally Recognized as Safe (“GRAS”) by the United States Food and Drug
Administration (“FDA”) as of August
19, 2002.
Also, see the scientific literature identified in
Interrogatory No. 7.
10.
Identify and
describe in detail the uses, as well as the purpose and/or role, ofprills
other than for margarine products and salad dressings, including applications outside of food
manufacturing, and identify any documents relied upon in answering the same.
ANSWER:
In addition to the foregoing objections, ABITEC objects to Interrogatory No.
10 on the grounds
that it is vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome,
irrelevant to the subject matter of the Petition,
6
calls for speculation and calls for expert opinion testimony.
Subject to all the foregoing
objections, the purpose and role of sterols are as described in the scientific literature referenced
in Interrogatory No.
7.
In addition to margarine products and salad dressings, the scientific
literature notes that sterols are used in food products such as yogurt, yogurt-like products, milk
based beverages, non-standardized ice cream products, cream cheese, cream cheese-like
products, snack bars, mayonnaise, white breads and white bread products.
11.
Identify the name and address of any and all
customers of prills produced by the
facility, including customers of both Abitec and, to
the extent the information is known or is
supported by documents that are in the possession, custody or control ofAbitec, its predecessors,
either ACH Food Companies, Inc.,
or Morgan Specialties, Inc., and, in conjunction therewith,
identify any documents relied upon in answering the same.
ANSWER:
In addition to the foregoing objections, ABITEC objects to Interrogatory No.
11
on the grounds
that
it is vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant and
is not likely to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.
Subject to
all the foregoing objections, the following list
identifies customers of ABITEC that purchase sterols.
•
ADM Company
Natural Heath & Nutrition Division
Decatur, IL
•
Cognis Corporation
Heath and Nutrition Group
LaGrange, IL
•
Cargill, Inc.
Health and Food Technologies
Minneapolis, MN
•
Monsanto
St. Louis,
MO
•
Pharmacia
Kalamazoo, MI
7
•
Traco Labs (now Degussa)
Champaign, IL
•
Organic Specialties
Coshocton,
OH
•
Murietta Trading Co. Inc.
San Diego, CA
•
Rabinovitz & Co.
Israel
•
Resitec
Brazil
12.
Identify and describe in detail all facts relating to the uses, as well as the purpose
and/or role, ofthe prills purchased by each of Abitec’s customers and, in conjunction therewith,
identify any documents relied upon in answering the same.
ANSWER:
In addition to the foregoing objections, ABITEC objects to Interrogatory No.
12 on the grounds
that it is vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant to the subject matter of the petition
and
for ABITEC may not possess.
Subject to all the foregoing objections, ABITEC cannot
speculate as to all the uses ofits refined sterols by its customers.
Based on information and
belief, ABITEC states that all its refined sterols are used as food additives.
As described in
Interrogatories No,
9 and 10, sterols
are used in numerous food products.
13.
To
the extent that the following information is known or is supported by
documents that are in the possession, custody or control of Abitec, identify and
describe in detail
all facts relating to the uses, as well as the purpose and/or role, of the prills that were purchased
by customers of Abitec’s predecessors, either ACH Food Companies, Inc.,
or Morgan
Specialties, Inc., and, in conjunction therewith, identify any documents relating to the
same.
8
ANSWER:
In addition to
the foregoing objections, ABITEC objects to Interrogatory No.
13
on the grounds
that it is vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant to
the subject matter ofthe petition, is
not likely to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence and
calls for information ABITEC
may
not possess.
Subject
to all the foregoing objections,
ABITEC does not possess the information
requested in this interrogatory with respect to
Morgan Specialties, Inc. because that information
was destroyed in a fire at the Paris Facility in
1997.
Furthermore, ABITEC
is unable to
speculate as to how its processed sterols
were used by its predecessor’s
customers.
14.
Identify and describe in detail whether the prills, as produced and sold by Abitec
in their final form, are suitable
for direct and/or immediate food consumption or, alternatively,
whether said prills must be
further refined and/or processed by Abitec’s customers and,
in
conjunction therewith, identify any documents relied upon in answering
the same.
ANSWER:
In addition to the foregoing objections, ABITEC objects to
Interrogatory No.
14
on the grounds
that it is vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant to
the subject matter of the petition,
calls for information ABITEC
may not possess, calls for speculation and seeks information more
appropriately obtained in a discovery deposition.
Subject to
all the foregoing objections, upon
information and belief,
ABITEC states that most sterols purchased from the Paris Facility are
further processed into sterol esters that are incorporated into margarines and salad dressings.
15.
Identify and describe in detail the annual sales figures for prills produced by the
facility’s sterol refining operations, as well as the percentage of sales ofprills for each year in
comparison to sales from other products produced at the facility, and, in conjunction therewith,
identify any documents relied upon in
answering the same.
ANSWER:
In addition to the foregoing objections, ABITEC objects to
Interrogatory No.
15
on the grounds
that it is vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome and
irrelevant to the subject matter ofthe
Petition and not likely to
lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence.
Subject
to all the
9
foregoing objections, ABITEC is providing IEPA with a spreadsheet that summarizes the
quantity of sterols sold since
1998 and the percentage oftotal facility sales each variety of sterols
represent.
ABITEC considers
the dollar figure of its
sales as proprietary information which will
be provided to
IEPA upon the negotiation of an
appropriate protective order.
According
to
invoice information provided by ABITEC’s corporate headquarters,
sterol sales represent
approximately
34.8 percent of sales compared to
other products produced at the Paris
Facility.
If
necessary, these records will also be provided upon the negotiation of an appropriate protective
order.
16.
Identify, by name and
address, any and
all business competitors known to
Abitec
that are engaged in the production of prills and include an identification and description offacts
and supporting documents relating to
the same.
ANSWER:
In addition to the foregoing objections, ABITEC objects to Interrogatory No.
16 on the grounds
that it is vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome,
irrelevant to the subject matter ofthe Petition,
calls for information ABITEC
may not possess and
seeks information more appropriately
obtained in a discovery deposition.
Subject
to
all the foregoing objections, ABITEC believes the
following companies produce sterols.
•
ADM Company
Natural Heath & Nutrition Division
Decatur, IL
•
Cognis Corporation
Heath and Nutrition Group
LaGrange, IL
(Plant in Kankakee, IL and Boussens, France)
•
Cargill,
Inc.
Health and Food Technologies
Minneapolis, MN (Plant in Eddyville, IA)
10
•
Forbes Medi-Tech
Vancouver, BC
Canada
•
Phyto-Source, LP
(Joint Venture ofForbes Medi-Tech
and Chusie Inc.)
Pasadena, TX
•
Arboris LLC
(Joint Venture ofInternational
Paper (Arizona Chemical) and
Harting Group, Chile)
Jaclcsonville, FL (Plant in Savannah, GA)
•
Raisio Group
Finland
•
Teriaka
Finland
•DRT
Saint-Girons, France
•
UPM-Kymmene
Finland
17.
Identify any and all documents that have been submitted on behalfofthe facility,
including by Abitec or on behalfof Abitec’s predecessors, either ACH Food Companies, Inc., or
Morgan Specialties, Inc.,
to the Illinois Department ofEmployment
Security in which a Standard
Industrial Classification (“SIC”) code was identified for the facility.
ANSWER:
In addition to the foregoing objections, ABITEC
objects to Interrogatory No.
17
on the grounds
that it is
vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome and irrelevant to
the subject matter ofthe
petition.
Subject to
all the foregoing objections, ABITEC has not and
is not required to
submit
information identifying
its SIC code to the Illinois Department of Employment Security.
18.
Identify and
describe in detail the manufacturing processes that occur in the K-3
reactor train, including any chemical and physical reactions that take place therein, and the type
and/or nature of the emissions that are emitted therein.
11
ANSWER:
In addition to the foregoing objections, ABITEC
objects to
Interrogatory No.
18 on the grounds
that it is vague and calls for expert opinion testimony.
Subject to the foregoing objections,
ABITEC responds that after the heptane washing process occurs
in reactor train K-2, a sterol
slurry is transferred to reactor train K-3.
In reactor train K-3, a vacuum system with steam jets
converts the heptane and methanol within the sterol product from liquid to
gas, draws the gas out
ofthe vessel and directs the gas to
the primary condensers,
secondary condenser and methanol
recovery system.
19.
Identify and describe in detail the maximum potential VOM emissions
from the
K-3 reactor train and
include an identification of any documents and supporting calculations
and/or methodologies employed in quantifying the same.
ANSWER:
In addition to the foregoing objections, ABITEC objects to Interrogatory No.
19 on the grounds
that it is vague, duplicative of information IEPA
already possesses, premature for disclosure and
calls for expert opinion testimony.
Subject to
the foregoing objections, ABITEC states that it
submitted information regarding its maximum potential VOM emissions to IEPA in
its January
2002 CAAPP permit application supplement on pages 0008 13-000823 ofthe Administrative
Record.
As described in these documents, ABITEC used a material balance methodology to
calculate VOM emissions.
The data utilized
to determine the loss factor for K3 was provided to
IEPA at page 000817 ofthe Administrative Record, Tables A-i
(Table A-i
is located at page
001140 ofthe Administrative Record) and A-3 ofthe April 1999 Application to
Modify the Paris
Facility’s
sterol refining process (#930701 11) (See Attachment C)
and page
3
of Appendix A of
the Application For Permit to Construct and Operate Solvent Recovery System (August 2000)
(See Attachment D).
In addition, supporting calculations to determine VOM emissions
emanating from ABITEC’s sterol refining process were provided to IEPA in the original CAAPP
12
permit application as evidenced by pages 000244-000278 of the Administrative Record.
Finally,
ABITEC’s examination of the information previously provided to
IEPA has revealed new
information concerning fugitive emissions and the percentage of emissions originating from each
reactor trainthat has changed the loss factor for K3
and, thus,
has slightly adjusted the emissions
emanating from K3
from 51.04 tons/year (“tons/yr”) to
57.84 tons/yr.
(See Attachment E).
20.
Identify and describe in detail the reasons why Abitec produces
prills from both
concentrated
sterol distillate (i.e., crude free sterols) and
sterol ester residues, as described
in
Abitec’s Petition for Hearing and Appeal.
ANSWER:
In addition to the foregoing objections, ABITEC
objects to Interrogatory No. 20 on the grounds
that it is vague, irrelevant to the subject matter ofABITEC’s petition, and is not
likely to lead to
the discovery ofadmissible evidence.
Subject to all the foregoing objections, ABITEC’s Paris
Facility
is the only toll processor in Illinois capable ofprocessing sterol ester residues.
21.
Identify and describe in detail the impact, financial and otherwise, from the
elimination of the sterol ester residues from Abitec’s production of prills and, in conjunction
therewith,
identify any documents relied upon in
answering the same.
ANSWER:
In addition to
the foregoing objections, ABITEC objects to Interrogatory No. 21
on the grounds
that it is vague, irrelevant to the subject matter of ABITEC’s petition, and
is not likely
to lead to
the discovery ofadmissible evidence.
Subject
to all the foregoing objections, ABITEC stated in
its
Petition that sterol ester residues comprise approximately 36 percent ofall
sterols processed at
the Paris Facility.
Also,
see answer to Interrogatory No.
15.
22.
Identify and describe in detail
all facts and documents relied upon by
Abitec to
support its belief that maximum potential volatile organic material (“VOM”) emissions from the
K-i reactor train, as identified by Abitec in its CAAPP permit application,
are 45.76 tons per
year and include any and
all supporting calculations and/or methodologies employed in
quantifying the same.
13
ANSWER:
In addition to the foregoing objections, ABITEC objects to Interrogatory No. 22 on the grounds
that it is vague, duplicative of information IEPA already possesses, premature for disclosure and
calls for expert opinion testimony.
Subject to
the foregoing objections, see Interrogatory No.
19.
In addition, for the same reason provided in Interrogatory No.
19, ABITEC is providing JEPA
with revised calculations in Attachment E that lower the maximum potential VOM emissions at
reactor train Kl
from 45.76 tons/yr to 28.40 tons/yr.
23.
Identify the various control equipment or devices that are employed or operated
by Abitec for each of the K-i, K-2 and K-3 reactor trains, as identified by Abitec in its CAAPP
permit
application, and describe in detail how said equipment or devices work in design and
operation and how, to any extent, any ofthe equipment or devices operate in combination or in
series with each other to control VOM or Hazardous Air Pollutant emissions.
ANSWER:
In addition to the foregoing objections, ABITEC objects to Interrogatory No. 23
on the grounds
that it is vague and calls for expert opinion testimony.
Subject to the foregoing objections, a list
ofthe various control equipment was provided in the January 2002 CAAPP Application
Supplement at pages 000350 and 000355 ofthe Administrative Record.
In addition,
a process
flow diagram was provided to IEPA at page 000363
ofthe Administrative Record.
As described
at page 000355 of the Administrative Record, primary condensers (C-1-C-7) are connected to
each ofthe vessels in the Reactor Trains.
The exhaust
from the primary condensers
are ducted to
the secondary condenser SC-i
for additional heptane and
methanol recovery.
Finally, the
exhaust from secondary condenser SC-i
is ducted to
the solvent recovery system,
SC-2, for
additional methanol recovery.
Furthermore, the 43.5 percent control efficiency of heptane
described in the Petition was inaccurate.
As provided in Table A-3 of the April
1999
Application to Modify the Paris Facility’s sterol refining process (#93070111), heptane is
controlled by a combination of the primary condensers and
SC-i, the secondary condenser.
The
14
control efficiency ofthe primary condensers for heptane are 69.2 percent and the control
efficiency of SC-i
is 43.5 percent.
Together, the primary condensers and SC-i
have a heptane
control efficiency ofapproximately 82.6 percent.
24.
Identify the estimated capture system efficiency, control system efficiency and
overall reduction efficiency ofthe control equipment or devices associated with each of the K-i,
K-2 and K-3 reactor trains, as referenced by Abitec in its CAAPP permit application, and
describe all facts and documents that support the estimations, including
any and
all supporting
calculations and/or methodologies employed
in said estimations.
ANSWER:
In addition to
the foregoing objections, ABITEC objects to
Interrogatory No. 22
on the grounds
that it is vague and calls for expert opinion testimony.
Subject to the foregoing objections, the
the control equipment efficiencies are provided in Table A-3 ofthe April
1999 Application to
Modify ABITEC’s sterol refining process (#93070111) and page
3 ofAppendix A ofthe
Application For Permit to
Construct and Operate Solvent Recovery System (August 2000) in the
technical
performance specifications generated by the Industrial Technology Group (See
Attachments C and D).
Also, see
answer to
Interrogatory No. 23.
25.
Identify the name and address ofthe manufacturer for each ofthe control
equipment or devices employed by Abitec in the K-i, K-2 and
K-3 reactor trains.
ANSWER:
In addition to the foregoing objections, ABITEC objects to
Interrogatory No.
25
on the grounds
that it is irrelevant and is not likely to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence.
Subject to
the foregoing objections, ABITEC
is providing IEPA with the following list ofcompanies that
manufactured the control equipment at the Paris Facility.
•
Chart recorders and temperature probes
Partlow Corporation
2 Campion Road
New Hartford, NY
13413
15
•
Reactors and Jackets
Pfaudler Inc
Po Box 23600
Rochester, NY
14692
•
Primary condensers
Alaskan Cor~erWorks
-
Stainless Products Division,
Fabrication
Division
3200 6th Avenue South
Seattle, WA
98134
•
Computer interface
Rockwell
Automation
1201
South 2nd Street
Milwaukee, WI
53204
•
York compressor
York International
Corporation
631
South Richland Avenue
York, PA
17403
•
Secondary condenser
E
L
Nickell
CO Inc
385 Centreville Rd
Constantine, MI
49042
•
Pressure indicators and alarms
United
Electrical
Control
85 School
Watertown, MA
02472
•
Cooling towers
Marley Cooling
Tower
CO
the
World
Headquarters
7401
West 129th Street
Shawnee Mission, KS
66213
26.
Identify any
and all person(s) that has inspected,
serviced, maintained and/or
repaired any ofthe control equipment or devices used by Abitec in the K-i, K-2 and K-3 reactor
trains since installation, together with a description ofall facts and an
identification of all
documents relating to
any
such occurrences.
16
ANSWER:
In addition to the foregoing objections, ABITEC objects to Interrogatory No. 26 on the grounds
that it is irrelevant, is not likely to lead to the discovery ofadmissible
evidence and
seeks
information more appropriately obtained in a discovery deposition.
Subject
to the foregoing
objections, ABITEC
is providing IEPA with the following list ofcompanies that have performed
maintenance
activities on its
sterol refining operations.
For documents related to this
interrogatory, see
Attachment H.
•
Sterol
Refining Operators have worked on Chart Recorders.
•
Paul and Larry Hornbrook of Hornbrook Welding have performed maintenance on the
primary condensers.
Further, the primary condensers were installed by Elite Construction.
•
Glycol Tanlc and ABITEC Maintenance have performed maintenance activities
on the
Secondary Condensers
•
ACH/ABITEC Maintenance, Elite Construction, Kennedy
Tanks, Hornbrook Welding and
Altert Construction
all performed maintenance on the jackets.
27.
Identify any and all records that are maintained and/or compiled by Abitec in
monitoring the operation of each control equipment or devices used by Abitec
in the K-i, K-2
and K-3 reactor trains, including any and
all charts or data generated by chart data recorders
and/or continuous monitoring devices.
ANSWER:
In addition to the foregoing objections, ABITEC
objects to
Interrogatory No.
27 on the grounds
that it is vague, unduly burdensome,
duplicative, irrelevant and
is not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence.
Subject
to the foregoing objections, ABITEC
states that a complete set ofproduction records are kept on file for each and
every batch of
sterols processed at the Paris
Facility.
ABITEC is providing IEPA with a representative sample
ofthe documents that comprise production records
for a batch ofrefined sterols that undergo
transesterification (See
Attachment F).
The production records produced contain the following
17
documents:
(1) temperature recorder charts; (2) batch composite
sheet; (3) batch sheets from
operators; (4) sterol summary sheet; (5) batch information sheet; (6) finished refined production
weight sheet; (7) prilled productrun information and individual bag
weight sheet; (8) pig melting
and prilling worksheet; (9) sterol prilling weight sheet; (10) incoming material bill
oflading; (11)
incoming weight sheets; (12) routing information; and (13) incoming certificate of analysis.
28.
Identify by
dates and describe all facts and documents relating to
whether any of
the control equipment or devices used by Abitec
in the K- 1, K-2 and K-3 reactor trains have
underwent emissions testing (i.e., performance or “stack” test) and identify and describe all facts
and documents relating to said emissions testing.
ANSWER:
In addition to the foregoing objections, ABITEC objects to Interrogatory No. 28 on the grounds
that it is vague and requests information that ABITEC does not possess.
Subject to
the foregoing
objections, ABITEC responds that the emissions control equipment associated with the
sterol
refining process have not undergone stack testing or other types ofperformance tests.
29.
Identify the amount of VOM emissions actually emitted to the atmosphere (i.e.,
after the use ofpollution controls) from each of the K-i, K-2 and
K-3 reactor trains, on both a
monthly and annual basis, for the period ofSeptember 1998 to
the present and include any and
all supporting
calculations and/or methodologies employed in quantifying said actual emissions.
ANSWER:
In addition to the foregoing objections, ABITEC
objects to Interrogatory No. 29 on the grounds
that
it is
vague and duplicative of materials IEPA
already possesses.
Subject to
the foregoing
objections, the annual actual emissions from the sterol refining operations that were reported to
IEPA are contained in Attachment G.
On May 29, 2003, Trinity Consultants recalculated the
actual emissions based on the new batch factors discussed in Interrogatories No.
19 and 22. (See
Attachment G).
Further information regarding the methodology employed to calculate emissions
from Reactor Trains Ki,
K2 and K3 can be found in the documents responsive to Interrogatories
No.
19 and 22.
18
30.
To the extent the following information is known or
is supported by documents
that are in the possession, custody or control ofAbitec, identify and describe all facts and
documents relating to
the amount
ofVOM emissions
actually emitted to the atmosphere
(i.e.,
after the use of pollution controls) from each ofthe K-i, K-2 and K-3 reactor trains, on a
monthly and annual basis, by Abitec’s predecessors, either ACH Food Companies, Inc., or
Morgan Specialties, Inc.
ANSWER:
In addition to the foregoing objections, ABITEC
objects to
Interrogatory No.
30
on the grounds
that it is vague and
duplicative of materials IEPA
already possesses.
Subject to the foregoing
objections, see answers to Interrogatories No.
19, No.
22 and No.
29.
Dated:
June 6, 2003
Respectfully submitted,
ABITEC CORPORATION
Neal H. Weinfield
19
Attachments
Aval lab 1 e
On
Request
