t. 4
RECE
WED
CLERK’S OFFICE
BEFORE THE
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
APR
2
20
CHAMPAIGN COUNTY, ILLINOIS
MORTON
F. DOROTHY,
)
)
Complainant,
)
)
)
No.
PCB 05-049
)
FLEX-N-GATECORPORATION,
an Illinois Corporation,
)
Respondent.
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I,
the undersigned,
certify
that,
on the 2~dayof April, 2005,
I
served the
listed
documents, by first class mail, upon the listed persons:
SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST TO ADMIT THE TRUTH OF CERTAIN FACTS
SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORIES
Thomas
G.
Safley
Carol Webb
Hodge Dwyer Zeman
Hearing Officer, IPCB
3150 Roland Avenue
1021
North Grand Avenue
East
Post Office Box 5776
Post Office Box 19274
Springfield,
IL 62705-5776
Springfield,
IL 62794-9274
,~ ~
Morton
F.
Dorothy, Complainant
Morton
F.
Dorothy
804 East Main
Urbana
IL 61802
vs.
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Pollution Control Board
)
)
217/384-1010
RECEIVED
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
CLERK’S OFFICE
CHAMPAIGN COUNTY, ILLINOIS
APR
282005
MORTON
F.
DOROTHY,
)
STATE OF ILLINOIS
)
Pollution Control boarci
Complainant,
)
)
vs.
)
No.
PCB 05-049
)
FLEX-N-GATE CORPORATION,
)
an
Illinois Corporation,
)
)
Respondent.
)
SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST TO ADMIT
THE TRUTH OF CERTAIN FACTS
Complainant
Morton
F.
Dorothy requests that respondent Flex-N-Gate
Corporation admit the truth ofthe
following statements within 28 days after the date of
this request. Failure
to respond to the following requests to admit within
28 days may
have severe consequences.
Failure to respond to the following requests will result in
all
the facts requested being deemed admitted as true for this proceeding.
If you
have any
questions about this procedure,
you should contact the hearing officer assigned to this
proceeding or an attorney.
1.
Respondent claims exemption from the RCRA permit requirement pursuant to 35
III. Adm.
Code 703.123(a) and 722.134(a) with
respect to one or more wastes
generated by the Guardian West facility.
2.
Respondent prepared an “Emergency Response and Contingency Plan”
pursuant to 35111. Adm.
Code 725.151 through 725.156 for the Guardian West
facility.
3.
Respondent prepared an “Emergency Response and Contingency Plan”
pursuant to 35111. Adm. Code 725.151 through 725.156for the Guardian West
facility with the
intention of meeting the conditions of Section 722.134(a)(4).
4.
The acid spilled in the August 5, 2004 incident was mainly concentrated sulfuric
acid from the
line used to fill Tank 8.
•
5.
Concentrated
sulfuric acid
reacts violently when added to water,
producing
heat,
high temperature, agitation and boiling.
6.
Although
it is possible that some of the dilute
sulfuric acid in Tank 8 back-
siphoned out of the tank,
the
spill was
mainly concentrated sulfuric acid from the
fill line.
t
7.
The spill was not from the line used
to drain Tank 8.
8.
The spill
cleaned
all of the corrosion off the copper conductors
in the vicinity of
the separated pipe, exposing bright copper metal.
9.
The odor
produced
in the August 5, 2004 incident was not the odor of sulfuric
acid.
10.
The odor
produced
in the August 5, 2004 incident was consistent with the odor
of hydrogen
sulfide.
11.
Although the odor produced in the August 5, 2004 incident was similar to the
odorificant used to mark propane gas, no propane tanks were observed close to
the source of the odor, leaking or otherwise.
12.
During the response to the spill at the
end of third
shift, August 4-5,
2004,
no
person who was present made any statement that the odor was something other
than hydrogen sulfide.
13.
Respondent made
no attempt to take samples to identify the source of the odor
on August 5, 2004.
14.
Copper metal
is capable of reducing sulfuric acid, producing sulfur oxides in a
reduced oxidation state.
15.
Elemental sulfur can form by disproportionation in a complex mixture of sulfites,
sulfates and sulfur in other oxidation
states.
16.
Elemental sulfur can react with water to form sulfides.
17.
Any sulfide formed under the conditions usually present on the plating room floor
would precipitate, mainly as nickel sulfide.
18.
The
precipitation of nickel sulfide from
an aqueous system
including sulfate,
sulfite, elemental sulfur and sulfide would tend to drive the oxidation/reduction
equilibrium toward
the formation of sulfide.
19.
Additives HSA-90 and TA are
used
in Tank 20 to form a high sulfur layer to
promote corrosion
resistance.
20.
Additive HSA-90 contains reduced forms of sulfur.
21.
Additive TA contains reduced forms of sulfur.
22.
Reduced sulfur oxides are an expected decomposition
product of HSA-90.
23.
Additive 2-NS includes formaldehyde.
24.
Formaldehyde can act as a reducing agent.
25.
Additive TL includes I ,4-butynediol.
26.
1 ,4-butyned101
can act as a reducing agent.
27.
Additives 2-NS, TL, HSA-90 and TA are used and spilled across from and in
close proximity to Tank 8.
28.
No strong oxidizing agents are normally used or spilled in the vicinity of Tank 8.
29.
During the incident
on August 5, 2004, complainant asked Denny Corbett for a
hydrogen
sulfide probe.
a.
Denny Corbett did not inform complainant or other persons involved
in
spill response that respirators effective against hydrogen
sulfide were
available.
b.
Denny Corbett did not inform complainant or other persons involved
in
spill
response that a hydrogen
sulfide probe was available.
c.
Denny Corbett did not produce a hydrogen sulfide probe during the
incident.
30.
Respondent did not measure the hydrogen sulfide levels in the atmosphere in
the vicinity of the spill at the end of third
shift, August 4-5, 2004.
a.
Respondent did not attempt to measure the hydrogen
sulfide levels in the
atmosphere in the vicinity of the
spill at the end of third
shift, August 4-5,
2004.
b.
Respondent did not attempt to measure the hydrogen
sulfide levels in the
atmosphere near the roof vents at the end of third shift, August 4-5,
2004.
31.
In
response to Question
10, Respondent identified only Afiba Martin as having
reported being sickened
by the release.
a.
Complainant reported that he was sickened.
b.
Denny Corbett reported that he was sickened
c.
Joseph Al-Hussani reported that
he was sickened.
d.
Regina Lebbie reported that she was sickened.
Morton
F. Dorothy
804 East Main
~4u
Urbana
IL 61802
~-~-~u
FiT2or?~om
~,
217/384-1010
Morton
F.
Dorothy, Complainant
RECEIVED
CLERK’S OFFICE
BEFORE THE
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
AD~
CHAMPAIGN COUNTY,
ILLINOIS
MUI~
282005
STATE OF ILLINOIS
MORTON
F.
DOROTHY,
)
Pollution Control Board
)
Complainant,
)
)
vs.
)
No.
PCB 05-049
)
FLEX-N-GATE CORPORATION,
)
an
Illinois Corporation,
)
)
Respondent.
SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORIES
Complainant Morton
F. Dorothy requests that respondent Flex-N-Gate
Corporation respond tothe following supplemental interrogatories within 30 days
after
the date of this request:
In
response to Question 3 and Requests to Admit 5 through 7,
Respondent
claims that only “some of the hazardous waste that the facility at issue generates
is
managed
pursuant to” 35 III. Adm. Code 722.134.
a.
Which wastes does respondent claim to manage pursuant to 35
III. Adm.
Code 722.134?
b.
Which wastes does respondent claim to not manage pursuant to 35
Ill.
Adm.
Code 722.134?
c.
Provide a map delineating the portions of the facility which operate under
35
III. Adm. Code 722.134 and the portions which do not operate under
Section 722.134.
d.
Identify the regulatory provisions under which respondent
claims the right
to operate only a portion of the facility under 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 722.134.
e.
Has respondent ever
notified the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
that
it claims that only “some of the hazardous waste that the facility at
issue generates
is
managed pursuant to” 35
III. Adm. Code 722.134. If so,
provide copies of all correspondence concerning this issue.
f.
Has the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency ever
approved the
subdivision of the facility into a Section 722.134 and non-Section 722.134
facility?
g.
Identify any portion of the Emergency Response and Contingency Plan for
the facility that delineates the Section 722.134 portion of the facility.
h.
Identify any portion of the Emergency Response and Contingency Plan
that limits its applicability to the Section 722.134 portion of the facility.
Under the Emergency Response and Contingency Plan, who makes the
determination as to whether a
response is to be made pursuant to the
Section 722.134 requirements, or otherwise?
j.
Does respondent
prepare hazardous waste manifests for wastes that are
moved from the Section 722.134 portion of the facility to the non-Section
722.134 portion of the facility?
2.
In response to Question
6, respondent has stated that
it
prefers to refer to the
area under the “chrome plating line” as the “plating room floor”. Complainant
accepts this terminology for purposes of the following questions, with the
following caveat:
Only Tanks 25 and 26 are
involved
in plating chromium. Tanks
I
through 22 are
involved
in cleaning
and plating nickel in preparation for plating
with chromium.
Complainant is using the term “plating room floor” as referring to
the area under Tanks
I through
29.
a.
In
response to Question
5, respondent has provided analyses of the
influent
into the “wastewater treatment unit”.
Do these samples include
the suspended solids in the influent, or are they samples filtered
prior to
analysis?
b.
In
response to Question
11,
respondent has admitted that the “plating
room floor” has never been completely clear of materials.
Prior to August
5, 2004, when was the “plating room floor” last completely clear of sludge
and debris?
c.
Has respondent tested the sludge on the “plating room floor” to see
if it
evolves hydrogen sulfide in the presence of strong acid?
3.
Has respondent
tested the copper conductors,
in their usual corroded state,
to
see if the copper, or the corrosion on the copper, produces hydrogen
sulfide on
contact with concentrated sulfuric acid?
a.
Is respondent familiar with the reduction of concentrated sulfuric acid with
copper metal, resulting
in reduced sulfur oxides?
4.
In response to Question
18,
respondent has stated that a “3M 60926 Multi
gasNapor cartridge/P100” filter was available,
but did not provide the ASTM or
other standard specifications for this mask and cartridge. Complainant
is unable
to confirm that this cartridge is effective against hydrogen sulfide. What is the
ASTM or other standard specification for this mask and cartridge?
Other
standards could include ANSI,
ISO,
NIMS or other industrial standard setting
bodies.
5.
In response to Question 30, states that it
has amended the Emergency
Response and Contingency Plan since August 4-5, 2004,
but not in response to
the incident of that date.
Has respondent amended the plan to address the
potential hydrogen sulfide problem for reasons other than “in response to” the
incident?
6.
In response to Question
34, respondent states that “the
haze
is very likely a
suspension of very small particles of Barium Carbonate and Chromium Trioxide
and
Barium Sulfate”.
a.
Does respondent have any evidence to support this assertion?
b.
Does respondent have any proof that the haze is
not elemental sulfur?
7.
In response to Question 31, respondent discusses possible
mechanisms
resulting in a release of hydrogen sulfide gas. Is the respondent familiar the
“disproportionation reaction” in which molecularly-combined sulfur compounds
with a certain oxidation state react with themselves to “disproportionate”, with a
mixture of higher and lower sulfur oxidation
states resulting?
a.
Why do the sodium thiosulfate analytical solutions used
in the plating
lab
sometimes appearto be slightly turbid?
b.
Does respondent have any evidence suggesting that disproportionation
does not occur on the “plating room floor”.
8.
Is respondent familiar with the reaction of elemental sulfur with water to produce
sulfide?
a.
Does respondent have any evidence to show that sulfide is
not formed
from elemental sulfur on the plating
room floor?
9.
Do the cleaners used
in the basic cleaning tanks use organic sulfonate
surfactants?
a.
Do the cleaners use other organo-sulfur compounds?
b.
Do organic sulfonates contain
sulfur in a reduced form?
c.
Provide the MSDSs for the basic cleaners used on the plating line in the
year preceding August 5, 2004.
10.
In response to Question 31, respondent discusses anaerobic biodegradation--as
a
possible mechanism for the formation of sulfide.
a.
Does respondent have any evidence that anaerobic biodegradation
is
not
occurring on the “plating room floor”?
11.
In
response to Question 31, respondent has stated that “no strong reducing
agents are used on the
plating line”
a.
Does respondent use additives “2-NS” and “TL” as
additives to the nickel
plating tanks?
b.
Is an active ingredient in 2-NS formaldehyde?
c.
Is formaldehyde a reducing agent?
d.
What happens when you mix formaldehyde with silver nitrate?
e.
Is the active ingredient in TL I ,4-propynediol?
f.
Is I ,4-propynediol
a
reducing agent?
g.
What happens when you mix a strong chromic acid solution with I ,4-
propynediol?
h.
Does the MSDS for TL have a warning against mixing
it with strong
oxidizing agents?
Are formaldehyde and I,4-propynediol used in Tanks 17
-
21?
j.
Are tanks 17through 21 located across from and
in close proximity to
Tank 8?
k.
What is the purpose of Tank
20 in the plating process?
In the months prior to August, 2004,
did respondent use additives “TA”
and “HSA-90”
in Tank 20?
m.
Was HSA-90
a new additive that had
not previously been
used at the
facility?
n.
What
is the form of sulfur used
in TA and HSA-90?
o.
Is the sulfur
in TA and HSA-90 in a reduced or oxidized
state?
p.
Why does the MSDS for TA have
a warning against mixing
it with strong
acids?
q.
Is sulfite a known degradation product of HSA-90?
12.
In response to Question
31, respondent
has stated that “Quite the opposite,
chromic acid
is a very strong oxidizing agent.”
a.
Is chromic acid normally used and spilled in the vicinity of Tank 8?
b.
Is chromic acid normally used and spilled only in the vicinity of Tanks
25
and 26?
c.
Does the floor slope from Tank 25 all the way toward
Tank 8?
d.
Name any strong oxidizing agents used
in the vicinity of Tank 8.
13.
In response to Question 32, respondent has stated that Denny Corbett and Tony
Rice made the determination that there was no emergency.
a.
How long after the spill was noticed was this determination made?
b.
What language in the Emergency Response and Contingency Plan
gave
these persons
the authority to make this determination?
c.
Provide a
copy of the determination.
14.
In response to Question
33,
respondent states that “no
metal sulfides
were
present in the plating room...”
Does respondent have proof of this assertion?
a.
Do Tanks
17 through 22 contain a solution of nickel chloride and
nickel
sulfate
in a slightly acidic borate buffer?
b.
Does Tank 15 contain an acidic solution of nickel chloride and nickel
sulfate?
c.
Are Tanks 8 and
13 acidic cleaners?
d.
Are Tanks 1,3,5,10 and II basic cleaners?
e.
Is the usual
pH on the “plating room floor” basic to slightly acidic, with the
possibility of being
more acidic after an acid tank is dumped to the floor, or
more basic after a basic tank is dumped to the floor?
f.
When the pH is basic
to slightly acidic, is any sulfide present on the
plating floor likely
to be present as solid nickel sulfide?
15.
In response to Question 34,
respondent states that “the
haze is very likely a
suspension ofvery small particles of Barium Carbonate and Chromium Trioxide
and
Barium Sulfate”.
a.
Does respondent have any evidence
to support this assertion?
b.
Does respondent have any proof that the haze is
not elemental sulfur?
16.
In response to complainant’s request to admit the truth of certain facts,
Request
13, respondent
denies that “Respondent did not assess possible hazards to
human
health and the environment during or following the incident during third
shift on August 4-5, 2004.”
a.
Provide a copy of the assessment.
b.
Who made the assessment?
c.
When and wherewas the assessment made?
d.
What
were the levels of hydrogen sulfide in the vicinity of the spill?
17.
Is there an air curtain
over Tank
8,
and the other tanks
in the vicinity of Tank 8?
a.
Does the exhaust from the air curtain
exit to the roof?
b.
What treatment is provided for the Tank 8 air curtain
exhaust?
c.
Is the exhaust from the acid tanks routed to different treatment than the
exhaust from
the basic tanks?
18.
Does the plating lab have fume hoods to exhaust air to the roof?
a.
Where does the make-up air for the plating
lab come from?
19.
In response to complainant’s request to admit the truth of certain facts, Request
20, respondent refused to admit that “Tony Rice testified under oath
on October
26, 2004, that the acid spill was from the
fill pipe to Tank 8 and that he was told
that the spill was concentrated sulfuric acid.”
a.
Did Tony Rice testify under oath concerning the August 5, 2004
incident
on October26, 2004?
b.
What did Tony Rice say about the source of the spill?
c.
What did Tony Rice say about the concentration of the acid?
20.
In response to complainant’s request to admit the truth of certain facts, Request
20, respondent denies that “Tony Rice stated to complainant, on or about August
13,
2004, during the course of a discussion of the August 4-5 incident, that the
ruptured pipe “emptied the day tank”.
a.
What did Tony Rice say to complainant about the extent of the acid spill
on or about August
13, 2004?
b.
How much
acid was spilled in the August 4-5 incident?
c.
How did respondent determine the volume of acid spilled.
Morton F. Dorothy
804 East Main
r’TTh
v
vLco,~J
~
217/384-1010
Morton
F. Dorothy, Complainant
