REC
,EaVED
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
FEB
STATE
1OF6 2006
ff.LIN01S
CHAMPAIGN COUNTY, ILLINOIS
Pollution Control Board
MORTON F. DOROTHY,
)
Complainant,
)
vs .
)
No. PCB 05-049
FLEX-N-GATE CORPORATION,
)
an Illinois Corporation,
)
Respondent
.
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, certify that, on the
13
day of February, 2006, I served the
listed documents, by first class mail, upon the listed persons :
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORIES
THIRD 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
Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
100 W. Randolph
Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
M
,
lorZiunl
'JoIt7
n-rv
Morton F. Dorothy, Complainant
Morton F. Dorothy
104 W. University
Southwest Suite
Urbana IL 61801
217/384-1010
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
RECEIVICE
CLERK S OFFICE
CHAMPAIGN COUNTY, ILLINOIS
FEB 1 6 2006
MORTON F. DOROTHY,
)
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Pollution Control Board
Complainant,
)
vs
.
)
No. PCB 05-049
FLEX-N-GATE CORPORATION,
)
an Illinois Corporation,
)
Respondent.
)
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORIES
Complainant Morton F. Dorothy makes the following response to Interrogatories
propounded by Respondent on January 18, 2006
.
1
.
Complainant does not have detailed information to respond to this question,
apart from the documents produced by Respondent in discovery, which are in
Respondent's possession, and which are too voluminous to fully summarize
.
Evidence that Respondent is treating and storing hazardous waste includes the
following :
a .
Respondent has produced a "Contingency Plan" which represents that it
was prepared to meet the Board's regulations governing hazardous waste
management facilities in 35 III . Adm. Code 725. (Response to Request for
Production No. 1, p. 6-12)
b
.
On January 19, 2001, The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
conducted a RCRA inspection which found numerous violations of the
Board's rules governing hazardous waste management, including rules
governing the storage of hazardous waste, and violations of the
contingency planning requirements. The Agency contended that, because
of the violations, the facility failed to qualify for exemption from the RCRA
permit requirement. On May 3, 2001, Respondent answered the Agency
with a detailed letter promising to come into compliance with the
regulations, without raising any arguments to the effect that the facility
was not conducting hazardous waste management operations . (Response
to Request for Production No . 13)
c .
Respondent has produced manifests showing large quantities of
hazardous waste shipped out of the facility. (Response to Request for
Production No. 9)
d .
In the course of job training, Complainant was told by Respondent's
agent's, in the course of business, that the facility was treating and storing
hazardous waste .
e .
Ken Keigley and Holly Hirchert of the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency have told the Complainant that the facility was conducting
hazardous waste treatment and storage operations pursuant to a claim of
exemption as a large quantity generator of hazardous waste. Prior to
taking her position with the Agency, Holly Hirchert was the environmental
engineer for the Guardian West facility, with responsibility over many of
these hazardous waste management operations
.
f.
Complainant was required to segregate certain wastes for separate
disposal as hazardous waste, including chromic acid contaminated
wastes from the area under the catwalk, and from the chromic acid
recovery operation, which wastes were placed in containers labeled
"hazardous waste", with storage times noted, by the Environmental
Manager at Guardian West .
2 .
The Complaint speaks for itself as to the allegation . The question calls for a legal
conclusion, and/or requests Complainant's work product. Complainant contends
that the material under the catwalk, including liquids, debris and sludge, is
hazardous waste . At a minimum, this is chromic acid contaminated waste
.
3 .
Pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act request, Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency has told the Complainant that the facility does not have a
RCRA permit or interim status. Ken Keigley and Holly Hirchert of the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency have told the Complainant the same thing .
Respondent has failed to produce a RCRA permit or interim status notification in
response to discovery requests. See also the Response to Question 1 . The
remainder of the question calls for a legal conclusion, and/or requests
Complainant's work product .
4 .
Objection. The question calls for a legal conclusion, and/or requests
Complainant's work product .
5 .
Objection. The question calls for a legal conclusion, and/or requests
Complainant's work product. Moreover, this is irrelevant because neither the
Complaint nor Answer has alleged that any portion of the facility is a "wastewater
treatment unit" .
6 .
Objection. The question calls for a legal conclusion, and/or requests
Complainant's work product. Moreover, this is irrelevant because neither the
Complaint nor Answer has alleged that any portion of the facility is a "tank" or
"tank system" (other than the tanks involved in the production process)
.
7
.
Complainant generally agrees with this statement. However, Complainant does
not know exactly where the pits are located with respect to the center of the
room. Moreover, the pits are actually located to the east and west of the
approximate center of the room, and the floor under the tanks appears to be
sloped toward the line between the pits, rather than the apparent central point .
8 .
Complainant agrees that this is a part of the purpose of the slope of the floor
.
9 .
Objection. The question calls for a legal conclusion, and/or requests
Complainant's work product . Moreover, this is irrelevant because neither the
Complaint nor Answer has alleged that any portion of the facility is "ancillary
equipment" .
10 .
Complainant generally agrees with this statement. However, the pits were not
designed to "hold" the liquid for a significant period of time, but rather to pump
the liquid immediately as it accumulated . By agreeing as to details concerning
the physical appearance and design of the equipment, Complainant is not
agreeing as to any regulatory interpretation hidden in Respondent's question
.
11
.
Objection. The question calls for a legal conclusion, and/or requests
Complainant's work product. Moreover, this is irrelevant because neither the
Complaint nor Answer has alleged that any portion of the facility is "ancillary
equipment" .
12
.
Complainant agrees with this statement. By agreeing as to details concerning the
physical appearance and design of the equipment, Complainant is not agreeing
as to any regulatory interpretation hidden in Respondent's question
13 .
Objection. The question calls for a legal conclusion, and/or requests
Complainant's work product . Moreover, this is irrelevant because neither the
Complaint nor Answer has alleged that any portion of the facility is "ancillary
equipment"
.
14 .
Complainant agrees with this statement. By agreeing as to details concerning the
physical appearance and design of the equipment, Complainant is not agreeing
as to any regulatory interpretation hidden in Respondent's question
15 .
Objection. The question calls for a legal conclusion, and/or requests
Complainant's work product. Moreover, this is irrelevant because neither the
Complaint nor Answer has alleged that any portion of the facility is "ancillary
equipment" .
16
.
Objection. The question calls for a legal conclusion, and/or requests
Complainant's work product .
17 .
Objection. The question calls for a legal conclusion, and/or requests
Complainant's work product . Moreover, this is irrelevant because neither the
Complaint nor Answer has alleged that any portion of the facility is "ancillary
equipment" .
18 .
Complainant agrees with this statement. By agreeing as to details concerning the
physical appearance and design of the equipment, Complainant is not agreeing
as to any regulatory interpretation hidden in Respondent's question
19
.
Objection. The question calls for a legal conclusion, and/or requests
Complainant's work product. Moreover, this is irrelevant because neither the
Complaint nor Answer has alleged that any portion of the facility is "ancillary
equipment" .
20
.
As it now stands, the Complaint appears to be restricted to the issue of whether
Respondent has violated the storage time requirements for hazardous waste
under the catwalk. Under these circumstances, the Complainant will testify as to
the properties of the material under the catwalk, and as to the length of storage
.
In the event Respondent intends to offer testimony to the effect that the area is
periodically cleaned, or that the material is not hazardous waste, Complainant
will request subpoenas to obtain testimony of employees and former employees,
including Larry Kelly, Afiba Martin and Holly Hirchert
.
21
.
Complainant has no funds with which to employ outside expert witnesses
.
Complainant sees no need at this time for expert testimony . Complainant is,
however, an expert on much of the factual material at issue, and will, if
necessary, testify as an expert witness . In a citizen enforcement action, the
Complainant has a right to testify about relevant matters at a public hearing
regardless of qualification as an expert Any objections would go to the weight of
the evidence. Complainant's relevant qualifications include
:
a .
Bachelor of Science in Chemistry, with high honors and distinction in the
curriculum, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, 1970 . Juris Doctor, 1976
.
b .
Between 1980 and 1993, Complainant drafted the Illinois versions of most
of the regulations involved in this case
.
c .
Between 1980 and 1993, Complainant handled public questions
concerning these regulations for the State of Illinois
.
d .
Complainant attended numerous conferences and hearings concerning
the subject of hazardous waste management, both as an attendee and
speaker .
e .
Complainant drafted numerous documents and reports concerning
hazardous waste, including theAnnual Reports to the Governor of the
Illinois Hazardous Waste Advisory Council .
f.
Complainant is a certified "HAZWOPER" first responder for hazardous
waste emergencies .
Complainant did process and quality control chemistry for the subject
plating line for nearly two years, during which time he was regularly
consulted by management concerning the operation and control of the
plating process
.
g
.
22
.
Other persons :
a
.
Tanvir Ali, Plant Manager, Guardian West, 601 Guardian Drive, Urbana IL
61802
b
.
Ken Keigley, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, 2125 South First
Champaign IL
c
.
Holly Hirchert, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, 2125 South First
Champaign IL
d
.
Bill Keller, Champaign County Emergency Services and Disaster
Agency,1905 East Main Urbana IL 61802
e
.
Unknown person, Urbana Fire Department, 400 S . Vine, Urbana, IL 61801
f.
Peggy A. Zweber, Area Director, U .S. Dept. of Labor, Occupational Safety
and Health Administration, 2918 Willows Knolls Rd, Peoria IL 61614
.
Brian Bothast, Acting Area Director, U .S. Dept. of Labor, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, 2918 Willows Knolls Rd, Peoria IL
61614
.
9 .
h .
Sue Ellen DeManche, U.S. Dept. of Labor, Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, 2918 Willows Knolls Rd, Peoria IL 61614
.
i
.
Mr. Thomas V. Skinner, Regional Administrator, US EPA Region 5, 77 W
.
Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604
J
.
Gary Westefer, US EPA Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL
60604
23 .
No persons have assisted Complainant .
24 .
Complainant has claimed privilege in response to several of the above
questions .
MG?
~T'O&>
1.~(
o42aM 4i
Morton F. Dorothy, Complainant
Morton F. Dorothy
104 W. University
Southwest Suite
Urbana IL 61801
217/384-1010
RECEIVED
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
CLERK'S
OFFICE
CHAMPAIGN COUNTY, ILLINOIS
FEB 1 6 2006
MORTON F. DOROTHY,
)
Pollution
ILLINOIS
rd
Complainant,
)
vs
.
)
No. PCB 05-049
FLEX-N-GATE CORPORATION,
)
an Illinois Corporation,
)
Respondent
.
)
THIRD INTERROGATORIES
Pursuant to leave granted by the Hearing Officer, Complainant Morton F
.
Dorothy requests that Respondent Flex-N-Gate Corporation answer the following
interrogatories within 30 days after the date of this request
:
1
.
On August 5, 2004, was sludge present on the floor under the plating line
catwalk? As used in this question, "sludge" means any solid or semi-solid
material, including precipitated nickel salts, barium sulfate and activated carbon
.
2 .
On August 5, 2004, was debris present on the floor under the plating line
catwalk? As used in this question, "debris" includes blocks of wood, rags, items
of clothing, food packaging and beverage containers
.
3
.
Did the sludge and debris interfere with the flow of liquid to the pits?
4
.
Prior to August 5, 2004, when was the last time the floor under the plating line
catwalk was cleared of sludge and debris, as those terms are defined above?
5 .
What records does Respondent maintain to show the clearing of the floor under
the plating catwalk?
6 .
Did Respondent have a written procedure and schedule for clearing the floor
under the plating catwalk?
7 .
Was chromic acid routinely spilled onto the floor under the plating catwalk during
operation and maintenance of the plating line?
8 .
Was chromic acid spilled onto the floor under the plating catwalk during
operation, repair and maintenance of the chromic acid recovery unit?
9 .
Describe the procedures Respondent used to dispose of chromic acid containers
after use
.
10 .
Describe the procedures followed by Respondent with respect to chromic acid
contaminated wastes .
~7,z~a
h_ ~osZvn~i
Morton F. Dorothy, Complainant
Morton F. Dorothy
104 W. University
Southwest Suite
Urbana IL 61801
217/384-1010
