Clean Water Act Model Pleadings and Discovery From Current and Recently Litigated Cases Compiled By: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Enforcement National Enforcement Investigations Center Denver, Colorado 80225 For Information Contact (303) 236-5128 FTS 776-5128 II ------- Table of Conients ------- Table of Contents Clean Water Act Pleadin and Discovery VOLUME I MunicipaIIPOTW NPDES Permit Violations A. Complaints 1. City of Phoenix (including failure to implement pretreatment program) 2. Township of Maple Shade. New Jersey 3. City of Bartlesville. Oklahoma 4. Puerto Rico Administration of Corrections 5. City of Lvnnwood. Washineton B. U.S. First Request for Admissions, Interrogatories, and Request for Documents: City of Gary C. U.S. First Request for Admissions: City of Terre Haute D. U.S. First Request for Production: City of Terre Haute; Puerto Rico Administration of Corrections E. U.S. First Set of Interrogatories: Puerto Rico Administration of Corrections F. Notice of Deposition: City of Gary II. Industrial NPDES Permit Violations A. Complaints: 1. Ashland Ethanol. Inc . 2. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp . 3. Western Sugar Company 4. Caribe Tuna. Inc . 5. Tillamook County Creamery Association. Inc . 6. Promised Land Mining B. U.S. First Set of Interrogatories: Ashland Ethanol. Inc.; Holly Farms of Texas. Inc . C. U.S. First Request for Production: Ashland Ethanol. Inc.; Koch Refining Co.; Holly Farms of Texas. Inc . D. U.S. Response to Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories: F.B. Purnell Sausage Co . ------- 2 E. U.S. Response to Defendant’s First Request for Production: Ashland Ethanol. Inc . F. U.S. Response to Defendant’s Seventh and Eighth Interrogatories and Fifth Request for Production: Menominee Paper Company. Inc . (Attempt to discover settlement position - deliberative process privilege asserted) G. U.S. First Request for Admissions, Fourth Set of Interrogatories, and Fourth Request for Production: Ashland Ethanol. Inc . H. U.S. First Request for Admissions and Defendant’s Response: F.B. Pernell Sausage Co . I. Defendant’s Response to U.S. Second Interrogatories: F.B. Purnell Sausage Co . III. Unpermitted Discharges A. Complaints 1. City of Wildwood. Florida (No effective permit) 2. City of Neptune Beach. Florida (No effective permit) 3. Shell Oil ComDanv (Oil spill)(State of California, numerous state and local agencies as co-plaintiffs) 4. Gerbaz (Dredge and fill) 5. Inland Steel (Laboratory violations) 6. James River PaDer Comoanv (Discharge in excess of reportable quantities) 7. Construction Industries. Inc . (Wetlands, discharge of fill materials) B. U.S. First Set of Interrogatories Bayou Marcus Livestock (Dredge and fill) C. U.S. First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production: Inland Steel VOLUME II IV. Industrial Pretreatment Violations A. Complaints 1. Roll Copter. Inc . (coil coating point source category) 2. CR Industries. Inc . (metal finishing point source category) 3. Digital Equipment Corporation (metal finishing point source category) 4. Koppers Company. Inc . (iron and steel manufacturing point source category) ------- 3 B. Answer: CR Industries C. U.S. First Set of Interrogatories: Roll Coater. Inc.; Empire Plating (metal finishing) D. U.S. First Request for Production: Roll Copter. Inc.; EmDire P1atine 1 ; CR Industries E. U.S. Second Set of Interrogatories: Roll Coater F. U.S. Response to First Set of Interrogatories: Roll Coater G. U.S. Response to Second Set of Interrogatories: Roll Coater H. U.S. Response to First Set of Interrogatories, Request for Admissions and Request for Production of Documents: KoDDers Company. Inc . V. MunicipalIPOTW Pretreatment Implementation Cases A. Complaints 1. City of Detroit. Michigan 2. Haverstraw Joint Regional Sewerage Board. New York 3. Borough of Bellefonte. Pennsylvania 4. City of Berrvville. Arkansas (and Amended Complaint) 5. Brazos River Authority B. U.S. First Set of Requests for Admission and Interrogatories: City of Detroit C. U.S. Response to First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production: City of Detroit D. U.S. Response to First Request for Admissions and Second Set of Interrogatories and Second Request for Production: City of Detroit E. Defendant’s Respponse to U.S. First Set of Interrogatories: City of Berrvville; Brazos River Authority F. Defendant’s Response to U.S. First Request for Production: City of Berrvvil le ------- 4 VI. Case Files A. Eagle-Picher Industries. Inc . (unpermitted discharges, permit violations, pretreatment violations (battery manufacturing category)) 1. Complaint 2. U.S. First Set of Interrogatories 3. U.S. First Request for Production of Documents 4. U.s. First Response to First Set of Interrogatories B. Pennzoil Exploration and Production Co . (unpermitted discharges) 1. Complaint 2. U.S. Response to First Set of Interrogatories 3. U.S. Second Set of Interrogatories 4. U.S. Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents 5. Defendant’s Response to Second Set of Interrogatories 6. Defendant’s Response to Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents 7. Defendant’s Second Request for Production of Documents VOLUME m C. Crown Cork de Puerto Rico (unpermitted discharges, permit violations, pretreatment violations (can making facilities)) 1. Complaint 2. Answer 3. Defendant’s Response to U.S. First Interrogatories, Request for Production, and Requests for Admission 4. U.S. Supplemental Responses to First Interrogatories 5. U.S. Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production 6. Defendant’s Response to U.S. Second Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production 7. U.S. Third Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production, Defendant’s Response D. Village of Sauget. fllinois (permit violations, failure to implement pretreatment program) 1. Complaint 2. U.S. First Set of Interrogatories 3. Defendant’s Response to U.S. First Set of Interrogatories 4. U.S. First Request for Production of Documents and Defendant’s Response 5. U.S. Second Set of Interrogatories ------- 5 6. Defendant’s Response to U.S. Second Set of Interrogatorie S 7. Defendant’s Response to U.S. Second Request for Production of Documents 8. Defendant’s Response to U.S. Third Set of Interrogatories E. Quaker State Corporation (unpermitted discharges) 1. Complaint 2. Defendant’s Response to U.S. First Set of Interrogatories 3. U.S. Request for Admissions 4. Defendant’s Response to U.S. Request for Admissions 5. Defendant’s First Requests for Admissions and U.S. Response 6. Defendant’s Response to U.S. Second Set of Interrogatories 7. U.S. Supplemental Responses to Defendant’s First Interrogatories 8. U.S. Response to Third Set of Interrogatories ------- VL-C. U.S.v.Cr0Wfl Cork ------- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRIC’!’ OF PUERTO RICO . % _: — UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, : V. Civ. No. f ’4’_ Crown Cork de Puerto Rico, Inc. Defendant x COMPLAINT Plaintiff, the United States of America, at the requüt of the Administrator of the United States Envjron entai Protection Agency (“EPA”), alleges as follows: PRELIMINARy STATEMENT 1. This is a civil action pursuant to Section 309(b) and (d) of the Clean Water Act (“the Act”), 33 U.S.c. § 1319(b) and (d) for civil penalties and injunctive relief against Defendant Crown Cork d. Puerto Rico, Inc. for the discharge of pollutants without a discharg. permit in violation of Section 301 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. 1311; for th. subsequent discharge of pollutants in excsss of limitations set forth in Defendant’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES) permit issued by EPA pursuant to Section 402 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1342, and set forth in an Administrative Order issued by EPA on September 18, 1986; for the failure to monitor the disch’lr -ge..pf pollutants in accordance with the terms of said NPDES Permit; for-j ------- -2— the discharge of pollutants to a publicly owned treatment works (“POTW’) in violation of pretreatment standards promulgated pursuant to Section 307 of the Act 1 33 U.S.C. § 1317; and for violations of the reporting requirements of regulations implementing Sections 307(b) and 308(a) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. §5 1317(b) and 1318(a), and as required by an Administrative Order issued by EPA on February 12, 1988. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action and over the Defendant pursuant to Section 309(b) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(b), and 28 U.S.C. §4 1331, 1345 and 1355. 3. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to Section 309(b) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(b), and 28 U.S.C. §5 1391(b) and 1395, because Defendant was doing business and continues to do business in this judicial district and the alleged violations occurred in this judicial district. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 4. Notice of the commencement of this action has been provided to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico pursuant to 33 U.s.c. § 1319(b). 5. The Defendant, Crown Cork da Puerto Rico, Inc. (‘Crown Cork’ or ‘Defendant’), is a ‘person 1 within the meaning of Section 502(5) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. 4 1362(5). 6. The Defendant, Crown Cork, resides and is doing business within the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico by its operation ------- —3— of a can making facility located in Carolina, Puerto Rico (the “facility’) 7. At all times relevant hereto, Crown Cork has owned and operated the facility. 8. Crown Cork discharged and discharges pollutants from its facility within the meaning of Sections 502(6), (12) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. H 1362(6), (12). 9. The discharges referred to in the preceding paragraph have been and are made through outfall serial number (‘OSN ”) 001 and OSN 002, into the Rio Grande de Loiza through an unnamed creek. Said discharges have been and are made also into a POTW. 10. OSN 001 and OSN 002 are point sources within the meaning of Section 502(14) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1362(14). 11. The Rio Grand. di Loiza and said unnamed creek are “navigable waters within the meaning of Section 502(7) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1362(7), and 40 C.F.R. § 122.2. 12. Section 301(a) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a), prohibits the discharge of any pollutant into navigable waters except in complianc, with, inter Section 301 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. 1 1311, and as authorized by and in compliance with art NPDES permit issued under Section 402 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1342. 13. Crown Cork discharged pollutants from the facility to navigable waters of the United States on and before November 1, 1983 through October 31, 1986 without a National Pollutant ------- —4— Discharge Elimination System (‘NPDES’) Permit issued pursuant to Section 402 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1342. 14. Pursuant to Section 402 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1342, EPA issued NPDES Permit No. PR0024872 (‘1986 Permit’) to Crown Cork, which Permit became effective from November 1, 1986 through the present. 15. The 1986 Permit set effluent limitations and other conditjo s for the discharge of pollutants from the facility at OSM 001 and OSN 002. The 1986 Permit also prescribed certain monitoring, reporting and management requirements. A copy of the 1986 Permit is attached hereto as Exhibit i. 16. On September 18, 1986, EPA issued an Administrative Order (the ‘1986 Administrative Order’), under the authority of Section 309(a) (3) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(a) (3). A copy of the 1986 Administrative Order is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. 17. In response to Crown Cork’s assertion that it could not comply with the 1986 Permit limitation for one parameter -— five-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD-5) -- the 1986 Administrative Order set, inter interim effluent limitatjo for the discharg. of said parameter from the facility at OSN 001. 18. The 1986 Administrative Order expressly did not constitute a modification or waiver of the final effluent limitation for BOD—5 specified in the 1986 Permit. ------- —5- 19. On October i, 1987, Crown Cork began conveying process wastewaters to a regional POTW owned and operated by the Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority (PRASA) in Carolina, Puerto Rico. 20. From October i, 1987 through the present, the 1986 Permit effluent limitations remained in effect for OSM 002. 21. From October i, 1987 through the present, Crown Cork has discharged and continues to discharge pollutants through OSN 002 into navigable waters. 22. Section 307(d) of the Act, 33 U.s.c. § 1317(d), makes it unlawful for any person to own or operate any Source that introduces pollutants into a P01W in violation of any applicable pretreatment standard, general or categorical, promulgated by the Administrator of the EPA (the “Administrator& ). 23. Pursuant to Section 307 of the Act, 33 U.s.c. § 1317, the Administrator promulgated General Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New Sources of Pollution, 40 C.F.R. Part 403, applicabl, to sources that discharg. pollutants into POTWe. Crown Cork has been and is subject to the General Pretreat t Regulation, because it has discharged and does discharge vastevater free the facility that contained and contain, pollutants into a P01W. The facility is a source which discharge, pollutants into a P01W. 24. Pursuant to Section 307 of th. Act, 33 U.s.c. ------- —6— § 1317, The Administrator promulgated Categorical Pretreatment Standards for Canmaking facilities, 40 C.F.RI Part 465, Subpart D, applicable to sources that discharge wastewater generated from canmaking operations into POTWs. Crown Cork’s facility is subject to the Categorical Pretreatment Standards set forth in 40 C.F.R. § 465.44, for existing sources. Compliance with the standards set forth in 40 C.F.R. § 465.44 was required no later than October 1, 1987, the day that Crown Cork began discharging into the POTW. 25. Sections 309(a)(3), (b) and (d) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(a ) (3), (b) and (d), authorize the Administrator of EPA to commence a civil action for appropriate relief, including a permanent or temporary injunction, for any violation of Section 301 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1311, or any Order issued under Section 309(a), or any permit condition or limitation implementing, inter Sections 301 and 308 of the Act, 33 U.S.c. § 1311 and 1318, and contained in a permit issued under Section 402 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1342, or any violations of Section 307 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1317. Section 309(b) and (d) of the Act, 33 TJ.S.C. § 1319(b) and (d), provides, in part, that any person who violat.. Sections 301, 307 or 308 of th. Act, 33 U.S .C. 3 1311, 1317 or 1318, or any permit condition or limitation implementing such sections, or any Administrative Order issued uzid•r Section 309(a) of the Act, shall be subject to injunctive relief and th. assessment of a civil penalty not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per day of such violation ------- —7— (or $25,000 per violation, per day, on or after February 4, 1987) FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF: DISCHARG WITHOUT A PERM 26. Paragraphs 2. through 25 are realleged and incorporated herein. 27. Crown Cork discharged pollutants without an IPDES permit at all times of operation of its production facilities on and before November 1, 1983 until November 1, 1986. 28. Defendant Crown Cork’s discharges of pollutants without an NPDES permit Constitute violations of Section 30]. of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1311. Defendant is therefore subject to the assessment of civil penalties under Section 309(d) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(d). SECOND CLAIM FOR R2LI!F: DISCHARGES UNTIL SEPPEMBER 30. 19Q IN VIOLATION OF THE 1906 PERMIT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS 29. Paragraphs i. through 28 are realleged and incorporated herein. 30. By the terms of Conditions A-]. and A—2 on pages 2 through 9 of the 1986 permit, Defendant Crown Cork was permitted, commencing Novem_b.r 1, 1986 to discharge pollutants into navigabi. waters, but to limit such discharges pursuant to specific effluent limitations set forth in said Permit. 31. At relevant times of discharge from November 1, 1986 until September 30, 1987, Defendant Crown Cork discharged pollutants through OSN 001 and 002 into navigabi. waters in violation of applicable effluent limitations set forth in ------- —8— Conditions A -I. and A—2 c the 1986 Permit. These violations are shown by Discharge Monitoring Reports ( DMRs”) submitted to EPA by Defendant. 32. Defendant Crown Cork’s discharge of pollutants in excess of limitations authorized by its 1986 Permit violated Section 301. of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1311, and the permit conditions or limitations implementing Section 301 of the Act set forth in the 1986 Permit issued pursuant to Section 402 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1342. Defendant Crown Cork is therefore subject to the assessment of civil penalties under Section 309(d) of the Act, 33 tJ.S.C. § 1319(d). THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF: DISCHARGES IN VIOLATION pp THE 1986 ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER’S EFFLUENT LIMITATIp 33. Paragraphs I. through 32 are realleged and incorporated herein. 34. In addition to the conditions required in the 1986 Permit, Paragraph 2 and Attachment I of the 1986 Administrative Order established interim effluent limitations for Defendant for BOD—5 from November 1, 1986 until December 31, 1.987. 35. At rslsvant times of discharge from November 1, 1986 through September 30, 1987, Defendant Crown Cork discharged pollutanta through OSN 001 into navigable waters in violation of applicabi. effluent limitations set forth in the 1986 Administrative Order. Th•a. violations ar. shown by DMRs submitted to EPA by Defendant. 36. Dfsndant Crown Cork’s discharg. of pollutants in excess of effluent limitations specified in th. 1 .986 ------- —9— Administrative Order violated Section 30]. of the Act, 33 U.s.c. § 1311, and the Defendant Crown Cork is therefore subject to the assessment of civil penalties under Section 309(d) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(d). FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF: FAILURE TO MONITOR AS REOUIRED BY THE 1986 PERMIT 37. Paragraphs 1 through 36 are realleged and incorporated herein. 38. By the terms of Condition A—2, on pages 6-9 of the 1986 Permit, Defendant Crown Cork was required to monitor the discharge from OSM 002 for numerous parameters specified therein and otherwise as specified in the Permit, and to report the results of such monitoring to EPA. 39. Defendant Crown Cork has, with the exception of March 1987, not reported monitoring data for any such storm event since December 1, 1986 although there were several occasions during that period when, under the 1986 Permit, monitoring was required. 40. The monitoring and reporting deficiencies described in Paragraphs 38 and 39 constitute violations of Section 301 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1311 and of the 1986 Permit which implements Section 301 and of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1311, for which Crown Cork is liable for the imposition of injunctive relief and the assessment civil penalties under Section 309(b) and (d) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(b) and (d). 41. Unless enjoined by Order of this Court, Defendant ------- — 10 — will continue to fail to monitor in violation of Section 301 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1311, and of the 1986 Permit. FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF: DISCHARGES SINCE OCTOBER 1. 1987 THROUGH OSN 002 IN VIOLATION OF THE 1986 PERMIT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS 42. Paragraphs 1 through 41 are realleged and incorporated herein. 43. Since October 1, 1987, the 1986 Permit remained in effect for OSN 002. 44. Samples taken by EPA on February 24, 1988 of SOD- 5, turbidity, and oil and grease showed that Defendant’s discharge from OSN 002 into navigable waters exceeded Permit limitations for each of those parameters. 45. Defendant Crown Cork’s discharge of pollutants through OSN 002 after October 1, 1987 in excess of Permit limitations violated Section 301 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1311. Defendant Crown Cork is therefore subject to injunctive relief and the assessment of civil penalties under Section 309(b) and (d) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(b) and (d). 46. Unless enjoined by Order of this Court, Defendant will, continue to discharge pollutants into the navigable waters of the United States through OSN 002 in violation of Section 301 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. 5 1311. SIXTM CLAIM FOR R2LX!F: DISCHARGES INTO POTW IN VIOLATION OF PRETREATN ’r STANDARDS 47. Paragraphs 1 through 46 are r.al] ,.ged and incorporated herein. ------- — 11 — 48. Crown Cork’s discharge of wastewaters to the PR.ASA POTW in Carolina, Puerto Rico (‘the Carolina POTW’), on and after the commencement of said discharge to PRASA on October 1, 1987, was required to be in compliance with pretreatment standards specified in EPA regulations promulgated pursuant to Section 307 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1317 and published at 40 CFR Part 465, Subpart 0. 49. Crown Cork is a continuing source of the introduction of pollutants, including manganese, total phosphorus, and fluorides, into the Carolina POTW in violation of pretreatment standards promulgated pursuant to Section 307 of the Act. 50. Defendant Crown Cork’s introduction of pollutants into the Carolina POTW in violation of pretreatment standards promulgated pursuant to Section 307 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1317, constitutes a violation of Section 307 of the Act and of 40 C.F.R. Part 465 Subpart D. 51. Pursuant to Section 309(b) and (d) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(b) and (d), Defendant Crown Cork is subject to injunctiv, relief and civil penalties for its violations of Section 307 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1317(d). 52. Unless enjoined by Order of this Court, Crown Cork will continue to discharge into the Carolina POTW wastewater generated from its operations at the facility containing concentrations of, 1Jj , fluoride, total phosphorus and manganese, that exceed th. permissibl, concentration, for those ------- — 12 — substances as set forth in the Categorical Pretreatment Standards for canmaking facilities, and will continue to violate Section 307(d) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1317(d), and 40 C.F.R. Part 465, Subpart D. SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF: FAILURE TO SUBMIT 90 D COMPLIANCE REPORT. IN VIOLATION OP PRETREATMENT REGULATIO 53. Paragraphs i. through 52 are realleged and incorporated herein. 54. Section 308(a) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1318(a), authorizes the Administrator to require the submission of reports whenever necessary for the purpose of, inter determining whether any person is in violation of any pretreatment standard. 55. Pursuant to Sections 307(b) and 308(a) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1317(b) and 1318(a), the Administrator promulgated General Pretreatment Regulations, 40 C.F.R. Part 403. Section 403.12(d) of the General Pretreatment Regulations requires industrial users subject to the Categorical Pretreatment Standards to submit a Compliance Report to the local control authority, i.e. , PRASA, within 90 days of the date for final compliance with the applicable Categorical Pretreatment Standards. That report is commonly known as a 90 Day Compliance Report. The 90 Day Compliance Report is required to contain, inter information on discharg. concentrations and flows, the status of user compliance, and, if the user is not in consistent compliance, the 90 Day Compliance Report must propose measures which are designed to bring the user into compliance. ------- — 13 — 56. The Crown Cork facility was and is subject to 40 C.F.R. 403.12(d), and was required to submit a 90 Day Compliance Report to PRASA by December 30, 1987. 57. Crown Cork failed to submit to PP.ASA, the local control authority, the 90 Day Compliance Report required by 40 C.F.R. 403.12(d) by December 30, 1981. To date, Crown Cork has not submitted a 90 Day Compliance Report. 58. The failure to submit a 90 Day Compliance Report is a violation of Sections 307(b) and 308(a) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1317(b) and 1318(a), for which Crown Cork is liable for civil penalties not to exceed $25,000 per day. 59. Unless enjoined by Order of this Court, Crown Cork will continue to violate Sections 307(b) and 308(a) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1317(b) and 1318(a). EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF: FAILURE TO SUBMIT BIANNUAL PERIODIC COMPLIANCE REPORT. IN VIOLATION OF PRETREATMENT REGULATIONS 60. Paragraphs 1 through 59 are realleged and incorporated herein. 61. Pursuant to Sections 307(b) and 308(a) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1317(b) and 1318(a), the Administrator promulgated 40 C.F.R. * 403.12(e) r.quiring, inter industrial users subject to the Categorical Pretreatment Standards to submit reports to the local control authority during th. months of June and December after the date for compliance with the applicable pretreatment standard. • These reports ar. commonly known as Biannual Periodic Compliance Reports. A Biannual Periodic ------- — 14 — Compliance Report is required to contain, intø alia , information on discharge concentrations and flows. 62. The Crown Cork facility was and is subject to 40 C.F.R. § 403.12(e), and was required to su.bmit a Biannual Periodic Compliance Report to PRASA starting in December of 1987, and each June and December thereafter. 63. Crown Cork failed to submit to PRASA, the local control authority, the Biannual Periodic Compliance Report required by 40 C.F.R. § 403.12(d) in December 1987 and June 1988. 64. The failure to submit Biannual Periodic Compliance Reports is a violation of Sections 307(b) and 308(a) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1317(b) and 1318(a), for which Crown Cork is liable for injunctive relief and the assessment of civil penalties under Section 309(b) and (d) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(b) and (d). 65. Unless enjoined by Order of this Court, Crown Cork will continue to violate Sections 307(b) and 308(a) of the Act, 33 U.S.c. fi 1317(b) and 1318(a). NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF: FAILURE TO SUBMIT 9fl DAY AND BIANNUAL PERIODIC COMPLIANCE REPORTS. IN VIOLATION OF 1988 ADMINIgT ij ORDER 66. On February 12, 1988, EPA issued an Administrative Order (the ‘1988 Administrative Ord.r ), under the authority of Section 309(a) (3) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(a)(3). A copy of the 1988 Administrative Order is attached hereto as Exhibit 3. 67. The 1988 Administrative Order required, inter J,jg, that Crown Cork submit reports required by 40 C.P.R. § 403.12(d) and (e) to EPA by March 2, 1988. ------- — 15 — 68. The reports referred to in the preceding Paragraph are known as a 90 Day Compliance Report and a Biannual Periodic Compliance Report. 69. Crown Cork has not submitted either the 90 Day Compliance Report or the Biannual Periodic Compliance Report required by the 1988 Administrative Order. 70. Crown Cork’s failure to provide such Reports as required by the 1988 Administrative Order constitutes a violation of Section 301 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1311. 71. For each day since March 2, 1988 that Defendant has failed to provide such reports, Defendant is subject to the assessment of civil penalties pursuant to Section 309(d) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(d). 72. Unless enjoined by Order of this Court, Crown Cork will continue to violate Section 301 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 131.1. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHER.ETORE, Plaintiff, United States of America, prays that: 1.. Defendant Crown Cork be ordered to pay civil penalties not to .xc..d $10,000 per day for each day of each violation of the Act prior to obtaining iti NPDZS permit No. PR0024$72 effective November 1, 1.986; $10,000 per day for each violation of it. NPDES Permit No. PR0024872 occurring prior to February 5, 1987 and $ 5,0O0 p.r day for each violation of its NPDES Permit No. PR0024872 occurring on or after February 5, 1987; $10,000 p .r day for each violation of the 1986 ------- — 16 — Administrative Order Occurring prior to February 5, 1987 and $25,000 per day for each violation of the 1986 Ad inistratjve Order occurring on or after February 5, 1987; $25,000 per day for each violation of pretreatment requirements promu lgated pursuant to Section 307 of the Act; and $25,000 per day for each violation of the 1988 Administrative Order. 2. Defendant be permanently enjoined from any and all future violations of the Act and from any discharges of pollutants except as expressly authorized by an NPDES permit issued under 33 U.S.C. § 1342 or by the Pretreathent Regulations. 3. Defendant Crown Cork be ordered to submit an engineering report on an expedited basis setting forth a]], actions which ar. necessary for it to achieve compliance with pretreatment standards as well as compliance with all terms, conditions and limitations of its NPDES Permit No. PR0024872 and the Act. Said report should contain a schedule, agreed to by EPA and approved by the Court, for Crown Cork to implement such actions. 4. Defendant Crown Cork be ord.r.d to comply with all the reporting requirements contained in the 1988 Administrative Order and EPA rsgulatjo, g promulgated pursuant to Section 307 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. 1317. 5 • Defendant Crown Cork be ordered to comply with the monitoring and reporting requirements and all other conditions and limitations of its NPDES Permit No. PR0024873. ------- — 17 — 6. Plaintiff, United States of America, be awarded the costs and disbursements of this action; and 7. This Court grant such other and further relief as it deems just and proper. Aseistan Attorney enaral Land and Natural Resources Division U.S. Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530 MICHAEL HILL Attorney Land and Natural Resources Division U.S. Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530 DANIEL LOPEZ- ON EDUARDO E. TORO-FO Assistant u.s. Aorney Federal Office %ailding Carlos E. char/on Street Nato Ray, Puetto Rico 00918 OF COUNSEL: Tel. (809) 746-5656 GEORGE A. SHAZIAHAII Office of Regional Counsel U.S. Enviro .nte1 Protection Agency 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10278 SUSAN SULLIVAN Offic, of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring ( 12—1343) U.S. Environmental, Protection Agency 401 N Street; s.w. Washington, D.C. 20460 ------- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO UNITED STATES OP LMERICA, Plaintiff, vs. CROWN CORK DE PUERTO RICO, INC. I Defendant. : Civ. No. 88—01920 G—G I S Defendant, Crown Cork Do Puerto Rico, mc, (“CCPR”) by way of Answer to the Complaint SSya I 1. It makes no response to the Prelimina Statement in paragraph 1 in that it is merely a summary of the ultimate legal conclusions Plaintiff seeks to prove and as such is net the proper subject of pleading. 2. It admits the allegations of paragraph 2. 3. It admits the allegations of paragraph 3. 4. It has no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 4 and puts Plaintiff to its proofs. 5. The allegations of paragraph 5 set forth a legal conclusion. 6. It admits the allegations of paragraph 6. ------- 7. It admits the allegations of paragraph 7. 8. It admits that there are and have been facility, but puts Plaintiff to its prcofs conclusion that such discharges const .tute the meaning of the statutes cited i.n 9. It admits that discharges were made thrc gn outfali.s OSN 001 and OSN 002, as stated in paragraph 9 but outs Defendant to its proofs as to whether those discharges were of pollutants within the meaning of the statutes cited in paragraph 8 since such allegations constitute legal conclusions which Defendant leaves for adjudication by the Court. 10. The allegations of paragraph 10 constitute legal conclusions which Defendant leaves for adjudi atjon by the Court subject to such defenses as Defendant will offer at trial. 11. The allegations of paragraph 11 constitute legal conclusions which Defendant leaves for adjudication by the Court subject to such defenses as Defendant will offer at trial. 12. The allegations of paragraph 12 constitute legal concl i s ion. which Defendant leaves for adjudication by the Court subject to such defenses a. Defendant will offer at trial. ii discharges from its as to the legal pollutants within paragraph 8. 13. As admits it did not to the have a allegation, of paragraph 13 CCPR NPDES Permit from November, 1983 2 ------- through October 31, 1986, but puts Plaintiff to its proofs as to whether “pollutants” were discharged during that period before. 14. It admits the allegations of paragraph 14. 15. It admits the allegations of paragraph 15. 16. It admits the allegations of paragraph 16. 17. It admits the allegations of paragraph 17. 18. It denies the allegations of paragraph 18; moreover, the allegations set forth a legal conclusion which Defendant leaves for adjudication by the court since the document referred to speaks for itself. 19. It admits the allegations of paragraph 19. 20. It admits the allegations of paragraph 20. 21. It admits the allegations of paragraph 21 insofar as it is alleged that Defendant made discharges c II storm water through OSN 002, but puts Plaintiff to its proot I’ that those discharges contained pollutants in violation of the applicable law. 22. The allegations of paragraph 22 constitute legal conclusions which Defendant leaves for adjudication by the court subject to such defenses as Defendant will offer at trial. 23. As to the allegations of paragraph 23, Defendant admits the allegations of the first sentence, and admits that it makes discharges of wastewater from its facility into a 3 ------- POTW, but leaves Defendant to its proofs as to the balance of H the allegations in that they constitute legal COflC1USIO S. 24. The allegations of paragraph 24 constltu:e conclusions which Defendant leaves for adjudication by : e court subject to such defenses as Defendant will offer trial. 25. The allegations of paragraph 25 COflStj.tute o : argument not properly the subject of pleading. AS TO THE FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 26. The answers to the allegations of paragraç ns I through 25 are repeated and realleged herein. 27. It admits that discharges were made on before November 1, 1983 up until November 1, 1986, but denies that pollutants in violation of discharge limits were dischar;• at all times of operation,’ and Defendant puts Plaintiff r ..ts proofs in that regard. 28. The allegations of paragraph 28 constitute legal conclusions which Defendant leaves for adjudication by the court subject to such defenses as Defendant will offer at trial. PE E SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF 29. The answers to the allegations of paragraph 1. through 28 are repeated and realleged herein. 30. It admits the allegations of paragraph 30. 4 ------- 31. It admits that discharges were made at various times from November 1, 1986 up until September 30, 1987 throu-’ OSN 001 and 002, but puts plaintiff to its proofs as to t balance of the allegations of paragraph 31 since the same constitute legal conclusions. 32. The allegations of paragraph 32 constitute legal conclusions which Defendant leaves for adjudication by t e court subject to such defenses as Defendant will offer at trial. AS ‘I’O THE THIRD CLAII FOR RELIEF 33. The answers to the allegations of paragra phs 1 through 32 are repeated and realleged herein. 34. It admits the allegations of paragraph 34. 35. It admits that discharges were made at various times from November 1, 1986 through September 30, 1987 throua 4 OSN 001, but puts Defendant to its proofs as to the balance o the allegations of paragraph 35 because they constitute legal conclusions. 36. The allegations of paragraph 36 Constitute legal conclusions which Defendant leaves for adjudication by the court subject to such defenses as Defendant will offer at trial. AS TO FOVR ATW FOR RFLIEF 37. The answers to paragraphs 1 through 36 are repeated and rea]leged herein. 38. It admits the allegations of paragraph 39. 5 ------- 39. It admits the allegations of paragraph 39 insofar as it is alleged that in March 1987, a reDort was submitted, but denies the balance of the allegations in that filing a report for each storm event in the manner and tim:r.g demanded was wholly unreasonable. 40. The allegations of paragraph 40 const .t te legal conclusions which Defendant leaves for adjuthcat n by the Court subject to such defenses as Defendant w .ll offer a: trial. 41. It denies the allegations of paragraph 41. AS TO THR PIF’FH IAIM FOR RR 42. The answers to paragraphs 1 through 41 are repeated and rea].leged herein. 43. It admits the allegations of paragraph 43. 44. It denies the allegations of paragraph 44. :1 45. The allegations of paragraph 45 COnstitute legal ! conclusions which Defendant leaves for adjudication by the court subject to such defenses as Defendant will offer at trial. 46. It denies the allegations of paragraph 46. AS TO THR SIXTH CLAn FOR RELIHP 47. The answers to paragraphs 1 through 46 are repeated and realleged herein. 48. It admits the allegations of paragraph 48. 6 ------- 49. It denies paragraph 49 insofar as it is alleged that CCPR is a Continuing source of pollutants, except as possible isolated unintentional instances concerning wh Plaintiff is left to its proofs. 50. It denies the allegations of paragraph 50. 51. It denies the allegations of paragraph si. 52. It denies the allegations of paragraph 52. AS TO THE SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 53. The answers to paragraphs 1. through 52 are repeated and realleged herein. 54. The allegations of paragraph 54 constitute a Ij legal conclusion not properly the subject of pleading. 55. It admits the allegations of the first sentence 1 of paragraph 55 but the balance of the allegations constitU legal conclusions not properly the subject of pleading. 56. The allegations of paragraph 56 Constitute a legal conclusion which Defendant leaves for adjudication by the court subject to such defenses as Defendant will offer at Ij trial. 57. It admits the allegations of paragraph 57 but atat.a that the failure to submit the report at issue was due in part to technical problems with Defendants hydrofax system I which have been or are being corrected. The 90 day compliance I report will be submitted shortly. 7 ------- 58. The allegations of paragraph 58 constitute a .1 legal conclusion which Defendant leaves for adjudication by the Court subject to such defenses as Defendant will interpose at • trial 59. It denies the allegations of paragraph 59. AS TO PH EICH’I’H CLAIM FOR RELIFF 60. The answers to the allegations of paragraphs i through 59 are repeated and realleged herein. 61. The allegations of paragraph 61 COnstitute legal conclusions which are not properly the subject of pleading. 62. It admits the allegations of paragraph 62. 63. It admits the allegations of paragraph 63 but states that this was excusable because the permit requirements are currently the subject of negotiation between CCPR and 64. The allegations of paragraph 64 constitute legal conclusions which Defendant leaves for adjudication by the Court subject to such defenses as Defendant will offer at trial. 65. It denies the allegations of paragraph 65 Ag N!W1’R LAT FOR R LIIP 66. It admits the allegations of paragraph 66. 67. The allegations of paragraph 67 constitute legal conclusions which Defendant leaves for adjudication by the .1 8 ------- Court subject to such defenses as Defendant will offer at trial. 68. It admits the allegations of paragraph 68. 69. It admits the allegations of paragraph 69, b states that Defendant is in the process of develop .ng :. e reports. 70. The allegations of paragraph 70 consti.t.. r.e a legal conclusion which Defendant leaves for adjudication by :he Court subject to such defenses as Defendant will offer at h trail. 7].. The allegations of paragraph 71. constitute a legal conclusion which Defendant leaves for adjudication by the Court subject to such defenses as Defendant will, offer at trial. 72. It denies the allegations of paragraph 72. FIRS? SEPARA?R DRPKNSE The Complaint is barred by the applicable Statute of Li nLtatjo . SRCOMU SIPARA?R DKr 1iSR The Complaint is barred by the Doctrines of watver and Estoppel. ? RIRI) SIPARA?m DIrx SI The United States Government has engaged in .nequal, selective application of the laws relative to enforcement and 9 ------- implementation of the Clean Water Act, violations of which Defendant is charged in the Complaint. Stricter and unreasonable standards have been applied against Defendant CCPR, whereas, other entities equally situated have been given more favorable treatment. This selective application of :.- e Clean Water Act has denied CCPR equal protection of the laws .n violation of the Constitution of the United States and mandates dismissal of this action. FOURTH SEPARATE DEFENSE Defendant, CCPR, has made a good faith attempt to comply with the discharge, pre-treatment and reporting standards required of it pursuant to the Clean Water Act within rational and practical capabilities available and within the I limitations of the State of the Art. Some of the reporting 1 requirements are inherently unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious and unworkable and as such constitute a violation of the substantive due process provisions of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. They mandate a dismissal, of the action. FtF’I’H SEPARA I’R Any discharges by Defendant in violation of effluent limitation, set forth in the NPDES Permit or Administrative Order were entirely insubstantial and de—minimie not properly 10 ------- the subject of fines or penalties provided for in the Clean Water Act. SIXTH SEPARATE DEFENSE Relative to the allegations concerning the September 18, 1986 Administrative Order, in the amended Attachment I: tO the 18 September 1986 Order, it is mandated that d) By December 31, 1987 the perrnittee shall complete construct n of the sewer line and divert its wastewater to PR.ASA. Crown Cork completed the construction of the sewer line prior to 1 October 1987 and diverted its wastewater to PR.ASA on 1 October 1987, I three months ahead of the mandated schedule. Waters, McPherson, McNeill Attorneys for Defendants • 400 Plaza Drive -. Secaucus, New Jersey 07096 By: , , — Greqor fJ. Cash-no DATED: Douiing aez & Totti J Chase Manhattan Bank Buildi .ng Suite 111 Hato Rey, Puerto Rico 00918 BY: 2 LLJ Daniel Dominguez - I 11 ------- ..— FOR TXE DISTRIC I OF ._.. A COCOOn e 0Ca oeea 000 a x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Civ. No. Crown Cork di Puerto Rico, Inc. D.f.ndant ee see a — eeSeesS aeeeeeeaee00 5000 X r 4-C? lb /I PL.AINTIFF’$ FIRST INTERROGATORIES, REQUESTS FOR PRODUCr lop ’,, REOUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO D PEND&NT CROWN CORK Plaintiff United States of Azi.rica, pursuant to Fed. F Civ. P. 26, 33, 34 and 36, requests that Defendant Crown Cork df Puerto Rico, Inc. a) answer the following interroqatories, .n accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 33: b) produce ths documents requested, in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 34: and C) admit the following aattezs r.qu.sted in accordance with Fed. R. Ci P. 36. fl4s ‘ r ue’r I OHS A. Seo a of iicovary (Location and Custody of Document and tnfor ationi . These requests are directed to the above- neald Dfendant and cover *3,1 infor stion in its actual or constructive possession, custody and control, including information in the possession of its officers, saployses age servants, r.presantativea, attorneys, or ether persons direct or indirectly •aployed or retained by it, or anyone else acti ------- on its bet alf or otherwise subject to its ccnt , - merged, consolidated or acquired predecessor or successor, parent, subsidiary, division or affiliate, including but not 1im ted to Crown Cork & Sea ] Company, Inc. 9. Placement of Resconi. . Place your response to the foUowing discovery requests in the space provided immediate .y after the req,.aests themselves. In the event that the space provided is insufficient, pleas. place ycur response on a separate page(s) attached immediately after the page on e request is located. C. Document no Lonoer in Possession . If any document requested is no longer in the possession, custody or control of defendant, stat.: 1 .. what was done with the document; 2. when such document was sad.: 3. the identity and address of the current custodLa of the document; 4. th. person who made the decision to transf dispose of the document: and S. the reasons for the transfer or disposition. D. Ic m. of 0i. ov.rv (Time P.riod . This.. atherwi! indicated, these requests apply to the ti m. period from Novem 1, l9$3 to the date of the trial of this action. E. Su Dlem.ntal Rei ensee . These requ.sts are continuing: supplemental answers must b fLied pursuant to Fi ------- 4 R. Civ. P. 26(e) between the date these requests are ns sr ar the trial of this action. F. Id.ntificatiOn Of a “ ocument whenever Lr these requests tP.re is a request to identify a ‘docui .nt, state or ident2.fy: 1. its date; 2. its author and signatory: 3. its addressee and all other persons recei vL g copies; 4. the type of document (e.g., letter, memorandun, contract, report, accounting record, etc.): 5. its title; 6. its substance; 7. its custodian; and I. its present or last known location; and G. Identification of a ‘Person ’ Whenever in these requests there is a request to identify a ‘person,’ state or identify the person’s: 1. name: 2. present or last known ham. and business address a: telephone number(s); and 3. occupation or profession and job title. ft. Docu ent Production in Lieu of Written Resoonse . Whenever a fur]. and complete answer to any interrogatory or pa: of an interrogatory is contained in a document or documents, t documents, it properly identified as answering a specific ------- - rtum .red interrogatory or part of an interroqatorj, may be supplied in placs of a written answer provided that the spec. .: sections or pages from the document that ar. responsiv, to the interrogatory are identified I. eletiOfl1 from Docuii ents . Where anything has be deleted from a document produced in response to art nterrogat:ry or production request: i. specify the nature of the material deleted: 2. specify th. reason for the deletion; and 3. identify the person responsible for the del.t on. nt.rrogatories calling for numerical, c chronological information shall be deemed to the extent that precise figures or dates are not known, to call for estimates. !n each Instance that an estimate is given, it should be identified as such tog.th.r with the source of information underlying the estimate. K. Privilece as Aoolied to tntarrocatorv Resi anse. 1 Should you believe that any information requested by arty of tt following interrogatories is privileged, pleas, identify such information, state the privilege asserted, and state the fact giving rise to such privilege. L. Privil.as as k li .d to ocument Production . If objection is made to producing any document, or any portion thereof or to disclosing any information contained therein state: 1. the title of the document; ------- 2. the nature at the dacuaertt (e.g. tntsraff c. memorandum, correspondence, report); 3. the author or sender: 4. the address..; S. the date of the document: 6. the name of each person to whom the or .g rta1 r a copy was shown or circulated; 7. the names appearing of any circulation list relating to the document; 8. the basis on which privilege is claimed: and 9. a summary statement of the •ubj.ct matter of the document in sufficient detail to permit the court to rule on the propri.ty of the objection. H. Vaau or urdensom. . It is anticipated that defenda- may object to a particular request as vague or burdensome. plaintiff cannot always determine in advance which r.qu.sts m gh truly be burdensom. to defendant. It is anticipated that defendant will answer all requests to the best of its ability ar in good faith, preserving any Z. jI objections if necessary It is further anticipated that defendant will attempt to obtain clarification or delimiting of plaintiff’s requests from the undersigned (who stands ready and willing to do so) if the tact of the particular situation so require. N. Sinoular/Plural . Words used in the plural shall al be taken to mean and include the singular. Wards used in the singular shall also b• taken to mean and include the plural. ------- —6— 0. ‘ And and “Or’ . The words “and’ and “or’ sPtaU. be construed Conjunctively or disjunctively as necessary to make t request Inclusive rather than exclusive. p. partial Answers . U arty interrogatory or request c be answered fully, as full, an answer as possible should be provided. Stat. the reason for your inability to answer fully, and give any informat .on, knowledge or belief you have reqar the portion unanswered. Q. Partial Admiasioni . In responding to the following Requests for Admission, wher, you deny only part of a matter fc whi.ch an admission is r.qu.st.d, specify which part s denied ar which part is admitted. In respons. to Plaintiff’s second Request for Admission, if Defendant believes that some but not all, of the documents contained in Exhibit A are true and accurat. copies of DMRs and letters submitted by Defendant, specify which documents are true and accurate copies and which are not. Wherever a denial or partial denial is mad. $ e and every fact which forms the basis for the denial or partia. denial, and identify all documents that support or tend to re your denial or partial denial. tF!NITIONS Unless otherwise indicated, the following definitions s apply to the.. discovery requests: A. ‘Contractor’ means any person who acts as agent fe on behalf of, any other person, whether or not for considert and includes subcontractors. ------- 5. ‘Crown Cork’ refers to Crown Cork d. Puerto Rico, Inc. including all, present and former officers, employees, iembers. agents, engineers and Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc. C. ‘Defendant ’ refers to Crown Cork de Puerto Rico, trtc. including all present and former officers, employees, members, agents, engineers, and Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc. 0. ‘DMRs ’ means the discharge monitoring reports reç .:e by Crown Cork’s 1986 NPDES Permit. E. “Document’ means all writings of any kind, incLud .rtg, without limitation, receipts, returns, summaries, intsroff.ce and intra—offics communications, notations of any conversat ns (including, without limitation, telephone calls, meetings and other communications), computer printouts, teletypes, tilefax, invoices, graphic or oral records or representations of any kr’ (including, without limitation, photographs, charts, graphs, microfiche, microfilm, videotapes, recordings and motion pictures), electronic, mechanical or electric records or representations of any kind (including, without limitation, tapes cassettes, discs, rscordings and computer memories), an all, drifts, alterations, modifications, chanq•s and amendments any of the foregoing. ?. IPA means the United States Environmental Protect i. Agency. G. ‘EQ S ’ means the Pu•rto Rico Environmental Quality Sc H. The ‘facility’ or ‘Defendants facility’ refers to t can making facility owned by Defendant in Carolina, Puerto R ------- —8- at state Read MO. 3, Km. 12.6, PuertO Rico Industrja . Park of Carolina, as set forth in Permit No. PR0024872. . ‘Insp.ctiOfl ’ means the physical observation of any tangible matter. J w p ’ means the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System set forth in 33 U.S.C. 1342. K. ‘Permit’ refers to NPDES Permit NO. PR0024872, to Crown Cork in 1986. t.. ‘Person” means a natural person, firm, partnershi.p, association, corporation, proprietorship, governmental. body, government agency or commission or any other organization or entity. M. “Pollutant” is as defined in 33 U.S.C. 1362. 14. ‘POTW’ refers to publicly owned trsatment works. 0. “PRASA refers to the Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority. P. ‘Stats’ means the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, I any departments or agencies thereof. Qa ‘Storage’ or ‘storing’ means the containment of a substance either on $ temporary basis or for a period of years R. ‘Yo a’ and “your refers to Crown Cork. ------- IN’I’ERROCA OR 7 1. When did the facility begin manufacturing cans? The facility began manufacturing cane in 1972. It began manufacturing aluainua cane in 1983. 2. If you contend that the facility manufactured cans without discharging pollutanta’ (as defined in 33 U.S.C. S1361 .6), (12)), directly or indirectly, into navigable waters of the united States or a POTW, please set forth the basis for such content ion. Not applicable. 3. Identify the days betiieen November 1, 1983 and November 1, 1986 when the facility was not in operation. Weekenda end holidays during that tia.. 4. For each day from November 1, 1983 through the present, what was Crown Corks rate of production of cans per day or any other production process? 1984 1,008,000 cans per day 1985 1,074,240 cane per day 1986 1,103,040 cans per day 1987 1,431,317 cane p .r day 1988 1,746,823 cans per day 1 ------- 5. were any samples taken of : sn Corks discharges leading, directly or indirectly, to the navigable waters of the United States, other than those set forth in the DXRe attached hereto as Exhibit A. If so, please identify such samples an their results. See attached Exhibit I, Parts A,B and C. 6. Since November 1, 1986, has Crown Cork had a procedure to investigate upsets at the facility. If 80, state what such procedure is or was, identify all person authorizing or implementing the same, and identity all documents relating to the same. Yes, a supervisor is assigned to ovsrse th. operation. A trained CPO is assigned to ch.ck and eonitor th ey .t 24 hours per day. If a problea L uncovered, these people are obliged to correct it or to notify the plant superintendent. The Plant Nanager is authorized to iapl ent the procedure. There are no docuaenta relating to sam. 7. Please identify each non-compliance report or any other report or communication r.garding discharges or upset., excluding DXRs but ineluding &ttaehments tø Re , regarding th facility and submitt.d to EPA, PRASA, or EQB since November 3. 1986. Available for inspection at offices of Carlo. Garrett, by prior appointment, Suite 306, Darlington Building, Rio Pi.dras, Puerto Rico 2 ------- 8. Other than those set forth in the 1986 Permit an Administrative Order, state all NPDES or other limits, including any extension, variance or modifications that you contend have applied since November 1, 1983 to the facility’s discharges, specifying the source of, and identifying any documents stating, such limitations. Do not understand this question... vague and ambiguous. 9. On what days during each month ware samples for OSN 001 taken for the analyses described in the DMRs submitted by Defendant tO EPA? See answer to S and 7. 10. On what days during each month were samples for OSN 002 taken f or the analyses described in the DNRs submitted by Defendant to EPA? See anawer to S and 7. 11. Identify the days between October 1, 1987 and thf present when the facility was not in operation. Weekends and holidays. 3 ------- 12. On which months, since December 1, 1986, has there been no flow through OSM 002 that was not preceded by a least one week of no precipitation? Do not understand the question...vague and ambiguous with double negatives. 13. Why have no DZ4Rs been submitted to EPA for the following months: a) December 1986 (re. OSN 002); OSN 002 is a stormwater-orily discharge and stormwater discharges are not regulated by EPA. b) January, 1987 (ra. OSN 002); See answer to (a). C) October - December, 1987; and Crown Cork ceased discharging as p.r its NPDES Discharge Permit a. of Sep. 3], 1987 and so notified EPA. In the said notification CLuvn Cork also stated that, since it had ceased discharging, it was discontinuing it. NPDES monitoring and reporting. Sometime later, vie a phon. call to Crown Corke Environmental Consultant, EPA requested that reporting continue .ven if Crown Cork had discontinued discharging a. per it. WPDES Discharge Permit. Czo.rn Cork eublts that having to report even if it is not discharging is not necessary. However, since EPA requeet.d, ev.n if only verbally, that reporting continue, Crown Cork resumed doing so in January 1988. 4 ------- d July 1988 through the present. D a for July thzough October 1988 have been submitted. D .s for November 1988 through January 1989 were not .u itted on time due to clerical difficulties at the office of Crown Cork’s Environmental Consultant. They are being prepared and will be submitted shortly. Furthermore, the submittal of DMRI since October 1, 1987 ii a formality since, as of that date, Crown Cork ceased discharging as per its HPDES Discharge Permit, with the exception of atormwater, and so informed EPA in writing. The discharge of storevater is not yet regulated by EPA. 14. Regarding all discharges from the facility since October 1, 1987, other than those discharges that went to a POTW a describe all points from which such discharges occurred; and Stormwater only. b) describe the sources of contamination of such discharges, e.g., stormwater, non-contact cooling water, boiler blowdown, etc. No source of contamination. 15. War. there any non-contact cooling water and stormwater components of OSN 001 in existence prior to transmission of waste flows to PRASA? Tea. 5 ------- 15. If your response to the preceding Interrogatory is anything but an unqualified negative, state whether any such non- contact cooling water and atormwater is presently conveyed to PRASA or is presently conveyed directly or indirectly tc navLgable waters of the United States. Non-contact cooling water is not presently being conveyed either to PRASA or to navigable waters of the United States; operation of the equipment generating said non-contact cooling water has been discontinued. Storawater is presently being conveyed only to navigable waters of the United States in keeping with PRASA’ s Regulations. 3.7. Describe the waste streams presently discharging, directly or indirectly, into navigable waters of the United States. Include in your r.sponsei a The sources of such waste streams; b) The pollutants in such waste streams; C) The physical pates of such waste streams; d) Describe whether any such point of diachargw is the same as OSN 001 or OSN 002 identified in the Psrmit. None. 18. State in detail each waste stream from the facility directed to the PRASA system, and provide the date wher each waste stream from th. facility was connected to the PRAS. system. 6 ------- Detail of each waste stream fro. the facility directe to the PRASA system is described in the duly completed document, PRASA INDUSTRIAL SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE, available for inspection, by previous appointment, at th. offices of Carlo. a. Garrett Associates, Suite 306 Darlington Building, Rio Piedxas, Puerto Rico. All waste streams were connected to the PRASA system on October 1, 1987. 19. Were any samples taken from Crown Corks discharges to PRASA, directly or indirectly, other than those set forth in the Baseline Monitoring Report (BMR) attached hereto as Exhibit B? If so, please identify such sample. and the results thereof. Yes. See attached Exhibit II, Parts A and B. 20. In addition to the categorical pretreatment standards, set forth at 40 C.P.a. S 465.44, are there or have there ever been, since October 1, 1987, any limitations imposed by PR.ASA applicable to the discharges from the facility to PRASAS POTW? If so, please identify those limitation.? Yes • Those limitations are the one . enacted in T PUERTO RICO AQUEDUCT AND SEWER AUTEORITI, RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE SUPPLY OF WATER MD UWER SERVICE, approved by FlASks Governing Board on lay 10, 1976, aasnded by FRAU’s Governing Board on July 25, 1985, and approved by the Secretary of State of the cA n,ealth of Puerto Rico on larch 1, 1986. 21. What is the basis for d.f.ndant’s failure t provide the following reports to EPA by the following deadlines: 7 ------- a) 90—Day Report by December 30 1987; The reports were all, due on the dates specified in this interrogatory; however they were not due to EPA but to the Adaifli strative Authority which is PRISA. b) Periodic Report by December 31, 1987; See answer to A). C) Periodic Report by June 30, 1988; See answer to a). d) BMR by March 2, 1988; See answer to a). e 90—Day Report by March 2, 1988; See answer to a). f) Periodic Report by March 2, 1988. See answer to a). To the extent that you contend that the above reports were not due on the above date., but were due on other dates or were not due at all, please set forth the dates on which you be1 each specific report was due and/or the basis for contending that the reports were not due at all. See answr to a). 22. Has Defendant ever conducted or caused to bE conducted at or downstream of th. facility any testing tc detersiin• the toxicity of it. discharge or effect upon wate quality or health? If so, stat. exact dates and times of auc 8 ------- testing, including specific results and the person author inq and or conducting such testing. Not downstream but at the facility. 23. For all elements of treatment equipment (incl .ad .ng pretreatment) in place by, or installed on or after November 1, 1983, state the design specifications or such wastewater treatment systems at the facility and identify all doc .&ments containing, describing or evaluating these specifications. It would be extremely burdensome and cumbersome to attach all documents relating to design specifications therefore, they will be made available for inspection by appointment with Canoe Garrett. 24. Has Defendant had any written procedures for considering or deciding whether to purchase or install capital equipment, including pollution control equipment, at the facility? II so, describe and identify all procedures and documents containing, evaluating or otherwise relating to such procedures. No. 25. Describ, how Defendant considers or decides whether to purchase or install capital equipment, including pollution control equipment, identifying all. persons involved and specifying all information collected, analyzed or in any wa considered. Identify all documents used to consider purchase o equipment to reduce water pollution discharges, or meet NPDE permit limits, at the facility. 9 ------- There is an Engineering Department evaluation as well as one by the Research Department, on a case by case basis. 26. Describe each measure considered by Defendant to- reduce water pollutant discharges or to achieve Compliance with NPDES permits or categorical pretreatment standards, including but not limited to modifications of pollution control facilities. Include in the description the nature of the measure, the reduction in water pollution discharge anticipated to result from the measure, the period of time during which the measure was considered, and the identification of persona who participated mt he consideration or evaluation of the measure, identifying any documents relating to such consideration. (a) If any such measure was implemented, identity each action taken to implement it, specifying the dates, the action, the costs or expenditure relating to each act and identifying all documents relating to sucn costs or .xp.nditursa. 1. Installation of Rydrofaz system Costas 1983 luilding $ 50,870 Eydrofax IachLne 252,185 Installation Cost ______ $353, 055 2. Iapl.a.ntation of a system of water re -usa which reduced th. amount of water used and cwss.quently the amount of water discharged into the system. 3. Elimination of the use of liquid alum in the waste treatment systau. 4 • Introduction of use of line to reduc. pollutants. 10 ------- 5. Connection tO PRASA Coats .anitazy eever line $ 61,225. 6. I proveaSflt of housekeeping. (b) For measures not implemented, state the reason the measure was not implemented and the estimated cost of the measure, including operation and maintenance costs. No eaauree were considered which were not iapleaented. 11 ------- 27. What expenditures (capital expenditures for equipment anc operation and maintenance expenses for the use of such aquipment have been made for each year since November 1, 1983 to the present for treatment and pre-treatment of Crown Corks discharges? Include in your answer, for each of the following calendar years, the specific amounts spent, and the precise equipment or services that it was spent for: 4) 1983; 1) Hydrofax Machine, Installation Cost 6 Building $ 353,055 2) Kati used in ffydrofaz System 6,794 3) Labor C.P.O. a Supervisor ..3L .2li $396,093 b) 1984; 1) Mat’ ] used in Eydrofax System 29,708 2) Labor CIP.O. 6 Supervisor 9 .7 C) 1985; 1) Mati used in Rydrofax System 43,899 2) Labor C.P.O. & Supervisor 58,483 3) Test by Lab .54.0 102,922 d) 1986; 1) Mt’] used in Eydrofaz System 42,122 2) Labor C.PO. a Supervisor 84,675 3) at by Lab 19,624 4) Consultant Pemi a Expenses 8,812 5) asv Instruments _j ,5 160 ,80 32 ------- 1) 81,776 2) 94,964 3) 15,418 4) 41,402 5) 9,755 6) 61,225 7) 7,770 8) 12,288 9) 26,600 10) 3t ,300 f) 1988. 1) Mat’l used in Hydrofax System 2) Labor C.P.O. a Supervisor 3) Test by Lab 4) Consultant Fees 6 Expenses 5) New Instruments 6) Containment of Liquid Storage 7) Waste Water System Total Expenditure., laint Ezp. Katie etc. (1983 — 1988) _________ 28. For the expenses described in response to the previous interrogatory, please state what portion of the expenses, if any, was eligible f or investment tax credit and, if applicable, the tax credit claimed, and stats th. basis for your answer. Improper not r.i.vant or calculated to lead to discovery of rlevant and ad.i.sthle evidence. 29. Pisces stat. th. d.prsciab le lif, assigned to an quipmsnt r.f.rr.d to in the pr.vious two interrogatories. 14 years. a) 1987; and Eat 1 used in Byrofax System Labor C.P.O. 6 Supervisor Test by Lab Con.ultaflt Fees 6 Expenses New Instruments Sanitary Sewer Line Dex 850 Ultrasonic Open Channel Effluent Flowseter Storage Tanks Underground Tank Removal Pump & Station for Waste Water Disposal 388,498 96,025 107,572 14,217 21,546 7,042 9,000 .600 2 5L 002 $ iJ 2.L 5I1 13 ------- 30. Please state the rate of return on equity for Defendant for each year since and including 1983 and state the basii for your answer. Improper; see answer to Interrogatory No. 28; also question as to ‘basis’ is vague and ambiguous. 31. For each year since and including 1983, please state the interest rate on borrowed capital (long term debt of Defendant, state the source and type of borrowed capital, and state the basis for your answer. Improper -- see Answer to Interrogatory No. 28. 32. Describe all sources of income such income to you since November 1, 1983. liRfi (IN THOU SANDS) $20,857 _ _ $29 2& _ NET INCONE s DNI Sew. Cans $ 3,044 $ 4,086 $ 374 $ 1,786 1.0.1. ALUN 771 607 jJj AL UT INC $ 1J1.. $ LJ.U $ 1. 17 $ L..ltl 33. Stat. your total assets for each of since November 1, 1983. Improper -- See answer to Interrogatory No. 28 but without waiving tbe objection. Se. ana.r to No. 36. $ 2,796 $ 4,2S1 the years and the a tbunt of I2 SALES. DNI Hew. Cans $22,316 1.0.8. ALUN 7,fl93 TOTAL SALES $24,446 $d32.JdU $21,407 $2LJ. 1 $2 $3 , 11 ] 14 ------- 34. Identify each balance sheet end audit related to your business •ince November 1, 1983. Iaproper but without waiving the objection. See answer to No. 36. 35. State your current assets and liabilities, specifying the value and description of each such asset or liability, as of Deceber 31, 1988 TN ?HflUSAN1 )S Current Assets: CashonHandandinflanks $ 19 Accounts Receivable - Custo..r 5,577 Niscellaneous Receivables 525 Accounts Receivable. Inter Co. 2,615 Inventories 3,060 Prepaid Insurance, etc. ____ Total Current Meets $ 11,826 Plant & Equipment Buildings 1,829 machinery a Equipment $ 31,503 Im.s Acc. Depr. ( 11. 7 ) 13,764 Land 2]7 Total Assets $ 25 , R27 LTAE!L ?TI & AP IAL Current Liabilities ACcounts Payable 1,663 CCXU.d Liabiliti•s 158 Accru.d Iac s Tax 6 Dsf.rrsd Incgme 2,500 Capital Stock without Par Value 110 OtMr Contribut.d Capital 400 Zeza d Surplus 20 .ggO Total Liabilities & Capital $ 21.J21 15 ------- 36. Identify all annual reports prepared and/or issued by you since November 1, 1983 and for each such report state who prepared them or approved them. and who presently possesses them Since defendant is not a publicly owned corporation, there are not annual reports. Attached however axe Statistical Statements prepared by the manager of Accounting for the year a 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987 and 19 88. 16 ------- 37. Identify all of your annual and quarterly budgets, including assuaptions, from November 1, 1983 to the present (th..s includes not only 1 year budgets, but multiyear budgets, as well). Improper. 38. List all current and potential sources of capital available to you and the basis thereof. Provide the amount. of credit lines with anticipated terms and conditions, if any. Improper. 39. Do you have any potential insurance coverage which may in whole or in part cover the claim(s) against you in this action? No. 40. If the answer to the previous interrogatory above is at firmativ•, pisale state for .ach such policyz 17 ------- a, the name of the person insured; Not applicable. b) the name and address of the insurance carrier(s); Not applicable. C) the policy number or other identification number; Not applicable. d) the effective dates of each policy; and Not applicable. e the nature and limits of the policy coverage. Not applicable. 41. Has Defendant ever been a party to any other lawsuit involving water pollution, or has the facility even been the subject of any other lawsuit involving water pollution? Tf so, please state: No. a) where the suit was filed; Not applicable. b) the title and docket number of the suit; and Not applicable. C) the resolution of the suit, if any. Not applicable. lB ------- 42. State whether you have ever done business under any other name, partnership, corporation, or otherwise and if so, identify each auch name and entity, the dates of Conduct of business under that name, and state whether, if a corporation, it was registered as a corporation in any State for any purpose, and if so, in what State. No. 43. State whether there have been any changes in your ownership since January 1, 1970, and if so, in reverse chronological order state; a) any changes in company name and the current correct legal name; b) the nature of the company s business and any changes in the nature of its business operations; C) whether the corporation has been in continuous operation for the •ntir. period (January 1, 1970 to the present) and if not, list the periods wher operation. ceased; and d) describe all changes in stock ownership whic affected the allocation of stock among the stoc holders by more than 5%. None. 19 ------- 44. State whether you have ever filed for bankruptcy or reorganization pursuant to law, and if so, state the dates of-j such filing, the name and number of the proceeding, the court in’ which the proceeding was filed, and the outcome of the proceeding. Identify any document initiating and arty docutnent terminating such proceeding. No. 45. Identify all of your corporate officers or directors since January 1, 1970 and for each person state which entity paid his or her salary or a portion of his or her salary, bonuses or travel expenses. Improper -- See answer to Interrogatory No. 28. 46. Identify all of your corporate or business of f locations and changes of locations since November 1, 1983. N 12.6 65th Infantry Avenue Puerto Rico Industrial Park Carolina, P.R. 00630 47. Identify all persons owning 5% or more of the stock in Defendant since November 1, 1993. Dst•ndant is a wholly owned subsidiary of Crown Cork & S.al Co., Inc. 20 ------- 4$. Describ, in detail the exact nature of the relationship at the present and at any time relevant tI i5 lawsuit) between Defendant and Crown Cork Seal Company Inc., taking particular care to identify and describe in detail: a) any stock ownership in one company by another company (including the date(s) on which such ownership interest was acquired, from whom the ownership interest was acquired and the amount of consideration paid for such ownership interest); Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc is the sole shareholder of defendant and has been since its original incorporation a. a Delaware Corporation. b) common officers and/or directors and/or employees; William 7. Avery is vice president of CLown Cork de Puerto Rico and president of Crova Cork & Seal Co., Inc. Benry E. Butwell is vice president of Crown Cork de Puerto Rico and a vice president of Cz . wn Cork & Seal Co., Inc. Francis 2. flelton is treasurer of Crown Cork d. Puerto Rico and treasurer of Crown Cork & S.a]. Co ., Inc. *ichard Zrsy.anovski is secretary of Crown Cork de Puerto Rico and vice president and secretary of Crown Cork & Seal Ce, Inc. C) whith•r either D.f.ndant or Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc. has aver obtained financing from thc other, and whether either Defendant or Crown Carl & Seal Company, Inc. has ever s.rv.d as quaranto 21 ------- for any financing obtained by the other from sny other person or entity; No. d) if the answer to the previous subpart of this interrogatory is affirmative, set forth the dates and amounts of such financing, and the identity of the person or entity providing the financing; Not applicable. e any and all documents which relate to, reflect or constitute the relationship between those companies, and provide, if necessary for purposes of clarity, an organizational chart which sets forth the relationship between those companies; Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc. is the sol. shareholder of Crown Cork di Puerto Rico. f) why Crown Cork Seal Company, Inc. wrote the letter attached hereto as Exhibit C; and Because Richard Greawse,, specialist on environmental issues for C wm Cork a Seal Ce., IDC., has been called in as a consultant on those issues by Cwvn Cork di Puerto Rico en various occasions. g) identify any misting, and the minutes from such meeting, of shareholders, board of directors, meeting of officers, executive comaitt.es, management or employees where any of th. items covered in this Interrogatory w•rs discussed. 22 ------- Not applicable. 49. Identify each person who has or had responsibility with regard to the following matters, and for each person ident fied, state the period of time of such responsibility: a) monitoring, analysis and reporting of pollutant discharges from the facility; Ca.rlos R. Garrett b) compliance with the facility with water pollution control laws and regulations; The Plant Nenager C) operation and maintenance or water pollution control equipment at the facility; and Rilaria Rodriques. d) initiation and evaluation of budget requests for pollution control or other capital equipment; The Plant Nanager a) financial aspects of the facility, including cash flows, op.ration expenses and profitability; and The Plant Nanager 1) with authority to appropriat, funds for th facility, including monies for operations maintenance, construction, .quip..nt purchases 23 ------- employee salaries, and any other direct or in direct cost of operating the plant. 1rtu.ro Dias Cataldo, President. 50. For each person identified in the answer to the previous interrogatory, identify the person to whom each reports Ha]ario Rodriguez to the plant manager. l iz. Cataldo to the Chairman of the Board of Crown Cork de Puerto Rico. 51. For each of Plaintiffs first discovery requests, identify a) who provided the information upon which the responses is based; Cabs Garrett, Richard Greaves and ernest liehrlander. b) whether that person has personal knowledg the facts contained in the response; and Yes, each has soe. C) if th. answer to part (b) of this interrogatory is negative, please identify the source of the information. ot applicable. 52. Identify each person you .xpect to call as ax expert vitn.ss at th. trial of this cas., and for •ach statet Caries *. Garrett 24 ------- a) the witness’ expertise and qua lification3; Formal Educationi Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering; University of Puerto Rice, 1952 Suer Institute in Nuclear Engineering; Brookhaven National Laboratory, 1957 Master of Sciences in Engineering; University of Florida, 1960 Su er Institute in Nuclear Reactor Experimentation; University of Florida, 1962 Several short courses and seminar. Memberships’ Registered Professional Engineer in Puerto Rico, License Number 2602 Meber, Colegio de Ingeniero. y Arminensores de Puerto Rico Member, The Amer ican Soc i.ty of Mechnical Engineer. Xeaber The American Society of Civil Engineers Member, The New York ACademy of Sciences *ber, Meciacion de Ing.nieros NacanicOs de Puerto Rico. Mbsr, Inatitute do Ingenieros Iscanicos 4. Puerto Rico Member, later Pollution Control J.d.rstion Member, Soci.dad Pu.rtorriquefla de Necurice do Aqua Member, National aistory Society of PuirtO Rico Member, The Nature Conlervacy 25 ------- Ieaber, Fondo do Iojora iento de Puerto Rico Meaber, The Audobon Society Charter Meaber, Puerto Rico Speleological Society Rainent Engineer, Thu Beta Pi, Engineering Honor Society Keaber and Past Chairmazk, Advisory Council, The Conservation Trust of Puerto Rico Chairsan, Borinquen Audubon Soc ity. Eaployaent Profile, Meaber of the Faculty of Mechanical Engineering of the University of Puerto Rico at fisyaguer, Associate Professor, Chairaan of the Departaent, Acting Dean of Engineering 1952-63. General Manager, flicks and Ingle Waster HeaispPtere Corporation, Mechanical Contractors 1963-65 Private Practice, Consulting Engineer 1965-69 Saae Professional Endeavours; Past & Presonti Past Chairsan, Several C ittees, Co1egi Ingenieros, Arquitectos y Aqriaensores de Puerto Rico Past Elected Meaber, First Acade.ic Senate, University of Pu.rto Rico, Iayagu.s Past Ieaber, Board of Directors 1 Colegio dE Xagsniaro., Arquit.ctos y Aqriaensores do Puertc Rico Past Mber, Board of Dir.ctors, St. Luke’ Bospital, Ponc. Puerto Rico Past *b.r, Enabling C itt.., Puerto Ric Eucliar Center Past leaber, Solar Energy C ittee, TM Aaerice Society of Beating, Ventilating aM Befrigoratir Engineers 26 ------- Past Chaizaan, Asociacion do Ing.ni.ros Wacanicos do Puerto Rico Post Chairsan, Boiler Coda Board, Departaent of Labor, Cconvealth ot Puerto Rico Charter Ms.ber, Puerto Rico S.ction, The Aaerican Society of Heating, Air Conditioning and Refrigerating Engineer. Founder and Past Chairna.n, Puerto Rico Section, The &.erican Society of Kechnical Engineers Post eaber, Board of Ezaainers for Engineers, Architects and Surveyors, Puerto Rico Founder and Chairsan, Borinquen Audubon Society President, Professional Environsental Services, Inc. Principal, Caries R. Garrett Associates Sose Profassiorial Projects $ - Design Teens Eli Lilly Pharaaceuticai Plant, Carolina Eli Lilly Ch ical Plant, Moyaguas Partab Pharneceutical Plant, Pajardo 1ev School of Engineering Coupler, Eayaqu.z Sublistatie Holding, Bk, Isabsia San Juan Regional Park Roberto Cl.nt. ColiseuM, San Juan Juan Raaon Wubrisl Stadius, aaya n Lea Caz.elitas Dsvslo nt, Rio Grand. Rehabilitation of the Buena Vista Sanitary Landfill, Baya n Aliusutos Liquido. Industrialia, Inc •, Catano S.v.ral Projects at Various *unicipaliti•s. Construction Teas Paver Plant 1 Centre lisdico do Puerto Rico, Sat Juan Oncologic_Hospital, San Juan Sit. Isp€ eflt 5 , Centre 1edico do Puerto Rico San Juan Central Laundry, Centre lodico do Puerto Rice, Si Juan Several Water Rains, Purto Rico Adqu .ducte w Saver. Authority, Anasco and laysgues Water Pusping Station, Anasco 27 ------- Sewerage Pumping Station, Caguas Elevated Control ?ank Systems, St. Thomas AM’CC/IFSS Building for FAA, San Juan. b) each tie .d in which the witness may be of fere as an expert; Compliance with environmental regulations on effluent limitations. C) the subject on which the witness is expected to testify; Compliance with environmental regulations on effluent limitat ions. d) the substance of the facts and opinions to which the witness is expected to testify; Compliance with environmental regulations on ei fluent limitations. e) a summary of the grounds for each such opinion offered; Applicable portions of the Cods of Federal Regulations. Applicable portions of the Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sever Authority Rules and Regulations for the Supply of Water and Sever Service. f) identify each p.rson with whom the witness consulted or talked regarding conditions at the facility or r.garding his testimony; Ir. Artaro DLas-CataldO, pgssident, Crown Cork de Puerto Rica, Inc. ir. Irmest A. Ishrlandsr, Acting Plant Uneg.r, Crown Cork ds Puerto Rico, Inc. Er. Richard H. Groawss, P.R. Consultant tO Crown Cork ds Puerto, Inc. Er. Gregory J. CutaPo, isq. 28 ------- g) identify all docun ents which the witness reviewed, was given, or relies upon in formulating the opinions the witness may give at trial of this case; and Such documents are too nuaerous to be lLsted in identification; they axe available for inspection, by prior appointment, at witness’ office at Suite 306, Daxlington Building, Rio PLedra., Puerto Rico. h) identify .11 publications authored in whole or in party by such witness. RAZON 0 5 CO1PRES ION VS • PI$TONOE (CONPRES ION RATION VS. ENOCXING); Journal of the coleqio do Ingenieros, Arquitectos 7 Agriaenaor.. do Puerto Rico, November 1958. PERFOMAIICE OP A SOUR STILL, with Erich A. Farber; presented at the Suer Annual *meting of the American Society of mechanical Engineers, Los Angeles, California, Siiier, 1961 INGUIERIA CANICA ( CBANICAL EIIGIIIERRING); Journal of the Colegio do Ingenisros, Arquitecto. y Agrinensore. do Puerto Rico, July, 1962 REPORT V EIIGIUERS • COUNCIL FOR ? PROFESS IONAL DEVIWPIIVI?; School of Engin..ring, University of Puerto Rico, October 1, 1965 Several E IIVIRONNENTAL IILIPACT ASSESS**I S AND STATUZNTS, 1974 to dato. CAVING II PUERTO RICO, Business Puerto Rico, Suer- Fall 1983. 53. Identify each parson not idsntif Led in you Respons. to the previous interrogatory whom you plan to call as witness at trial, and as to each states a) th. subject matter of his testimony; and 29 ------- b) the fact aa1 baiL. for that testimony. Zaproper. 30 ------- ‘V IN TEE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR TEE DISTRICT 0? PUERTO RICO S UNITED STATES OF A ICA, 2 Plaintiff, S v’ Civ’. No. 88-01920 GG Crown Cork de Puerto Rico, Inc.,: S Defendant —— — — —X yC (*a fS / RIDUISTS OR PROIMJCTTON 1. All. documents identified, referred to or relied upon in responding to Plaintiff’s First Interrogatorias. See attached Exhibits I, II, III. Also, docuaents at office. at Crovn Cork de Puerto Rico and th. offic, of Defendants expert, Canoe R. Garrett, Engineer. 2. AX]. documents supporting or otherwise relating to any denial, allegations or affirmative defenses set forth in your answer to th. complaint in this action. Ses answer to Rquest for Production No. 1. 3. Copies of English translations of all documents supplied in response to any discovery requests in this case. All in NoØ .isb. 4. All documents, other than those attached as Exhibits h•reto, that contain any sampling reiults or other data referring or r.lating to your discharges, directly or indirectly, into navigable waters of the United States, between Novsmber 1, 1983 and November 1, 1986. S.. I hthit I, Part B. ------- 5. All documents, other than those attached as Exhibits hereto, that Contain any sampling results or other dat referring or relating to your discharges through OSN 001. or 002 or into POTWs, since November 1, 1986. See Exhthit II, Part B. 6. Please provide data for all sa p1ee taken of Crown Corks discharges leading, directly or indirectly, to the navigable vatera of the United States, other than those set forth in the DMRs attached hereto as Exhibit A. See Ezhibit I, Parts A, B, and C -- same documents requested in Interrogatory No. 5. 7. All documents relating to the advantage. of disadvantages or potential implications to Defendant of delaying installation or implementation of water pollution equipment or measures at the facility. None. 8. All charts or diagrams illustrating vastewater treatment and discharg, facility operating conditions at the facility. Non.. 9. All documents relating to change(s) in operating, maint•nancs or Lnip.ction proc.dur.s at th. facility which were designed to, or had Ut. if fict of, preventing or reducing or causing or increasing discharges of vetar pollutants. None. 10. Income tax r.cords of Defendant since 1983. Not discoverable. ------- 11. Insurance policies that may in whole or in part cover any claim(s) against you in this case. None. 12. Annual financial statements or uum tartes of Defendant for the years since 1983. See answer to Interrogatory No. 36. 13. All documents prepared for or furnished to any persons retained by Defendant as a consultant or expert in connection with the subject matter of this case. Available for inspection upon prior appointaent at office of Carlo. Garrett. 14. All reports, memoranda, analyses, computations or other documents, incl.uding drafts, prepared by any person retained by Defendant as a consultant or expert in connection with the •ub ect matter of this case. See answer to Interrogatory No. 13. 15. All documents indicating or otherwise relating to any ownership interest in the facility since January 1, 1970. This is vaq . and ambiguous and canpot be responded to. 16. Provid• results from any sample. t&c•n from Crown Cork’s diacharg.. to PRASA, directly or indirectly, other than those sst forth in th• Baseline Xonitoring R.port (BMR) attached hereto as lzhibit B. See Izhibit II, Parts A and B. 17. Al]. DKRs or oth•r documents containing sampling data pertaining to Defendants’ discharges sinc• Novamber 1, 1983. ------- other than those attached as Exhibits to these discover2 requestS. See Exi 1hit I, Parts A and B; It; and III. 18. All permits, letters, memoranda, reports or other documents or communications between Crown Cork and PRASA concerning: a) the characteristics of Crown Corks wastewaters discharged or proposed to be discharged to PRASA; and b) categorical pretreatment standards and/or local pretreatment conditions or limitations. Available for inspection at offices of Carlo. Garrett U Ofl prior appoifltaeflt. 19. All documents pertaining to expenditures made ‘ treatment or pr.-treatmlflt of vast•s since November 1, 1983. See answer to Intrrogatory No • 27. ------- IN TEE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO ————2 UNITED STATES OP ANERICA, * Plaintiff, $ v. Civ. No. 88—01920 GG Crown Cork de Puerto Rico, Inc.,s $ DefendAnt z — — 00 U a 00 eeeneflUflb I PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OP piotwg’rc FOR AflWTSS TOW fl PEWDANT CROWN CORK 1. Exhibit 1, attached to Plaintiff’s complaint, is true and accurate copy of NPDES Permit No. PR0024872, iseued to Crown Cork in 1986. Admitted. 2. Exhibit A, attached hereto, are true, accurate and complete copies of DEEI and letters submitted by Crown Cork to EPA. If any are not, stat. which ones, and/or which parts of those ones, ar. inaccurate or incomplete. Admitted. 3. Exhibit 2, attached to Plaintiff’s complaint, is a tru. and accurate copy of an Administrative Order issued to Defendant by EPA on or about S.pt.mb.r 18, 1986. Admitted. 4. Exhibit 3, attached to plaintiff’s complaint, is a true and accurate copy of an Administrative Order issued to Defendant by EPA on or about P.bruary 12, 1988. ------- A itted. 5. Exhibit B, attached hereto, is a true and accurat copy of a Baseline Monitoring Report submitted by Defendant on or about May 23, 1988. Admitted. 6. Exhibit C, attached hereto, is a true and accurate copy of a February 28, 1984 letter written by Richard H. Greaves, now or formerly of Crown Cork & Category Determination for the facility. The letter is true and accurate. 7. Exhibit D, attached hereto, is a true and accurate copy of a flow diagram submittd by Defendant with Defendants permit application. Admitted. 8. On October 30, 1984, Defendant discharged, direct. , or indirectly pollutants into navigable waters of the United States. Denied. 9. The facility has been used to manufacture cane since at least November 1, 1983. Admitted. 10. The facility could not manufacture cans after November 1, 1983 without discharging wast.vat.rs either into navigable waters, •ith•r directly or indirectly, or into a POTW. Admitted. 11. The sampling results contained tnt hi BXR, Exhibit B, attached hereto, an, accurate. ------- Admitted. 12. Defendant submitted no complete BXR to EPA nti1 on or after May 20, 1988. Admitted. 13. Defendant submitted no complete BMR to EPA urttil on or after May 23, 1988. Admitted. 14. As of the filing of this complaint, Defendant had not submitted any of the following reports: a) 90-Day Compliance Report; and b) Periodic Compliance Reports. Admitted. Dated: _____________ Respectfully submitted, ROGER J. XARZULLA Assistant Attorney General Land and Natural Resources Division By: MICHAEL 0. HILL Attorney, Environmfltal Enforcuent S.ct ion U.S. D.partaeflt of Justic• P.O. Box 7611 B.n Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 (202) 633—2802 OF COUNSEL: GEORGE A. SMANAHAN Attorney Office of R•gional CounsSl U.S. EnvirOfla.fltal protection agsncy 26 Federal Plaza New York, N .y York 10278 ------- SUSAN SULLIVAN Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring (LE-I.34S) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 401 M Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20460 ------- IN TEE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR TEE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO z I UNITED STATES OF AIIERIC.A, I S plaintiff, v. Civ. No. 88—01920 GG $ Crown Cork de Puerto Rico, Inc.,: * Defendant z p ZNTIFP’ S SECOND SET OF REqUESTS FOR AnNISS ION TO DEFENDANT C!ROVN CORX i. The Defendant, Crown Cork de Puerto Rico, Inc. (“Crown Cork” or “Defendant”), is a “person” within the meaning of Section 502(5) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. S 1362(5). Admitted. 2. Crown Cork has, since November 1, 1983, discharged and discharges pollutants from its facility within the meaning of Sections 502(6), (12) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. 55 1362(6), (12). As th. term pollutaflt$ is used in the statut., admitted. 3. The discharges referred tO in th. preceding request have been, since November 1, 1983, and are made through outfall serial number (OSN”) 001 and OSE 002, into the Rio Grande de Loiza through an unnamed creek. Denied.- 4. The discharges r.ferred to in the preceding tWO requests have been and are made also into a POTW. D.ni.d. ------- 5. OSN 001 and OSN 002 are point sources within the meaning of Section 502(14) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. S 1362(14). Admitted. 6. The Rio Grande de Loiza and said unnamed creek are navigable waters” within the meaning of Section 502(7) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. S 1362(7), and 40 C.F.R. S 122.2. Admitted. 7. From October 1, 1987 through the present, Crown Cork ha. discharged and continue, to discharge pollutants thro .igh OSN 002 into navigable waters. Denied. 8. Crown Cork ha. been and is subject to the General Pretreatment Regulation. because it has discharged and doe. discharge wastevater from the facility that contained and contains pollutants into a POTW. Admitted. 9. Crown Cork. facility is and has been subject to the Categorical Pretreatment Standards set forth in 40 C. P.R. S 465.44, for existing sources. Admitted. 10. Crown Cork began discharging pollutant. into a o’rw on October 1, 1987. La the tsT ‘pollutants • is defined in tb. r.gul at ions and statute, admitted. ------- ii. Crown Corks compliance with the standards set forth in 40 C.F.R. S 465.44 was required no later than October 1, 1987. Crown’s duty to comply with 40 C.F.R. 465.44 began on October 1, 1987. 12. Crown Cork discharged pollutants directly or indirectly into navigable waters of the United States without an NPDES permit every day during which its production facilities were in operation from and including November 1, 1983 unti.l November 1, 1986. Denied. 13. Defendant Crown Cork’s discharges of pollutants without an NPDES permit constitute violations of Section 301 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. 5 1311. This is an laproper demand, so it is neither admitted nor denied. 14. The monitoring and reporting deficiencies described in Paragraph 38 and 39 constitute violations of Section 301 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. S 1311 and of the 1986 Permit which implements Section 301 and of the Act, 33 U.S.C. S 1311. This i an improper demand, so it is neither admitted nor denied. 13. Samples taken by EPA on February 24, 1988 of BOD- 5, turbidity, and oil and grease shoved that Defendant’s discharge from 05$ 002 into navigable waters •xc.eded Permit limitations for •ach of thos. parameters. Def.n4ant dom. not have information as to vbat EPA samples shoved, so this is neither admittd nor denied. ------- 16. The Crown Cork facility was and is subject to 40 C.F.R. 403.12(d), and was required to eubait a 90 D Compliance Report tO PR.ASA by Deceni.ber, 19B . Admitted 17. Crown Cork’s failure to submit a 90 Day Compliance Report is a violation of Sections 307(b) and 308(a) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. 55 1317(b) and 1319(a). This is an improper da itd, so it is neither admitted nor denied. 18. Crown Cork’s failur, to submit Biannual Periodic Compliance Reports in December 1987 and June 1988 are violations of Sections 307(b) and 308(a) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. S 1317(b) and 1318(a). This is an improper danand,, so it is neitMr admitted nor denied. 19. The 1988 AdministratiVe Order required, inter &1i , that Crown Cork submit reports required by 40 C.F. 403.12(d) and (e) to EPA by l4arch 2, 1988. Denied. 20. Crown Cork’s failure to provide such Reports as required by the 1988 AdministratiVe Ordar constitutes a violation of Section 301 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. $ 1311. This La an ispropsr dneand, so it is neith.r d itted nor denied. 21. For .ach day since Ilarch 2, 1988 that Defendant ha. failed to provide such reports, Defendant is subject to the assessment of civil p.na]ties pursuant to Ssction 308(d) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. S 1319(d). This is an improper dand, so it is neither admitted nor denied. Dateds ______________ ------- Respectfully submitted, DONALD CARR Acting Assistant Attorney General Land and Natural Resources Division By: NICHAEL 0. HILL Attorney, Environmental Enforcement Section U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 7611 Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 (202 633—2802 OF COUNSEL: GEORGE A. SHANANAN Attorney Office of Regional Counsel U .S. Environmental Prot•ction agency 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10278 SUSAN SULLIVAN Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring (LE-1345) u.s. Environmental Protection Agency 401 H Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20460 ------- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CIVIL NO. 88-01920 GG PlaLntiff, V. CROWN CORK DE PUERTO RICO, INC. Defendant. SWORN STATEMENT A I, JOSE R. LAUREANO, of legal age, married, Executive and resident of San Juan, Puerto Rico, under oath )ç 3 ’ state: 1. That I am vicepresident of Crown Cork of Puerto Rico, Inc. 2. That I have read the answers to the InterrogatOrieS and the answers to the Request for Admission enclosed herein. The answers provided have been drafted in consultation with Mr. Ernest A. Merhiander, Acting Plant Manager of Crown Cork of Puerto Rico, Inc., Eng. Carlos R. Garrett, Environmental Consultant and Expert retained by Crown Cork of Puerto Rico, Inc. and Eng. Richard H. Greaves, Expert/COnsU1taflt/TeChfl1c Director of Environmental and ------- Government Affairs of Crown Cork and Seal Company Inc.. 3. The answers provided herein are the true to the best of my knowledge and belief. At San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 28th day of February, 1989. J SE R. LACJRE ANO Affidavit No. / :Sworn and subscribed to before me by José R. Laurea rThe above mentioned personal circumstances, whom I personally known, at San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 28th day of February, 1989. ( ( & ‘6/fl(- ’ NOlIARY PUtLIC ------- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Civ. No. 88—01920 G—G Crown Cork de Puerto Rico, Inc. Defendant x PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT CROWN CORK’S FIRST INTERROGATpRIEs GENERAL OBJECTIONS A. Privilege : Plaintiff objects generally to Defendant’s Interrogatorjes to the extent that they seek information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege or the qualified iunity for litigation work product. B. J y : By answering or responding in full or in part to any of the interrogatorjeg and requests for product ion served upon it, the United States does not waive any objections. C. SuDDlementatjpn : The United States reserves the right to supplement only as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e). RESPONSES 1. Do you contend that any violations by Defendant were serjoua***a as that term is used in 33 U.S.C. § 1319(d)? RHpcns .s: ye. If so: (a) State in detail all facts specific to Defendant’s alleged violation, in this case, on which you base your ------- —2— conclusion that the violations were serious***.1 Response : The degree of seriousness of Defendant’s violations will be determined by the court; however, factors relating to the degree of seriousness include the number of pollutant parameters violated, the magnitude, duration, and frequency of violations, the impact that these pollutants have on POTWs and navigable waters, the history of Defendant’s noncompliance, 3nd the degree to which Defendant knowingly violated the Clean Water ct, which factors are discussed in response to Interrogatories 2, 4, and 7. (b) State whether the “seriousness” is related to the impact of the occurrences, which you say Constitute violations, upon any “waters” in Puerto Rico, specifying in the case and not in broad abstract terms, what that impact was and is. Response : Yes. See responses 1(a) and 2. Cc) State the names and addresses of any and all persons’ or witnesses whom you say have knowledge or information pertaining to facts in any way related to your answer to No. 1 and its subparts. Response : Cho K. Ching Water Permits and Compliance Branch Compliance Section U.S. EPA — Region II 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10278 Cd) If your answer(s) to No. 1. and its subparts is based upon any document(s), identify and describe each such document in reply hereto and attach copies to your answer to these interrogatories. - Response : See responses 2(b), 4 and 7. 2. Do you contend that any violations by Defendant adversely affected the quality of the waters in Puerto Rico? Response : Yes If so: (a) State the discrete period within which such adverse effect occurred. Response : When the violations occurred, which periods are reflected in the Plaintiff’s complaint, in Defendant’s DMRS and BMR, and in Plaintiff’s Exhibits E, F, and G. ------- —3— Plaintiff further contends that Defendant’s violations predated the November 1983 period for which penalties are sought in this case, possibly as early as 1982: the precise time of such earlier violations will be determined after further discovery. Defendant’s DMRs indicate the dates and types of exceedances that occurred from November 1986 through September 1987. A summary of those exceedances is attached hereto as Plaintiff’s Exhibit I. Exceedances reflected in later submitted Dl . s have not yet been summarized by Plaintiff, in large part because most of those D!’ s have not been submitted by Defendant; however, Defendant can look to those D? s to see when the exceedances occurred. Violations since Defendant’s October 1987 connection to PRASA are reflected in DZ’ s (re. 002) and in Exhibit B (Defendant’s BMR), and in Exhibit F (1988 Compliance. Report) and Defendant can look to those documents to find the information requested. Further information regarding violations that have occurred since Defendant connected to PRASA should be contained in Defendant’s Pretreatment reports, presently long overdue. Violations preceding November 1986 are believed to have occurred on every day that Defendant operated its facility. (b) State with precise quantification and in full detail, specific to Defendant’s alleged violations in this case and not in broad abstract terms, what that adverse effect was. nuz Th. degree to which Defendant’s violations have adversely affected the quality of Puerto Rico’s waters has not been determined; however, given the exceeded discharge limitations, harm is certain to have occurred. The type of harm that is expected from violations of the sort present in this case can be discerned from the following document, a copy of which can be reviewed at EPA’s offices in New York upon prier arrangement: Proposed Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Coil Coating Point Source Category (Canmaking Subcategory). ------- —4— (C) State whether any other persons or entities, also adversely affected the quality of the waters in Puerto Rico during that same time and what that adverse effect was. Bi .& : Objection on the ground of irrelevance. Absent proof of invidious and arbitrary discrimination a charge of selective prosecution can not be sustained. E.a., Bayou des Families Development Core. V. United States Corps of Engineers , 541 F. Supp. 1025, 1940 (E.D. La. 1982). There is simply no evidence of such discrimination, nor has it been alleged. (d) If the answer to No. 2 Cc) is in the affirmative: N/A. See response 2 (C). (i) State the name and address of each such person or entity. (ii) State, as to each person or entity, with precise quantification and in full detail, specific to that person’s or entity’s alleged acts and not in broad abstract terms, what that adverse effect was. (iii) Compare, in percentages of the total adverse effect upon the quality of the waters in Puerto Rico caused by Crown and the person(s) or entity(s) referred to in your answer to No. 2(c), the adverse effect caused by each, attributing a separate percentage to each. (iv) Separately as to each, state in full detail the facts upon which you base your percentage attribution. (e) (i) As to each person or entity referred to in your answer to No. 2 (d)((i), state separately in specific and full detail any action taken by the EPA and or the United States Government and/or the government of Puerto Rico against the person or entity because of his, her or its all.ged act(s) or failure(s) which you adversely affected the quality of the waters in Puerto Rico. Iiucu.v N/A. (ii) As to each referred to in No. 2 Ce) (i), state th. amounts of penalties, if any, demanded at the administrative level, the amounts of penalties, if any, demanded at the trial level, the amounts of penalties actually paid, if any, and if paid, whether paid by reason of settlement or court adjudication. ------- —5— (iii) As to any court adjudications recited in or referred to in your answer to No. 2 (e) ( ii), attach hereto copies of any judgments, orders or decrees. (f) State the names and addresses of any and all persons or witnesses whom you say have knowledge or information pertaining to the facts in any way related to your answer(s) to No. 2 and its subparts. ResDonse : Cho K. Ching Water Permits and Compliance Branch Compliance Section U.S. EPA - Region II 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10278 (g) If your answer(s) to No. 2 and its subparts is based upon any document(s), list each such document in reply hereto and attach copies to your answers to these interrogatories. g j j See Defendant’s Permit, DMRs, BMR, Administrative Orders, and Exhibits E (1987 Compliance Sampling Report), F (Feb. 23—24, 1988 Compliance Monitoring Rapt.), and G (Memo from EQB to EPA dated 6/19/86 with attached letters documenting EQB inspection of 10/30/84). Also see document referred to in Response 2(b). 3. Do you contend that Defendant realized any economic benefit because of the alleged violations you say occurred which it would not have realized if the alleged violation, had not occurred. un nu: Yes. If so: (a) Quantify in dollars the amount of that economic benaf it. Mi n. z $94,875.00 (subject to change, pending receipt and analysis of discovery responses from Defendant). This figure does not include the economic benefit associated with Defendant’s pretreatment violations, which amount has not yet been determined. (b) State in detail all facts, specific to Defendant’s alleged violations in this case and not in broad abstract or speculative terms, the basis for your affirmative response, including any and all calculations which show ------- —6— how you arrived at the answer to No. 3(a). - Initial Capital Investment - Based on the best engineering judgment, a filtration unit needed, with the cost of such unit (0.046 MGD) at $40,000 (1982 dollars). — Annual 0&)1 Expenses - $21,000 per year of 0&M expense. (C) State the names and addresses of any and all persons or witness whom you say have knowledge or information pertaining to the facts in any way related to your answer to No. 3 and its subparts. Cho K. Ching Water Permits and Compliance Branch Compliance Section U.S. EPA - Region II 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10278 Mr. Luis F. Campos-Bistani U.S. EPA - Region II 142.3 Fernandez Juncos Santurce, Puerto Rico 00909 (d) If your answer(s) to No. 3 and its subparts is based upon any document(s), list each such document in reply hereto and attach copies to your answers to these interrogatories. Pegs 254 of Proposed Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Coil. Coating Point Source Category — Canmaking Subcategory, published in March 1983 by EPA, and availabl, for inspection by private arrangement at the Of fic. of Cho X. thing. 4. Do you contend that there has been a history of violations, such as are alleged in the complaint, by Defendant in Puerto Rico? Mnaauz Yes. ------- —7— If so: (a) State in full and complete chronological detail the facts upon which you base your affirmative answer. U22fl I: The information requested can be derived from Defendant from the following documents: complaint, D?’ s (some of which are summarized in Exhibit I), BMR, and Exhibits D (Flow Diagram dated June 20, 1983, showing Defendant discharged into navigable waters since at least that date), Exhibits E (1987 Compliance Sampling Report), F (Feb. 23-24, 1988 Compliance Monitoring Rept.), and G (Memo from EQB to EPA dated 6/19/86 with attached letters documenting EQB inspection of 10/30/84). These documents, as well as the deposition of Car].os Garrett, at 10-12 and 43-44, reveal that Defendant has violated the Act since at least 1983, and probably 1982. See also Plaintiff’s Exhibit J (December 27, 1982 document indicating that Carlos Garrett had been retained by December 1982). Further indication that Defendant has knowing violated the statute since at least 1984 is contained in the following deposition exhibits from the Garrett deposition: Plaintiff’s Exhibit 3 : March 6, 1984 Memorandum from Garrett to Defendant. Stating that Garrett believes it is possible to coordinate Defendant’s operation ‘with a minimum of expenditure, in order to meet EPA/EQB criteria for wastewater effluent’ Also, ‘a concerted operation and housekeeping effort should turn the tide in the problems now besieging that phase of the Crown Cork operation in Puerto Rico.’ Plaintiff’s Exhibit 10 : March 28, 1984 Garrett Memorandum to Defendant. Reiterates statement in Exhibit 3, and states that ‘we should be able to bring the Crown Cork operation in Puerto Rico in compliance with EQB/EPA Regulations.’ Plaintiff’s Exhibit 12 : April 28, 1984 Garrett Memorandum to Defendant, with attachment listing several violations of CWA and RCRA, recommending changes, noting that recent progress in making improvements has been slow, and containing the following quote: ‘ I recommend that we concentrate on comDlatinp the reauired actions so that we may soon a 1v for our NPDES Permit. ’ (Emphasis added). Plaintiff’s Exhibits 15 and 16 : June 20 and 26, 1984 Garrett Memoranda to Defendant noting that a broken PVC ------- —8— line was leaking oil and grease into effluent culvert. Exhibit 16 states explicitly that “Oil and grease will find their way . . . into the Rio Grande de Lojza paving the way for fines to be levied by EQB/EPA against us.” (Emphasis added). Also see Plaintiff’s Deposition Exhibit 21. Plaintiff’s Deposition Exhibit 21 : July 1, 1984 Garrett Memorandum to Defendant states that PVC line mentioned in Exhibits 15 and 16 is still broken. In summary, from at least 1983, and possibly 1982, until November 1986, Defendant discharged pollutants without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act during each day of its operations. From November 1986 until September 1987, each and every D! submitted by Crown Cork demonstrates that it consistently discharged pollutants in excess of effluent limitations specified in its NPDES permit. These violations are set forth in the attached Table (Exhibit I). Furthermore, this Table cannot, and does not, set forth all violations by Defendant during the periods covered by DMRs submitted by Defendant since Defendant has not monitored discharge 002 as frequently as required by its permit. Defendant’s BNR submitted in May 1988 (Exhibit B), as well as EPA sampling (Exhibit F), demonstrate violation of pretreatment requirements. The BMR submitted by Defendant is deficient in that, while it reported a schedule for additional pretreatment or operation and maintenance necessary to correct such violations of pretreatment standards, it did not provide a schedule for additional pretreatment or operation and maintenance necessary to correct such violations of pretreatment standards. Defendant has failed, and continues to fail, to submit any pretreatment reports subsequent to the BMR. Crown Cork, therefore, is in continued violation of EPA regulations which require the submission of such reports. (b) Stat. the names and addresses of any and all person. or witness whom you say have knowledge or information pertaining to the facts in any way related to your answer to No. 4 and its subparts. Cho K. Ching Water Permits and Compliance Branch Compliance Section U.S. EPA — Region II 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10278 ------- —9— Carlos Garrett Maritza Molina de Goff (C) If your answer(s) to No. 4 and its subparts is based upon any document(s), list each such document(s) in reply hereto and attach copies to your answers to these interrogatories. ResDonse : Documents have been identified, and are either provided or are already in Defendant’s possession. A more detailed determination of Defendant’s history of non-compliance can not be made until Defendant’s discovery responses, long overdue, have been provided. 5. Based on any and all information and records available t you, do you contend that Defendant jg or did not make any effort to comply with the applicable requirements? Plaintiff contends that Defendant did not make sufficient efforts to comply with the applicable requirements. (a) If you contend that Defendant has made any effort whatsoever to comply with the applicable requirements, describe in full and complete detail what the information and records you have disclose that effort to have been. Ru p : The requested information can be found in documents in the offices of Carlos Garrett. The burden for Defendant to obtain the requested information from these documents is less than for Plaintiff, as admitted by Mr. Garrett in his deposition, at 117. (b) State the names and addresses of any and all persons or witnesses whom you say have knowledge or information pertaining to th. facts in any related to your answer to No. 5 and its subparts. Mu u’ Canoe Garrett (C) If YOU answer(s) to No. 5 and its subparts is based upon any document(s), list each such document in reply hereto and attach copies to your answers to these interrogatonies. 6. If your answer to No. 5 is that Defendant jg make some effort to comply, do you contend that Defendant’s effort ------- — 10 — was not adequate or otherwise deficient? Qfl : Yes. (a) If so, specify in complete detail all facts, specific to Defendant in this case and not in broad abstract terms, upon which you base your contention that Defendant’s effort was not adequate or otherwise deficient. Response : The facts upon which Plaintiff bases its contention are that the violations persisted, as set forth in Plaintiff’s Response 4. The degree to which the violations persist today is reflected in Response 4 and is information that is more readily available to Defendant than Plaintiff since Defendant has continued to withhold the 90-Day Pretreatment Compliance Report and Biannual Periodic Compliance Reports it is required by law to submit. See also response to 4(a), above. 7. Do you contend that Defendant did not act in good faith in its alleged failure to comply with applicable requirements? Yes. (a) If so, state in detail all facts, specific to Defendant’s alleged conduct in this case and not in broad abstract terms, upon which you base your contention that Defendant did not act in good faith. nu: Defendant has, since at least 1983 and possibly 1982, knowingly violated the Act, and, in many instances, knowingly failed to report those violations to EPA. This information can be found from the following sources: Garrett Denositign. at 10-12. 43-44 : Garrett informed Defendant soon after Garrett was retained as a consultant (probably December 1982),1 that Defendant was violating the Clean Water Act and needed a permit. Thus, Defendant knew approximately four years before it obtained its permit, (and over two years before it applied, at EPA’s insistence, for a permit), that it was illegally discharging without a permit. Plaintiff’s Denositiort Exhibit 2 : January 30, 1984 letter from Garrett to Defendant, stating that Effluent includes the discharge of the sanitary waste water treatment plant of the industrial waste water 1 See Exhibit J, indicating that Garrett wa, retained no later than December 27, 1982. ------- — 11 — treatment plant and the untreated discharge of two lines of production of steel cans.’ 2 Plaintiff’s DeDosition Exhibit 3 : March 6, 1984 Memorandum from Garrett to Defendant. Stating that Garrett believes it is possible to coordinate Defendant’s operation “with a minimum of expenditure, in order to meet EPA/EQB criteria for wastewater effluent” Also, “a concerted operation and housekeeping effort should turn the tide in the problems now besieging that phase of the Crown Cork operation in Puerto Rico.” Plaintiff’s Deposition Exhibit 10 : March 28, 1984 Garrett Memorandum to Defendant. Reiterates statement in Plaintiff’s Deposition Exhibit 3, and states that “we should be able to bring the Crown Cork operation in Puerto Rico in compliance with EQB/EPA Regulations.” Plaintiff’s Depositjg Exhibit 12 : April 28, 1984 Garrett Memorandum to Defendant, with attachment listing several violations of CWA and RCRA, recommending changes, noting that recent progress in making improvements has been slow, and containing the following quote: “I recommend that we concentrate on completing the required actions so that we may soon apply for our NPDES Permit.” Plaintiff’s DeDosition Exhibits 15 and 16 : June 20 and 26, 1984 Garrett Memoranda to Defendant noting that a broken PVC line was leaking oil and grease into effluent culvert. Exhibit 16 states explicitly that “Oil and grease will find their way . . . into the Rio Grand. de Loiza paving the way for fines to be levied by EQS/EPA against us.” Also see Exhibit 21. Plaintiff’s DeDosition Exhibit 17 : June 26, 1984 Garrett Memorandum to a Dr. Sandza (presumably a chemist) stating ‘I will be in touch when we become ready to sample.” This indicates the Defendant knew at that time it remained out of compliance, and therefore could not take a sample to send to EPA. See Plaintiff’s Deposition Exhibit 12, Plaintiff’s De osition Exhibit 21 : July 1, 1984 Garrett Memorandum to Defendant states that PVC line mentioned in Exhibits 15 and 16 is still broken. 2 The letter is written in Spanish, but was interpreted by Garrett, Deposition, at 31-32), ------- — 12 — Plaintiff’s Deøosition Exhibit 22 : July 7, 1984 Garrett letter to a contractor, (with a copy to Defendant) threatening that if the contractor didn’t act to complete work on Defendant’s treatment plant soon, the contractor would be held responsible for any penalties imposed against Defendant. This indicates that Defendant knew it was violating the Act. PLaintiff’s Deoosition Exhibit 30 : January 25, 1935 Garrett Memorandum to Defendant noting that raw industrial wastewater was discharging directly into the discharge culvert from five separate points. Notes that ‘All of the five (5) above mentioned direct discharges are prohibited by Federal Law” with “fines of up to $25,000 daily for having these discharges.’ (Emphasis in original). Further notes that ‘Discharges similar to the abovementioned ones had existed in the past and had been eliminated after considerable effort and expenditure . . . . Later, Mr. Garrett warns that repeat offenses would subject Defendant to daily fines of up to $50,000. Plaintiff’s De osition Exhibit 37 : October 25, 1985 Garrett Memorandum to Defendant, stating that Defendant must monitor stormuater. This is important because Defendant failed to monitor stormwater. Exhibit 37 shows the failure was probably knowing. Plaintiff’s Deposition Exhibit 44 : Twelve page Memorandum to Defendant from Maritza Molina de Goff, Garrett’s assistant, dated November 17, 1986. This memorandum sets forth numerous CWA and RCRA violations -— e.g., failure to keep adequate records; no permit on site authorizing the operation of underground storage tanks; frequent overflows from the underground tanks, resulting in discharge of waste to sewer; inadequate signs; no fire extinguishers; no dikes for containment of waste; open ditch allowing solvents and oils to discharge to navigable waters; overflows of oily liquid onto neighbors land —— and recommends immediate action. Ralatod to this, see Exhibits 93 and 94. Plaintiff’s Deoosition Exhibit 85 : August 6, 1987 Memorandum to Defendant from Molina de Goff summarizing all NPDES permit deviations as shown in DMRs from November 1986 to June 1987. Plaintiff’s Deoosition Exhibit 93 : December 6, 1986 lettir to Defendant from Defendant’s former counsel, referring to Exhibit 44, summarizing the violations, and advising Defendant to take prompt action. ------- — 13 — Plaintiff’s DeDosition Exhibit 2 4. : Attached to Exhibit 93, a 3” x 5” “stickum” from Molina de Goff, wherein Molina de Goff states that she brought the matters contained in Exhibits 93 and 44 to the attention of Arturo Diaz—Cataldo, Defendant’s President. Plaintiff’s DeDositjon Exhibit 95 : February 5, 1987 Memorandum from Molina de Goff to Defendant, summarizing ?JPDES violations she observed in a February 3, 1987 inspection. Ms. Goff specifically warned that the violations could lead to fines of $25,000 per day. Another such document shows Defendant was taking in and discharging large volumes of water since January 1984. Deposition testimony and other evidence in this case indicates that Defendant was manufacturing cans approximately 248 days per year, and that it discharged pollutants each day of manufacturing. This evidence, when tied in with other evidence in the case —— e.g., the fact that Defendant knew it needed an NPDES permit to discharge pollutants, Deposition, at 10-12 and 43- 44, or even stormwater, Exhibit 37, and the fact that it had no permit until November 1986 -— indicates strongly that Defendant knowingly violated Section 301 on several hundred occasions. 8. Other than any facts set forth already in the previous answers to this set of interrogatories, are there any other matters that you contend “justice may require” be considered in the imposition of a penalty pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 1319(d) in the event Crown were to be found to be in violation of the Act? R1I 2flUz Plaintiff knows of no other specific matters fitting into the category of “justice may require,” other than those set forth above. However, Plaintiff’s position on Interrogatories 8 and 1-7 has not been formulated in its entirety due to Defendant’s failure to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. Therefore, Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement it. responses to these and other Interrogatorjes as discovery continues in this case. If so: (a) State those “matters in full. and complete detail, specific to Crown’s alleged violations in this case and not in broad abstract terms. (b) Stats the names and addresses of any and all ------- — 14 — persons or witness whom you say have knowledge or information pertaining to the facts in any way related to your answer to No. 8 and its subparts. (C) If your answer(s) to No. 8 and its subparts is based upon any document(s), list each such document in reply hereto and attach copies to your answers to these interrogatories. 9. Identify each document(s) of which you have knowledge and which relate to or bear upon the subject matter of this suit which has not been identified in a prior answer to these interrogatorieg. .n.n: Objection. This interrogatory is overbroad. However, without waiving this objection, Plaintiff refers Defendant to the Exhibits already produced, and the documents already referenced. ------- — 15 — 10. Set forth in detail the contents of each document identified in answer to the previous question and attach a copy thereo . to your answers to these interrogatorjes. ResDons. : See copies which have been provided, or are in Defendant’s possession. 11. State the name and present address of each person who has knowledge of facts relating to or bearing upon the subject matter of this suit whose name has not been included in any prior answer. Res onss : - Defendant and its employees and agents. - The following persons from EPA’s Region II Offices: - Cho K. Ching - Luis Campos-Bjstanj (address provided above) - Ruth Ade].man (formerly with Water Permits and Compliance Branch; no longer with EPA; developed Defendant’s Permit). - George C. Meyer, Chief, Permits Management Section (supervised Adelman; no longer with Permits Management Section) — Richard Coleateg, Environmental Scientist - Randy Braun, Environmental Scientist - Regina Mulcahy, Environmental Scientist — Sandra Hanson, Environmental Engineer The above 4 persons conducted inspection of February 22—23, 1988, and are at EPA’s N.J. facility: Field Facility Raritan Center Woodbridge Avenue Edison, N.J. 08817 Unless otherwise indicated, all Region II personnel work at 26 Federal Plaza, N.Y., N.Y. 12. Stats whether you claim that defendant has made any admissions with respect to the subject matter of this lawsuit. I.qs Yes. ------- — 16 — 13. If the answer to the previous question is in the affirmative, state with respect to each such alleged admission: Ap9i. i: Admissions were made by Defendant in the following documents: - Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions. - Defendant’s answer to the complaint and to interrogatories. - Defendant’s DZ’ffis, some of which admissions are summarized in Exhibit I, attached. - Defendant’s B1 , which shows that Defendant has discharged into a POTW in excess of pretreatment requirements for various pollutants. - Various admissions made and summarized in response to Interrogatories 4 and 7, above. The information sought in subparts (a) — (f) can be derived by Defendant from the above documents with substantially the same burden as Plaintiff. (a) The date made; (b) The name of the person by whom made: (c) The name and address of the person to whom made; (d) Where made; Ce) The name and address of each person present at the time same was made; and (f) The substance thereof. 14. If any admission referred to in answer to the previous question was in writing, identify same and attach a copy. aus Documents have been identified and provided. 15. Stats whether you have obtained a statement from any person not a party to this action, it so, state the following with respect to each such statement: Mu nuz Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is vague and overbroad, Without waiving this objection, and assuming the request to be limited to statements which pertain to the matters alleged in this action, Plaintiff responds as follows: ------- — 17 — All such statements are from EQB, and are contained in Exhibits E (EQB’s 1987 Compliance Sampling Report), G (Memo from EQB to EPA dated 6/19/86 with attached letters documenting EQB inspection of 10/30/84), and K (October 6, 1988 letter from EQB to Michael Hill enclosing copies of Exhibits E and G, and identifying persons who performed the inspections), attached hereto or previously supplied. Information sought in the remaining subparts of this interrogatory can be ascertained by Defendant from the statements themselves. (a) The name and present address of the person who gave the statement; (b) The date the statement was obtained; (C) Whether the statement was oral or in writing and if in writing, identify same. (d) If such statement was oral, whether a recording thereof was made; and if so, the nature of the recording and the same and present address of the person who has custody thereof; Ce) If the statement was written, whether it was signed by the person giving same. (f) The name and address of the person who obtained the statement; and (g) The detailed substance of the statement. 16. State whether you have obtained a statement from any person who is a party to this litigation or from any employee or representative of any party to this action. Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is vague and overbroad. Without waiving this objection, and assuming the request to be limited to statements which pertain to the matters alleged in this action, Plaintiff responds as follows: Plaintiff has obtained no statements from persons who ar, parties to this litigation other than those previously identified, plus the deposition of Mr. Jose Laureano, a copy of which is in Defendant’s possession and from which Defendant may obtain the information sought in this Interrogatory with substantially the same burden as Plaintiff. ------- — 18 — 17. If the answer to the preceding question is in the affirmative, state with respect to each such statement: p .flj : The burden for Defendant to obtain the requested information from documents referred to and provided is substantially the same as for Plaintiff, and the source of information is sufficiently specific to enable Defendant to find the information as readily as can Plaintiff. (a) The name and present address of the person who gave the statement; (b) The date the statement was obtained; (c) Whether the statement was oral or in writing and if in writing, identify same. (d) If such statement was oral, whether a recording was made, and if so, the nature of the recording and the name and present address of the person who has custody thereof; (e) If the statement was written, whether it was signed by the person given same; (f) The name and address of the person who obtained the statement; (g) The detailed substance of the statement. 18. State the name, present address and field or area of expertise of each expert witness expected to testify on your behalf at the time of trial. - Cho ching Wat•r Permit. and Compliance Branch Compliance Section U.S. EPA - Region II 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10278 (Effect of Defendant’s discharges. Modifications which Defendant should have done to avoid excessive discharges and costs of such modifications.) - Gail B. Coed ------- — 19 — Management Associates 4 Pine Mill Road Hollis, NH 03094 (Economic benefit to Defendant from its noncompliance.) Plaintiff reserves the right to modify or supplement this response. 19. Set forth in detail the education, qualifications, training and background of each person named in answer to the previous question. j: To be provided. 20. With respect to each person named in answer to Question No. 18: (a) State the substance of the facts and opinions to which such expert is expected to testify; and (b) Set forth a summary of the grounds for each opinion. fj flft* Regarding Mr. Ching: (a) and (b) Sea Responses 2 and 3: further information to be provided. j s Regarding Ms. Coad: (a) and (b) To be provided. 21. State whether any person named in answer to Question No. 18 has rendered any report to plaintiff. fluP2nH: No report has been rendered to Plaintiff. 22. If the answ.r to the previous question is in the affirmativ., state the following with respect to each such report: nuz N/A (a) Th. date same was rendered; (b) Wh.thsr the sam. was oral or written; (C) The name and address of th. person rendering same; ------- — 20 — (d) The substance thereof. 23. If any report described in your answer to the previous question was in writing, identify and describe it and attach a copy. .Qflj. : There were no such reports. 24. State the name, present address and field or area of expertise of each expert who has been retained or specially employed by you in anticipation of this litigation or in preparation for trial and who is not to be called as a witness at trial. Objection. Not discoverable. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4). Without waiving this objection, Plaintiff responds by stating that there is no such expert. 25. Set forth in detail the education, qualifications, training and background of each person named in answer to the previous question. Rj Q U: N/A 26. With respect to each person named in answer to Question No. 24: i Qfl * N/A (a) State the substance of the opinions of such expert with respect to this litigation; and (b) Set forth a summary of the grounds for each opinion. 27. State whether any person named in answer to Question 24 has rendered any report to you. IIU2flu: N/A 28. If th. answer to the previous question is in the affirmative, state the following with respect to each such report: Zu n.w N/A (a) The date same was rendered; (b) Whether the same was oral or written; ------- — 21 — (C) The name and address of the person rendering same; and (d) The contents thereof. 29. If a report described in answer to the previous question wag in writing, identify same and attach a copy. j je: N/A As to objections: Date: c/ /ç’ /ci } 4 ” / ‘7 MICHAEL 0. HILL As to Substance of Responses: I, Cho Ching, depose and say that the facts set forth in the above responses are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. Signed under penalty of perjury this ii day of May, 1989. 14t CHO CHING ------- ..3. &lvjJ rILu u u B:MOH 90—5—1—1—3202 Wash,ngtoi,. D C 20530 May 31, 1989 PRIVILEGED Ms. Gail B. Coad RECP!\.’r- j Management Associates ‘—‘ v 4 Pine Hill Road Jun Hollis, NH 03094 05 George Shanahan, Esq. Assistant Regional Counsel Water Grants and General Law Branch U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region II 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10278 Re: United States v. Crown Cork de Puerto Rico. Inc . Civ. No. 88—01920 G—G Dear Gail and George: Enclosed for your review are copies of Plaintiff’s second set of iriterrogatories and requests for production, sent to Defendant May 27. As you can see, it is aimed primarily at the BEN. Please give me a call with any comments. Thanks very much. Very Truly Yours, 9’, ichae1 0. Hill, Attorney Environmental Enforcement Section (202) 633—2802 enc. ------- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Civ. No. 88-01920 G-G Crown Cork de Puerto Rico, Inc. . Defendant —x PLAINTIFF’S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REOUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANT CROWN CORK Plaintiff United States of America, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, 33 and 34, requests that Defendant Crown Cork de Puerto Rico, Inc. a) answer the following interrogatorieg, in accordance with Fed R. Civ. P. 33; and b) produce the documents requested, in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. INSTRUCTIONS AND DEFINITIONS The instructions and definitions set forth in Plaintiff’s first set of discovery are incorporated herein. ------- INTERROGATORIES 1. Set forth the factual and legal bases, including every fact, transaction, occurrence or event on which you rely for your first affir native defense, that Plaintiff’s complaint is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Include in your response what you contend the “applicable limitations period to be. ------- 2. Set forth the factual and legal bases, ir cluding every fact, transaction, occurrence or event on which you rely for your second affirmative defense, that the complaint is barred by the doctrines of waiver and estoppel. ------- 3. Set forth the factual and legal bases, includuig every fact, transaction, occurrence or event on which you rely for your third affirmative defense, that Plaintiff has engaged in unequal, selective application of the laws relative to enforcement and implementation of the Clean Water Act, violations of which Defendant is charged in the complaint. ------- 4. Set forth the factual and legal bases, including every fact, transaction, occurrence or event on which you rely for your fourth affirmative defense, that Defendant has made a good faith attempt to comply with the standards required of it pursuant to the Clean Water Act. Specify in your response which of the reporting requirements are inherently unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious and/or unworkable so as to constitute a violation of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. ------- 5. Set forth the factual and legal bases, including every fact, transaction, occurrence or event on which you rely for your fifth affir native defense, that any discharges by Defendant in violation of effluent limitations set forth in the NPDES Per iit or Administrative Order were entirely insubstantial and de-minimis not properly the subject of fines and penalties provided for in the Clean Water Act.” ------- 6. Set fcrth the factual and legal bases, including every fact, transaction, occurrence or event on which you rely for your sixth affirmative defense, regarding the date that Defendant diverted its wastewater to PRASA. ------- 7. Set forth the factual and legal bases, including every fact, transaction, occurrence or event on which you rely for your denial of paragraph 18 of Plaintiff’s con plaint. ------- 8. Set forth the factual and legal bases, including every fact, transaction, occurrence or event on which you rely for your denial regarding the statement “at all times of operation” in paragraph 27 of Plaintiff’s complaint. ------- 9. For each year since and including 1983, please state the interest rate on borrowed capital (long term debt) of Defendant, state the source and type of borrowed capital, and state the basis for your answer. ------- 10. On which months, since December 1, 1986, has there not been any flow through OSN 002 that was preceded by at least one week of no precipitation? ------- 11. For all elements of treatment equipment (includiflg pretreatment) in place by, or installed on or after November 1, 1983, state the design specifications or such wastewater treati ent systems at the facility and identify all documents containing, describing or evaluating these specifications. ------- 12. Identify all equipment at the facility used, since November 1, 1983 through the present, to limit Defendant’s wastewater discharges either through OSN 001. or OSN 002, or to PRASA. ------- 13. Set forth the cost of all equipment identified in response to the previous interrogatory. ------- 14. Set forth the date of installation of all equipn ent identified in response to the previous two interrogatorjes. ------- 15. Identify all operation and maintenance (including repair) measures taken by Defendant or any other persons or entities, since November 1, 1983, to limit Defendant’s wastewater discharges either through OSN 001 or 002, or to PRASA. ------- 16. Set forth the period(s) that each measure identified in response to the previous interrogatory was perfor]ned. ------- 17. Set forth the cost of each nieasure identified in response to the previous two interrogatorjes. ------- 18. Identify all equipment that will be necessary to bring Defendant’s wastewater discharges through OSN 001. or 002, or to PRASA, into compliance with federal law. ------- 19. Set forth the cost of all. equipment identified in response to the previous interrogatory. ------- 20. Identify all operation and maintenance (including repair) measures that will be necessary to bring Defendant’s Wastewater discharges through OSM 001 or 002, or to PRASA, into compliance with federal law. ------- 21. Set forth the cost of all measures identified in response to the previous interrogatory. ------- 22. Identify all other companies, persons, or other entities with whom Crown Cork discussed cooperative efforts regarding connecting to PRASA. ------- 23. Identify the earliest date that Defendant was able to connect its wastewater discharges to PRASA, and the factor(s) prohibiting an earlier connection. ------- 24. Set forth the complete costs to Defendant of connecting its wastewater discharges to PRASA, and the date that Such ccsts were incurred. ------- 25. Set forth the costs of all operation and maintenance (including repairs) Defendant has incurred since October 1, 1987, in connection with its discharges to PRASA. ------- 26. Set forth the cost of treating Defendant’s discharges to PP.ASA with polymers or otherwise sufficiently to bring such discharges into compliance with federal law. ------- 27. Set forth the cost of the centrifuge machine identified by Mr. Laureano on page 12 of his deposition. ------- 28. Identify all repairs made to the hydromation unit in March, April or May of 1984, and the cost of such repairs. ------- 29. Identify all repairs tnade to the blowers of the sanitary waste water treatment plant in March, April of May of 1984, and the cost of such repairs. ------- 30. Set forth the present address and telephone number, or the last address and telephone nu. ber known to Defendant or Carlos Garrett, of Ing. Maritza Molina de Goff, the author of Plaintiff’s Deposition Exhibit 44. ------- 31. Has Defendant submitted any pretreatment progress reports to PP.ASA or any other person or entity? If so, identify al]. such reports, the dates of their submission, and the person or entity to whom or which the submissions were made. ------- 32. Has Defendant submitted a 90 Day Compliance Report to PRASA or any other person or entity? If so, identify the report, the date of its submission, and the entity or person to whom or which the submission was made. ------- 33. Has Defendant submitted a y Biannual Periodic Compliance Reports to PRASA or any other person or entity? If so, identify the reports, the dates of each submission, and the entity or person to whom or which each submission was made. ------- 34. Identify all monitoring data (by date and result), including but not limited to a].]. data contained on computer data sheets, in Defendant’s possession pertaining to Defendant’s discharges to PRASA since October 1, 1987. ------- 35. Identify all engineering reports submitted to PRASA or any other person or entity pertaining to Defendant’s discharges to PRASA. ------- 36. Identify all correspondence or communications of any kind between Defendant and PRASA since January 1, 1987. ------- 37. Set forth Defendant’s plans, if any, to ensure that its discharges to PRASA of each of the following parameters complies with federal law: a. aluii inuin b. pH c. total settleable solids d. total suspended solids e. SOD-5 f. fluoride g. sulfate h. manganese i. phosphorous j. any other parameter which has been discharged in excess of pretreatment limitations since October 1, 1987. ------- 38. Set forth the costs of each plan or measure identified in response to the previous interrogatory. Include in your response the cost of all equipment, and also the cost of all operation and maintenance, including repairs. ------- 39. Identify all correspondence, reports or communica tions of any kind between Defendant and Hydro-Fax, Dynatec Energy systems and Control, Inc., Caribtec Laboratories, or any other contractor, consultant, person or entity concerning Defendant’s discharges through OSN 003. or 002, or to PRASA. ------- 40. Regarding OSN 001, please set forth the monthly cost of the following: . monitoring discharges for all parameters set forth in Defendant’s Permit; b. analyzing samples from such discharges: c. reporting such sample results to EPA. (To the extent that such costs have changed since November 1, 1983, please detail such changes.] ------- 41. Regarding OSN 002, please set forth the monthly cost of the following: a. monitoring discharges for all parameters set forth in Defendant’s Perniit; b. analyzing samples from such discharges; c. reporting such sample results to EPA. (To the extent that such costs have changed since November 1, 1983, please detail such changes.) ------- 42. Identify all measures, including testing, Defendant has taken since October 1, 1987 to prevent pollutants from reaching OSM 001, or to ensure that pollutants have not or do not reach OSN 001, and the costs thereof. ------- 43. Identify all measures, including testing, Defendant has taken since October 1, 1987 to prevent pollutants from reaching OSN 002, or to ensure that pollutants have not or do not reach OSN 002, and the costs thereof. ------- 44. When was Carlos Garrett (or any company or entity for which he works or has worked at any time since 1981, or which he owns or controls or has owned or controlled at any time since 1981) first retained by Defendant to address Defendant’s wastewater discharges or any problems therewith? ------- 45. Set forth a schedule of all. ayments Defendant has made to Carlos Garrett (or any company or entity for which he works or has worked at any time since 1981, or which he owns or controls, or has owned or controlled at any time since 1981), Hydro-Fax, Sanco Laboratories, Dynatec Energy Systems and Control, Inc., Caribtec Laboratories or any other contractors, consultants or other persons or entities in connection with Defendant’s discharges through OSN 001 or 002, or to PRASA. ------- 46. Set forth a schedule of all payments Defendant has made to Carlos Garrett, Sanco La oratorjes, Hydro-Fax, Caribtec Laboratories, Dynatec Energy Systems and Control, Inc., or any other contractors, consultants or other persons or entities for the taking and analysis of samples of Defendant’s discharges through OSN 001 or 002, or to PRASA. ------- 47. Identify the “problems” referred to by Mr. Garrett, on page 38 of his deposition. ------- 48. When did the facility begin manufacturing two piece cans? ------- cans? 49. When did the facility begin manufacturing aluniinu ------- 50. How i any days -- other than weekends or holidays -— did Defendant not manufacture either two piece or aluminum cans in each of the following periods: a. November 1, 1983 — December 31, 1983; b. January 1, 1984 — December 31, 1984; c. January 1, 1985 - December 31, 1985; d. January 1, 1986 — October 31, 1986. ------- 51. How many days -- other than weekends or holidays -- did Defendant not discharge pollutants at any level, directly or thdirect ly, to the navigable waters of the United States, in each of the following periods: a. November 1, 1983 — December 31, 198]; b. January 1, 1984 — December 31, 1984; C. January 1, 1985 — December 31, 1985; d. January 1, 1986 — October 31, 1986. ------- REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTIO N 1. All pretreatment progress reports submitted to PRASA or any other person or entity. 2. Any 90 Day Compliance Report submitted to PR.ASA or any other person or entity. 3. Any Biannual Periodic Compliance Reports submitted to PPASA or any other person or entity. 4. All monitoring data, including but not limited to all data contained on computer data sheets, pertaining to - Defendant’s discharges to PRASA since October 1, 1987. 5. All engineering reports submitted to PRASA or any other person or entity pertaining to Defendant’s discharges to PRASA. 6. All correspondence or co unication3 of any kind between Defendant and PP.ASh since January 1, 1987. ------- 7. All documents reflecting the costs to Defendant of connGcting its wastewater discharges to PR.ASA, and the dates that such costs were incurred. 8. All correspondence, reports or communications of any kind between Defendant and Hydro-Fax, Carthtec Laboratories or Dynatec Energy Systems and Control, Inc. concerning Defendant’s discharges through OSN 001 or 002, or to PRASA. 9. All correspondence, reports or communications of any kind between Defendant and any other contractor, consultant, person or entity, concerning Defendant’s discharges through OSN 001 or 002, or to PRASA. 10. All documents reflecting any payments Defendant has made to Canoe Garrett (or any company or entity for which he works, or which he owns or controls) Hydro-Fax and any other contractors, consultants, laboratories or other persons or entities in connection with Defendant’s discharges through OSN 001 or 002, or to PRASA. 11. The ‘yellow piece of paper’ listing problems at ------- Defendant’s facility, which paper is referred to in Mr. Garrett’s deposition, a 38. Dated: __________ I, • Respectfully submitted, DONALD A. CARR Acting Assistant Attorney General Land and Natural Resources Division By: 2 MI ZtAEJf 0. MILL b Attor(ey, Environmental Enforcement Section U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 761]. Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 (202) 633—2802 OF COUNSEL: GEORGE A. SMANAHAN Attorney Office of Regional Counsel U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10278 SYLVIA CARRERO Assistant United States Attorney 101 Federal Building Canoe E. Chandon Street Hato Rey, Pu.rto Rico 00918 ------- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO • e 0 flfl_O — UNITED STATES OF AXERTCA, ‘ CIV. NO. 98-01920 GG plaintiff, U I CROWN CORI( DE PUERTO RICO, INC. Defendant. I pEFENDAN’T’ S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’ S SFCONn SET OF TERROGATORIES AND REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION 1. Where Congress creates a federal right but does not prescribe a period for its enforcement, federal courts apply the state law of limitations which moat resembles the federal claim upon the assumption that Congress did not intend the anomaly of a class of perpetual rights. The statute of limitations in Puerto Rico for environmental claims is one year. All causes of actic based on facts which may hay, occurred prior to November 22nd, 1987 are, therefore, time barred. 2. While the United States generally is not subject to an .stopp.1 which would impede the exercise of the po ars of government, where a. in the above captioned case the permit issuing authority has been d.leqated to a local P00 1 11.1.01 A Z3flDN!Woa W0 PS:L! SB. L ------- 2 authority, th. plaintiff is •stopp.d from asserting a violation of the p.rmit raqulitions, if that violation arises by reason of the inaction of that local, authority. 3. Plaintiff has refused to respond with factual information to int.rrogatori.s which would hay. disclosed how many other industries in Puerto Rico have or may have discharged directly or indirectly into the Rio Grande de Loiza and as a corollary disclose how many have been the subject of administrative or in court enforcement proceedings. Defendant has requested in a Motion to Compel. specific answers to these questions. If plaintiff is compelled to answer those interrogatories and to disclose also the nature and quantum of each such discharge, it would come clear that Crown de Puerto Rico is the victim of selective application of the law. Furthermore, Crown’s competitors, National Cans and Latas de k]uminio Reynolds, are not the subject of an NPDES discharge permit. Therefore, their stormuaters are not regulated by EPA. 4 The Company hired a reputable expert, accepted by plaintiff as a well qualified expert in environmental matters, to aid the Cømpany in environmental matters, particularly relating to appropriate controls of water discharges. £ng. Caries Garrett has been paid in profeaeional fee, up to and including July 32,, 2989 i t t excess of $170,000.00, mostly relating to consultation on environmental water discharg. matters. In addition, the I iii.O.L A Z3fl9NIWOQ WOd c:L1 68. L £ ------- As soon as a PO?W facility was built by PRASA in Caroline, Crown de Puerto Rico incurrid is a considerable expens. to discharge its effluent into said PO I which is a facility that specializes in treatment of vastewaters. me cost of said installation to Crown de Puerto Rico v s in excess of $129,000.00. The connection into Carolina POTW by Crown de Puerto Rico was made in compliance with Crown’s NPDES discharge permit. Said ,nn.ction was made prior to the schedule i nposed by the permit. Should said poTW have existed prior to Crown’s application for an NPDES permit there would have been no ed for said WPDES permit since Crown di Puerto Rico would have connected to the POTW. The Company is further not responsible for any deficiency which the POTW may have with EPA. The Company has further contracted several employees including a fulitime chemist who an, dedicated exclusively to york relating to the quality of treated vastewaters. The cost of these employees from 1983 to the present is in excess of $475,000.00. All these facts clearly point to a goad faith attempt by Crown de Puerto Rico to comply with applicable laws, rules and regulations. S. Crown di Puerto Rico is a corporation dedicated to the manufacturing of cans. Crown de Puerto Rico is not a chemical manufacturer nor is the company specialized in I I.L.LO.L A Z3flSNIWOO UO Lt 68, L tøO’3E d ------- S chemical processing. Wotwithatanding any discharg. that Crown da Puerto Rico may have mad, to the Zoiza River, it doss not affect the drinking water of Puerto Rico since there is no intakirig of drinking ter downstream ot C i own’s discharge. Crown has further cemrtied with most of the imposed ef fluent limitations co tained in its NPDES permit. 6. The facts relating to the Sixth Separate Defense are all contained in the description of the Sixth Separate Defense in the Answer to the complaint. 7. In its 1986 administrative or ar EPA provided a modification which constituted a waiver. The order contains the following language: From the effective data of the permit until December 31, 1987, the interi limits set forth in Attachment I of this Order shall be complied with instead of the effluent limits for 30D—5 contained in condition A.1 on page 2 of 32 of the permit. Said interim effluent limits are set forth herein only for the purpose o compliance with this order. Th. above language clearly has modified the permit and constituted a waiver of tha original stai dards. 8. As is more fully explained in interrogatorie’ numbers 50 and 51 there are times when defendant is engaged in operation but not in the production of cane. I ILIOJ . A Zafl N1woC SS.Lt - - ØØ 3 d ------- A. • *Q1 6 At such tises defendant is aperstthg’ bat not discharging process vastevater. since is the production of cans which gives rise to the generation Of proc* wastewators and 1 thus, to a discharge of treated process wastewaters. 9. Ther. has been no borrowed capital from 1983 to J.aly 31, 1989. 10. Sthce defendant’s permit requires monitoring when there is flow (as conditioned above), and since there is no possible way to sample when there is Nrio flow”, there is no way of determining when there has been Wno flow” that was not preceded by at least one week of no precipitation. ii. There are no other specifications” for the Hydrofax system other than the operating Instructions Manual. Hydrofax, Division of MIC1(D PRODUCTS, INC., Ambler, Pennsylvania 19002. Said operating Instructions Manual, flydrofax Division of AMCHEM PRODUCTS, INC., Ambler, Pennsylvania 19002 are attached herein, Exhibit 1. There are no other specifications for the centrifuge unit other than th. operating Instructi*f Manual enclosed herein as exhibit 1-A. 12. Par OSN 001: cascading composed of one stainless steel tank 2/8 by 26’ x 80’ x 30’(inches). None far OSH 002. Valve fittings and pipes, one water pump (stainless CO 3D d 1 1.1101 Z3’9NIWOC w0 eO:eT 68 . 4 L ------- l,-POa IQ e - .o— o 7 stiel). 13. $6,502.00. 14. August of 1987. 1.5. None for OSN 002. For OSN 001- Normal operation and maintenance. 16. None for OSN 002. For OSN 001. ntinn us1y a needed, no specific log is kept. 17. None for OSN 002. For OSN 001: no ina1. 18. None. 19. None. 20. There will be no need to incur ir. any operation and maintenance (including repair) measures whatsoever in relation to OSN 001 or 002 since there are no defendant’s waste Jater discharges throu’jh said OSN 001 or 002. (Except as indicated in question number 42.) Operation measures that will, be necessary to bring defendant’s vastewater discharges to PRASA into compliance with federal law consist of continuing efforts to satisfy the aluminum pretreatment effluent limitation which is called for regulation by PRASA but is not called for regulation by Federal RegulatiOns (40 CYR 465.44 — Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources or 40 CFR 141.11— National Primary Drinking Water Regulations, Maximum contaminant L.vals for Inorganic imicali) or by the Puerto Rico Department of Health under its Primary Drinking Water Regulations. P00 3 d 1 11101 A Z fl9N!w0a 1C d 00!8! SB. I. ‘i ------- — ._. I . U .- B Maintenance (including repair .) .asur.. to b. undertaken in relation to Defendant’s tiecharge. to P ASA are those pertaining to noruial aaintanence of the pretreat •flt equipment. 21. None for OSN 001. None for OSM 002. Nominal for discharge to PRAS7. 22. Mr. Candido , iaénez, President warner Lambert, Inc. Mr. David Vincent, Genera]. Maniger, Merk Sharp & Dohme Co., Inc. Mr. Larry L. White, Senior V.P Burns, Inc. Eng. Alberto Rodriguez Lladó, E:i Lily Industries, Inc. 23. The “earliest date” that def..dant was able to connect its wastewater discharges tO PP SA was 3 Oct. 87, three (3) months ahead of the schedule called for by EP . ‘ ...the factor prohibiting an earlier nnection” is the inexistence of a PRASA POTW which could accept defendant’s discharge. 24. $129,982.00 —cost incurred pric: to Oct. 1, 1987. 25. (labor) — $2,910.OC (repairs of two pumps) 26. $352,824.00. 27. 577,870.00. 28. The hydromation unit is mt part of the environmental controls $yetem it is part of the t33 bd I 11101 A Z3fl9NIWOC W0 4 Ie: t 68. L ------- i.d 6 - .O—Ia *Qi 9 sanufacturing process. We do not keeps r. rd of repairs to this particular machine. We cannot advise of a repair to this machine for March, April or May 1984. 29. The Company purchased new blowers — $11,136.00 (May of 1984). 30. Last known to Carlos R. Garrett Associates, address of Mrs. Maritza Molina de Goff: Mrs. Merltza Molina de Goft Calle Sajonia 3D—17 tJrb. Villa del Iey Caguas, P.R. 00625 Tel: (809) 746—6150 33. Since PRASA has not issued a Discharge Permit to defendant, defendant is not under any obligation to submit s...any pretreatment progress reports to PRASA or other person or entity”. 32. Since PRASA has not issued a Discharge Permit to defendant, defendant is not under any obligation to submit “...a 90 day Compliance Report to PRIMA or any other person or entity.” 33. Since PRASA has not issued a Discharge Permit to defendant, defendant is not under any obligation to submit “..any Biannual Psriodic Compliance Reports to PRASA or any other person or entity.” 34. See Exhibit 3. 35. (a) Latter of Hay 19, 1986 from Hr. Joe4 A. Martinez to Eng. Lionel Mote and enclosures. Exhibit 3. (b) latter from Alb.rto Rodriguez Lladd to Arturo 900 !ij0j. A Z3fl9NIWOC WO 10:9 1 69. . ------- ,‘ ‘ . ea- — 10 DiaZ Cataldo of March 23. 1987 vith .nc1OIU including punch list. Exhibit 3-A. 36. (a) AgrSa flt for the onstii tiOfl of a pressurized Line dated August 13, 1986, Exhibit 4. (b) Letter of April 3, 1987 from A1be tO Rodriguez Lladô to Eng. LuiB E. LópeZ Salgado of Apil 3, 1987, Exhibit 4—A. (C) Letter to Mr. Alberto Valdejull! from Arturo DiaZ Cataldo of J&flUSrY 29, 1987, Exhibit 4-b. (d) July 31, 1989 Defendant to PP SA (e) July 8, 1989 - Defendant to PR .SA (1) nay 17, 1989 — Defendant to PRASA (g) May 16, 1989 Defendant to PB.! 1 SA (h) May 18, 1989 - Defendant to P .SA (i) April i4, 3989 — Defendant to RASA (j) Pebruary 28, 1989 Defendant to PRASA (k) October 17, 1988 - Defendant t PRASA (1) AugUst 30, 3988 — Defendant tc PPASA (in) August 15, 1988 PRMA to Defeflc’ flt (n) July 6, 1987 Defendant to PP.ASA (0) April 10, 1987 — Defendant to PRASA Re: Industrial Survey Qu.etiOflaire. 37. (a) AlulftiIlUa - otwithsta ding that the parameter aluminum is not called for r.gulatioTt by Federal RegulatiOnS (40 dR 465.44 Pr.treat Iflt standards for Existing Sources or 40 CTR 141.11 - $ational Primary L003 d i A zan9Nlwoa 10:81 S8 L ------- Rd O Q - O—SO aO—i 11 Drinking Water Regulations, Maximum Cont nant Levels for Inorganic Chemicals) or by the Puerto Rico Department of Health under its Primary Drinking Water Regulations, the Company will continue monitoring to assue compliance. As coon as PPASA issue . a permit, the Company viii attempt to comply with the limits set forth under the PRASA regulations. (b) PH - Notwithstanding that the discharge of this parameter is not regulated under existin federal law; 40 CFR 465.44- Pretreatment Standards for cisting Sources, the Company will continua monitoring to assure compliance. As soon as PRASA issues a permit, the Co any will attempt to comply with the limits set foth under PRASA regulations. (C) Total settleabla solids — Notvithstanding that the discharge of this parameter is not regulated under existing federal law; 40 CFR 465.44- Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources, the Compiny will continue monitoring to assure compliance. As Boo: as PRASA issues a permit, the Company will attempt to comply with the limit. set forth under PRASA regulations. (d) Total suspended solids - No ithstanding that the discharge of this parameter is not regulated under existing federal law; 40 CFR 465.44— Pretraatm.nt Standards for Existing Sources, the Company will, continua monitoring to assure compliance. As so as PRASA issues 8OO3 d I LL.LO1 A Z3fl9N!W0 W0 d O91 68. 1. ! ------- J i 6i- —eo EQ—I 32 a permit the Company will attempt to co ly with the limits cat forth under PRASA regulations. (a) BOD 5 Notwithstanding that the discharge of this parameter is not regulated under existing federal law; 40 CFR 465.44 Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources, the Company will continue monitoring to assure compliance. As soon as PRASA issues a permit, the Company ill attempt to comply with the limits se forth under PR.ASA regulations. (1) Fluoride - Continued monitorthg to assure compliance. (g) Sulfate - Notwithstanding that the discharge of this parameter is not regulated under existing federal law; 40 CFR 465.44 Pretreatment StandardE for Existing Sources, the Company ill continue monitor..ng to assure compliance. As soon as PRASA issues a permit, the Company will attempt to comply with the limits set forth under PRASA regulations. (h) Manganese - Continued monitoring to assure compliance. (i) Phosphorous continued monito:ing to assure compliance. (j) Any other parameter which has )*.n discharged in excess of pretreatment limitations si e October 1, 1987. Continued monitoring to assure compliance. 6øø3 d I !.L.LO.L A z3flDN lwoa W0 2 :8I 68, L ------- (.Q(4 io o *0.1 13 38. No additional coat. 39. latter to Mr. E. fl.rhl&nd.r tr Mr. Thonias I apuchsnski dated February 27, 1987. Exhibit 5. May 18, 1989 Defendant to Caribtec Lab. April 19, 1989 - Defendant to Caribtec Lab. April 17, 1989 Cdribtec Lab. to Defendaflt February 28, 1989 - Defeidant to Caribtec Lab. February 15 1989 Dfenthtnt to Cazibtec Lab. January 26, 3.989 - Defendant to Caribtec Lab. January 26, 1989 Defendant to Caribtec Lab. January 26, 1989 CariL .’ec Lab. tc Defendant. January 26, 1989 Defendant to Caribtec Lab. Sept. 15, 1988 Caribtec Lab. to Defendant. Sept. 10, 1988 - Defendant to Cari tec Lab. February 24, 1988 - Defendant to Cazibtec Lab. February 22, 1988 Defendant to Ca.ribtec Lab. January 28, 1987 Caribtec Lab. to Defendant. February 2, 1987 - Caribtec Lab, to Defendant. February 10, 1987 Defendant to Caribtec Lab. March 3, 1987 Caribtec Lab. to Defendant. March 25, 1987 — Catibtec Lab. to Defei.lant. May 11, 1987 Caribtec Lab. to Defendant. June 11, 3987 — Caribtt. Lab, to Defendant. June 19, 1987 - Defendant to Cariktec Lab. July 14, 1987 — Defendant to Carit ec Lab. July 19, 1987 - Defendant to Cari tec Lab. October 1, 1987 - Defendant to Caribtec Lab. October 24, 3986 — Defendant to Caribtec Lab. October 21, 1986 Defendant to Caribtec Lab. October 14, 1986 - Defendant to Caribtec Lab. October 2, 3.986 Caribtec Lab. tc Defendant. Noveu b•r 30, 1984 Dynatec Energy Systems and Control, Inc. to Defendant. July 20, 1984 — Caribt .c Lab. to Defendant. 40. The monthly coet regarding OSH 001. A & B. A & B 1985 1986 1987 1988 January February 348 $1,290.00 $ 3B5.00 March 1,290.00 3,435.00 April 469 1,290.00 1,225.00 May 348 1,290.00 1,736.00 June 1,290.00 450.00 July 348 1,290.00 Auguet 348 1,290.00 sept. 348 1,290.00 725.00 Oct. 348 350.00 Nov. 450 $ 860.00 I ILLO.L A Z3flsuIwoa WO 68. 2 9flP ’ ------- L ZHd dIO co ‘ -‘O—i * 0 — i 14 D.c. 620 $1,290.00 (C) Around $500.00 per month (this is an av.rag. that may be ascertained from Mr. Garrett’s invoices) 41. The monthly Cost regarding OSN 002 - A & B. 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 January February March April 95 525 May June July August Sept. Oct. Nov. 95 Dec. 42. Since October 1, 1987 on3y stormuaters reach OSN 001. Even though stormwaters are not pollutants par se (Section 502. (6) of the Clean Water Act). defendant has undertaken intensive housekeeping of yard area draining into OSN 001 in order to assure that stormwaters carryover of matter foreign to said stormvat.rs is ke P at a minimum. Costs for such housekeeping are estimated at four hundred dollars ($400.00) p .r week. (Four man-hours per day, at $5.00, five days per week: 4 x $5.00 5 $100., plus payroll costs of $100 K 3— $300.00. Total $100 + $300 — $400.) 43. Prior to and also since October 1, 1987 only stormwater. reach 05W 002 • !ven though stormwaters are not pollutants par 5s (Section 502. (6) of the Clean Water I 1.LjOj. A Z3fl9NIWOO P : 68, L ------- ‘I •, â- -IQ *O.g 15 Act), defendant has undertaken inteneiva h eke.ping of yard area draining into OSN 002 in order assur. that stormwaters carryover of matter foreign to said stormwaters is kept at I minimum. Costs for such housekeeping are estimated at four hundred à,llars ($400) per week. (Four man hours p.r day, at $5.00, five days per week; 4 x $5.00 x 5 • $100, plus payroll o. sts of $100. x 3 $300.00. Total $100 + S300 $400.) 44. June of 1981. 45. See Exhibit 1 from Supplementa. Answ rs to Depositions, Interrogatory and Request for Production of May 31, 1989 and enclosed invoices, Exhibits 9, A, B, C, D, etc. 46. See answer to question number 45. 47. The following is a translation into !nglish of the list of “problems” appearing in the “ye.low piece of paper” listing problems at defendant’s ta:ility. Which paper is referred to in Hr. Garrett’s deposition, at 38: Problems with the HYDROMATION. Problems with the new industrial effluents treatment plant: a: The skimmer is not skimming. The skimmer is KOML !N!-SMDERSON FLOTATION UNIT There is almost 100% carry ov.r. There is a large amount of oil in the water that comes from the compressors area. There is only on. diffuser out of four working CIO39 jd I 11±01. A Z3fl9NIwoa W0 PØ 9I 88. L 9 ------- £I PId SI— O SO—i 16 in the $ & L. It looks as if there is no influent to the $ 1 L. 48. 1979. 49. 1983. 50. a) November 1, 2.983 December 32, 1983: 0 b) 7anuar’y 1, 1984 — December 31. 1984: 12 days c) ianuary 1, 2.985 December 31, 1985: 24 days d) January 1, 1986 — December 31, 1986: 23 days e) November 3., 1986 to Sept. 30, 1987: 0 f) October 1, 1987 to July 31, 1989: 7! days. 52.. The answer is the same as in question number 50 except for sanitary wastewater. ANSWERS T9 R OtJEST ?OR PRODU TIQN i. Since PR SA has not issued a Discharge Permit to defendant 1 defendant is not under any obligatior to submit any “...pretteatmeflt progress reports...” to PRASP or any other person or entity” and, therefore, said document/s does/do not exist. 2. Since PRMA has not issusd a Discharge Permit to defendant, defendant is not under any obligation to submit “Any 90 day Compliance Report...” “...to PRASA or any other person or entity” and, therefore said document/s does/do not exist. 3. since PRMA has not issued a Discharge Permit to defendant, defendant is not under any obligation to submit “Any Biannual Periodic Compliance Reports...” “...to frIØ I I.L.LO A Z 3 fl9Nzwoa L ------- 4If 6G— O—eo PRASA or any other psr.Ofl or .ntity’ end therefore, said docu2ent/s does/do not exist 4. See Exhibit 2. 5. See Exhibit 3. 6. See Exhibits 4A, B, C b, etc. 7. See Exhibit 7. 8 See Exhibit 5A, B, C, D, etc. 9. Photocopy of all correspondence relating to OSN 001 and 002 has been available since the inceptio- of the case at the office of Consultant Mr. Carlos Garrett. The U.S. Attorney has previously examined these d cu ents and photocopied those documents that were deemed pertinent. Shou id the U.S. Attorney once again have a necessity to examine and photocopy these documents they i1l be at the disposal of the U.S. Attorney at the office of Mr. Carlos Garrett. 10. Exhibit 9 Carlos Garrett expenses Exhibit 9—A Hydrofax cost. Exhibit 9-B Caribtec Laboratories Exhibit 9-C SanCo Laboratories Exhibit 9-D Instruments and controls of Pretreatment and systems. Exhibit 9-! Pumps and parts. Exhibit 7 ; Connection to flASk. Exhibit 9 -G Chemicals. Exhibit 9—if Cascading. Sf0 39 1 id I I.L.LO .L A Z3fl9NJWOQ W0 Se:8i 68. L ------- &l ’9j 4 O 5e-g,o. Il 18 Exhibit 9•I Repairs. Exhibit 9 7 Centrifuge Unit. Exhibit 9- Employees cost. 13. Enclosed there is copy of the Nyel3cq piece of paper ’ listing problems at defendant’s facility 1 which paper is referred to in Mr. Garrett’s deposition, at 38. . We, Jose Laureano and Caries Garrett depose and say that the facts set forth in the response are true and correct to the best of our knowledge, information and be 3.1 e f At San Juan, Puerto Rico, thdayo st,l989. Jose La ear J T T+ Caries Garr t Affidavit Number - /V 3 _ : Sworn and subscribed to before , of legal age, married and resident ice, and Caries Garrett, of legal t of San Juan, Puerto Rico, whom Juan, Puerto Ric3, this 5th has been ser.t on this same date to W Mill, Esq., Via Federal Express, Environmental Enforcement Section, US. Department of Justice 1 Washington, D.C. 20044. 9 r I age, I w ee xru.o t Ju. IJ.LOj A Z 3 fl N1L.J0a 4O 4 69 2. !i ------- IQ ;o 6e- o—.o E l 19 At San 3usn, Puerto Rico, this 7th day of Auquit, 1989 DOflXN Jfl TOT’?! Attorneys for d.f.ndant P.O. oz 1732 Ifato Rey, P.R. 00919 Teli 753—7910 ________ iIIErR. oo u cu z I’ . 1 Ø39 d I IIiO.j A Z3flDN;woa kQ 9Ø: £8. 4. ------- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO a__a a e a__a a a__a a a__a_a a a a__a S UNITED STATES OF A1 ERICA, . Plaintiff, : V. Civ. No. 88—01920 G—G Crown Cork de Puerto Rico, Inc. : . Defendant aanaanaanaae_a______a__a_a___ X PLAINTIFF’S THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REOUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANT CROWN CORK Plaintiff United States of America, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, 33 and 34, requests that Defendant Crown Cork de Puerto Rico, Inc. a) answer the following interrogatories, in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 33; and b) produce the documents requested, in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. INSTRUCTIONS AND DEFINITIONS The instructions and definitions set forth in Plaintiff’s first set of discovery are incorporated herein. ------- —2— INTERROGATORIES 1. Set forth all information responsive to Plaintiff’s First or Second Sets of Interrogatories which has been obtained by or made available to you since you responded to those Interrogatories, or which has for any other reason not yet been provided to Plaintiff. ------- -3— 2. How many days other than weekends or holidays -— did Defendant riot aanufacture either two piece or aluininun cans in each of the following periods: a. Wove ber 1, 1986 — Septeaber 30, 1987; b October 1, 1987 through the date that you are responding to this Interrogatory. ------- 3. How many days -- other than weekends or holidays -- did Defendant not discharge pollutants at any level, directly or indirectly, to the navigable waters of the United States, in each of the following periods: a. November 1, 1986 — September 30, 1987; b. October 1, 1987 through the date that you are responding to this Interrogatory. ------- —5— 4, Pleaie set forth in detail the aanner in which the ‘average’ levels of discharges were calculated in Defendant’s Discharge ?tonitoring Reports. ------- —6— 5. State in detail all fact. relevant to your position regarding the seriousness of the violations alleged in the Coi p1aint. ------- 6. Identify a].1 witnesses you intend to call regarding the seriousness of the violations in this case. ------- 7. Identify each person you expect to call as an expert witness at the trial of this case, and for each state: a. the witness’ expertise and qualifications; b. each field in which the witness may be offered as art expert; c the subject on which the witness is expected to testify; d. the substance of the facts and opinions to which the witness is expected to testify; e) a summary of the grounds for each such opinion offered; f) identify each person with whom the witness consulted or talked regarding conditions at the site or regarding his testimony: g) identify all documents which the witness reviewed, was given, or relies upon in formulating the opinions the witness may give at trial of this case; and h) identify ll publications authored in whole or in part by such witness. ------- —9— 8. Identify all sa p1ing results reflecting levels of pollutants in the influent at the facility, or in any way related to your third-party claim against PRASA. ------- — 10 — 9. Identify each person who provided infor atjon in response to these Interrogatories. List the specific Interrogatories for which each such person provided information. ------- — 11 — REOU.ESTS FOR PRODUCTIQN 1. All documents responsiv, to Plaintiff’. First or Second Sets of Interrogatories or Requests for Production which has been obtained by or made available to you since you responded to those Interrogatorjes or Requests for Production, or which has for any other reason not been provided to Plaintiff to date. 2. All documents identified, referred to or relied upon in responding to Plaintiff’s Third Interrogatories. 3. all sampling results reflecting levels of pollutants in the influent at the facility, or in any way related to your third-party claim against PRASA. Dated: ___________ Respectfully submitted, DONALD A • CARR Acting Assistant Attorney General I nd and Natural Resources D vision By:________ Attorney, Environmental Enforcement Section U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 7611 Mn Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 (202) 633—2802 OF COUNSEL: GEORGE A. SEANMM Attorn.y Office of Regional Counsel U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 26 Federal Plaza New York, Nov York 10278 ------- L IN THE UNITED STATES DISThICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ‘ CIV. NO. 83-01920 CG Plaintiff, I V. CROWN CORK DE PUERTO RICO, INC. Defendant. DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S THIRD SET O INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 1. All flGW information was previously sent in thi Answer to the Second Set of Interrogdtories and Requcsc for Production dated August 5, 1989. 2, 3. These questions have already been answered in the Second S t of Interrogatories dated August 5, 1989. It is clarified that in those days that Crown-Puerto Rico did not discharge pollutants at any level directly or indirectly, water from sanitary activities was discharged. 4. “Average” levels of discharges were calculated in defendant’s Discharge Monitoring Reports as per EPA’s instructions contained in the enclosed INSTRUCCIONES GENERALES supplied by EPA to defendant. See Exhibit 1. 5. It is the position of Crown that none of the ------- 2 violations alleged in the complaint are serious because Crown-Puerto Rico has spent in excess of $1.3 million dollars in attempting to comply with the Clean Water Act ;J since 198] until the signing of this answer to interrogatories. The expenses incurred are as follows: (1) The hiring of a recognized, reputable expert, to aid the Company in complying with the Clean Water Act, costing the Company in excess of $170,000.00. (2) The purchase of a hydrofax waste water treatment system and the cost of installation and housing of said unit in a good faith attempt to have its effluent comply with applicable federal and state laws, rules and regulations. The cost of this system has been in excess of $353,000.00. (3) The contracting of several reputable laboratory firms in order to adequately characterize its treated effluent so as to aid in complying with applicable federal and state laws, rules and regulations. The cost was in excess of $60,000.00. (4) The purchase and installation of a centrifuge system in a good faith effort to improve the quality of the wastewaters by removing oil from same. The cost of this machine was $93,990.00. (5) The Company has further spent in chemicals used in the treatment of its effluent to comply with federal and state laws, rules and regulations, since 1983 ------- ‘I to the present, in excess of $325,000.00. (6) In order to comply with the NPDES Permit, the Company, Crown Cork de Puerto Rico, incurred in a considerable expense to discharge its effluent into a Po’rw which is a state facility that specializes in treatment of wastewaters. The cost of said installation to Crown de Puerto Rico was in excess of $129,000.00. The connection made by Crown to the POTW was made several months in advance of the schedule imposed by the federal permit. (7) The Company has further contracted several employees including a fuiltime chemist who are dedicated exclusively to work relating to the quality of treated H wastewaters. The cost of these employees from 1983 to the present is in excess of $475,000.00. All the previous enumerated facts clearly point to a good faith attempt by Crown de Puerto Rico to comply with federal and state applicable laws, rules and regulations. Furthermore, Crown-Puerto Rico maintains that should there be a violation it is only a technical violation there being no impact on the drinking water of the people of Puerto Rico since Crown-Puerto Rico’s discharges into the Loiza River are discharges which occurred several. miles downstream from the intake of drinking water made by PRASA. Since pollutants do not flow upstream, there is absolutely no repercussion on the drinking water. As to ------- 4 the marine life and other impact upon the water, it is Crown-Puerto Rico’s position that the impact of Crown’s discharges is minimal if at all. Furthermore, Crown’s compliance with federal and state laws, rules and regulations has been greatly hindered exclusively or partially by the poor quality of the water received by Crown which in several parameters is received in excess of the authorized limits. 6. Crown-Puerto Rico may use the following witnesses relating to the seriousness of the complaint: ‘I 1. Eng. Carlos Garrett 2. Mr. José R. Laurearto 3. Mr. Ernest Merhiander 4. Mr. Richard Greave 5. Mr. Arturo Diaz Cataldo Counsel further reserves the right to supplement this list of potential witnesses depending upon the pending discovery of EPA’S witnesses and/or expert witnesses, Mr. Cho Ching and Miss Gail Coad. Eng. Carlos Garrett shall also be utilized as an expert witness. 7. All answers relating to expert witness and witness Eng. Carlos Garrett are contained in Exhibit 2. Counsel reserves the right to recommend to the Company the hiring of an expert relating to the impact of Crown’s effluent into navigable waters depending upon the ------- jt 5 testimony of EPA’S witnesses Mr. Cho Ching and Miss Gail Coad. The Company most probably will use Marine Biologist Frank Torres as an expert. Should the Company use this expert witness, which will be known after deposition of EPA’s experts, this interrogatory as to Mr. Torres will be answered. 8. See Exhibit 3. 9. (1) Mr. José R. Laureano (2) Mr. José R. Laureano (3) Mr. José R. Laureano (4) Eng. Carlos Garrett (5) Mr. José R. Laureano / Eng. Carlos Garrett (6) Counsel for the Company (7) Consel and Eng. Carlos Garrett (8) Eng. Carlos Garrett ANSWER TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION 1. Has already been answered at the Answer to Plaintiff’s Second Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production dated August 5, 1989. 2. These documents are enclosed herein as Exhibits 1 and 3. 3. See Exhibit 3. ------- At San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 21 day of August, 1989. ‘ureano Affidavit Number “ 5’7O : Sworn and subscribed to before me by Jose Laureano, of legal age, married and resident of Carolina, Puerto Rico, and Carlos Garrett, of legal age, ma resident of San Juan, Puerto Rico, whom I pe t San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 2lth da’ At San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 21 day of August, 1989. DOMINGUEZ & TOTTI Attorneys for defendant P.O. Box 1732 Hato Rey, P.R. 00919 Tel. (809) 753—7910 L 6 Carlos Garrett ,, [ Justice, 20530. has been sent on this same Hill, Esq., Via Federal Express, rcement Section, U.S. Department of & Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, D.C. DANIEL R. DOMINGUEZ ------- o 0, IN THE UNITE j I,uL.., ij. .TRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS SOUTHERN DIVISION <2 1 L - J UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Plaintift, ) V. ) VILLAGE OF SAUGET, ILLINOIS ) Civil Action No. ) and ) THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) ) Defendants. COMPLAINT The United States of America, by its undersigned attorneys, pursuant to the authority of the Attor y General of the United States, and at the request of the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), alleges the following: NATURE OF ACTION 1. This is a civil action instituted against the Village of Sauget (‘Sauget’) pursuant to Section 309(b) and (d) of the Clean Water Act (‘CWA”), 33 U.S.C. § 1319(b) and (d), for injunctiv. relief and civil penalties to redress Sauget’s dischargs of pollutants in violation of Sections 301 and 402 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1311 and 1342, for violations of the conditions and limitations of Sauget’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (‘NPDES ’) permits issued by the State of Illinois pursuant to Section 402 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1342, for violations of the pretreatment regulations, 40 ------- —2— C.F.R. § 403, promulgated pursuant to, inter a].ia , Sections 30]. and 307 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1311 and 1317, and for violation of an Administrative Order issued by the EPA on June 24, 1987, pursuant to Section 309(a) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(a). This action also requests relief from the State of Illinois pursuant to Section 309(e) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(e). JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. H 1345 and 1355 and Section 309(b) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1319. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to Section 309(b) and (e) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(b) and (e), because Sauget is physically located within this district and the violations arose within this district. 3. Notice of this action has been given to the State of Illinois pursuant to Section 309(b) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(b). DEFENDANTS 4. Sauget is a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Illinois, and is located in St. Clair County, Illinois. Sauget is a municipality within the meaning of Section 502(4) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1362(4). 5. The State of Illinois is joined as a defendant to this action pursuant to Section 309(e) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(e). ------- —3— SAUGET’S TREATMENT FACILITIES 6. Sauget owns, operates and maintains, and at all relevant times has owned, operated and maintained, two wastewater treatment plants known as the Physical Chemical Plant (“P/C Plant”) and the American Bottoms Regional Treatment Facility (“ABRTF”), both located in the Village of Sauget, St. Clair County, Illinois. 7. The P/C Plant and the ABRTF receive wastewater from domestic and noridomestic (i.e., commercial and industrial) sources, treat this wastewater, and then discharge this treated wastewater containing pollutants into the Mississippi River. 8. The P/C Plant, originally constructed in 1966, is a 13 million gallon per day (“MGD) (design maximum flow) wastewater treatment facility. The facility, as updated in 1977, is designed to perform pH adjustment, oil and grease skimming, and metals removal. Over 99 percent of this influent is industrial wastewater. 9. Prior to June 30, 1987, all of the P/C Plant effluent wastewater was discharged directly into the Mississippi River. Beginning on June 30, 1987, part of the P/C Plant effluent wastewater was diverted through the ABRTF and part was directly discharged to the Mississippi River. On information and belief, EPA alleges that beginning on November 4, 1987, and continuing thereafter, direct discharges of P/C Plant wastewater, except storm water, to the Mississippi River have ------- —4— ceased and the entire P/C Plant effluent was diverted to the ABRTF. 10. The ABRTF is a 52 MGD (design maximum flow) wastewater treatment plant that discharges wastewater into the Mississippi River. This facility is designed to provide primary and secondary treatment to the untreated wastewater from the City of East St. Louis, the Village of Cahokia, and the Coinmonfjelds of Cahokia Public Water District, and secondary treatment for the effluent from the P/C Plant. A large percentage of this influent wastewater is industrial wastewater. 11. The Village of Sauget applied for and received federal construction grants, pursuant to the CWA, to design and - construct the ABRTP. Sauget has received approximately $65 million in federal grant funds for the design, planning and construction of the ABRTF. 12. The ABRTF commenced treatment of the influent from the City of East St. Louis, the Village of Cahokia, and the Commonfields of Cahokia Public Water District during April 1986. The ABRTF commenced treatment of the P/C Plant effluent on June 30, 1987. 13. The A3RTF includes a proprietary treatment process commonly referred to as the Zimpro Process. The Zimpro Process contains three steps allowing Sauget to: (1) add powdered activated carbon (NPACTtm) to the secondary treatment wastestream; (2) regenerate the used carbon by heating the carbon/secondary sludge slurry along with air under pressure in a ------- —5— process knowr as wet air regeneration (“WAR”); and (3) separate the inert ash material from the slurry and the regenerated carbon from the slurry for reuse. The Zimpro Process was fully operational at the ABRTF on or about November 4, 1987. 14. On the morning of December 2, 1987, a fire and/or explosion occurred at a Zimpro heat exchanger in the WAR process. The exact cause of the failure is still under investigation. 15. This fire/explosion damaged a heat exchanger tube used in the regeneration of the carbon. This explosion/fire did not damage the main treatment units at ABRTF or the carbon addition facilities. Before the Zimpro process became operational at the ABRTF on November 4, 1987, the secondary sludge was returned to the primary sludge handling facilities for processing. The primary sludge handling facilities were not damaged during the fire/explosion. 16. On or about December 2, 1988, Sauget discontinued adding carbon to the wastestream, and, to date, has not resumed carbon addition. GENERAL STATUTORY ALLEGATIONS 17. The P/C Plant and the AERT? both discharge “pollutants” within the meaning of Section 502(6) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1362(6), into the Mississippi River at discharge locations identified as Outfalls OO1A and 0013 (for the P/C Plant) and Outfall 002 (for the ABRTF). 18. The P/C Plant and the ABRTF are each “publicly- ------- —6— owned treatment works” (“Sauget POTWs”) within the meaning of Section 212(2) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1292(2) and 40 C.F.R. § 122.2. 19. The Mississippi River is a “navigable water” within the meaning of Section 502(7) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1362(7). 20. Outfalls OO1A and OO1B from the P/C plant and Outfall 002 from the ABRTF are “point sources” within the meaning of Section 502(14) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1362(14). 21. Defendants Sauget and Illinois are “persons” within the meaning of Section 502(5) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1362(5). 22. Section 301(a) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1311 (a), prohibits the point source discharge of any pollutant by any person into a navigable water of the United States except in compliance with that section and, inter qua , sections 307 and 402 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. H 1317 and 1342. 23. Pursuant to Section 402 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1342, the EPA Administrator may issue an NPDES permit which authorizes the discharge of pollutants directly into navigable waters of the United States, but only in compliance with the applicable requirements of Section 301 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1311, and such other conditions as the Administrator determines are necessary to carry out the provisions of the CWA. In the State of Illinois this permitting responsibility has been duly ------- —7— delegated to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (“IEPA”), pursuant to Section 402(b) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1342(b). 24. Section 309(b) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(b), authorizes the EPA Administrator to conunence a civil action for appropriate relief, including a permanent or temporary injunction, when any person is in violation of section 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318, or 405 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1311, 1312, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1328, or 1345, or is in violation of any permit condition or limitation implementing any of such sections in a permit issued under Section 402 of the cWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1342. 25. Section 309(d) of the cWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(d), provides that any person who violates section 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318, or 405 of the CWA, 33 u.s.c. § 1311, 1312, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1328, or 1345, or violates any permit condition or limitation implementing any of such sections in a permit issued under § 402 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1342, or violates any order issued by the Administrator under Section 309(a) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(a), shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $25,000 per day for each such violation. Before February 4, 1987, Section 309(d) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(d), authorized penalties not to exceed $10,000 per day. SAUGET’S NPDES PERMITS 26. Pursuant to Section 402(b) of the CWA, 33 u.s.c. § 1342, the IEPA re-issued NPDES Permit No. 1L0021407 (“1986 P/C Plant NPDES permit), to the Village of Sauget for the P/C Plant ------- —8— on March 21, 1986. This permit established effluent limits, pretreatment program submission requirements, and other conditions and limitations governing the operation of the P/C Plant and its discharge of pollutants into the Mississippi River via outfalls OOlA and 0013. The 1986 P/C Plant NPDES permit required discharges into the Mississippi River to cease once the diversion of all flows to the ABRTF was completed, or July 20, 1986, whichever occurred first. Once the flow from the P/C Plant was diverted to the ABRTF, certain effluent limitations and conditions in the ABRTF NPDES permit would then govern the discharge of flows via transfer sewer outfall 201 to the ABRTF. A copy of the 1986 P/C Plant NPDES permit is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 27. Sauget appealed the 1986 P/C Plant NPDES permit to the Illinois Pollution Control Board (“IPCB’) on April 18, 1986. The 1986 P/C Plant NPDES permit was stayed by the IPCB pending the outcome of Sauget’s appeal. To date, the permit appeal is still pending. Under Illinois law, the P/C Plant’s previous 1979 NPDES permit remains in effect. 28. Pursuant to Section 402(b) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1342, the IEPA issued NPDES Permit No. 1L0065145 (“ABRTF NPDES permit’), to the Village of Sauget for the ABRTF on March 21, 1986. This permit established effluent limits, pretreatment program submission requirements, and other conditions and limitations governing the operation of the ABRTF and its discharge of pollutants into the Mississippi River from outfall ------- —9— 002. A copy of the ABRTF NPDES permit is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 29. Sauget appealed the ABRTF NPDES permit to the IPCB on April 18, 1986. At Sauget’s request, the IPCB issued a stay of certain terms and conditions of the permit on July 31, 1986. Pursuant to the terms of the July 31, 1986 IPCB stay order, the stay for the ABRTF NPDES permit expired on January 20, 1987. To date, the permit appeal is still pending. THE PRETREATMENT REGULATIONS AND THEIR APPLICABILITY TO SAUGET 30. Section 307(b) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1317(b), directs the Administrator of the EPA to publish regulations establishing pretreatment standards governing the introduction of pollutants into POTWs for pollutants that are determined not to be susceptible to treatment by such treatment works or that would interfere with the operation of such treatment works. The pretreatment standards are established to prevent the discharge of any pollutant through any POTW if such pollutant interferes with, passes through, or otherwise is incompatible with such works. 31. The Administrator of EPA promulgated “General Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New Sources of Water Pollution”, 40 C.F.R. 403, to assure implementation of the pretreatment standards established under Section 307(b) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1317(b). 32. 40 C.F.R. § 403.8 requires that any POTW (or combination of POTWe operated by the same authority) with a ------- — 10 — design flow greater than five MGD that either receives pollutants from Industrial Users which Pass Through or Interfere with the operation of the POTW or are otherwise subject to Pretreatment Standards must establish a pretreatment program that has been approved by the pretreatment Approval Authority no later than July 1, 1983. 33. The P/C Plant and the ABRTF both have design maximum flows greater than five MGD. 34. The P/C Plant and the ABRTF both receive pollutants from Industrial Users which have the potential to Pass Through or Interfere with the operation of the POTWs or are otherwise subject to Pretreatment Standards. 35. The EPA is the pretreatment Approval Authority for all pretreatment programs submitted by POTWs in the State of Illinois. THE ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER 36. On June 24, 1987, EPA issued Administrative Order No. V-W-87-AO—39 to Sauget, pursuant to Section 309(a) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(a). A copy of the Admini- strative Order is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 37. Order Paragraph 6 of the Administrative Order specified that if any of the PACTtm, WAR, or ash separation processes fail to function in such a way as to threaten the achievement of final effluent limits (PELs) by December 30, 1987, the permittee shall report such to U.S. EPA and IEPA immediately. If the problem with the identified Zimpro unit ------- — 11 — process persists, the Administrative Order required Sauget to develop and submit to EPA and IEPA a program to remedy the problem. This program, known as a Corrective Action Plan, had to include a detailed schedule which would result in full compliance with Sauget’s permit limits by no later than July 1, 1988. 38. Order Paragraph 7 of the Administrative Order required Sauget to submit to EPA an approvable pretreatment program by June 30, 1987, a submittal date that had been previously agreed to by Sauget. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 39. Paragraphs 1 through 38 are rea].leged and incorporated herein by reference. 40. Since the ABRTF NPDES permit became effective on April 20, 1986, Sauget has discharged on many occasions, and continues to discharge, pollutants into the Mississippi River, in excess of the effluent limitations in its ABRTF NPDES permit. Specifically, based on the information reported by Sauget in its ABRTF Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMPs) and on monitoring performed by EPA on March 1 and 2, l98S, Sauget has exceeded the effluent limits in its ABRTF NPDES permit for such pollutants as five day biochemical oxygen demand (30D 5 ), iron, mercury, total suspended solids, and zinc. A table of effluent violations based on the DMRs is attached as Exhibit D. A table of effluent violations ------- — 12 — based on the March 1 and 2, 1988, EPA monitoring is attached as Exhibit E. 41. Each of Sauget’s discharges of pollutants in excess of levels authorized by its ABRTF NPDES permit is a separate violation of a permit condition or limitation implementing Section 301 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1311, in a permit issued pursuant to Section 402 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1342. 42. Pursuant to Section 309(b) and (d) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(b) and (d), Sauget is subject to injunctive relief and is liable for civil penalties. 43. Unless restrained by order of the Court, Sauget will continue to violate Sections 301 and 402 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1312. and 1342. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF 44. Paragraphs 1 through 38 are realleged and incorporated by reference herein. 45. Special Condition 16 of Sauget’s ASRTF NPDES permit requires Sauget to comply with a whole effluent toxicity limit of 1.0 toxic units acute (TUa) by no later than April 30, 1987. TUa is defined as the reciprocal of the fraction of the effluent that causes 50 percent of the test organisms to die by the end of the acute exposure period. Thus, a whole effluent toxicity limit of 1.0 TUa means that the 100% (undiluted) solution of effluent cannot kill more than 50% of the test organisms exposed to it for the acute ------- — 13 — exposure period. Sauget is required to demonstrate compliance with this limit through quarterly 96-hour bioassays as specified in the ABRTF NPDES permit. 46. Sauget has failed to perform these quarterly bioassays and thus has failed to demonstrate compliance with the whole effluent toxicity limit of 1.0 TUa. 47. Based on sampling of Sauget’s ABRTF effluent performed by EPA on March 1, 1988, using EPA bioassay methodologies, EPA found that Sauget’s effluent is extremely toxic such that it exceeds the toxicity limit of 1.0 TUa. 48. Sauget’s failure to comply with this Special Condition is a violation of a permit condition or limitation implementing Sections 301 and 308 of the CWA, 33 U.s.c. § 131]. and 1318, in a permit issued pursuant to Section 402 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1342. 49. Pursuant to Section 309(b) and (d) of the CWA, 33 U.s.c. § 1319(b) and (d), Sauget is subject to injunctive relief and is liable for civil penalties. 50. Unless restrained by order of the Court, Sauget will continue to violate Sections 301, 308, and 402 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1311, 1318, and 1342. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF 51. Paragraphs 1 through 38 are realleged and incorporated herein by reference. 52. Special Condition 10 of the ABRTF Permit prohibits Sauget from discharging any pollutant: ------- — 14 — subject to, or which contributes or threatens to cause a violation of, any applicable federal or state water quality standard, effluent standard, guideline, or other limitation, promulgated pursuant to the Clean Water Act or the Act(Illinois Environmental Protection Act], unless limitation for such pollutant has been set forth in an applicable NPDES permit. 53. The State of Illinois, consistent with the Clean Water Act, has established state effluent standards that prohibit the discharge of an offensive effluent. Specifically, 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.106 states: In addition to other require entg of this Part, no effluent shall contain settleable solids, floating debris, visible oil, grease, scum or sludge solids. Color, odor, and turbidity must be reduced to below obvious levels. 54. On December 30, 1987, an IEPA inspector observed an obvious, bright yellow-amber color in the ABRTF plant effluent. The inspector noted that this color was typical of the color of the former direct discharge of P/C Plant effluent to the Mississippi River. 55. During a March 1, 1988 EPA inspection of the ABRTF outfall, an EPA inspector observed an obvious, bright yellow apb.r color in the AERT? plant effluent. 56. During a March 1—2, 1988 sampling inspection of the ABRTP, an EPA inspector observed a strong solvent odor emanating from the wastestrean. The odor was present at several locations at the ABRTF, including the effluent flow measurement location (effluent Porshall flume). ------- — 15 — 57. Each of Sauget’s offensive discharges of pollutants in violation of Special Condition 10 of its ASRTF NPDES permit is a separate violation of a permit condition or limitation implementing Section 301 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1311, in a permit issued pursuant to Section 402 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1342. 58. Pursuant to Section 309(b) and 309(d) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(b) and (d), Sauget is subject to injunctive relief and is liable for civil penalties. 59. Unless restrained by order of the Court, Sauget will continue to violate Sections 301 and 402 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1311. and 1342. FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 60. Paragraphs 1. through 38 are realleged and incorporated by reference herein. 61. Special Condition 17 of Sauget’s ABRTF NPDES permit requires Sauget to prepare a plan for conducting biomonitoring of the effluent from the ABRTF (outfall 002), and submit the plan to the IEPA and U.S. EPA for review and approval by July 31, 1986. To date, Sauget has failed to comply with this requirement. 62. Special Condition 19 of Sauget’s ABRTF NPDES permit requires Sauget, in conjunction with the plan for biomonitoring, to submit documentation of the actual mixing patterns of the discharge from the ABRTF with the Mississippi ------- — 16 — River. To date, Sauget has failed to comply with this requirement. 63. Sauget’s failure to comply with these two Special Conditions is a violation of a permit condition or limitation implementing Sections 301 and 308 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1311 and 1318, in a permit issued pursuant to Section 402 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1342. 64. Pursuant to Section 309(b) and (d) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(b) and (d), Sauget is subject to injunctive relief and is liable for civil penalties. 65. Unless restrained by order of the Court, Sauget will continue to violate Sections 301, 308 and 402 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1311, 1318, and 1342. FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 66. Paragraphs 1 through 38 are rea].leged and incorporated by reference herein. 67. Special Condition 7 of the ABRTF NPDES permit requires Sauget to develop and implement a pretreatment program pursuant to the requirements in 40 C.F.R. § 403. This Special Condition details eight activities that Sauget must co p1ete, consistent with IEPA guidelines and applicable federal laws and regulations, in the development of its Pretreatment Program. For each activity, the permit indicates that sauget has submitted a program proposal that is “Submitted but not yet approved.” ------- — 17 — 68. By letter of November 20, 1986, the EPA and IEPA informed Sauget that the Village had not submitted an approvable pretreatment program to date. A copy of this letter is attached herein as Exhibit F. 69. Sauget failed to submit to EPA a pretreatment program that meets the requirements cf 40 C.F.R. § 403.9 until January 28, 1988. Sauget’s program submission is currently proceeding through the approval process, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 403.11. 70. Sauget’s failure to timely comply with Special Condition 7 in its ABRTF NPDES permit is a violation of a permit condition or limitation implementing Sections 301 and 308 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1311 and 1318, in a permit issued pursuant to Section 402 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1342. 71. Sauget’s failure to timely comply with Special Condition 7 has contributed to and is contributing to Sauget’s violations of some of the effluent limits in its ABRTF NPDES permit. 72. As part of the requirements for developing an approvable pretreatment program, Special Condition 13 of Sauget’s ABRTF NPDES permit required Sauget to submit a complete industrial user survey by no later than September 30, 1986. Sauget failed to comply with this requirement. 73. Sauget’s failure to comply with Special Condition 13 is a violation of a permit condition or limitation implementing Sections 301 and 308 of the CWA, 33 ------- — 18 — U.S.C. § 1311 and 1318, in a permit issued pursuant to Section 402 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1342. 74. Pursuant to Section 309(b) and (d) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(b) and (d), Sauget is subject to injunctive relief and is liable for civil penalties. SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 75. Paragraphs 1 through 38 are realleged and incorporated herein by reference. 76. Sauget failed to receive approval of its pretreatment program from EPA by July 1, 1983, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 403.8(b). 77. Sauget failed to submit to EPA a pretreatment program that meets the requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 403.9 until January 28, 1988. Sauget’s program submission is currently proceeding through the approval process, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 403.11. 78. Sauget’s failure to receive approval of its pretreatment program by July 1, 1983 violates Sections 30]. and 402 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1311 and 1342, and 40 C.F.R. § 403.8. 79. Sauget’s failure to develop and implement an approved pretreatment program in a timely manner has contributed to and is contributing to Sauget’s violations of some of the effluent limits in its ABRTF NPDES permit. 80. Pursuant to Section 309(b) and (d) of the CWA, ------- — 19 — 33 U.S.C. § 1319(b) and (d), Sauget is subject to injunctive relief and is liable for civil penalties. 81. Unless restrained by order of the Court, Sauget will continue to violate Sections 301 and 402 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1311 and 1342. SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 82. Paragraphs 1 through 38 are realleged and incorporated herein by reference. 83. Sauget failed to submit an approvable pretreatment program to EPA by June 30, 1987, as required by EPA Administrative Order No. V-W-87-A0-39. 84. Sauget’s failure to comply with Administrative Order No. V-W-87-A0—39, by failing to submit an approvab].e pretreatment plan to EPA by June 30, 1987, is a violation of Section 309(a) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(a). 85. Pursuant to Section 309(d) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(d), Sauget is liable for civil penalties. EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 86. Paragraphs 1 through 38 are realleged and incorporated herein by reference. 87. On February 16, 1988, Sauget submitted a Compliance Action Plan to “Evaluate, Compare, Select, & Implement Necessary Remedial Actions to Insure Compliance with Federal Effluent Limits.” A copy of this Compliance Action Plan is attached as Exhibit F. ------- — 20 — 88. The submittal of this Compliance Action Plan by Sauget fails to satisfy the requirements for a Corrective Action Plan specified in EPA Administrative Order No. V-W-37- A0—39, Paragraph 6. Specifically Sauget’s submission fails to comply with the Order because: a. Sauget’s submission proposes a plan that will not achieve compliance with final effluent limits until 1991 or 1992, while the Order and the CWA required compliance by July 1, 1988; b. Sauget’s submission does not include any interim measures to improve the quality of the effluent while the Order specifically required this; c. Sauget’s submission fails to present the required contingency plans for partial use of the three part Zimpro process. 89. Sauget’s failure to comply with Administrative Order No. V—W-87—A0—39, by failing to submit a satisfactory Corrective Action Plan is a violation of Section 309(a) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(a). 90. Pursuant to Section 309(b) and (d) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(b) and (d), Sauget is subject to injunctive relief and is liable for civil penalties. 91. Unless restrained by order of the Court, Sauget will continue to violate Sections 309(a) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(a). ------- — 21 — NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 92. Paragraphs 1 through 38 are realleged and incorporated by reference herein. 93. Special Condition 8 of Sauget’s ABRTF NPDES permit requires Sauget to achieve compliance with the final effluent limits in its permit pursuant to an enumerated schedule. Item 8 required Sauget to attain full operational level (i.e., full compliance with all permit requirements) by January 20, 1987. 94. Sauget failed to comply with this requirement and continues to be in violation of this requirement. 95. Sauget’s failure to comply with Special Condition 8 is a violation of a permit condition or limitation implementing Sections 301 and 308 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1311 and 1318 in a permit issued pursuant to Section 402 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1342. 96. Sauget’s ABRTF NPDES permit, Special Condition 8, Item 7, required Sauget to divert all. P/C Plant effluent flows to the A3RTF for treatment by July 20, 1986. Sauget failed to divert all flows as required by its AERT? NPDES permit and did not fully comply with this condition until November 4, 1987. 97. Sauget’s failure to comply with Special Condition 8, Item 7, is a violation of a permit condition or limitation implementing Section 301 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. ------- — 22 — § 1311, in a permit issued pursuant to Section 402 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1342. 98. Pursuant to Section 309(b) and (d) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(b) and (d), Sauget is subject to injunctive relief and liable for civil penalties. 99. Unless restrained by order of the Court, Sauget will continue to violate Sections 301, 308, and 402 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1311, 1318, and 1342. TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 100. Paragraphs 1 through 38 are realleged and incorporated by reference herein. 101. Special Condition 20 of Sauget’s ABRTF NPDES permit requires Sauget to conduct a chemical monitoring program for one year commencing with the effective date of the ABRTF Permit, April 20, 1986. The details of this chemical monitoring program are specified within the terms of this Special Condition. Sauget was required to submit a final report on this chemical monitoring identifying those chemicals believed to have the potential for Pass Through or Interference to ZEPA and EPA for review and approval by April 20, 1987. To date, Sauget has failed to comply with these requirements. 102. Sauget’s failure to comply with Special Condition 20 is a violation of a permit condition or limitation implementing Section 308 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § ------- — 23 — 1318, in a permit issued pursuant to Section 402 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1342. 103. Pursuant to Section 309(b) and (d) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(b) and (d), Sauget is subject to injunctive relief and is liable for civil penalties. 104. Unless restrained by order of the Court, Sauget will continue to violate Sections 308 and 402 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1318 and 1342. ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 105. Paragraphs 1 through 38 are realleged and incorporated by reference herein. 106. Sauget’s ABRTF NPDES permit prescribes, inter alia , monitoring (i.e., sampling and testing) and reporting requirements that govern the operation of the Sauget POTWs. On numerous occasions Sauget has failed to monitor and report as required by its ABTRF NPDES permit. A table of these monitoring and reporting violations is attached as Exhibit H. 107. Since April 1986, Sauget has monitored and reported its effluent values for Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand (CBOD 5 ), rather than total Biochemical Oxygen Demand (DOD 5 ), as required by its ABRTF NPDES permit. In its DMR5, Sauget has reported its measurement of CBOD5, either under an entry labelled BOD5 or CBOD5. CBOD 5 is only a partial measure of total DOD 5 . 108. Since April 1986, Sauget has failed to monitor ------- — 24 — and report Total Organic Carbon (TOC) as required in its ABRTF NPDES permit. 109. Since December 1987, Sauget has failed to monitor and report mercury effluent values, as required by its ABRTF NPDES permit, or has inadequately reported mercury effluent values. 110. Each of Sauget’s failures to comply with a monitoring or reporting requirement contained in its ABRTF NPDES permit is a separate violation of a permit condition or limitation implementing Sections 301 and 308 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1311 and 1318, in a permit issued pursuant to Section 402 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1342. 111. Pursuant to Section 309(b) and (d) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(b) and (d), Sauget is subject to injunctive relief and is liable for civil penalties. 112. Unless restrained by order of the Court, Sauget will continue to violate Sections 301, 308, and 402 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1311, 1317, 1318, and 1342. TWELFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 113. Paragraphs 1 through 38 are realleged and incorporated herein by reference. 114. Between April 1986 and December 1987, Sauget failed to report effluent values for effluent limitations expressed as load limits for the following pollutants: 80D5, suspended solids, fecal coliform, chlorine residual, copper, mercury, lead, zinc, nickel, iron, oils, fats and greases ------- — 25 — (FOG), phenols, cadmium and chromium, as required by its ABRTF NPDES permit. A table of these monitoring and reporting violations is attached as Exhibit I. 115. Each of Sauget’s failures to comply with a monitoring or reporting requirement contained in its ABRTF NPDES permit is a separate violation of a permit condition or limitation implementing Sections 301 and 308 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1312. and 1318 in a permit issued pursuant to Section 402 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1342. 116. Pursuant to Section 309(b) and (d) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(b) and (d), Sauget is subject to injunctive relief and is liable for civil penalties. 117. Unless restrained by order of the Court, Sauget will continue to violate Sections 301, 308, and 402 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. H 1311, 1318, and 1342. THIRTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 118. Paragraphs 1 through 38 are realleged and incorporated herein by reference. 119. Section 309(e) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(e), provides: Whenever a municipality is a party to a civil action brought by the United States under this section, the State in which the municipality is located shall be joined as a party. Such State shalibe liable for payment for a judgment, entered against the municipality in such action to the extent that the laws of that State prevent the municipality from raising revenues needed to comply with such judgment. ------- — 26 — 120. Should Illinois law prevent Sauget from raising revenues needed to comply with any judgment entered against it in this action, the State of Illinois is held liable for such judgment, under Section 309(e) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(e). WHEREFORE, the plaintiff, United States of America, prays that the Court: 1. Enjoin Sauget from any and all future violations of Sections 301, 308, and 402 of the CWA and the pretreatment regulations found at 40 C.F.R. § 403; 2. Order Sauget to construct the necessary improvements to the Sauget POTWs to prevent further violations of the CWA and its ABRTF NPDES permit. 3. Order Sauget to submit a Compliance Action Plan to U.S. EPA that satisfies the requirements of U.S. EPA Administrative Order No. V-W-87-AO-39, Paragraph 6; 4. Order Sauget to implement its approvable pretreatment program consistent with the pretreatment regulations, 40 C.P’.R. § 403, and its ABRTF NPDES permit to prevent further violations of the CWA and its ABRTF NPDES Permit. 5. Order Sauget to pay a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed $10,000 for each day of each violation of the CWA , the pretreatment regulations, and its ABRTF NPDES permit occurring before February 4, 1987 and $25,000 for each day of each violation of the CWA, the pretreatment ------- — 27 — regulations, its ABRTF NPDES permit, and the Administrative Order occurring on or after February 4, 1987. 6. Order Sauget to pay the costs of this action; 7. Order the State of Illinois to comply with any judgment in this case to the extent Illinois law prevents Sauget from raising revenues needed to comply with the judgment; and 8. Grant such further relief as it deems just and proper. Respectfully submitted, ROGER 7. MARZULLA Ass istant Attorney General Land & Natural Resources Division United States Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530 FREDERICK J. HESS United States Attorney Southern District of Illinois By:____________________________ BRUCE REPPERT Assistant United States Attorney Southern District of Illinois 750 Missouri Avenue, Room 330 East St. Louis, IL 62202 (618) 482—9361 ------- Environmental Enforcement Section Land & Natural Resources Djv1sj United States Department of Justice P.O. Box 761]. Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 (202) 633—526]. OF COUNSEL: THOMAS J. MARTIN, JR. JAMES A. NOLAN, JR Assistant Regional Counsel U.S. Environmentai Protection Agency 230 South Dearborn Street (5CA-TTJB-3) Chicago, Illinois 60604 DAVID A. HINDIN Attorney U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring (LE-134W) 401 M Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20460 ------- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS SOUTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AXERICA, ) Plaintiff, ) v. VILLAGE OF SAUGET, ILLINOIS ) Civil Action No. 88-5131 and ) Judge William L. Beatty ) THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Defendants. UNITED STATES’ FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT VILLAGE OF SAUGET Pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff, the United States of America, serves upon Defendant Vil age of Sauget the following interrogatorieg to be answered by Defendant separately and fully in writing and under oath, and served upon the undersigned United States Department of Justice attorney within 30 days. I NSTRUCTIONS AND DEFINITIONS 1. Unless otherwise specified, these interrogatories pertain to the Village of Sauget’s two wastevater treatment plants known as the Physical Chemical Plant (“P/C Plant”) and the American Bottoms Regional Treatment Facility (“ABRTF”), both located in the Village of Sauget, St. Clair County, Illinois. 2. The terms “Village of Sauget”, “Sauget,” “Village” and/or “you” or “your” mean the Village of Sauget, its wastewater treatment plants, all officers, employees, agents, servants, representatives, assignees, contractors, consultants, its attorneys and any other person acting in a consulting or advisory ------- —2— capacity to, or acting or purporting to act on behalf of, any of the foregoing. 3. These interrogatorieg are continuing in nature and require you to provide supplemental answers promptly in the event that you or your attorney obtain information that alters or augments the answers now given. 4. These interrogatorieg cover all documents and information in your possession or control and all documents and other sources of information to which you have access, regardless of whether the source is within your immediate possession or control. All documents in the possession of experts or consultants must also be consulted. 5. If you decline to answer or answer only partially any of the following interrogatorjes under any claim of privilege or exemption, furnish a list identifying each interrogatory for which the privilege or exemption is claimed and stat the basis for each claim, privilege or exemption. 6. Where an individual interrogatory calls for an answer that involves more than one piece of information, each part of the answer is to be set out clearly so that it is understandable. 7. Words used in the plural shall also be taken to mean and include the singular. Words used in the singular shall also be taken to mean and include the plural. “Or” and “and” shall be const ad either conjunctively or disjunctively to bring within the scope of these interrogaterieg any information that ------- —3— might otherwise be construed to be Outside their scope. The past tense includes the present tense where the clear meaning is not distorted by change of tense. 8. “U.S. EPA” means the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and its agents and employees. 9. “Person” includes any natural person, firm, corporation, partnership, joint venture, association, proprietorship, company, government agency, group, or other entity or organization. 10. “Document” means any and all material that is written, printed, typed, photographed, recorded (electronically, magnetically, graphically or otherwise) or which is capable of being recorded in any form. It includes, but is not limited to, any logs of materials received, other logs, invoices, purchase orders, receipts, bills of lading, loading tickets, receiving tickets, shipping orders, inventories, letters and other correspondence, offers, contracts, agreements, bids, proposals, applications, licenses, permits, reports to government agencies, other reports, minutes of meetings, sales estimates, sales reports, memoranda, handwritten or other notes, calendar or diary entries, agendas, bulletins, graphs, charts, maps, photographs, drawing., data, price lists, list of accounts, summaries, telexes, telegrams, teletypes, computer printouts, magnetic tapes, discs, microfilm, and microfiche. 11. “Identify”, “identification” and “identifying” mean and include, with respect to a person: ------- —4— (1) full name; (2) employer, business address and telephone number (or home address and telephone number if business address/number not available); and (3) occupation, job title and responsibilities sl With respect t a non-natural 3 .erson “identity”, “identifica- tion” and “identIy4lgiL.meaic( (1) the full official name of the person; (2) its location and business address; (3) the name, title and address of its chief responsible officer; and (4) a brief description of its operations. If the person is a corporation or other business entity, “identify”, “identification” and “identifying” mean: (1) the full name of.the business; (2) the type of business; (3) its state of incorporation or organization; (4) its date of incorporation; (5) the location and address of its principal headquarters; and (6) the name, title and address of its chief responsible officer. 1.2. “Identify”, “identification” and “identifying” mean and include, with respect to a document: (1) the title or caption: (2) the nature of the document; (3) its date of origin; (4) identification of its author(s); ------- —5— (5) identification of its recipient(s); (6) the subject matter of the document; and (7) identification of the present custodian of the original document. 13. In lieu of identifying a document, you may attach a true py of it to your answer, pursuant to Rule 33(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For each document produced in response to an interrogatory, indicate on the document the numbered request(s) to which it responds. 14. “Identify”, “identification” and “identifying”, when used other than with respect to a document or person, mean to set forth, explain, or otherwise establish those characteristics of a thing, object, or event which will allow that thing, object or event to be easily distinguished, recognized, or located. 15. “State” means the State of Illinois and its agents and departments. 16. “Complaint” means the complaint filed by the United States of America on May 13, 1988, against Defendant Village of Sauget, Civil Action 88—5131. 17. “Sauget answer” means Defendant Village of Sauget’s Answer and Affirmatative Defenses to Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial” filed in Civil Action No. 88-131 on June 22, 1988. 18. For each interrogatory in this and subsequent sets, identify fully all persons who have assisted in any way in answering the interrogatory, except for those persons providing clerical and secretarial assistance. ------- —6— INTERROGATORIES 1. Identify and describe in detail all the facts that support Sauget’s statement that “the addition of carbon without the benefit of the regeneration and ash separation capabilities of the WAR units would have to occur in such great amounts and a cost of many millions of dollars per year beyond the expected normal operating costs” (Sauget answer at p. 21] and specifi- cally explain: a) how the costs were arrived at: b) what the predicted amount of carbon was based on; and C) what analytical tests were run to determine the necessary amount of carbon? 2. Identify and describe in detail all facts and opinions that support Sauget’s statement that the addition of carbon without regeneration and ash separation “would impose an undue and unreasonable burden upon the users of ABRTF” (Sauget answer at p. 21], specifically identifying all facts that indicate such an undue and unreasonable burden would be imposed on the users of the P/C Plant and the ABRTF and how . would impact Industrial Users as opposed to domestic users. 3. Describe the impact the four steps Sauget claims to have taken “to maximize the treatment capabilities of the ABRTF” (Sauget answer at p. 20] (or any other steps Sauget is now or recently performed) have had on the nature of the ABRTF wastewater discharged to the Mississippi River. In addition, please identify all facts that indicate whether or how these four steps (or any other steps Sauget is now or recently performed) are providing equivalent treatment to the ABRTF wastewater that ------- —7— would have been provided by carbon treatment had Sauget not discontinued carbon treatment on or about December 2, 1987, and identify all facts and explain what impact the cessation of carbon treatment has had on the nature of the ABRTF wastewater discharge, including the pollutant Concentration of the effluent and its toxicity. 4. Identify and describe in detail all the facts that support Sauget’s statement that the U.S. EPA failed to act “responsibly or diligently in connection with the approval process for Sauget’s Pretreatment Program.” (Sauget answer at p.35] and specifically include a description of all the facts Sauget relies on to support its conclusions that the January 1983 disapproval, the May 1984 disapproval, the January 1985 disapproval and the October l987.disapproval by U.S. EPA of the Sauget pretreatment program submissions were each unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious (Sauget answer at pp 54-56]. 5. Identify and explain in detail all the facts that support Sauget’s statement that the provision in 40 C.F.R. §403.8 that require. all pretreatment programs to be approved by the pretreatment Approval Authority no later than July 1, 1983, “had bean extended at least to September 30, 1984” (Sauget answer at p.32]. 6. Identify and explain in detail all the facts that support Sauget’s statement that the sample taken by the U.S. EPA on March 1, 1 ’, f Sauget’s ABRTF effluent was not representa- ------- —8— tive of the toxicity of the ABRTF discharge [ Sauget Answer at p. 44) 7. Identify and describe in detail all facts supporting Sauget’s denial [ Sauget answer at p. 33] of Paragraph 34 of the complaint. Paragraph 34 states: “The P/C Plant and the ABRTF both receive pollutants from Industrial Users which have the potential to Pass Through or Interfere with the operation of the POTWs or are otherwise subject to Pretreatment Standards”. In addition, identify and describe the facts that justify this denial in light of the facts that the Cerro Copper Products Company, Amax Zinc, and W.G. Krummrich Plant (Monsanto Chemical Company), among others, discharge industrial process wastewater to the P/C Plant while Musick Plating, among others, discharge industrial process wastewater to the ABRTF. 8. Identify and describe in full all facts supporting Sauget’s denial of Paragraph 7 of the Complaint (Sauget answer at p. 6] that the P/C Plant and the ABRTF discharge wastewater containing ollutpnts into the Mississippi River (including any studies, samplings or other information that supports this denial), and specifically explain how the effluent concentrations of pollutants reported by Sauget in its Discharge Monitoring Reports supports thiá denial that it discharges pollutants into the River,). En addition, explain how this denial of Paragraph 7 of the Complaint by Saugot is consistent with Sauget’s answer at page 22 to l7 of the Complaint. ------- —9— 9. Fully describe the odor and color of the ABRTF effluent, identify those persons who will testify to the color and odor of the ABRTF effluent, and identify those individuals present during the March 1-2, 1988 U.s. EPA sampling inspection at the ABRTF that did not notice a strong solvent odor emanating from the ABRTF effluent while observing such effluent (Sauget answer at p. 48]. 10. Given that Sauget denies that the appealed terms and conditions of the ABRTF permit issued on March 21, 1986 are currently effective and enforceable against Sauget (Sauget answer at p. 30], identify all conditions and requirements that govern the operation of the ABRTF and its discharge of wastevater containing pollutants into the Mississippi River. 11. Fully describe the. breakdown and allocation of user costs at the Plants and describe how costs are allocated between domestic users and Industrial Users for: a) primary treatment at the P/C Plant; b) primary treatment at the ABRTF; c) secondary treatment with carbon addition at the ABRTF; and d) secondary treatment without carbon addition at the ABRTP. 12. Fully identify all persons whom are members of the Sauget Sanitary Development and Research Association and the Technical, Advisory Co mittee. 13. Identify fully all persons whom you intend to call as factual witnesses at any hearing, trial, or other proceeding in this case, state the sttbject matter on which each witness is ------- — 10 — expected to testify, and summarize the facts to which each witness is expected to testify. 14. Identify fully all expert witnesses you intend to cal]. at trial, in this case; the subject matter on which, and the substance of the facts and opinions to which, the expert is expected to testify; and provide a summary of the grounds for each opinion. Respectfully submitted, ROGER J. MARZULLA Ass istant Attorney General Land and Natural Resources Division U.S. Department of Justice By: k. , P 4 JEFF Y P Attorney Environmenta], Enforcement Section Land and Natural Resources Section U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 7611 Washington, D.C. 20044 (202) 633—5261 FREDERICK 3. HESS United States Attorney Southern District of Illinois BRUCE REPPERT Assistant United States Attorney Southern District of Illinois 750 Missouri Avenue, Room 330 East St. Louis, IL 62202 (618) 482—9361 ------- — 11 — By: VID A. HINDIN Attorney/Advisor Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring (LE-134W) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 401 M Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20460 (202) 475—8547 OF COUNSEL: THOMAS J. MARTIN, JR. JAMES A NOLAN, JR. Associate Regional Counsels U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V (5CA-TUB-3) 230 S. Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois 60604 ------- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS SOUTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 88—5131 ) VILLAGE OF SAUGET, ILLINOIS, ) Judge William L. Beatty ) and ) ) THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) ) Defendants. ) DEFENDANT VILLAGE OF SAUGETS ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF UN ITED STATES’ FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES Pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant, the Village of Sauget (“Sauget ”) hereby answers the United States’ First Set of Iriterrogatories. GENERAL OBJECTIONS 1. Sauget objects to each of these interrogatories to the extent that they seek information that is protected from disclosure by either the attorney-client or attorney work product privileges. 2. Sauget objects to paragraph 1 of the “Instructions and Definitions” section of the Interrogatories on the grounds that the general inclusion of the Physical Chemical Plant (“P/C Plant”) is overbroad and not reasonably calculated to lead to ------- the discovery of admissible evidence in that none of the plaintiff’s claims for relief are based on alleged violations of the P/C Plant’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit. 3. Sauget objects to paragraphs 2 and 4 of the “Instructions and Definitions” section of the Interrogatories on the grounds that they improperly seek to require Sauget to obtain information not within its possession or control. 4. Sauget objects to paragraph 3 of the “Instructions and Definitions” section of the Interrogatories on the grounds that it is contrary to Rule 26(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 5. Sauget objects to paragraph 5 of the “Instructions and Definitions” section of the Interrogatories on the grounds that it is contrary to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 6. Sauget objects to paragraphs 1.1 and 12 of the “Instructions and Definitions” section of the Interrogatories on the grounds that (1) the definitions of “identify”, etc. are overbroad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and (2) the term “non-natural person” is vague and unintelligible. 7. Sauget objects to paragraph 13 of the “Instructions and Definitions” section of the Interrogatories on the grounds that it is inconsistent with and contrary to the provisions of Rule 33(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. —2— ------- ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS TO INTERROGATORIES 1. Identify and describe in detail all the facts that support Sauget’s statement that “the addition of carbon without the benefit of the regeneration and ash separation capabilities of the WAR units would have to occur in such great amounts and a cost of many millions of dollars per year beyond the expected normal operating costs” (Sauget answer at p. 21] and specifically explain: a) how the costs were arrived at; b) what the predicted amount of carbon was based on; and c) what analytical tests were run to determine the necessary amount of carbon? ANSWER : Sauget objects that the requirement to “describe in detail all the facts that support Sauget’s statement” is overbroad and unduly burdensome in that it would include numerous facts concerning the design of the subject treatment system and its operational history. Subject to and without waiving this objection, and pursuant to Rule 33(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the answer to Interrogatory No. 1 may be ascertained from the following records: (1) the design and construction records concerning the Power Activated Carbon Treatment-Wet Air Regeneration (“PACT/WAR”) system supplied by Zimpro, Inc. of Rothschild, Wisconsin, including but not limited to the “Final Report on the Single Sauget Wastewater Reclamation System Pilot Plant Study for the American Bottoms Wastewater Treatment Plant, Sauget, Illinois”; the February, 1980 Design Report by Russell & Axon; the May, 1979 Treatability Study by Russell & Axon; and the December, 1979 Pilot Plant Study for the ABRTF; (2) May 3, 1988 letter, —3— ------- and corrected letter dated May 6, 1988, to Charles Sutfjn, Director, Water Division, U.S.EPA Region V from Harold G. Baker, Jr., Village Attorney; (3) May 20, 1988 letter to C. Sutfin from H. Baker; (4) U.S.EPA Environmental Research Laboratory at Duluth test results; (5) Fall, 1987 bid proposals received by Sauget from potential carbon suppliers; (6) 0 & M Manual for the ABRTF prepared by Russell & Axon;; (7) User Charge Report prepared by Russell & Axon; (8) operating and cost data for the ABRTF during the time the Zimpro PACT/WAR system was operational; and (9) Black & Veatch Co. report on the development of user charges for the ABRTF. With respect to subparagraph (c) Sauget states that testing was run by adding varying amounts of powdered activated carbon to mixed liquor and to ABRTF effluent samples and subsequently measuring color units using the approved EPA standard photometric measuring testing procedure. Toxicity Identification Evaluation tests also have been performed on the ABRTF effluent as well as bench scale carbon treatability tests. 2. Identify and describe in detail all facts and opinions that support Sauget’s statement that the addition of carbon without regeneration and separation “would impose an undue and unreasonable burden upon the users of ABRTF” (Sauget answer at p. 21], specifically identifying all facts that indicate such an undue and reasonable burden would be imposed on the users of the P/C Plant and the ABRTF and how this would impact Industrial Users and domestic users. —4— ------- ANSWER : Sauget objects to Interrogatory No. 2 to the extent it requires Sauget to “describe in detail all facts and opinions that support Sauget’s statement” as overbroad, unnecessarily cumulative, and unduly burdensome in that, for example, it would include a description of how each user would be impacted by the addition of carbon without regeneration and ash separation. Subject to and without waiving its objection, Sauget incorporates by reference its Answer to Interrogatory No. 1 with respect to the cost of adding such carbon and states that such costs must be born by the users of ABRTF and therefore, would create an undue and unreasonable burden upon them. Sauget further specifically incorporates by reference the substance of its May 3, 1988, May 6, 1988 and May 20, 1988 letters to Charles Sutfin, U.S.EPA Region V, for the opinions and facts that show such an undue and unreasonable burden would be imposed. Further answering, Sauget objects to that portion of the Interrogatory stating “how this would impact Industrial Users as opposed to domestic users” as vague and unintelligible and calling for speculation by Sauget as to how or whether the impact of the additional costs would be differently experienced as between Industrial and domestic users. Subject to and without waiving this objection, the 1977 Regional Agreement provides that all users throughout the service region for ABRTF shall pay the same rate. —5— ------- 3. Describe the impact of the four steps Sauget claims to have taken “to maximize the treatment capabilities of the ABRTF” (Sauget answer at p. 20] (or any other steps Sauget is now or recently performed) have had on the nature of the ABRTF wastewater discharged to the Mississippi River. In addition, please identify all facts that indicate whether or how these four steps (or any other steps Sauget is now or recently performed) are providing equivalent treatment to the ABRTF wastewater that would have been provided by carbon treatment had Sauget not discontinued carbon treatment on or about December 2, 1987, and identify all facts and explain what impact the cessation of carbon treatment has had on the nature of the ABRTF wastewater discharge, including the pollutant concentration of the effluent and its toxicity. ANSWER : The steps which Sauget has taken to maximize the treatment capabilities of the ABRTF have favorably and positively impacted the nature of the ABRTF wastewater discharged to the Mississippi River. Sauget objects to the remainder of Interrogatory No. 3 on the grounds that it is based on a lack of factual information concerning the exact nature of the treatment to the ABRTF wastewater “that would have been provided by carbon treatment” afforded by the PACT/WAR system. Therefore, given this uncertainty, it is not possible to determine exactly what impact the December 2, 1987 fire/explosion had on the treatment to the ABRTF wastewater. Sauget further objects to Interrogatory No. 3 to the extent that it wrongly implies that the cessation of carbon treatment was a matter within Sauget’s reasonable control rather than due to the fire/explosion of the Zimpro WAR system on December 2, 1987. —6— ------- Subject to and without waiving its objections, Sauget states that the loss of the PACT/WAR system has resulted in the loss of the government approved, intended cost effective means of providing enhanced organic removals over and above conventional secondary treatment. Sauget further states that it appears that the concentration of the parameters listed in the final effluent limits of the ABRTF’s NPDES permit has not increased, and as to certain parameters, the steps subsequently taken by Sauget have contributed to causing a reduction in the concentration as shown for example by the monitoring results contained in the ABRTF Discharge Monitoring Reports of June, July and August, 1988 previously submitted to the U.S.EPA Region V. Finally, Sauget objects to the term “toxicity’ as vague in that the Interrogatory does not clarify the use or meaning of this term with respect to either the type of toxicity and/or whether end—of—pipe or instream toxicity is intended. 4. Identify and describe in detail all the facts that support Sauget’s statement that the U.S.EPA failed to act “responsibly or diligently in connection with the approval process for Sauget’s Pretreatment Program.” (Sauget answer at p. 35] and specifically include a description of all the facts Sauget relies on to support its conclusions that the January 1983 disapproval, the May 1984 disapproval, the January 1985 disapproval and the October 1987 disapproval by U.S.EPA of the Sauget pretreatment program submissions were each unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious (Sauget answer at pp. 54—56]. —7— ------- ANSWER : Sauget objects to Interrogatory No. 4 to the extent it requires Sauget to “describe in detail all the facts that support Sauget’s statement” concerning the U.S.EPA s conduct with respect to Sauget’s Pretreatment Program as overbroad and unduly burdensome in that it covers numerous, lengthy documents and meetings spanning a period of time of over five years. Sauget has already provided to the U.S.EPA a detailed, factual statement concerning the U.S.EPA s failure to act responsibly or diligently in connection with the approval process for Sauget’s Pretreatment Program which itself took weeks of effort to complete. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 33(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Sauget states that the answer to Interrogatory No. 4 may be ascertained from the above-referenced November 20, 1987 letter to plaintiff’s counsel Jeffrey Karp from Sauget’s counsel, Richard J. Kissel, including the documents referenced therein. Sauget further relies upon the contents of its Pretreatment Program as finally approved by the U.S.EPA, specifically including but not limited to those provisions which were the subject of the October 1987 disapproval by U.S.EPA, and also relies upon the fact of disclosure and the contents thereof of the documents and information the U.S.EPA produced to Sauget subsequent to the October 1987 disapproval which related to the provisions of the Sauget Pretreatment Program as approved. —8— ------- 5. Identify and explain in detail all the facts that support Sauget’s statement that the provision in 40 C.F.R. §403.8 that requires all pretreatment programs to be approved by the pretreatment Approval Authority no later than July 1, 1983, “had been extended at least to September 30, 1984” [ Sauget answer at p. 32]. ANSWER : Sauget objects to Interrogatory No. 5 as vague and unintelligible with respect to the phrase “Identify and explain in detail all the facts” or as to how plaintiff intends “explain in detail” to differ from its use of the phrase “describe in detail.” Subject to and without waiving its objection, Sauget’s statement is supported by the contents of a letter dated February 24, 1984 to Paul Sauget, Mayor, Village of Sauget from Roger Broms of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. 6. Identify and explain in detail all the facts that support Saugets statement that the sample taken by the tJ.S.EPA on March 1, 1988, of Sauget’s ABRTF effluent was not representative of the toxicity of the ABRTF discharge (Sauget answer at p. 44] ANSWER : Sauget incorporates by reference herein its objection to Interrogatory No. 5. Sauget further objects to Interrogatory No. 6 on the grounds that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome in that it would require Sauget to include in its answer a lengthy dissertation on sound engineering techniques for characterizing the effluent of a POTW such as the ABRTF. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Sauget states that based upon the documents which were produced to Sauget by the LJ.S.EPA concerning the March 1, 1988 —9-. ------- sampling: (1) the date, duration or location of sampling or the method used for sampling were not disclosed; (2) the test methodology used to evaluate the toxicity of the effluent was not presented; (3) the toxicity test conditions were not as close as possible to the natural environmental conditions; (4) the data in Tables 1-4 of the testing documents raise numerous questions concerning the consistency and interpretation of the results; (5) the sampling program was limited and incomplete; and (6) the test results indicated substantial variability of the test. Given the absence of further specifics from the U.S.EPA concerning the sample, test conditions, respective water mineral qualities and other information, Sauget’s investigation continues. 7. Identify and describe in detail all facts supporting Sauget’s denial (Sauget answer at p. 33] of Paragraph 34 of the complaint. Paragraph 34 states: “The P/C Plant and ABRTF both receive pollutants from Industrial Users which have the potential to Pass Through or Interfere with the operation of the POTWs or are otherwise subject to Pretreatment Standards.” In addition, identify and describe the facts that justify this denial in light of the facts that the Cerro Copper Products Company, Arnax Zinc, and W.G. Krumrnrich Plant (Monsanto Chemical Company), among others, discharge industrial process wastewater to the P/C Plant while Musick Plating, among others, discharge industrial process wastewater to the ABRTF. ANSWER : Paragraph 34 did not identify or explain the intended meaning or definition of the use of the terms “pollutants”, “Industrial Users”, or “potential for Pass Through or Interference” and accordingly, Sauget’s denial was —10— ------- proper based on the vagueness of these terms and hence the uncertain inference to be drawn from them as used by plaintiff. Further, Sauget does not believe that the discharges from each of its Industrial Users, as defined in the Sauget Pretreatment Ordinance, would Pass Through or Interfere with the operation of the POTW5 or are otherwise subject to Pretreatment Standards. Sauget objects to the second sentence of Interrogatory No. 7 on the grounds that it is not a proper interrogatory within the meaning of Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure but rather puts forth an argument by plaintiff as to which Sauget has no duty to “justify its denial.” 8. Identify and describe in full all facts supporting Sauget’s denial of Paragraph 7 of the Complaint [ Sauget answer at p. 6] that the P/C Plant and the ABRTF discharge wastewater containing pollutants into the Mississippi River (including any studies, samplings or other information that supports this denial), and specifically explain how the effluent concentrations of pollutants reported by Sauget in its Discharge Monitoring Reports supports this denial that it discharges pollutants into the River. In addition, explain how this denial of Paragraph 7 of the Complaint by Sauget is consistent with Sauget’s answer at page 22 to p17 of the Complaint. ANSWER : Paragraph 7 did not identify or explain the intended meaning or definition of the use of the term “pollutants” and accordingly, Sauget’s denial was proper based on the vagueness of that term and hence the uncertain inferences to be drawn from it as used by plaintiff. Further, —11— ------- as of the date of the Complaint, the P/C Plant effluent had been fully diverted to the AB Plant and as plaintiffs allegation appeared to allege otherwise, and also to impliedly allege that the P/C Plant was discharging wastewater containing pollutants in violation of its NPDES permit, it was also denied for these reasons. Sauget objects to the remainder of this Interrogatory on the grounds that the information sought is irrelevant, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, improperly argumentative and not intended to ascertain facts in accordance with Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 9. Fully describe the odor and color of the ABRTF effluent, identify those persons who will testify to the color and odor of the ABRTF effluent, and identify those individuals present during the March 1-2, 1988 U.S.EPA sampling inspection at the ABRTF that did not notice a strong solvent odor emanating from the ABRTF effluent while observing such effluent [ Sauget answer at p. 48) ANSWER : To date, no decision has been made concerning the identity of persons who will testify on behalf of Sauget. George Schillinger and Daniel Sentman were present during the March 1—2, 1988 U.S.EPA sampling inspection at the ABRTF and did not notice the alleged strong solvent odor purportedly emanating from the ABRTF effluent. Sauget’s investigation continues as to other individuals present. Sauget objects to Interrogatory No. 9 on the grounds that the request to “fully describe the odor and color of the ABRTF is overbroad and —12— ------- unduly burdensome as to its time period; wrongly implies that there is an unacceptable odor and color to the ABRTF effluent; and as to either, that they are constant and objective conditions subject to description. Sauget further objects on the grounds that the Interrogatory is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 10. Given that Sauget denies that the appealed terms and conditions of the ABRTF permit issued on March 21, 1986 are currently effective and enforceable against Sauget [ Sauget answer at p. 30], identify all conditions and requirements that govern the operation of the ABRTF and its discharge of wastewater containing pollutants into the Mississippi River. ANSWER : Sauget objects to Interrogatory No. 10 on the grounds that Sauget has no duty to set forth for plaintiff applicable provisions of the law which apply to the ABRTF. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Sauget states that the uncontested terms and conditions of the ABRTF NPDES permit which are not the subject of either the pending NPDES permit appeal proceeding or the variance proceeding filed by Sauget with the Illinois Pollution Control Board govern. 1].. Fully describe the breakdown and allocation of user costs at the Plants and describe how costs are allocated between domestic users and Industrial Users for: a) primary treatment at the P/C Plant; b) primary treatment at the ABRTF; c) secondary treatment with carbon addition at the ABRTF; and d) secondary treatment without carbon addition at the ABRTF. —13— ------- ANSWER : Sauget objects to Interrogatory No. 11 on the grounds that the information sought is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Sauget states no costs are allocated on the bases described in this Interrogatory as between domestic users and Industrial Users for the ABRTF. 12. Fully identify all persons whom are members of the Sauget Sanitary Development and Research Association and the Technical Advisory Committee. ANSWER : 1) Paul Sauget, Mayor Village of Sauget Sauget, Illinois 62206 2) Paul Tandler Vice President of Manufacturing Cerro Copper Products Company P.O. Box 681 East St. Louis, Illinois 62202 3) William J. Boyle, Jr. Steven D. Smith Robert Murphy Bill Engman Max McCombs Monsanto Company 500 Monsanto Avenue Sauget, Illinois 62206—1198 4) David F. Adams Ethyl Petroleum Additives Monsanto Avenue Sauget, Illinois 62201 5) Vacant Position Midwest Rubber 6) George M. Obeldobel Big River Zinc Route 3 and Monsanto Avenue Sauget, Illinois 62201 —14— ------- 7) Bill Jackson Commonfields of Cahokia Public Wastewater District 104 St. Christopher Lane Cahokia, Illinois 62206 8) Joe Livigni Village of Cahokia 2525 Mousette Lane Cahokia, Illinois 62206 9) Michael Preston, Jr. City of East St. Louis East St. Louis City Hall 301 East Broadway Avenue East St. Louis, Illinois 62201 10) Roger Rader City of East St. Louis do Pfizer Pigment, Inc. 2001 Lynch Avenue - East St. Louis, Illinois 62205 13. Identify fully all persons whom you intend to call as factual witnesses at any hearing, trial, or other proceeding in this case, state the subject matter on which each witness is expected to testify, and summarize the facts to which each witness is expected to testify. ANSWER : Sauget has not made any decision to date concerning the identify of any factual witnesses who will testify at trial. With respect to the remainder of Interrogatory No. 13, Sauget objects that the information sought with respect to “any hearing, trial, or other proceeding in this case” is vague and unintelligible in that Sauget is unaware of any currently scheduled hearing “or other proceeding” in this case that would require the presentation of factual witnesses. —15— ------- 14. Identify fully all expert witnesses you intend to call at trial in this case; the subject matter on which, and the substance of the facts and opinions to which, the expert is expected to testify; and provide a summary of the grounds for each opinion. ANSWER : Sauget has not made any decision to date concerning the identity of any expert witness who will testify at trial. Respectfully submitted, VILLAGE OF SAUGET By:_____ ne of its attorneys OF COUNSEL : RICHARD J. KISSEL SUSAN M. FRANZETTI PATRICK S. COFFEY Gardner, Carton & Douglas 321 North Clark Street Suite 3200 Chicago, Illinois 60610 (312) 312) 644—3000 HAROLD G. BAKER, JR. Village Attorney Village of Sauget 56 South 65th Street Bellevjl].e, Illinois 62223 (618) 397—6445 (6308f — SMF) —16— ------- STATE OF ILLINOIS ) ) SS COUNTY OF ST. CLAIR ) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS SOUTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 88—5131 ) VILLAGE OF SAUGET, ILLINOIS, ) Judge William L. Beatty ) and ) ) THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) ) Defendants. ) VERIFICATION I, George R. Schillinger, General Manager of the Sauget Sanitary Development and Research Association, being first duly sworn on oath, depose and state that I have read Defendant Village of Sauget’s Answers to Plaintiff United States’ First Set of Interrogatories and that these answers are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. Subscribed and sworn to before me this t ’ - day o coer, OFFICIAL SEAL LISA M. DINAN 1’ NOTARY PUBLIC. STATE OF ILLINOIS J& MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 10/8190 Notary Public , ------- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS S )UTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERIC?., P1a .t1Ltiff, v. ) VILLAGE OF SAUGET, ILLINOIS ) Civil Action No. 88-5131 ) and ) Judge William L. Beatty ) THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) ) Defendants. UNITED STATES’ FIRST 1 EQU’EST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO 1? WtAN’1 VILLAGE OF SAUGET Pursuant to Rules 26 and 34 of the Federal Rules of civil Procedure, Plaintiff, the United ctates of America, hereby requests that Defendant Village of Sauget produce within 30 days the documents listed below, at the Office of Regional Counsel, U.S Environmental Protection Agency, ill W. Jackson, Chicago, Illinois 60604, or at such other place as counse l, for the parties may agree. INSTRUCTIONS AND DEFINITIONS 1. Unless otherwise specified, these document requests pertain to the Village of Sauget’s two water pollutant treatment plants known as the Physical Chemical Plant (“P/C Plant”) and the American Bottoms Regional Treatment Facility (“ABRTF”) (“the Plants”), both located in the Village of Sauget, St. Clair County, Illinois. 2. The “Village of Sauget”, “Sauget,” “Village” and/or “you” or “your” mean the Village of Sauget, its Plants, ------- —2— all officers, employees, agents, servants, representatives, dssigns, contractors, consultants, its attorneys (unless privileged), and any other person acting in a Consulting or advisory capacity to, or acting or purporting to act on behalf of, any of the foregoing. 3. For each document produced, indicate on the document or in some other reasonable manner, the numbered request(s) to which it responds. 4. If anything is deleted from a document produced, state: (a) the reason for the deletion; and (b) the subject matter of the deletion. 5. This request covers all documents in the possession, control or custody of Defendant Village of Sauget, its officers, employees, agents, servants, attorneys and assigns. 6. Words used in the plural shall also be taken to mean and include the singular. Words used in the singular shall also be taken to mean and include the plural. “Or” and “and” shall be Construed either Conjunctively or disjunctively to bring within the scope of these document requests any information that might otherwise be construed to be outside their scope. The past tense includes the present tense where the clear meaning is not distorted by change of tense. 7. “Document” means any and all material that is written, printed, typed, photographed, recorded (electronically, magnetically, graphically or otherwise) or which is capable of ------- —3— being recorded in any form. “Document” also includes, but is no limited to, any logs of materials received, other logs, invoices, purchase orders, receipts, bills of lading, loading tickets, receiving tickets, shipping orders, inventories, letters and other correspondence, offers, contracts, agreements, bids, proposals, applications, licenses, permits, reports to govern e agencies, other reports, minutes of meetings, sales estimates, sales reports, memoranda, handwritten or other notes, calendar or diary entries, agendas, bulletins, graphs, charts, maps, photographs, drawings, data, price lists, list of accounts, su mmarjes, telegraphs, teletypes, computer printouts, magnetic tapes, discs, microfilm, and microfiche. Please produce the complete original exact CO thereof and, unless otherwise stated, each non-identical copy (whether different from the original because of notes made on the copy or otherwise) of each writing of every kind and description (together with all worksheets, support documents, and other relevant materials), whether inscribed by hand or mechanical, electronic, microfilm, photographic, or other means (such as by recording, film, tape or other medium) from which information may be obtained. 8. “Relate(s)” or “relating to” means constituting, defining, containing, inbodying, reflecting, identifying, stating, referring to, dealing with, or in any way pertaining to or associated with. 9. “Methods” or “Methods” means a manner, way, procedure, or means of resolving a problem or achieving a result, ------- —4— and includes, but is not limited to, construction or modification of pollution control equipment. 10. “State” means the State of Illinois, including its departments, agencies and officials. 11. “Discharge” is defined in Sections 502(12) and (16) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. H 1362(12) and (16). 12. “Pollutant” is defined in Section 502(6) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. Section 1362(6). 13. “NPDES permit” means National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit issued to Sauget for the ASRTP’ on March 21, 1986, Permit No 1L0065145 and the permit re—issued to Sauget for the P/C Plant on March 21, 1986, permit No. TtJO .4O7. 14. “NPDES Limits” means any discharge limitations or conditions contained in the NPDES permits. 15. Unless otherwise stated, these requests apply to documents written, produced, drafted, or generated on or after January 1, 1977. 16. If any document was, but is no longer, in Sauget’s possession, custody or control, state: (a) the disposition of the document; (b) the date such disposition was made; (C) the identity and address of the present custodian of the document or, if it no longer exists, so state; (d) the person(s) who made the decision to dispose of the document; (a) the reason(s) for the disposition: and ------- iqp ‘V —5— (f) a description of the document and description of the contents of the document. If any document is withheld under any claim of exemption furnish a list identifying each document privilege or exemption is claimed, together with information its title, or if it has no title, 17. privilege or for which the the following (a) matter; (b) the date of origin; (c) the author or addressor; (d) the recipient(s) of a].]. copies; (f) basis upon which privilege or exemption is claimed; and (g) name, address and telephone number of the custodian oçthe document and/or copies thereof. its subject REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 1. A].]. organization charts for the Village of uget, the P/C Plant and the ABRTF. 2. All documents, including organization charts, relating to the membership, representation, responsibilities and roles of the Sauget Sanitary Development and Research Association and the Technical Advisory Committee as related to the design, construction, operation and maintenance of the Plants. 3. All schematic diagrams of the processes and water pollutant treatment systems at the Plants. 4. All documents relating to design specifications and treatment capabilities of the P/C Plant and ABRTF. ------- —6— r • All NPDES Permits and other documents which Sauget contends have authorized water pollutant discharges from the Plants. 6. All documents relating to any modifications or extensions of, or variances from, NPDES permits or other water pollutant discharge limits, conditions or requirements at the P1 - 7. Al]. documents relating to any water pollutant discharges from the Plants which exceeded or violated NPDES limits or other water pollutant discharge limits, conditions or requirements at the Plants, excluding Discharge Monitoring Reports and any attachments to these Reports which Sauget has previously submitted to U.S. EPA. 8. All. documents relating to the causes or potential causes of water pollutant discharges at the Plants in excess of NPDES limits or other water pollutant discharge limits, conditions or requirements at the Plants. 9. All documents relating to or reporting any analyses or tests for any of the pollutants specifically identified in Sauget’s NPDES Permits relating to the toxic, chemical or physical concentrations or characteristics of water pollutant discharges from the Plants, but excluding Discharge Monitoring Reports and any attachments to these Reports which Sauget has previously submitted to U.S. EPA. 10. A’. uments relating to or reporting any test results, laboratory analyses, flow measurements, or concentration ------- —7— or mass analyses of wastewater received by the Plants (i.e., influent) from non-domestic sources including but not limited to: any analyses or tests for any of the pollutants specifically identified in Sauget’s NPDES Permits; documents describing or reporting the toxic, chemical or physical concentrations mass or characteristics of such incoming wastewater; documents describing, reporting or related to the likely or possible impact of such incoming wastewater on the treatment capability of the plants, the ability of the plants to comply with all NPDES permit limits or other water pollutant discharge limits or requirements at the plants; and all underlying documents used as the basis for or in the preparation of these documents, but excluding all documents previously provided to U.S. EPA by Sauget in response to the §308 request of June 22, 1987, V—W—87—308 —O 3 . 11. All documents relating to the quantity of water pollutants discharged by Sauget to the Mississippi River and all documents relating to the effects or impact of discharges from the P/C Plant and ABRTF on the quality, integrity, cleanliness, health, environmental condition or general aquatic condition of the Mississippi River or any other receiving waters. 12. All documents relating to Sauget’s consideration of whether to install, not to install or defer installation of, water pollution control equipment at the Plants. 13. All documents relating to the advantages, disadvantages or potential implications, economic, financial or otherwise, to Sauget or its Industrial Users of delaying ------- —8— installation or implementation of water pollutjo control equipment or operating and maintenance procedures at the Plants. 14. Al]. documents relating to consideration by Sauget of whether to develop, not to develop, to implement, not to implement, or defer development or implementation of an approvable pretreatment program at the Plants. 15. A].]. documents relating to the advantages, disadvantages or potential implications, economic, financial or otherwise, to Sauget or its Industrial Users of not developing, delaying development, not implementing, or deferring implementation of an approvable pretreatment program at the Plants or at any facility of an Industrial User that discharges wastewater to the Plants. 16. All documents relating to difficulties encountered or anticipated by Sauget in meeting NPDES limits or other water pollutant discharge limits, conditions or requirements at the Plants. 17. All documents relating to any complaints received by Sauget f;om any source regarding water pollutant discharges from the Plants. 18. All documents containing procedures or instructions to Sauget employees describing or relating to steps to be taken in the event of water pollution control equipment malfunction(s), bypasses of wastewater to the Mississippi River, or any unauthorized discharge of water pollutants from the Plants. ------- —9— s 19. All documents prepared by any contractor, agent or employee of Sauget or any other person relating to water pollutant discharges, including health or environmental effects, or compliance with NPDES limits or other water pollutant discharge limits, conditions or requirements at the Plants. 20. AU. documents relating to procedures for reporting water pollutant discharges, or violation of water pollution laws or regulations, to U.S. EPA or the State. .J 21. All documents relating to change(s) in operation, maintenance or inspection procedures at the plants which were designed to, or had the effect of, preventing or reducing discharges or water pollutants at the plants. 22. All documents, including operating budgets, which relate to the cost of maintaining and operating the Plants so as to comply with NPDES limits of or other water pollutant discharge limits, conditions or requirements; 23. All documents which relate to the capital, operating or maintenance costs of water pollution control equipment installed, or being considered for installation, at the Plants to achieve, or contribute to the achievement of NPDES limits or other water pollutant discharge limits, conditions or requirem.nt. sinc. the fire/explosion at the A!”. .F cn or about December 2, 1987. 24. All documents which describe or relate to the user charge systems at the Plants. 25. Sauget’s audited annual financial statements. ------- — 10 — C 26. Sauget’s federal and state income tax returns. 27. All documents relating to initiatives, including, but not limited to, bond sales or other revenue measures, undertaken or considered by Sauget for the purpose of financing improvements at the Plants. - 28. All documents that relate to the presence or absence of a mixing zone in the Mississippii River in the area where the ABRTF effluent is discharged. 29. Al]. documents that relate to Sauget’s answers to the “United States’ First Set of Interrogatories To Defendant Village of Sauget” that have otherwise not been included in the document requests enumerated above. 30. Al]. documents that Sauget intends to rely on or introduce at trial of this matter. Respectfully stthmitted, ROGER J. MARZULLA Assistant Attorney General Land and Natural Resources Division U.S. Department of Justice By: /(* ‘ 1 ’ t( b JEFFREY KARP Attorney Environmental Enforcement Section Land and Natural Resources Section U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 7611 Washington, D.C. 20044 (202) 633—5261 FREDERICK 3. HESS United States Attorney Southern District of Illinois ------- — 11 — BRUCE REPPERT Assistant United States Attorney Southern District of Illinois 750 Missouri Avenue, Room 330 East St. Louis, IL 62202 (618) 482—9361 By:_________ DAVID A. MINDIN Attorney/Advisor Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring (LE—134W) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 401 M Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20460 (202) 475—8547 OF COUNSEL: THOMAS J. MARTIN, JR. JAMES A NOLAN, JR. Associate Regional Counsels U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V (5CA-TUB-3) 230 S. Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois 60604 ------- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS SOUTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 88—5131 ) VILLAGE OF SAUGET, ILLINOIS, ) Judge William L. Beatty ) and ) ) THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) ) Defendants. ) DEFENDANT VILLAGE OF SAUGET’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF UNITED STATES’ FIRST REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Pursuant to Rules 26 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant, the Village of Sauget (“Sauget”) hereby responds to the United States’ First Request For Production of Documents. GENERAL OBJECTIONS 1. Due to the substantial volume of the documents to be produced by Sauget in response to this Request for Production of Documents, Sauget objects to producing the documents at the Chicago office of the Office of Regional Counsel and instead agrees to make these documents available for inspection and copying at Village Hall, 2897 Falling Springs Road, Sauget, Illinois at a mutually convenient time as counsel may agree. ------- 2. Sauget objects to each of these requests to the extent that they seek information that is protected from disclosure by either the attorney-client or attorney work product privileges. 3. Sauget objects to paragraph 1 of the “Instructions and Definitions” section of the Request for Production and to those specific requests seeking the production of documents concerning the P/C Plant on the grounds that the general inclusion of the Physical Chemical Plant (“P/C Plant”) is overbroad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in that none of the plaintiff’s claims for relief are based on alleged violations of the P/C Plant’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit. 4. Sauget objects to paragraphs 2 and 5 of the “Instructions and Definitions” section of the Request for Production on the grounds that they improperly seek to require Sauget to obtain documents not within its possession, custody or control. 5. Sauget objects to paragraph 3 of the “Instructions and Definitions” section of the Request for Production on the grounds that it is contrary to Rule 34(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Pursuant to Rule 34(b), Sauget will produce documents as they are kept in the usual course of business. —2— ------- 6. Sauget objects to paragraph 7 of the “Instructions and Definitions” section of the Request for Production to the extent that it is contrary to Rule 34(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 7. Sauget objects to paragraph 9 of the “Instructions and Definitions” section of the Request for Production on the grounds that the intended distinction between the terms “‘Methods’ or ‘methods’” is unintelligible. 8. Sauget objects to paragraph 16 of the “Instructions and Definitions” section of the Request for Production on the grounds that it is inconsistent with and contrary to the provisions of Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 1. All organization charts for the Village of Sauget, the P/C Plant and the ABRTF. RESPONSE : Subject to and without waiving Saugets objections, documents responsive to this request will be produced for inspection. 2. All documents, including organization charts, relating to the membership, representation, responsibilities and roles of the Sauget Sanitary Development and Research Association and the Technical Advisory Committee as related to the design, construction, operation and maintenance of the Plants. —3— ------- RESPONSE : Sauget objects to this request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent that it seeks documents which are not related to the allegations of Plaintiff’s Complaint. Subject to and without waiving its objections, documents responsive to this request will be produced for inspection. 3. All schematic diagrams of the processes and water pollutant treatment systems at the Plants. RESPONSE : Subject to and without waiving Sauget’s objections, documents responsive to this request will be produced for inspection. 4. All documents relating to the design specifications and treatment capabilities of the P/C Plant and ABRTF. RESPONSE : Subject to and without waiving Sauget’s objections, documents responsive to this request will be produced for inspection. 5. All NPDES Permits and other documents which Sauget contends have authorized water pollutant discharges from the Plants. RESPONSE : Sauget objects to the term “other documents” as vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving Sauget’s objections, documents responsive to this request will be produced for inspection. 6. All documents relating to any modifications or extensions of, or variances from, NPDES permits or other water pollutant discharge limits, conditions or requirements at the Plants. —4— ------- RESPONSE : Sauget objects to this request as overbroad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, including but not limited to the fact that the request would call for the production of the entire record contained in the subject Illinois Pollution Control Board proceedings, which are public records equally available to plaintiff. Subject to and without waiving Sauget’s objections, documents responsive to this request will be produced for inspection. 7. All documents relating to any water pollutant discharges from the Plants which exceeded or violated NPDES limits or other water pollutant discharge limits, conditions or requirements at the Plants, excluding Discharge Monitoring Reports and any attachments to these Reports which Sauget has previously submitted to U.S.EPA. RESPONSE : Sauget objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and unintelligible and calls for a legal conclusion. To the extent that this request is intended to seek documents relating to the alleged claims for relief contained in Plaintiff’s Complaint, and subject to and without waiving Sauget’s objections, documents responsive to this request will be produced for inspection. 8. All documents relating to the causes or potential causes of water pollutant discharges at the Plants in excess of NPDES limits or other water pollutant discharge limits, conditions or requirements at the Plants. —5— ------- RESPONSE : Sauget objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and unintelligible and calls for a legal conclusion. To the extent that this request iS intended to seek documents relating to the alleged claims for relief contained in Plaintiffs Complaint, and subject to and without waiving Saugets objections, documents responsive to this request will be produced for inspection. 9. All documents relating to or reporting any analyses or tests for any of the pollutants specifically identified in Saugets NPDES Permits relating to the toxic, chemical or physical concentrations or characteristics of water pollutant discharges from the Plants, but excluding Discharge Monitoring Reports and any attachments to these Reports which Sauget has previously submitted to LJ.S.EPA. RESPONSE : Sauget objects to this request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. To the extent that this request is intended to seek documents relating to the alleged claims for relief contained in Plaintiff’s Complaint, and subject to and without waiving Sauget’s objections, documents responsive to this request will be produced for inspection. 10. All documents relating to or reporting any test results, laboratory analyses, flow measurements, or concentration or mass analyses of wastewater received by the Plants (i.e., influent) from non-domestic sources including but not limited to: any analyses or tests for any of the pollutants specifically identified in Sauget’s NPDES Permits; documents describing or reporting the toxic, chemical or physical —6— ------- concentrations, mass or characteristics of such incoming wastewater; documents describing, reporting or related to the likely or possible impact oE such incoming wastewater on the treatment capability of the plants, the ability of the plants to comply with all NPDES permit limits or other water pollutant discharge limits or requirements at the plants; and all underlying documents used as the basis for or in the preparation of these documents, but excluding all documents previously provided to U.S.EPA by Sauget in response to the §308 request of June 22, 1987, V—W.-87—308—03. RESPONSE : Sauget objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. To the extent that this request is intended to seek documents relating to the alleged claims for relief contained in Plaintiff’s Complaint, and subject to and without waiving Sauget’s objections, documents responsive to this request will be produced for inspection. 11. All documents relating to the quantity of water pollutants discharged by Sauget to the Mississippi River and all documents relating to the effects or impact of discharges from the P/C Plant and ABRTF on the quality, integrity, cleanliness, health, environmental condition or general aquatic condition of the Mississippi River or any other receiving waters. RESPONSE : Sauget objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, including but not limited to the inclusion of the Discharge Monitoring Reports and any attachments to these —7— ------- Reports which Sauget has previously submitted to U.S.EPA. To the extent that this request is intended to seek documents relating to the alleged claims for relief contained in Plaintiffs Complaint, and subject to and without waiving Sauget’s objections, documents responsive to this request will be produced for inspection. 12. All documents relating to Sauget’s consideration of whether to install, not to install or defer installation of, water pollution control equipment at the Plants. RESPONSE : Sauget objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. To the extent that this request is intended to seek documents relating to the alleged claims for relief contained in Plaintiff’s Complaint, and subject to and without waiving Sauget’s objections, documents responsive to this request will be produced for inspection. 13. All documents relating to the advantages, disadvantages, potential implications, economic, financial or otherwise, to Sauget or its Industrial Users of delaying installation or implementation of water pollution control equipment or operating and maintenance procedures at the Plants. R2S P ONSE : Sauget objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. To the extent that this request is intended to seek documents relating to the alleged claims for relief contained —8— ------- in Plaintiff’s Complaint, and subject to and without waiving Sauget’s objections, Sauget has no documents which are responsive to this request. 14. All documents relating to consideration by Sauget of whether to develop, not to develop, to implement, not to implement, or defer development or implementation of an approvable pretreatment program at the Plants. RESPONSE : Sauget objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In addition, it calls for a legal conclusion. To the extent that this request is intended to seek documents relating to the alleged claims for relief contained in Plaintiff’s Complaint, and subject to and without waiving Sauget’s objections, Sauget does not believe that it has any documents which are responsive to this request but investigation continues concerning documents relating to Sauget’s consideration to implement an approvable pretreatment program. 15. All documents relating to the advantages, disadvantages or potential implications, economic, financial or otherwise, to Sauget or its Industrial Users of not developing, delaying development, not implementing, or deferring implementation of an approvable pretreatment program at the Plants or at any facility of an Industrial User that discharges wastewater to the Plants. RESPONSE : Sauget objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible —9— ------- evidence. To the extent that this request is intended to seek documents relating to the alleged claims for relief contained in Plaintiff’s Complaint, and subject to and without waiving Sauget’s objections, Sauget has no documents which are responsive to this request. 16. All documents relating to difficulties encountered or anticipated by Sauget in meeting NPDES limits or other water pollutant discharge limits, conditions or requirements at the Plants. RESPONSE : Sauget objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, including but not limited to the inclusion of the Discharge Monitoring Reports and any attachments to these Reports which Sauget has previously submitted to U.S.EPA. To the extent that this request is intended to seek documents relating to the alleged claims for relief contained in Plaintiff’s Complaint, and subject to and without waiving Sauget’s objections, documents responsive to this request will be produced for inspection, 17. All documents relating to any complaints received by Sauget from any source regarding water pollutant discharges from the Plants. RESPONSE : Subject to and without waiving Sauget’s objections, Sauget does not have any documents responsive to this request except for documents generated by the U.S.EPA which are already within plaintiff’s possession, custody or control. —10— ------- 18. All documents containing procedures or instructions to Sauget employees describing or relating to steps to be taken in the event of water pollution control equipment malfunction(s), bypasses of wastewater to the Mississippi River, or any unauthorized discharge of water pollutants from the Plants. RESPONSE : Subject to and without waiving Sauget’s objections, documents responsive to this request will be produced for inspection. 19. All documents prepared by any contractor, agent or employee of Sauget or any other person relating to water pollutant discharges, including health or environmental effects, or compliance with NPDES limits or other water pollutant discharge limits, conditions or requirements at the Plants. RESPONSE : Sauget objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. To the extent that this request is intended to seek documents relating to the alleged claims for relief contained in Plaintiff’s Complaint, and subject to and without waiving Sauget’s objections, documents responsive to this request will be produced for inspection. 20. All documents relating to procedures for reporting water pollutant discharges, or violation of water pollution laws or regulations, to U.S.EPA or the State. RESPONSE : Sauget objects to this request as overbroad and unduly burdensome to the extent it is intended to require the production of copies of applicable laws or regulations or —11— ------- government guidance documents which are equally available to Plaintiff. Subject to and without waiving Sauget’s objections, documents responsive to this request will be produced for inspection. 21. All documents relating to change(s) in operation, maintenance or inspection procedures at the plants which were designed to, or had the effect of, preventing or reducing discharges or water pollutants at the plants. RESPONSE : Sauget objects to this request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. To the extent that this request is intended to seek documents relating to the alleged claims for relief contained in Plaintiff’s Complaint, and subject to and without waiving Sauget’s objections, documents responsive to this request will be produced for inspection. 22. All documents, including operating budgets, which relate to the cost of maintaining and operating the Plants so as to comply with NPDES limits of or other water pollutant discharge limits, conditions or requirements. RESPONSE : Sauget objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. To the extent that this request is intended to seek documents relating to the alleged claims for relief contained in Plaintiff’s Complaint, and subject to and without waiving Sauget’s objections, documents responsive to this request will be produced for inspection. —12— ------- 23. All documents which relate to the capital, operating or maintenance costs of water pollution control equipment installed, or being considered for installation, at the Plants to achieve, or contribute to the achievement of NPDES limits or other water pollutant discharge limits, conditions or requirements since the fire/explosion at the ABRTF on or about December 2, 1987. RESPONSE : Sauget objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. To the extent that this request is intended to seek documents relating to the alleged claims for relief contained in Plaintiff’s Complaint, and subject to and without waiving Sauget’s objections, documents responsive to this request will be produced for inspection. 24. All documents which describe or relate to the user charge systems at the Plants. RESPONSE : Sauget objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. To the extent that this request is intended to seek documents relating to the alleged claims for relief contained in Plaintiff’s Complaint, and subject to and without waiving Sauget’s objections, documents responsive to this request will be produced for inspection. 25. Sauget’s audited annual financial statements. RESPONSE : Sauget objects to this request as overbroad, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. —13— ------- 26. Saugets federal and state income tax returns. RESPONSE : Sauget objects to this request as overbroad, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 27. All documents relating to initiatives, including, but not limited to, bond sales or other revenue measures, undertaken or considered by Sauget for the purpose of financing improvements at the Plants. RESPONSE : Subject to and without waiving its objections, Sauget does not have documents which are responsive to this request. 28. All documents that relate to the presence or absence of a mixing ione in the Mississippi - River in the area where the ABRTF effluent is discharged. RESPONSE : Documents responsive to this request will be produced for inspection. 29. All documents that relate to Sauget’s answers to the “United States’ First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Village of Sauget” that have otherwise not been included in the document requests enumerated above. Subject to and without waiving its objections, including its specific objections to the document requests enumerated above, Sauget does not have any documents which are responsive to this request. 30. All documents that Sauget intends to rely on or introduce at trial of this matter. RESPONSE : None at this time. —14-- ------- OF COUNSEL : RICHARD J. KISSEL SUSAN M. FRANZETTI PATRICK S. COFFEY Gardner, Carton & Douglas 321 North Clark Street Suite 3200 Chicago, Illinois 60610 (312) 312) 644—3000 HAROLD G. BAKER, JR. Village Attorney Village of Sauget 56 South 65th Street Bellevil].e, Illinois 62223 (618) 397—6445 (6311f — SMF) —15— Respectfully submitted, VILLAGE OF SAUGET By: One of it att rneys ------- STATE OF ILLINOIS ) ) SS COUNTY OF ST. CLAIR ) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS SOUTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 88—5131 ) VILLAGE OF SAUGET, ILLINOIS, ) Judge William L. Beatty ) and ) ) THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) ) Defendants. ) VERIFICATION I, George R. Schillinger, General Manager of the Sauget Sanitary Development and Research Association, being first duly sworn on oath, depose and state that I have read Defendant Village of Sauget’s Responses to Plaintiff United States’ First Request for Production of Documents and that these responses are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of October, 1988. - OFFICIAL SEAL LISA M. DINAN NOTARY PUBLIC. STATE OF ILLINOIS __________________________ MISSION EXPIRES iOiBi o Notary Public ------- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, and THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Civil Action No. 88-5131 Hon. William L. Beatty ) Realigned Plaintiff, ) v. ) VILLAGE OF SAUGET, ILLINOIS ) ) Defendant. ) UNITED STATES’ SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT VILLAGE OF SAUGET Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the United States requests that Defendant answer fully, in writing and under oath, each of the following interrogatories, and serve such answers upon Jeffrey M. Karp, Esq., United States Department of Justice, and Thomas J. Martin, Jr. Esq., United States Environmental Protection Agency, at the addresses listed below. INSTRUCTIONS A. ScoDe of Discovery (Location and Custody of Documents and Informatjon . These interrogatories are directed to the above—named Defendant and cover all information in its possession, custody and control, including information in the possession of its officers, employees, agents, servants, representatives, its attorneys, or other persons directly or indirectly employed or retained by it or anyone else acting on ------- —2— its behalf or otherwise subject to its control, and any merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessor or successor, parent, subsidiary, division or affiliate. B. Source of Information . For each interrogatory, identify: 1. who provided the information upon which the Response is based; 2. whether that person has personal knowledge of the facts contained in the Response; and 3. if the answer to 2. of this instruction is negative, please identify the source of the information. C. Document no Lonaer in Possession . If any document requested is no longer in the possession, custody or control of defendant, state: 1. what was done with the document; 2. when such document was made; 3. the identity and address of the current custodian of the document; 4. the person who made the decision to transfer or dispose of the document; and 5. the reasons for the transfer or disposition. D. Documents Previously Produced . In responding to each Request, you need not produce documents previously produced to the United States Environmental Protection Agency or the United States Department of Justice. ------- —3— of Information . If you currently lack answer any Interrogatory completed, please state: the responsive information currently available; 2. the responsive information currently unavailable; 3. efforts which you intend to make to secure the information currently unavailable; and 4. when you anticipate receiving the information currently unavailable. F. SuoDlementa]. Resoonses . These interrogatories are continuing; supplemental answers must be filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e) between the date these interrogatories are answered and the trial of this action. G. Identification of a “Document. ” Whenever in these interrogatories or production requests there is a request to identify a “document,” state or identify: 1. its date; 2. its author and signatory; 3. its addressee and all other persons receiving copies; 4. the type of document (e.g., letter, memorandum, contract, report, accounting record, etc.); 5. its title: 6. its substance; 7. its custodian; E. Lack information to 1. ------- —4— 8. its present or last known location; and 9. if the document was, but no longer is, in your possession or subject to your control, state where and in whose possession or control it is. - H. Identification of a Natural “Person. ” Whenever in these interrogatories or production requests there is a request to identify a “person,” where the person is a natural person, state or identify the person’s: 1. name; 2. present or last known home and business address and telephone number(s); and 3. occupation or profession and job title. I. Identification of a Non—Natural “Person . Whenever in these interrogatorjes or production requests there is a request to identify a “person,” where the person is not a natural person, but otherwise falls within the definition set forth in 42 U.s.c. § 9603(15), state or identify the person’s: 1. name; 2. the form of its organization (corporation, partnership, etc.); 3. present or last known principal place of business; 4. telephone number; and 5. business. J. Document Production in Lieu of Written ResDonse . Whenever a full and complete answer to any interrogatory or part of an Interrogatory is contained in a document or documents, the ------- —5— documents, if properly identified as answering a specific numbered interrogatory or part of an interrogatory, may be supplied in place of a written answer provided that the specific sections or pages from the document that are responsive to the interrogatory are identified. K. Estimates . Interrogatories calling for numerical or chronological information shall be deemed, to the extent that precise figures or dates are not known, to call for estimates. In each instance that an estimate is given, it should be identified as such together with the source of information underlying the estimate. L. Incomolete ResDonse . If any interrogatory or production request cannot be answered fully, as full an answer as possible should be provided. State the reason for the inability to answer fully, and give any information, knowledge, or belief which the defendant has regarding the unanswered portion. M. Deletions from Documents . Where anything has been deleted from a document produced in response to an interrogatory or production request: 1. specify the nature of the material deleted; 2. specify the reason for the deletion; and 3. identify the person responsible for the deletion. N. Privileae as A olied to Interrogatory Response . Should you believe that any information requested by any of the following interrogatories is privileged, please identify such ------- —6— information, state the privilege asserted, and state the facts giving rise to such privilege. 0. Privilege as Applied to Document Production . If objection is made to producing any document, or any portion thereof, or to disclosing any information contained therein, in response to any interrogatory or production request on the basis of any claim of privilege, defendant is requested to specify in writing the nature of such information and documents, and the nature of the privilege claimed, so that the Court may rule on the propriety of the objection. In the case of documents, defendant should state: 1. the title of the document; 2. the nature of the document (e.g., interoff ice memorandum, correspondence, report); 3. the author or sender; 4. the addressee; 5. the date of the document; 6. the name of each person to whom the original or a copy was shown or circulated; 7. the names appearing of any circulation list relating to the document; 8. the basis on which privilege is claimed; and 9. a su ary statement of the subject matter of the document in sufficient detail to permit the court to rule on the propriety of the objection. ------- —7— P. Singular/Plural . Words used in the plural shall also be taken to mean and include the singular. Words used in the singular shall also be taken to mean and include the plural. Q. “ And” and “Or” . The words “and” and “or” shall be construed conjunctively or disjunctively as necessary to make the request inclusive rather than exclusive. DEFINITIONS Unless otherwise stated, terms used in these discovery requests shall have the same meaning ascribed to them under the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), 33 U.S.C. § 1301 sea., including all regulations promulgated thereunder. Unless otherwise indicated, the following definitions shall apply to these discovery requests: A. “Answer” means defendant Village of Sauget’s answer and affirmative defenses to the co mplaint filed against it by the United States on May 13, 1988, Civil Action No. 88—5131. B. “Document means all writings of any kind, including, without limitation, the originals and all non-identical copies, whether different from the originals by reason of any notation made on such copies or otherwise including, without limitation, correspondence, memoranda, notes, diaries, statistics, letters, telegrams, minutes, contracts, reports, studies, checks, statements, receipts, returns, summaries, pamphlets, books, interoffice and intra—off ice communications, notations of any conversations (including, without limitation, telephone calls, meetings, and other Communications), bulletins, printed matter, ------- —8— computer printouts, teletypes, telefax, invoices, worksheets, manifests, graphic or oral records or representations of any kind (including, without limitation, photographs, charts, graphs, microfiche, microfilm, videotapes, recordings and motion pictures), electronic, mechanical or electric records or representations of any kind (including, without limitation, tapes, cassettes, discs, recordings and computer memories), and all drafts, alterations, modifications, changes and amendments of any of the foregoing. C. Persons upon whom you “rely” for an Interrogatory answer means any and all of the following: 1. persons who are the source of the information - upon which the answer is based; and 2. persons who have information which supports the answer. D. “Refer to” or “refers to” means mentioning, discussing, making reference to or relating to in any way. E. “Relate to” or “relates to” means constituting, defining concerning, embodying, reflecting, identifying, stating, referring to, dealing with or in any way pertaining to. F. “United States’ Complaint” means the complaint filed by the United States against the Village of Sauget on May 13, 1988, Civil Action No. 88—5131. G. “You” and “your” and “Defendant”, unless otherwise indicated means the Defendant to whom these interrogatories are addressed, each merged, Consolidated, and acquired predecessor or ------- —9— successor, parent, subsidiary, division, and affiliate, each past and present officer, director, employee, agent, servant, and representative of each such entity or individual, and each past and present attorney of each such entity or individual. INTERROGATORIES 1. Please identify the person(s) who gathered the documents in response to the United States’ First Request for Production of Documents. 2. State the legal and factual bases for your assertions in your Answer (sixth affirmative defense) that the issuance, contents and attempted enforcement of the EPA’s Administrative Order entered on June 24, 1987 were arbitrary and capricious and is a denial of Sauget’s due process and equal protection rights and contrary to applicable law. 3. Identify the alleged exceedances of effluent limits in the ABRTF NPDES permit which you contend in your Answer (eighth affirmative defense) are negated and excused by unreliability of testing procedures and/or inadvertent testing errors. 4. For each such exceedance identified in response to Interrogatory No. 3 above, identify each measurement contained in your Discharge Monitoring Reports (“DMRs) which you contend is incorrect due to unreliability of testing procedures and/or inadvertent testing errors. 5. For each measurement identified in response to Interrogatory No. 4 above: ------- — 10 — (a) state in what respect you contend that the measurement is inaccurate, erroneous, misleading, overstated, or otherwise meaningless, including whether the measurement is too high or too low; (b) state each fact upon which you base your contention that the measurement is inaccurate, erroneous, misleading, overstated, or otherwise meaningless (e.g., typo- graphical error, sampling error); (C) state the reasons why the alleged error occurred; and identify each person with knowledge of such facts or reasons and each document relating to such facts or reasons; (d) state the measurement that you contend is the correct measurement and each fact upon which you base this contention; and identify each person with knowledge of such facts and each document that refers or relates in any way to such facts; (e) identify each person who participated in making or reporting the original measurement; (f) identify each person who participated in the determination of the allegedly correct measurement; (g) state whether the allegedly correct measurement complies with the applicable ABRTF NPDES permit effluent limitation; (h) state whether the allegedly correct measurement was reported to U.S. EPA or the State, and, if so, state when the ------- — 11 — allegedly correct measurement was reported, and identify the document in which it was reported; and (i) identify each docuii ent upon which you relied in responding to this interrogatory. 6. Explain the basis for Sauget’s position, in its Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Certain Defenses, that the State of Illinois did not intend to exclude the upset defense from Sauget’s American Bottoms Regional Treatment Facility(ABRTF) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit, but merely failed to include such defense due to oversight. 7. Specify which of the alleged exceedances of effluent limits in the ABRTF NPDES permit are excused as upsets as contended in your Answer (ninth affirmative defense), and state the specific incident which caused each alleged upset. 8. State whether it is Sauget’s contention that it could not have prevented each discharge listed in response to Interrogatory No. 7 above from exceeding the applicable effluent limitation in Sauget’s ABRTF NPDES permit. For each such discharge: (a) state the date of the discharge and applicable limitations; (b) state the specific legal and factual bases for your contention that the discharge was not preventable; (c) identify each person with knowledge of the facts upon which your contention is based; and ------- — 12 — (d) identify each document relating to such facts. 9. State whether it is Sauget’s contention that operator error caused any of the discharges listed in response to Interrogatory No. 7 above to exceed Sauget’s ABRTF NPDES effluent limits. For each such discharge identify the following: (a) the specific discharge, including the date and applicable limitations; (b) each employee whose error you contend contributed to the discharge; (C) all acts of the employee that you contend resulted in the discharge exceeding the applicable NPDES limits; (d) the immediate supervisor of the employee; and (e) all documents or communications containing or relating to instructions to the employee regarding discharge limitations, reduction of pollutant discharges, or measures to be taken in the event of discharges in excess of NPDES limits. 10. State whether it is Sauget’s contention that equipment malfunction or defect, including design defect, caused any of the discharges listed in response to Interrogatory No. 7 above to exceed Sauget’s ABRTF NPDES permit effluent limits. For each such discharge: (a) identify the specific discharge, including the date and applicable limitations; (b) identify the type of equipment involved: (C) identify the manufacturer or the equipment, the ------- — 13 — model number and any other identification number for the equipment; (d) describe the malfunction or defect; (e) explain how the malfunction or defect caused the discharge to exceed NPDES limits; (f) identify the persons responsible for maintain:-g the equipment and/or preventing malfunctioning; (g) identify all documents containing instructions for maintaining or servicing or preventing malfunction of the equipment; (h) identify the persons responsible for purchasing or approving the purchase of the equipment; Ci) identify the persons responsible for review of the design, operation, or suitability of the equipment; and (j) state whether the equipment is still in your possession and in use. 11. Identify each discharge in excess of ABRTF NPDES effluent limitations listed in response to Interrogatory No. 7 above that you contend was caused by factors beyond your control, including the date and duration of the discharge and the specific pollutants discharged. For each such discharge identify the following: (a) each fact upon which your contention is based; (b) each person with knowledge of such facts; and (C) all documents relating to such facts. ------- — 14 — 12. Specify the government delay and/or unreasonable and capricious action which you contend in your Answer (eleventh affirmative defense) caused and excuses all or many of the alleged violations of the ABRTF NPDES permit requirements and of the Clean Water Act and implementing regulations thereunder. 13. Identify the alleged violations of the ABRTF NPDES permit requirements and of the Clean Water Act and implementing regulations thereunder which you contend in your Answer (eleventh affirmative defense) were caused and excused by the government delay and/or unreasonable and capricious action that you identify in response to Interrogatory No. 12 above. 14. Identify which relief sought in the United States’ Complaint is barred, as alleged in your Answer (twelfth affirmative defense), by the equitable doctrines of unclean hands, laches and/or estoppel. 15. State why the relief identified in response to Interrogatory No. 14 above is barred by the equitable doctrines of unclean hands, laches and/or estoppel. 16. State whether it is Sauget’s contention that U.S. EPA approved or concurred in your decision to conduct 80D5 monitoring using “inhibited testing procedures. If so, state the basis for and identify all documents that support your contention. 17. State the basis for and identify all documents that support your contention at page 75 of your Answer that “EPA had previously advised Sauget in March, 1988 that while it ------- — 15 — believed the ABRTF NPDES permit monitoring and reporting requirements should be changed from “BOD5” to “CBOD5”, it had rio objection to Sauget’s effectuating this permit modification through the IEPA.” 18. State whether it is Sauget’s contention that U.S. EPA concurred in or approved the Zimpro DSE pilot plant study? If so, state the basis for and identify all documents that support your contention. 19. State the legal and factual bases for the contention in your Answer (thirteenth affirmative defense) that, as to the United States’ third claim for relief, the provisions of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.106 are unintelligibly vague and - unconstitutional on their face. 20. State the legal and factual bases for your assertions in your fourteenth affirmative defense. Specifically: (a) state the basis for your assertion that Sauget’s alleged violations of its ABRTF NPDES permit have been minimis and intermittent in nature; and (b) identify all evidence which supports or refutes Sauget’s claim that there is a lack of significant adverse impact upon th water quality of the Mississippi River from the ABRTF discharge. 21. State the legal and factual bases for your assertion in your Answer (fifteenth affirmative defense) that pursuant to Section 309(d) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. ------- — 16 — § 1319(d), there is an absolute maximum penalty per day which could be imposed regardless of whether the alleged permit effluent limitations violated on a given day were for the same or different effluent values. 22. State the basis for Sauget’s claim, made in its answer to Interrogatory No. 7 of the United States’ First Set of Interrogatories that: Sauget does not believe that (1] the discharges from each of its Industrial Users, as defined in the Sauget Pretreatment Ordinance, would Pass Through or Interfere with the operation of the POTW or (2] are otherwise subject to Pretreatment Standards. Your response should, at a minimum, specifically reference the following industries in the Sauget area: (1) Cerro Copper Products Company (2) Amax Zinc (Big River Zinc) (3) W.G. ICrummrich Plant (Monsanto) (4) Musick Plating (5) Pfizer Pigments 23. Identify the “other individuals present at the March 1—2, 1988, sampling mentioned in Sauget’s answer to Interrogatory No. 9 of the United States’ First Set of Interrogatories, and fully state each such individual’s recollection of the odor and color of the ABRTF effluent at the time of this inspection. 24. Fully describe the current allocation of costs and the formula used in determining user costs for the Industrial Users of the Sauget’s Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW”s), at a minimum explaining how the following costs are allocated to each such Industrial User: ------- — 17 — a. primary treatment at the Physical/Cheinjcaj. (“P/C”) plant; b. primary treatment at the ABRTF; c. secondary treatment with carbon addition at the ABRTF; and d. secondary treatment without carbon addition at the ABRTF. 25. Fully describe the actions Sauget has taken since the fire/explosion at the ABRTF to: (a) determine the cause of such fire/explosion; (b) determine who was responsible for such fire/exposition; (c) study ways the damaged/inoperable facilities equipment could be repaired and/or replaced and put back into operation; and (d) find suitable replacement facilities for those facilities damaged and/or made inoperable by the fire/explosion. 26. Identify the Zimpro consultants and plant employees who were present at the ABRTF at the time of the fire/explosion. 27. Identify all consultants and plant personnel who operated or helped maintain the Zimpro facilities during its period of operation at the ABRTF. 28. Identify all plant consultants and personnel who conducted the sampling, monitoring and testing of the ABRTF effluent r.quired by the ABRTF NPDES permit, and describe each person’s primary duties and responsibilities. 29. Identify the approximate date at which Sauget employees, consultants or plant personnel identified ammonia as a major contributor to the alleged toxicity of the P/C plant or ABRTF’s influent. ------- — 18 — 30. Identify and describe all efforts taken to identify the chemical constituents which Contributed to the ABRTF influent’s alleged toxicity. 31. ‘state whether it is Sauget’s contention that the ABRTF can meet all the requirements of its ABRTF NPDES permit, including the 1.0 TUa limit and State Water Quality Standards, without a local limit under the pretreatment program for ammonia. If so, describe why a local limit is not needed. If not, what level must a local limit be set at to allow-the ABRTF to meet the requirements of its NPDES permit? 32. State whether it is Sauget’s contention that the operations of the ABRTF can be controlled to prohibit Interference caused by a biological process known as nitrjfjcatjon. If so, what operating conditions are necessary to prohibit the Interference? If not, what can be done to control nitrificatjon at the ABRTF? 33. Identify each person who is or was responsible for any of the following matters at the ABRTF: (a) monitoring, sampling, analyzing or reporting discharges of pollutants from each facility; (b) compliance with your NPDES permit(s), the Clean Water Act, regulations adopted pursuant to the Clean Water Act, or any applicable effluent limitation; (C) operation or maintenance of water pollution control equipment; ------- — 19 — (d) your financial operations, including cash flows, operating expenses, and ability €0 fund expenditures relating to control of pollutants discharged from the ABRTF; (e) initiation and evaluation of budget requests for new water pollution control equipment or facilities or modifica- tions to existing water pollution control equipment or facilities at the plants; (f) approval of budget requests of the type identified in subpart (e); (g) development and implementation of the user charge system; and (h) implementation of your approved pretreatment program. 34. Identify all persons who work for or have worked for you, or who are or have been consultants to you, or who work for or have worked for consultants to you, who have knowledge of the following subjects at the ABRTF: (a) the design and specifications for any water pollution control equipment; (b) wastewater flows; (C) the capacity of your water pollution control equip nt for reduction of pollutants governed by your ABRTF NPDES permit; (d) the nature and amount of water pollutants discharged from the ABRTF; ------- — 20 — (e) measures considered or taken by you to reduce discharg. of water pollutants from the ABRTF; (f) budgeting, financial, and technical analysis of water pollution control equipment and other capital improvement proj ects; (g) operation and maintenance of water pollution control equipment at the P/C Plant and ABRTF; (h) sources of wastewater requiring treatment; (i) financial aspects of cash flows, operating expenses and profitability; (j) initiation and evaluation of budget requests for pollution control or other capital equipment; (k) development or implementation of your water pollution control program; and (1) development and implementation of your pretreat- ment program. 35. For each person, firm or corporation identified in response to Interrogatory No. 34 above state the following: (a) when such consultant was retained; - ( ) th- nature of any advice or opinion rendered by the Co nt; :0) whether any documents were given to the consultant in connection with its work, identifying all such documents; (d) whether any documents were prepared by the consultant in connection with his work; identifying all such documents; ------- - —21— (a) whether any document was prepared by you or your agents or other consultants relating to any advice or opinion, or document prepared by the consultant, identifying all such documents; and (f) what action, if any, was taken in connection with the consultant’s work. - 36. Have Sauget or its consultants ever determined that any measuring device used to perform effluent measurements and analyses at the ABRTF malfunctioned? For each such instance, provide the following: (a) when such determination was made and those persons who reached that determination; (b) what actions were considered to remedy the deficiency; (c) what actions ware taken to remedy the deficiency; (d) the reasons, if any, why any action considered was not taken; (a) the anticipated cost of each action taken and considered; (f) the impact or result of any action taken; and (g) all parsons with knowledge of the actions taken or considered. Respectfully submitted, RICHARD B • STEWART Assistant Attorney General Land & Natural Resources Division United States Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530 ------- — 22 — Environmental Enforcement Section Land & Natural Resources Division United States Department of Justice P.O. Box 7611 Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 (202)633—2807 Ass istant Regional Counsel U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 230 South Dearborn Street (5CA—TUB—3) Chicago, Illinois 60604 FREDERICK J. HESS United States Attorney Southern District of Illinois BRUCE REPPERT Assistant United States Attorney Southern District of Illinois 750 Missouri Avenue, Room 330 East St. Louis, IL 62202 (618) 482—9361 OF COUNSEL: JA1 S A. NOLM Jk Ass is qjon.L. Counsel U.S. t.L Protection Agency 230 S Street (5CA-TUB-3) Chi L 60604 - .1’ DAVID A. ND1 . Attorney/Advisor U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring (LE-134W) 401 14 Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20460 ------- — 22 — JEFFREY KARP Attorney Environmental Enforcement Section Land & Natural Resources Division United States Department of Justice P.O. Box 7611 Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 (202) 633—2807 THOMAS J. MARTIN, JR. Assistant Regional Counsel U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 230 South Dearborn Street (5CA—TUB—3) Chicago, Illinois 60604 FREDERICK J. HESS United States Attorney Southern District of Illinois BRUCE REPPERT Assistant United States Attorney Southern District of Illinois 750 Missouri Avenue, Room 330 East St. Louis, IL 62202 (618) 482—9361 OF COUNSEL: JAMES A. ‘NOLAN, JR Assistant Regional Counsel U.S. EnvL .na.nta1 Protection Agency 230 Sou xborn Street (5CA-TUB-3) Chicago $1-1inojs 60604 DAVID A. JflNDD Attorney/Advisor U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring (LE-134W) 401 M Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20460 ------- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF iLLINOIS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) and ) ) THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Civil Action No. 88-5131 ) Hon. William L. Beatty Realigned Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) VILLAGE OF SAUGET, ILLINOIS, ) ) Defendant. ) DEFENDANT VILLAGE OF SAUGET’S ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF UNITED STATES’ SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant, Village oE Sauget (“Sauget”) hereby answers the United States’ Second Set of Interrogatories. NZRALL _ Q BJECT I ON 1. Sauget objects to each of these Interrogatories to the extent that they seek information that is protected from disclosure by either the attorney—client or attorney work product privileges. 2. Sauget objects to each of these Interrogatories to the extent that they seek disclosure of materials prepared in anticipation of litigation and/or trial preparation material without the showing required by Rule 26(b) of the Federal R ’1es of Civil Procedure. ------- 3. Sauget objects to each of these Interrogator es to the extent that they seek information or documentation that is not relevant to the issues raised in this lawsuit and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 4. Sauget objects to each of these Interrogatories to the extent that they are vague, overly broad, and unduly burdensome so as to render it impossible to respond in any reasonable manner or amount of time. 5. Sauget objects to each of these Interrogatories to the extent that they are unduly burdensome and speculative in that they request Sauget to search for and produce all documents supporting its present contentions and speculate as to its future contentions prior to the completion of discovery. 6. Sauget objects to Paragraphs A, B and C of the “tnsLructions” Section of the Iriterrogatories to the extent that they improperly seek to require Sauget to obtain information not within its possession or control. 7. Sauget objects to Paragraph E of the “Instructions” section of the Interrogatories on the grounds that it is contrary to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 8. Sauget objects to Paragraph F of the “Instructions” section of the Interrogatories to the extent that it is contrary to Rule 26(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 9. Sauget objects to Paragraphs G, H and I of the “Instructions” section of the Interrogatorjes on the grounds —2 — ------- that they are overbroad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, Sauget objects to the term “non-natural person” insofar as it is vague and unintelligible. 10. Sauget objects to Paragraph J of the “Instructjons ’ section of the Interrogatories on the grounds that it is inconsistent with and contrary to the provisions of Rule 33(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. - 11. Sauget objects to Paragraph L of the “Instructions” section of the Interrogatories on the grounds that it is contrary 10 Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 12. Sauget objects to Paragraph N of the “Instructions” section of the Interrogatories on the grounds and to the extent that it is contrary to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS TO INTERROGATORIES 1. Please identify the person(s) who gathered the documents in response to the United States’ First Request for Production of Documents. w a George R. Schillinger, General Manager of the Sauget Sanitary Development and Research Association; Steven D. Smith, former American Bottoms Regional Treatment Facility Project Manager; and counsel for Sauget. 2. State the legal and factual bases for your assertions in -your Answer (sixth affirmative, defense) that the issuance, contents and attempted enforcement of the EPA’s Administrative Order entered on June 24, 1987, were arbitrary and capricious and is a denial of Sauget’s due process and equal protection rights and contrary to applicable law. —3— ------- Pursuant to Rule 33(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the answer to Interrogatory No. 2 may be ascertained from a July 22, 1957 letter to Charles H. Sulfin, Director, Water Division, U.S. EPA, from Mayor Paul Sauget, as supplemented by letter dated July 27, 1987 (See Exhibit C to Answer), and the Village of Saugets Compliance Action Plan submitted to the U.S.EPA and IEPA on February 16, 1988, as well as other specific factual allegations relating to the terms of the EPAs Administrative Order contained in the Answer filed herein, including paragraphs 15, 43, 74, 78, and 94, as well as other documents already produced for inspection by Sauget in this action respecting the U.S. EPA Administrative Order. 3. Identify the alleged exceedances of effluent limits in the ABRTF NPDES permit which you contend in your Answer (eighth affirmative defense) are negated and excused by unreliability of testing Locedures and/or inadvertent testing errors. Sauget objects to Interrogatory No. 3 to the extent that it requires Sauget to identify and detail particulars concerning every alleged exceedance of ABRTF NPDES effluent limit parameters as it is overbroad and unduly burdensome and would require Sauget to include in its answer a lengthy dissertation on, and explanation of, a multitude of alleged exceedances of numerous effluent permit limits necessitating an oppressive amount of time to investigate such particulars and examine an enormous number of relevant documents including effluent —4— ------- monitoring and sampling data over an extended period of years. Sauget further states that it is impossible to respond to plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 3 in any reasonable manner prior to the completion of Sauget’s discovery and investigation. r ,c t’ ’ ç ’ Subject to and without waiving its objections, Sauget 1 iV\ - states that the alleged exceedarices of A F NPDES permit parameters including,” b zt ‘ phenols mercury, and BOD5, and suspended solids (suspended so ids as alleged on January 28, 1987 and February 14, 1987), are negated and ,, I,,’. excused by unreliable testing procedures and/or inadvertent testing errors. Sauget’s investigation continues. 4. For each such exceedance identified in response to Interrogatory No. 3 above, identify each measurement contained in your Discharge Monitoring Reports (“DMRs”) which you contend is incorrect due to unreliability of testing procedures and/or inadvertent testing errors. Sauget incorporates by reference herein its objection to Interrogatory No. 3. Sauget further states that it has previously produced numerous documents for review by the U.S. EPA and IEPA from which the answers to this Interrogatory may L.e ascertained, including for example but not limited to, documents concerning the unreliability of the prior mercury test procedure and inadvertent testing errors; correspondence between George Schillinger, ABRTF and Jan Hopper, IEPA; y 1u internal ABRTF memoranda concerning laboratory test procedures, see March and April, 1988 memoranda from Eleanor Fletcher to George Schillinger; and a report prepared by the Sverdrup —5— ------- Corporation for Sauget concerning an investigation of the mercury analysis performed at the ABRTF; as well as correspondence from ABRTF to the U.S. EPA and monitoring data on the Sauget Physical/Chemical Plant effluent collected by the IEPA since 1983 and prior to diversion of that effluent to the ABRTF. See also Saugets Answer at paragraph 112. Saugets investigation continues. 5. For each measurement identified in response to Interrogatory No. 4 above: (a) state in what respect you contend that the measurement is inaccurate, erroneous, misleading, overstated, or otherwise meaningless, including whether the measurement is too high or too low; (b) state each fact upon which you base your contention that the measurement is inaccurate, erroneous, misleading, overstated, or otherwise meaningless (e.g., typographical e ror, sampling error); (c) state the reasons why the alleged error occurred; and identify each person with knowledge of such facts or reasons and each document relating to such facts or reasons; (d) state the measurement that you contend is the correct Lneasurement and each fact upon which you base this contention; and identify each person with knowledge of such facts and each document that refers or relates in any way to such facts; (e) identify each person who participated in making or reporting the original measurement; (f) identify each person who participated in the determination of the allegedly correct measurement; (g) state whether the allegedly correct measurement complies with the applicable ABRTF NPDES permit effluent limitation; (h) state whether the allegedly correct measurement was reported to U.S. EPA or the State, and, if so, state when the allegedly correct measurement was reported, and identify the document in which it was reported; and —6— ------- (i) identify each document upon which you relied in responding to this interrogatory. ANSWER: Sauget incorporates by reference herein its answers and objects to Interrogatories No. 3 and 4. Sauget’s investigation continues. 6. Explain the basis for Sauget’s position, in its Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Certain Defenses, that the State of Illinois did not intend to exclude the upset defense from Sauget’s American Bottoms Regional Treatment Facility (“ABRTF”) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit, but merely failed to include such defense due to oversight. SWER: Sauget states that the answer to Interrogatory No. 6 may be ascertained from the ABRTF NPDES permit issued to Sauget by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (“IEPA”) which fails to reflect any express intention to exclude an upset defense ftoin Sauget’s ABRTF NPDES permit. Sauget further states that Special Condition 9 and Paragraph 12 of the Standard Conditions to the ABRTF NPDES Permit contemplate the assertion of an upset defense and specifically provide for notice to the IEPA within a requisite period of time of any unanticipated bypass which exceeds any effluent limitation in the permit . That condition does not provide that the upset defense is unavailable to Sauget, and thus, serves as the basis for Sauget’s position that the State of Illinois did not intent to exclude an upset defense from Sauget’s ABRTF NPDES permit. Given the State’s continuing failure to respond to Sauget’s pending written —7— ------- discovery requests, Sauget’s investigation continues pending completion of discovery in this action. 7. Specify which of the alleged exceedances of effluent limits in the ABRTF NPDES permit are excused as upsets as contended in your Answer (ninth affirmative defense), and state the specific incident which paused each alleged upset. Sauget objects to Interrogatory No. 7 to the extent it requires it to “specify” each alleged exceedance of effluent permit limits which Sauget contends is excused due to upset as overbroad and unduly burdensome in that the request covers a number of events spanning an extended period of time, and would require a lengthy dissertation concerning each alleged upset event prior to the completion of Sauget’s investigation and discovery. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Sauget states that upset conditions existed at the ABRTF on a number of occasions lasting for varying periods including, but not limit .ed to, the following: (1) during the early start—up and ç .5oPeration of the ABRTF during which there resulted alleged exceedarices of suspended solids as well as associated permit effluent limits (e.g. iron, chromium and lead); (2) instances 6 j w ere nitrjfjcatjon occurred at the ABRTF due to Sauget’s liga ion to comply with the terms of the Interim Consent Order; and (3) during the period prior to April 28, 1986 when \ primary and secondary treatment was unavailable at ABRTF in accordance with an agreement between Sauget and the ZEPA —8— ------- respecting start-up of the ABRTF which accounted, for example, r, , i 1 ., for the alleged suspended solids excursions as well as associated permit effluent limits. Sauget further states that documents containing information responsive to this interrogatory have already been produced to the U.S. EPA, including the handwritten recording of the start-up andt operation of the ABRTF prepared by Steven D. Smith and interna1 ABRTF memoranda which describe: (a) flooding conditions causing upsets, as a result of events including, but not limited to: (1) the failure of a shutter gate aL the Metro—East Sanitary District’s East St. Louis pump station facility which caused Mississippi River water to back-up into the pumping facility and the ABRTF in excess of design capacity - and thereby bypass primary and/or secondary treatment during the period April, 1986 to October, 1986; and ‘C r (2) the failure of the closure/diversion gate at the Metro—East Sanitary District’s Southeast St. Louis Pump Station facility on October 4, 1986 which caused bypassing of the primary arid/or secondary treatment processes during the period October 4—11, 1986; the continuing leakage through the partially repaired closure/diversion gate during the balance of October, 1986, the month of November, 1986 and through early December, 1986 until the damaged closure/diversion gate was repaired; 2 (b) East St. Louis treatment plant’s emptying of the existing primary clarifiers in December, 1986. (See also Sauget’s Answer at paragraph ; r —9— - ------- (c) the contamination of the primary clarifier effluent with drainage from Sludge and Blower Building during the period from April 28, 1986 until the end of August, 1986 and the contamination of the secondary treatment process (started on July 8, 1986) due to the same cause through July, August and September, 1986. (See also Saugets Answer at paragraph 99); (d) a process upset during the period August 30, 1986 through September 3, 1986 due to cleaning of the primary clarifiers at the East St. Louis treatment plant and the resulting upset caused during September, 1986 to the operation of the vacuum filters at ABRTF; (e) the initial loading of the powdered activated carbon into the ABRTF secondary treatment system in October, 1987; and (E) the December 2, 1987 fire and/or explosion in the Zimpro WAR process. Finally, for the period from February, 1988 to the present, information responsive to this Interrogatory is contained in the reports of non—compliance which are attached to the Discharge Monitoring Reports submitted monthly to the U.S. EPA and IEPA. Pursuant to Rule 33(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Sauget will produce any additional documents responsive to Interrogatory No. 7. Sauget’s investigation Continues. —10— ------- 8. State whether it is Saugets contention that it could not have prevented each discharge listed in response to Interrogatory No. 7 above from exceeding the applicable effluent limitation in Saugets ABRTF NPDES permit. For each such discharge: (a) state the date of the discharge and applicable limitations; (b) state the specific legal and factual bases for your contention that the discharge was not preventable; (C) identify each person with knowledge of the facts upon which your contention is based; and (d) identify each document relating to such facts. Sauget incorporates by reference herein its objection and answer to Interrogatory No. 7. Subject to and without waiving its objection, Sauget states that it does contend that it could not have prevented the alleged discharge exceedances associated with and including, but not limited to, the events listed in answer to Interrogatory No. 7. Sauget further states that Steven D. Smith, George R. Schil].jnger, Daniel Sentman, and Robert Roddy, as well as potentially other Sauget personnel and persons, possess knowledge of the facts upon which Sauget s contention is based. Saugets investigation continues. 9. State whether it is Saugets contention that operator error caused any of the discharges listed in response to Interrogatory No. 7 above to exceed Saugets ABRTF NPDES effluent limits. For each such discharge identify the following: (a) the specific discharge, including the date and applicable limitations; (b) each employee whose error you contend contributed to the discharge; —11— ------- (c) all acts of the employee that OL1 contend resulted in the discharge exceeding the applicable NPDES limits; the immediate supervisor of the employee; and (e) all documents or communications containing or relating to instructions to the employee regarding discharge itations, reduction of pollutant discharges, or measures to be taken in the event of discharges i.n excess of NPDES limits. ANSWER : Sauget incorporates by reference herein its objection and answer to Interrogatory No. 7. Sauget’s investigation continues as to any and all relevant instances of operator error at ABRTF. 10. State whether it is Sauget’s contention that equipment malfunction or defect, including design defect, caused any of the discharges listed in response to Interrogatory No. 7 above to exceed Sauqet’s ABRTF NPDES permit effluent limits. For each such discharge: (a) identify the specific discharge including the date and applicable limitations; (b) identify the type of equipment involved; Cc) identify the manufacturer or the equipment, the model number and any other identification number for the equipment; (d) describe the malfunction or defect; (e) explain how the malfunction or defect caused the dis harge to exceed NPDES limits; (f) identify the persons responsible for maintaining the equipment and/or preventing malfunctioning; (g) identify all documents containing instructions for maintaining or servicing or preventing malfunction of the equipment; (h) identify the persons responsible for -pi.rrchasing or approving the purchase of the equipment; —12— ------- (i) identify the persons responsible for review of the design, operation, or suitability of the equipment; and (i) State whether the equipment is still in your possession and in use. Sauget incorporates by reference herein its objection to Interrogatory No. 7. Sauget further objects to Interrogatory No. 10 to the extent that it requires Sauget to identify and detail “equipment malfunction or defect, including design defect” concerning each upset event at ABRTF as overbroad and unduly burdensome in that it covers numerous events and incidents Occurring over a period of time in excess of five years. Sauget additionally objects to Interrogatory No. 10 to the extent that it seeks to impose an oppressive burden upon — ------- — .. Sauget prior to the completion of its investigation d.Ls.c. ety. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Sauget states chat it does contend that equipment malfunction or defect, including design defect, caused certain of the alleged ABRTF NPDES permit limit exceedances. Equipment and design itialfurictjon and/or defects include, but are not limited to the following items: (1) certain usual and ordinary equipment problems and malfunctions occurring during the ABRTF start—up process; (2) sludge building drainage pump malfunctions; (3) coil filter design defects and malfunctions; (4) malfunctioning and defectively designed sampling pumps; and (5) equipment malfunctioning and design defects in the Zimpro —13— ------- process. Sauget s investigation continues as to the identification of alleged exceedances of ABRTF NPDES permit limitat-jons caused by the above equipment malfunctions and/or design defects, including equipment manufacturer identification. Pursuant to Rule 33(c) of the Federal Rules oE Civil Procedure, Sauget has already produced certain responsive documents including Zimpro operating manuals and start-up documentation, and the handwritten recording of the start-up and operation of the ABRTF prepared by Steven D. Smith. Sauget will produce additional documents in answer to subparagraphs (b), (c), (d) and (g). With respect to subparagraph (f), Sauget states that Roy Robertson and Joe Ray are generally responsible for maintaining ABRTF equipment. With respect to subparagraph (h), Sauget states that Roy Robertson, George R. Schillinger, and Robert Roddy currently are generally responsible for equipment purchase matters and operation and suitability of equipment. With respect to subparagraph (i), Sauget states that Russell & Axon was previously generally responsible for equipment design, operation, and suitability review matters. Former Sauget Project Managers Steven D. Smith, John Zelle, and Frank Basile (now deceased) were Sauget s owner representatives for the work performed by Russell & Axon and other construction contractors. With respect to subparagraph (j), Sauget retains possession of equipment that has malfunctioned or is design defective, and that with the exception of the Zimpro process —14— ------- equipment, Sauget- is utilizing the equipment that has previously malfunctioned. 11. Identify each discharge in excess of ABRTF NPDES effluent limitations listed in response to Interrogatory No. 7 above that you contend was caused by factors beyond your control, including the date and duration of the discharge and tbe specific pollutants discharged. For each such discharge identify the following: (a) each fact upon which your contention is based; (b) each person with knowledge of such facts; and (c) all documents relating to such fact. ANSWER : Sauget incorporates by reference herein its objection to Interrogatory No. 11 and further objects on grounds of vagueness in that Interrogatory No. 11 appears to request the same information sought in Interrogatory NO. 8. Subject to and without waiving its objection and answer, Sauget states that alleged discharges n excess of ABRTF NPDES permit limits for suspended solids as well as other permit parametets were caused by factors beyond Saugets control including, but not limited to, the following: (1) the period prior to April 28, 1986 when primary and secondary treatment was unavailable pursuant to an agreement with IEPA concerning ABRTF start-up; (2) the period during 1986 when flooding led to a gate failure, pump station failure, and ABRTF by—pass; (3) the contamination of the primary and secondary treatment processes in 1986 with drainage from the Sludge and Blower Building; (4) the actions of the East St. Louis Treatment Plant operator in August and —15— ------- September, 1986; and (5) the initial loading of the Zimpro powdered activated carbon in 1987. Sauget further states that George Schillinger and Steven D. Smith have knowledge of certain facts related to Interrogatory No. 11. Pursuant to Rule 33(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, any documents responsive to this request and not previously produced, will be produced to the United States. Saugets investigation continues. 12. Specify the government delay and/or unreasonable and capricious action which you contend in your Answer (eleventh affirmative defense) caused and excused all or many of the alleged violations of the ABRTF NPDES permit requirements and of the Clean Water Act and implementing regulations thereunder. ANSWER : Sauget objects to Interrogatory No. 12 on the grounds that the request is vague, overbroad and unduly burdensome in that it requires Sauget to detail numerous, lengthy documents and meetings spanning a period of time of over five years which transpired between Sauget and the U.S. EPA. Sauget has already provided to plaintiff a detailed and factually replete Answer containing specific allegations relating to its Eleventh Affirmative Defense. Specifically, with respect to the selection of, design, approval, and start-up of the Zimpro process, see Answer at paragraphs 15, 43, and 46; with respect to the review and approval of Saugets Pretreatment Program, see Answer at paragraphs 44, 74, 78 and 89 and documents identified therein; with respect to whole effluent toxicity, biomonitoring, and chemical monitoring provisions of the ABRTF —16— ------- NPDES permit, see Answer at paragraphs 67, 68 and 107; with respect to Saugets compliance action plan, see Answer at paragraph 94; and with respect to the alleged BOD 5 monitoring violations, see Answer to Paragraph 112 and documents cited therein. Additional government delays have occurred with respect to the lack of response or approval concerning Sauget s November 4 1988 mixing zone report, local limit submissions, and government inspections of the ABRTF, including the 1989 Pretreatment Program Audit and the monitoring program conducted in the fall of 1988. Sauget further states that pursuant to Rule 33(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the answer to Interrogatory No. 12 may be ascertained from dticjjn nts previously produced or made available to plaintiff in response to plaintiff s Request for Production of Documents. Saugets investigation continues pending the completion of discovery in this matter. 13. IdentiFy the alleged violations of the ABRTF NPDES permit requirements and of the Clean Water Act and implementing regulations thereunder which you contend in your Answer (eleventh affirmative defense) were caused and excused by the government delay and/or unreasonable and capricious action that rou identify in response to Interrogatory No. 12 above. —17— ------- NSWER Sauget incorporates by reference herein its ob)ectlon and answer to Interrogatory No. 13. Sauget further states that the answer to Interrogatory No. 13 also may be ascertained from the opinions of the Illinois Pollution Control Board invalidating and modifying certain ABRTF NPDES permit requirements, attached to Saugets Answer as Exhibit A. Saugets investigation continues pending completion of discovery as to the specific alleged violations which Sauget contends were caused and excused by government delay and/or unreasonable and capricious action as contended in Saugets Eleventh Affirmative Defense. 14. Identify which relief sought in the United States Complaint is barred, as alleged in your Answer (twelf€h affirmative defense), by the equitable doctrines of unclean hands, laches and/or estoppel. Sauget states that all relief sought by plaintiff in its complaint which is based in whole or in part on the Cor plaints allegations answered by Sauget in the paragraphs referenced in its answer to Interrogatory No. 12 above, and also the relief based on those ABRTF NPDES permit requirements invalidated or modified by the opinions of the Illinois Pollution Control Board attached to Sauget s Answer as Exhibit A, is barred in whole or in part by the equitable doctrines of unclean hands, laches and/or estoppel. Sauget’s investigation Continues pending the completion of discovery. 15. State why the relief identified in response to Interrogatory No. 14 above is barred by the equitable doctrines of unclean hands, laches and/or estoppel. —18— ------- WER: Sauget states that the effect of the equitable doctrines of unclean hands, laches and/or estoppel is to preclude a litigant from asserting a claim regardless of its otherwise substantive validity. Further, Sauget states that its co ntention that the relief sought by plaintiff is barred by the equitable doctrines at issue is fully supported by specific allegations raised in numerous portions of its Answer herein, as well as, pursuant to Rule 33(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in numerous documents previously produced to plaintiff in response to plaintiffs First Request for Production of Documents. Saugets investigation continues pending the completion of discovery. 16. State whether it is Saugets contention that U.S. EPA approved or concurred in your decision to conduct BOD5 monitoring using “inhibited” testing procedures. If so, st-ate the basis for and identify all documents that support your contention. ANSWEJ Sauget states that it does contend that the U.S. EPA approved or concurred in Sauget s decision to conduct 80D5 monitoring using “inhibited” testing procedures. Sauget incorporates by reference herein its Answer to Paragraph 112 of the First Amended Complaint. Pursuant to Rule 33(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Sauget states that further answer to Interrogatory No. 16 may be ascertained from documents previously provided to plaintiff in response to plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents and —19— ------- respecting 80D 5 monitoring. Saugets investigation continues pending the completion of discovery. 17. State the basis for and identify all documents that support your contention at page 75 of your Answer that “EPA had previously advised Sauget in March, 1988, that while it believed the ABRTF NPDES permit monitoring and reporting requirements should be changed from “BOD5 ” to CBOD5 ”, it had no objection to Saugets effectuating this permit modification through the IEPA.” Sauget states that pursuant to Rule 33(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it has already provided plaintiff with documents which support Sauget’s contention that U.S. EPA had advised Sauget in March, 1988, that U.S. EPA had no objection to Saugets effectuating a permit modification of the ABRTF NPDES permit monitoring and reporting requirements to allow a change from BOD 5 to CBOD 5 monitoring. The U.S. EPA made these statements during a March 29, 1988 meeting at U.S. EPAs ofLices between representatives of Sauget and the U.S. EPA. Sauget states that additional answer to Interrogatory No. 17 may be ascertained from Sauget s Answer at paragraph 112 and documents in the possession of plaintiff including: a May 16, 1988 letter from Sauget Manager, George Schillinger to Donald Schregardus, U.S. EPA Chief; June 18, 1988 letter from Donald Schregardus to George Schillinger; and August 22, 1988 letter from George R. Schillinger to Donald R. Schregardus regarding BOD 5 and CBOD 5 monitoring, including documents attached or referenced the 1 ein. A _Ir ,4avlc . )P’ ’ ( 7CC 5CIT ‘ ‘c —20— ------- 18. State whether it is Saugets contention that U.S. EPA concurred in or approved the Zimpro DSE pilot plant study? If so, state the basis for and identify all documents that support your contention. NSWER : Sauget states that it does contend that U.S. EPA Concurred in and/or approved the Zimpro DSE pilot plant study. Sauget further states that the answer to Interrogatory No. 18 may be ascertained from Saugets Answer at paragraphs 15 and 43 and from documents in the possession of plaintiff or produced to plaintiff by Sauget in response to plaintiffs First Request for Production of Documents. Specifically, those documents include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) December 1, 1986 letter from Charles J. Pycha, U.S. EPA, Technical Support Section, to James B. Park, Manager, Division of Water Pollution, IEPA; (2) December 10, 1986 letter from IEPA to Sauget enclosing letter from U.S. EPA to IEPA; (3) June 24, 1987 rJ.S. EPA Administrative Order issued to Sauget; (4) March 3, 1988 letter to Charles Sutfin, Director U.S. EPA, Water Division, from Sauget s counsel, Harold G. Baker, Jr.; (5) May 5, 1988 letter to Paul Sauget, Mayor, Sauget, from Charles H. Sutfin, U.S. EPA, Director, Water Division; (6) July 22, 1987 letter to Charles Sutfin, Director, U.S. EPA Water Division from Paul Sauget, Mayor, Sauget; and (7) the documents relating to meetings between or among representatives of Sauget, Zimpro and the U.S. EPA, including meetings held on August 26, 1986, October 22, 1986, November 6, 1986, February 10, 1987 and April 15, 1987. 0 ------- 19. State the legal and factual bases for the contention in your Answer (thirteenth affirmative defense) that, as to the United States’ third claim for relief, the provisions of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.106 are unintelligibly vague and unconstitutional on their face. ANSWER : Sauget states that the “below obvious levels” provision and standard under 35 Ill. Adrn. Code 304.106 lacks the requisite degree of definiteness and fair warning necessary to preclude impermissibly selective, h and arbitrary determinations and applications of the standard in violation of the constitutional entitlement of due process. 20. State the legal and factual bases for your assertions in your fourteenth affirmative defense. Specifically: (a) state the basis for your assertion that Sauget’s alleged violations of its ABRTF NPDES permit have been and intermittent in nature; and (h)) identify all evidence which supports or refutes ..a. 1’get’s claim that there is a lack of significant adverse impact upon the water quality of the Mississippi River from the ABRTF discharge. Sauget objects to Interrogatory No. 20 to the extent that it requires Sauget to identify and detail particulars concerning each alleged violation of its ABRTF NPDES permit and the impact of Saugets ABRTF discharge upon the Mississippi River as overbroad and unduly burdensome in that it would require a lengthy dissertation on the nature of each alleged exceedance of numerous effluent permit limits over an extended period of years where the information supporting Sauget’s assertions is in the possession of plaintiff and subject to its own review and analysis. —22-. ------- Subject to and wiLhout waiving its objections, Sauget states that the basis for its assertions that alleged violalions of the ABRTF NPDES Permit limitations are mjnjti in nature, intermittent, and result in a lack of signific n impact upLon the water purity of the Mississippi River, is contained in numerous documents provided or made available to plaintiff, including, but not limited to, Discharge Monitoring Reports respecting the alleged exceedances of the following effluent parameters and periods: (1) alleged daily chromium violations in September and December, 1986; (2) certain alleged daily fecal coliform violations in August and October, 1987; (3) certain alleged daily iron violations during August-December, 1986, January-December, 1987, and February—March, 1988; (4) alleged monthly iron violations in March, April, October and December, 1987; (5) certain alleged daily lead violations in September, 1986; (6) certain alleged daily mercury violations in September, 1986, November, 1986, December, 1987, January, 1988, February, 1988; (7) alleged monthly oil, fat and grease violations in May, 1986 - December, 1986; (8) certain alleged daily suspended solids violations in May-September, 1986, November-December, 1986, October, 1987, and February-March, 1988; (9) alleged monthly suspended solids violations in August, 1986, February, 1987, and February, 1988; (10) alleged monthly zinc violations in August, 1986, and December, 1987; (11) certain alleged daily zinc violations in September and December, 1986, June, 1987, October, 1987, and November_December, 1987. —23— ------- Sauget further states that pursuant to Rule 33(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the answer to subparagraph (b) may be more fully ascertained from the “Delineation of Mixing Zone, Mississippi River near Sauget, Illinois, American Bottoms Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility” report previously submitted to plaintiff by Sauget on or about November 3, 1988. ____ Saugets investigation continues pending the comp].etion of __ — discovery. -- - - - - -__________ 21. S ate the legal and factual bases for your assertion in your Answer (fifteenth affirmative defense) that- pursuant to Section 309(&) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(d), there is an absolute maximum penalty per day which could be imposed regardless of whether the alleged permit effluent limitations violated on a given day were for the same or different eff ient values. ANSWER: Sauget objects to Interrogatory No. 21 to the extent iL requires Sauget to state the “factual bases” for its Fifteenth Affirmative Defense as vague and unintelligible in the content of a statutory and legal defense to p1aintiff s penalty allegations for multiple alleged permit effluent limitation exceedances on given days. Subject to and without waiving this objection, Sauget states that the plaintiffs complaint allegations respecting effluent limitation exceedances on given days form the factual bases of Sauget s assertion. Further answering, Sauget states that the legal basis for its Fifteenth Affirmative Defense is Section 309(d) of the Clean Water Act as originally enacted in 1972, and prior to its amendment by the 1987 Water Quality Act. —24— ------- 22. State the basis for Sauget’s claim, made in its answer to Interrogatory No. 7 of the United States’ First Set of Interrogatories that: Sauget does not believe that (1) the discharges from each of its Industrial. Users, as defined in the Sauget Pretreatment Ordinance, would Pass Through or Interfere with the operation of the POTW or (2) are otherwise subject to Pretreatment Standards. Your response should, at a minimum, specifically reference the following industries in the Sauget area: (1) Cerro Copper Products Company (2) Amax Zinc (Big River Zinc) (3) W.G. Krummrich Plant (Monsanto) (4) Musick Plating (5) Pfizer Pigments ANSWER : Sauget objects to the improper directive contained jn Interrogatory No. 22 that its response must reference certain industries arid further incorporates by reference its objections to Interrogatory No. 7 of the United States’ First Set of Interrogtories, given that the allegation of the Complaint to which Interrogatory No. 7 pertains is not so limited to the above—specified industries, but rather may be interpreted to include all Industrial Users of the ABRTF. Subject to nd without waiving these objections, Sauget states that the basis of its specified claim in the answer to Interrogatory No. 7 of the United States’ First Set of Interrogatories is Sauget’s reasonable belief that the discharges from each and every one of its Industrial Users, as defined in the Sauget Pretreatment Ordinance, have not caused Pass Through or Interfere with the operation of the Sauget POTWs or are otherwise subject to Pretreatment Standards. —25— ------- 23. Identify the “other individuals present” at the March 1-2, 1988, sampling mentioned in Saugets answer to Interrogatory No. 9 of the United States First Set of Interrogatories, and fully state each such individuals recollection of the odor and color of the ABRTF effluent at the time of this inspection. ANSWER : Sauget states that its employee, Joe Ray, was also present during the March 1-2, 1988 U.S. EPA sampling inspection at the ABRTF and did not notice the alleged strong solvent odor purportedly emanating from the ABRTF effluent. Saugets investigation continues as to any other individuals who may have been present. 24. Fully describe the current allocation of costs and the formula used in determining user costs for the Industrial Users of Saugets Publicly Owned Treatment Works (“POTWs”), at a minimum explaining how the following costs are allocated to each such Industrial User: (a) primary treatment at the Physical/Chemical (“P/C”) plant; (b) primary treatment at the ABRTF; (c) secondary treatment with carbon addition at the ABRTF; and (d) secondary treatment without carbon addition at the ABRTF. Sauget incorporates by reference herein its General Objections Nos. 3 and 4. Subject to and without waiving Sauget’s objections, and pursuant to Rule 33(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the answer to Interrogatory No. 24 may be ascertained from the following documents previously produced or made available, or to be made available to the E9 ------- U.S. EPA by Sauget: (1) with respect to subparagraph (a), the Monsanto Envirochem User Cost Report as amended, the 1974 Bond and Rate Ordinances as amended, and the 1974 Treatment Agreement as amended, for the P/C Plant; and (2) with respect to subparagraphs (b) through (d), the 1977 Regional Agreement as amended, the User Charge System Report prepared by Russell & Axon and approved by the IEPA in 1981, the 1983 Bond Ordinance, the 1985 Regional Rate Ordinance as amended, and Black & Veatch rep_arts on actual and proposed regional rates. 25. Fully describe the actions Sauget has taken since the ftr plosion at the ABRTF to: (a) determine the cause of such fire/explosion; (b) determine who was responsible for such fire/explosion; (c) study ways the damages/inoperable facilities equipment could be repaired and/or replaced and put back into operation; and (d) find suitable replacement EacilitLes for those facilities damaged and/or made inoperable by the fire/ex ,losjon. ANSWER : Sauget incorporates by reference its General Objections Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Sauget states that since the fire/explosion at the ABRTF in December, 1987, it has (1) formed an accident investigation team to conduct an internal review and investigation into the cause of the fire/explosion; (2) conducted a preliminary investigation of the safety, viability and current cost effectiveness of Zimpro alternatives; (3) commissioned the Sverdrup Company in St. Louis, Missouri, to analyze and evaluate the replacement of the damaged heat exchanger; (4) filed insurance claims —27— ------- resulting in Zimpro process failure studies by its insurers, (5) attempted to gather data relating to other Zimpro process fire/explosions in a diligent and •reasonable attempt to determine the cause of and responsibility for the fire/explosion, and further to analyze the potential for repair and/or replacement of the damaged Zimpro process equipment as well as to determine whether suitable replacement equipment exists. 26. Identify the Zimpro consultants and plant employees who were present at the ABRTF at the time of the fire/explosion. ANSWER: Sauget states that the following consultants and/or personnel were present either at the time of the Zirnpro fire/explosion, or during the day of the fire/explosion: Timothy Dougherty, William Swalling, Robert Benne, Gerald Hanson, John Austin, Steven D. Smith, Daniel Sentman, Roy Robertson, Joe Ray, Dan Shearer, Arzena Leonard, Virgi] Anthony, Joseph Bonner, Kenneth Wicks, Jerry Tuck, Mark Kuenke, Richard Harris, Dennis Buckingham, Ken Crawford, William Sago, Dennis Herzing, Bob Boyer, Carroll Thomas, Barbara Duncan, Mary Groves (Friemuth), Don Daniel, Donna Butler, John Piazza, William Defer, George Schillinger, Jessie Hatchet, Allan Carter, Fred Fikes, Sharron Green, James King, Danny Love, Maybell Kinberly, and Vernon Stidimire. Sauget s investigation continues as to any additional individuals who may have been present at the ABRTF at the time of the fire/explosion. —28— ------- 27. Identify all consultants and plant personnel who operated or he]ped maintain the Zimpro facilities during its period of operation at the ABRTF. ANSWER : Sauget states that the following persons operated and/or assisted in the maintenance of the Zirnpro process equipment during its period of operation: Gerald Hanson John Austin Joe Ray Jerry Tuck Tom Hoover Tom Rosenberg William Sago Dennis Herzing Daniel Sentman Roy Robertson Donna Butler Michael Brown Don Daniel Dan Shearer Saugets investig3tion continues as to additional individuals who may have been responsible for operating and/or cnaIuLain ng the Zimpro process equipment. 28. Identify all plant consultants and personnel who conducted the sampling, monitoring and testing of the ABRTF effluent required by the ABRTF NPDES permit, and describe each Person’s primary duties and responsibilities. Sauget incorporates by reference herein its General Objection No. 4. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Sauget states that pursuant to Rule 33(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the plant personnel and consultants responsible for the sampling, monitoring and testing of the ABRTF effluent may be ascertained from the —29— ------- review of documentation already in the possession of U.S. EPA, including Discharge Monitoring Reports, and those documents produced to plaintiff by Sauget in response to plaintiffs First Request for Production of Documents. Notwithstanding the fact that U.S. EPA possesses the requested information, Sauget states that personnel and consultants responsible for ABRTF effluent sampling, monitoring and testing include, but are not limited to, the following: Joe Bonrier, Operator — sample collection; Linda Champman, Operator - sample collection; Arzena Leonard, Operator — sample collection; Larkin Holmon, Operator — sample collection; Barbara Duncan, Operator - sample collection; Mike Brown, Operator — sample collection; Donna Butler, Operator — sample collection; Don Daniel, Operator - sample collection; Ernest Young, former Operator - responsible for sample cot lect ion; Jack Latchem, former Operator — responsible for sample collection; Virgil Anthony, former Operator — responsible for sample collection; Richard Kidd, former Operator - responsible for sample collection; Kenny Wicks, former Operator - responsible for sample Collection; Tim Flagg, former Operator - responsible for sample collection; John Jackson, former Operator — responsible for sample collection; —30— ------- Gary Newman, collect ion; former Operator — responsible for sample Waldo Dotts, CO 1 lect ion; Eormer Operator — responsible for sample Mary Freimuth, Collection; Shift Supervisor - occasional sample Dan Shearer, collection; Shift Supervisor - occasional sample Jerry Tuck - Shift Supervisor; Robert Roddy, ABRTF Plant Manager - occasional collection; Daniel Sentman, Operations Supervisor — occasional collection; sample sample Thomas G. Makara, ABRTF Laboratory Chemist It — responsible for performing analytical procedures as directed by the plant chemist, updating equipment and instrumentation log books, performing routine preventative maintenance on instrumentation, and cleaning labware, glassware, and sampling containers; flonald J. Schmidt, ARRTF i aboratory Chemist responsibilities as described above for Mr. Makara; Ethan Litsey, ABRTF Laboratory Chemist I - responsibilities as described above Eor Mr. Makara; Gary B. Kaufman, former ABRTF Laboratory Chemist II responsibilities as described above for Mr. Makara; Stara Lynn Hodapp, ABRTF Laboratory Chemist responsibilities as described above for Mr. Makara; John Gibson ABRTF Laboratory Chemist I - responsibilities as described above for Mr. Makara; Nancy Dickens, ABRTF Laboratory Chemist II responsibilities as described above for Mr. Makara; Stephie Gross, ABRTF Laboratory part—time responsibilities as described above for Mr. Makara; chemist Eleanor Fletcher, ABRTF Plant preparing summary reports of the laboratory, for directing the laboratory and establishiny work Chemist, responsible analytical results for daily activities in routines; for the the —31— ------- Cinda Page, ABRTF Laboratory technician - responsibilities as described above for Mr. Makara; Tony Toenjes, former ABRTF Laboratory Plant Chemist responsibilities as described above for Ms. Fletcher; Sharon Wou].f, former ABRTF Laboratory technician responsibilities as described above for Mr. Makara; Weston Gold Coast Laboratories, Inc. — conducting the fate and effects sampling program of the Pretreatment Program; Industrial Testing Laboratories, Inc. — periodic testing and monitoring of mercury and phenols analysis; St. Louis Testing — periodic testing and monitoring of mercury; Environmental Analysis, Inc. - periodic testing and monitoring of mercury and other metals; Metra Trace — monitoring and testing of priority pollutants; Envirodyne Engineering, Inc. - periodic testing and monitoring of mercury; Teklab, 6 Meadow Heights Professional Park, Collinsville, Illinois - performed fecal coliform testing for the fate and effects sampling program of the Pretreatment Program; The Advent Group, Inc., 201 Summit View Drive, Suite 313, Brentwood, Tennessee - ABRTF mixing zone study sampling, testing and monitoring; Sverdrup Corporation, 801 North Eleventh Street, St. Louis, Missouri, periodic testing and monitoring of mercury; EA Engineering, Science & Technology, Inc., 15 Loveton Circle, Sparks, Maryland; fydroQual, Inc. 29 Identify the approximate date at which Sauget emp es, consultants or plant personnel identified ammonia as a major ntributor to the alleges toxicity of the P/C plant or ABRTFs —32— ------- ANSWER : Sauget objects to Interrogatory No. 29 on the grounds that the term “toxicity” is vague in that the Interrogatory does not clarify the use or meaning of this term. Sauget further objects to Interrogatory No. 29 on the grounds that the information sought is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence where the 1986 P/C Plant and ABRTF NPDES permits, as issued, contain no inf].tzent limits or other relevant requirements. \30. Identify and describe all efforts taken to identify the “-e hemical constituents which contributed to the ABRTF influent’s alleged toxicity. ANSWER : Sauget objects to Interrogatory No. 30 on the grounds that the information sought is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence where the 1986 P/C Plant and ABRTF NPDES permits, as issued, contain no influent limits or other relevant requirements. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Sauget states ‘that influent testing to identify chemical constituents of the ABRTF influent has been conducted in accordance with the fate and effects sampling program contained in the Pretreatment Program and also in accordance with the POTW random sampling program contained in the Pretreatment Program. State whether it is Saugets contention that the ABRTF can meet all the requirements of its ABRTF NPDES permit, including the 1.0 TUa limit and State Water Quality Standards, without a local limit under the pretreatment program for ammonia. If so, describe why a local limit is not needed. —33.- ------- If not, what level must a local limit be set at to allow the ABRTF to meet the requirements of its NPDES permit? ANSWER : Sau t- objects to Interrogatory No. 31 to the extent that it wrongly implies that the 1986 ABRTF NPDES Permit, as modified and in part invalidated by Illinois Pollution Control Board Opinions and Orders issued December 15, 1988 and February 23, 1989, imposes a 1.0 TU 3 limit. With respect to the State Water Quality Standards for ammonia, Sauget submits that it has not been determined that Saugets effluent violates that standard given an allowable mixing zone and further states that the ABRTF NPDES permit does not contain an effluent limitation for ammonia. Sauget further states that its investigation continues as to the level at which a local limit for ammonia, if any, need be set. 32. State whether it is Saugets Contention that th operations of the ABRTF can be controlled to prohibit Interference caused by a biological process known as nitrifjcatjon. If so, what operating conditions are necessary to prohibit the Interference? if not, what can be done to control nitrificatjon at the ABRTF? A, jSWER: Sauget’s investigation continues as to whether the operations of the ABRTF can be controlled to prohibit Interference caused by nitrification. However, to date, the operations of the ABRTF have prohibited Interference caused by nitrification with the limited exception of isolated incidences which were caused by attempts to raise the Mean Cell Residence —34— ------- Time (“MCRT”) as required by the terms of the Interim Consent Order. Accordingly, Sauget submits that the operating conditions that have been employed to date can control nitrificatjon subject to elimination of the Interim Consent Order’s requirements that Sauget shall maintain a target MCRT of 20 days as a monthly average and make every practicable effort to return to the 20 day MCRT as a monthly average. A detailed description of the operating conditions necessary to prohibit Interference is set forth in the “Secondary Treatment Process Control” reports which have been and are being submitted to U.S. EPA by Sauget on a weekly and monthly basis since the commencement of carbon addition at the ABRTF in 1989. 33. Identify each person who is or was responsible for any of the following matters at the ABRTF: (a) monitoring, sampling, analyzing or reporting discharges of pollutants from each facility; (b) compliance with your NPDES permit(s), the Clean Water Act, regulations adopted pursuant to the Clean Water Act. or any applicable effluent limitation; (c) operation or maintenance of water pollution control equipment; (d) your financial operations, including cash flows, operating expenses, and ability to fund expenditures relating to control of pollutants discharged from the ABRTF; (e) initiation and evaluation of budget requests for new water pollution control equipment or facilities or modifications to existing water pollution control equipment or facilities at the plants; (f) approval of budget requests of the type identified in subpart (e); (g) development and implementation of the user charge system; and —35— ------- (h) implementation of your approved pretreatment program. ANSWER : Saucjet states that the following persons and/or entities are or were responsible for the indicated matters at ABRTF: (a) George Schillinger. Sauget further incorporates by reference herein its response to Interrogatory No. 28; (b) Steven D. Smith, William F. Defer, former Treasurer of the Sauget Sanitary Development and Research Association and currently employed by Monsanto Company, George Schillinger, Robert Roddy, and Tom Thompson, Homer & Shifrirt, Inc.; (C) George Schillinger, Robert Roddy and Daniel Sentman; (d) George Schillinger, Harold G. Baker, Jr., Sherry Amen, Comptroller, ABRTF, Henry C. Siekmann, Village of Sauget Auditor, and Jake Boomhouwer, Black & Veatch Co.; (e) George Schillinger, and the Officers and Directors of the Sauget Sanit.ary Development and Research Association; (f) Village of Sauget, Illinois, and the Board of the Sauget Sanitary Development and Research Association; (g) George Schillinger, Harold G. Baker, Jr., Jake Boomhouwer, Black & Veatch Co., Steven D. Smith, Henry C. Siekmann, and Russell & Axon; (h) George Schillinger, Harold G. Baker, Jr., and Tom Thompson, Homer & Shifrin, Inc. —36— ------- Saugets investigation continues. 34. Identify all persons who work for or have worked for you, or who are or have been consultants to you, or who work for or have worked for consultants to you, who have knowledge of the following subjects at the ABRTF: (a) the design and specifications for any water pollution control equipment; (b) wastewater flows; (c) the capacity of your water pollution control equipment for reduction of pollutants governed by your ABRTF NPDES permit; (d) the nature and amount of water pollutants discharged from the ABRTF; (e) measures considered or taken by you to reduce discharge of water pollutants from the ABRTF; (t) budgeting, financial, and technical analysis of water pollution control equipment and other capital improvement projects; (g) operation and maintenance of water pollution control equipment at the P/C Plant and ABRTF; (h) sources of wastewater requiring treatment; (i) financial aspects of cash flows, operation expenses and profitability; (j) initiation and evaluation of budget requests for pollution control or other capital equipment; (k) development or implementation of your water pollution control program; and (1) development and implementation of your pretreatment program. ANSWER : Sauget incorporates by reference herein its General Objection No. 4 and its answers to Interrogatories 26—28 an .d..--31... in answer to Interrogatory No. 34. To fully respond to this —37— ------- interrogatory, Sauget would have to review all records relating to the design, construction and operations of the ABRTF and disclose a total number of persons that could well exceed 100 persons. For example, with respect to just one of the consultants, Russell & Axon, Sauget is aware of the following persons who worked for Russell & Axon on the ABRTF construction project who have knowledge responsive to subparagraphs 34(a), (b), (C) and (h): F.T. Osteen - Chief Executive Officer (now deceased) George Russell, former Chief Executive Officer (now deceased) Chuck Burkert, former Executive Vice-President (now deceased) William L. Sago - Professional Engineer/Project Manager (now deceased) W.O. Haag - Deputy Professional Engineer Dennis R. I-Ierzing - Resident Engineer R. Craig Hafner - Project Coordinator (Contracts D, F, ( ) J.V. Litton - Chief Inspector P.K. Mathai - Assistant to Resident Engineer D. Moore — Assistant to Resident Engineer Caroll Thomas — Position and title unknown Sauget is also aware that a host of other Russell & Axon employees located in Russell & Axons offices in Daytona Beach, Florida, Knoxville, Tennessee, and St. Louis, Missouri, were involved in work matters responsive to subparagraphs (a), (b), (c) and (h), but their specific identities are not known to Sauget. —3a— ------- Sauget further states that pursuant to Rule 33(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the numerous persons and consultants involved in the matters described in subparagraph (a) are ascertainable from the documents Sauget has already produced, including: the contract documents for the design of ABRTF; Zimpro, Inc. correspondence during the period 1980—1982; Zimpro Pilot Plant Report; the Project Manuals for the ABRTF; the Engineering Design Report for ABRTF prepared by Russell & Axon; the December 6, 1979 Pilot Plant Study for ABRTF; and the 1979 Treatability Study for ABRTF. With respect to subparagraphs (b), (C), (d), (e), (f), (g), and (k) - Environmental Resources Management - North Central, Inc., 102 Wilmot Road, Suite 300, Deerfield, Illinois, and its subcontractors, Perland Environmental Technologies, Inc. and Hydroquad, Inc. With respect to subparagraphs (b), (h) and (k) — Monsanto Enviro-Chem Systems, Inc.; Hurst-Rosche Engineers, Inc.; P.H. Wejs & Associates, Inc.; Rhutase]. & Associates, Inc. With respect to subparagraphs (b), (g) and (k) - Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. With respect to subparagraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (g), (h), (k) and (1) — Homer & Shifrin, Inc., 6400 West Main Street, Suite 3J, Bellevjl].e, Illinois. With respect to subparagraphs (b), (e) and (i) -Black & Veatch; With respect to subparagraphs Cd) and Ce) - The Advent Group, Inc. and EA Engineering, Science & Technology, Inc. —39— ------- With respect to subparagraphs (b), (C), (d), (e), (g), and (k) - Consoer, Townsend & Associates, Inc., 303 East Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois. Saugets investigation continues as to additional knowledgeable persons and/or entities. 35. For each person, firm or corporation identified in response to Interrogatory No. 34 above, state the following: (a) when such consultant was retained; (b) the nature of any advice or opinion rendered by the consultant; (C) whether any documents were given to the consultant in connection with its work, identifying all such documents; (d) whether any documents were prepared by the consultant in connection with his work; identifying all such documents; (e) whether any document was prepared by you or your agents or other consultants relating to any advice or opinion, or document prepared by the consultant, iJeritifying all such documents; and (f) what action, if any, was taken in connection with the consultant s work. Sauget objects to Interrogatory No. 35 to the extent that it seeks information that is protected from disclosure under the attorney-client and work-product privileges, as well as under Rule 26(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Sauget further objects to Interrogatory No. 35 on the grounds that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome in that it would require Sauget to include in its answer a lengthy dissertation on, and explanation of, the nature and circumstances of its —40— ------- utilization of numerous consultants over an extended period of years and would require Sauget to identify voluminous documentation which has already been produced to and inspected by plaintiff in this action. Finally, Sauget objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that the information sought is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 36. Have Sauget or its consultants ever determined that any measuring device used to perform effluent measurements and analyses at the ABRTF malfunctioned? For each such instance, provide the following: (a) when such determination was made and those persons who reached that determination; (b) what actions were considered to remedy the deficiency; (C) what actions were taken to remedy the deficiency? (d) the reasons, if any, why any action considered was not taken; (e) the anticipated cost of each action taken and considered; (E) the impact or result of any action taken; and (cj) all persons with knowledge of the actions taken or considered. —41— ------- ANSWER : Sauget’s investigation continues as to whether there have been any determinations that effluent measuring equipment at ABRTF malfunctioned. Respectfully submitted, VILLAGE OF SAUGET B 7Z t J/ 4 YSUSAN M. FRANZET5’ Attorney for e Defendant, Village of Sauget, Illinois OF COUNSEL : RICHARD J. KISSEL SUSAN M. FRANZETTI PATRICK S. COFFEY MARY BETH CYZE GARDNER, CARTON & DOUGLAS 321 North Clark Street Suite 3400 Chicago, Illinois 60610—4795 (312) 644—3000 HAROLD G. BAKER, JR. Village Attorney 56 South 65th Street Belleville, Illinois 62223 (618) 397—6444 2 19 Sc —42— ------- STATE OF tLLINOIS ) SS COUNTY OF ST. CLAIR) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS UNITED STATES OF AL RICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) and ) ) THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Civil Action No. 88-5131 ) Hon. William L. Beatty Realigned Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) VILLAGE OF SAUGET, ILLINOIS, ) ) Defendant. ) VERIFICATION I, George R. Schillinger, General Manager of the Sauget Sanitary Development and Research Association, being first d uly sworn on oath, depose and state that I have read Defendant Village of Saugets Answers to Plaintiff United States’ Second Set of Interrogatories and that these Answers are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. / ,,2 V / 4 _ , / €‘ , - ‘ orge . Schillin %r Subscribed and sworr , to before, me th,is day of ., j7flj .i(j* , 1989. fl& & . L4LIL - -- Notary Public 2195c —43— ------- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) and ) ) THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Civil Action No. 88-5131 ) Hon. William L. Beatty Realigned Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) VILLAGE OF SAUGET, ILLINOIS, ) ) Defendant. ) DEFENDANT VILLAGE OF SAUGET’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF UNITED STATES’ SECOND REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant, Village of Sauget (“Sauget”) hereby answers the United States’ Second Request for Production of flnciiments. GENERAL OBJECTIONS 1. Based on the volume of the documents to be made avail- able by Sauget in response to these Second Requests for PLoduction, Sauget objects to producing documents at the Chicago office of EPA Regional Counsel, and instead agrees to make docun énts available for inspection at Sauget Village Hall, located within the district at 2897 Falling Springs Road, Sauget, Illinois, as previously produced in connection with the plaintiff’s First Request for Production, and at a mutually convenient time as counsel may agree. ------- 2. Sauget objects to each of these Second Requests for Production to the extent that they improperly seek to require Sauget to duplicitously produce documents that were previously made available to plaintiff in connection with Saugets re- sponse to plaintiffs First Request for Production. 3. Sauget objects to each of these Second Requests for Production to the extent that they seek information that is protected from disclosure by either the attorney—client or at- torney work product privileges. 4. Sauget objects to Paragraphs A, B and C of the “Insiructions ” Seclion of the Second Request for Production to the extent that they improperly seek to require Sauget to obtain information not within its possession or control. 5. Sauget objects to Paragraph A of the “Instructions” section of the Second Request for Production on the grounds and to the extent that the United States improperly seeks to require Sauget to obtain documents not within its possession, custody or control. 6. Sauget objects to Paragraph B and C of the “Instructions” section of the Second Request for Production on the grounds that it is contrary to Rule 34(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Pursuant to Rule 34(b), Sauget will produce documents as they are kept in the usual course of busi- ness. 7. Sauget objects to Paragraph E of the “Instructions” section of the Second Request for Production on the grounds —2-. ------- that it is inconsistent with and contrary to the provisions of Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 8. Sauget objects to Paragraph F of the “Instructions” section of the Second Request for Production to the extent that is is contrary to Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 9. Sauget objects to Paragraph K of the “Instructions” section of the Second Request for Production on the grounds that is is contrary to Rule 34(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 10. Sauget objects to the “definitions” section of the Second Request for Production and incorporates herein its’ gen- eral ob jections to the “Instructions and Definitions” section of the United States’ Second Set of Interrogatories. RESPONS ANQ BJECT IONS TO PRODUCTION OF DOCUNEN 1. All documents in your possession, custody or control that are identified, referred to or used in any way in responding to the United States’ Second Set of Interrogatories. RESPONSE : Subject to and without waiving Sauget’s objections, any additional documents that are responsive to this request and which have not previously been produced or made available, will Ue produced for inspection. 2. All documents supporting or otherwise relating to any denials, allegations, claims, contentions or affir- mative defenses set forth in your answer to the United States’ Complaint in this action. —3— ------- Subject to and without waiving Sauget’s objections, any additional documents that are responsive to this request and which have not previously been produced or made available, will be produced for inspection. 3. All documents, other than any National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES”) permit, which authorize the discharge of pollutants from ABRTF to the Mississippi River, including, but not limited to,, any modifications or extensions of, or variances fr Sauget’s April 1986 ABRTF NPDES permit. Subject to and without waiving Sauget’s objection, documents that are responsive to this request and have not previously been produced or made available, will be produced for inspection. 4. RESPONSE All reports, studies, tests, and experiments that Sauget relied upon to support its response to Interrogatory No. 7 of the United States’ First Request for Production that discharges from each of its Industrial Users, as defined in the Sauget Pretreatment Ordinance, would not Pass Through or Interfere with the operation of the POTWs. At a mini- mum, provide all documents pertaining to the following industries in the Sauget area: 1. Cerro Coper Products Company 2. Amax Zinc (Big River Zinc) 3. W.G. Krummrjch Plant (Monsanto) 4. Musick Plating 5. Pfizer Pigments, Inc. Sauget objects to the term “all documents” as vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence where plaintiff —4— ------- has failed to identify or clarify the nature of the information sought, or specify the period covered by the request, or indicate how the material presently requested differs, if at all, from the documents previously made available to plaintiff. Subject to and without waiving Saugets objections, any additional documents that are responsive to this request and which have not previously been produced or made available, will be produced for inspection. 5. All reports, studies, tests, memoranda and experiments that Sauget or its consultants have written or con- ducted concerning the following: a. the cause of the fire/explosion at the ABRTF; b. the possibility of and strategies for repairing and/or correcting the damaged equipment at the ABRTF so that it can resume operation at tthe plant; c. insta]lation of adequate replacement facilities and/or the institution of operational changes in the ABRTF to take the place of the damaged and/or inoperable facilities; and d. the possibility that resuming operation of the Zimpro facilities would constitute a legitimate threat to the safety of the ABRTF workers. RESPONSE Subject to and without waiving Sauget’s objection, any ad- ditional documents that are responsive to this request and —5— ------- which have not previously been produced or made available, will be produced for inspection. Respectfully subumitted, Attorney for the Defendant Village of Sauget, Illinois QF COUNSEL : RICHARD J. KISSEL SUSAN M. FRANZETTI PATRICK S. COFFEY MARY BETH CYZE Gardner, Carton & Douglas 321 North Clark Street Suite 3200 Chicago, Illinois 60610 (312) 644—3000 HAROLD G. BAKER, JR. Village Attorney 56 South 65th Street Bellevil]e, Illinois 62223 (618) 397—6444 220 6c —6— ------- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) plaintiff, ) ) and ) THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Civil Action No. 88-5131 ) Hon. William L. Beatty Realigned Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) VILLAGE OF SAUGET, ILLINOIS, ) ) Defendant. ) DEFENDANT VILLAGE OF SAUGET’S ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF UNITED STATES THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant, Village of Sauget (“Sauget”) hereby answers the United States’ Third Set of Interrogatories. GENERAL OBJECTIONS 1. Sauget objects to each of these Interrogatories to the extent that they seek information that is protected from dis- closure by either the attorney-client or attorney work product privileges. 2. Sauget objects to each of these Interrogatories to the extent that they seek disclosure of materials prepared in an- ticipation of litigation and/or trial preparation material without the showing required by Rule 26(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ------- 3. sauget objects to each of these Interrogatorjes to the extent that they seek information or documentation that is not relevant to the issues raised in this lawsuit and not reason- ably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 4. Sauget objects to each of these Interrogatorjes to the extent that they are vague 1 overly broad, and unduly burdensome so as to render it impossible to respond in any reasonable manner or amount of time. 5. Sauget objects to each of these Interrogatories to the extent that they are unduly burdensome and speculative in that they request Sauget to search for and produce all documents supporting its present contentions and speculate as to its fu- ture contentions prior to the completion of discovery. 6. Sauget objects to Paragraphs A, B and C of the “Instructions” Section of the Interrogatories to the extent that they improperly seek to require Sauget to obtain information not within its possession, custody or control. 7. Sauget objects to Paragraph E of the “Instructions” section of the Interrogatories on the grounds that it is con- trary to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 8. Sauget objects to Paragraphs G, H and I of the “Instructions” section of the Interrogatories on the grounds that they are overbroad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, Sauget objects to the term “non—natural person” insofar as it is vague and unintelligible. —2— ------- 9. Sauget objects to Paragraph L of the “Instructions” section of the Interrogatories on the grounds that it is con- trary to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 10. Sauget objects to Paragraph N of the “Instructions” section of the Interrogatories on the grounds and to the extent that it is contrary to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS TO INTERROGATORIES 1. Please identify the person(s) who gathered the documents in response to the United States’ Third Request for Production of Documents. ANSWER : George R. Schillinger, Robert Roddy, together with counsel for Sauget. 2. Please identify the person(s) who gathered the documents in response to the United States’ Second Request for Production of Documents. ANSWER : George R. Schillinger, Robert Roddy, together with counsel for Sauget. 3. State whether it is Sauget’s contention that its submission of parts of a proposed pretreatment program to the U.S. EPA and IEPA in March and April 1981 met the requirements established at 40 C.F.R. SS 403.5, 403.8(f) and 403.9(b). If so, for each submission identify the page or pages that fulfilled the regulatory requirements cited in 40 C.F.R. SS 403.5, 403.8(f) and 403.9(b). ANSWER : Sauget objects to this Interrogatory on grounds of vagueness in that the referenced regulations have been the subject of legislative revision and the Interrogatory fails to —3— ------- clearly denote the specific version of the subject regulations to which reference is made. Sauget further objects to the characterization “parts of a proposed pretreatment program” to the extent it is intended to imply that the subject submissions were legally inadequate to comply with the then existing regulations. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Sauget contends that the proposed pretreatment programs submitted for the P/C Plant, dated March, 1981, and for the ABRTF, dated May, 1981, attempted to and did substantially comply with then cur- rent pretreatment regulations, including 40 C.F.R. SS 403.5, 403.8(f) and 403.9(b). Sauget states that the pretreatment programs submitted in 1981 were prepared using the only then available guidance materials for developing pretreatment programs, and complied with all pretreatment program requirements to the extent possible pending the completion and operation of the ABRTF regional POTW. Further answering, Sauget contends that the 1981 pretreatment programs were submitted to IEPA and EPA well in advance of the July 1, 1983 deadline for approval of POTW pretreatment programs in order to allow for IEPA and EPA’s timely responses to Sauget respecting any alleged pretreatment program deficiencies. The 1981 pretreatment program submissions complied with the above-referenced regulatory requirements by outlining and pre- senting: (1) procedures and means to ensure that all industrial users comply with general discharge prohibitions —4— ------- under 40 C.F.R. § 403.5 ( See March, 1981 submission at Sections IV, Vil—Vill; May, 1981 submission at Sections IV, Vi-vil and proposed ordinances); (2) procedures and means to ensure compliance with pretreatment program requirements pursu- ant to 40 C.F.R. S 403.8(f) ( See March, 1981 submission at Sections III, X—XII; May, 1981 submission at Sections III, lx- xi, XIII and proposed ordinances); and (3) Sauget’s legal authority to administer pretreatment programs ( See March, 1981 at Section X, May, 1981 submission at Section IX, cover letter of Sauget counsel and proposed ordinances). Sauget states that its answer to Interrogatory No. 3 may be further ascertained from a November 20, 1987 letter to plaintiff’s counsel, Jeffrey Karp, from counsel for Sauget. 4. State whether it is Sauget’s contention that its submissions of parts of a proposed pretreatment program to the U.S. EPA and IEPA on February 2, 1984, and March 20, 1984, met the requirements established at 40 C.F.R. §5 403.5, 403.8(f) and 403.9(b). If so, for each submission identify the page or pages that fulfilled the regulatory requirements cited in 40 C.F.R. SS 403.5, 403.8(f) and 403.9(b). ANSWER : Subject to and without waiving its objections, Sauget contends that the supplemental responses and information pro- vided to IEPA and EPA in February and March, 1984, responded to the joint IEPA and EPA comments on the 1981 submissions, and were prepared pursuant to IEPA and EPA guidance materials pro- vided to Sauget in 1983, which guidance did not exist in 1981. The 1984 submissions attempted to and did substantially comply with then current pretreatment regulations, including 40 C.F.R. —5— ------- §S 403.5, 403.8(f) and 403.9(b). The pretreatment program sections relied upon by Sauget in support of its answer, are the same sections identified in response to Interrogatory No. 3. Sauget also incorporates by reference herein, its answer and objections to Interrogatory No. 3 in further response to Interrogatory No. 4. 5. State whether it is Sauget’s contention that its submission of a proposed pretreatment program to the U.S. EPA and IEPA on April 13, 1984, met the requirements established at 40 C.F.R. §S 403.5, 403.8(f) and 403.9(b). If so, identify the page or pages that fulfilled the regulatory requirements cited in 40 C.F.R. § 403.5, 403.8(f) and 403.9(b). ANSWER : Sauget incorporates by reference herein, its answers and objections to Interrogatories Nos. 3 and 4 in answer and objection to Interrogatory No. 5. 6. State whether it is Sauget’s contention that the July 21, 1986, IEPA letter to Sauget requested information and procedures beyond the requirements of a federally approvable pretreatment program. If so, identify all facts and documents that support Sauget’s contention. ANSWER : Sauget ob)ects to Interrogatory No. 6 on the grounds that the phrase “information and procedures beyond the requirements of a federally approval pretreatment program” is vague and un- intelligible to the extent that the interrogatory does not clarify the use or meaning of the phrase. Sauget further objects on the grounds that the interrogatory calls for a legal conclusion and/or opinion. —6— ------- 7. State whether it is Sauget’s contention that its submission of a proposed pretreatment program to the U.S. EPA and IEPA on June 30, 1987, met the requirements established at 40 C.F.R. §S 403.5, 403.8(f) and 403.9(b). If so, identify the page or pages that fulfilled the regulatory requirements cited in 40 C.F.R. § 403.5, 403.8(f) and 403.9(b). ANSWER : Subject to and without waiving its objections, Sauget contends that its June 30, 1987 proposed pretreatment program submission responded to the joint IEPA and EPA comments on the 1984 submissions, and was prepared pursuant to IEPA and EPA guidance and direction provided to Sauget. The 1987 submission attempted to and did substantially comply with then current regulatory requirements including 40 C.F.R. §S 403.5, 403.8(f) and 403.9(b). The June, 1987 pretreatment program submission complied with the above—referenced regulator requirements by presenting: (1) procedures and means to ensure compliance with discharge prohibitions under 40 C.F.R. § 403.5( .e.e Sections 2—4); (2) procedures and means to ensure compliance with pretreatment program requirements pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 403.8(f) Sections 2—5); and (3) Sauget’s legal authority to administer a pretreatment program Section 2). Further, Sauget -incorporates by reference herein, its responses and objections to Interrogatories Nos. 3 and 4 in answer and objection to Interrogatory No. 7. 8. State whether it is Sauget’s contention that its mixing zone report submitted to the U.S. EPA and IEPA on November 4, 1988, reported instreain levels of ammonia, upstream from the ABRTF discharge point, that exceed 15 mg/L. If not, state what instreagn levels of ammonia were reported. —7— ------- ANSWER : No. Sauget states that the reported instream ammonia levels are contained in Revised Table 4—4 (Table R4-4) of the mixing zone report submitted to EPA and IEPA. 9. State whether it is Sauget’s contention that its mixing zone report submitted to the U.S. EPA and IEPA on November 4, 1988, reported instream ammonia levels, for any point at or downstream of the ABRTF discharge, that exceeded 15 mg/L. ANSWER : Yes. Sauget states that levels of ammonia at or downstream from the ABRTF discharge did exceed 15 mg/L but that these levels were reported within the allowable mixing zone. 10. State the total ammonia concentration reported in the November 4, 1988, mixing zone report for each monitoring point in the Mississippi River. AN S WER Sauget states that reported ammonia concentrations are con- tained in Table R4-4 of the mixing zone report submitted to EPA and IEPA. 11. State whether Sauget has calculated the un—ionized ammonia concentration, using the formula found at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.212, for each point in the Mississippi River that was monitored as part of Sauget’s mixing zone study, which study was reported to U.S. EPA in a November 4, 1988 submission by Sauget. If so, identify all documents that refer or relate to such a calculation. ANSWER : Sauget states that un—ionized ammonia concentrations have been calculated using the referenced formula and are included in Table R4-4 of the mixing zone report. Documents that refer or relate to such calculations include the mixing zone report. —8— ------- 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.212, and field notes and laboratory results of The Advent Group, Inc. which were previously pro- duced to plaintiff on December 14, 1989. 12. State whether it is Sauget’s contention that the ABRTF discharge is not a cause of, or that it does not contribute to, instream ammonia concentrations, at any point at or downstream of the ABRTF discharge, in excess of 15 mg/L. If Sauget so contends, state all facts that support Sauget’s contention. ANSWER : Sauget does not so contend. Sauget does contend that it is not violating the ammonia water quality control standards set forth in 35 Ill. Adm. Code S302. 13. State whether it is Sauget’s contention that the ABRTF discharge is not a cause of, or that it does not contribute to, instream un-ionized ammonia concentrations, at any point at or downstream of the ABRTF discharge, in excess of 0.04 mg/L. If Sauget so contends, state all facts that support Sauget’s con- tention. —9— ------- ANSWER : Sauget does not so contend. Sauget does contend that it is not violating the un—ionized ammonia concentrations set forth in 35 Ill. Adm. Code §302.407. Respectfully submitted, VILLAGE SAUGET By: 7 7 Y , 7 I44 ’ - SUSAN M. FRANZETT,7 Attorney for t e Defendant, Village of Sauget, Illinois OF COUNSEL : RICHARD J. KISSEL SUSAN M. FRANZETTI PATRICK S. COFFEY MARY BETH CYZE GARDNER, CARTON & DOUGLAS 321 North Clark Street Suite 3400 Chicago, Illinois 60610—4795 (312) 644—3000 HAROLD G. BAKER, JR. Village Attorney 56 South 65th Street Belleville, Illinois 62223 (618) 397—6444 4039c —10— ------- COUNTY OF ST. CLAIR ) SS STATE OF ILLINOIS ) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) and ) THE STATE OF ILLINOIS ) Civil Action No. 88—5131 Hon. William L. Beatty Realigned Plaintiff ) ) V. ) VILLAGE OF SAUGET, ILLINOIS, ) ) Defendant. VERIFICATION I, George R. Schillinger, General Manager of the Sauget Sanitary Development & Research Association, being first duly sworn on oath, depose and state that I have read Defendant Village of Sauget’s Answers to Plaintiff United States’ Third Set of Interrogatories and that these Answers are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. e R. Schil1iá Subscribed and sworx) to before me this / b ” day of ______________, 1990. Notary Public ___ St. Clair County, Illinois ------- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned, on oath, states that copies of the attached Defendant Village of Sauget s Answers to Plaintiff United States Third Set of Interrogatories were served upon counsel for the United States Department of Justice, Jeffrey Karp, by Federal Express delivery and that copies of the same were served upon all others to whom the attached Service List is addressed, by depositing same in a United States mail depository located at 321 North Clark Street, Chicago, Illinois, 60610, before the hour of 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, January 18, 1990 1990. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 18th day of January, 1990. / / 7 _ I JJ y /, Y( / Notary Public 2041c cIc, s 1. O P4ISC II I.EO NOTARY PU5LIC STATE CF ILLIN S NY C 111ISSICN EXP MAR 24.1992 ------- SERVICE LIST United States v. Village of Sauaet and State of Illinois Roger J. Marzulla Assistant Attorney General Land and Natural Resources Division United States Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530 Bruce Reppert Assistant United States Attorney Southern District of Illinois 750 Missouri Avenue, Room 330 East St. Louis, Illinois 62202 Jeffrey Karp Attorney Environmental Enforcement Section Land and Natural Resources Division United States Department of Justice P.O. Box 7611 Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 Thomas J. Martin, Jr. Assistant Regional Counsel U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 230 South Dearborn Street (5CA-TUB-3) Chicago, Illinois 60604 David A. Hindin Attorney U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring (LE—134W) 401 M Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20460 James L. Morgan, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Environmental Control Division 500 South Second Street Springfield, Illinois 62706 ------- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) and ) ) THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Civil Action No. 88-5131 ) Hon. William L. Beatty Realigned Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) VILLAGE OF SAUGET, ILLINOIS, ) ) Defendant. ) DEFENDANT VILLAGE OF SAUGET’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF UNITED STATES’ THIRD REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Pursuant to Rules 26 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant, Village of Sauget (*Sauget ) hereby answers the United States’ Third Request for Production of Documents. GENERAL OBJECTIONS 1. Based on the volume of the documents to be made avail- able by Sauget in response to the Second and Third Requests for Production, Sauget objects to producing documents at the Chicago office of EPA Regional Counsel, and instead agrees to and has made documents available for inspection at Sauget Village Hall, located within the district at 2897 Falling Springs Road, Sauget, Illinois, as previously produced in connection with the plaintiff’s First Request for Production, on December 14, 1989. ------- 2. Sauget objects to each of these Third Requests for Production to the extent that they improperly seek to require Sauget to duplicitously produce documents that were previously made available to plaintiff in connection with Sauget’s re- sponse to plaintiff’s First Request for Production. 3. Sauget objects to each of these Third Requests for Production to the extent that they seek information that is protected from disclosure by either the attorney-client or at- torney work prpduct privileges. 4. Sauget objects to Paragraph A of the “Instructions” section of the Third Request for Production on the grounds and to the extent that the United States improperly seeks to require Sauget to obtain documents not within its possession, custody or control. 5. Sauget objects to Paragraphs B and C of the “Instructions” section of the Third Request for Production on the grounds that they are contrary to Rule 34(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Pursuant to Rule 34(b), Sauget will produce documents as they are kept in the usual course of busi- ness. - 6. Sauget objects to Paragraph E of the “Instructions” section of the Third Request for Production on the grounds that it is inconsistent with and contrary to the provisions of Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 7. Sauget objects to Paragraph F of the “Instructions section of the Third Request for Production to the extent that —2— ------- it is contrary to Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 8. Sauget objects to Paragraph J of the “Instructions” section of the Third Request for Production on the grounds and to the extent that it is contrary to Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 9. Sauget objects to Paragraph K of the “Instructions” section of the Third Request for Production on the grounds that is is contrary to Rule 34(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 10. Sauget objects to the “Definitions” section of the Third Request for Production and incorporates herein its’ gen- eral objections to the “Instructions and Definitions” section of the United States’ Third Set of Interrogatories. RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 1. All documents in your possession, custody or control that are identified, referred to or used in any way in responding to the United States’ Third Set of Interrogatories. RESPONSE : Subject to and without waiving Sauget’s objections, addi- tional documents responsive to this request and which had not previously been produced or made available, were produced for inspection on December 14, 1989. 2. All documents supporting or otherwise relating to any denials, allegations, claims, contentions or affir- mative defenses set forth in your answer to the United States’ third amended complaint in this action. —3— ------- RESPONSE Sauget objects to the term “ [ aill documents supporting or otherwise relating to” as vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of ad- missible evidence where plaintiff has failed to identify or clarify the nature of the information sought, or specify the period covered by the request. Subject to and without waiving Sauget’s objections, addi- tional documents responsive to this request and which had not previously been produced or made available, were produced for inspection on December 14, 1989. 3. All documents that refer or relate to the implementa- tion of Sauget’s pretreatment program which was submitted by Sauget to U.S. EPA and IEPA n January 28, 1988, and approved by U.S. EPA on June 8, 1988, for the following companies that discharge to the P/C Plant and the ABRTF: Big River Zinc; Monsanto Chemical Company; Pfizer Pigments, Inc.; Trade Waste Incineration; Cerro Copper Products Company; Rogers Cartage Company; Ethyl Petroleum Additives Company; Musick Plating; Midwest Rubber Reclaiming Company, LanChem Corporation; and Clayton Chemical. Your re- sponse should include, but not be limited to: pretreatment program permit applications; pretreatment program permits; all sampling of each of the above listed companies’ discharges to the sewers that was performed by or for either Sauget or any of the above listed companies; all periodic compliance reports; and all compliance evaluations of any of the above listed companies that were performed by or for Sauget. RESPONSE Subject to and without waiving Sauget’s objections, addi- tional documents responsive to this request and which had not previously been produced or made available, were produced for inspection on December 14, 1989. Sauget further states that —4— ------- all, or substantially all, of the above-requested documents have previously been timely submitted to Region V of U.S. EPA as part of Sauget’s quarterly pretreatment reports required by Region V, the first of which was submitted on May 6, 1988, for the first calendar quarter of 1988 and that those documents in existence as of the June, 1989 pretreatment program audit con- ducted by the U.S. EPA Region V were previously produced at that time. 4. All documents that refer or relate to the calculation of or the amount of un-ionized anunonia concentration for each point in the Mississippi River that was monitored as part of Sauget’s mixing zone study, which study was reported to U.S. EPA in a November 4, 1988 submission by Sauget. RESPONSE Subject to and without waiving Sauget’s objections, documents responsive to this request were produced to plaintiff on December 14, 1989 and included the field notes and laborato- ry results of The Advent Group, Inc. Resp tfully submitted, USAN M. FRANZEftI g Attorney for the E fendant Village of Sauget, Illinois OF COUNSEL : RICHARD 3. KISSEL SUSAN M. FRANZETTI PATRICK S. COFFEY MARY BETH CYZE Gardner, Carton & Douglas 321 North Clark Street Suite 3200 Chicago, Illinois 60610 (312) 644—3000 —5— ------- HAROLD G. BAKER, JR. Village Attorney 56 South 65th Street Belleville, Illinois 62223 (618) 397—6444 4038c —6— ------- VL-E. U S. v. Quaker State ------- IN THE ZJWtTED STkT 3 DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT 0? PENNSYLVANIA .,, -- ) VW!TED STATES OP AHERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) Civ .1 A t on ‘ I a. -3 ) QUAKER STATE CORPORATION, ) ) Defendant. ) CCMPLAINT Plaintiff, The United States of America (‘Unjtad States), by authority of the Attorney General, and at the req of the Administrator of the United States Enviren e t,i Protection Agency (EPA ), alleges: 1. This is a civil action against Defendant, Quake Stats Corporation (Quaker Stat.), pursuant to Section 309 (b and (d) of the Clean Water Act (the Act , 33 U.S.C. I 1319( (d), as amended by the Water Quality Control Act of 1987k P b No. 100—4, 101 Stat. 41 (19$7) for Quaker State’s violations Section 301(a) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. • 1311(a). Section 301( ibit the discharge of any pollutant into waters of the d States except in compliance with, A j, Section of the Act, 13 U.S.C. j 1342. Section 402(a) of the Act authorizes the issuanc, of permits under the Ilational Pollut . Discharge Elimination System (WPDES’) that allow a person to discharge pollutants into the waters of the United States s to the terms and conditions of the NPDES iake’wgr r. ------- -2— has viol d Saction 3O1( ) of the Act by discharging poLlutants from aour .s ‘ithout NPDES permit. authorizing sj.ich das.-- SUR1SDICTION MID VEMU2 2. This Court has jurisdiction over the ubjact matter of this action pursuant to Section 309(b) of the Act, : u .s.c. S 1319(b), and 29 U.S.C. 55 1331, 1345, and 1355. Not e of the commencement of this action has been given to the Commonwealth of PennsyLvania pursuant to Section 309(b) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. 1 1319(b). 3. VenUS lies in the Western District .f Pennsylvania pursuant to Section 309(b) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. * 1319(b), and 28 U.S.C. 5 1391. Till DIPINOA)IT 4. Quaker Stat. is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware. 5. Quaker State is authorized to do business and is doing business in the C nwsa1th of Pennsylvania. 6. Quaker! Stats’s principal- place of business is in Oil City, sy1vanis. - . Quaker! State produces, purchases and refines crude oil. State also sanufictures and sells lubricants and fuels. S. Quaker Stat. is a psrson within the asaninq of section 502(5) of th Act 33 U.S.C. I 1362(5). ------- - . Q N RAL FACTUAL ALIIGATIONS .5 & all •tjj5ei. i1.Var%t hereto, Quaker State has o m op.rated or opsr ed numerous oil wells in Elk. 7 st,.1 Keai and Warrsm Counties, Pennsylvania. • 10. When Quaker State operates it. wells, oil and o r fluids are pumped to the surface and s.p.rat.d. yielding oil and brine. FTR T CLAII( FOR LIIP 11. The allegation, set forth in paragraph. 1 through 10, inclusive, ar. rsallegd -and incorporated herein by thi. reference. 12. section 301(a) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. 3 13 11(a), prohibits th.\dischare of any pollutant into navigab le vat.r. except as in apaplianc. vita Sections 301, 302, 306, 307, 318, 402 and 404 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. 33 1311, 1312, 1316, 1317, 1328, 1342 and 1344. Section 402 provide, that pollutants may be discharged tht navigable waters only in accordance vita the term. of an )IPDU permit. 13. At various times during the five years iediately precs ..tbs tiling of the complaint, Quaker stats ha. - dis ne trim diseernible, confined and discrete convs (ineli .tng, but not limited to, pits and pipes) assoejited with eil’aM gas villa owned and operated or operated by Quaker Stats into various surface water., including, but not limited to, Ho1 ’i Run, Davion Ruut, Pszuibroek Rum, the South ------- —4 Braach 5 çn•sta River, S iii. Run and tributaries of McA çth iaj - Creek. and S tswarts Run. :i4 Brine is an industrial, waste. 2. ,..B ine i a “pollutant” within the seining of the Act, 33 U.S.C. 1362(6). jo1ati Brine contains substances that are “pollutants” within the seining of Section 502(6) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. • 1362(6). 17. Each of the discernible, defined and discrete conveyances fran which Quaker State has discharged brin, into surface waters is a ‘point source’ within the neenüq of Section 502(14) of the Act, 33 u.s.c. * 1362(14). 18 • A discharge of brine by Quaker Stats from a point source is a ‘disohirge of pollutants’ within the osninq of Section 502(12) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. 1 1362(12). 19. Each of the surface waters identified in paragraph 13 is a ‘navigable water’ within the ssaninq of Section 502(7) of the Act, 33 u.s.c. a 1362(7). 30. At all tin relevant hereto, Quaker Stats has held only f - pernit authorizing Quaker St*t to discharge pollutan 1nt xos. located La *1k, Z.as, P rsst or Warren Co t fl U permit only authorized Quaksr State to fr discharge polintants from one outfall located La i ssa Comaty. All other discharges .f pollutants by Quaker Stats t nev qab1. waters from point sources located in those satins wax. hot and are not authorized by SPOU permits. ------- —5— IT yFaff M gtng 611Utanta vithout NPDZS perRits, Quaker P wur ãj Qf } jdi(f?àf:th. Act, 33 U.S.C. I 1311(1). ‘if be awar e: - 32. unless restrained by order of this Court, Quaker Stats is 1ika?ftt8r t1nu. odiachaz g. pollutants vjth t tIPOES p.rnits in violation of Section 301(a) of the Act, 33 U.S.c. j 1311(1). 23. Pursuant to Section 309 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. • 1319, as aosnd.d by the Water Quality Act of 19$?, DsfM t are sub ct to injunctiv, relief and civil penalties not to exceed $10,000 per day of violation for violations occurrinq prior to ?sbxusry:4, 19$?, the affective dat. of the Water Quality Act of 19S7, and $25,000 per day for each violation occurrinq on that dit. and thereafter. PWAY PO IIL!IP W ZV0U, Plaintiff, the United states of Aasrics prays that: 1 • Quo State be pexosasatly.. enjoined frc diactaxqin s po2lxtát fx any point sonxc. into nsviqa la vatars Ian.ly siathorisad by an $P perait: State be assasead, p arsuant to Section 309(d) of 33 L$,C. * 1329(4), as a e4 by Section 313(b)(1) of the Water Quality Act of 19*7, Peb. L. We. 20O4, a civil penalty not to axce.d ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per day for each violation *f Section 302 of the ACt, 33 U.S.C. I ------- —6— 1311, ocu wrinq prior to February 4, 1987 and $25,000 per day each violation occurring on that data and thereafter; 3. Plaintiff be awarded its costs and disbursements i this action; and and proper. 4. This Court grant such other relief as may be oust Raap.ctfull subm tt.d, ROG 3 • MARZULZIA Assistant Attorney G.n.ra Land and Natural Resources Division 3. Alan J0 nson United Statss Attorn.y Western District of Pennsylvania 41441 J d 4 ANY R YNO DS HAY I Msi$t.zW U • S. Atto My 633 .$. Post Office 4 Courthouse 7th Street I Grant Avenue Pittsbux b, PA 15219 (412) 444 3S0O U • S • spart.snt of Justice Land and Waturni Resource Div is ion bwiro asnta1 iforc nt Sect t n P.O. Mn 7611 Sen Franklin Station Washii toa, D.C. 20044 (202) 633—47 7 ------- —7— MARGV Z?OLN4D Aasi.taflt *sqional Couns.1 U.S. Envirunaent*1 Protection Ag.ncy - R.qion l IZ 841. Chestnut Building Philadelphia, PA 1.9107 Daniel Psla.r &ttorney-Advisor J.S. Environ*ental Protection agency Office of Bnforcm’ t and Coapliancs Monitoring - Water 401. N Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 30460 ------- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA U NITED STATES OF AME RICA, Plaintiff, v ) C ui Action No 88 - 306 Erie QUAKER STATE CORPORATION, Defendant. QUAKER STATE CORPORATION’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES Defendant Quaker State Corporation (“Quaker State”) sets forth the following responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of interrogatories. General Response And Objections Quaker State does not purport to have adopted or applied any definitions or instructions set forth in the outset of or at any other place in Plaintiff’s Interrogatories. Further, Quaker State does not or has not assumed improper, unproven or hypothetical facts set forth in, implied or alluded to, in Plaintiff’s lnterrogatories or accepted those allegations of Plaintiff’s claims or argumentative termiiology or characterizations which are similarly set forth, implied or alluded to. in those Interrogatories. The Answers propounded herein are without, in any way, waiving or intending to waive, but to the contrary, intending to reserve and reserving (1) ‘e ------- right to object on the ground of competency, privilege, relevancy, materiality or any other proper grounds to the use of any such Answers, for any purpose, in any subsequent step of this action; and (2)The right to object on any and all grounds, at any time. to other lr,terrogatories or other discovery procedures involving or re’ating to the subject matter of the Interrogatories answered herein. ------- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRIc’r COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and 33, Plaintiff, The United States of America, hereby requests that Defendant, Quaker State Corporation (“Quaker Statea) answer the following interrogatories separately and fully in writing under oath within thirty (30) days after service hereof. Instruct ions 1. Identification of a natural Derso . Whenever an interrogatory asks you to identify a natural person, state: (a) his full name: (b) his present or last known business address; and (C) his employer and position at the time relevant to that interrogatory. 2. Identification of øersons with resDonsjbjljty for certpj matters . Whenever an interrogatory asks you to identify each person with responsibility for certain matters, your answer should include each person with other than wholly clerical duties. The interrogatory is not limited to the head of a ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) v. ) ) QUA1 R STATE CORPORATION, Defendant. ) ) ) CIVIL NO. 88—306 Erie ------- —2— division, department, or section, but includes subordinate employees other than wholly clerical staff. 3. Identification of an entity Other than a natural Person . Whenever an interrogatory asks you to identify a “person’ which is not a natural person (e.g., a corporation), state: (a) the full name of such organization or entity; and (b) the present or last known address of such organization or entity. 4. Time period . Unless otherwise indicated, these interrogatorjes apply to the time period from January 1, 1983 through the trial of this case. DEFINITIONS 1. Brine’ means water containing any salt, including, but not limited to, sodium chloride, calcium chloride, zinc chloride, or calcium nitrate. 2. “Discharge’ means the addition of brine to any navigable waters. 3. “Docum.nt means the original of any recording of information in tangible form, or an identical copy of the original, and all non—identical copies of the original. “Document” includes, but is not limited to, letters, memoranda, contracts, agreements, minutes of meetings, handwritten or other notes, photographs, drawings, computer printouts, magnetic tapes or discs, microfilm, microfiche, tape recordings and any tangible object upon which words or other information have been recorded. ------- —3— 4. “NPDES” means National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. 5. The terms “navigable waters and “point source” have the meanings set forth in Section 502 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1362. 6. “Perscn” or “persons” means any and all natural persons, corporations, partnerships, organizations, associations, governmenta’ bodies or political or quasi—corporate subdivisions thereof, groups or other business enterprises, together with their predecessors, successors, and assigns, their agents, servants, consultants, contractors, subcontractors, employees, and representatives, and all agents and representatives thereof. 7. “Quaker State” means Defendant, Quaker State Corporation, and its divisions, directors, officers, employees, agents, independent contractors, and attorneys. 8. “Quaker State well” means any oil well located in Pennsylvania that Quaker State leased, owned, or operated at any time during the period from January 1, 1983 through the date of trial of this action. 9. “Refer or relate to” means constitute, define, contain, embody, discuss, reflect, identify, deal with, or pertain to. 10. “You or “your” refers to Quaker State. 11. The term “well site” refers to that portion of t e surface of land used to produce, store, treat or dispose of c- e oil or brine produced by a Quaker State well. ------- —4— INSTRUCTIONS 1. These interrogatories are continuing in nature and must be supplemented promptly in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e) 2. If you do not answer any interrogatory, in whole or in part, under any claim of privilege or exemption, identify the specific privilege or exemption and state the basis for your claim. 3 If any of the requested information is available in machine-readable form ( e.g. , punch, paper or magnetic tapes, - drums, discs or core storage), state the form in which it is available and describe the type of computer or other machinery required to read the information. If th. information requested is stored in a computer, indicate whether you have an existing program which will print the information in a readable form and identify the person who is most familiar with the program. If no program exists, state whether one could be developed or an existing program modified to print the information in a readable form. 4. If your answer to any interrogatory varies for different tim. periods, specify each tim. period and answer fully for each. ------- -5— INTERROGATORIES 1. State the specific factual and legal bases for your denial, set forth in paragraphs 5 and 15 of your Answer, of paragraph 8 of the Complaint. a. Identify each person with knowledge of the facts upon which your denial is based; and b. Identify all documents upon which your denial is based. QuakerState isa corporation. WhetherQuakerState isa “perwn” within the meaning of 33 U.S.C. § 1362(5) is a conclusion of law and not an averment of fact to which a response is required. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 8(d). Quaker State presently does not intend to contest that it is a “person” within the meaning of Section 502(5) of the Clean Water Act. ------- —6— 2. State the specific factual and legal bases for your denial, set forth in paragraph 6 of your Answer, of paragraph g of the Complaint. a. Identify each person with knowledge of the facts upon which your denial is based; and b. Identify all doc,.i enta upon which your denial is based. Quaker State sold all of its active oil wells, and virtually all of its inactive oil wells, in the four-county area to Pennsylvania General Energy Corp. (IIPGEN) on October 31, 1988. (a) Quaker State objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad, vague, unreasonable, burdensome and oppressive. Countless persons are aware of the sale. (b) A copy of the Agreement of Sale between Quaker State and PGE, dated September 2, 1989, is being produced. ------- —7— 3. State the specific factual and legal bases for your denial, set forth in paragraph 7 of your Answer, of paragraph io of the Complaint. a. Identify each person with knowledge of the facts upon which your denial is based; and b. Identify all. documents upon which your denial is based. Paragraph 7 of Quaker State’s Answer speaks for itself, it is not universally true in all instances at all times that oil and other fluids are pumped to the surface and separated, yielding oil and brine. Also see Response to Interrogatory 2. - ------- —8— 4. State the specific factual and legal bases for yc” deniai set forth in paragraph io of your Answer, of paragraph i of the Complaint. a. Identify each person with knowledge of the facts upon which your denial is based; and b. Identify all documents upon which your denial is based. The averments of the Complaint regarding the alleged discharges and violations were so vague, nebulous, and generalized that Quaker State was not fairly notified of the substance and grounds of the government’s claims. Inasmuch as paragraph 13 of the Complaint merely averred that “at various times” during the past S years Quaker State had “discharged ” brine from oil and gas wells :n a four-county area into “various surface waters from unspecified “conveyances,” and the Complaint had failed to identify in any fashion the wells allegedly involved, the identity, nature, number or location of the alleged conveyances, or the dates, number or location of the alleged discharges, the paragraph was nothing more than a conclusion which, to the extent a response was necessary, could not possibly be admitted in the abstract. ------- —9— 5. State the specific factual and legal bases for your denial, et forth in paragraphs 11 and 15 of your Answer, of paragraph 14 of the Complaint. a. Identify each person with knowledge of the facts upon which your denial is based; and b. Identify all documents upon which your denial is based. Paragraphs 11 and 15 of Quaker State’s Answer speak for themselves. To the extent the averment that brine is ‘an industrial waste” is alleged to have some legal relevance or significance, said averment is a legal conclusion and not an averment of fact to which a response is required. ------- — 10 — 6. State the specific factual and legal bases for your denial, set forth in paragraphs 13. and 15 of your Answer, of paragraph 15 of the Complaint. a. Identify each person with knowledge of the facts upon which your denial is based; and b. Identify all documents upon which your denial is based. Paragraphs 11 and 15 of Quaker State’s Answer speak for themselves. Whether brine is a “polIutant within the meaning of 33 U.S.C. § 1362(6) is a legal conclusion and not an averment of fact to which a response is required. ------- — 11 — 7. State the specific factual and legal bases for your denial, set forth in paragraphs 11 and 15 of your Answer, of paragraph 16 of the Co p1aint. a. Identify each person with knowledge of the facts upon which your denial is based: and b. Identify a].]. documents upon which your denial is based. Paragraphs 11 and 15 of Quaker State’s Answer speak for themselves. Whether brine contains substances that are “pollutants” within the meaning of 33 U.S.C. § 1362(6) isa conclusion of law and not an averment of fact to which a response is required. ------- — 12 — 8. State the specific factual and legal bases for youi denial, set forth in paragraphs 13. and 15 of your Answer, of paragraph 17 of the Complaint. a. Identify each person with knowledge of the facts upon which your denial is based; and b. tdentify all documents upon which your denial is based. See response to Interrogatory 4. Further, whether whatever the government was referrtng to in Paragraph 17 of the Complaint are point sources” is a legal conclusion and not an averment of fact to which a response is required. ------- — 13 — 9. State the specific factual and legal bases for your denial, set forth in paragraphs 11 and 15 of your Answer, of paragraph 18 of the Complaint. a. Identify each person with knowledge of the facts upon which your denial is based; and b. Identify all documents upon which your denial is based. See response to Interrogatory 4. Further, whether whatever the 9 overnment was referring to in Paragraph 18 of the Complaint were discharges of pollutants within the meaning of 33 U S.C. - §1362(12) is a conclusion of law and not an averment of fact to which a response was required. ------- — 14 — 10. State the specific factual and legal bases for your denial, set forth in paragraphs 11 and 15 of your Answer, o ’ paragraph 19 of the Complaint. a. Identify each person with knowledge of the facts upon which your denial is based; and b. Identify all documents upon which your denial is based. Upon information and belief, not all of the surface waters identified ‘in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint are navigable. Whether they are “navigable waters” within the meaning of 33 U.S.C. § 1362(7) is a legal conclusion and riot an averment of fact to which a response is required. Quaker State presently does not intend to contest that the surface waters specifically named in Paragraph 13 are “navigable waters” within the meaning of Section 502(7) of the Clean Water Act. ------- — 15 — 11. State the specific factual and legal bases for your denial, set forth in paragraph 12 of your Answer, of paragraph 20 of the Complaint. a. Identify each person with knowledge of the facts upon which your denial is based; and b. Identify all documents upon which your denial is based. Paragraph 12 of Quaker State’s Answer speaks for itself Quaker State had been issued NPDES permits for at least five different facilities in the four-county area. See responses to Interrogatories 30 and 31. Quaker State on October 31, 1988 sold all of its active oil wells and virtually all of its inactive oil wells in the four-county area and no longer holds any NPDES permits. See response to Interrogatory 2. Inasmuch as the Complaint failed to specifically identify the alleged discharges which are the subject of this action, Quaker State was unable to respond to allegations characterizing the alleged discharges. ------- — 16 — 12. State the specific factual and legal bases for your denial, set forth in paragraph 13 of your Answer, of paragraph 21 of the Complaint. a. Identify each person with knowledge of the facts upon which your denial is based; and b. Identify all documents upon which your denial is based. Inasmuch as Quaker State was not fairly notified in the Complaint of the bases and grounds of the alleged violations, Quaker State obviously could not admit to violations. See responses to preceding Interrogatories. ------- — 17 — 13. State the specific factual and legal bases for your denial, set forth in paragraph 13 of your Answer, of paragraph 22 of the Complaint. a. Identify each person with knowleage of the facts upon which your denial is based; and b. Identify all documents upon which your denial is based. All of the active oil wells, and virtually all of its inactive oil wells, had been sold by Quaker State prior to the filing of the Complaint. See responses to Interrogatories 2 and 12. ------- — 18 — 14. State the specific factual and legal bases for your denial, set forth in paragraph 13 of your Answer, of paragraph 23 of the Complaint. a. Identify each person with knowledge of the facts upon which your denial is based: and b. Identify all documents upon which your denial is based. See responses to Interrogatories 12 and 13. Further, no civil penalties would be appropriate in this case. ------- — 19 — 15. Do you contend that the alleged sale of Quaker States’ wells on October 31, 1988 completely bars Plaintiff’s claims? If you answer is not an unqualified “no,” a. Identify each person with knowledge of the facts upon which your contention is based; and b. Identify all documents that refer or relate in any way to your contention. The sale of Quaker State’s wells in the four-county area prec!udes, at minimum, claims against Quaker State for penalties for violations after October 31, 1988 and for injunctive relief. See response to Interrogatory 2. ------- — 20 — 16. State the specific factual and legal bases for your contention, made in your Third Defense, that DER had represented, expressly and impliedly, that NPDES permits were not necessary for discharges of brine, and Quaker State had so relied. a. Identify each person with knowledge of the facts upon which your contention is based; and b. Identify all documents that refer or relate in any way to your contention. DER has been delegated authority to administer the federal Clean Water Act NPDES permitting program. DER representatives frequently and regularly observed -- and were often advised -- how Quaker State was handling its brine, yet DER did not object to the methods being used by Quaker State and DER never brought any enforcement actions for unpermitted discharges of brine. DER representatives indicated that they were not concerned with small amounts of brine entering streams (other than those designated High Quality or Exceptional Value) from primary production activities. Further, DER representatives approved and encouraged the dilution of brine via additidn of fresh water. See also response to Interrogatories 17 and 22. (a) Quaker State objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad and unreasonably burdensome, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State responds that such persons could include Kenneth Young, William Mentzer, Alan Welsh and James Erb (DER); Charles Cleeman, William Colley, Alvin Morris, and James Seif (EPA); and persons listed on Addendum Three. (b) Quaker State objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad and unreasonably burdensome, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State responds that such documents include: Letter to W. Mentzer (DER) to L. Kardos, dated 7/17/80 Plaintiff already possesses other such documents, including but not limited to those produced during discovery in this case. ------- — 23. — 17. State the specific factual and legal bases for your contention, made in your Fourth Defense, that DER had discouraged submission of NPDES permit applications for discharges of brine, and DER had failed or refused to act upon applications for NPDES permits that were submitted. a. Identify each person with knowledge of the facts upon which your contention is based; and b. Identify all documents that refer or relate in any way to your contention. DER advised Quaker State that it was not prepared to administer or enforce the NPDES program and that permits would not be issued tn the foreseeable future. DER did not seek NPDES permits for discharges of brine, particularly from primary production wells and for streams other than those of High Quality or Exceptional Value. Applications to DER for NPDES permits were not acted upon promptly, if at all, resulting in a backlog of permit applications. DER did not have the resources to process many permit applications, and no effluent guidelines existed for writing NPDES permits for stripper wells. As a result. Quaker State and the oil industry was forced to operate often in the absence of NPDES permits. See also responses to Iriterrogatories 16 and 22. (a) Quaker State objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad and unreasonably burdensome, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Many persons at DER and other governmental agencies, including EPA, know these facts, and it was common knowledge thrOugh t the oil industry. Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State responds that such persons could include Kenneth Young, William Mentzer, Alan Welsh and James ERB (DER); Charles Cleeman, William Colley, Alvin Morris and James Seif (EPA); and persons listed on Addendum Three. (b) Quaker State objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad a a unreasonably burdensome, oppressive and expensive to whicr’ to respond. Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State responds that Plaintiff already possesses such docume’ s including some that were provided to Quaker State durirg discovery in this case, including but not limited to Memo from A. Morris (EPA) to S Laskowski (EPA), da ec 8/6/8 5. ------- — 22 — 18. State the specific factual and legal bases for your contentions, made in your Fifth Defense, that no permits were required for any discharges from impoundments, by virtue or 25 Pa. Code § 101.4, and that DER had determined that no permits were necessary. a. Identify each person with knowledge of the facts upon which your contention is based; and b. Identify all documents that refer or relate in any way to your contention. Under the terms of 25 Pa. Code §101 .4(c)(4), no permit is required for impoundments unless DER determines that a permit is necessary to insure that pollution may not result from the use, operation or maintenance of the impoundment. DER never determined, and never advised Quaker State of any determination, that permits for Quaker State impoundments in the four-county area were necessary. DER has been delegated authority to administer the federal Clean Water Act program. ------- — 23 — 19. State the specific factual and legal bases for your contention, made in your Sixth Defense, that Plaintiff’s claims are barred because Quaker State has been denied due process and equal protection under the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions. a. Identify each parson with knowledge of the facts upon which your contention is based; and b. Identify all documents that refer or relate .n any way to your contention. See responses to Interrogatories 16, 17, 18,20,22,23 and 24, u.s. Const. amends. V & XIV, and Pa. Const. Art. 1, § 1, 9; Art. 8, §32. ------- — 24 — 20. State the specific factual and legal bases for your contention, made in your Seventh Defense, that Plaintiff’s claims for relief are barred by virtue of the doctrines of bad faith, waiver, laches, unclean hands and estoppel. a. Identify each person with knowledge of the facts upon which your contention is based; and b. Identify all documents that refer or relate in any way to your contention. Inasmuch as discovery is Continuing and the factual bases for these defenses are largely within the control of Plaintiff and other - governmental entities, Quaker State does not have complete knowledge of all such bases at this time. However, Quaker State can state that DER indicated that NPDES permits were not necessary for small discharges of brine such as from primary production operations, that DER discouraged submission of applications for permits for such discharges, that DER did not not have the resources to process the applications which would have had to have been submitted, that DER and EPA were aware that discharges of brine were occurring and never took enforcement action, that DER and EPA failed to develop effluent guidelines that would allow permitting of discharges to streams, that DER and EPA engaged in numerous discussions with the industry regarding the brine problems and represented that enforcement would not be pursued pending other solutions, that EPA repeatedly requested information with respect to brine and consistently represented to Quaker State that such data was not for purposes of enforcement, when in fact EPA was preparing an enforcement action, and that EPA represented to Quaker State that, in lieu of a consent decree, no enforcement action would be taken if Quaker State shut down its wells, which Quaker State did. See also response to Interrogatories 16,17 and 22. (a) Quaker State objects to this Interrogatory as being unreasonably burdensome, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State responds that numerous representatives of DER, EPA and Quaker State would have such knowledge, including James Erb and Kenneth Young (EPA), James Seif and Terry Oda (EPA), and the persons listed on Addendum Three. (b) Quaker State objects to this Interrogatory as being unreasonably burdensome, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State responds that the numerous documents would include those identified elsewhere in these Interrogatories and othe’s in possession of Plaintiff and other governmental entities ------- — 25 — 21. State the specific factual and legal bases for your contention, made in your Eighth Defense, that plaintiff’s claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. a. Identify each person with knowledge of the facts upon which your contention is based and b. Identify all documents that refer or relate in any way to your contention. To the extent Plaintiff seeks penalties for alleged violations which occurred more than five (5) years ago, Plaintiff’s claims are barred by ------- — 26 — 22. State the specific factual and legal bases for your contention, made in your Ninth Defense, that Quaker State a all times has engaged in good faith efforts to comply with the provisions of the Clean Water Act and to Cooperate with Plaintiff and the DER. a. Identify each person with 3a owledge of the facts upon which your contention is based; and b. Identify all. documents that refer or relate in any way to your contention. See attached pages 26(a) and (b). ------- -26(a)- Quaker State has at all times engaged in good faith efforts to comply with the provisions of the Clean Water Act and to cooperate with the EPA and the Pennsylvania DER, and to the extent the Interrogatory purports to require an exhaustive recitation of all such efforts, Quaker State objects to it as unreasonably vague, burdensome, oppressive and expensive Without prejudice to those objections, however, Quaker State responds, by way of illustration and not of limitation, as follows: After the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania assumed primacy for the NPDES program, Quaker State contacted DER to inquire as to the status of applications that had been submitted earlier Quaker State was informed that DER was not ready to administer or enforce the NPDES program and that permits would not be issued at any foreseeable time. Quaker State engaged in interim compliance measures to avoid damage to streams, which both the DER and the Pennsylvania Fish Commission were aware of and approved. A large Quaker State lease in Warren County, the Grunder, was revamped to centralize brine collection. Negotiations were undertaken for discharge to a publicly owned treatment works, the Warren Boro Treatment Authority, but it ultimately rejected the material. Quaker State obtained options from area landowners in order to acquire a right of way to the Allegheny River from the Grunder in preparation for obtaining an NPDES permit authorizing river discharge. The municipality made the determination that this was an industrial pipeline, however, and advised Quaker State that it was necessary for the land to be rezoned. Quaker State’s application for rezoning was rejected by the Warren Boro Zoning Board, precluding the possibility of river discharge. The DER would not issue a permit for discharge into Grunder Run. So Quaker State hauled the brine from the Grunder lease for injection at a distant water flood project, at great expense. Quaker State contacted several consulting and engineering firms to find a feasible method of treating brine fluids prior to discharge. Quaker State also investigated experimental two-stage fixed evaporation units and portable technologies, but determined that they could not be viable. Quaker State has participated in the funding through cash, goods and services of a research oroject at The Pennsylvania State University for purposes of developing a genetic NPDES permit for on-site discharges of shallow oil well brine in western Pennsylvania Quaker State also explored the option of brine Injection wells, but rejected that option after being informed that it was highly unlikely that DER would permit such a disposal well. Additionally, dual permitting requirements (state and federal) as well as the high cost and speculative nature of these projects made them impractical Quaker State also explored the option of road spreading with municipalities in those counties where it had shallow well operations, but only two municipalities agreed, even though Quaker State provided the brine, equipment, manpower and material. ------- -26(b). In October 1986, Quaker State received a “Section 308 letter” from the EPA requesting detailed information on brine handling practices in the four-county area Quaker State wrote to then Region Ill EPA Director Jim Seif urging the agency to forego an enforcement initiative in favor of working with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the shallow oil producers to find a viable method of stream discharge that would protect the environment and that could be achieved within the small economic margin available to these very low producing wells. Quaker State was assured by EPA that this was not intended to be an enforcement action Quaker State cooperated fully with the EPA by meeting with its personnel and by providing information far beyond that requested in the 308 letterto assist in EPA’s understanding of the dilemma facing DER and those stftpper wells which typically produced less than one barrel of oil per day. Quaker State demonstrated to EPA that its operations in the four-county area were substantially, if not completely, in compliance with the Clean Water Act and identified for the EPA the several leases where the potential for brine discharges existed and where Quaker State’s detailed analysis and assessment of the situation concluded that only a generic on-site discharge permit could resolve the situation. Since such a permitting system is not yet available in Pennsylvania, Quaker State. explained to EPA that the only other option would be to shut the wells down. EPA urged Quaker State to enter into a consent order whereby EPA would give Quaker State some reasonable period of time to bring the wells into “compliance.” Quaker State informed EPA that such a commitment on Quaker State’s part would be illusory inasmuch as no “compliance” options were in existence. Accordingly, in lieu of a consent order, Quaker State agreed to immediately shut in all wells that had been identified as having a potential for brine discharge in that four-county area of northwest Pennsylvania, and Quaker State did in fact shut in said wells. EPA inspectors verified this fact in June 1988 and, to the best of Quaker State’s knowledge, the wells were never operated subsequent to that date. Quaker State believed that the matters which were the subject of the 308 letter had been concluded to the EPA’s satisfaction. (a) Quaker State objects to this Interrogatory as being unreasonably burdensome, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Without prejudice to these objections, numerous person would have such knowledge, including Thomas Baird. Sam Barber, Kurt Mealey, David Lind, Al Haney, Roger Nelson Mary R. White and others on Addendum Three, Steve Rhoads (POGAM); Kenneth Young and James Erb (DER), Terry Oda and James Seif (EPA); representatives of the Pennsylvania Fisri Commission, and others identified elsewhere in these responses to Interrogatories. (b) Quaker State objects to this Interrogatory as being unreasonably burdensome, oppressive and expensive to wn’- to respond. Without prejudice to these objections, numero ..c documents would include those oroduced elsewhere and others in possession of Plaintiff and the governmental ent ------- — 27 — 23. State the specific factual and legal bases for your contention, made in your Tenth Defense, that Plaintiff’s claims are barred because of the failure to give adequate notice to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. a. Identify each person with knowledge of the facts upon which your contention is based; and b. Identify all documents that refer or relate in any way to your contention. DER has been delegated authority to administer the federal NPDES permit program under the Clean Water Act, and EPA should be barred from initiating enforcement on its own without consulting with DER. Further, Section 309 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1319, contemplates that EPA notify the State of alleged violations so that the State can initiate enforcement actions, and requires that notice of an EPA civil action must be given immediately to the State. Plaintiff admits that DER was not given any written notice prior to initiation of this action in December 1988 and that DER was given no notice that an action had been commenced until April 14, 1989, after Quaker State had inquired about what notice Plaintiff had given to DER. See Plaintiff’s Answers to First Set of Interrogatories, ¶j3. ------- — 28 — 24. State the specific factual and legal bases for your contention, made in your Eleventh Defense, that Plaintiff’s claims are barred as selective enforcement and arbitrary and capricious agency action. a. Identify each person with knowledge of the facts upon which your contention is based; and b. Identify all documents that refer or relate in any way to your contention. See attached page 28(a). ------- -28(a)- See response to Interrogatories 16, 17, 18,20,22 and 23. It is common knowledge that most oil operations in Pennsylvania have or have had discharges of brine to surface waters as a result of their operations. Yet Quaker State, even though it is no longer operating oil wells in the four-county area, is the target of a civil action by EPA. There is no legitimate reason for this selective enforcement. Quaker State also is, upon information and belief, the only company which has been sued for costs allegedly incurred by the federal government in connection with the Northwestern Pennsylvania Major Oil Spill Project. (a) Quaker State objects to this Interrogatory as so vague as not to permit a meaningful response and so broad as to be unreasonably oppressive, burdensome and expensive to which to respond. Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State responds that such persons include numerous officials of the EPA, USFS and DER, including James Seif (EPA), William Colley (EPA), Ruth Seeger (USFS), Ernie Rozelle (USFS), James Erb (DER), and Kenneth Young (DER). (b) Quaker State objects to this Interrogatory as so vague as not to permit a meaningful response and so broad as to be unreasonably oppressive, burdensome and expensive to which to respond. Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State responds that numerous documents generated by the EPA, USFS and DER support these facts including: - Letter, dated 4/2/86, from J. Seif (EPA) to N. DeBenedictus (DER); - Memo, dated 7/28/86, from R. Seeger (USFS) to E. Rozelle (USFS). Furthermore, as evidenced by the lack of specificity in Plaintiff’s Complaint and its inability to provide any details of alleged discharges and violations in response to Quaker State’s First Set of lnterrogatortes, Plaintiff initiated this action in the absence of any knowledge or proof of violations or harm. ------- -28(b)- Special Objection - Incorporated in Response to lnterropator,es 25- 36 Quaker State specifically objects to each Interrogatory to the extent it purports to require information regarding oil wells and well sites located beyond the four-county area in Pennsylvania in which the alleged discharges and violations which are the subject of this action supposedly occurred. Each such overly broad Interrogatory is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and responding thereto would be unreasonably oppressive, burdensome and expensive. ------- — 29 — 25. For each Quaker State well, state: a. the geographic location (by Township, Range, Section, and other location reference) of the well; b. the name and designation of the well; C. the time period(s) during which you operated the well; d. the time period(s) during which you owned the well; a. the identity of each of your employees, contractors, and agents who performed any work or other duties at, or in connection with the operations at, the well site; f. the amounts of crude oil and brine produced by the well on a daily, weekly or monthly basis; g. the amount of brine produced for each gallon or barrel of oil produced from or through the well: h. the holding capacity of any tank, pit or other container that received brine from the well; i. the method(s) used to dispose of the brine produced by the well (e.g., transport to treatment plant; release to stream, etc.); . the composition of the brine; and k. identify each person with knowledge of the matters referenced in a. through is, above, and 1. identify all documents that refer or relate any way to the matters references in a. through j., above. See attached pages 29(a) and (b). ------- 29(a). The Special Objection is incorporated by reference herein. (a-b) See summaries of oil wells attached hereto as Addenda One and Two. (c) Addenda One and Two reflect which properties and oil wells were active and inactive at the time of sale to PGE. Addendum Four reflects for each property whether it had oil production during the period 1983- 1989. Quaker State’s records generally do not reflect when each individual well was operated, and certain wells within a property which had production during a year may not have been operated during that year. For example, upon information and belief only two wells in the Haight (Cooper Tract) property, Forest County, were operating during the 1980’s. (d) Quaker State sold all of its active oil wells, and virtually all of its inactive oil wells, in the four-county area to PGE on October 31, 1988. Addenda One and Two list all oil wells owned by Quaker State in the four-county area during the 1980’s. - Quaker State has retained and still owns certain inactive oil wells in the Bradford Oil Field, McKean County. All such properties retained and still owned by Quaker State have been designated on Addendum One. (e) Quaker State objects to this Interrogatory as so vague as not to permit a meaningful response and so overly broad as to be unreasonably oppressive, burdensome and expensive to which to respond. Without prejudice to these objections, see Addendum Three for a list of managerial and supervisory personnel who likely were involved in operations in the four. county area sometime during 1983-1988. In addition, hundreds of hourly employees in various field positions may have worked in the four-county area during this period. (f) Quaker State maintains records of oil production by property, not by individual well. Addendum Four is a summary of annual gross oil production for all producing properties in the four- county area for the years 1983-1989. Quaker State does not maintain records of amounts of brine produced. Documents relating to or reflecting estimates of brine production for wells in the four-county area are being produced. (g) Quaker State does not maintain records of amounts of brine produced. Documents reflecting or relating to estimates of brine-to- water ratios for wells in the four-county area are being produced. ------- -29(b) (h) Quaker State objects to this Interrogatory as being unreasonably burdensome, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State responds that tanks, pits and containers that received brine from wells varied in size. Quaker State does not maintain records for such information. (i) Quaker State objects to this Interrogatory as being unreasonably burdensome, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State responds that a variety of methods were used to dispose of brine produced by wells in the four-county area. These methods included evaporation pits, overflow pits, dilution. recycling for use in water flood operations, collection in tanks, transport to private treatment plants, road spreading, and treatment and discharge per NPDES permits. Documents reflecting or relating to methods of disposal of brine for certain properties are being produced. (j) Quaker State objects to this Interrogatory as being - unreasonably burdensome, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State responds that various analyses of brine were performed at various properties and wells at various times. Documents purporting to reflect the results of these analyses are being produced. (k) See response to subsection (e). (I) See responses to preceding subsections and documents being produced. ------- — 30 — 26. Identify each release of brine from any point source on any well site that has occurred since January i, 1983. For each such release: a. State the dates on which the release occurred; b. Identify the point source from which the brine was released; c. State the name and geographic location of the well site on which the point source is or was located and identify the Quaker State well, if any, with which the point source is associated; d. Identify the cause of the release; e. State the volum, of brine released; f. State the chemical composition of the re1ea brine; g. State whether the released brine flowed into any navigable waters and, if so, identify the navigable waters; h. Describ, what happened to the brine (e.g., absorbed by soil; removed by Quaker State, etc.) if the released brine did not flow into any navigabl, waters,; i. Describe any efforts made by or on behalf of Quaker Stat. to prevent or limit such release: j. Identify each person with knowledge of the matters referenced in a. through i., above, and k. Identify all documents that refer or relate any way to such release. See attached page 30(a). ------- -30(a). The Special Objection is incorporated by reference herein. Quaker State objects to this Interrogatory as so vague as not to permit a meaningful response. In particular, the use of the undefined term “release,” especially in Conjunction with such defined legal terms as “point source” and “discharge,” renders this interrogatory u n Co mp re hens’ b I e. Quaker State further objects to this Interrogatory as unreasonably oppressive, burdensome and expensive to which to respond. Quaker State does not maintain records of releases or discharges of brine. While Quaker State cannot state that no releases or discharges of brine have occurred, it likewise at this time cannot provide specific information about specific releases or discharges that may have occurred. This response does not purport to set forth the knowledge of each individual person within Quaker State ------- — 31 — 27. Has Quaker State ever made any effort to identif point sources located on well sites from which brine could be discharged? If your answer is not an unqua]ified,noa, a. Describe all such efforts; b. Identify each person responsible for such efforts; and c. Identify all documents that refer or relate in any way to such efforts. The Special Objection is incorporated by reference herein. To the extent this Interrogatory seeks information or documents about every attempt by anyone at Quaker State to identify point sources at any well site. Quaker State objects to it as unreasonably burdensome, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. (a-b) Formal, broad-based efforts include field investigations in response to req uests for information by DER and EPA coordinated by Thomas Baird, Environmental Coordinator (c) Documents include: - Letter, dated 11/20/86, from 1. Baird to W. Brttt of DER, Bureau of Oil & Gas Management. - Letter, dated February 5, 1987, from D. Calland to A. Morris, EPA Water Management Division, and enclosures thereto. ------- — 32 — 28. Has Quaker State ever made any effort to ensure that brine produced by any Quaker State well was not discharged in violation of Section 301(a) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a)? If your answer is not an unqualified,no, a. Describe all such efforts; b. Identify each person responsible for such efforts; and c. Identify all documents that refer or relate in any way to such efforts. The Special Objection is incorporated by reference herein. To the extent this Interrogatory requests information and documents about every effort made by anyone at Quaker State regarding any well or at anytime, Quaker State objects to it as unreasonably burdensome, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Further, Quaker State objects to the use of legal conclusions and argument within the Interrogatory and to being required to make legal conclusions and characterizations in order to attempt to respond to this Interrogatory. Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State responds as follows: (a) Quaker State’s corporate efforts included applying for NPDES permits, obtaining NPDES permits, utilizing pits and tanks to collect brine, transporting brine to private treatment plants, road-spreading, recycling for use in water flood operations, surveys and studies, ceasing operations, and dealings with DER and EPA in an attempt to resolve the problems posed by the requirements of the Clean Water Act. (b) See Addendum Three. (c) Documents referring or relating to such efforts are being produced in response to other interrogatories and requests for documents. See also response to Interrogatory 22. ------- — 33 — 29. Identify each person employed by or otherwise associated with Quaker State who was responsible at any time Since July 1, 2.977 for ensuring that Quaker State did not discharge brine produced by any Quaker State well in violation of Section 301(a) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1321. For each such person, state the period during which such person had such responsibility. The Special Objection is Incorporated by reference herein. Quaker State objects to this Interrogatory as so vague as not to permit a meaningful response, as requiring defendant to make legal conclusions and characterizations in order to respond, and as unreasonably burdensome, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Quaker State further objects to the request insofar as it dates back to 1977, inasmuch as the violations alleged in this action supposedly occurred no earlier than 1983, and hence is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State responds as follows: See Addendum Three. ------- — 34 — 30. State whether you have ever submitted to any federal, state or local governmental agency an application for a permit to discharge brine produced by any Quaker State well. If your answer is not an unqualified no”, for each such application: a. Identify the point source covered by the application; b. Identify the agency to whom the application was submitted; c. State the date that the application was submitted to the agency; - d. State the status of th. application; e. Identify all document(s) that refer or relate in any way to the application; and f. Identify each person who participated in the preparation of the application. See attached page 34(a). ------- -34(a)- 30. The Special Objection is incorporated by reference herein. Quaker State has submitted applications for NPDES permits at at least SIX facilities in the four-county area, including Brinton, Carison, Craft, Enright, Grunder, and Webb. (a-c) Copies of all applications currently in Quaker State’s files are contained in Addendum Five. (d) NPDES permits were issued for Webb and Enright. No permit was issued for the Grunder facility Quaker State at this time does riot know that any other permits were actually issued (e) Quaker State objects to this Interrogatory as unreasonably vague, broad, burdensome and oppressive. Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State responds that in addition to Addendum Five, Quaker State is producing documents referring or relating to the applications. (f) Kurt Mealey was the principal person who prepared the Bririton, Carlson, Craft and Enright applications Sam Barber principally prepared the Webb application, and Thomas Baird principally prepared the Grunder application. Quaker State further responds that information arid documents requested are within the possession, custody and control of Plaintiff ------- — 35 — 31. Have you ever been issued any permit to discharge brine produced by any Quaker State well? If your answer is not an unqualified “no”, for each such permit that you have been issued -— a. Identify the agency that issued the permit; b. Identify the discharge covered by the permit; c. State the time period during which the permit was or is in effect; d. Identify all document(s) that refer or relate in any way to such permit; and - e. Identify each person responsible for ensuring that you complied with the permit. The Special Objection is incorporated by reference herein. (a-c) Copies of permits for the Webb and Enright facilities are contained in Addendum Five. Quaker S t ate does not currently have copies of any other permits in its files. (d) NPDES permits were issued for Webb and Enright. No permt was issued for the Grunder facility. Quaker State at this time does not know that any other permits were actually issued T the extent this Interrogatory seeks documents other than Addendum Five, Quaker State objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad, vague, unreasonably burdensome, oppressive and expensive. Without prejudice to these objections, Quake’ State responds that certain such documents are being produced elsewhere in response to these Interrogatories and Request for Documents. (e) Quaker State objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it requires a legal conclusion and further objects to it as vague irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without prejudice to these objections Quaker State responds that Samuel Barber and Thomas Ba were involved in compliance with permits. Quaker State further responds that information and documents requested are within the possession, custody and control of Plai’- ------- — 36 — 32. Identify each person presently or formerly employed by or otherwise associated With Quaker State who participated in any discussion with any employee of DER concerning the need for, or issuance of, NPDES permits for discharges of brine. The Special Objectior is incorporated by reference herein. Quaker State objects to this Interrogatory as so vague as not to permit a meaningful response and so overfy broad as to require unreasonable oppression, burden and expense. Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State responds that such persons could include those listed on Addendum Three. ------- — 37 — 33. Has Quaker State ever conducted any training program relating to Compliance with Section 301(a) of the Clean Water Act? If your answer is not an Unqualified “no”, a. Describe the program; b. State the period during which Quaker State implemented the program; c. Identify all documents that refer or relate in any way to the program; and d. Identify the person(s) responsible for implementing the program. The Special Objection is Incorporated by reference herein. Quaker State objects to this Interrogatory as so vague as not to permit a meaningful response and so overly broad as to require unreasonable oppression, burden and expense, particularly with respect to the potential breadth of such terms as “training pro 9 ram ” and “compliance with Section 301(a) of the Clean Water Act.’ Quaker State further objects to this Interrogatory’s use of legal conclusions and as requiring legal conclusions to respond to it. Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State responds that its employees were provided with Instructions regarding compliance with the Clean Water Act, as appropriate and necessary, as part of the ongoing supervision of employees and management of the company. Additionally, representatives of Quaker State attended seminars regarding the Clean Water Act. ------- — 38 — 34. Have you ever received complaints, inquiries or other co unications from any person concerning releases or discharges of brine from any Quaker State well or any other point source located on any well site? If your answer is not an unqualified “no’, a. Identify each person who made such a complaint, inquiry or other communication; b. State the date when the complaint, inquiry or other communication was made; c. S’-’ arize the complaint, inquiry or other communication; d. Describe the actions taken, if any, by Quaker State in response to the complaint, inquiry or other communication; e. Identify all documents that refer or relate in any way to any such complaint, inquiry or other communication; and f. Identify each person formerly or presently employed by or otherwise associated with Quaker State who has knowledge of such matters. See attached page 38(a). ------- -38(a)- The Special Objection is incorporated by reference herein. Quaker State objects to this Interrogatory as so vague as not to permit a meaningful response and so overly broad asto be unreasonably oppressive, burdensome and expensive to which to respond. Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State responds that it has records of two reported complaints by governmental agencies regarding brine since 1983 in the four-county area: Tributary to Pennbrook Run (a) D.F. Parrish, Pennsylvania Fish Commission (b) 10/27/83 (c) Alleged discharge of brine water to tributary to Pennbrook Run. (d) Complaint resolved through settlement. (e) See documents being produced. (f) Persons would include Thomas Baird, Environmental Coordinator. Unnamed Run to Pithole Creek (a) Joseph Kopena, Pennsylvania Fish Commission (b) 9/18/84 (c) Alleged discharge of brine water to an unnamed run to Pithole Creek. Cd) Complaint resolved through settlement. (e) See documents being produced. (f) Persons would include D.A. Wozniak, former Senior Engineer. There may have been complaints by non-governmental individuals, but Quaker State is not aware of any documentation regarding same. ------- — 39 — 35. Has Quaker State ever undertaken to determine at any time since July 1, 1977 whether Quaker State was or is in compliance with Section 301(a) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a)? If you answer is not an unqualified Nno#, a. Summarize the actions taken to determine whether Quaker State was or is in compliance; b. Identify each person who participated in determining whether Quaker State was or is in compliance; and c. Identify each document that was reviewed or relied upon in determining whether Quaker State was or is in compliance. The Special Objection is incorporated by reference herein. Quaker State objects to this Interrogatory as so vague as not to permit a meaningful response and as so overly broad as to be unreasonably oppressive burdensome and expensive to which to respond. Further, Quaker State objects to the use of legal conclusions as the predicate for both the Interrogatory and any response thereto. Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State references its responses to lnterrogatories 27 and 28. ------- — 40 — 36. Has Quaker State ever been a party to any other lawsuit, or the subject of any other enforcement action, under any state or federal environmental law, including, but not limited to, the federal Clean Water Act? If your answer is not an unqualified no, a. Identify each such lawsuit or other enforcement action (by names of parties, court or other venue, and action or term number); b. Describe the allegations made against Quaker State in each such lawsuit or other enforcement action; c. Stat. the status of each such lawsuit or other enforcement action; and d. For each such lawsuit or other enforcement action that was settled or othervis. resolved, state the terms of each such settlement or resolution. The Special Objection is incorporated by reference herein. Quaker State objects to this Interrogatory as irrelevant, not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, overly broad, and unreasonably oppressive, burdensome and expensive to which to respond. ------- — 41 — 37. Identify each expert witness whom you expect to call, to tastify at the trial of this case, and for each such expert witness: a. Identify the subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify; b. State the substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify; c. Provide a summary of the grounds for each Opinion; and d. Identify all documents upon which his testimony is based. Inasmuch as Plaintiff has not yet provided any particulars regarding the substance of its alleged case, Quaker State is in no position to ascertain whether it will call an expert witness at trial. ------- — 42 — 38. Identify each lay witness whom you expect to call to testify at the trial of this case, and for each such person: a. Provide a suary of his or her expected testimony; and b. Identify each document upon which his or her testimony will be based. Inasmuch as Plaintiff has not yet provided any particulars regarding the substance of its alleged case, Quaker State is in no position to ascertain whom it may call as witnesses at trial. ------- — 43 — RICHARi B. STEWART Assistant Attorney General Land and Natural Resources Division CHARLES 0. SMEEHY Acting United States Attorney Western District of Pennsylvania Assistant u .s. Attorney Federal Building & Courthouse 6th & State Streets Erie, PA (814) 452—2906 ( 2 PATRI CIA KABLACH CASANO, Attorney U.S. Department of Justice Land and Natural Resources Division Environmental Enforcement Section P.O. Box 7611 Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 (202) 633—4797 OF COUNSEL : MARY ST • PETER Ass istant Regional Counsel U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region III 841 Chestnut Building Philadelphia, PA 19107 DANIEL PAI R Attorney-Advisor U • S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring - Water 401 H Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20460 ------- -44- Objections by: Kenneth K. Kilbert Babst, CaHand, Clements and Zomnir, PC Two Gateway Center Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 394-5400 Counsel for Defendant Quaker State Corporation ------- A F E I D A 7 I T CO *(ONWEALTH OF ?!NNSYLVANIA ) ) 33: CO JNTY OF Venanpo Before me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Carl J. Carlson, who, being duly sworn according to law, deposed and said that he is Manager of Exploration and Production of Quaker State Corporation and in that capacity executed this Affidavit on behalf of Quaker State Corporation and is - duly authorized to do so. He further deposed and said that the matters stated in the foregoing Responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories are not wholly within the personal knowledge of affiant and that affiant is informed that there is no official of Quaker State Corporation who has personal knowledge of all such matters, but that the Responses have been made based upon information assembled by authorized employees, and affiant is informed that the Responses are true and correct. (T //fl _ /24 / L Carl”J . çar1son ‘ —. Sworn to and subscribed before me this 14th day of November, 1989. / Notary P, lic / My PMir S1 . P *11 d P aS ------- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA UNITED STATES’ REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS Pursuant to Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil - Procedure, Plaintiff, The United States of America, requests that Defendant, Quaker State Corporation (“Quaker State”), respond separately to each of the following requests for admission within thirty (30) days after service hereof. INSTRUCTIONS A. Unless the time period is otherwise specifically stated, the time period to which the requests for admissions are directed is from December 1, 1983 through November 30, 1988. If your response varies for different portions of this time period, specify each time period and respond fully for each. DEFINITIONS A. The United States repeats and incorporates herein by reference the definitions set forth in Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories. B. “Lot” means and shall refer to lot, tract, or warrant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Plaintiff, ) V. ) QUAKER STATE CORPORATION, Defendant. ) ) CIVIL NO. 88—306 Erie ------- C. “Brine” means and shall refer to brine, produced water and/or effluent. REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION 1. Quaker State is a corporation. 2. Quaker State is incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware. 3. Quaker State’s principal place of business is located at 255 Elm Street, Oil City, Pennsylvania. 4. Quaker State is authorized to do business in Pennsylvania. 5. Quaker State is a “person” within the meaning of Section 502(5) of the Clean Water Act (the “Act”), 33 U.s.c. § 1362(5). 6. Quaker State owned and/or operated the Griffen Lease, Lot No. 223. 7. Quaker State owned and/or operated the Proper Patterson Lease. 8. Quaker State owned and/or operated the Jenks Lease, Lot Nos. 217, 218, and 219. 9. Quaker State owned and/or operated the Walton Glenn Lease, Lot No. 220. 10. Quaker State owned and/or operated the Wagner Lease, Lot No. 216. 11. Quaker State owned and/or operated the Hodder Lease. 12. Quaker State owned and/or operated the A Flick Lease. —2— ------- 13. Quaker State owned and/or operated the Tionesta Sand & Gravel Lease. 14. Quaker State owned and/or operated the Maxwell Lease, Lot No. 4006. 15. Quaker State owned and/or operated the Webb Lease, Lot No. 3337. 16. Quaker State owned and/or operated the Cochran Lease, Lot Nos. 7 and 407. 17. Quaker State owned and/or operated the Mikula Lease, Lot No. 7-3599. 18. Quaker State owned and/or operated the Big Shanty 100. and 488 Leases, Lot No. 2275. 19. Quaker State owned and/or operated the Grunder Leases, Lot Nos. 454 and 484. 20. Whenever oil was produced, measurable quantities of brine were also produced at the Griffen Lease, Lot No. 223. 21. Whenever oil was produced, measurable quantities of brine were also produced at the Proper Patterson Lease. 22. Whenever oil was produced, measurable quantities of brine were also produced at the Jenks Lease, Lot Nos. 217, 218, and 219. 23. Whenever oil was produced, measurable quantities of brine were also produced at the Walton Glenn Lease, Lot No. 220. 24. Whenever oil was produced, measurable quantities of brine were also produced at the Wagner Lease, Lot No. 216. —3— ------- 25. Whenever oil was produced, measurable brine were also produced at the Hodder Lease. 26. Whenever oil was produced, measurable brine were also produced at the A Flick Lease. 27. Whenever oil was produced, measurable brine were also produced at the Tionesta Sand & 28. Whenever oil was produced, measurable brine were also produced at the Maxwell Lease, 29. Whenever oil was produced, measurable brine were also produced at the Webb Lease, Lot 30. Whenever oil was produced, measurable quantities of quantities of quantities of Gravel Lease. quantities of Lot No. 4006. quantities of No. 3337. quantities of brine were also produced at the Cochran Lease, Lot Nos. 7 and 407. 31. Whenever oil was produced, measurable quantities of brine were also produced at the Mikula Lease, Lot No. 7-3599. 32. Whenever oil was produced, measurable quantities of brine were also produced at the Big Shanty 100 and 488 Leases, Lot No. 2275. 33. Whenever oil was produced, measurable quantities of brine were also produced at the Grunder Leases, Lot Nos. 454 and 484. 34. Oil was produced on the Griffen Lease, Lot No. 223, at least weekly during the period December 1, 1983 to June 30, 1988. 35. Oil was produced on the Proper Patterson Lease, at least weekly during the period December 1, 1983 to June 30, 1988. —4— ------- 36. Oil was produced on the Jenks Lease, Lot Mos. 217, 218, and 219, daily during the period December 1, 1983 to September 30, 1988. 37. Oil was produced on the Walton Glenn Lease, Lot No. 220, daily during the period December 1, 1983 to September 30, 1988. 38. Oil was produced on the Wagner Lease, Lot No. 216, daily during the period December 1, 1983 to September 30, 1988. 39. Oil was produced on the Hodder Lease, at least weekly during the period December 1, 1983 to June 30, 1988. 40. Oil was produced on the A Flick Lease, daily during the period December 1, 1983 to December 31, 1985. 41. Oil was produced on the Tionesta Sand & Gravel Lease, daily during the period December 1, 1983 to December 31, 1985. 42. Oil was produced on the Maxwell Lease, Lot No. 4066, daily during the period December 1, 1983 to September 30, 1988. 43. Oil was produced on the Webb Lease, Lot No. 3337, daily during the period December 1, 1983 to September 30, 1987. 44. oil was produced on the Cochran Lease, Lot Nos. 7 and 407, daily during the period December 1, 1983 to December 31, 1985. 45. Oil was produced on the Mikula Lease, Lot No. 7-3599, daily during the period December 1, 1983 to December 31, 1987. 46. Oil was produced on the Big Shanty 100 and 488 Leases, Lot No. 2275, daily during the period December 1, 1983 to September 31, 1988. —5— ------- 47. Oil was produced on the Grunder Leases, Lot Nos. 454 and 484, daily during the period December 1, 1983 to September 31, 1988. 48. Quaker State discharged brine produced on the Griffen Lease, Lot No. 223, by two outfalls to a tributary of Pithole Creek. 49. Quaker State discharged brine produced on the Proper Patterson Lease, by one outfall to a tributary of Pithole Creek. 50. Quaker State discharged brine produced on the Jenks Lease, Lot Nos. 217, 218, and 219, by thirteen outfalls to Holeman Run and/or a tributary of Stewarts Creek. 51. Quaker State discharged brine produced on the Walton Glenn Lease, Lot No. 220, by ten outfalls to Dawson Run. 52. Quaker State discharged brine produced on the Wagner Lease, Lot No. 216, by fourteen outfalls to a branch of Holeman Run. 53. Quaker State discharged brine produced on the Hodder Lease, by one outfall to a tributary of McArthur Run. 54. Quaker State discharged brine produced on the A Flick Lease, by two outfal].s to Holeman Run. - 55. Quaker State discharged brine produced on the Tionesta Sand & Gravel Lease, by three outfal].s to a tributary of Holeinan Run. 56. Quaker State discharged brine produced on the Maxwell Lease, Lot No. 4006, by one outfall to Pennbrook Run. —6— ------- 57. Quaker State discharged brine produced on the Webb Lease, Lot No. 3337, by one outfall to Kendall Creek. 58. Quaker State discharged brine produced on the Cochran Lease, Lot Nos. 7 and 407, by three outfalls to the south branch of Tionesta Creek. 59. Quaker State discharged brine produced on the Mikula Lease, Lot No. 7-3599, by one outfall to Sill Run. 60. Quaker State discharged brine produced on the Big Shanty 100 and 488 Leases, Lot No. 2275 to “navigable waters” of the United States as defined by § 507 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1362 (7) . - 61. Quaker State discharged brine produced on the Gruner Leases, Lot Nos. 454 and 484, and/or other leases owned and/or operated by Quaker State, to Grunder Run and/or its branches or tributaries. 62. Quaker State never applied for an NPDES permit pursuant to Section 402 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1342, for any outfalls from the Griffen Lease, Lot No. 223. 63. Quaker State never applied for an NPDES permit pursuant to Section 402 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1342, for any outfalls from the Proper Patterson Lease. 64. Quaker State never applied for an NPDES permit pursuant to Section 402 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1342, for any outfalj.s from the Jenks Lease, Lot Nos. 217, 218, and 219. 65. Quaker State never applied for an NPDES permit pursuant —7— ------- to Section 402 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1342, for any outfalls from the Walton Glenn Lease, Lot No. 220. 66. Quaker State never applied for an NPDES permit pursuant to Section 402 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1342, for any outfalls from the Wagner Lease, Lot No. 216. 67. Quaker State never applied for an NPDES permit pursuant to Section 402 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1342, for any outfalls from the Hodder Lease. 68. Quaker State never applied for an NPDES permit pursuant to Section 402 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1342, for any outfalls / from the A Flick Lease. - 69. Quaker State never applied for an NPDES permit pursuant to Section 402 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1342, for any outfalls from the Tionesta Sand & Gravel Lease. 70. Quaker State never applied for an NPDES permit pursuant to Section 402 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1342, for any outfalls from the Maxwell Lease, Lot No. 4006. 71. Quaker State never applied for an NPDES permit pursuant to Section 402 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1342, for any outfalls from the Cochran Lease, Lot Nos. 7 and 407. 72. Quaker State never applied for an NPDES permit pursuant to Section 402 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1342, for any outfa].ls from the Mikula Lease, Lot No. 7-3599. 73. Quaker State never applied for an NPDES permit pursuant to Section 402 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1342, for any outfalls from the Big Shanty 100 and 488 Leases, Lot No. 2275. —8— ------- 74. An NPDES permit was never issued to Quaker State for any discharges from the Griffen Lease, Lot No. 223. 75. An NPDES permit was never issued to Quaker State for any discharges from the Proper Patterson Lease. 76. An NPDES permit was never issued to Quaker State for any discharges from the Jenks Lease, Lot Nos. 217, 218, and 219.. 77. An NPDES permit was never issued to Quaker State for any discharges from the Walton Glenn Lease, Lot No. 220. 78. An NPDES permit was never issued to Quaker State for any discharges from the Wagner Lease, Lot No. 216. 79. An NPDES permit was never issued to Quaker State for any discharges from the Hodder Lease. 80. An NPDES permit was never issued to Quaker State for any discharges from the A Flick Lease. 81. An NPDES permit was never issued to Quaker State for any discharges from the Tionesta Sand & Gravel Lease. 82. An NPDES permit was never issued to Quaker State for any discharges from the Maxwell Lease, Lot No. 4006. 83. An NPDES permit was never issued to Quaker State for any discharges from the Cochran Lease, Lot Nos. 7 and 407. 84. An NPDES permit was never issued to Quaker State for any discharges from the Mikula Lease, Lot No. 7-3599. 85. An NPDES perm-it was never issued to Quaker State for any discharges from the Big Shanty 100 and 488 Leases, Lot No. 2275. —9— ------- 86. Pithole Creek and its tributaries are “navigable waters” of the United States as defined by § 507 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1362(7). 87. Stewarts Creek and its tributaries are “navigable waters” of the United States as defined by § 507 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1362(7). 88. Holeman Run and its branches and tributaries are “navigable waters” of the United States as defined by § 507 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1362(7). 89. Dawsori Run and its tributaries are “navigable waters” of the United States as defined by § 507 of the Act, 33 U.S.c. - § 1362(7). 90. McArthur Run and its tributaries are “navigable waters” of the United States as defined by § 507 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1362(7). 91. Pennbrook Run and its tributaries are “navigable waters” of the United States as defined by § 507 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1362(7). 92. Kendall Creek and its tributaries are “navigable waters” of the United States as defined by § 507 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1362(7). 93. Tionesta Creek and its branches and tributaries are “navigable waters” of the United States as defined by § 507 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1362(7). 94. Sill Run and its tributaries are “navigable waters” of the United States as defined by § 507 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. — 10 — ------- § 1362(7). 95. Grunder Run and its branches and tributaries are “navigable waters” of the United States as defined by § 507 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1362(7). 96. Document nos. 0500907-956 are true and correct copies of reports prepared by Cherokee Environmental Services for Quaker State concerning the discharge of brine from the Proper Patterson Lease to Pithole Creek and/or its branches and tributaries in the years 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1986. 97. Brine from the Proper Patterson Lease was discharged into Pithole Creek and/or its branches and tributaries on the dates shown on document flOs. 0500907-956. 98. Document flog. 0500959—1008, 0501011—1049 and 0501062—69 are true and correct copies of reports prepared by Cherokee Environmental Services for Quaker State concerning the discharge of brine from the Griffen Lease, Lot 223 to Pithole Creek and/or its branches and tributaries in the years 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1986. 99. Brine from the Griffen Lease, Lot 223 was discharged into Pitho].e Creek and/or its branches and tributaries on the dates shown on document flOs. 0500959-1008, 0501011-1049 and 0501062—69. 100. Document nos. 0501073—82 are true and correct copies of reports prepared by Cherokee Environmental Services for Quaker State concerning the discharge of brine from the Hodder Lease to — 11 — ------- McArthur Run, Pithole Creek, and/or their branches and tributaries in the years 1984, 1985 and 1986. 101. Brine from the Proper Patterson Lease was discharged into Hodder Run, Pithole Creek and/or their branches and tributaries on the dates shown on document flOS. 0501073-82. RICHARD B. STEWART Assis By: JEI J./ZTA ED SN’ U.S.fDepartment of Justice Environment and Natural Resources Division Environmental Enforcement Section P.O. Box 7611 Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 (202) 514—3974 THOMAS W. CORBETT, JR. United States Attorney Western District of Pennsylvania By: 4ç7 t 4-. ’ LI. i( 1 a*_ — JAME J. R9 S Assistant Jnited States Attorney Federal Building & Courthouse 6th & State Streets Erie, PA (814) 452—2906 neral — 12 — ------- OF COUNSEL : MARY ST. PETER Assistant Regional Counsel U.S. Environmental Protection Agency -- Region III 841 Chestnut Building Philadelphia, PA 19107 DA.NIEL PALMER Attorney-Advisor U.S. Environmental. Protection Agency Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring - Water 401 M Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20460 — 13 — ------- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) Civil Action No. 88 - 306 Erie ) QUAKER STATE CORPORATION, ) Defendant. DEFENDANT’S RESPONSES TO UNITED STATES’ REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS Defendant Quaker State Corporation (“Quaker State”) sets forth the following responses to the United States’ Requests for Admissions. Quaker State does not purport to have adopted or applied any definitions or instructions set forth in or incorporated by reference in the Request for Admissions. The responses propounded herein are without, in any way, waiving or intending to waive, but to the contrary, intending to reserve and reserving the right to object on the grounds of competency, privilege, relevancy, materiality or any other proper grounds to the use of any such Responses, for any purpose, in any subsequent step of this action. ------- RESPONSES 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted. 6. It is admitted that Quaker State owned or operated the Griffin Lease until November 2, 1988 when the lease was sold to Pennsylvania General Energy Corp. (“PGE”). To the extent the Request implies that Quaker State operated wells on the lease throughout the period or that each well was operated throughout the period, said averments are denied. 7. It is admitted that Quaker State owned or operated the Proper Patterson Lease until November 2, 1988 when the lease was sold to PGE. To the extent the Request implies that Quaker State operated wells on the lease throughout the period or that each well was operated throughout the period, said averments are denied. 8. Quaker State objects to the Request as vague and ambiguous in its use of the term Jenks Lease, in that it is unclear whether Plaintiff is including the hlJenksA wells which were never owned by Quaker State but rather by Barber Coal 2 ------- Co. Without prejudice to its objections, it is admitted that Quaker State owned or operated portions of property known as the Jenks Lease until November 2, 1988. To the extent the Request implies that Quaker State operated wells on the property throughout the period, that each well was operated throughout the period, or that Quaker State owned the lease for the entire property, said averments are denied. 9. It is admitted that Quaker State owned or operated the Walton Glenn Lease until November 2, 1988 when the lease was sold to PGE. To the extent the Request implies that Quaker State operated wells on the lease throughout the period or that each well was operated throughout the period, said averments are denied. 10. It is admitted that Quaker State owned or operated the Wagner Lease until November 2, 1988 when the lease was sold to PGE. To the extent the Request implies that Quaker State operated wells on the lease throughout the period or that each well was operated throughout the period, said averments are denied. 11. Quaker State objects to the Request as vague and ambiguous in its use of the term Hodder Lease, in that it is unclear whether Plaintiff is including the “Hodder” wells which were never owned by Quaker State but rather by Barber Coal Co. Without prejudice to its objections, it is admitted that Quaker State owned or operated portions of property known as the Hodder Lease until November 2, 1988. To the extent the Request implies that Quaker State operated wells on the lease throughout the period, that each well was operated throughout the period or that Quaker State owned the lease for the entire property, said averments are denied. 3 ------- 12. It is admitted that Quaker State owned or operated the A Flick Lease until November 2, 1988 when the lease was sold to PGE. To the extent the Request implies that Quaker State operated wells on the lease throughout the period or that each well was operated throughout the period, said averments are denied. 13. It is admitted that Quaker State owned or operated the Tionesta Sand & Gravel Lease until November 2, 1988 when the lease was sold to PGE. To the extent the Request implies that Quaker State operated wells on the lease throughout the period or that each well was operated throughout the period, said averments are denied. 14. It is admitted that Quaker State owned or operated the Maxwell Lease. To the extent the Request implies that Quaker State operated wells on the lease throughout the period or that each well was operated throughout the period, said averments are denied. 15. It is admitted that Quaker State owned or operated the Webb Lease. To the extent the Request implies that Quaker State operated wells on the lease throughout the period or that each well was operated throughout the period, said averments are denied. 16. It is admitted that Quaker State owned or operated the Cochran 407 and 7 Leases. To the extent the Request implies that Quaker State operated wells on the leases throughout the period or that each well was operated throughout the period, said averments are denied. 4 ------- 17. It is admitted that Quaker State owned or operated the Mikula Lease until November 2, 1988 when the lease was sold to PGE. To the extent the Request implies that Quaker State operated wells on the lease throughout the period or that each well was operated throughout the period, said averments are denied. 18. It is admitted that Quaker State owned or operated the Big Shanty 100 and 488 Leases until November 2, 1988 when the leases were sold to PGE. To the extent the Request implies that Quaker State operated wells on the leases throughout the period or that each well was operated throughout the period, said averments are denied. 19. It is admitted that Quaker State owned or operated the Grunder 454 and 484 Leases until November 2, 1988 when the leases were sold to PGE. To the extent the Request implies that Quaker State operated wells on the leases throughout the period or that each well was operated throughout the period, said averments are denied. 20-33. Quaker State objects to Requests 20 through 33 as so vague and ambiguous in their use of the term “measurable” in particular as not to permit a meaningful response. What quantity the government feels is “measurable” is unknown. Quaker State further objects to these Requests as overly broad and unduly burdensome, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Quaker State did not maintain regular records of brine production and certainly did not constantly measure brine production at the leases. Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State responds as follows: After reasonable inquiry, Quaker State cannot admit or deny that a quantity of brine was always produced whenever a quantity of 5 ------- oil was produced. Quaker State further responds that it is not an immutable geologic fact that brine is always produced whenever oil is produced. It is admitted that for most leases generally some amount of brine would be produced when oil was produced. Soecial Obiection And Response To Reguests 34 - 47 Quaker State objects to Requests 34 through 47 as unduly burdensome, oppressive, annoying and expensive to which to respond. Quaker State does not maintain oil production records on a weekly or daily basis, these Requests cover hundreds of wells over three counties and two Quaker State district offices over multiple years, Quaker State no longer owns or operates the wells, and many of the personnel who worked the leases are no longer employed by Quaker State. Without prejudice to these objections, which are incorporated by reference into each of its Responses to Requests 34 - 47, Quaker State responds as follows: 34. It is admitted that oil was produced on the Griffin Lease each month during the period December 1, 1983 through June 30, 1988. Itis admitted that oil generally would have been produced weekly, but after reasonable inquiry, Quaker State cannot admit or deny that oil was produced at least weekly from December 1983 through May 1988. It is denied that oil was produced each week during June 1988. 35. It is admitted that oil was produced on the Proper Patterson Lease each month during the period December 1, 1983 through May 31, 1988. t is admitted that oil generally would have been produced weekly, but after reasonable 6 ------- inquiry, Quaker State cannot admit or deny that oil was produced at least weekly throughout that period. It is denied that oil was produced during June 1988. 36. With respect to the Quaker State Jenks lease, it is admitted that oil was produced each month during the period December 1, 1983 through September 30, 1988. It is denied that oil was produced at least daily throughout that period. With respect to Barber Coal Co.’s Jenks lease, it is admitted that oil was produced each month during the period April 1985 through June 30, 1988. It is admitted that at times oil would have been produced daily, but it is denied that oil was produced at least daily throughout that period. It is denied that oil was produced daily prior to April 1985. With respect to the term “Jenks Lease,” Quaker State incorporates by reference its objections set forth in Response 8. All remaining averments are denied. 37. It is admitted that oil was produced on the Walton Glenn Lease each month during the period December 1, 1983 through June 30. 1988. It is denied that oil was produced at least daily throughout that period. 38. It is admitted that oil was produced on the Wagner Lease each month during the period December 1, 1983 through June 30, 1988. It is denied that oil was produced at least daily throughout that period. 39. With respect to Quaker State’s Hodder lease, it is admitted that oil was produced during most, but not all, months during the period December 1, 1983 through March 1, 1988. It is denied that oil was produced at least weekly throughout that period, and it is denied that oil was produced during April-June 1988. With respect to the Barber Coal Co.’s Hodder lease, it is admitted that oil was 7 ------- produced in November 1984 and in each month during the period April 1985 through June 1988. It is admitted that oil generally would have been produced weekly, but after reasonable inquiry, Quaker State cannot admit or deny that oil was produced at least weekly throughout those periods. It is denied that oil was produced weekly prior to April 1985. With respect to the term “Lease,” Quaker State incorporates by reference its objections set forth in Response 11. All remaining averments are denied. 40. It is admitted that oil was produced on the A Flick Lease each month during the period December 1, 1983 through December 31, 1985. It is denied that oil was produced at least daily throughout that period. - 41. It is admitted that oil was produced on the Tionesta Sand & Gravel Lease each month during the period December 1, 1983 through December 31, 1985. It is denied that oil was produced at least daily throughout that period. 42. It is admitted that oil was produced on the Maxwell Lease each month during the period December 1, 1983 through December 31, 1985. It is admitted that at times oil would have been produced daily, but it is denied that oil was produced at least daily throughout that period. It is specifically denied that oil was produced daily after January 1, 1986. All remaining averments are denied. 43. It is admitted that oil was produced on the Webb Lease each month during the period December 1, 1983 through September 30, 1987, with the exception of August 1987.- It is admitted that at times oil would have been produced daily, but it is denied that oil was produced at least daily throughout that period. All remaining averments are denied. 8 ------- 44. It is admitted that oil was produced on the Cochran Lease Lot No 7 each month during the period December 1, 1983 through October 31, 1 985. It is denied that oil was produced during November and December 1985, and it is denied that oil was produced at least daily throughout that period. Itis admitted that oil was produced on the Cochran Lease Lot No. 407 each month during the period December 1, 1983 through December 31, 1985. It is denied that oil was produced at least daily throughout that period. All remaining averments are denied. 45. It is admitted that oil was produced on the Mikula Lease each month during the period December 1, 1983 through December 31, 1987, with the exception of July 1984 and January 1987. Itis admitted that at times oil would have been produced daily, but it is denied that oil was produced at least daily throughout that period. All remaining averments are denied. 46. It is admitted that oil was produced on the Big Shanty 100 and 488 Leases each month during the period December 1, 1983 through September 30, 1988. It is admitted that oil would have been produced daily at times, but itis denied that oil was produced at least daily throughout that period. All remaining averments are denied. 47. It is admitted that oil was produced on the Grunder Lease Lot No. 454 each month during the period December 1, 1983 through September 30, 1988. It is denied that oil was produced at least daily throughout that period. It is admitted that oil was produced on the Grunder Lease Lot No. 484 during most, but not all, months from December 1983 through May 1986. It isdenied that oil was produced 9 ------- at least daily throughout that period and it is denied there was production after May 1986. All remaining averments are denied. 48. ltisadm lttedthatatcertaintimesprjortojufle lg88adiluted effluent, consisting primarily of freshwater and of a small amount of brine from less than all of the wells on the lease, wasdischarged from pits at two locations following treatment and that a portion of said effluent made its way to a tributary of Pithole Creek. It is specifically denied that there were any discharges to surface water after June 3, 1988. All remaining averments are denied. 49. It is admitted that atcerta in times prior to June 1988 a diluted effluent, consisting primarily of freshwater and of a small amount of brine, was discharged from a pit following treatrnentand.that a portion of said effluent made its way to a tributary of Pithole Creek. It is specifically denied that there were any discharges to surface water after June 3, 1988. All remaining averments are denied 50. It is admitted that atcerta in times prior to fall 1987 a diluted effluent, consisting primarily of freshwater and of a small amount of brine from wells on the Barber Coal Co.’s Jenks lease, was discharged from one pit following treatment and that a portion of said effluent found its way to surface water. It is specifically denied that there was any discharges prior to April 1985. It is also admitted that in early 1987 Quaker State represented to Plaintiff there were twelve other locations on the Quaker State and Barber Coal Jenks leases from which brine conceivably could have made its waytosurface water. After reasonable investigation, Quaker State cannot admit or deny whether there ever were discharges of brine to surface watersfrorri those locations. Any discharge from any of these locations would have been of extremely small quantity and extremely 10 ------- intermittent. Not all brine produced on the leases went to these locations, It is specifically denied that there was any discharges after June 3, 1988. All remaining averments are denied. 51. It is admitted that Quaker State in early 1987 represented to the Plaintiff there were ten locations on the Walton Glenn Lease from which brine conceivably could have made its way to Dawson Run. After reasonable investigation, Quaker State cannot admit or deny whether there ever were discharges of brine to surface waters from those locations. Any discharge from any of those ten locations would have been of extremely small quantity and extremely intermittent. Not all brine produced on the Walton Glenn Lease went to those ten - locations. It is specifically denied that there were any discharges to surface waters after June 3, 1988. All remaining averments are denied. 52. It is admitted that Quaker State in early 1987 represented to the Plaintiff there were fourteen locations on the Wagner Lease from which brine conceivably could have made its way to a branch of Holeman Run. After reasonable investigation, Quaker State cannot admit or deny whether there ever were discharges of brine to surface waters from those locations. Any discharge from any of those fourteen locations would have been of extremely small quantity and extremely intermittent. Not all brine produced on the Wagner Lease went to those fourteen locations. It is specifically denied that there were any discharges to surface waters after June 3, 1988. All remaining averments are denied. 53. It is admitted that Quaker State in early 1987 represented to the Plaintiff there was one location on the Hodder Lease from which there conceivably could have been a discharge to a tributary of McArthur Run. After reasonable 11 ------- investigation, Quaker State cannot admit or deny that there ever was a discharge of brine to surface waters from that location. Any discharge from that location would have been of a treated, diluted effluent consisting primarily of fresh water and a small amount of brine (from less than all wells on the Hodder property), and only a portion of the effluent could have made its way to a surface water. it is specifically denied that there could have been any discharges to surface waters prior to approximately November 1984, during December 1984- March 1985, or after June 3, 1988. All remaining avermentsare denied. 54. It is admitted that Quaker State in early 1987 represented to the Plaintiff there were two locations on the A Flick Lease from which brine conceivably could have made its way to Holeman Run. After reasonable investigation, Quaker State cannot admit or deny that there was ever a discharge to surface waters from those locations. Any discharge from any of those two locations would have been of extremely small quantity and extremely intermittent. Not all brine produced on the A Flick Lease went to those two locations. No brine could have been produced or discharged following final cessation of operations in approximately July 1986. All remaining averments are denied. 55. It is admitted that Quaker State in early 1987 represented to the Plaintiff there were three locations on the Tionesta Sand & Gravel Lease from which brine conceivably could have made its way to a tributary of Holeman Run. After reasonable investigation, Quaker State cannot admit or deny that there was ever a discharge to surface waters from those locations. Any discharge from any of those three locations would have been of extremely small quantity and extremely intermittent. No brine could have been produced or discharged following final 12 ------- cessation of operations in approximately August 1986. All remaining averments are denied. 56. It is admitted that Quaker State in early 1987 represented to the Plaintiff there was one location on the Maxwell Lease from which brine conceivably could have made its way to Pennbrook Run. After reasonable Investigation, Quaker State cannot admit or deny there ever was a discharge of brine to surface waters from that location. Not all brine produced on the Maxwell Lease went to that location. All remaining averments are denied. 57. Quaker State admits that brine produced on the Webb Lease was discharged via one permitted outfall to Kendall Creek until approximately October 1987. The remaining averments are denied. 58. It is admitted that Quaker State in early 1987 represented to Plaintiff there were three locations on the Cochran Leases from which brine conceivably could have made its way to the south branch of Tionesta Creek. After reasonable investigation, Quaker State cannot admit or deny there ever was a discharge of brine to surface waters from those locations. Any discharge from any of those three locations would have been of extremely small quantity and extremely intermittent. No brine could have been produced or discharged from the Cochran Lease Lot No. 7 following cessation of operations in approximately October 1985. No brine could have been produced or discharged from the Cochran Lease No. 407 following cessation of operations in approximately June 1986. All remaining averments are denied. 13 ------- 59. It is admitted that Quaker State in early 1987 represented to the Plaintiff there was one location on the Mikula Lease from which brine conceivably could have made its way to surface waters. After reasonable Investigation, Quaker State cannot admit or deny there ever was a discharge of brine to surface waters from that location. Any discharge from that location would have been of extremely small quantity and extremely intermittent. All remaining averments are denied. 60. Denied, based upon best information available. 61. It is admitted that prior to about mid-1985 brine from some wells on certain leases in the vicinity of Grunder Run -- but not Grunder Leases Nos. 454 and 484 -- went into a pit, that occasionally brine from the pit overflowed through a pipe onto the surface of the ground and that some portion of the brine sometimes found its way to a tributary of Grunder Run. Any such discharges would have been small in quantity and intermittent in nature. It is specifically denied that there were discharges of brine after mid-1985. All remaining averments are denied. 62-85. Admitted. 86. Quaker State objects to the Request as calling for speculation as to what Plaintiff considers tributaries. Quaker State further objects to the Request inasmuch as Section 507 of the Act does not define “navigable waters”. Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State admits that Pithole Creek is a “navigable water” of the United States. 87. Quaker State objects to the Request as calling for speculation as to what Plaintiff considers branches and tributaries. Quaker State further objects to 14 ------- the Request inasmuch as Section 507 of the Act does not define “navigable waters.” Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State admits that Stewarts Creek is a “navigable water” of the United States. 88. Quaker State objects to the Request as calling for speculation as to what Plaintiff considers branches and tributaries. Quaker State further objects to the Request inasmuch as Section 507 of the Act does not define “navigable waters.” Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State admits that Holeman Run is a “navigable waterl of the United States. 89. Quaker State objects to the Request as calling for speculation as to - what Plaintiff considers tributaries. Quaker State further objects to the Request inasmuch as Section 507 of the Act does not define “navigable waters”. Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State admits that Dawson Run is a “navigable water” of the United States. 90. Quaker State objects to the Request as calling for speculation as to what Plaintiff considers tributaries. Quaker State further objects to the Request inasmuch asSection 507 oftheActdoesnotdefine “navigablewaters”. Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State admits that McArthur Run is a “navigable waterN of the United States. 91. Quaker State objects to the Request as calling for speculation as to what Plaintiff considers tributaries. Quaker State further objects to the Request inasmuch as Section 507 of the Act does not define “navigable waters”. Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State admits that Pennbrook Run is a “navigable water” of the United States. 15 ------- 92. Quaker State objects to the Request as calling for speculation as to what Plaintiff considers tributaries. Quaker State further objects to the Request inasmuch as Section 507 of the Act does not define “navigable waters”. Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State admits that Kendall Run is a “navigable water” of the United States. 93. Quaker State objects to the Request as calling for speculation as to what Plaintiff considers branches and tributaries. Quaker State further objects to the Request inasmuch as Section 507 of the Act does not define “navigable waters.” Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State admits that Tionesta Creek is a “navigable water” of the United States. 94. Quaker State objects to the Request as calling for speculation as to what Plaintiff considers tributaries. Quaker State further objects to the Request inasmuch as Section 507 of the Act does not define “navigable waters”. Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State admits that Sill Run is a “navigable water” of the United States. 95. Quaker State objects to the Request as calling for speculation as to what Plaintiff considers branches and tributaries. Quaker State further objects to the Request inasmuch as Section 507 of the Act does not define “navigable waters.” Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State admits that Grunder Run is a “navigable water” of the United States. 96. It is admitted that Document Nos. 500907-947 are true and correct copies of documents furnished by Cherokee Environmental Services to Quaker State. 16 ------- It is denied that Document Nos. 500948-956 were furnished by Cherokee. The remaining averments characterizing the documents also are denied. To the contrary, the documents pertain to a diluted effluent consisting primarily of fresh water and a small amount of brine which had undergone treatment, Pithole Creek and a specific tributary thereof, on the dates set forth in the documents. 97. Quaker State’s Response to Request 49 is incorporated herein by reference. It is admitted that some of the diluted, treated effluent made its way to a tributary of Pithole Creek on some, but not all, of the dates shown on Document Nos. 500907-956. The remaining averments are denied. 98. It is admitted that Document Nos. 501000-1 008 and 501011 -1049 are true and correct copies of documents furnished by Cherokee Environmental Services to Quaker State. It is denied that Document Nos. 500959-999 and 50 1062-69 were furnished by Cherokee. The remaining averments characterizing the documents are denied. To the contrary, the documents pertain to a diluted effluent consisting primarily of fresh water and a small amount of brine which had undergone treatment, Pithole Creek and a specific tributary thereof, on the dates set forth in the documents. 99. Quaker State’s Response to Request 48 is incorporated herein by reference. It is admitted that some of the diluted, treated effluent made its way to a tributary of Pithole Creek on some, but not all, of the dates shown on Document Nos. 500959-1008, 50101 1-1049 and 501062-69. The remaining averments are denied. 17 ------- 100. It is admitted that Document No. 501073 isa true and correct copy of a document furnished by Cherokee Environmental Services to Quaker State. It is denied that the remaining documents were furnished by Cherokee. The remaining averments characterizing the documents are denied. 101. Denied. By way of further response, Document Nos. 50 1073-82 do not purport to pertain to the Proper Patterson Lease, and Quaker State is not aware of a surface water named Hodder Run. Quaker State’s Response to Request 49 is incorporated herein by reference. Respectfully submitted, Dean A. Calland Kenneth K. Kilbert Babst, Calland, Clements and Zomnir, PC Two Gateway Center, Eighth Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 394-5400 Counsel for Defendant Quaker State Corporation 18 ------- AFFIDAVIT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ) ) ss: COUNTY OF V i, r’&o ) Before me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Carl J. Carlson, who, being duly sworn according to law, deposed and said that he is Manager - Exploration and Production of Titusville Production Department of Quaker State Corporation and in that capacity executed this Affidavit on behalf of Quaker State Corporation and is duly authorized to do so. He further deposed and said that the matters stated in the foregoing Responses to United States’ Requests for Admissions are not wholly within the personal knowledge of affiant and that affiant is informed that there is no official of Quaker State Corporation who has personal knowledge of all such matters, but that the Responses have been made based upon information assembled by authorized employees, and affiant is informed that the Responses are true and correct. Sworn to and subscribed before me this / 374’ day of November, 1990. My Comm sd n Expires: Nota Se Expres 5 1 Per +i a M cO fl N iis Carli. ------- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that this 15th day of November, 1990, true and correct copies of the foregoing Defendant’s Responses to United States’ Requests for Admissions were served upon the following by first-class mail, postage prepaid Jerel L. Ellington, Esq. U.S. Department of Justice Environment and Natural Resources Division Environmental Enforcement Section PO.Box 7611 Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 Mary St. Peter, Esq. Assistant Regional Counsel U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region Ill 841 Chestnut Building Philadelphia, PA 19107 Kenneth K. Kilbert ------- 4O€ dAAt4/ / o IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA U NITED STATES OF AM ERICA, ) Plaintiff, v. ) Civil Action No. 88- 306 Erie QUAKER STATE CORPORATION, Defendant. DEFENDANT’S FIRST REQUESTS FOR ADMISSiONS Defendant Quaker State Corporation, pursuant to Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requests that Plaintiff United States of America respond to each of the following Requests for Admissions within thirty (30) days after service hereof. 1. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (“DER”) in 1978 was delegated primary responsibility for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) Permit program in Pennsylvania. Prior to 1978, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) had responsibility for the issuance of NPDES Permits in Pennsylvania. Since 1978, DER has had the responsibility for administering the NPDES Program in Pennsylvania. 2. From 1978 through 1985, the Bureau of Water Quality Management of DER had responsibility for issuing NPDES permits for discharges of otl and gas brines in Pennsylvania. Since January 1, 1986, the Bureau of Oil and Gas Management of DER has had responsibility for issuing NPDES permits for discharges of oil and gas brines in Pennsylvania. ------- 3. At the time the EPA delegated the NPDES program to DER in 1978, approximately 1 50 applications for NPDES permits for discharges of brine from oil or gas wells had been submitted to EPA during the 1970’s that were never acted upon (i.e., issued or denied) by EPA. 4. Prior to 1978, Quaker State submitted three separate applications to EPA for NPDES permits for discharges of brine from oil wells at three different leases in McKean County: the Craft, Carlson and Brinton leases. The three applications for NPDES permits for the Craft, Brinton and Carlson lease discharges were never acted upon, i.e., they were never issued or denied, by EPA or DER. DER Exhibits 13, 14 and- 15 are true, correct and complete copies of official government files regarding the NPDES permit applications for the Brinton, Carlson and Craft lease discharges, respectively. 5. DER Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of a listing of data compiled from official records by the Bureau of Oil and Gas Management of DER in August 1990. DER Exhibit 1 accuratelysets forth: all NPDES permits issued by DER for discharges of brine from oil and gas wells prior to 1986 (“Oil & Gas Cases Issued by Water Quality”); all applications for NPDES permits for discharges of oil or gas brines that had been submitted to DER and which were pending on January 1, 1986 (“Cases Inherited 1/86 from Water Quality”); and all NPDES permits for discharges of brine from oil and gas wells issued by DER from 1986 through August 1990 (“NPDES Issued by Oil & Gas”). 6. DER Exhibit 2 is a true and authentic copy of a computer printout generated by the Bureau of Oil and Gas Management of DER from its official 2 ------- records, dated December 26, 1989. DER Exhibit 2 is an accurate list of all NPDES permits issued by DER for oil and gas brine discharges to that date and of all NPDES permit applications submitted to DER for oil and gas brine discharges pending as of that date. 7. DER Exhibit 34 is a true and authentic copy of a computer printout generated by the Meadville Region of the Bureau of Oil and Gas Management of DER from its official records, dated July 24, 1986. DER Exhibit 34is an accurate list of all NPDES permits issued for discharges of brine from oil and gas wells by DER as of July 24, 1986 and of all NPDES permit applications submitted to DER for oil and gas brine discharges pending as of that date. 8. No effluent limitations or effluent limitations guidelines have ever been established for discharges of brine from stripper oil wells. DER has never applied its toxics management strategy to set NPDES permit limits for brine discharges from stripper oil wells. 9. During the mid-i 980’s, EPA estimated that there were thousands of unpermitted discharges of brine into surface waters from stripper oil wells in Northwestern Pennsylvania. - 10. During the mid-1980’s, EPA was aware that DER did not have the resources to issue permits for all the unpermitted discharges of brine from oil and gas operations. EPA requested DER to issue more NPDES permits for discharges of brine. DER responded that it lacked the resources to issue the number of permits EPA was requesting. 3 ------- 11. During the mid-1980’s, EPA was aware that some oil producers were not applying for NPDES permits because the industry was aware that DER may not process NPDES permit applications. 12. During the period which is the subject of this action, DER was aware of certain discharges of brine to streams, and DER neither took enforcement action against the dischargers nor required the dischargers to obtain NPDES permits or to cease the discharges. 13. EPA and DER have recognized that a general NPDES permit for discharges of brine from primary production stripper oil wells is important. A draft - general permit has been developed by DER. 14. Under the current Memorandum of Agreement between EPA and DER, DER is without authority to issue a general permit. Negotiations between EPA and DER on revising the Memorandum of Agreement, inter alia , to authorize DER to issue general permits, have been ongoing for several years. 15. There were no unpermitted discharges of brine to surface waters from oil wells owned or operated by Quaker State within the four-county area which is the subject of this suit after December 1, 1983, excluding the following leases: Griffin, Forest County A Flick, Forest County Proper Patterson, Forest County Tionesta Sand & Gravel, Forest County Jenks, Forest County Big Shanty, McKean County Walton Glenn, Forest County Maxwell, McKean County Wagner, Forest County Cochran, Warren County Hodder, Forest County Grunder, Warren County Mikula, Warren County 4 ------- 16. There were no unpermitted discharges of brine to surface waters from oil wells owned or operated by Quaker State within the four-county area which is the subject of this action after June 3, 1988. 17. DER first became aware of discharges of brine into Grunder Run from Quaker State oil production facilities in the vicinity of Grunderville in Warren County no later than 1981. No notice of violation was issued and no enforcement action was taken by DER against Quaker State for discharges into Grunder Run. 18. The EPA had represented to the United States Forest Service and DER prior to October 1986 that it would be developing enforcement actions against. selected brine dischargers, including an action specifically against Quaker State. 19. Fiscal year 1986 was the first time that the subject of NPDES permitting of brine discharges from oil and gas wells was addressed by the EPA in connection with the grant of funds to DER under Section 106 of the Clean Water Act to assist in administration of the NPDES program. 20. The first commercial brine treatment facility in Northwestern Pennsylvania was Franklin Brine Treatment Corporation. That facility did not begin accepting brines from other oil producers for treatment until at least mid-1985. 21. James Erb, Director of DER’s Bureau of Oil and Gas Management, advised EPA prior to the filing of this case that DER was not in favor of such an enforcement action. 5 ------- 22. After this case was filed, DER was invited by Plaintiff to join in the case, and DER declined. 23. Each of the documents referenced below are true and authentic copies of the originals: a. Kleeman Ex. A (Doc. #6411-6412) b. Kleeman Ex. D (Doc. #6399) c. S. Laskowski Memo, dated 7/5/85 (Doc. #6400) d. Kleeman Ex. F (Doc. #6303-6304) e. Kleeman Ex. G (Doc. #6439-6442) f. Kleeman Ex. H (Doc. #6408-6409) g. Kleeman Ex. K (Doc. #6446-6447) h. Kleeman Ex. M (Doc. #6410) i. OdaEx.C j. OdaEx.D k. Galda Ex. B 24. Each of the documents referenced below were written by an authorized representative of the EPA acting in his official capacity and/or adopted as true by the EPA: a. Kteeman Ex. A (Doc. #6411-6412) b. Kleeman Ex. D (Doc. #6399) c. S. Laskowski Memo, dated 7/5/85 (Doc. #6400) d. Kleeman Ex. F (Doc. #6303-6304) e. Kleeman Ex. G (Doc. #6439-6442) f. Kleeman Ex. H (Doc. #6408-6409) 6 ------- g. Kleeman Ex. K (Doc. #6446-6447) h. Kleeman Ex. M (Dcc. #6410) I. Oda Ex. C j. OdaEx.D k. Galda Ex. B 25. Each of the documents referenced below will not be the subject of objections on the basis of authenticity or hearsay, if offered into evidence at trial. a. Kleeman Ex. A (Doc. #6411-6412) b. Kleeman Ex. D (Doc. #6399) c. S. Laskowski Memo, dated 7/5/85 (Doc. #6400) d. Kleeman Ex. F (Dcc. #6303-6304) e. Kleeman Ex. G (Doc. #6439-6442) f. Kleeman Ex. H (Doc. #6408-6409) g. Kleeman Ex. K (Doc. #6446-6447) h. Kleeman Ex. M (Doc. #6410) i. OdaEx.C j. OdaEx.D k. Galda Ex. B 26. Among all discharges, discharges of brine from oil and gas wells were never considered “major” discharges by EPA or DER and did not receive as high of priority for purposes of permitting and enforcement by DER as “major” discharges. 7 ------- 27. Among discharges of brine, those from primary recovery oil wells into non-Special Protection streams were the lowest priority for purposes of permitting and enforcement by DER during the 1980’s. 28. DER in February 1981 administratively extended until further notice all NPDES permits for discharges of oil or gas brine that had been issued by EPA. No further notice was ever given by DER to those permit holders and such permits continued in effect. 29. DER Exhibit 24 is a true and authentic copy of the NPDES permit # PA 0002348 issued by EPA to Quaker State for discharges of brine into Kendall Creek at its Webb lease, effective March 22, 1978. 30. Quaker State in January 1983 submitted an application to DER for renewal of its NPDES permit for its Webb lease discharge. 31. DER did not issue a renewal for the NPDES permit for the Webb lease discharge until June 1988. Between 1983 and June 1988, the NPDES permit issued in 1978, #PA 0002348, remained in effect. 32. The pointsource discharge of oil well brine at Quaker State’s Webb lease into Kendall Creek in McKean County was a permitted discharge at least from December 1, 1983 to date. 33. DER Exhibit 6 is a true and authentic copy of the official Guidelines for Dealing with Fluids for Oil and Gas Wells and Strategy for Handling the Water Quality Aspects of Fluids from Oil and Gas Wells promulgated by DER in 1982. 8 ------- 34. DER Exhibit 43 is a true and authentic copy of an official report promulgated by the Citizens Advisory Council to the DER in 1981. DER Exhibit 43 will not be the subject of objections on the basis of authentication or hearsay, if offered into evidence at trial. 35. DER Exhibit 8 is a true and authentic copy of a letter, dated July 7, 1980, written by William Mentzer, facilities engineer for the Bureau of Water Quality Management of DER. Said letter and/or its contents were widely disseminated among oil producers. 36. DocumentNos.0500959-0501008and0501 011 -O5OlO7Oaretrue and authentic copies of reports prepared by outside laboratories of data pertaining to effluent, Pithole Creek and a tributary of Pithole Creek at Quaker State’s Griffin lease on the dates set forth on the reports. The data set forth in the reports are accurate. 37. Document Nos. 0500907 - 0500943 and 0500946 - 0500956 are true and authentic copies of reports prepared by outside laboratories of data pertaining to effluent, Pithole Creek and a tributary of Pithole Creek at Quaker State’s Proper Patterson lease on the dates set forth on the reports. The data set forth in the reports are accurate. 38. Document Nos. 0501073 -0501082 are true and authentic copies of reports prepared by outside laboratories of data pertaining to effluent, McArthur Creek and a tributary of McArthur Creek at Quaker State’s Hodder lease on the dates set forth on the reports. The data set forth in the reports are accurate. 9 ------- 39. Kleeman Exhibit I is a true and authentic copy of a document prepared by EPA reflecting the statements of authorized representatives of EPA acting in their official capacity and/or of the position of EPA. 40. Documents Nos. 6741 - 6752 and 6728 - 6735 are true and authentic S copies of reports prepared by EPA representatives acting in their official capacities. The data reflected in the reports are accurate analyses of the samples taken from Quaker State leases on June 6-7, 1988. 41. Documents Nos. 858 1-8598 and 8599-86 17 are true and correct copies of the Clean Water Act Section 106 grant agreements between EPA and DER for fiscal years 1987 and 1988, respectively. 42. The documents attached hereto are true and correct copies of the Workplans agreed to by EPA and DER for purposes of the Clean Water Act Section 106 grant for fiscal years: (a) 1983 (b) 1984/1985 (c) 1986 (d) 1989 43. Attached hereto is a true and correct copy of the Memorandum of Agreement between EPA and DER, signed June, 1978. This Memorandum of Agreement has remained in effect to date. 10 ------- 44. For each of the streams into which Quaker State is alleged to have discharged brine without a permit, brine from non-Quaker State oil or gas wells also was discharging without permits into the same stream at or about the same time. 45. Quaker State sold all of its active oil wells in McKean, Warren, Elk and Forest Counties to Pennsylvania General Energy Corp. on or about November 2, 1988. Quaker State has neither owned nor operated any active oil wells in the four- county area since then. 46. Plaintiff is not aware of any ongoing unpermitted discharges of brine from oil wells owned or operated by Quaker State in McKean, Warren, Elk and Forest Counties. Respectfully submitted, 7 w x 2 Dean A. Calland Kenneth K. Kilbert Babst, Calland, Clements and Zomnir, PC Two Gateway Center, Eighth Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 394-5400 Counsel for Defendant Quaker State Corporation 11 ------- W4ITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) QUAKER STATE CORPORATION, Defendant. ) ) ) PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S REOUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS Plaintiff United States of America submits the following objections and responses to Defendant’s First Requests for Admissions in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and 36. GENERAL OBJECTIONS A. The United States objects to the requests to admit to the extent that they exceed the scope of proper discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 or 36. B. The United States objects to providing any information or material subject to the attorney-client, work product, deliberative process, enforcement confidential, or other privileges, but rather expressly reserves all such privileges. C. The United States objects to the requests to admit as being in the form of compound questions, contrary to Fed. R. Civ. P. 36. D. The United States objects to the requests to admit which call for the government to admit to the authenticity of exhibits which are not attached to the requests as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 36. The United States will, to the best of its IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLvAMIA Civil Action No. 88—306 Erie ------- ability, respond based upon documents it has separately maintained during discovery in this case, but reserves the right to seek its associated costs. OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES 1. The United States objects to this request as being ambiguous, compound, and calling for a legal conclusion. Without . Iaivjng these objections, the United States admits the request in part, and denies it in part. The United States admits that on June 30, 1978 EPA approved the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s request to conduct a State NPDES permit program under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), and pursuant to Section 402(c) of the CWA suspended the issuance of permits by EPA on the same date. This was formalized by a letter from Barbara Blum, Acting Administrator of EPA to the Honorable Milton J. Shapp, Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and a Memorandum of Agreement executed by Jack J. Schraxnm, Regional Administrator of EPA Region III and Maurice K. Goddard, Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources. The approval of the State’s NPDES permit program and the MOA have to date not been revoked. The United States denies the remainder of the request to admit as either calling for a legal conclusion and/or mischaracterizjng the significance of the above events. 2. The United States restates its response to request to admit no. 1. 3. The United States is unable to admit or deny the request to admit because the information known or readily —2— ------- obtainable, after reasonable inquiry, is insufficient to enable United States to form an opinion as to its truthfulness. 4. The United States admits that Quaker State filed the three NPDES applications as noted, but denies that they were “never acted upon.” The United States admits that DER Deposition Exhibits 13, 14, and 15 are true, correct, and complete copies of official government files regarding the NPDES applications for the Brinton, Carison, and Craft lease discharges. 5. The United States admits that DER Deposition Exhibit 1 is a listing of data compiled by an unknown person for Mr. Young. The United States is unable to admit or deny the remainder of the request to admit because the information known or readily obtainable, after reasonable inquiry, is insufficient to enable United States to form an opinion as to its truthfulness. 6. The United States admits that DER Deposition Exhibit 2 appears to be a computer print out which was generated by 80GM from its official records, and is dated December 26, 1989. The United States is unable to admit or deny the remainder of the request to admit because the information known or readily obtainable, after reasonable inquiry, is insufficient to enable United States to form an opinion as to its truthfulness. 7. The United States admits that DER Deposition Exhibit 34 appears to be a computer print out which was generated by BOGM from its official records, and is dated July 24, 1986. The United States is unable to admit or deny the remainder of the —3— ------- request to admit because the information known or readily obtainable, after reasonable inquiry, is insufficient to enable United States to form an opinion as to its truthfulness. 8. The United States admits that EPA has not promulgated guidelines for effluent limits for the discharge of produced water from stripper category oil wells, and in the absence of such guidelines, “best professional judgment” (“BPJ”) standards apply in addition to protecting designated water quality standards of receiving streams. The United States further admits that during the period of time covered by this action DER did not apply its “toxics management strategy” to brine discharges, but did apply its Chapter 93 water quality standards to the toxic pollutants, and BPJ standards for technology based limitations. The United States denies the remainder of the request to admit. Effluent limits have been set for individual brine discharges from stripper category oil wells. 9. Denied. EPA estimated that there may have been thousands of unpermitted discharges of brine. 10. The United States admits that EPA requested DER to commit to issue specific numbers of NPDES permits for brine discharges, and that it made grants to DER for this and other purposes. The United States denies the remainder of the request to admit. 11. Denied. EPA was aware that producers were not applying for NPDES permits, but not because of the assertion now —4— ------- made by Quaker State that DER “may not process MPDES permit applications.” 12. Denied. Discovery has revealed that DER was aware of certain discharges to streams, and that it had a policy of, at least, informally notifying the polluter that the discharge violated the CWA. Also, DER did in some cases take formal enforcement action. 13. Denied. The United States acknowledges that a general permit has been under consideration by DER and EPA for some time, and that a draft has been developed, but would not characterize a general permit “important.” 14. Admitted. - 15. The United States admits that there were unlawful discharges of brine to streams from the listed leases. The United States is unable to admit or deny the remainder of the request to admit because the information known or readily obtainable, after reasonable inquiry, is insufficient to enable United States to form an opinion as to its truthfulness. 16. Denied. The United States documented one unlawful discharge occurring at the Proper Patterson lease on June 8, 1988. There may have been continued discharges at this and other leases up until the leases were shut in and/or sold to Pennsylvania General Energy Corp. 17. The United States admits that there was an unlawful brine discharge into Grunder Run from Quaker State’s oil production facilities in the vicinity of Grunderville before and —5— ------- after 1981, and that DER became aware of the discharge no later than 1981. The United States denies that Quaker State was not notified that this discharge violated the CWA, and further denies that no enforcement action was taken by DER against Quaker State for this discharge. DER, among others, communicated to Quaker State that the discharge was unlawful. The United States, however, admits that no formal notice of violation was served upon Quaker State, and that no formal enforcement action was conunenced by DER. 18. The United States admits that EPA conununicated to USDA and DER in this time period that it was preparing to initiate enforcement proceedings against persons discharging brine without NPDES permits, and was considering an action against several companies, one of which was Quaker State. The United States denies the remainder of the allegations as mischaracterizing the facts. 19. Admitted. 20. At the present time, the United States is unable to admit or deny this request to admit because the information known or readily obtainable, after reasonable inquiry, is insufficient to enable United States to form an opinion as to its truthfulness. 21. Admitted. 22. Admitted. 23. Admitted. 24. Admitted. —6— ------- 25. The United States denies this request to admit as inappropriate under Fed. R. Civ. p. 36. The United States will separately consider appropriate stipulations with counsel for Quaker State. 26. Denied. The request to admit mischaracterjzes the meaning and intent of “major” and “minor” classifications for purposes of NPDES program administration functions. Although brine discharges were not considered to be in the same category as Publicly Owned Treatment Works (sewage) or large industrial sources for administrative purposes, EPA and DER considered brine discharges in the area to violate the CWA and to have a major impact on the environment. 27. Denied. The United States, however, acknowledges that during some unspecified period of time during the l980s DER adopted a policy of prioritizing its regulatory oversight and enforcement efforts, and that its last priority was brine discharges into non-special protection watersheds from primary oil production operations. 28. Denied. DER administratively extended certain NPDES permits, and communicated in writing to those permit- holders who were affected by this policy. DER did not purport to administratively extend all NPDES permits. Furthermore, any extensjo must comply with applicable regulations in order to be valid. See response to request to admit no. 31. 29. Admitted. 30. Admitted. —7— ------- 31. Denied. The original NPDES permit was issued by EPA on March 22, 1978, with an expiration date of March 22, 1983. Quaker State applied for a renewal of the permit on January 7, 1983. Since the renewal application was not filed at least 180 days before the permit expiration date as required by law, the pernit lapsed. The United States admits, however, that DER renewed Quaker State’s NPDES permit on June 17, 1988. 32. Denied. See response to request to admit no. 31. 33. The United States is unable to admit or deny this request to admit because the information known or readily obtainable, after reasonable inquiry, is insufficient to enable United States to form an opinion as to its truthfulness. 34. The United States admits that DER Deposition Exhibit 43 is a true and authentic copy of an official report prepared by the Citizens Advisory Council dated September, 1981-- without appendices. The United States denies the remainder of the request to admit as inappropriate. The United States will separately consider appropriate stipulations with counsel for Quaker State. 35. The United States admits that DER Deposition Exhibit 8 is a true and authentic copy of a letter from William H. Mentzer, Facilities Engineer, to Larry Kardos, Pennzojl Corp. dated July 17, 1980. The United States is unable to admit or deny the remainder of this request to admit because the information known or readily obtainable, after reasonable inquiry, is insufficient to enable the United States to form an —8— ------- opinion as to its truthfulness. Furthermore, the United States objects to the request because what is “widely disseminated” is vague, and also glosses over whether any distribution of the letter or its contents was either known or approved by DER. 36. Admitted, except as to the accuracy of the data. The United States is unable to admit or deny that the data is accurate because the information known or readily obtainable, after reasonable inquiry, is insufficient to enable the United States to form an opinion as to its truthfulness. The United States does, however, admit that the data was collected for and at Quaker State’s request. 37. Admitted, except as to the accuracy of the data. The United States is unable to admit or deny that the data is accurate because the information known or readily obtainable, after reasonable inquiry, is insufficient to enable the United States to form an opinion as to its truthfulness. The United States does, however, admit that the data was collected for and at Quaker State’s request. 38. Admitted, except as to the accuracy of the data. The United States is unable to admit or deny that the data is accurate because the information known or readily obtainable, after reasonable inquiry, is insufficient to enable the United States to form an opinion as to its truthfulness. The United States does, however, admit that the data was collected for and at Quaker State’s request. 39. Admitted. —9— ------- 40. Denied, as the request to admit is written. Quaker State designated only a portion of the first report, omitting the first five pages. With the addition of these pages, the United States admits that document flO. 6736-6752 and 6728- 6735 are true and authentic copies of reports prepared by and for EPA inspectors acting in their official capacities, and the data reflected in the reports are accurate analysis of the samples taken from Quaker State leases on June 6—7, 1988, as indicated in the reports. 41. The United States is unable to admit or deny this request to admit because the information known or readily - obtainable, after reasonable inquiry, is insufficient to enable the United States to form an opinion as to its truthfulness. The United States cannot locate copies of these documents, and Quaker State did not furnish the documents with its request to admit. 42. Admitted. 43. Admitted. 44. The United States is unable to admit or deny this request to admit because the information known or readily obtainable, after reasonable inquiry, is insufficient to enable United States to form an opinion as to its truthfulness. 45. Admitted. 46. Admitted. — 10 — ------- Re ctfully submitted, JER t 1 L. LING1 Qj Triar A rney U.S. Department of Justice Environment and Natural Resource Division Environmental Enforcement Section P.O. Box 7611 Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 FTS 368—3974 (202) 514—3974 JAMES J. ROSS Assistant U.S. Attorney Room 137 Federal Building and Courthouse 6th and State Streets Erie, PA 16501 (814) 452—2906 OF COUNSEL : MARY ST. PETER Assistant Regional Counsel U.S. Environmental Protection Agency -- Region III 341 Chestnut Building Philadelphia, PA 19107 DANIEL PALMER Attorney-Advisor U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring - Water 401 M Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20460 — 11 — ------- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA UNITEDSTATESOFAMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 88-306 Erie ) QUAKER STATE CORPORATION, ) ) Defendant. QUAKER STATE CORPORATION’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES Defendant Quaker State Corporation (hereinafter “Quaker State”), hereby answers Plaintiff’s Second Set of Interrogatories to which it has not objected as follows: GENERAL RESPONSE AND OBJECTIONS The United States’ Interrogatories seek information which in many instances requires reference to numerous documents and records. To the extent that any of the United States’ Interrogatories relate to numerous documents and records or other written information, subsequent investigation and review of those written materials may reveal additional information relevant to the Answers. It is also noted that persons who are not now officers, directors, managing agents, or employees of Quaker State may have information relevant to the subject matter of the following Answers and Quaker State is not purporting in the following Answers to be giving the answers of any such person to the United States’ Interrogatories. Although Quaker State has made every effort to answer the Interrogatortes propounded by the United States to which Quaker State has not ------- BABST CAL’LAN D CLEMENTS ZcJ!\/l KENNETH K. K.ILBERT Attornay At Law -: - 112 3 45433 January21, 91 Jerel L. Ellington, Esq. U.S. Department of Justice Environment and Natural Reso rces Division Environmental Enforcement Sec on P.O. Box 7611, Ben Franklin Stati Washington, DC 20044 Re: U.S. v. Quaker State C or tion Civil Action No. 88 - 306 e Dear Jerry: Enclosed are Quaker State’ Respons to Plaintiffs Second Set Of Interrogatories. Your patience in aw ting these esponses has been appreciated. Very tru yours, Kenneth K. Kilb KKXJpzn Enc. cc: Mary St. Peter, Esq. w/enc. ------- objected, in making such Answers, Quaker State does not purport to have adopted or applied any definitions set forth in the outset of, or at any other place in, the United States’ Interrogatories. Further, Quaker State does not or has not assumed improper, unproven or hypothetical facts set forth, implied or alluded to, in the United States’ Interrogatories or accepted those allegations of the United States’ claims or argumentative terminology or characterizations which are similarly set forth, implied or alluded to, in those Interrogatories. Although the Interrogatories are in many instances overly broad and vague, Quaker State has attempted to provide comprehensive answers subject to this General Response and Objections and its specific objections. In addition, the - subject matter of these Interrogatories has been the subject of numerous depositions in this case, including those of many present and former Quaker State employees taken by Plaintiff. These responses do not purport to reflect each shred of testimony contained in such depositions. The Answers propounded herein are without, in any way, waiving or intending to waive, but to the contrary, intending to reserve and reserving the right to object on the ground of competency, privilege, relevancy, materiality or any other proper grounds to the use of any such Answers, for any purpose, in any subsequent step of this action. Finally, Plaintiff’s Second Set of Interrogatories do not provide any space for the insertion of answers, thus contravening Local Rule 4(b). Quaker State’s responses to individual interrogatories therefore are set forth on supplemental pages following the entire Second Set of Interrogatories. 2 ------- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA UNITED STATES’ SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal. Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff, The United States of America, requests that Defendant, Quaker State Corporation (“Quaker State), respond separately to each of the following Interrogatorjes within thirty (30) days after service hereof. INSTRUCTIONS A. Unless the time period is otherwise specifically stated, the time period to which the Interrogatorieg are directed is from December 1, 1983 through November 30, 1988. If your response varies for different portions of this time period, specify each time period and respond fully for each. DEFINITIONS A. The United States repeats and incorporates hersin by reference the definitions set forth in Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories. B. “Lot means and shall refer to lot, tract, or warrant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Plaintiff, V. ) ) QUAKER STATE CORPOPATION, ) Defendant. ) CIVIL NO. 88—306 Erie ------- C. “Brine” means and shall refer to brine, produced water and/or effluent. INTERROGATORIES 1. For each request to admit separately served upon you which you hav not unequivocally admitted, state all facts upon which you have based your response. 2. With regard to the Griffen Lease, Lot No. 223, please state or answer the following: a. Identify the production formation(s) for wells on the lease (e.g., geologic formation such as Canaday or Conneaut, time unit such as Upper Denovian, or sand such as Glade or Venango); b. Average or typical depth of wells on the lease (if you object to providing ‘average’ or “typical” well age, then please furnish the depth of well on the lease): c. Average or typical age of wells (i.e. when was the well drilled?) (If you object to providing “average” or “typical.” well age, then please furnish this information for well on the lease); d. All periods of active or inactive production on the lease; •. The number of active or inactive wells during all periods of active operation on the lease; f. The method of production on the lease (e.g., primary or secondary); —2- ------- g. If secondary production, the number of injection wells; h . If secondary production, the volume of water/fluids injected per month; i. - Whether production wells (both primary and secondary production) were pumped on a continuous or periodic basis; j. If periodic, the schedule for pumping wells on the lease; k. the method used to separate oil and brine; 1. The type and capacity of separators; rn. The holding time; n. How brine was contained; o. The capacity of brine storage tanks or pits; p. Describe the method(s) used to dispose of brine for all periods covered by these Interrogatories; q. If brine was recycled on the same lease, then identify: (1) Whether a filtering system was used; (2) The filtering system and equipment used; (3) Whether the filters were cleaned; (4) Mow the filters were cleaned; (5) Th. schedule for cleaning filters (e.g., daily, tvo tim .. a week, etc.); (6) Row the filter backwash was disposed of; —3— ------- (7) If there was a discharge of filter backwash, whether the discharge reached a stream or river (or any branches or tributaries); (8) If so, the stream or river (or any branches or tributaries) was reached by the discharge; r. If brine was trucked away, then: (1) Identify where the brine was placed and/or stored prior to trucking; (2) Identify how frequently it was trucked; (3) Identify who trucked it; (4) State the capacity of the truck; (5) Identify the location where the brine was taken; (6) State how the brine was disposed of at that location; (7) If the brine was treated, state the cost per barrel; (8) If it was spread on roads, state the location and describe all approvals from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, and any applicable municipal and/or Federal authorities. a. If discharged from the containment pit or tank on sit., then: (1) Describe how it was discharged (e.g., overflow, siphon, etc.); (2) Identify how frequently (daily, etc.); —4— ------- (3) State whether the brine was diluted before being discharged; (4) If so, identify the method used to dilute brine, including the schedule of dilution and ratio of fresh water added to the brine (daily. etc.) (5) Identify what treatment, if any, was used before the brine was discharged; (6) Identify whether the brine was discharged to a stream or river (or branch and/or tributary thereof); (7) If so, identify the stream or river (or branch and/or tributary thereof) to which the brine was discharged; - (8) Describe the outfall; and (9) State the distance from the containment pit or tank to the stream or river (or branch and/or tributary thereof); t. Describe all agreements or understandings, if any, you contend you had with any governmental authorities, including, but not limited to, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, the Pennsylvania Bureau of Gas and Oil Xanagemsnt or the U.S. Environmental Agency, regarding such brin, disposal practices; u. Identify the persons you contend participated in such agreements or understandings; and v. Identify all documents you contend support or confirm such agreements or understandings. —5— ------- 3. With regard to the Proper Patterson Lease, please state or answer the following: a. Identify the production formation(s) for wells on the lease (e.g., geologic formation such as Canaday or Conneaut, time unit such as Upper Denovian, or sand such as Glade or Verlango); b. Average or typical depth of wells on the lease (if you object to providing “average” or “typical” well age, then please furnish the depth of each well on the lease); c. Average or typical age of wells (i.e. when was the well drilled?) (If you object to providing “average” or “typical” well age, then please furnish this information for each well on the lease); d. All periods of active or inactive production on the lease; e. The number of active or inactive wells during all periods of active operation on the lease; f. The method of production on the lease (e.g., primary or secondary); g. If secondary production, the number of injection wells; h. If secondary production, the volume of water/fluid. injected per month; i. Whether production wells (both primary and secondary production) were pumped on a continuou, or periodic basis; —6— ------- j. If periodic, the schedule for pumping wells on the lease; k. the method used to separate oil and brine; 1. The type and capacity of separators; in. The holding time; n. How brine was contained; o. The capacity of brine storage tanks or pits; p. Describe the method(s) used to dispose of brine for all periods covered by these Interrogatories; q. If brine was recycled on the same lease, then identify: (1) Whether a filtering system was used; (2) The filtering system and equipment used; (3) Whether the filters were cleaned; (4) How the filters were cleaned; (5) The schedule for cleaning filters (e.g., daily, two times a week, etc.); (6) How the filter backwash was disposed of; (7) If there was a discharge of filter backwash, whether ths discharge reached a stream or river (or any branch., or tributaries); (8) If so, the stream or river (or any branches or tributaries) was reached by the discharge; r. If brin, was trucked away, then: (1) Identify where the brine was placed and/or stored prior to trucking; —7— ------- (2) Identify how frequently it was trucked; (3) Identify who trucked it; (4) State the capacity of the truck; (5) Identify the location where the brine was taken; (6) State how the brine was disposed of at that location; (7) If the brine was treated, state the cost per barrel; (8) If it was spread on roads, state the location and describe all approvals from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, and any applicable municipal and/or Federal authorities. s. If discharged from the containment pit or tank on site, then: - (1) Describe how it was discharged (e.g., overflow, siphon, etc.); (2) Identify how frequently (daily, etc.); (3) State whether the brine was diluted before being discharged; (4) If so, identify the method used to dilute brine, including the schedule of dilution and ratio of frseh water added to the brine (daily, etc.); (5) Identify what treatment, if any, was used before the brine was discharged; —8— ------- (6) Identify whether the brine was discharged to a stream or river (or branch and/or tributary thereof); (7) If so, identify the stream or river (or branch and/or tributary thereof) to which the brine was discharged; (8) Describe the outfall; and (9) State the distance from the containment pit or tank to the stream or river (or branch and/or tributary thereof); t. Describe all agreements or understandings, if any, you contend you had with any governmental authorities, including, but not limited to, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental. Resources, the Pennsylvania Bureau of Gas and Oil Management or the U.S. Environmental Agency, regarding such brine disposal practices; u. Identify the persons you contend participated in such agreements or understandings; and v. Identify all documents you contend support or confirm such agreements or understandings. 4. With regard to the Jenks Lease, Lot Nos. 217, 218, and 219, pleas. state or answer the following: a. Identify the production formation(s) for wells on the lea.. (e.g., geologic formation such as Canaday or Conneaut, time unit such a. Upper Denovian, or sand such as Glade or Venango); —9— ------- b. Average or typical depth of wells on the lease (if you object to providing “average” or “typical” well age, then please furnish the depth of each well on the lease); C. Average or typical age of wells (i.e. when was the well drilled?) (If you object to providing “average” or “typical” well age, then please furnish this infor atjon for each well on the lease); d. AU periods of active or inactive production on the lease; e. - The number of active or inactive wells during all periods of active operation on the lease; f. The method of production on the lease (e.g., primary or secondary); g. If secondary production, the number of injection wells; h. If secondary production, the volume of water/fluids injected per month; i. Whether production wells (both primary and secondary production) were pumped on a continuous or periodic basis; j. If periodic, the schedule for pumping wells on the lease; k. th. method used to separate oil and brine; 1. The typ. and capacity of separators; m. The holding time; n. Mow brine was contained; — 10 — ------- 0. The capacity of brine storage tanks or pits; p. Describe the method(s) used to dispose of brine for all periods covered by these Interrogatories; q. If brine was recycled on the same lease, then identify: (1) Whether a filtering system was used; (2) The filtering system and equipment used; (3) Whether the filters were cleaned; (4) How the filters were cleaned; (5) The schedule for cleaning filters (e.g., daily, two times a week, etc.); (6) How the filter backwash was disposed of; (7) If there was a discharge of filter backwash, whether the discharge reached a stream or river (or any branches or tributaries); (8) If so, the stream or river (or any branches or tributaries) was reached by the discharge; r. If brine was trucked away, then: (1) Identify where the brine was placed and/or stored prior to trucking; (2) Identify how frequently it was trucked; (3) Identify who trucked it; (4) State the capacity of the truck; (5) Identify the location where the brine was taken; — 11 — ------- (6) State how the brine was disposed of at that location; (7) If the brine was treated, state the cost per barrel; (8) If it was spread on roads, state the location and describe all approvals from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, and any applicable municipal and/or Federal authorities. s. If discharged from the containment pit or tank on site, then: (1) Describe how it was discharged (e.g., overflow, siphon, etc.); (2) Identify how frequently (daily, etc.); (3) State whether the brine was diluted before being discharged; (4) If so, identify the method used to dilute brine, including the schedule of dilution and ratio of fresh water added to the brine (daily, etc.); (5) Identify what treatment, if any, was used before the brine was discharged; (6) Identify whether the brine was discharged to a stream or river (or branch and/or tributary thereof); (7) If so, identify the stream or river (or branch and/or tributary thereof) to which the brine was discharged; (8) Describe the outfall; and — 12 — ------- (9) State the distance from the containment pit or tank to the stream or river (or branch and/or tributary thereof); t. Describe all agreements or understandings, if any, you contend you had with any governmental authorities, including, but not limited to, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, the Pennsylvania Bureau of Gas and Oil Management or the U.S. Environmental Agency, regarding such brine disposal practices; u. Identify the persons you contend participated in such agreements or understandings; and v. Identify all documents you contend support or confirm such agreements or understandings. 5. With regard to the Walton Glen Lease, Lot No. 220, please state or answer the following: a. Identify the production formation(s) for wells on the lease (e.g., geologic formation such as Canaday or Conneaut, time unit such as Upper Denovian, or sand such as Glade or Venango); b. Average or typical depth of wells on the lease (if you object to providing averagea or “typical well age, then please furnish the depth of well on the lease); c. Average or typical age of wells (i.e. when was the well drilled?) (If you object to providing averags or “typical well age, then please furnish this information for Ag well on the lease); — 13 — ------- d. A].1 periods of active or inactive production on the lease; e. The number of active or inactive wells during all periods of active operation on the lease; f. The method of production on the lease (e.g., primary or secondary); g. If secondary production, the number of injection wells; h. If secondary production, the volume of water/fluids injected per month; i. Whether production wells (both primary and secondary production) were pumped on a Continuous or periodic basis; j. If periodic, the schedule for pumping wells on the lease; k. the method used to separate oil and brine; 1. The type and capacity of separators; m. The holding time; n. Now brin, was Contained; o. The capacity of brine storage tanks or pits; p. Describe the method(s) used to dispose of brine for all periods covered by these Interrogatorieg; q. If brin, was recycled on the same lease, then identity: (1) Whether a filtering system was used; (2) The filtering system and equipment used; — 14 — ------- (3) Whether the filters were cleaned; (4) How the filters were cleaned; (5) The schedule for cleaning filters (e.g., daily, two times a Week, etc.); (6) How the filter backwash was disposed of; (7) If there was a discharge of filter backwash, whether the discharge reached a stream or river (or any branches or tributaries); (8) If so, the stream or river (or any branches or tributaries) was reached by the discharge; r. If brine was trucked away, then: (1.) Identify where the brine was placed and/or stored prior to trucking; (2) Identify how frequently it was trucked; (3) Identify who trucked it; (4) State the capacity of the truck; (5) Identify the location where the brine was taken; (6) Stats how the brine was disposed of at that location; (7) If the brine was treated, stats the cost per barrel; (8) If it was spread on roads, state the location and describ. all approvals froa th. Pennsylvania Depart .nt of Environ .nta1 Resource., and any applicable municipal and/or Federal authorities. 15 — ------- s. If discharged from the containment pit or tank on site, then: (1) Describe how it was discharged (e.g., overflow, siphon, etc.); (2) Identify how frequently (daily, etc.); (3) State whether the brine was diluted before being discharged; (4) If so, identify the method used to dilute brine, including the schedule of dilution and ratio of fresh water added to the brine (daily, etc.); (5) Identify what treatment, if any, was used• before the brine was discharged; (6) Identify whether the brine was discharged to a stream or river (or branch and/or tributary thereof); (7) If so, identify the stream or river (or branch and/or tributary thereof) to which the brine was discharged: (8) Describe the outfall; and (9) State the distance from the containment pit or tank to the stream or river (or branch and/or tributary thereof); t. Describe all agreements or understandings, if any, you contend you had with any governmental authorities, including, but not limited to, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, the Pennsylvania Bureau of Gas and — 16 — ------- Oil Management or the U.S. Environmental Agency, regarding such brine disposal practices; U. Identify the persons you contend participated in such agreements or understandings; and v. Identify all documents you contend support or confirm such agreements or understandings. 6. With regard to the Wagner Lease, Lot No. 216, please state or answer the following: a. Identify the production formation(s) for wells on the lease (e.g., geologic formation such as Cartaday or Cortneaut, time unit such as Upper Denovian, or sand such as Glade or Venango); - b. Average or typical depth of wells on the lease (if you object to providing ‘average’ or “typical’ well age, then please furnish the depth of well on the lease); c. Average or typical age of wells (i.e. when was the well drilled?) (If you object to providing ‘average’ or ‘typical’ well age, then please furnish this information for well on the lease); c i. All periods of active or inactive production on the lease; s. The number of active or inactive wells during all periods of active operation on the lease; f. The method of production on the lease (e.g., primary or secondary); _ 17 — ------- g. If secondary production, the number of injection wells; h. If secondary production, the volume of water/fluids injected per month; i. Whether production wells (both primary and secondary production) were pumped on a continuous or periodic basis; j. If periodic, the schedule for pumping wells on the lease; k. the method used to separate oil and brine; 1. The type and capacity of separators; m. The holding time; n. How brine was contained; o. The capacity of brine storage tanks or pits; p. Describe the method(s) used to dispose of brine for all periods covered by these Interrogatorjes; q. If brine was recycled on the same lease, then identify: (1) Whether a filtering system was used; (2) Th. filtering system and equipment used; (3) Whether the filters were cleaned; (4) How the filters were cleaned; (5) The schedule for cleaning filters (e.g., daily, two times a week, etc.); (6) How the filter backwash was disposed of; — 18 — ------- (7) If there was a discharge of filter backwash, whether the discharge reached a stream or river (or any branches or tributaries); (8) If so, the stream or river (or any branches or tributaries) was reached by the discharge; r. If brine was trucked away, then: (1) Identify where the brine was placed and/or stored prior to trucking; (2) Identify how frequently it was trucked; (3) Identify who trucked it; (4) State the capacity of the truck; (5) Identify the location where the brine was taken; (6) State how the brine was disposed of at that location; (7) If the brine was treated, state the cost per barrel; (8) If it was spread on roads, state the location and describe all approvals from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, and any applicable municipal and/or Federal authorities. a. If discharged from the containment pit or tank on sit., then: (1) Describe how it was discharged (e.g., overflow, siphon, etc.); (3) Identify how frequently (daily, etc.); — 19 — ------- (3) State whether the brine was diluted before being discharged; (4) If SO, identify the method used to dilute brine, including the schedule of dilution and ratio of fresh water added to the brine (daily, etc.); (5) Identify what treatment, if any, was used before the brine was discharged; (6) Identify whether the brine was discharged to a stream or river (or branch and/or tributary thereof); (7) If so, identify the stream or river (or branch and/or tributary thereof) to which the brine was discharged; (8) Describe the outfall; and (9) State the distance from the containment pit or tank to the stream or river (or branch and/or tributary thereof); t. Describ, all agreements or understandings, if any, you contend you had with any governmenta’ authorities, including, but not limited to, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, the Pennsylvania Bureau of Gas and Oil Management or the U.S. Environmental Agency, regarding such brin, disposal practices; U. Identify the persons you contend participated in such agreements or understandings; and v. Identify all documents you contend support or confirm such agreements or understandings. — 20 — ------- 7. With regard to the Hodder Lease, please state or answer the following: a. Identify the production formation(s) for wells on the lease (e.g., geologic formation such as Canaday or Conneaut, time unit such as Upper Denovian, or sand such as Glade or Venango); b. Average or typical depth of wells on the lease (if you object to providing “average” or “typical” well age, then please furnish the depth of each well on the lease); c. Average or typical age of wells (i.e. when was the well drilled?) (If you object to providing “average” or “typica]. well age, then please furnish this information for each well on the lease); d. All periods of active or inactive production on the lease; e. The number of active or inactive wells during all periods of active operation on the lease: f. The method of production on the lease (e.g., primary or Secondary); g. If secondary production, the number of injection wells; h. If secondary production, the volume of water/fluids injected p .r month; i. Wheth.r production wells (both primary and secondary production) were pumped 0 1% a Continuous or periodic basis; — 21. — ------- j. If periodic, the schedule for pumping wells on the lease; k. the method used to separate oil and brine; 1. The type and capacity of separators; m. The holding time; n. How brine was contained; o. The capacity of brine storage tanks or pits; p. Describe the method(s) used to dispose of brine for all periods covered by these Interrogatorjes; q. If brine was recycled on the same lease, then identify: (1) Whether a filtering system was used; (2) The filtering system and equipment used; (3) Whether the filters were cleaned; (4) How the filters were cleaned; (5) The schedule for cleaning filters (e.g., daily, two times a week, etc.); (6) How the filter backwash was disposed of: (7) If th.re was a discharg. of filter backwash, whether h. discharge reached a stream or river (or any branch.. or tributaries); (8) If so, th. etrea or river (or any branches or tributaries) was reached by th. dischargs; r. If brin, was trucked away, th*n: (1) Identify whers the brin, was placed and/or stored prior to trucking; 22 — ------- (2) Identify how frequently it was trucked: (3) Identify who trucked it; (4) State the capacity of the truck; (5) Identify the location where the brine was taken: (6) State how the brine was disposed of at that location; (7) If the brine was treated, state the cost per barrel; (8) If it was spread on roads, state the location and describe all approvals from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, and any applicable municipal and/or Federal authorities. s. If discharged from the containment pit or tank on site, then: (1) Describe how it was discharged (e.g., overflow, siphon, etc.): (2) Identify how frequently (daily, etc.); (3) State whether the brine was diluted before being discharged; (4) If so, identify the method used to dilute brine, including the schedule of dilution and ratio of fresh water added to the brine (daily, etc.); (5) Identify what treatment, if any, was used before the brine was discharged; — 23 — ------- (6) Identify whether the brine was discharged to a stream or river (or branch and/or tributary thereof); (7) If so, identify the stream or river (or branch and/or tributary thereof) to which the brine was discharged; (8) Describe the outfall.; and (9) State the distance from the containment pit or tank to the stream or river (or branch and/or tributary thereof); t. Describe all, agreements or understandings, if any, you contend you had with any governmental authorities, including, but not limited to, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, the Pennsylvania Bureau of Gas and Oil. Management or the U.S. Environmental Agency, regarding such brine disposal practices; u. Identify the persona you contend participated in such agreements or understandings; and v. Identify all documents you contend support or confirm such agreements or understanding., 8. With regard to the A Flick Lease, please state or answer the following: a. Identify the production formation(s) for wells on the lemse (e.g., geologic formation such as Canaday or Conneaut, ti m. unit such as Upper Osnovian, or sand such as Glade or Venango); — 24 — ------- b. Average or typical depth of wells art the lease (if you object to providing “average” or “typical” well age, then please furnish the depth of each well on the lease); c. Average or typical age of wells (i.e. when was the well drilled?) (If you object to providing “average” or “typical” well age, then please furnish this information for e&ch well on the lease); d. All periods of active or inactive production on the lease; a. The number of active or inactive wells during all periods of active operation on the lease; f. The method of production on the lease (e.g., primary or secondary); g. If secondary production, the number of injection wells; h. If sócondary production, the volume of water/fluids injected per month; i. Whether production wells (both primary and secondary production) were pumped on a continuous or periodic basis; j. If periodic, the schedule for pumping wells on the lease; I c. the method used to separate oil and brine; 1. The type and capacity of separators; m. The holding time; n. How brine was contained; — 25 ------- o. The capacity of brine storage tanks or pits; p. Describe the method(s) used to dispose of brine for all periods covered by these Interrogatories; q. If brine was recycled on the same lease, then ider ti fy: (1) Whether a filtering system was used; (2) The filtering system and equipment used; (3) Whether the filters were cleaned; (4) How the filters were cleaned; (5) The schedule for cleaning filters (e.g., daily, two times a week, etc.); (6) How the filter backwash was disposed of; (7) If there was a discharge of filter backwash, whether the discharge reached a stream or river (or any branches or tributaries); (8) If so, the stream or river (or any branches or tributaries) was reached by the discharge; r. If brine was trucked away, then: (1) Identify where the brin, was placed and/or stored prior to trucking; (2) Identify how frequently it was trucked; (3) Identify who trucked it; (4) Stat. the capacity of th. truck; (3) Identify the location where the brine was taken; — 26 — ------- (6) State how the brine was disposed of at that location; (7) If the brine was treated, state the cost per barrel; (8) If it was spread on roads, state the location and describe all approvals from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, and any applicable municipal and/or Federal authorities. s. If discharged from the containment pit or tank on site, then: (1) Describe how it was discharged (e.g., overflow, siphon, etc.); (2) Identify how frequently (daily, etc.); (3) State whether the brine was diluted before being discharged; (4) If SO, identify the method used to dilute brine, including the schedule of dilution and ratio of fresh water added to the brine (daily, etc.); (5) Identify what treatment, if any, wa, used before the brine was discharged; (6) Identify whether th. brine was discharged to a str.a or river (or branch and/or tributary thereof): (7) If so, identify the stream or river (or branch and/or tributary thereof) to which the brine was discharged: (8) Describe the outfall; and — 27 — ------- (9) State the distance from the containment pit or tank to the stream or river (or branch and/or tributary thereof); t. Describe all agreements or understandings, if any, you contend you had with any government authorities, including, but not limited to, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, the Pennsylvania Bureau of Gas and Oil Management or the U.S. Environmental Agency, regarding such brine disposal practices; u. Identify the persons you contend participated in such agreements or understandings; and v. Identify all documents you contend support or confirm such agreements or understandings. - 9. With regard to the Tionesta Sand & Gravel Lease, please state or answer the following: a. Identify the production formation(s) for wells on the lease (e.g., geologic formation such as Canaday or Conneaut, time unit such as Upper Denovian, or sand such as Glade or Venango); b. Average or typical depth of wells on the lease (if you object to providing Maveragea or atypicala well age, then please furnish the depth of well on the lease); a. Average or typical age of wells (i.e. when was the well drilled?) (If you object to providing averagea or “typical veil age, then pisass furnish this information for t ch well on the lease); — 28 — ------- d. All periods of active or inactive production on the lease; e. The nuxn er of active or inactive wells during all periods of active operation on the lease; f. The method of production on the lease (e.g., primary or secondary); g. If secondary production, the num ber of injection wells; h. If secondary production, the volume of water/fluids injected per month; i. Whether production wells (both primary and secondary production) were pumped on a continuous or periodic basis; j. If periodic, the schedule for pumping wells on the lease; k. the method used to separate oil, and brine; 1. Th. type and capacity of separators; m. Th. holding time; n. How brin. was contained; 0. Th. capacity of brine storage tanks or pits; p. Describ. the method(s) used to dispose of brine for all period.. covered by these Interrogatories; q. If brine was recycled on the sam. lease, then identify: (1) Whsther a filtering system was used: (2) The filtering system and equipment used; — 29 — ------- (3) Whether the filters were cleaned; (4) How the filters were cleaned; (5) The schedule for cleaning filters (e.g., daily, two times a week, etc.); (6) How the filter backwash was disposed of; (7) If there was a discharge of filter backwash, whether the discharge reached a stream or river (or any branches or tributaries); (8) If so, the stream or river (or any branches or tributaries) was reached by the discharge; r. If brine was trucked away, then: (1) Identify where the brine was placed and/or stored prior to trucking; (2) Identify how frequently it was trucked; (3) Identify who trucked it; (4) State the capacity of the truck; (5) Identify the location where the brine was taken; (6) State how the brine W5S disposed of at that location; (7) If ths brine was treated, state the cost per barrel; (8) If it was spread on roads, state the location and describe all approvals frog the Pennsylvania Depart .nt of Environmental Resources, and any applicable municipal and/or Federal authorities. — 30 — ------- s. If discharged from the containment pit or tank on site, then: (1) Describe how it was discharged (e.g., overflow, siphon, etc.): (2) Identify how frequently (daily, etc.): (3) State whether the brine was diluted before being discharged; (4) If so, identify the method used to dilute brine, including the schedule of dilution and ratio of fresh water added to the brine (daily, etc.); (5) Identify what treatment, if any, was used before the brine was discharged; (6) Identify whether the brine was discharged to a stream or river (or branch and/or tributary thereof); (7) If so, identify the stream or river (or branch and/or tributary thereof) to which the brine was discharged; (8) Describe the outfall; and (9) State the distance from the containment pit or tank to the stream or river (or branch and/or tributary thereof); t. Describe all agreements ‘or understandings, if any, you contend you had with any governmental authorities, including, but not limited to, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, th. Pennsylvania Bureau of Gas and — 31 — ------- Oil Management or the U.S. Environmental Agency, regarding such brine disposal practices; U. Identify the persons you contend participated in such agreements or understandings; and v. Identify all documents you contend support or confirm such agreements or understandings. 10. With regard to the Maxwell Lease, Lot No. 4006, please state or answer the following: a. Identify the production formation(s) for wells on the lease (e.g., geologic formation such as Canaday or Conneaut, time unit such as Upper Denovian, or sand such as Glade or Venango); b. Average or typical depth of walls on the lease (if you object to providing “average or “typical well age, then please furnish the depth of well on the lease); c. Average or typical age of wells (i.e. when was the well drilled?) (If you object to providing average or “typical wall age, then please furnish this information for well on the lease); d. All periods of active or inactive production on the lease; a. The number of active or inactive wells during all perioda of active operation on the lease; f. Th. method of production on th. lease (e.g., primary or secondary); — 32 — ------- g. If secondary production, the number of Injection wells: h. If secondary production, the volume of water/fluids injected per month; i. Whether production wells (both primary and secondary production) were pumped on a continuous or periodic basis; j. If periodic, the schedule for pumping wells on the lease; k. the method used to separate oil and brine; 1. The type and capacity of separators; m. The holding time; n. Row brine was contained; o. The capacity of brine storage tanks or pits; p. Describe the method(s) used to dispose of brine for all periods covered by these Interrogatories; q. If brine was recycled on the same lease, then identify: (1) Whether a filtering system was used; (2) Tb. filtering system and equipment used; (3) Whether the filters were cleaned; (4) How the filters were cleaned; (5) Tb. schedu1 for cleaning filters (e.g., daily, two times a week, etc.); (6) How th. filter backwash wa, disposed of; — 33 — ------- (7) If there was a discharge of filter backwash, whether the discharge reached a strean or river (or any branches or tributaries); (8) If so, the stream or river (or any branches or tributaries) was reached by the discharge; r. If brine was trucked away, then: (1) Identify where the brine was placed and/or stored prior to trucking; (2) Identify how frequently it was trucked; (3) Identify who trucked it; (4) State the capacity of the truck; (5) Identify the location where the brine was taken; (6) State how the brine was disposed of at that location: (7) If the brine W 5S treated, state the cost per barrel; (8) If it was spread on roads, state the location and describe all approvals from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, and any applicable municipal and/or Federal authorities. a. If discharged from the containment pit or tank on site, then: (1) Describe how it was discharged (e.g., overflow, siphon, etc.); (2) Identify how frequently (daily, etc.); — 34 — ------- (3) State whether the brine was diluted before being discharged; (4) If so, identify the method used to dilute brine, including the schedule of dilution and ratio of fresh water added to the brine (daily, etc.); (5) Identify what treatment, if any, was used before the brine was discharged; (6) Identify whether the brine was discharged to a stream or river (or branch and/or tributary thereof); (7) If so, identify the stream or river (or branch and/or tributary thereof) to which the brine was discharged; (8) Describe the outfall; and (9) State the distance from the containment pit or tank to the stream or river (or branch and/or tributary thereof): t. Describe all agreements or understandings, if any, you contend you had with any governmental authorities, including, but not limited to, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, the Pennsylvania Bureau of Gas and oil. Management or the U.S. Environmental Agency, regarding such brine disposal practices; U. Identify the persons you contend participated in such agreements or understandings: and V. Identify all documents you contend support or confirm such agreements or understanding.. — 35 — ------- 11. With regard to the Webb Lease, Lot No. 3337, please state or answer the following: a. Identify the production formation(s) for wells on the lease (e.g., geologic formation such as Canaday or Conneaut, time unit such as Upper Denovjan, or sand such as Glade or Venango); b. Average or typical depth of wells on the lease (if you object to providing Naverage or “typical well age, then please furnish the depth of each well on the lease); c. Average or typical age of wells (i.e. when was the well drilled?) (If you object to providing average’ or typica l well age, then please furnish this information for each well on the lease); d. All periods of active or inactive production on the lease; e. The number of active or inactive wells during all periods of active operation on the lease; f. The method of production on the lease (e.g., primary or secondary); g. If secondary production, the number of injection wells; h. If secondary production, th. volume of water/fluid, injected per month; i. Whether production wells (both primary and secondary production) ware pumped on a continuou, or periodic basis: — 36 — ------- j. If periodic, the schedule for pumping wells on the lease; k. the method used to separate oil and brine; 1. The type and capacity of separators; m. The holding time; n. How brine was contained; o. The capacity of brine storage tanks or pits; p. Describe the method(s) used to dispose of brine for all periods covered by these Interrogatories; q. If brine was recycled on the same lease, then identify: (1) Whether a filtering system was used; (2) The filtering system and equipment used; (3) Whether the filters were cleaned; (4) How the filters ware cleaned; (5) The schedule for cleaning filters (e.g., daily, two times a week, etc.); (6) How the filter backwash was disposed of; (7) If there was a discharge of filter backwash, whether the discharge reached a stream or river (or any branch.e or tributaries); (8) If so, the stream or river (or any branches or tributaries) was reached by the discharge; r. If brin. was trucked away, then: (1) Identify where the brin, was placed and/or stored prior to trucking; 37 — ------- (2) Identify how frequently it was trucked; (3) Identify Who trucked it; (4) State the capacity of the truck; (5) Identify the location where the brine was taken; (6) State how the brine was disposed of at that location; (7) If the brine was treated, state the cost per barrel; (8) If it was spread on roads, state the location and describe all approvals from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, and any applicable municipal and/or Federal authorities. s. If discharged from the containment pit or tank on site, then: (1) Describe how it was discharged (e.g., overflow, siphon, etc.); (2) Identify how frequently (daily, etc.); (3) State whether the brine wa, diluted before being discharged; (4) If so, identify the method used to dilute brin., including the schedule of dilution and ratio of fresh water added to the brine (daily, etc.); (5) Identify what treatment, if any, was used before the brine was discharged; — 38 — ------- (6) Identify whether the brine was discharged to a stream or river (or branch and/or tributary thereof); (7) If so, identify the stream or river (or branch and/or tributary thereof) to which the brine was discharged; (8) Describe the outfall; and (9) State the distance from the containment pit or tank to the stream or river (or branch and/or tributary thereof); t. Describe all agreements or understandings, if any, you contend you had with any governmental authorities, including, but not limited to, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, the Pennsylvania Bureau of Gas and Oil Management or the U.S. Environmental Agency, regarding such brine disposal practices; u. Identify the persons you contend participated in such agreements or understandings; and v. Identify all documents you contend support or confirm such agreements or understandings. 12. With regard to the Cochran Lease, Lot Moe. 7 and 407, please state or answer the following: a. Id.ntify the production formation(s) for wells on ths i.e.. (e.g., geologic formation such as Canaday or Conneaut, tim . unit such as Upper Denovian, or sand such as Glade or Venango); _ 39 — ------- b. Average or typical depth of wells on the lease (if you object to providing “average” or “typical” well age, then please furnish the depth of each well on the lease); c. Average or typical age of wells (i.e. when was the well drilled?) (If you object to providing “average” or “typical” well age, then please furnish this information for each we].]. on the lease); d. All periods of active or inactive production on the lease; e. The number of active or inactive wells during all periods of active operation on the lease; f. The method of production on the lease (e.g., primary or secondary); g. If secondary production, the number of injection wells; h. If secondary production, the volume of water/fluids injected per month; i. Whether production wells (both primary and secondary production) were pumped on a continuous or periodic basis; j. If periodic, the schedule for pumping wells on the lease; k. the method used to separate oil and brine; 1. The type and capacity of separators; m. The holding time; n. How brin, was contained; — 40 — ------- o. The capacity of brine storage tanks or pits; p. Describe the method(s) used to dispose of br rte for all periods covered by these Irtterrogatories; q. If brine was recycled on the same lease, then identify: (1) Whether a filtering system was used; (2) The filtering system and equipment used; (3) Whether the filters were cleaned; (4) How the filters were cleaned; (5) The schedule for cleaning filters (e.g., daily, two times a week, etc.); (6) How the filter backwash was disposed of; (7) If there was a discharge of filter backwash, whether the discharge reached a stream or river (or any branches or tributaries); (8) If so, the stream or river (or any branches or tributaries) was reached by the discharge; r. If brine was trucked away, then: (1) Identify where the brine was placed and/or stored prior to trucking; (2) Identify how frequently it was trucked; (3) Identify who trucked it; (4) Stat. the capacity of the truck; (5) Identify the location where the brine was taken; — 41 — ------- (6) State how the brine was disposed of at that location; (7) If the brine was treated, state the cost per barrel; (8) If it was spread on roads, state the location and describe all approvals from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, and any applicable municipal and/or Federal authorities. s. If discharged from the containment pit or tank on site, then: (1) Describe how it was discharged (e.g., overflow, siphon, etc.); - (2) Identify how frequently (daily, etc.); (3) State whether the brine wag diluted before being discharged; (4) If so, identify the method used to dilute brine, including the schedule of dilution and ratio of fresh water added to the brine (daily, etc.); (5) Identify what treatment, if any, was used befor, the brine was discharged; (6) Identify whether the brine was discharged to a stream or river (or branch and/or tributary thereof); (7) If so, identify the stream or river (or branch and/or tributary thereof) to which the brine was discharged; (8) Describe the outfall; and — 42 — ------- (9) State the distance from the containment pit or tank to the stream or river (or branch and/or tributary thereof); t. Describe all agreements or understandings, if any, you contend you had with any governmental authorities, including, but not limited to, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, the Pennsylvania Bureau of Gas and Oil Management or the U.S. Environmental Agency, regarding such brine disposal practices; u. Identify the persons you contend participated in such agreements or understandings; and v. Identify all documents you contend support or confirm such agreements or understandings. 13. With regard to the Mikula Lease, Lot No. 7—3599, please state or answer the following: a. Identify the production formation(s) for wells on the lease (e.g., geologic formation such as Canaday or Conneaut, time unit such as Upper Denovian, or sand such as Glade or Venango); b. Average or typical depth of wells on the lease (if you object to providing ‘average’ or ‘typical’ well age, then please furnish the depth of u well on the lease): C. Average or typical ag. of wells (i.e. when was the well drilled?) (If you object to providing ‘average’ or ‘typical’ well age, then please furnish this information for gg well on the lease); — 43 — ------- d. All periods of active or inactive production on the lease; e. The number of active or inactive wells during all periods of active operation on the lease; f. The method of production on the lease (e.g., primary or secondary); g. If secondary production, the number of injection wells; h. If secondary production, the volume of water/fluids injected per month; i. Whether production wells (both primary and secondary production) were pumped on a Continuous or periodic basis; j. If periodic, the schedule for pumping wells on the lease; k. the method used to separate oil and brine; 1. The type and capacity of separators; m. The holding time; n. How brine was Contained; 0. The capacity of brine storage tanks or pits; p. Describe the method(s) used to dispose of brine for all periods covered by these Interrogatories; q. If brine was recycled on the same lease, then identify: (1) Whether a filtering system was used: (2) The filtering system and equipment used; — 44 — ------- (3) Whether the filters were cleaned; (4) How the filters were cleaned; (5) The schedule for cleaning filters (e.g., daily, two times a week, etc.); (6) How the filter backwash was disposed of; (7) If there was a discharge of filter backwash, whether the discharge reached a stream or river (or any branches or tributaries); (8) If so, the stream or river (or any branches or tributaries) was reached by the discharge; r. If brine was trucked away, then: (1) Identify where the brine was placed and/or stored prior to trucking; (2) Identify how frequently it was trucked; (3) Identify who trucked it; (4) State the capacity of the truck; (5) Identify the location where the brine was taken; (6) State how the brine was disposed of at that location; (7) If the brine was treated, state the cost per barrel: (8) If it was spread on roads, state the location and describe all approvals from the Pennsylvania Department of Environ ental Resources, and any applicable municipal and/or Federal authorities. — 45 — ------- s. If discharged from the containment pit or tank on site, then: (1) Describe how it was discharged (e.g., overflow, siphon, etc.); (2) Identify how frequently (daily, etc.); (3) State whether the brine was diluted before being discharged; (4) If so, identify the method used to dilute brine, including the schedule of dilution and ratio of fresh water added to the brine (daily, etc.); (5) Identify what treatment, if any, was used before the brine was discharged; - (6) Identify whether the brine was discharged to a stream or river (or branch and/or tributary thereof); (7) If so, identify the stream or river (or branch and/or tributary thereof) to which the brine was discharged; (8) Describe the outfall; and (9) State the distance from the containment pit or tank to the stream or river (or branch and/or tributary thereof); t. Describe all agreements or understandings, if any, you contend you had with any governmental authorities, including, but not limited to, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, the Pennsylvania Bureau of Gas and — 46 — ------- Oil Management or the U.S. Environmental Agency, regarding such brine disposal practices: u. tdentify the persons you contend participated in such agreements or understandings: and v. Identify all documents you contend support or confirm such agreements or understandings. 14. With regard to the Big Shanty 100 and 488 Leases, Lot o. 2275, please state or answer the following: a. Identify the production formation(s) for wells on the lease (e.g., geologic formation such as Canaday or Conneaut, time unit such as Upper Denovian, or sand such as Glade or Venango); b. Average or typical depth of wells on the lease (if you object to providing “average” or “typical” well age, then please furnish the depth of each well on the lease); c. Average or typical age of wells (i.e. when was the well drilled?) (If you object to providing “average” or “typical” well age, then please furnish this information for well on the lease): d. All periods of active or inactive production on the lease; a. The number of active or inactive wells during all periods of active operation on the lease; f. The method of production en the lease (e.g., primary or secondary); — 47 — ------- g. If secondary production, the number of injection wells; h. If secondary production, the volume of water/fluids injected per month; i. Whether production wells (both primary and secondary production) were pumped on a continuous or periodic basis; j. If periodic, the schedule for pumping wells on the lease; k. the method used to separate oil and brine; 1. The type and capacity of separators; m. The holding time; n. How brine was contained; o. The capacity of brine storage tanks or pits; p. Describe the method(s) used to dispose of brine for all periods covered by these Interrogatories; q. If brine was recycled on the same lease, then identify: (1) Whether a filtering systea was used; (2) The filtering system and equipment used; (3) Whether the filters were cleaned: (4) How the filters were cleaned; (5) The schedule for cleaning filters (e.g., daily, two times a week, etc.); (6) How the filter backwash was disposed of; — 48 — ------- (7) If there was a discharge of filter backwash, whether the discharge reached a stream or river (or any branches or tributaries); (8) If so, the stream or river (or any branches or tributaries) was reached by the discharge; r. If brine was trucked away, then: (1) Identify where the brine was placed and/or stored prior to trucking; (2) Identify how frequently it was trucked; (3) Identify who trucked it; (4) State the capacity of the truck; (5) Identify the location where the brine was - taken; (6) State how the brine was disposed of at that location; (7) If the brine was treated, state the cost per barrel; (8) If it wag spread on roads, state the location and describe all approvals from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, and any applicable municipal and/or Federal authorities. a. If discharged from the containment pit or tank on site, then: (1) Describe how it was discharged (e.g., overflow, siphon, etc.); (2) Identify how frequently (daily, etc.): — 49 — ------- (3) State whether the brine was diluted before being discharged; (4) If SO, identify the method used to dilute brine, including the schedule of djlutjo and ratio of fresh water added to the brine (daily, etc.); (5) Identify what treatment, if any, was used before the brine was discharged: (6) Identify whether the brine was discharged to a stream or river (or branch and/or tributary thereof); (7) If SO, identify the stream or river (or branch and/or tributary thereof) to which the brine was discharged; (8) Describe the outfall; and (9) State the distance from the containment pit or tank to the stream or river (or branch and/or tributary thereof); t. Describe all, agreements or understandings, if any, you Contend you had with any governmental, authorities, including, but not limited to, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, the Pennsylvania Bureau of Gas and Oil. Management or the U.S. Environmental Agency, regarding such brine disposal practices; t a. Identify the persons you contend participated in such agreements or understandings; and V. Identify all documents you contend support or confirm such agreements or understanding.. — 50 — ------- 15. With regard to the Grunder Leases, Lot Nos. 454 and 484, please state or answer the following: a. Identify the production formation(s) for wells on the lease (e.g., geologic formation such as Canaday or Conneaut, time unit such as Upper Denovian, or sand such as Glade or Venango); b. Average or typical depth of wells on the lease (if you object to providing “average” or “typical” well age, then please furnish the depth of each well on the lease); c. Average or typical age of wells (i.e. when was the well drilled?) (If you object to providing “average or “typical” well age, then please furnish this information for each well on the lease); a. all periods of active or inactive production on the lease; e. The number of active or inactive wells during all periods of active operation on the lease; f. The method of production on the lease (e.g., primary or secondary); g. If secondary production, the number of injection wells; h. If secondary production, the volume of water/fluids injected per month; i. Whether production wells (both primary and secondary production) were pumped on a continuous or periodic basis; — 51 — ------- j. If periodic, the schedule for pumping wells on the lease; k. the method used to separate oil and brine; 1. The type and capacity of separators; m. The holding time; n. How brine was contained; o. The capacity of brine storage tanks or pits; p. Describe the method(s) used to dispose of brine for all periods covered by these Interrogatories; q. If brine wag recycled on the same lease, then identify: (1) Whether a filtering system was used; (2) The filtering system and equipment used; (3) Whether the filters were cleaned; (4) How the filters were Cleaned; (5) The schedule for cleaning filters (e.g., daily, two times a week, etc.); (6) How the filter backwash was disposed of; (7) If there was a discharge of filter backwash, whether the discharge reached a stream or river (or any branch., or tributaries); (8) If so, the stream or river (or any branches or tributaries) was reached by tha discharge; r. If brine was trucked away, then: (1) Identify where the brine W 8 placed and/or stored prior to trucking; — 52 — ------- (2) Identify how frequently it was trucked; (3) Identify who trucked it; (4) State the capacity of the truck; (5) Identify the location where the brine was taken; (6) State how the brine was disposed of at that location; (7) If the brine was treated, state the cost per barrel; (8) If it was spread or roads, state the location and describe all approvals from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, and any - applicable municipal and/or Federal authorities. s. If discharged from the containment pit or tank on site, then: (1) Describe hew it was discharged (e.g., overflow, siphon, etc.); (2) Identify how frequently (daily, etc.); (3) State whether the brine was diluted before being discharged; (4) If so, identify the method used to dilute brine, including the schedule of dilution and ratio of fresh water added to the brine (daily, etc.); (5) Identify what treatment, if any, was used before the brine was discharged; — 53 — ------- (6) Identify whether the brine was discharged to a stream or river (or branch and/or tributary thereof); (7) If so, identify the stream or river (or branch and/or tributary thereof) to which the brine was discharged; (8) Describe the outfall; and (9) State the distance from the containment pit or tank to the stream or river (or branch and/or tributary thereof); t. Identify any other leases from which brine was transported to the Grunder Lease for disposal; u. Describe all agreements or understandings, if any, you contend you had with any governmental authorities, including, but not limited to, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, the Pennsylvania Bureau of Gas and Oil Management or the U.S. Environmental Agency, regarding such brine disposal practices; v. Identify the persons you contend participated in such agree entg or understandings; and — 54 — ------- w. Identify all documents you contend Support or confirm such agreements or understandings RICHARD B. STEWART Assistant Attorney General By: JERE,Z’ L ELLINGTO J. AR ’D SNYDER Department of Justice Environment and Natural Resources Division Environmental Enforcement Section P.O. Box 7611 Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 (202) 514—3974 THOMAS W. CORBETT, JR. United States Attorney Western District of Pennsylvania By: JAI9S 3. SS Assjsta United States Attorney Federal Building & Courthouse 6th & State Streets Erie, PA (814) 452—2906 OF COUNSEL : MARY ST. PETER Assistant Regional Counsel U.S. Environmental Protection Agency -— Region x x x 841 Chestnut Building Philadelphia, PA 19107 DANIEL PALMER Attorney-Advisor U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring - Water 401 H Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20460 — 55 — ------- ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 1 as being vague, unreasonably burdensome, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State responds as follows: Requests 1-5 Notapplicable. 6-19 The responses speak for themselves. In many instances, Quaker State did not own and operate the lease properties, at least for the entire period in question. 20-23 See the responses themselves. Furthermore, it is not an immutable geologic fact that some amount of brine is always produced each moment oil is produced from all wells. This was acknowledged at various depositions and documents produced during discovery in this case. 34-47 See the responses themselves. Also see the other Answers to Interrogatories which follow. Gross oil production records and lease operating statements were maintained on a monthly basis, not weekly or daily. Entire leases, particularly in the Titusville district, would be shut down during periods of extremely cold weather. Severe weather also would disrupt operation for individual wells and entire leases at times, such as the tornadoes which hit the area in the mid-1980’s. In addition, maintenance could result in individual wells, or even entire leases, being shut down for periods of time. 48-6 1 See the responses themselves. Also see the Answers to the other Interrogatories which follow. Further, the issue of discharges of brine has been the subject of numerous depositions taken by the government in the case to date. 62-85 Not applicable. 86-95 The responses speak for themselves and reflect the testimony of witnesses at depositions and the documents themselves. 96-10 1 The responses speak for themselves. Further, a review of the documents referenced in these Requests reveal why plaintiff’s descriptions could not be admitted, (e.g., some documents bear the names of persons or entities other than Cherokee Environmental Laboratories, others purport to refer to locations other than where Plaintiff proposed). 2. (a) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 2(a) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Quaker State further objects to this Interrogatory because the requested information is contained in public records that are equally ------- available to the United States. Without prejudice to these objections, Well Records for the wells on the Lease are available for review by the United States at the offices of Babst, Calland, Clements and Zomnir, P.C., in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Contained therein is information regarding the production formation(s) for the wells on the Lease. (b) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No.2(b) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Quaker State further objects to this Interrogatory because the requested information is contained in public records that are equally available to the United States. Without prejudice to these objections, Well Records for the wells on the Lease are available for review by the United States at the offices of Babst, Calland, Clements and Zomnir, P C., in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Contained therein is information regarding the specific depth of the wells on the Griffin Lease. (C) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 2(c) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Quaker State further objects to this Interrogatory because the requested information is contained in public records that are equally available to the United States. Without prejudice to these objections, Well Records for the wells on the Lease are available for review by the United States at the offices of Babst, Calland, Clements and Zomnir, P.C., in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Contained therein is information regarding the age of the wells on the Lease. (d) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 2(d) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State can state that it did not maintain records which would indicate specific periods of active or inactive production for individual wells on a lease. Addenda One and Two to Quaker States’ Responses to the United States’ First Set of Interrogatories reflect which properties and oil wells were active and inactive at the time of sale to Pennsylvania General Energy Corp. Addendum Four reflects gross annual oil production for each lease for the years 1983-1989. Quaker State also already has produced year end lease operating statements for the years 1983-1989, which indicate whether a lease was active during a particular year. By way of further answer, monthly Gross Oil Production figures for leases forthe period January, 1984 through December, 1989, are available for review by the United States at the offices of Babst, Calland, Clements and Zomnir, P.C., in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Such Gross Oil Production records generally indicate when a lease was active on a monthly basis. Quaker State did not maintain oil production records on a weekly or daily basis. These foregoing ob,ections and responses are incorporated by reference into Quaker State s responses to each succeeding Interrogatory subpart (d). These gross oil production records indicate that oil was produced on the Griffin Lease each month during the period December, 1983 through October, 1988. By way of further answer. Quaker State responds that the wells on the Griffin Lease that had been identified as having the potential 2 ------- to discharge to surface waters were shut down on or before June 3, 1988 and remained inactive for some time thereafter. By way of further answer, the lease was not active every day. In addition, the lease would be inactive during periods of severely cold weather, and may have been inactive for periods due to other reasons, such as storm damage and maintenance. See also Responses to Interrogatory 2(e) and (j). (e) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 2(e) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State can state that it did not maintain records which state the number of wells that were active or inactive on each lease at any particular time Frequently, less than all wells at each lease were active at the same time. Individual wells could be off production for days, weeks or months at a time. See also Responses to interrogatory No. 2(d) and (j). (f) The method of production on the Griffin Lease was primary production by solution gas drive. (g) Not applicable. (h) Not applicable. (i) Periodic. (j) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 2(j) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State can state that it did not maintain records regarding the length of time that each well was pumped. By way of further answer, Quaker State can state that the schedule for pumping at the Griffin Lease at one time was five days a week but declined over time. On days when the wells were pumped, each well may have been operated only for a short time. In addition, individual wells could be off production even when the lease was active, and the entire lease would be shut down for periods due to severe weather, maintenance, etc. See also responses to Interrogatory 2(d) and (e). (k) At all of Quaker State’s leases, oil and water separation was accomplished through gravity separation. Leases generally were equipped with oil/water separator tanks. The oil/water separator tanks were equipped with a water siphon near the base of the tank and an oil flow conduit near the top of the tank. At a few leases where there were no separator tanks, separation was accomplished in storage tanks. Water would be manually drained from the bottom of such tanks. (I) Two oil/water separator tanks, each with a capacity of approximately 50 barrels, and approximately 17 four-barrel separators were used at the Griffin Lease. Cm) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 2(m) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, oppressive and expensive to which to 3 ------- respond. Quaker State further objects to this Interrogatory as being vague and ambiguous. Without waiving its objections, Quaker State can state that as it understands the term “holding time”, it did not maintain records regarding the holding time of fluids in each separator. By way of further answer, Quaker State can state that fluids were held long enough in the oil/water separator tanks to allow oil to separate from brine. (n) Quaker State objects to this interrogatory, and subpart (n) of each succeeding interrogatory, as being vague and ambiguous in its use of the term “contained”. Quaker State further objects to this interrogatory as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Without prejudice to this objection, Quaker State responds that brine from wells would go to a separator tank and then into a pit. (o) Quaker State objects to this interrogatory as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State responds that the capacity of the pits varied, from small, shallow pits serving only one well (e.g. approximately 10 feet in diameter) to larger, deeper pits in series (e.g. approximately 50 feet by 20 feet) serving multiple wells. (p) Quaker State objects to this interrogatory as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State responds that from a number of wells from the southwestern section of the Griffin Lease, brine was gathered to a central facility (i.e. Facility A); from other wells in the southeastern section of the Griffin Lease, brine was gathered to another central facility (i.e. Facility B); and all other wells on the lease were equipped with individual separators and containment pits at each well site. At least after July 3, 1988, all brine produced which had any potential to discharge to surface waters was trucked to Franklin Brine Treatment Corporation for disposal. (s) Quaker State objects to this interrogatory as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Quaker State further objects to the interrogatory, and subpart(s) of each succeeding interrogatory, as vague and ambiguous, particularly in its use of the term “discharge” in different contexts. Only a few pits had the potential for discharge to surface waters. Other pits may have discharged brine, but these discharges had no potential for reaching surface water. Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State responds as follows: With respect to the individual well containment pits, it is believed that some of the individual pits did not discharge at all, while others may have occasionally discharged by overflow or siphon. Any such discharges would have been extremely intermittent. Quaker State cannot confirm that any brine discharged from individual well pits on the Griffin Lease ever reached surface waters. Treatment of the brine included separation of oil from water and settling out of solids. With respect to Facility A, brine flowed from a 50-barrel oil/water separator tank into a large pit, approximately 50 foot by 20 foot. Fresh water from at least one nearby water well was pumped into the pit. Following treatment consisting of settling out of solids, separations of oil 4 ------- from the water, aeration and oxidation, occasionally some of the diluted, treated effluent would be discharged from the pit via a siphon pipe. Only a portion of the resulting effluent, including storm water runoff, would occasionally make its way to a tributary of Pithole Creek. Such discharges were not continuous. It was several hundred feet from the containment pit to the tributary of Pithole Creek. No discharges from the pit occurred afteriune3, 1988. With respect to Facility B, brine flowed from a 50-barrel oil/water separator tank into the first of a series of two pits. Fresh water was added to the brine in the first pit from a fresh water well nearby Followin treatment including separation of oil from the water, settling out o solids, dilution, aeration and oxidation, the effluent would go into a second pit where it would undergo further treatment. Occasionally, the diluted, treated effluent would be discharged from the second put by a siphon pipe onto the ground and a portion of said effluent occasionally would make its way to a tributary of Pithole Creek. Such discharges were not continuous. There would have been no discharge from the pits after June 3, 1988. It is believed that fresh water from the water wells was added at a rate of up to 1 barrel per minute (estimated pump capacity) when the water wells were operating, and it is believed that the water wells operated at least whenever oil wells on the lease were being operated. There was no set ratio of fresh water to brine, but it is believed that the ratio-was at least lOto 1. (q) Brine was not recycled on the Griffin Lease. (r) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 2(r) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State can state that whenever the lease was active at least after June 3, 1988, brine was trucked from the pits having a potential to discharge. Brine would be delivered for disposal to a permitted brine handling facility near Franklin, Pennsylvania, operated by Franklin Brine Treatment Corporation. Brine was trucked by Quaker State-owned trucks, which had a capacity of approximately 70 barrels. FBTC charged approximately 3 cents a gallon for disposal of brine. (t), (u) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 2(t, u & v) as being overly (v) broad, unreasonably burdensome, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Quaker State further objects to these subparts as being vague and ambiguous. Without waiving its objections, Quaker State can state that as it understands the terms “agreements” and “understandings”, it incorporates herein its responses to Interrogatory Nos. 16, 17, 20 and 22 to Quaker State’s Responses to the United State’s First Set of Interrogatories Further, the Pennsylvania Fish Commission (e.g., Joe Kopena) was aware of and approved Quaker State’s brine disposal practices, and the EPA was aware that discharges existed on the lease at least since early 1987 and expressly advised that Quaker State need not shut down the wells. 5 ------- 3. (a) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 3(a) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Quaker State further objects to this Interrogatory because the requested information is contained in public records that are equally available to the United States. Without prejudice to these objections, Well Recdrds for the wells on the Proper Patterson Lease are available for review by the United States at the offices of Babst, Calland, Clements and Zomnir, P.C., in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Contained therein is information regarding the production formation(s) for the wells on the Proper Patterson Lease. (b) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 3(b) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Quaker State further objects to this Interrogatory because the requested information is contained in public records that are equally available to the United States. Without prejudice to these objections, Well Records for the wells on the Proper Patterson Lease are available for review by the United States at the offices of Babst, Calland, Clements and Zomnir, P.C., in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Contained therein is - information regarding the specific depth of the wells on the Proper Patterson Lease. (C) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 3(c) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Quaker State further objects to this Interrogatory because the requested information is contained in public records that are equally available to the United States. Without prejudice to these objections, Well Records for the wells on the Proper Patterson Lease are available for review by the United States at the offices of Babst, Calland, Clements and Zomnir, P.C., in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Contained therein is information regarding the age of the wells on the Proper Patterson Lease. (d) See response and objections to Interrogatory No. 2(d) incorporated by reference herein. By way of further answer, these records indicate that oil was produced on the Proper Patterson Lease each month during the period December 1983 through May 1988 and in September-October 1988. By way of further answer, Quaker State responds that the wells on the Proper Patterson Lease were shutdown on or before June 3, 1990 and remained inactive for some time thereafter. By way of further answer, the Proper Patterson Lease was not active every day. In addition, the lease would be inactive during periods of severely cold weather and could have been inactive for periods due to other reasons such as storm damage and maintenance. See also responses to Interrogatory 3(d) and (j) (e) See responses to Interrogatories 2(e) and 3(d) & (j). (f) The method of production on the Proper Patterson Lease was primary production by solution gas drive. (g) Not applicable. 6 ------- (h) Not applicable. (I) Periodic. (j) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 3(j) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discoveryof admissible evidence, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State can state that it did not maintain records regarding the length of time that each well was pumped. By way of further answer, Quaker State can state that the schedule for pumping at the Proper Patterson Lease at one time was five days a week but declined over time. On days when the wells were pumped, each well may have been operated only for a short time. In addition, individual wells would be off production even when the lease was active, and the entire lease would be shut down for periods due to severe weather, maintenance, etc. See also responses to Interrogatory 3(d) and (e). (k) See response to Interrogatory No.2(k). (I) One oil/water separator tank had a capacity of approximately 50 barrels. (m) See response to Interrogatory No. 2(m). (n),(o), (p) & (s) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 3(n,o, p & s) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. See also objections incorporated by reference from Interrogatory 2(n, o, p, &s). Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State can state that brine from all wells on the property was gathered to a central facility. Brine flowed from an oil/water separator tank into a small pit (approximately 20’ in diameter). Thereafter, brine flowed through a siphon overflow pipe and over steps to a second, larger pit. Fresh water from a nearby water well was added at a rate estimated at up to one barrel per minute (estimated pump capacity) during periods when the water well was operating. It is believed that the water well operated at least whenever oil wells on the lease were being operated. Following treatment, including settling out of solids, separation of oil from water, aeration and oxidation, some portion of the diluted effluent would exitthe second pit. This diluted effluent would mix with storm water runoff. The effluent would also be treated in a sediment trap. The tributary to Pithole Creek was several hundred feet from the second pit. Small discharges of portions of the diluted, treated effluent occurred intermittently prior to June 3, 1988. No discharges to surface water occurred after June 3, 1988. (q) Brine was not recycled on the Proper Patterson Lease. Cr) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 2(r) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State can state 7 ------- that whenever the lease was active at least after June 3, 1988, brine was trucked from pits having a potential to overflow. Brine would be delivered for disposal to a permitted brine handling facility near Franklin, Pennsylvania, operated by Franklin Brine Treatment Corporation. Brine was trucked by Quaker State-owned trucks, which had a capacity of approximately 70 barrels. FBTC charged approximately 3 cents a gallon to dispose of brine. (t), Cu) See response to Interrogatory No. 2(t), (u) and Cv). (v) 4. Quaker State objects to lnterro atory No.4 as being vague and ambiguous in its use of the term “Jenks Lease’, in that it is unclear whether the United States is including the Jenks Lease wells which were never owned by Quaker State but rather by Barbour Coal Company. Without waiving its objections, Quaker State can state that as it understands the term Jenks Lease, the Jenks Lease can be divided into two separate operations based on ownership. Quaker State owned portions known as the Jenks Lease, and The Barbour Coal Company owned portions known as the Jenks Lease although the wells were operated by Quaker State. (a) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 4(a) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Quaker State further objects to this Interrogatory because the requested information is contained in public records that are equally available to the United States. Without prejudice to these objections, Well Records for the wells on the Jenks Lease are available for review by the United States at the offices of Babst, Calland, Clements and Zomnir, P.C., in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Contained therein is information regarding the production formation(s) for the wells on the Jenks Lease. (b) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 4(b) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Quaker State further objects to this Interrogatory because the requested information is contained in public records that are equally available to the United States. Without prejudice to these objections, Well Records for the wells on the Jenks Lease are available for review by the United States at the offices of Babst, Calland, Clements and Zomnir, P.C.. in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Contained therein is information regarding the specific depth of the wells on the Jenks Lease. (c) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 4(c) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Quaker State further objects to this Interrogatory because the requested information is contained in public records that are equally available to the United States. Without prejudice to these objections, Well Records for the wells on the Jenks Lease are available for review by the United States at the offices of Babst, Calland, Clements and Zomnir, 8 ------- P.C., in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Contained therein is information regarding the age of the wells on the Jenks Lease. (d) See response and objections to Interrogatory No. 2(d) incorporated by reference herein. By way of further response, gross oil production records indicate that with regard to the wells owned by Quaker State, oil was produced each month during the period December, 1983 through September, 1988. By way of further answer, with regard to the wells owned by the Barbour Coal Company, records indicate oil was produced each month during the period April 1985 through October 1988. No oil was produced prior to April 1985 at the wells owned by The Barbour Coal Company. By way of further answer, the lease was not active every day. In addition, the lease would be inactive during periods of severely cold weather, and may have been inactive for periods due to other reasons, such as storm damage and maintenance. By way of further answer, Quaker State responds that wells on the Jenks Lease which had been identified as having the potential to discharge to surface waters were shut down on or about June 3, 1990 and remained inactive for some time thereafter. See also responses to Interrogatory 3(e) and (j). (e) See responses to Interrogatories 2(e) and 4(d). and (j). (f) The method of production on the Jenks Lease was primary production by solution gas drive. (g) Not applicable. (h) Not applicable. (i) Periodic. (j) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 4(j) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State can state that it did not maintain records regarding the length of time that each well was pumped. By way of further answer, Quaker State can state that the schedule for pumping the wells owned by Quaker State on the Jenks Lease was no more than five days a week and the schedule for pumping the wells owned by the The Barbour Coal Company on the Jenks Lease was five to seven days a week. By way of further answer, Quaker State can state that on days when the wells were pumped, they may have been operated only for a short time. See also responses to Interrogatory 4(d) and (e). (k) See response to Interrogatory No. 2(k). (I) With regard to the wells owned by the The Barbour Coal Company, two oil/water separator tanks at a centralized facility each had a capacity of approximately 50 barrels. With regard to the wells owned by Quaker State smaHer individual oil/water separator tanks with a capacity of approximately 4 oarrels were located at each well location. 9 ------- (m) See response to Interrogatory No. 2(m). (n), (o), (p) & (s) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 4(n,o, p & s) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See also objections incorporated herein frdm Interrogatory 2 (n,o,p, & s). Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State can state that each well on the Jenks lease owned by Quaker State was equipped with a small brine storage pit (approximately 10’ in diameter) located at the well site. Brine from the wells flowed from the oil/water separator tanks into the small pits. Brine from all wells on the Jenks Lease owned by The Barbour Coal Company was gathered to a central facility. Brine flowed from two oil/water separator tanks located at this central facility into two steel storage tanks, each having a capacity of approximately 50 barrels. Brine from these storage tanks was pumped through a plastic pipeline to a series of two pits (each approximately 50’L x 20’W) located approximately one-half mile away. Fresh water from a nearby water well was introduced into the pit at a rate estimated at up to one barrel per minute (estimated pump capacity) during periods when the water well was operating. It is believed that the water well operated at least when oil wells on the lease were operating. The effluent was treated, including settling out of solids, separation of oils, aeration and oxidation. By way of further answer, at certain times prior to the Fall of 1987, a diluted effluent, consisting primarily of fresh water and of a small amount of brine from the wells on The Barbour Coal Company’s Jenks Lease, was discharged from the pit following treatment and a portion of said effluent found its way to surface water. By way of further answer, no discharges occurred prior to April 1985. By way of further answer, in early 1987, Quaker State represented to the United States that there were twelve other locations on the Jenks Leases from which brine conceivably could have made its way to surface water. Quaker State cannot state whether there ever were discharges of brine to surface waters from these locations. Any discharge from any of these locations would have been of extremely small quantity and extremely intermittent. Not all brine produced on the leases went to these locations. By way of further answer, no discharges occurred after June 3, 1988. (q) Brine was not recycled on the Jenks Lease. (r) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 4(r) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State can state that whenever the lease was active at least after June 3, 1988, brine was trucked from the pits having a potential to discharge. Brine would be delivered for disposal to a permitted brine handling facility near Franklin, Pennsylvania, operated by Franklin Brine Treatment Corporation. Brine was trucked by Quaker State-owned trucks, which had a capacity of approximately 70 barrels. FBTC charged approximately 3 cents a gallon to dispose of brine. 10 ------- With regard to the wells owned by the The Barbour Coal Company on the Jeriks Lease, during periods prior to June 3, 1988, produced brine was trucked at various times from the two steel storage tanks referred to above to storage tanks owned by Eldred Township, Warren County, Pennsylvania and Harmony Township, Forest County, Pennsylvania. Upon information and belief, brine was spread on roads for dust control by Eldred Township and Harmony Township (t), (u) See response to Interrogatory No. 2(t), (u) and (v). (v) 5. (a) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 5(a) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Quaker State further objects to this Interrogatory because the requested information is contained in public records that are equally available to the United States. Without prejudice to these objections, Well Records for the wells on the Walton Glenn Lease are available for review by the United States at the offices of Babst, Calland, Clements and Zomnir, P.C., in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Contained therein is information regarding the production formation(s) for the wells on the Walton Glenn Lease. (b) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 5(b) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Quaker State further objects to this Interrogatory because the requested information is contained in public records that are equally available to the United States. Without prejudice to these objections, Well Records for the wells on the Walton Glenn Lease are available for review by the United States at the offices of Babst, Calland, Clements and Zomnir, P.C., in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Contained therein is information regarding the specific depth of the wells on the Walton Glenn Lease. (c) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 5(c) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Quaker State further objects to this Interrogatory because the requested information is contained in public records that are equally available to the United States. Without prejudice to these objections. Well Records for the wells on the Walton Glenn Lease are available for review by the United States at the offices of Babst, Calland, Clements and Zomnir, P.C., in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Contained therein is information regarding the age of the wells on the Walton Glenn Lease. (d) See response and objections to Interrogatory No. 2(d) incorporated by reference herein. By way of further answer, Quaker State can state that records indicate oil was produced on the Walton Glenn Lease each month during the period December 1983 through October 1988. By way of further answer, Quaker State responds that the wells on the Walton 11 ------- Glenn Lease that had been identified as having the potential to discharge were shut down on or before June 3, 1988 andremained inactive thereafter. By way of further answer, the lease was not active every day. In addition, the lease would be inactive during periods of severely cold weather, and would have been inactive for periods due to other reasons, such as storm damage and maintenance. In addition, individual wells would be off production even when the lease was active, and the entire lease would be shut down for periods due to severe weather, maintena 1ce, etc. See also, responses to Interrogatory 5(e) & (j). (e) See response to Interrogatory Nos. 2(e) and 5(d) & (j). (f) The method of production on the Walton Glenn Lease was primary production by solution gas drive. (g) Not applicable. (h) Not applicable. (i) Periodic. (j) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 5(j) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State can state that it did not maintain records regarding the length of time that each well was pumped. By way of further answer, Quaker State can state that the schedule for pumping at the Walton Glenn Lease at one time was five days a week but declined overtime. By way of further answer, Quaker State can state that on days when the wells were pumped, they may have been operated only for several minutes. See responses to Interrogatory 2(d) and (e). (k) See response to Interrogatory 2(k). (I) Individual oil/water separator tanks with a capacity of approximately 4 barrels were located at each well location on the Walton Glenn Lease. (m) See response to Interrogatory 2(m). (p) & (s) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 5(n,o, p & s) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See objections to Interrogatory 2 (n,o,p,s) incorporated by reference herein. Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State can state that each well on the Walton Glenn Lease was equipped with a small brine storage pit (approximately 10’ in diameter) located at the well site. Treatment included separation of oil from water and settling out of solids. It is possible that at one time at some wells brine from the separator would go onto the ground rather than into a pit. By way of further answer, in early 1987, Quaker State represented to the United States that there were ten locations on the Walton Glenn Lease from which brine conceivably could have made its way to Dawson Run or 12 ------- its unnamed tributaries. Quaker State cannot state whether there ever were discharges of brine to surface waters from those locations. Any discharge from any of those ten locations would have been of extremely small quantity and extremely intermittent. Not all brine produced on the Walton Glenn Lease went to those ten locations. By way of further answer, no discharges occurred after June 3, 1988. (q) Brine was not recycled on the Walton Glenn Lease. (r) Brine was not trucked from the Walton Glenn Lease. (t), (u) See response to Interrogatory No. 2(t), (u) and (v). Cv) 6. (a) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 6(a) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Quaker State further objects to this Interrogatory because the requested information is contained in public records that are equally available to the United States. Without prejudice to these objections, Well Records for the wells on the Wagner Lease are available for review by the United States at the offices of Babst, Calland, Clements and Zomnir, P.C., in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Contained therein is information regarding the production formation(s) for the wells on the Wagner Lease. (b) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 6(b) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Quaker State further objects to this Interrogatory because the requested information is contained in public records that are equally available to the United States. Without prejudice to these objections, Well Records for the wells on the Wagner Lease are available for review by the United States at the offices of Babst, Calland, Clements and Zomnir, P.C., in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Contained therein is information regarding the specific depth of the wells on the Wagner Lease. (c) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 6(c) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Quaker State further objects to this Interrogatory because the requested information is contained in public records that are equally available to the United States. Without prejudice to these objections, Well Records for the wells on the Wagner Lease are available for review by the United States at the offices of Babst, Calland, Clements and Zomnir, P.C., in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Contained therein is information regarding the age of the wells on the Wagner Lease. (d) See response and objections to Interrogatory No. 2(d) incorporated by reference herein. By way of further answer, Quaker State can state that records indicate oil was produced on the Wagner Lease each month 13 ------- during the period December 1983 through October 1988. By way of further answer, Quaker State responds that the wells on the Wagner Lease that had been identified as having the potential to discharge were shut down on or before June 3, 1988 and remained inactive thereafter. By way of further answer, the lease was not active every day. In addition, the lease would be inactive during periods of severely cold weather, and would have been inactive for periods due to other reasons, such as storm damage and maintenance. See also responses to interrogatories 2, 6 (e) and (j). (e) See response to Interrogatory Nos. 2(e) and 6(d) and (j). (f) The method of production on the Wagner Lease was primary production by solution gas drive. (g) Not applicable. (h) Not applicable. (i) Periodic. (j) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 6(j) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State can state that it did not maintain records regarding the length of time that each well was pumped. By way of further answer, Quaker State can state that the schedule for pumping at the Wagner Lease was no more than five days a week. By way of further answer, Quaker State can state that on days when the wells were pumped, they may have been operated only for several minutes. In addition, individual wells would be off production even when the lease was active, and the entire lease would be shut down for periods due to severe weather, maintenance, etc. See also responses to interrogatory 6(d) and (e). (k) See response to Interrogatory 2(k). (I) Individual oil/water separator tanks with a capacity of approximately 4 barrels were located at each well location on the Wagner Lease. (m) See response to Interrogatory 2(m). (n), (0), (p) & (s) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 6(n,o, p & 5) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome and oppressive and expensive to which to respond. See also objection to Interrogatory 2(n,o,p, & s) incorporated by reference herein. Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State can state that each well on the Wagner Lease was equipped with a small brine storage pit (approximately 10’ in diameter) located at the well site. Treatment included separation of oil from water and settling out of solids. By way of further answer, in early 1987, Quaker State represented to the United States that there were fourteen locations on the Wagner Lease 14 ------- from which brine conceivably could have made its way to Holeman Run or its unnamed tributaries. Quaker State cannot state whether there ever were discharges of brine to surface waters from those locations. Any discharge from any of those locations would have been of extremely small quantity and extremely intermittent. Not all brine produced on the Wagner Lease went to those ten locations. By way of further answer, no discharges occurred after June 3, 1988. (q) Brine was not recycled on the Wagner Lease. (r) Brine was not trucked from the Wagner Lease. (t), (u) See response to Interrogatory No. 2(t), (u) and (v). (v) 7. Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 7 as being vague and ambiguous in its use of the terms “Hodder Lease”, in that it is unclear whether the United States is including the Hodder Lease wells which were never owned by Quaker State but rather by The Barbour Coal Company. Without waiving its objections, Quaker State can state that as it understands the terms Hodder Lease, the Hodder Lease can be divided into two separate operations based on ownership. Quaker State owned portions known as the Hodder Lease and The Barbour Coal Company owned portions known as the Hodder Lease although the wells were operated by Quaker State. (a) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 7(a) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Quaker State further objects to this Interrogatory because the requested information is contained in public records that are equally available to the United States. Without prejudice to these objections, Well Records for the wells on the Hodder Lease are available for review by the United States at the offices of Babst, Calland, Clements and Zomnir, P.C., in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Contained therein is information regarding the production formation(s) for the wells on the Hodder Lease. (b) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 7(b) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Quaker State further objects to this Interrogatory because the requested information is contained in public records that are equally available to the United States. Without prejudice to these objections, Well Records for the wells on the Hodder Lease are available for review by the United States at the offices of Babst, Calland, Clements and Zomnir, P.C., in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Contained therein is information regarding the specific depth of the wells on the Hodder Lease. (C) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 7(c) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Quaker State further objects to this Interrogatory because the requested information is contained in public records that are equally 15 ------- available to the United States. Without prejudice to these objections, Well Records for the wells on the Hodder Lease are available for review by the United States at the offices of Babst, Calland, Clements and Zomn,r, P.C., in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Contained therein is information regarding the age of the wells on the Hodder Lease. (d) See response and objections to Interrogatory No. 2(d) incorporated by referenc&herein. By way of further response, Quaker State can state that with regard to its Hodder Lease, records indicate oil was produced during most, but not all, months during the period December 1983 through March 1988. It is believed that no oil was produced in or after April 1988 By way of further answer, with regard to the wells owned by The Barbour Coal Company, records indicate oil was produced in November 1984 and in each month during the period April 1985 through October 1988. By way of further answer, Quaker State responds that the wells on the Hodder Lease that had been identified as having the potential to discharge to surface waters were shut down on or before June 3, 1988 and remained inactive for some time thereafter. By way of further answer, the lease was not active every day. In addition, the lease would be inactive during periods of severely cold weather, and may have been inactive for periods due to other reasons, such as storm damage and maintenance. See response to Interrogatory 7(e) and (j). - (e) See response to Interrogatory Nos. 2(e) and 7(d) and (j). (f) The method of production on the Hodder Lease was primary production by solution gas drive. (g) Not applicable. (h) Not applicable. (i) Periodic. (j) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 7(j) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State can state that it did not maintain records regarding the length of time that each well was pumped. By way of further answer, Quaker State can state that the schedule for pumping the wells owned by Quaker State and The Barber Coal Company on the Hodder Lease at one time was five days a week but declined over time. By way of further answer, Quaker State can state that on days when the wells were pumped, they may have been operated only for a short time. In addition, individual wells would be off production even when the lease was active, and the entire lease would be shut down for periods due to severe weather, maintenance, etc. See also responses to Interrogatory 7(d) and (e). (k) See response to Interrogatory No. 2(k). (I) With regard to the wells owned by the The Barbour Coal Company one oil/water separator tank with a capacity of approximately 30 barrels was used. With regard to the well owned by Quaker State on the Hodder 16 ------- Lease, smaller, individual oil/water separator tank with a capacity of approximately 4 barrels was located at the well location. (m) See response to Interrogatory No. 2(m). (n), (o), (p) & (s) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 7(n,o, p & s) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome and oppressive to which to respond. See also its objections to Interrogatory 2(n,o,p, & s) incorporated by reference herein. Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State can state that the well on the Hodder Lease owned by Quaker State was equipped with a small brine storage pit (approximately 10’ in diameter) located at the well site. Treatment included separation of oil and water and settling out of solids. By way of further answer, Quaker State can state that brine from all wells on the Hodder Lease owned by The Barbour Coal Company was gathered to a central facility. Brine flowed from an oil/water separator tank into a pit (approximately 50’L x 20’W). Brine then flowed through a siphon overflow to a second pit of similar size.Fresh water from a nearby water well was added at a rate estimated at up to one barrel per minute (estimated pump capacity) during periods when the water well was - Operating. It is believed that the water well operated at least when the oil wells on the lease were operating. The effluent was treated, including settling Out of solids, separation of oils, aeration and oxidation. By way of further answer, in early 1987, Quaker State represented to the United States that there was one location on the Hodder Lease from which there conceivably could have been a discharge to a tributary of McArthur Run. Any discharge from that location would have been a treated, diluted effluent consisting primarily of fresh water and of a small amount of brine, (from less than all wells on the Hodder property), and only a portion of the effluent could have made its way to a surface water. The closest surface water was at least several hundred feet away from the pit. By way of further answer, no discharges to surface water could have occurred prior to approximately November 1984, during December 1984- March 1985, orafterJune 3, 1988. (q) Brine was not recycled on the H odder Lease. (r) It is believed that brine was trucked for disposal off-site from the Hodder Lease at various times. (t), (u) See response to Interrogatory No. 2(t), (u) and (v). (v) 8. (a) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 8(a) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Quaker State further objects to this Interrogatory because the requested information is contained in public records that are equally available to the United States. Without prejudice to these objections, 17 ------- Well Records for the wells on the A Flick Lease are available for review by the United States at the offices of Babst, Calland, Clements and Zomnir, P.C., in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Contained therein is information regarding the production formation(s) for the wells on the A Flick Lease (b) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No 8(b) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Quaker State further objects to this Interrogatory because the requested information is contained in public records that are equally available to the United States. Without prejudice to these objections, Well Records for the wells on the A Flick Lease are available for review by the United States at the offices of Babst, Calland, Clements and Zomnir, P.C., in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Contained therein is information regarding the specific depth of the wells on the A Flick Lease. (c) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 8(c) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Quaker State further objects to this Interrogatory because the requested information is contained in public records that are equally available to the United States. Without prejudice to these objections, Well Records for the wells on the A Flick Lease are available for review by the United States at the offices of Babst, Calland, Clements and Zomnir, P.C., in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Contained therein is information regarding the age of the wells on the A Flick Lease. (d) See response and objections to Interrogatory No. 2(d) incorporated by reference herein. By way of further answer, Quaker State can state that records indicate oil was produced on the A Flick Lease each month during the period December 1983 through July 1986. By way of further answer, the lease was not active every day. In addition, the lease would be inactive during periods of severely cold weather, and would have been inactive for periods due to other reasons, such as storm damage and maintenance. See also response to Interrogatory 8(e) and (j). (e) See response to Interrogatory Nos. 2(e) and 8(d) and (j). (f) The method of production on the A Flick Lease was primary production by solution gas drive. (g) Not applicable. (h) Not applicable. (i) Periodic. (j) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 8(j) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State can state that it did not maintain records regarding when each well was pumped. By way of further answer, Quaker State can state that the schedule for pumping at the A Flick Lease was no more than five days a week. By way 18 ------- of further answer, Quaker State can state that on days when the wells were pumped, they may have been operated only for several minutes. In addition, individual wells would be off production even when the lease was active, and the entire lease would be shut down for periods due to severe weather, maintenance, etc. See responses to Interrogatory 8(d) and (e). (k) See response to Interrogatory 2(k). (I) Individual oil/water separator tanks with a capacity of approximately 4 barrels were located at each well location. (m) See response to Interrogatory 2(m). (n), (o), (p) & (s) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No 8(n,o, p & s) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome and oppressive and expensive to which to respond. See also objections to Interrogatory 2(n,o,p, & s) incorporated by reference herein. Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State can state that each well on the A Flick Lease was equipped with a small brine storage pit (approximately 10’ in diameter) located at the well site. By way of further answer, in early 1987, Quaker State represented to the United States that there were two locations on the A Flick Lease from which brine conceivably could have made its way to Holeman Run or its unnamed tributaries. Quaker State cannot state whether there ever were discharges of brine to surface waters from those two locations. Any discharge from any of those two locations would have been of extremely small quantity and extremely intermittent. Not all brine produced on the A Flick Lease went to those two locations. By way of further answer, no discharges to surface water occurred following final cessation of operations on the A Flick Lease in approximately July, 1986. (q) Brine was not recycled on the A Flick Lease. (r) Brine was not trucked from the A Flick Lease. (t), (u) See response to Interrogatory No. 2(t), (u) and (v). (v) 9. (a) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 9(a) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Quaker State further objects to this Interrogatory because the requested information is contained in public records that are equally available to the United States. Without prejudice to these objections, Well Records for the wells on the Tionesta Sand & Gravel Lease are available for review by the United States at the offices of Babst, Calland, Clements and Zomnir, P.C., in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Contained therein is information regarding the production formation(s) for the wells on the Tionesta Sand & Gravel Lease. 19 ------- (b) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 9(b) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Quaker State further objects to this Interrogatory because the requested information is contained in public records that are equally available to the United States. Without prejudice to these objections, Well Records for the wells on the Tionesta Sand & Gravel Lease are available for review by the United States at the offices of Babst, Calland, Clements and Zomnir, P.C., in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Contained therein is information regarding the specific depth of the wells on the Tionesta Sand & Gravel Lease. (c) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 9(c) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, not reasonably calculatedto lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Quaker State further objects to this Interrogatory because the requested information is contained in public records that are equally available to the United States. Without prejudice to these objections, Well Records for the wells on the Tionesta Sand & Gravel Lease are available for review by the United States at the offices of Babst, Calland, Clements and Zomnir, P.C., in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Contained therein is information regarding the age of the wells on the Tionesta Sand & Gravel Lease. (d) See response and objections to Interrogatory No. 2(d) which are incorporated by reference herein. By way of further answer, Quaker State can state that records indicate oil was produced on the Tionesta Sand & Gravel Lease each month during the period December 1983 through July 1986. By way of further answer, the lease was not active every day. In addition, the lease would be inactive during periods of severely cold weather, and would have been inactive for periods due to other reasons, such as storm damage and maintenance. See also responses to Interrogatory 9(e) and (j). (e) See response to Interrogatory Nos. 2(e) and 9(d) and (j). (f) The method of production on the Tionesta Sand & Gravel Lease was primary production by solution gas drive. (g) Not applicable. (h) Not applicable. (i) Periodic. (j) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 9(j) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State can state that it did not maintain records regarding when each well was pumped. By way of further answer, Quaker State can state that the schedule for pumping at the Tionesta Sand & Gravel Lease was no more than five days a week. By way of further answer, Quaker State can state that on days 20 ------- when the welis were pumped, they may have been operated only for several minutes. In addition, individual wells would be off production even when the lease was active, and the entire lease would be shut down for periods due to severe weather, maintenance, etc. See responses to Interrogatory 2(d) and (e). (k) See response to Interrogatory No. 2(k). (I) Small individual oil/water separator tanks with a capacity of approximately 4 barrels were located at each well location on the Tionesta Sand & Gravel Lease. (m) See response to Interrogatory No. 2(m). (n), (o), (p) & (s) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 9(n,o, p & s) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See also objections to Interrogatory 2(n,o,p, & s) incorporated by reference herein. Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State can state that each well on the Tionesta Sand & Gravel Lease was equipped with a small brine storage pit (approximately 10’ in diameter) located at the well site. By way of further answer, in early 1987, Quaker State represented to the United States that there were three locations on the Tionesta Sand & Gravel Lease from which brine conceivably could have made its way to Holeman Run or its unnamed tributaries. Quaker State cannot state whether there ever were discharges of brine to surface waters from those three locations. Any discharge from any of those three locations would have been of extremely small quantity and extremely intermittent. By way of further answer, no discharges to surface water occurred following final cessation of operations on the Tionesta Sand & Gravel Lease in approximately July 1986. (q) Brine was not recycled on the Tionesta Sand & Gravel Lease. (r) Brine was not trucked from the Tionesta Sand & Gravel Lease. (t), (u) See response to Interrogatory No. 2(t), (u) and (v). (v) 10. Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 1 0(a, b & c) as being overly (a, b & c) broad, unreasonably burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Quaker State further objects to this Interrogatory because the requested information is contained in public records that are equally available to the United States. Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State can state that no Well Records for the wells on the Maxwell Lease have been located. Quaker State believes that the geologic formation for most of the wells on the Maxwell Lease was the Bradford Third Sand. The wells on the Maxwell Lease were all drilled prior to 1983. 21 ------- (d) See response and objections to Interrogatory No. 2(d) which are incorporated by reference herein. By way of further answer, Quaker State can state that records indicate oil was produced on the Maxwell Lease each month during the period December 1983 through December 1985. By way of further answer, oil was produced only very intermittently after January 1, 1986. By way of further answer, the lease was not active every day. In addition, may have been inactive for periods due to such reasons as severe weather and maintenance. See responses to Interrogatory 10(e) and (j). (e) See response to Interrogatory Nos. 2(e) and 10(d) and (j). (f) The method of production on the Maxwell Lease was secondary production by water injection until water injection ceased in approximately February 1985. Thereafter, any oil production was primary. (g) There were 22 water injection wells on the Maxwell Lease. (h) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 10(h) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, oppressive and expensive to which to - respond. Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State can state that it did not maintain records during the applicable period which would indicate the injection volumes of water/fluids injected per month for individual wells on the Maxwell Lease. By way of further answer, certain “Pressure Plant” reports for the Maxwell Lease are available for review by the United States at the offices of Babst, Calland, Clements and Zomnir, P.C., in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Contained therein is information regarding dates of injection, plunger size and speed of the pump. (i) Periodic. (i) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 10(j) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State can state that it did not maintain records regarding when well was pumped. By way of further answer, Quaker State can state that the schedule for pumping at the Maxwell Lease generally was seven days a week during water injection. Thereafter, only about four wells were pumped, very intermittently. By way of further answer, Quaker State can state that on days when the wells were pumped, they may have been operated only for a short time. In addition, individual wells would be off production even when the lease was active, and the entire lease may have been shut down for periods due to severe weather, maintenance, etc. See also responses to Interrogatory 10(d) and (e). (k) See response to Interrogatory No. 2(k). (I) Quaker State can state that one oil/water separator tank with a capacity of approximately 200 barrels was used at the Maxwell Lease. Cm) See response to Interrogatory No. 2(m). 22 ------- (n), (o), (p), (s) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 10(n,o p & s) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See also objections to Interrogatory 2(n,o,p, & s)Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State can state that brine from all wells on the Maxwell Lease was gathered to a central oil/water separator. While the waterflood operation was operating, i.e., before approximately February 14, 1985, produced brine flowed from the oil/water separator, through two pits in a series (each approximately 50’ in diameter) and into a 500 barrel steel water tank. Water was then pumped from this tank through a filter and into a 500 barrel filtered water tank. This recycled water was combined with fresh water and pumped back into the injection wells on the Maxwell Lease. After Quaker State’s water injection operations at the Maxwell Lease terminated on February 14, 1985, all producing wells on the Maxwell Lease were permanently shut down with the exception of four wells which were operated intermittently until plugging operations were complete. During this period, produced brine from those four wells flowed into the pits referenced above. By way of further answer, Quaker State represented to the United States in early 1987 that there was one location on the Maxwell Lease from which brine conceivably could have made itswayto Pennbrook Run. Quaker State cannot state whether small amounts of brine were ever discharged to surface waters from that location. Not all brine produced on the Maxwell Lease went to that location. (q) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 10(q) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State can state that a filtering system was used at the Maxwell Lease. The filterin system used was a tank-type filter layered with coarsening upwar particles made up primarily of granulated charcoal, coal and gravel. By way of further answer, Quaker State can state that the filter generally was cleaned for a few minutes on a daily basis. Any filter backwash generated flowed to a pit located near the injection operations. Quaker State is not aware of any discharge to surface of backwash fluid, but discharge to surface waters would have been extremely small and intermittent. (r) Brine was not trucked from the Maxwell Lease. (t), (u), (v) See response to Interrogatory No. 2(t), Cu) and (v). 11. Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 1 1(a, b & c) as being overly (a, b & c) broad, unreasonably burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Quaker State further objects to this Interrogatory because the requested information is contained in public records that are equally available to the United States. Without prejudice to these objections, 23 ------- Quaker State can state that no Well Records for the wells on the Webb Lease have been located. Quaker State believes that the geologic formation for most of the wells on the Webb Lease was the Bradford Third Sand. The wells on the Webb Lease were all drilled prior to 1983. Cd) See response and objections to Interrogatory No. 2(d) incorporated by reference herein. By way of further answer, Quaker State can state that records indicate oil was produced on the Webb Lease each month during the period December 1983, through October 1987, with the exception o August 1987. See also responses to Interrogatory 11(e) and (j). (e) See response to Interrogatory Nos. 2(e) and 11(d) and (j). (f) The method of production on the Webb Lease was secondary production by water injection. (g) There were 74 water injection wells on the Webb Lease. (h) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 11(h) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State can state - that it did not maintain records during the applicable period which would indicate the injection volumes of water/fluids injected per month for individual wells on the Webb Lease. By way of further answer, certain “Pressure Plant” reports for the Webb Lease are available for review by the United States at the offices of Babst. Calland, Clements and Zomnir, P.C., in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Contained therein is information regarding dates of injection, plunger size and speed of the pump. (I) Periodic. (j) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 11(j) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State can state that it did not maintain records when each well was pumped. By way of further answer, Quaker State can state that the schedule for pumping at the Webb Lease was generally seven days a week. One or more wells on the IeIse or the entire lease could be down for periods of days or weeks for maintenance or severe weather conditions (k) See response to Interrogatory No. 2(k). (I) Quaker State can state that one oil/water separator tank with a capacity of approximately 200 barrels was used at the Webb Lease. Cm) See response to Interrogatory No. 2(m). (n), (0), (p) & (s) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 11 (no. p,& s) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome and oppressive and expensive to which to respond. See also objections to Interrogatory 2 (n,o,p, & s) by reference herein. Without prejudice to these objections, brine from all 24 ------- wells on the Webb Lease was gathered to a central oil/water separator. While the waterflood operation was operating, i.e., before March 15, 1986, produced brine flowed from the oil/water separator, through two pits in a series (each approximately 50’ in diameter x 8’ in depth) having siphon overflows. After Quaker State’s water injection operations at the Webb Lease terminated on March 15, 1986, a number of producing wells on the property continued to be pumped on an intermittent basis until approxim ately October 1987. All discharges of brine to surface waters from the Webb Lease were via permitted outfall to Kendall Creek. (q) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 11(q) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State can state that a filtering system was used at the Webb Lease. The filtering system used was a tank-type filter layered with coarsening upward particles made up primarily of granulated charcoal, coal and gravel. By way of further answer, Quaker State can state that the filter generally was cleaned for a few minutes on a daily basis. Any filter backwash generated flowed to a pit located near the injection operations. Quaker State cannot state whether small amounts of backwash fluid was discharged to surface waters from that procedure. Any discharge would have been via permitted outfall to Kendall Creek. (r) Brine was not trucked from the Webb Lease. (t), (u) See response to Interrogatory No. 2(t), (u) and (v). (v) 12. (a) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 12(a) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Quaker State further objects to this Interrogatory because the requested information is contained in public records that are equally available to the United States. Without prejudice to these objections, Well Records for the wells on the Cochran 407 and 7 Leases are available for review by the United States at the offices of Babst, Calland, Clements and Zomnir, P.C., in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Contained therein is information regarding the production formation(s) for the wells on the Cochran 407 and 7 Leases. (b) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 12(b) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Quaker State further objects to this Interrogatory because the requested information is contained in public records that are equally available to the United States. Without prejudice to these objections, Well Records for the wells on the Cochran 407 and 7 Leases are available for review by the United States at the offices of Babst, Calland, Clements 25 ------- and Zomnir, P.C., in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Contained therein is information regarding the specific depth of the wells on the Cochran 407 and 7 Leases. (c) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 12(c) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Quaker State further objects to this Interrogatory because the requested information is contained in public records that are equally available to the United States. Without prejudice to these objections, Well Records for the wells on the Cochran 407 and 7 Leases are available for review by the United States at the offices of Babst, Calland, Clements and Zomnir, P.C., in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Contained therein is information regarding the age of the wells on the Cochran 407 and 7 Leases. (d) See response and objections to Interrogatory No. 2(d) which are incorporated by reference herein. By way of further answer, Quaker State can state that oil was produced on the Cochran 7 Lease each month during the period December, 1983, through October, 1985. By way of further answer, Quaker State can state that records indicate oil was produced on the Cochran 407 Lease each month during the period December, 1983 through June 1986. By way of further answer, the lease was not active every day. In addition, the lease would be inactive during periods of severely cold weather, and may have been inactive for periods due to other reasons, such as storm damage and maintenance. See also Responses to Interrogatory 12(e) and (j). (e) See response to Interrogatory Nos. 2(e) and 12(d) and (j). By way of further answer, there were only 3 wells on both leases combined. (f) The method of production on the Cochran 407 and 7 Leases was primary production by solution gas drive. (g) Not applicable. (h) Not applicable. (i) Periodic. (j) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 12(j) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State can state that it did not maintain records regarding the length of time that each well was pumped. By way of further answer, Quaker State can state that the Cochran 407 and 7 Leases were manually operated and the schedule for pumping at the Cochran 407 and 7 Leases was no more than five days a week. By way of further answer, Quaker State can state that on days when the wells were pumped, they may have been operated only for several minutes. In addition, one or more wells on the lease or the entire lease could be down for periods of days or weeks for maintenance or due to severe weather conditions. See responses to Interrogatory 12(d) and (e). 26 ------- (m) See response to Interrogatory No. 2(m). (k), (I), (p) & (s) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 1 2(k, I, n,o, p & s) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome and oppressive and expensive to which to respond. See also objections to Interrogatory 2(n,o,p, & s) incorporated by reference herein. Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State can state that the Cochran 407 Lease and the Cochran 7 Lease were each equipped with a single storage tank into which all produced fluid from the lease was placed. Produced brine was manually drained from the bottom of the tank into a small pit. Each pit was equipped with a siphon overflow to prevent the discharge of oil. By way of further answer, Quaker State represented to the United States in early 1987 that there were three locations on the Cochran Leases from which brine conceivably could have made its way to the south branch of Tionesta Creek. Quaker State cannot state whether any brine ever discharged to surface waters from these locations. Any discharge from any of these three locations would have been of extremely small quantity and extremely intermittent. By way of further answer, no discharges to surface water occurred following final cessation of operations on the Cochran 7 Lease in approximately October, 1985 and, no discharges to surface water occurred following final cessation of operations on the Cochran 407 Lease in approximately June 1986. (q) Brine was not recycled on the Cochran 407 and 7 Leases. (r) Brine was not trucked from the Cochran 407 and 7 Leases. (t). (u) See response to Interrogatory No. 2(t), (u) and (v). (v) 13. (a) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 13(a) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Quaker State further objects to this Interrogatory because the requested information is contained in public records that are equally available to the United States. Without prejudice to these objections, Well Records for the wells on the Mikula Lease are available for review by the United States at the offices of Babst, Calland, Clements and Zomnir, P.C., in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Contained therein is information regarding the production formation(s) for the wells on the Mikula Lease. (b) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 13(b) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Quaker State further objects to this Interrogatory because the requested information is contained in public records that are equally 27 ------- available to the United States. Without prejudice to these objections, Well Records for the wells on the Mikula Lease are available for review by the United States at the offices of Babst, Calland, Clements and Zomnir, P.C., in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Contained therein is information regarding the specific depth of the wells on the Mikula Lease. (c) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 13(c) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Quaker State further objects to this Interrogatory because the requested information is contained in public records that are equally available to the United States. Without prejudice to these objections, Well Records for the wells on the Mikula Lease are available for review by the United States at the offices of Babst, Calland, Clements and Zomnir, P.C., in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Contained therein is information regarding the age of the wells on the Mikula Lease. (d) See response and objections to Interrogatory No. 2(d) which are incorporated by reference herein. By way of further answer, Quaker State can state that records indicate oil was produced during most, but not all months during the period December 1983 through October 1988. See also responses to Interrogatory 13(e) and (j). (e) See response to Interrogatory Nos. 2(e) and 13(d) and (j). (f) The method of production on the Mikula Lease was primary production by solution gas drive. (g) Not applicable. (h) Not applicable. (i) Periodic. (j) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. i 3(j) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State can state that it did not maintain records regarding when each well was pumped. The schedule for pumping at the Mikula Lease likely was 5-7 days a week. By way of further answer, Quaker State can state that on days when the wells were pumped, they may have been operated only for several minutes. In addition, one or more wells on the lease or the entire lease could be down for periods of days or weeks for maintenance or severe weather conditions. See also responses to Interrogatory 13(d) & Ce). (k) See response to Interrogatory No. 2(k). (I) Quaker State can state that one oil/water separator tank with a capacity of approximately 100 barrels was used at the Mikula Lease. (m) See response to Interrogatory No. 2(m). 28 ------- (p) & (s) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 1 3(n,o, p & s) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See also objections to Interrogatory 2(n,o, p , & s) incorporated by reference herein Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State can state that produced fluid from all wells on the Mikula Lease was gathered to a central oil/water separator. Produced brine flowed from the oil/water separator tank into a pit which was equipped with a siphon overflow to prevent the discharge of oil. Treatment included separation of oil from water and settling out of solids. By way of further answer, Quaker State can state that it represented to the United States in early 1987 that there was one location on the Mikula Lease from which brine conceivably could have made its way to surface waters. Quaker State cannot state whether there was ever any discharge of brine to surface waters from that location. Any discharge from that location would have been of extremely small quantity and extremely intermittent. (q) Brine was not recycled on the Mikula Lease. (r) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 13(r) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State can state that beginning in late 1984 or early 1985, produced brine was trucked from the pit on the Mikula Lease to the Hamilton Lease in Pleasant Township, Warren County, Pennsylvania. Brine was used at the Hamilton Lease as supply water for a pilot secondary recovery project. Brine was trucked by Quaker State-owned trucks, which had a capacity of approximately 70 barrels. (t), (u) See response to Interrogatory No. 2(t), (u) and (v). Cv) 14. (a) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 14(a) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Quaker State further objects to this Interrogatory because the requested information is contained in public records that are equally available to the United States. Without prejudice to these objections, Well Records for the wells on the Big Shanty 100 and 488 Leases are available for review by the United States at the offices of Babst, Calland, Clements and Zomnir, P.C., in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Contained therein is information regarding the production formation(s) for the wells on the Big Shanty 100 and 488 Leases. (b) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 14(b) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Quaker State further objects to this Interrogatory because the requested information is contained in public records that are equally available to the United States. Without prejudice to these objections, Well Records for the wells on the Big Shanty 100 and 488 Leases are 29 ------- available for review by the United States at the offices of Babst, Calland, Clements and Zomnir, P.C., in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Contained therein is information regarding the specific depth of the wells on the Big Shanty 100 and 488 Leases. (c) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 14(c) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Quaker State further objects to this Interrogatory because the requested information is contained in public records that are equally available to the United States. Without prejudice to these objections, Well Records for the wells on the Big Shanty 100 and 488 Leases are available for review by the United States at the offices of Babst, Calland, Clements and Zomnir, P.C., in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Contained therein is information regarding the age of the wells on the Big Shanty 100 and 488 Leases. (d) See response and objections to Interrogatory No. 2(d) which are incorporated by reference herein. By way of further answer, Quaker State can state that records indicate oil was produced on the Big Shanty 100 and 488 Leases each month during the period December 1983 through October 1988. See also responses to Interrogatory 14(e) and (j). (e) See response to Interrogatory Nos. 2(e) and 14(d) and (j). (f) The method of production on the Big Shanty 100 Lease was primary production by solution gas drive, and the method of production on the Big Shanty 488 Lease was secondary production by water injection. (g) Not applicable as to the Big Shanty 100 Lease. With regard to the Big Shanty 488 Lease, there were 32 water injection wells. (h) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 14(h) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State can state that with regard to the Big Shanty 100 Lease, Interrogatory No. 14(h) is not applicable. With regard to the Big Shanty 488 Lease, Quaker State can state that it did not maintain records during the applicable period which would indicate the injection volumes of water/fluids injected per month for individual wells on the Lease. By way of further answer, certain “Pressure Plant” reports for the Big Shanty 488 Lease are available for review by the United States at the offices of Babst, Calland, Clements and Zomnir, P.C., in Pitsburgh, Pennsylvania. Contained therein is information regarding dates of injection, plunger size and speed of the pump. (i) Periodic. (j) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 14(j) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State can state that it did not maintain records regarding when each well was pumped. 30 ------- By way of further answer, Quaker State can state that the schedule for pumping at the Big Shanty 100 and 488 Leases likely was five to seven days a week. By way of further answer, Quaker State can state that on days when the wells were pumped, they may have been operated only for a short time. In addition, one or more wells on the lease or the entire lease, could be down for periods of days or weeks for maintenance or severe weather conditions. See responses to Interrogatory 14(d) and (e). (k) See response to Interrogatory No. 2(k). (I) Quaker State can state that one oil/water separator tank with a capacity of approximately 100 barrels was used at the Big Shanty 100 Lease and one oil/water separator tank with a capacity of approximately 200 barrels was used at the Big Shanty 488 Lease. (m) See response to Interrogatory No. 2(m). (n), (o), (p) & (s) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 14(n,o, p & s) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. See also the objections to Interrogatory 2(n, o, p 1 s) incorporated by reference. Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State can state that produced fluid from all wells on the Big Shanty 100 Lease was gathered to a central oil/water separator. Produced brine flowed from the oil/water separator tank into a pit which was equipped with a siphon overflow to prevent the discharge of oil. Treatment included separation of oil from water and settling out of solids. With regard to the Big Shanty 448 Lease, Quaker State can state that brine from all wells on the Big Shanty 448 Lease was gathered to a central oil/water separator. While the waterflood operation was operating, produced brine flowed from the oil/water separator, through two pits in a series (each approximately 50’ in diameter) and into a 500 barrel steel water tank. Water was then pumped from this tank through a filter and into a 500 barrel filtered water tank. This recycled water was combined with fresh water and pumped back into the injection wells on the Big Shanty 448 Lease. (q) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 14(q) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State can state that with regard to the Big Shanty 100 Lease, brine was not recycled. By way of further answer, Quaker State can state that with regard to the Big Shanty 448 Lease, a filtering system was used. The filtering system used was a tank-type filter layered with coarsening upward particles made up primarily of granulated charcoal, coal and gravel. By way of further answer, Quaker State can state that the filter generally was cleaned for a few minutes on a daily basis. Any filter backwash generated flowed to a pit located near the injection operations. Quaker State is not aware of any amounts of backwash fluid being discharged to surface waters from 31 ------- that procedure. Any discharge would have been extremely intermittent and small in amount. (r) Brine was not trucked from the Big Shanty 100 and 488 Leases. (t), (u) See response to Interrogatory No. 2(t), (u) and (v). (v) 15. (a) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 15(a) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Quaker State further objects to this Interrogatory because the requested information is contained in public records that are equally available to the United States. Without prejudice to these objections, Well Records for the wells on the Grunder 454 and 484 Leases are available for review by the United States at the offices of Babst, Calland, Clements and Zomn,r, P.C., in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Contained therein is information regarding the production formation(s) for the wells on the Grunder 454 and 484 Leases. (b) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 15(b) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Quaker State further objects to this Interrogatory because the requested information is contained in public records that are equally available to the United States. Without prejudice to these objections, Well Records for the wells on the Grunder 454 and 484 Leases are available for review by the United States at the offices of Babst, Calland, Clements and Zomnir, P.C., in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Contained therein is information regarding the specific depth of the wells on the Grunder 454 and 484 Leases. (C) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 15(c) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Quaker State further objects to this Interrogatory because the requested information is contained in public records that are equally available to the United States. Without prejudice to these objections, Well Records for the wells on the Grunder 454 and 484 Leases are available for review by the United States at the offices of Babst, Calland, Clements and Zomnir, P.C., in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Contained therein is information regarding the age of the wells on the Grunder 454 and 484 Leases. Cd) See response and objections to Interrogatory No. 2(d) which are incorporated by reference herein. By way of further answer, Quaker State can state that records indicate oil was produced on the Grunder 454 Lease each month during the period December 1983 through October 1988. By way of further answer, Quaker State can state that records indicate oil was produced on the Grunder 484 Lease during most, but not all, months from December 1983 through May 1986. No oil was produced 32 ------- on the Grunder 484 Lease after May 1986. See also responses to Interrogatory 15(e) and (j). (e) See response to Interrogatory Nos. 2(e) and 15(d) and (j). (f) The method of production on the Grunder 454 and 484 Leases was primary production by solution gas drive. (g) Not applicable. (h) Not applicable. (i) Periodic. (j) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 15(j) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, oppressive and expensive to which to respond. Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State can state that it did not maintain records regarding when each well was pumped. By way of further answer, Quaker State can state that the Grunder 484 Lease was manually operated and the schedule for pumping at the Grunder 454 and 484 Leases was no more than five days a week. By way of further answer, Quaker State can state that on days when the wells were pumped, they may have been operated only for several minutes. In addition, one or more wells on the lease or the entire lease could be down for periods of days or weeks for maintenance or severe weather conditions. See also responses to Interrogatory 15(d) and (e). (k) See response to Interrogatory No. 2(k). (I) Quaker State can state that one oil/water separator tank with a capacity of approximately 100 barrels was used at the Grunder 454 Lease. (m) See response to Interrogatory No. 2(m). (p) & (s) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 1 5(ri,o, p & s) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See also objections to Interrogatory No. 2(no,p & s) incorporated by reference herein. Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State can state that produced fluid from all wells on the Grunder 454 Lease was gathered to a central oil/water separator. Produced brine flowed from the oil/water separator tank into a pit which was equipped with a siphon overflow to prevent the discharge of oil. Treatment included separation of oil from water and settling out of solids. With regard to the Grunder 484 Lease, Quaker State can state that the lease was equipped with a single storage tank into which all produced fluid from the lease was placed. Produced brine was manually drained from the bottom of the tank into a pit. The pit was equipped with a siphon overflow to prevent the discharge of oil. Treatment included separation of oil from water and settling out of solids. 33 ------- By way of further answer, Quaker State can state that prior to mid-i 985, brine from some wells on certain leases in the vicinity of Grunder Run -- but not the Grunder 454 and 484 Leases --went into a pit, that occasionally brine from the pit overflowed through a pipe onto the surface of the ground and that some portion of the brine sometimes found its way to a tributary of Grunder Run. The pit was several hundred feet from surface waters. Any such discharges would have been small in quantity and intermittent in nature. By way of further answer, no discharges of brine occurred after mid-1985. (q) Brine was not recycled on the Grunder 454 and 484 Leases. (r) Quaker State objects to Interrogatory No. 15(r) as being overly broad, unreasonably burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without prejudice to these objections, Quaker State can state that with regard to the Grunder 454 Lease, beginning in late 1984 or early 1985, produced brine wastrucked from the pit on this lease to the Hamilton Lease in Pleasant Township, Warren County, Pennsylvania. Brine was used at the Hamilton Lease as supply water for a pilot secondary recovery project. Brine was trucked by Quaker State-owned trucks, which had a capacity of approximately 70 barrels. - By way of further answer, Quaker State can state that brine was not trucked from the Grunder 484 Lease. (t), (u) See response to Interrogatory No. 2(t), (u) and (v). (v) Kenneth K. Kilbert David P. Pusateri Babst, Calland, Clements and Zomnir, PC Two Gateway Center, 8th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 3945400 Counsel for Defendant Quaker State Corporation 34 ------- AFFIDAVIT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ) ) ss: COUNTYOF - Before me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Carl J. Carison, who, being duly sworn according to law, deposed and said that he is Manager - Exploration and Production of Titusville Production Department of Quaker State Corporation and in that capacity executed this Affidavit on behalf of Quaker State Corporation and is duly authorized to do so. He further deposed and said that the matters stated in the foregoing Responses to Plaintiff’s Second Set of lnterrogatories are not wholly within the personal knowledge of affiant and that affiant is informed that there is no official of Quaker State Corporation who has personal knowledge of all such matters, but that the Responses have been made based upon information assembled by authorized employees, and affiant is informed that the Responses are true and correct. / — I Carl J. i1son - Sworn to and subscribed before me I , ,! this ii day of December, 1990. ,, - , . t, . ./6:’ Notary PUblic My Commission Expires: M w L Wll m P y Pi E, J,k5. ië Mei ter. 1v aiia f ‘wt ------- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that this . ,J day of January, 1991, true and correct copies of the foregoing Quaker State Corporation’s Responses to Plaintiff’s Second Set of Interrogatories were served, by first-class mail, postage prepaid, upon the following: Jerel L. Ellington, Esq. U.S. Department of Justice Environment and Natural Resources Division Environmental Enforcement Section P.O. Box 7611 Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 Mary St. Peter, Esq. Assistant Regional Counsel U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region III 841 Chestnut Building Philadelphia, PA 19107 Kenneth K. Kilbert ------- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVAJIIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) Civil Action No. ) 88—306 Erie QUAKER STATE CORPORATION, ) Defendant. ________________________________________________________________________________________________ ) PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES Plaintiff United States of America submits the following supplemental answers to Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and 33. GENERAL OBJECTIONS A. The United States objects to the interrogatories, including the instructions and definitions thereof, to the extent that they exceed the scope of proper discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 or 33. B. The United States objects to providing any information or material subject to the attorney-client, work product, deliberative process, enforcement confidential, or other privileges, but rather expressly reserves all such privileges. SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS - 1. For each conveyance or point source from which you allege in your Complaint that Quaker State has discharged brine during the past five years in violation of the Clean Water Act, please: ------- a) describe the nature of the conveyance or point source (e.g., pit, pipe); b) describe the exact location of the conveyance or point source; c) identify the surface waters into which you allege it has discharged brine; d) identify which oil and gas wells are “associated” with the conveyance or point source; e) state the date(s) on which it discharged brine into surface waters; f) identify all persons who observed it discharging brine into a surface water; and g) identify all documents reflecting, referring or relating to information sought in this interrogatory or set forth in your response. Objection and Response to Interroaatorv No. 1 : 1. Griffen Lease a) Discovery has revealed that there were two outfalls connected with Quaker State’s “dilution” projects depicted on the “as—built” drawings of Randy Spence. Brine was discharged via a pipe from the second pit. In addition, there also were either ongoing, historical, or possible other discharges at the Griffen Lease, as indicated by Quaker State’s response to EPA’s request for information under Section 308 of the Clean Water Act and as explained during discovery in this case. e) December 1, 1983 through at least June 3, 1988. f) At least the following persons: John Arway, Thomas Baird, James Bailey, David Barto, Gary Bryant, Albert Haney, Thomas Henry, David Lind, Doug Neeley, Randy Spence, Mary White, employees of Pennsylvania General Energy, and the various employees of the laboratories contracted by Quaker State to sample the discharges of brine into the stream who are noted on the laboratory analysis. g) Documents produced by Quaker State during discovery in this case. —2— ------- 2. ProDer Patterson Lease a) Discovery has revealed that there was one outfall connected with Quaker State’s “dilution” projects depicted on the “as-built” drawings of Randy Spence. Brine was discharged via a pipe from the second pit. In addition, there also were either ongoing, historical, or possible other discharges at the Proper Patterson Lease, as indicated by Quaker State’s response to EPA’s request for information under Section 308 of the Clean Water Act and as explained during discovery in this case. e) December 1, 1983 through at least June 3, 1988. f) At least the following persons: John Arway, Thomas Baird, James Bailey, David Barto, Gary Bryant, Albert Haney, Thomas Henry, David Lind, Randy Spence, Mary White, employees of Pennsylvania General Energy, and the various employees of the laboratories contracted by Quaker State to sample the discharges of brine into the stream who are noted on the laboratory analysis. g) Documents produced by Quaker State during discovery in this case. 3. Jenks Lease a) Discovery has revealed that there was one outfall connected with Quaker State’s “dilution” project at the Jenks “Barbour Coal” Lease. Brine was discharged via a pipe from the second pit. In addition, there also were either ongoing, historical, or possible other discharges at the Jenks Lease, as indicated by Quaker State’s response to EPA’S request for information under Section 308 of the Clean Water Act and as explained during discovery in this case. e) December 1, 1983 through at least June 3, 1988. f) At least the following persons: John Arway, Thomas Baird, James Bailey, David Barto, Gary Bryant, Albert Haney, Thomas Henry, John Ho ltz, David Lind, Randy Spence, Mary White, employees of Pennsylvania General Energy, and the various employees of the laboratories contracted by Quaker State to sample the discharges of brine into the stream who are noted on the laboratory analysis. —3— ------- g) Documents produced by Quaker State during discovery in this case. 4. Walter Glenn Lease a) There were either ongoing, historical, or possible discharges at the Walton Glen Lease, as indicated by Quaker State’s response to EPA’s request for information under Section 308 of the Clean Water Act and as explained during discovery in this case. e) December 1, 1983 through at least June 3, 1988. f) One or more of the following persons: Thomas Baird, James Bailey, Carl Carison, David Barto, Gary Bryant, Albert Haney, David Lind, and Mary White. 5. Wagner Lease a) There were either ongoing, historical, or possible discharges at the Wagner Lease, as indicated by Quaker State’s response to EPA’s request for information under Section 308 of the Clean Water Act and as explained during discovery in this case. f) At least Thomas Baird and David Lind. 6. Hodder Lease a) Discovery has revealed that there was one outfall connected with Quaker State’s “dilution” project at the Hodder “Barbour Coal” Lease. Brine was discharged via a pipe from the second pit. In addition, there also were either ongoing, historical, or possible other discharges at the Hodder Lease, as indicated by Quaker State’s response to EPA’s request for information under Section 308 of the Clean Water Act and as explained during discovery in this case. e) December 1, 1983 through at least June 3, 1988. f) At least the following persons: Thomas Baird, James Bailey, David Barto, Gary Bryant, Albert Haney, Thomas Henry, David Lirid, Randy Spence, Mary White, employees of Pennsylvania General Energy, and the various employees of the laboratories contracted by Quaker State to sample the discharges of brine into the stream who are noted on the laboratory analysis. g) Documents produced by Quaker State during discovery in this case. —4— ------- 7. A Flick Lease a) There were either ongoing, historical, or possible discharges at the A Flick Lease, as indicated by Quaker State’s response to EPA’S request for information under Section 308 of the Clean Water Act and as explained during discovery in this case. f) At least Thomas Baird and David Lind. 8. Tionesta S & G Lease a) There were either ongoing, historical, or possible discharges at the Tionesta Lease, as indicated by Quaker State’s response to EPA’S request for information under Section 308 of the Clean Water Act and as explained during discovery in this case. f) At least Thomas Baird and David Lind. 9. Maxwell Lease a) There were either ongoing, historical, or possible discharges at the Maxwell Lease, as indicated by Quaker State’s response to EPA’s request for information under Section 308 of the Clean Water Act and as explained during discovery in this case. f) At least Thomas Baird and David Lind. 10. Grunder Lease a) A pipe from a brine pit. d) The wells on the following leases: Bright Wolfe, Grunder, Grunder 447, Pierce, A & S Wentz, and Wentz. Grunder 484. e) December 1, 1983 through September, 1985. f) At least the following persons: John Arway, Sam Barber, Thomas Baird, John Butt, Albert Haney, Hugh Lauffenberger, David Lind, Robert MacFarlane, Susan Rutherford, Paul Swanson, and Robert Voegele. 11. Cochran Lease a) There were either ongoing, historical, or possible discharges at the Cochran Lease, as indicated by Quaker State’s response to EPA’s request for information under Section 308 of the Clean Water Act and as explained during discovery in this case. -5— ------- f) At least Thomas Baird and David Lind. Mikula Lease a) There were either ongoing, historical, or possible discharges at the Mikula Lease, as indicated by Quaker State’s response to EPA’S request for information under Section 308 of the Clean Water Act and as explained during discovery in this case. f) At least Thomas Baird and David Lind. 2. For each conveyance or point source from which you allege in your Complaint that Quaker State has discharged brine during the past five years in violation of the Clean Water Act, please: a) set forth all facts which support or tend to support your contention it has discharged brine into surface waters; b) identify all persons with knowledge that it has discharged brine into surface waters or with knowledge of facts set forth in part (a); and C) identify all documents reflecting, referring or relating to facts that support or tend to support your contention it has discharged brine into surface waters. Obiection and ResDonse to Interroaatorv No. 2 : See answer to interrogatory number 1. 4. Please identify each person whom you expect to call at trial as an expert witness, and for each such person, please: a) state the subject matter of his expected testimony; b) state the substance of facts and opinions of his expected testimony and summarize the grounds for each opinion; and -6— ------- C) identify all documents upon which his testimony is based. Response to Interroaatorv No. 4 : The Plaintiff will supplement its answer to furnish this information to Quaker State. Respectfully submitted, AS TO OBJECTIONS: JE L. ELLZNGTON Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice Environment and Natural Resource Division Environmental Enforcement Section P.O. Box 7611 Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 FTS 368—3974 (202) 514—3974 JAMES 3. ROSS Assistant U.S. Attorney Room 137 Federal Building and Courthouse 6th and State Streets Erie, PA 16501 (814) 452—2906 OF COUNSEL : MARY ST. PETER Assistant Regional Counsel U.S. Environmental Protection Agency -— Region III 841 Chestnut Building Philadelphia, PA 19107 DANIEL PALMER Attorney-Advisor U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring - Water -7— ------- 401 M Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20460 AS TO ANSWERS: ZL William Colley U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III 841 Chestnut Building Philadelphia, PA 19107 C0 Q4ONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ) SS: COUNTY OF ) BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared William Colley, on behalf of the United States of America and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, who being duly sworn according to law deposes and says that the facts set forth in the within answers to interrogatories are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief, and information received from others. ____ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT ‘ S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES was deposited in the United States ail, first-class mail and postage prepaid, this 9 day of 1990 addressed to: Kenneth K. Kilbert Babet, Calland, Clements & Zomnir, P.C. Two Gateway Center, 8th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 —8— ------- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ) Civil Action No. ) 88—306 Erie QUAKER STATE CORPORATION, ) ) Defendant. ) PLAINTIFF’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGA’rpRrEs Plaintiff United States of America submits the following supplement to its answers to Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and 33. GENERAL OBJECTIONS A. The United States incorporates by reference the objections it stated in it prior responses to Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories. SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS 1. For each conveyancs or point source from which you allege in your Complaint that Quaker Stats has discharged brine during the past five years in violation of the Clean Water Act, please: a) describe the nature of th. conveyance or point source (e.g., pit, pipe); b) describe the exact location of the conveyance or point source; c) identify the surface waters into which you allege it has discharged brine; d) identify which oil and gas wells are associated’ with the conveyanc, or point source; ------- e) state the date(s) on which it discharged brine into surface waters; f) identify all persons who observed it discharging brine into a surface water; and g) identify all documents reflecting, referring or relating to information sought in this interrogatory or set forth in your response. Su Dlemental Response to Interroaatorv Mo. 1: Maxwell f) John Arway, Robert MacFarlane, and Vince Zenone. g) Pennsylvania Fish Commission’s Foster Brook watershed study, including effluent and water quality samples (produced to Quaker State at the John Arway deposition), and OSC file of Vincent Zenone (previously produced to Quaker State). Grunder Lease d) The wells on the following leases: Wentz, Jones, Donohue W, Pierce, Zoro, Grunder, Ritchie, AS Wentz, Bright Wolfe, and Jenks 447 and 448. e) December 1, 1983 through September, 1985. f) At least the following persons: John Arway, Sam Barber, Thomas Baird, John Butt, Clifford Dixon, Albert Haney, Hugh Lauffenberger, David Lind, Robert MacFarlane, Ernie Rozelle, Susan Rutherford, Paul Swanson, and Robert Voegele. g) In addition to the documents produced by Quaker State and PaDER during this case, each of the following (produced by USDA to Quaker State): a. Summary re produced water in Bradford District for NPDES discharge (Bate 500906] b. QS Correspondence re discharge “ceasing.” c. Arway samples/photos d. Lease operating statements/declines e. Map of Pennsylvania General Energy 0GM Grunderville Operations. —2— ------- f. USDA overflight photo of Grunderville area. g. ANF Drawing of Quaker State Lot 444. h. May 13, 1983 ANT photographs of Grunderville discharge. i. January 9, 1986 inspection report of John J. Serfass re: Quaker State Grunder tank battery brine discharge. j. ANY Grunderville Discharge Synopsis. k. November 27, 1981 memo from Jim Schuler to Forest Supervisor re: revegetation of area below Grunderville tank battery below Quaker State brine pits. 1. February 1, 1982 letter from Samuel F. Barber to Robert White. m. November 19, 1981 USDA Memorandum for File re: meeting with Quaker State representatives concerning Grunderv iii. discharge. n. September 16, 1981 letter from Samuel F. Barber to Harold E. Schopper re: leakage of fluids from Bright-Wolfe leas. and installation of pit liners. o. May 8, 1985 letter from Robert T. Jacobs for R. Forrest Carpenter to Stanley L. Laskoweki re: brine adverse affect of brine discharges in Allegheny National Forest. p. September 7, 1984 letter from John P. Butt to Robert Maclarlan. re: brine discharges in Allegheny National Fors.t (Bats no. 4243). q. September 17, 1984 letter from John P. Butt to Nicholas DB.nedictis re: detrimental effect of brine discharges within Allegheny National Forest (Bat. no. 4249). 4. Plea.. identify each person whoa you expect to call at trial as an expert witness, and for each such person, please: ------- a) state the subject matter of his expected testimony; b) state the substance of facts and opinions of his expected testimony and summarize the grounds for each opinion; and C) identify all documents upon which his testimony is based. Response to Interroaatorv No. 4 : Plaintiff incorporates by reference Part V. and Tab A of its Pre—trial Statement. JERZ L LI ELLING ON’ Triäl ttorne / U.S. Ti partment of Justice Environment and Natural Resource Division Environmental Enforcement Section P.O. Box 7611 Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 FTS 368—3974 (202) 514—3974 JAMES 7. ROSS Aasistant U.S. Attorney Room 137 Federal Building and Courthouse 6th and State Streets Erie, PA 16501 (814) 452—2906 OF COUNSEL : MARY ST. PETER Assistant Regional Counsel U.S. Environmental Protection Agency -— Region III fully submitted, —4— ------- 841 Chestnut Building Philadelphia, PA 19107 DANIEL PAL R Attorney-Advisor U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring - Water 401 M Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20460 —5— ------- I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing PLAINTIFF’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S FIRST SET OF INTER.ROGATORIES was deposited in the United States mail, first- class mail and postage prepaid, this 30th day of November, 1990 addressed to: Kenneth K. Kilbert Babst, Calland, Clements & Zomnir, P.C. Two Gateway Center, 8th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 / ( -/ ‘1 - . ‘I —6- ------- ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) V. ) QUAKER STATE CORPORATION, Defendant. ) ) ) PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES Plaintiff United States of America submits the following objections and answers to Defendant’s Third Set of Interrogatorieg in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and 33. GENERAL OBJECTIONS A. The United States objects to the interrogatorjes, including the instructiong and definitions thereof, to the extent that they exceed the scope of proper discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 or 33. B. The United States objects to providing any information or material subject to the attorney-client, work product, deliberative process, enforcement confidential, or other privileges, but rather expressly reserves all such privileges. OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS Interrogatory No. 1 Identify each application that you are aware of which was submitted by Quaker State to any federal or state agency, including the U.S. EPA and the Pennsylvania DER, for an NPDES permit to discharge brine produced by any well in IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Civil Action No. 88—306 Erie ------- the four-county area, stating for each such application the following: a. the agency to whom the application was submitted; b. the date the application was submitted; c. the point source(s) and well(s) covered by the application; d. the status of the application; and e. the identity of all documents which reflect, refer or relate to the application. Objection and ResDonse to Interrogatory No.1 : EPA is the only federal agency with authority to issue NPDES permits. EPA’s authority to issue NPDES permits in Pennsylvania was suspended on June 30, 1978, the date that Pennsylvania’s NPDES permit program was approved. Consequently, any application that may have been submitted to EPA has no bearing upon this case. The United States further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information or documents within the sole possession, custody or control of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Subject to, and without waiving these objections, the United States responds as follows. Apparently Quaker State applied for an NPDES permit with PaDER on or about January 1, 1986 from its Grunder Run lease. A purported copy of this application was provided by Quaker State to the United States during discovery in this case. The United States does not have a copy in its files. The point sources covered by the application are stated in the application. The United States has learned through discovery in this case that the —2— ------- application was never approved by PaDER, and further that as a result of conversations between PaDER and Quaker State representatives a conclusion was reached that a permit would not be issued because of the level of strontium in the effluent. The application was, the government has further learned through discovery in this case, withdrawn by Quaker State apparently on or about October 3, 1989. Apparently Quake State was also issued a “Part I” permit by PaDER on or about June 16, 1988 for the Webb lease, which was cancelled on February 6, 1989. All the documents which set forth the above have been provided to Quaker State, and several have been marked as deposition exhibits. The government would also refer Quaker State to Defendant’s Response to Interrogatory No. 30 of Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatorjeg, its responses to EPA’s requests for information under Section 308 of the Clean Water Act, and the deposition testimony of Kenneth Young. Interrogatory No. 2 Identify each NPDES permit that you are aware of which was issued to Quaker State by any federal or state agency, including the U.S. EPA and the Pennsylvania DER, to discharge brine produced by any well in the four-county area, stating for each such permit: a. the agency that issued the permit; b. the date the permit was issued: c. the time period during which the permit was or is in effect; d. the point source(s) and well(s) covered by the permit; —3— ------- e. the identity of all documents reflecting, referring or relating to such permit. biection and Response to Interrogatory No. 2 : See ‘esponse to interrogatory no. 1. The United States would also refer Quaker State to Defendant’s Response to Interrogatory No. 31 of Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories. Interrogatory No. 3 For each permit application identified in Interrogatory No. 1 for which no NPDES permit was or has been issued, please state the reason(s) why no permit was or has been issued, identify all persons with knowledge of the reason(s) why no permit was issued, and identify all, documents reflecting, referring or relating to the reasons why no permit was issued. Ob ectjon and ResDonse to Interrogatory No. : See response to interrogatory no. 1. A -!1 O OBJECTIONS: ‘ k—- 4 F \ JE EL . ELLINGTON Trial ttorney U.S. Department of Justice Environment and Natural Resource Division Environmental Enforcement Section P.O. Box 7611 Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 FTS 368—3974 (202) 514—3974 JAMES J. ROSS Assistant u.s. Attorney Room 137 Federal Building and Courthouse 6th and State Streets Erie, PA 16501 (814) 452—2906 —4— ------- OF COUNSEL : MARY ST. PETER Assistant Regional Counsel U.S. Environmental Protection Agency -- Region III 841 Chestnut Building Philadelphia, PA 19107 DANIEL PALMER Attorney-Advisor U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring - Water 401 M Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20460 AS TO ANSWERS: William Colley U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III 84]. Chestnut Building Philadelphia, PA 19107 CO?*IONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ) SS: COUNTY OF ) BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared William Colley, on behalf of the United States of America and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, who being duly sworn according to law deposes and says that the facts set forth in. the- within answers to interrogatorieg are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief, and information received from others. I Se I I .Ame M C sare. Nc y P tIQ I p3-•i , a e rta C aiy I ptes J1iio ?er yr i14M1ab No’ l s —5— ------- |