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—

-------