NOTICE OF FILING AMENDED FIRSTSET OF INTERROGATORIES
ANSWER:
ANSWER:
ANSWER:
ANSWER:
ANSWER:

RECEIVED

CLERKS OFFICE

BEFORE TIlE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

JUL

212005

PEOPLE OF

THE

STATE OF ILLINOIS

)

STATE

OF ILLINOIS

)

Pollution Control Board

Complainant,

)

PCB

97-179

(Enforcement- Air)

MGP

INGREDIENTS

)

ILLINOIS, INC.,

)

Respondent.

NOTICE OF FILING AMENDED FIRST

SET OF INTERROGATORIES

To:

Jane E.

McBride

Assistant Attorney

General

500

South Second Street

Springfield, IL

62706

Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk

Illinois

Pollution Control Board

100

West Randolph,

Suite

11-500

Chicago, IL

60601

Carol Webb, Hearing Officer

Illinois Pollution Control Board

1021

N. Grand Avenue East—P.O. Box

19274

Springfield, IL 62794-9274

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that

I have today filed the original and four copies with

the

Office of the Clerk of the Pollution Control Board

Respondent MGP Ingredients of Illinois, Inc.’s

Amended First

Set of Intenogatories, copies of which

are herewith served upon you.

Respectfully submitted,

HUSCFI

PPENBERGER, LLC

190 Carondelet Plaza,

Suite 600

St.

Louis, MO 63105

(314) 480-1524

20982890!

THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certi& that I did

the

13th day ofJuly,

2005, send a true and accurate copy of

RESPONDENT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF

INTERROGATORIES TO COMPLAINANT,

by first class mail, postage prepaid to Complainant’s attorney and Hearing Officer:

Jane E. McBride

Assistant Attorney General

500 South Second Street

Springfield, IL 62706

Carol Webb,

Hearing Officer

Illinois Pollution Control Board

1021

N. Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box

19274

Springfield,

IL 62794-9274

and the

original and four copies

of the foregoing instrument

first class mail, postage prepaid

to:

Dorothy M.

Gunn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control

Board

i00 West Randolph, Suite

2098289.0!

RECE~V~O

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOAR~JLEBK’SOFFICE

JUL

212005

PEOPLE OF

THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

)

Complainant,

)

PCB 97-179

(Enforcement- Air)

MGP INGREDIENTS OF ILLINOIS, INC.,

)

Respondent.

)

RESPONDENT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF

INTERROGATORIES TO COMPLAINANT

COMES NOW Respondent MGP Ingredients of Illinois, Inc., (“MGP”), by

its attorneys,

Husch & Eppenberger, LLC pursuant to Section

101.616 of the Board’s Procedural Regulations,

Hearing Officer Order dated April 21, 2005

and Illinois Supreme

Court

Rule 213, requests

that

Complainant, People of the

State of Illinois, answer

in writing, under oath, the following

interrogatories.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR INTERROGATORIES

Complainant is required,

in answering these interrogatories to furnish

all

information available to Complainant or its employees, agents,

contractors, experts, or

consultants, or which is ascertainable by

reasonable inquiry whether or not the requested

information might be available from another entity.

If an interrogatory has subparts, Complainant

is required to answer each pad

separately and in full.

If Complainant cannot answer

an interrogatory

in full, they are required to

answer all

parts ofthe interrogatory to the extent possible and speci~’

the reason for its inability

to provide additional

information.

2098124.01

As to each interrogatory, or portion thereof, identify

in the answer every oral

communication, document or writing which relates to the interrogatory or response, whether or

not

such identification

is specifically requested by the interrogatory.

In answering each interrogatory, identify each document, person, communication

or meeting, which relates to, corroborates, or

in any way forms the basis for the answer given.

Pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court

Rule 2 13(3),

Complainant is requested to

serve upon Respondent corrected, supplemented

or augmented answers hereto, documents or

other forms of information from

whatever source, which

arguably tends to show that

Complainant’s prior answers are, might be, were or might have been in a sense incorrect,

incomplete, potentially misleading or less than fully responsive

or truthful.

Complainant shall supplement its answers and responses as new information and

documents become available.

If dates are requested, the exact date should be given, if possible.

However, if

the exact date cannot be determined

dueto absence or inadequacy of records,

the

best estimate

should be given to the interrogatory and labeled as such.

In construing these interrogatories:

the singular shall

include the plural and the plural shall include the singular; and

a masculine or

feminine pronoun shall not exclude the

other gender.

10.

If you encounter any ambiguity in construing any interrogatory or any definition

or instruction pertaining to any interrogatory, set forth the matter

deemed “ambiguous” and the

construction chosen or used

in responding to the interrogatory.

II.

In producing documents in response to an interrogatory (See

Illinois Supreme

Court Rule 213(e)), you are requested to furnish

all

documents or things in your actual or

constructive possession, custody, control, or known or available to you, regardless of whether

such documents or things are

possessed directly by you or by your attorneys, agents, employees,

representatives or investigators.

2098124.01

12.

This discovery is deemed continuing, necessitating supplemental answers by

Complainant, or anyone acting on

its behalf, when or

ifthey obtain additional

information, which

supplements or alters the answers now provided.

II.

CLAIMS OF PRIVILEGE

With respect to any interrogatory which Complainant refuses to answer on a

claim of privilege, provide a statement signed

by an attorney representing Complainant,

setting

forth each such assertion of privilege.

The statement should

include:

the name and job

title of every person

involved

in the conversation or

communication;

the nature

of the

information disclosed;

all

facts relied

upon

in support of the claim of privilege;

all documents related to the claim of privilege;

all events, transactions or occurrences related to the claim ofprivilege;

and

the statute, rule or decision which

is claimed to give rise to the privilege or the

reason for its unavailability.

If the

objection relates to only part of an

interrogatory, the balance ofthe

interrogatory should be answered in full.

If you claim

the attorney-client privilege

or any other privilege

is applicable to

any document, with respect to that document:

state the date ofthe document;

identify each

and every author of the document;

identify each

and every other person

who prepared

or participated in the

preparation

ofthe document;

identify each

and

every person who received the document;

state

the present location of the document and all

copies

thereof;

2098124.01

identify each

and every person having custody or control of the document and all

copies

thereof; and

provide sufficient further information concerning the document to explain the

claim or privilege

and to permit adjudication of the property of that claim.

III.

DEFINITIONS

“Complainant”

shall mean PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS and the

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, and any of Complainant’s employees,

agents, representatives, successors or assigns, or any

other person acting or believed

Complainantto have acted on their behalf.

“Document” shall be construed in its customary broad sense and shall include,

but

is not limited to, the original and non-identical copy, whether different from the original

because of notes made on said

copy

or otherwise, or

any agreement, bank record or statement;

book of account, including any

ledger, sub-ledger, journal or sub-journal; brochure; calendar;

chart; check; circular; communication (intra- or inter-company

or governmental entity

or agency

or agencies); contract; copy; correspondence;

diary; draft of any document;

graph;

index;

instruction; instruction manual or sheet; invoice; job requisition; letter;

license; manifest;

memorandum; minutes; newspaper or other clipping;

note;

notebook;

opinion; pamphlet;

paper;

periodical or other publication; photograph;

print; receipt; record;

recording report; statement;

study;

summary including any memorandum, minutes, note, record

or summary of any (a)

telephone, videophone

or intercom conversation or message; (b) personal conversation

interview; or (c) meeting or conference; telegram; telephone

log; travel or expense record;

voucher; worksheet or

working paper; writing; any other handwritten, printed, reproduced,

recorded, typewritten, or otherwise produced graphic material

from which the

information

inquired of may be obtained, or any other documentary material

of any nature,

including

electronic mail,

in the

possession, custody or control of Complainant.

2098124.01

“Communication” shall mean, without limitation, any and all forms of

transferring information, including discussions, conversations, meetings, conferences, interviews,

negotiations, agreements, understandings, inquiries, correspondence, documents, or other

transfers of information whether written

or oral

or by any other means, and

includes any

document which abstracts, digests, transcribes or records any communication.

“Facility” and/or “Site” shall mean the property

located at South Front Street and

Distillery in Pekin, Tazewell County, Illinois, as reference in paragraph

Count

I of the

Complaint.

“Person” shall include,

but

is not limited to,

any natural person; business

corporation, whether for profit or

not;

firm, partnership, or other non-corporate business

organization; charitable, religious, education, governmental,

or other non-profit institution,

foundation, body, or other organization; or employee, agent or representative of any of the

foregoing.

“Describe” when used with respect to a communication, means to provide the

following information:

the date ofthe communication;

the type of communication (telephone, electronic mail, facsimile, letter, etc.);

the identity of all individuals involved in the communication;

the identity of all individuals who witnessed the communication; and

the subject matter of the communication.

a description of any documents generated relating to these communications.

“Identify” when used with respect to a person, means

that you are

to state

the full

name, present residence and

business addresses, present residence and business telephone

numbers, present and

last-known

position and business of such person and, ifdifferent, the

business and position of the person at the time to which the interrogatory has reference.

“Identify” when used with respect to a document, means:

2098124.01

to specify the nature of the

document (For example a letter or memorandum);

to state the date, if any, appearing on

the document or, if none, the date

on which

the document was prepared and/or received; and

to describe the substance of each document for which no privilege

is claimed, or

to specify the nature and extent of anyclaimed privilege.

If the document

is not

in your possession, identify

the person who

has actual

constructive possession or control of the document.

“Or” shall mean and/or wherever appropriate.

10.

“Related to” or “relating to” or “in relation to” shall mean anything which

directly or indirectly, concerns, consists of, pertains to, reflects, evidences, describes,

sets forth,

constitutes, contains,

shows, underlies, supports, refers to in any way,

was

used in the

preparation of, is appended to, or tends to prove or disprove.

II.

“Relied

upon” shall

mean being or having been depended upon

or referred to or

being or having been arguably appropriate for such reliance.

12.

“Constructive

Possession” means documents not

in actual possession, but to

which you have power to inspect, a right to control, review or otherwise access.

13.

“Knowledge” means first-hand information and/or information derived from any

other source,

including hearsay.

14.

“IEPA” means the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.

15.

“Board” shall mean the Illinois Pollution Control Board.

16.

“Current” or “Present” means the filingdate of these Interrogatories.

17.

All terms not specifically defined herein shall

have their logical ordinary

meaning, unless such terms are defined

in the Act or the

regulations promulgated thereunder, in

which case the appropriate

regulatory definitions will

apply.

2098124.01

IV.

INTERROGATORIES

Please

identify:

the individual(s) answering these interrogatories

on behalfof the Complainant,

including his or her relationship to Complainant, and how long he or she has

been associated with Complainant.

Each person who provided

information or who otherwise consulted, participated

or assisted

in connection with providing answers to these interrogatories, the

nature of any such consultation or assistance, whether the information

was based

on personal knowledge,

and if not

on the basis of personal knowledge, on

what

basis

it was provided.

For each person

identified

in the proceeding section

1(b), specify the particular

interrogatories to which each such person contributed.

ANSWER:

Pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court

Rule 2 13(0, with respect to any hearing

witnesses, please state

the following:

the

name, address and

employer ofeach

witness;

a summary of the relevant facts within

the knowledge of, or which said witnesses

will

testify to; and

a listing of any documents or photographs,

which any such witness

has relied

upon, will use or which may be introduced

into evidence

in connection with the

testimony of said witness.

ANSWER:

2098124.01

Furnish the identity and addresses of all

expert witnesses who will testify at hearing

for Complainant, together with the subject matter on

which each expert witness

is expected to

testify; the conclusions and opinions ofeach expert witness and the

basis therefore; and the

qualifications of each expert witness and a copy of all reports of such witnesses.

ANSWER:

With

respect to any witness(es) interviewed by Complainant who Complainant does

not

intend to call to testify at hearing, state the

name and

address of any such witness, state

whether a transcript of any interview with said witness was prepared, or

a memorandum

prepared

in connection with any such interview,

and

provide a summary of the facts and opinions relevant

to this proceeding which were secured from said witness.

ANSWER:

Pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 213(g),

identify any and all opinion

witnesses that Complainant has interviewed and/or expects to call at hearing.

Specify:

The subject matter on

which the opinion witness

is expected to testify as well as

the conclusions,

opinion and/or expected testimony of any such witness;

The qualifications, including,

but not

limited to, the opinion

witness’ educational

background, practical experience in the area he or she is expected to testify

in,

any

articles and

papers he or

she has written, any and all seminars and post-

graduate training he has received, his experience, if any,

as a teacheror lecturer

and his or her professional appointments

and associations;

The

identity ofeach document examined, considered, or relied

upon

him

her to form his or her opinions;

All proceedings

in which each opinion witness

has previously testified as

opinion

witness; and

2098124.01

Any and all reports ofthe

opinion witness.

ANSWER:

Furnish the

identity and addresses of all persons that communicated with

Complainant regarding the facts alleged in Complainant’s Complaint; and

identify all persons

known by

you to have knowledge ofthe facts alleged in the Complaint or

in the

Answers to these

Interrogatories.

ANSWER:

With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 20 of the Complaint that the

MGP facility is a “major stationary source,” please

identify

all equipment, processes, operations

and fugitive emissions, which

alone or

in combination, emitted

or had the

potential to emit more

than 25

tons of particulate matter

per year for the time period after January

1989 to the present

time.

For each piece of equipment, process

or operation

identified, provide the following:

All information, including emission factors,

emission tests, and any calculations

formulas, relied upon

in determining the actual and potential emissions of

particulate matter for each piece of equipment, each process, or each operation;

In particular, describe how the shutdown of the MGP fluidized bed coal

boiler in

1994

factored into IEPA’s determination that MGP was a

“major stationary source.”

All rules, regulations, policies

or guidance relied

upon

in determining the

potential to emit;

All

persons in the employ or retained by Complainant who

determined or assisted

in the

determination of the emissions or potential to emit for the equipment,

process or operation;

2098124.01

Describe

all communications by any individual identified in part

7(c)

relating to the determination that the MGP facility was a major stationary

source for particulate matter

1992.

The maximum capacity ofeach piece of equipment, process or operation to emit

particulate matter under

its physical and operational design;

Any physical or operational limitations

on the maximum capacity to emit

particulate matter, including production limitations and

air pollution

control

equipment, for each piece of equipment.

For

all fugitive emissions identified,

provide the following:

All information,

including emission factors, tests, calculations, or

guidance relied upon

in determining the actual and potential emissions of

particulate matter for each fugitive source;

ii.

All persons in the employ

or retained by Complainant who determined or

assisted

in the determination of the emissions or potential to emit from

fugitive particulate matter sources.

ANSWER:

With respect to the allegations contained in the Complaint and the subject matter

thereof, please state

or identify the following:

Identify and describe all communications,

information, including emission

factors, emission tests, and any calculations or formulas, relied

upon

determining that a “major modification” occurred at any time at the MGP

facility;

Identify the date such “major modification” occurred at the MGP facility, and as

of that date,

what Complainant maintains would have been the “best available

control technology” applicable

to such “major modification;”

2098124.01

Identify each person on behalf of Complainant with factual information

concerning the “major modification” or known to have been involved

in the

assessment and/or determination

thata “major modification”

occurred at any

time at the MGP facility.

Any physical or operational limitation on the

maximum capacity to emit

particulate matter from

such “major modification.”

ANSWER:

Describe any and all communications, between the parties listed below, relating to air

particulate permits or air particulate emission

issues atMGP from

1992 to the present.

Dates of

relevant phone conversations include, but are not limited to, 8/13/96, 8/16/96, 8/28/96, 9/4/96,

9/16/96, 9/17/96, 9/20/96, 9/24/96, 10/15/96, 11/1/96,11/14/96, 12/11/96, 1/28/97, 113.0/97,

3/19/97, 3/25/96, 3127/97, 4/9/97, and 4/23/97.

a.

 IEPA

and August Mack Environmental, Inc., (“August Mack”) and/or any other

consultants;

IEPA and MGP;

c.

 Internal IEPA communications;

IEPA and the United States Environmental Protection Agency

ANSWER:

10.

Describe any and all communications between IEPA and August Mack, any other

consultants, MGP and/or the USEPA and internal

IEPA communication relating to air particulate

emission permit modifications or air particulate permit application modifications at MGP.

ANSWER:

2098124.01

11.

Itemize the penalties

which Complainant seeks to recover for each violation asserted

in the Complaint;

identify

the manneror means and any assumptions used

which Complainant

determined the penalty

amounts to be sought (including but not limited to,

the manner in which

any statutory criteria, policy or guidance

was employed in determining the penalty amounts);

describe anyand all internal IEPA

communications or communications between IEPA and

USEPA related to

any

penalty determination addressed above; identify

the relevant facts

considered in making the penalty determinations and in employing such statutory criteria, policy

or guidance; and identify and explain the manner or method employed

in attributing any

economic benefit accruing to Respondent by

reason of the violations asserted.

ANSWER:

12.

Identify and describe any and all

internal IEPA communications, ILPA

communications with

MGP and/or communications between IEPA and any third-party relating to

a BACT determination for the MGP facility since Januaryl,

1990.

ANSWER:

13.

Describe the analysis conducted and methodology used

IEPA to determine the

BACT for emissions from feed dryers at the MGPfacility, including but

not

limited to, emission

limitations and reductions.

ANSWER:

14.

 Identify all communications related to LEPA’s consideration of economic and

technological feasibility at theMGP facilityand

describe the technically feasible and

economically reasonable technology availableto control the particulate matter emissions at the

MGP facility as described in the Complaint.

ANSWER:

2098124.01

15.

Describe any and all

communications related to IEPA’s consideration ofpotential

energy, environmental and economic impacts

in determining the level of emission control that the

MOP facility could achieve pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

7479(3).

ANSWER:

16.

Describe any and all communications related to IEPA’s use of “top down” analysis to

select the BACT for theMGP facility.

ANSWER:

17.

Describe any and all communications relating to emission

limits established for

MOP, including, but

not limited to, construction permits

82110006, 93020061

and 93080045

and

emission limits

in any and all construction and/or operating permits relating to the

MOP facility.

ANSWER:

18.

Describe any and all communications among IEPA

personnel and/or

MOP personnel

relating to the permitting, operation and shutdown of the fluidized bed combustion boiler or any

dryers at the

MOP facility from January

1987

to present.

ANSWER:

19.

Describe any and all communications within IEPA and/or between

IEPA and MOP,

USEPA, August Mack or any third party regarding particulate air emission modeling related to

the MOP facility and identify all

data relating to air emission tests conducted at the MOP

site,

emission

data associated with the MGP facility, and/or air particulate modeling related to the

MOP facility.

ANSWER:

2098124.01

13

20.

Identify the time period

used by

IEPA to determine emission

limits forthe project

which is the subject of the Complaint for the MOP

facility, including but not

limited to the

analysis employed and methodology used to determine the appropriate “look back” period.

ANSWER:

21.

Identify any and all

US Clean

Air Act or Illinois Environmental Protection Act

exemptionsthat were considered by IEPA related to particulate matter emissions at the MOP

facility and the base or bases for the denial of such exemptions.

ANSWER:

22.

Describe any and all communications relating to any PSD permitting for the MOP

facility including,

but not limited

to, air emission evaluations and effects on attainment and/or

nonattainment classification of the vicinity surrounding

the MOP site.

ANSWER:

23.

Describe any and all communications related to IEPA’s contention that all agency

modeling of particulates at the MOP facility and its environs must be complete before

IEPA

would consider MOP’s proposal to install a regenerative thermal oxidizer.

ANSWER:

24.

Describe IEPA’s analysis ofthe monetary losses

suffered by MOP as applied to the

following:

The penalty of$1,062,580;

The BACT determination; and

The determination of economic reasonable technology.

2098124.01

ANSWER:

25.

 Describe any communications related to IEPA’s 1999 decision to not assess an

economic benefit penalty beyond that date.

ANSWER:

26.

Identify and describe IEPA’s analysis of MOP’s good

faith efforts to control

particulate matter emissions including but

not limited to,

IEPA’s analysis of MOP’s attempts to

hold the dryer manufacturer’s

supplier accountable for MOP’s expensive corrective actions when

the

dryer and scrubber failed to properly control

particulate matter emissions.

ANSWER:

27.

Describe any and all communications related to IEPA’s denial of a construction

permit application for a wet electrostatic precipitator

in and

around

1997.

ANSWER:

28.

Identify and describe IEPA’s analysis of the severity of the particulate matter

emissions, plant location

and economic loss due to unemployment, as well as, the

economic

impact of a shut down of the MOP facility.

ANSWER:

29.

Identify the date

by which IEPA completed the air emission modeling necessary to

fully analyze an air emissions construction permit application for feed dryer pollution control

equipment submitted by

MOP.

ANSWER:

2098124.01

30.

Identify the date when IEPA communicated to MOP the completed the air emission

modeling necessary to fully analyze an

air emissions construction permit application for feed

dryer pollution control equipment submitted by MOP.

ANSWER:

Respectfully submitted,

HUSCFI & EPPENBEROER, LLC

e o

its attorne

Husch

& Eppenberger, LLC

190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite

600

St. Louis, Missouri

63105

(314)480-1500

2098124.01