BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD RECEIVED
1. NOTICE OF FILING
2. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
RECEIVED
v. )

I p
Hukh &~~ppenberger,LW
Husch&
Eppenberger, iic

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

RECEIVED

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

)

CLERK’S OFFICE

ILLINOIS,

)

SEP 02 2005

Complainant,

)

STATE OF ILLINOIS

Pollution Control Board

)

PCB NO. 97-1 79

(Enforcement)

MIDWEST GRAIN PRODUCTS OF

ILLINOIS, INC., an Illinois corporation,

Respondent.

)

NOTICE OF FILING

To:

Dorothy M. Gunn

Carol Webb

Clerk of the Board

Hearing Officer

Illinois Pollution Control Board

100 West Randolph Street

1021 North Grand Avenue East

Suite 11-500

Springfield, IL 62794

Chicago, IL 60601

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on this date I mailed for filing with the Clerk of the Pollution

Control Board of the State of Illinois, MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONDENT’S AMENDED FIRST

SET OF INTERROGATORIES, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE

ORDER LIMITING INTERROGATORIES TO PREVENT UNDUE EXPENSE AND HARASSMENT,

a copy of which is attached hereto and herewith served upon you.

Respectfully submitted,

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

LISA MADIGAN

Attorney General of the

State of Illinois

MATTHEW J. DUNN, Chief

Environmental Enforcement/Asbestos

Litigation Division

BY:__________________

,,~-CJANEE. McBRIDE

‘

Assistant Attorney General

Environmental Bureau

500 South Second Street

Springfield, Illinois 62706

217/782-9031

Dated: September 6, 2005

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I did on September 6, 2005, send by First Class Mail, with postage

thereon fully prepaid, by depositing in a United States Post Office Box a true and correct copy of

the following instruments entitled NOTICE OF FILING and MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONDENT’S

AMENDED FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR

PROTECTIVE ORDER LIMITING INTERROGATORIES TO PREVENT UNDUE EXPENSE AND

HARASSMENT

To:

Patrick M. Flachs

Amy Wachs

Husch & Eppenberger LLC

160 Carondelet Plaza, Ste. 600

St. Louis, MO 63105

and the original and four copies was sent by First Class Mail with postage thereon fully prepaid

To:

Dorothy Gunn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

State of Illinois Center

Suite 11-500

100 West Randolph

Chicago, IL 60601

A copy was also sent by First Class Mail with postage thereon fully prepaid

To:

Carol Webb

Hearing Officer

Illinois Pollution Control Board

1021 North Grand Avenue East

Springfield, IL 62794

/lane E. McBride

Assistant Attorney General

This filing is submitted on recycled paper.

RECEIVED

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

CLERK’S OFFICE

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

)

SEP 032005

STATE OF ILLINOIS

Complainant,

)

PCB 97-1 79

Pollution Control Board

(Enforcement)

)

MIDWEST GRAIN PRODUCTS OF

ILLINOIS, INC.

Respondent.

MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONDENT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF INTERROGATIVES,

OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE,

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER LIMITING INTERROGATORIES TO PREVENT

UNDUE EXPENSE AND HARASSMENT

NOW COMES Complainant, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, cx

Lisa

Madigan, Attorney General of Illinois, and moves the Hearing Officer, pursuant to Section

101 .616 of the Illinois Pollution Control Board’s Rules, 35111. Adm. Code 101.616, to strike

Respondent’s Amended First Set of Interrogatories, or, in the alternative enter a protective

order limiting Respondent to 30 interrogatories, including subparts, consistent with Section

101.620 of the Board’s Rules, 35111. Adm. Code 101.620, and Illinois Supreme Court Rule 213

(c). In support of its motion, Plaintiff states as follows:

On July 11, 2005, Complainant received Respondent’s First Set of

Interrogatories to Complainant, as well as other discovery requests. Respondent’s First Set of

Interrogatories is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

Subsequent to receiving Respondent’s First Set of Interrogatories, counsel for

Complainant called counsel for Respondent to discuss the number of interrogatories included in

this first set. Counsel inquired as to whether the Respondent was aware of the Board’s rule

limiting the number of interrogatories, and was told counsel was not. Respondent offered to

revise its interrogatories.

On July 19, 2005, Complainant received Respondent’s First Amended Set of

Interrogatories to Complainant. Respondent’s Amended Set of Interrogatories is attached

hereto as Exhibit 2.

On August 16, 2005, counsel for the Complainant was alerted by the Illinois EPA

to the fact that the agency had received a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA”) request from

Respondent for information identical, in part, to the information requested in discovery.

On approximately August 19, 2005, the parties discussed the pending FOIA

request. At that time, Respondent agreed to withdraw the FOIA request until after such time as

Respondent was in receipt of the Complainant’s responses to pending written discovery. The

FOIA request and subsequent temporary withdrawal is attached hereto as Group Exhibit 3.

On August 25, 2005, at the time of the scheduled status hearing with the Hearing

Officer, Complainant communicated to Respondent that it desired additional clarification

regarding terms contained in the discovery requests, and that other issues had been raised by

the Illinois EPA. The parties scheduled a conference call on August 29, 2005 to discuss

pending discovery issues.

At the time of the call, Complainant asked for clarification regarding terms in

three interrogatories, and also objected to the number of interrogatories. Complainant

communicated to counsel for Respondent that, with subparts, the first 14 interrogatories posed

by Respondent actually numbered 30. In addition, Complainant has determined that

Respondent’s interrogatory numbers 7, 8, 11 and 19, with subparts, actually number 23

interrogatories. Respondent expressed aggitation with Complainant’s request for clarification

and request to narrow the interrogatories consistent with the Board’s Rule limiting the number

of interrogatories to 30. This limit includes subparts. Respondent indicated it would review two

of the interrogatories for which Complainant asked clarification, and that it would take another

look at narrowing the interrogatories but felt that it was not under an obligation to do so.

On August 31, 2005, Complainant sent a letter to Respondent, re-iterating its

requests to clarify and limit Respondent’s interrogatories, and, in part, identified specific areas

of ambiguity, overlap and duplication among the interrogatories. Complainant’s August 31,

2005 letter to Respondent is attached hereto as Exhibit 4.

On September 1, 2005, Complainant received two letters from Respondent in

response to Complainant’s August 31, 2005 letter. Respondent’s letters of September 1, 2005

are attached hereton as Group Exhibit 5. As exhibited by comments set forth within the

September 1, 2005 letter, rather than affording Complainant’s objection’s careful consideration

consistent with the Board’s and Supreme Court’s rules relative to discovery, counsel for

Respondent, without cause, rejected Complainant’s requests to clarify and limit-Respondent’s

interrogatories in a confrontational and argumentative manner choosing to turn the issues into a

personal affront. In its response, Respondent plainly assumes a vindictive and hostile posture

stating that in response Respondent will now object to Complainant’s interroga-tories-a-nd -also

revoke its temporary withdrawl of its FOIA request and also insist upon the statutory seven day

timeframe for agency response to the FOIA request. Significantly, Respondent voiced no

objection to Complainant’s interrogatories prior to September 1, 2005. It is clear from

Respondent’s hostile response that its objection to Complainant’s interrogatories and

threatened renewal of its FOIA request are vindictive and made simply to penalize Complainant

during the discovery process. Complainant’s First Set of Interrogatories, which Respondent

now finds objectionable, are attached hereto as Exhibit 6.

10.

Respondent’s Amended First Set of Interrogatories are, in part, overly broad,

ambiguous, and repetitive. Based upon a plain reading of Respondent’s interrogatories, the

Board should conclude the interrogatories are an abuse of the discovery process and intended,

in part, simply as a fishing expedition. For the Complainant to genuinely attempt to respond to

each interrogatory, and in many cases, the many subparts to the interrogatory, involves

reviewing a very large amount of information in the specific context of each question. Many of

the questions actually ask for the same information. However, to ensure that the Complainant

responds to the specific question, it will take an inordinate amount time and effort to review the

two decades of information sought in Respondent’s requests.

11.

In general, Complainant’s objection at this juncture is that the interrogatories,

with subparts, and in some instances, subparts to the subparts, are too numerous, greatly

exceeding the allowable limit, duplicitous in that many ask for the same information with a

slightly different emphasis, request information that is not relevant and beyond the time period

alleged within the complaint, or are so ambiguous as to prevent the Complainant from

responding. The Respondent’s rephrasing of its requests with a different emphasis is not

merited, and is a form of harassment. It is apparent that the interrogatories are truly a very

broad fishing expedition, without consideration for the amount of work and expense they place

upon the Complainant. Complainant truly believes Respondent’s interrogatories have not been

carefully drafted so as to even come close to meeting the 30 limit requirement. As such, they

represent harassment of the Complainant, and will cause undue expense in time and effort.

Complainants specific objections follow. These specific objections were provided to the

Respondent in Complainant’s letter dated August 31, 2005.

12.

Respondent’s Interrogatory Number 19 first requests all communications relative

to modeling, then requests separately that the State identify all data relative to emissions

testing, and then more broadly requests all “emissions data” relative to the “site”. Interrogatory

number 7 contains subparts to subparts that in part seek the same data as that sought in

interrogatory number 19, but in greater detail.

13.

The number of interrogatories presented, when one includes subparts, just in the

first 14 items exceeds 30. Numbers 7,8, 11 and 19 alone total 23 interrogatories. Some of

these include subparts to subparts.

14.

In the parties’ phone conversations, attempting to resolve these discovery

issues, Respondent indicated the subparts have been included to provide guidance as to

exactly what Respondent is looking for. Complainant agreed, to some extent, that the subparts

may do that, however, pursuant to the Board rules, subparts are counted as an interrogatory.

Beyond that, Complainant indicated that some subparts went beyond merely clarifying the

nature of documents sought, and specifically requested information separate and apart from

preceding subparts.

15.

In many of its interrogatories, Respondent asked that the Complainant “describe

any and all communications.” Respondent’s definition of “describe” would intend that

Complainant provide information regarding the subject matter of the communication and the

identity of individuals involved as well as other information. Such a request makes any of these

interrogatories overly broad and burdensome. Complainant will respond by identifying

communication, or producing it, but the request to describe communications is overly

burdensome.

16.

Respondent’s Interrogatory 7 is an excellent example of subparts that go beyond

the subject matter of the original interrogatory. Interrogatory 7 states: “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 1, 1989 to the present time.” That

question asks Complainant to identify equipment, processes, operations and fugitive emissions

for a time period and equipment that is unrelated to the subject of the enforcement action

alleging the construction of a “major modification”. The State’s complaint specifically alleges

MGP constructed two feed dryers resulting in a major modification causing a significantnet

emissions increase in PM emissions in excess of 25 tons per year. A determination that any

other emission source has or may cause PM emissions in excess of 25 tons per year is simply

not relevant to PM emissions generated during the operation of feed dryers 561 and 661. The

applicable thresholds relative to PSD relate to a facility’s major source status (ie., 100 or 250

tons per year) and whether a major modification for PM exists (ie. a significant net emission

increase of 25 tons per year).

17.

In addition, the first subpart, 7(a), asks for emission factors, emission tests and

any calculations or formulas, relied upon in the determining the actual and potential emissions

of particulate matter for each piece of equipment, each process, or each operation. This

subpart goes above and beyond the request to identify the equipment, processesand

operations. Respondent, with this subpart, asks for a whole separate set of information.

18.

Respondent then moves to a completely separate topic in the subpart to the

subpart 7(a). Respondent asks that the State describe how the shutdown of the MGP fluid~zed

bed coal boiler in 1994 factored into IEPA’s determination that MGP was a “major stationary

source”. Again, this goes beyond the mere identification of equipment, process, operations and

fugitive emissions. Respondent asks for an analysis pertinent to a specific piece of equipment.

Such is a separate interrogatory.

19.

Subpart 7(b) asks for all rules, regulations, policies or guidance relied upon in

determining the potential to emit. Again, such goes beyond the identification of the processes,

equipment and operations. Whereas in the body of the interrogatory Respondent asks for a list

identifying that which the State considered to be emitting or having the potentiatto emit 25 tons

of particulate matter per year, Respondent in this subpart asks for an additional set of

information that may be related to the original question, but entails a whole additional body of

information.

20.

In Subpart 7(c), asks for the names of individuals involved in not the

identification of the equipment, processes and operations, but individuals involved in the

determination of emissions or potential to emit for the equipment, process or operation.

21.

In the subpart to subpart (c), Respondent asks for all communications by any

individual identified in (c) relating to the determination that the MGP facility was a major

stationary source for particulate matter in 1992. Respondent has gone from asking the State to

identify components, to asking Complainant to provide all communications relative to the major

source determination. Also, within this one interrogatory, Number 7, Respondent asked the

State to provide information in three different time frames. The original question cites January

1, 1989. The subpart to subpart (a) cites 1994. The subpart to subpart (c) cites 1992.

22.

Subpart (d) asks for the maximum capacity of each piece of equipment, process

or operation to emit particulate matter under its physical and operational design. Again, this

goes above and beyond the original request. This is a completely different set of information. In

addition, the request is overly broad and not intended to result in the production of probaUve

admissible evidence given information Respondent seeks relates to unrelatettemissions

sources operated by Respondent at its facility for a time period other than altet3edwithfrrthu

State’s complaint.

23.

Subpart (e) asks the State to provide 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. Again, this goes beyond the original

request to identify equipment, process and operations, and is overly broad and not intended to

result in the production of probative admissible evidence given information Respondent seeks

relates to unrelated emissions sources operated by Respondent at its facilityiforalimeperiod

other than alleged within the State’s complaint.

24.

Subpart (f), with its two subparts, seeks two additional sets of information above

and beyond what was requested in the original request. These include all information, including

emission factors, tests, calculations or guidance relied upon in determining actual and potential

emissions of particulate matter for each fugitive source, and the second subpart requests

identification of the individuals involved. The request, again, is overly broad and not intended to

result in the production of probative admissible evidence given information Respondent seeks

relates to unrelated emissions sources operated by Respondent at its facility for a time period

other than alleged within the State’s complaint..

25.

Comparing certain subparts of Interrogatory 7 with Interrogatory 19,

Interrogatory 19, among other things, asks the State to identify all data relating to air emission

tests conducted at the MGP site and emission data associated with the MGP facility. From

Complainant’s reading of this interrogatory, this request for data relating to air emission tests

and emission data associated with the facility is not relative to other parts of the question

regarding modeling data. It appears very clear from the question that Interrogatory 19 includes

a general request for the State to identify all data relating to air emission tests conducted at the

facility and emission data associated with the facility. In Interrogatory Number 7, in subparts a,

a(i), b, d, e and f you are asking for data relating to air emission tests conducted at the facility

and emission data associated with the facility.

26.

Similar to Interrogatory 7, in Interrogatory 8 Respondent characterized its

request as emphasizing information pertinent to a determination of “major modification”, and

again asks for the identification and description of communication and informationire.garding

emission factors, emission tests, calculations and formulas, as well

limitations on the maximum capacity to emit particulate matter from

Respondent did not even mention the topic of major modification in

however it is included in each subpart. There are 4 subparts to this

27.

In Interrogatory No. 1, Respondent asks:

For the identity of the individuals answering the interrogatories.

For the relationship each such person has to the Complainant.

The duration of the relationship with the Complainant.

For the identify of each person who has provide information for or

assisted in the preparation of answers to the interrogatories.

For the nature of the consultation or assistance that constitutes such

participation.

Whether the individual’s participation was due to personal knowledge.

If the individuals’ participation was not due to personal knowledge, on

what basis was the individual participating in the preparation of answer.

For each individual identified, the interrogatories for which each

participated in the preparation of the answers.

Obviously, Respondent is making eight interrogatory requests but identifying the request as

only one.

as physical or operational

such “major modification”.

the original request,

single interrogatory.

28.

With regard to Interrogatories No. 2 and 5, Rule 213(f) states, upon written

interrogatory, a party must furnish the identities and addresses of witnesses who will testify at

trial. Rule 213(g) concerns limitations on testimony and freedom to cross-examine. It is no

longer directly relevant to disclosure upon interrogatory. Rule 213(f) specifies what information

can be requested of each witness. For a lay witness, this includes the subject of the testimony.

For independent experts, a party can request the subject matter of the testimony and any

opinions that will be elicited. For controlled experts, the rule identifies the following information

that can be requested: (1) subject matter of testimony, (2) conclusions and opinions, (3)

qualifications of experts, (4) any reports prepared about the case.

29.

Respondent has asked for disclosures pertinent to witnesses in Interrogatories 2,

3, 4, 5, A good portion of these requests go beyond the information specifically identified in

Rule 213(f). Interrogatories 2, 3 and 5 are duplicitous. Complainant asked the Respondent

rephrase its requests consistent with Rule 213(f).

30.

In Interrogatory 2, subpart (b), Respondent asks for a summary of the relevant

facts within the knowledge of, or which said witnesses will testify to. The first portion of the

question is not consistent to Rule 213(f), and is overly broad. Complainant has asked

Respondent for clarification as to the purpose of the first portion of the question.

31.

Complainant has requested clarification as to the difference between

Interrogatory 9 and 10. Is 10 meant to concern permit modifications only? Complainant asked

what is meant by “air particulate permit application modification”, and “air particulate permits”.

Permits issued by the Illinois EPA Bureau of Air consistent with Pollution Control Board

permitting requirements are in two forms, construction and operating permits. Accordingly,

Complainant indicated to Respondent that the terms it chose to use are indisc.ernible and

technically inaccurate. Complainant asked if Respondent meant an application to revise an

existing permit? In addition, the phrase “air particulate emission issues” contained within

Interrogatory Number 9 is undefined and over broad to the extent that the State is unable to

respond.

32.

With regard to Interrogatory 11, Respondent again included subparts.

Complainant does not agree that the subparts as drafted provide guidance regarding-the

information sought in the first request. Rather, the subparts clearly solely ask for additional

information. These are the requests included in your Interrogatory 11:

Itemize the penalties

Identify the manner or means and any assumptions used to determine

penalty, including the manner in which statutory criteria, policy or

guidance (these are three different items in themselves), were employed

to determine penalty.

Describe any and all internal IEPA communications, or communications

between IEPA and USEPA related to any penalty determination

Identify the relevant facts considered in making the penalty determination

and in employing statutory criteria, policy or guidance (again, potentially

three analysis).

Identify and explain the manner or method employed in attributing any

economic benefit accruing.

Items 2 through 5 are clearly requests for information above and beyond the information sought

in the first request.

33.

Interrogatory Number 14 constitutes two requests. One is for the identification of

all communications regarding IEPAs consideration of economic and technological .feasib~ty.

The second is a request for, Complainant believes, IEPA’s determination of technological

feasibility and economically reasonable technology for MGP. With regard to BACT,

Respondent properly framed identical requests separately (Interrogatories 12 and 13). In

Interrogatory 14, Respondent asked for the identity of all communications and the

determination as one interrogatory.

34.

In Interrogatory 16, Respondent asks for the identification of communications

regarding IEPA’s use of “top down” analysis for BACT. Even though more specific, this request

mirrors information requested by Interrogatory numbers 8 and 12.

35.

In Interrogatory Number 7, Respondent asks for specific information relevant to

the fluidized bed combustion boiler. In Interrogatory 18, Respondent asks for three sets of

information relevant to the fluidized bed combustion boiler: describe any and all communication

regarding the (1) permitting, (2) operation, and (3) shutdown of the fluidized bed combustion

boiler. There is overlap between Interrogatories 7 and 18 and Respondent is making three

separate requests pertinent to the fluidized bed combustion boiler in Interrogatory 18. Then,

within the same single interrogatory, Interrogatory 18, Respondent asks that the State describe

any and all communication~regarding the (1) permitting, (2) operation, and (3) shutdown of any

dryers at the MGP facility from January 1, 1987 to present. There are at least two other dryers,

and a Swiss Combi has been installed, How many other dryers are there at MGP? The scope

and a Swiss Combi has been installed. How many other dryers are there at MGP? The scope

of this question goes way beyond a single interrogatory, and specifies a time period that is not

relevant.

36.

In Interrogatory 19, Respondent presents four very broad, general requests: (1)

describe any and all communications regarding particulate air emission modeling fel-ated to the

MGP facility, (2) the identify of all data relating to air emission tests conducted at MGP, (3) the

identity of emission data associate with MGP, (4) and/or the identity of air particulate modeling

related to the MGP facility. How do item (1) and (4) differ? In (1) is Respondent asking for

communications, and in the second asking the State to identify all air particulate modeling?

There are 4 interrogatories contained in what has been labeled a single interrogatory. This

request is duplicitous, vague, overly broad and general.

37.

With regard to Interrogatory 20, Complainant asked that Respondent define and

cite to the regulation or case law that will provide context for the term “look back” period. Absent

information mentioned above, the interrogatory lacks sufficient specificity to enable the State to

respond. To the extent Respondent’s interrogatory seeks information relative to the

construction and operation of a major modification or whether a major stationary source exists,

such information is requested by Interrogatory numbers 7, 8, and 17.

38.

Complainant asked that Respondent clarify its use of the term “exemptions” in

Interrogatory 21. Complainant asked for a context for the use of the term “exemption” other

than the broad reference to the Clean Air Act and the Illinois Environmental Protection Act.

Which exemptions does Respondent believe are applicable? Which exemption does it feel the

IEPA should have considered? Complainant is willing to address exemptions identified by

Respondent, but does not feel it must address every exemption provided for in the Clean Air

Act and the Illinois Environmental Protect Act that might be applicable to MGP’s plant, whether

relevant or not.

39.

Complainant asked Respondent if it is not the case that information sought in

Interrogatory 22 included within the requests that constitute Interrogatories 9 and 10? In

Interrogatory 22, Respondent is asking for any and all communications relating to PSD

permitting for the facility, which clearly is covered in Interrogatories 9, 10, and 17. Then

Respondent goes on to specify that the response should include air emission evaluations and

effects on attainment and/or nonattainment classification of the vicinity surrounding the site,

So, in this interrogatory, Respondent is asking for all information relevant to PSD permitting,

and specifically (1) air emission evaluations and (2) effects on attainment and/or noriattaininent

classification. This is an extremely broad request, and it is duplicative of other requests.

40.

With regard to Respondent’s Interrogatory Number 24, this interrogatory asks for

IEPA’s analysis of the “monetary losses” suffered by MGP as applied to three different analysis:

(1) the penalty demand extended in settlement discussions, which is now irrelevant; (2) BACT

determination, (3) determination of economic reasonableness. Complainant requests

clarification of the term “monetary loss” and, further points out that this one interrogatory

actually constitutes three.

41.

Interrogatory 26 asks that the State identify and describe IEPA’s analysis of

MGP’s good faith efforts to control particulate matter emissions. Respondent has not defined

what it considers MGP’s good faith efforts, and by the nature of this interrogatory, requests that

the State make a legal determination relative to what constitutes good faith. This interrogatory

is over broad, it is vague and it is ambiguous. Respondent then asks, within the same

interrogatory, that the State identify and describe IEPA’s analysis of MGP’s attempt to hold the

dryer manufacturer’s supplier accountable. There are two interrogatories posed in Interrogatory

Number 26, not one.

42.

Interrogatory No. 28 asks that the State identify and describe IEPA’s analysis of

(1) the severity of the particulate matter emissions, (2) plant location, (3) economic loss due to

unemployment, (4) economic impact of a shut down of the MGP facility. This interrogatory is

duplicative of other requests, and actually sets forth four requests rather than one.

43.

As stated above, Respondent has renewed its FOIA request that, in fact, mirrors

its discovery request. This FOIA request was plainly renewed in a vindictive manner solely due

to Complainant’s request that Respondent limit itself to discovery requests consistent to the

Board’s rules. See Group Exhibit 4. Further, Respondent vindictively states it will not be willing

to agree to an extension of the statutory seven day deadline for a response to a FOIA request.

Complainant does not have the ability to FOIA Defendant’s files and information. Respondent

is taking advantage of the fact that Complainant is a government agency subject to FOIA to

unduly harass the Complainant, when Respondent itself is not subject to the requirements of

FOIA and thus not likewise accessible to the Complainant. Respondent’s vindictive and hostile

behavior relevant to its FOIA request to the Illinois EPA, is significant additional justification,

beyond the scope of the Respondent’s overly broad discovery request itself, for Complainant’s

request for a protective order or, in the alternative, an order issued by the Board striking

Respondent’s interrogatories.

WHEREFORE, on the foregoing grounds and for the foregoing reasons, Complainant

respectfully requests that the Hearing Officer strike Respondents Amended First Set of

Interrogatories to Complainant. In the alternative, Complainant seeks a protective order,

pursuant to 35 III. Adm. Code 101.616(d), limiting Respondent’s interrogatories to a number

and breadth within the required allowable limit, thereby protecting Complainant from and

preventing harrassment and undue expense in time and effort.

Respectfully submitted,

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

LISA MADIGAN,

Attorney General

of the State of Illinois

MATTHEW J. DUNN, Chief

Environmental EnforcementlAsbestos

Litigation Division

BY:

22~

A~NEE. MCBRIDE

-‘~ Assistant Attorney General

500 South Second Street

Springfield, Illinois 62706

(217) 782-9031

Dated: September 6, 2005

STATE OF ILLINOIS

)

COUNTY OF SANGAMON

AFFIDAVIT

I, JANE E. MCBRIDE, after being duly sworn and upon oath, state as follows:

I am the Assistant Attorney General assigned to the matter of

People v. Midwest

Grain Products of Illinois, Inc.,

PCB 97-179.

I am executing this Affidavit to accompany Complainant’s Motion to Strike

Respondent’s Amended First Set of Interrogatives, or, in the alternative, Motionfor Protective

Order Limiting Interrogatories to Prevent Undue Expense and Harassment.

The assertions set forth in Complainant’s Motion regarding the progression of

this matter are correct and accurate, to the best of Affiant’s knowledge and belief.

Further, Affiant sayeth not.

JANE E. MCBRIDE

Subscri ed and sworn

before me

this _______

day of ___________

2005.

OFFICIAL SEAL

~ThR4~L#~/

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

)

Complainant,

)

PCB97.179

(Enforcement- Air)

MOP INGREDIENTS OF ILLrNOIS, INC.,

)

Respondent.

)

RESPONDENT’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO COMPLAINANT

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

Ifan interrogatory has subparts, Complainant is required to answer each part

separately and in full.

If Complainant cannot answer an interrogatory in full, they are required to

answer all parts of the interrogatory to the extent possible and specif~’the reason for its inability

to provide additional information.

Exhibit 1

209534501

As to each interrogatory, or portion thereof, identi& 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 213(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 due to absence or inadequacy of records, the best estimate

should be given to the interrogatory and labeled as such.

In construing these interrogatories:

a. the singular shall include the plural and the plural shall include the singular; and

b. 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.

20953450

12.

This discovery is deemed continuing, necessitating supplemental answers by

Complainant, or anyone acting on its behalf, when or if they 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 suchassertion ofprivilege. The statement should include:

a. the name and job title of every person involved in the conversation or

communication;

b. the nature of the information disclosed;

c. all facts relied upon in support of the claim of privilege;

d. all documents related to the claim of privilege;

e. all events, transactions or occurrences related to the claim of privilege; 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 ofan interrogatory, the balance of the

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:

a. state the date ofthe document;

b. identify each and every author of the document;

c. identify each and every other person who prepared or participated in the

preparation of the document;

d. identify each and every person who received the document;

e. state the present location of the document and all copies thcreof~

209534501

£ identif~’each and every person having custody or control of the document and all

copies thereof~and

g. provide sufficient further information concerning the document to explain the

claim or privilege and to permit adjudication of the property of that claim.

HI.

DEFINITIONS

“Complainant” shall mean PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS and the

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

agents, representatives, successors or assigns, or

any

other person acting or believed by

Complainant to 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 or

interview; or (c) meeting or conference; telegram; telephone log; travel or expense record;

vouchcr; 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.

20953450!

“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 5, Count I of the

Complaint.

“Person” shall include, but is not limited to, any natural person; business or

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:

a. the date of the communication;

b. the type ofcommunication (telephone, electronic mail, facsimile, letter, etc.);

c. the identity of all individuals involved in the communication;

d. the identity of all individuals who witnessed the communication; and

e. 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, if different, 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:

20953450!

a. to specify the nature of the document (For example a letter or memorandum);

b. to state the date, ifany, appearing on the document or, if none, the date on which

the document was prepared and/or received; and

c. to describe the substance of each document for which no privilege is claimed, or

to specify the nature and extent of any claimed privilege.

d. If the document is not in your possession, identify the person who has actual or

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, is or 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 filing date 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 or regulatory definitions will apply.

IV.

INTERROGATORIES

Please identify:

20953450!

a. the individual(s) answering these interrogatories on behalf of the Complainant,

including his or her re!ationship to Complainant, and how long he or she has

been associated with Complainant.

b. 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.

c. 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 213(f), with respect to any hearing

witnesses, please state the following:

a. the name, address and employer of each witness;

b. a s~ummaryof the relevant facts within the knowledge of, or which said witnesses

will testify to; and

c. 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:

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 of each expert witness and the basis therefore; and the

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

2095345.0!

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:

a. 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;

b. 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 litten, any and all seminars and post-

graduate training he has received, his experience, if any, as a teacher or lecturer

and his or her professional appointments and associations;

c. The identity of each document examined, considered, or relied upon by him or

her to form his or her opinions;

d. All proceedings in which each opinion witness has previously testified as an

opinion witness; and

e. Any and all reports of the opinion witness.

ANSWER:

20953450!

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 of the facts alleged in the Complaint or in the Answers to these

Interrogatories.

ANSWER:

Identify all dates on which the owner or operator of the MGP facility was required to

submit an application or request for, obtain or have in its possession a permit, approval or other

governmental authorization to construct or install any structure, process, equipment, operation or

activity at the MGP facility and for each such date, identify all such required permits, approvals,

or other governmental authorizations, for all relevant time periods.

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 1, 1989 to the present

time. For each piece of equipment, process or operation identified, provide the following:

a. All information, including emission factors, emission tests, and any calculations

or formulas, relied upon in determining the actual and potential emissions of

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

b. All rules, regulations, policies or guidance relied upon in determining the

potential to emit;

e. 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;

20953450!

d. The maximum capacity of each piece of equipment, process or operation to emit

particulate matter under its physical and operational design;

e. 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.

f. For all fugitive emissions identified, provide the following:

i. 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 detennined 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:

a. Identify all information, including emission factors, emission tests, and any

calculations or formulas, relied upon in determining that a “major modification”

occurred at any time at the MOP facility;

b. Identify the date such “major modification” occurred at the MOP facility, and as

of that date, what Complainant maintains would have been the “best available

control technology” applicable to such “major modification;”

c. 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 that a “major modification” occurred at any

time at the MOP facility.

20953450!

d. Any physical or operational limitation on the maximum capacity to emit

particulate matter from such “major modification.”

ANSWER:

10.

Describe any and all communications between IEPA and August Mack

Environmental, Inc., (“August Mack”) and/or any other consultants relating to air permit or air

emission issues at MOP. 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, 1/30/97, 3/19/97, 3/25/96, 3/27/97, 4/9/97, and 4/23/97.

ANSWER:

II.

Describe any and all communications between IEPA and MOP relating to air permit

or air emission issues at MOP. 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, 1/30/97, 3/19/97,

3/25/96,

3/27/97, 4/9/97, and 4/23/97.

ANSWER:

12.

Describe any and all internal IEPA communications relating to air permit or air

emission issues at MOP. 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, 1/30/97, 3/19/97,

3/25/96,

3/27/97, 4/9/97, and 4/23/97

ANSWER:

13.

Describe any and all communications between IEPA and the United States

Environmental Protection Agency relating to air permit or air emission issues at MOP. Dates of

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

20953450!

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, 1/30/97,

3/I 9/97, 3/25/96, 3/27/97, 4/9/97, and 4/23/97

ANSWER:

14.

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

consultants, MOP and/or the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“USEPA”) and

internal IEPA communication relating to air permit or air emission issues at MOP from 1992 to

the present.

ANSWER:

IS.

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

consultants, MOP and/or the USEPA and internal IEPA communication relating to air permit

modifications or air permit application modifications at MOP.

ANSWER:

16.

Itemize the penalties which Complainant seeks to recover for each violation asserted

in the Complaint; identify the manner or means by 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); 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:

2095345.0 

17.

Identify and describe any and all internal IEPA communications, IEPA

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

a BACT determination for the MOP facility since January I, 1990.

ANSWER:

18.

Describe the analysis conducted and methodology used by JEPA to determine the

BACT for emissions from feed dryers at the MOP facility, including but not limited to, emission

limitations and reductions.

ANSWER:

19.

Identify and describe the technically feasible and economically reasonable

technology available to control the particulate matter emissions at the MOP facility as described

in the Complaint.

ANSWER:

20.

Describe any and all communications related to IEPA’s consideration of economic

and technological feasibility as they relate to the alleged violations described in the Complaint.

ANSWER:

21.

Describe any and all communications related to IEPA’s consideration of potential

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:

22.

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

select the BACT for the MOP facility.

2095345.01

ANSWER:

23.

Describe any and all communications relied upon in preparation of Donald E.

Sutton’s 10/9/97 and 7/9/97 correspondences to MOP.

ANSWER:

24.

Describe any and all communications relating

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:

25.

Describe any and all communications relating to the permitting, operation and

shutdown of the fluidized bed combustion boiler or any dryers at the MOP facility from January

I, 1987 to present.

ANSWER:

26.

Describe any and all communications among IEPA personnel and/or MOP personnel

relating to the start of construction, start of operations, and shutdown of boilers, dryers and other

emission sources at the MOP facility.

ANSWER:

27.

Identify any and all data relating to air emission tests conducted at the MOP site,

emission data associated with the MOP facility, and/or air modeling related to the MOP facility.

ANSWER:

2095345.0!

28.

Describe any and all communications within JEPA and/or between IEPA and MOP,

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

the MOP facility.

ANSWER:

29.

Identify the “look back” period used by IEPA to determine emission limits for the

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:

30.

Identify any and all documents that relate to the inspection of air emissions at the

MOP facility.

ANSWER:

31.

Identify any and all US Clean Air Act or Illinois Environmental Protection Act

exemptions that 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:

32.

Describe any and all communications relating to the determination that the MOP

facility was a major stationary source for particulate matter in 1992.

ANSWER:

33.

Describe any and all communications relating to IEPA determinations that the MOP

facility is a major stationary source, a change in the MPO facility was a major modification or

that the MOP facility experienced a significant net emission increase for any pollutant.

2095345.01

ANSWER:

34.

Describe any and all communications related to MOP construction and operating

permit emission applications, and/or proposed and issued permits.

ANSWER:

35.

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

facility including, but not limited to, air Cmission evaluations and effects on attainment and/or

nonattainment classification of the vicinity surrounding the MOP site.

ANSWER:

36.

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:

37.

Describe any and all communications related to any penalty calculations or proposed

penalties concerning a resolution of the allegations in the Complaint including, but not limited to,

calculations, supporting documents, policies and procedures used in the application of

calculations, any assumptions used in the calculations and any internal IEPA communications or

communications with USEPA related to MOP penalties or penalty calculations.

ANSWER:

38.

Describe JEPA’s analysis of the monetary losses suffered by MOP as applied to the

following:

a. The penalty of$l,062,580;

2095345.0!

b. The BACT determination; and

c. The determination of economic reasonable technology.

ANSWER:

39.

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

economic benefit penalty beyond that date.

ANSWER:

40.

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:

41.

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:

42.

Describe any and all communications with Mr. Charlie Merrill or Mr. Brian Cahill

relating to the determination that no penalty or fines would be assessed if MOP cooperated in

completing the air modeling.

ANSWER:

43.

Describe how the shutdown of the MOP fluidized bed coal boiler in 1994 factored

into IEPA’s determination that MOP was a “major stationary source.”

ANSWER:

20953450!

44.

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 ofa shut down of the MOP facility.

ANSWER:

45.

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:

46.

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:

Busch & Eppenberger, LLC

190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600

St. Louis, Missouri 63105

(314) 480.1500

2095345.01

Respectfully submitted,

LLC

One of its

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

)

Complainant,

)

PCB97-179

(Enforcement- Air)

MOP INOREDIENTS OF ILLINOIS, INC.,

)

Respondent.

)

RESPONDENT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF

INTERROGATORIES TO COMPLAINANT

COMES NOW Respondent MOP Ingredients of Illinois, Inc., (“MOP”),, by its attorneys,

Busch & 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.

Ifan interrogatory has subparts, Complainant is required to answer each part

separately and in full.

If Complainant cannot answer an interrogatory in full, they are required to

answer all parts of the interrogatory to the extent possible and specify the reason for its inability

to provide additional information.

Exhibit 2

2098! 24.0

As to each interrogatory, or portion thereof, identify in the answer every oral