BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
MIDWEST PETROLEUM COMPANY, )
Petitioner, )
v. ) PCB No. 06-28
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL ) (LUST Appeal)
PROTECTION AGENCY, )
Respondent. )
NOTICE
Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk Curtis W. Martin
Illinois Pollution Control Board Robert E. Shaw
James R. Thompson Center Shaw & Martin, P.C.
100 West Randolph Street 123 South 10
th
Street, Suite 302
Suite 11-500 P.O. Box 1789
Chicago, IL 60601 Mt. Vernon, IL 62864
Carol Webb, Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
1021 North Grand Avenue, East
P.O. Box 19274
Springfield, IL 62794-9274
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed with the office of the Clerk of the Pollution
Control Board a RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S BRIEF, copies of which are herewith served upon you.
Respectfully submitted,
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent
____________________________
John J. Kim
Assistant Counsel
Special Assistant Attorney General
Division of Legal Counsel
1021 North Grand Avenue, East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
217/782-5544
217/782-9143 (TDD)
Dated: November 14, 2005
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, NOVEMBER 14, 2005
1
BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
MIDWEST PETROLEUM COMPANY, )
Petitioner, )
v. ) PCB No. 06-28
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL ) (UST Appeal)
PROTECTION AGENCY, )
Respondent. )
RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S BRIEF
NOW COMES the Respondent, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (“Illinois
EPA”), by one of its attorneys, John J. Kim, Assistant Counsel and Special Assistant Attorney
General, and hereby submits its Response to the Petitioner’s Brief to the Illinois Pollution
Control Board (“Board”).
I. BURDEN OF PROOF
Section 105.112(a) of the Board’s procedural rules (35 Ill. Adm. Code 105.112(a))
provides that the burden of proof shall be on the petitioner. In reimbursement appeals, the on the
applicant for reimbursement has the burden to demonstrate that costs are related to corrective
action, properly accounted for, and reasonable. Rezmar Corporation v. Illinois EPA, PCB 02-91
(April 17, 2003), p. 9. Here, the owner or operator of a leaking underground storage tank must
prepare and submit a corrective action plan designed to mitigate any threat to human health,
human safety or the environment resulting from the underground storage tank release. 415 ILCS
5/57.7(b)(2). Further, the owner or operator must submit a corrective action plan budget that
includes, but is not limited to, an accounting of all costs associated with the implementation and
completion of the corrective action plan. 415 ILCS 5/57.7(b)(3).
The primary focus of the Board must remain on the adequacy of the permit application
(or, as is the case here, the amended budget) and the information submitted by the applicant to
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, NOVEMBER 14, 2005
2
the Illinois EPA. John Sexton Contractors Company v. Illinois EPA, PCB 88-139 (February 23,
1989), p. 5. Further, the ultimate burden of proof remains on the party initiating an appeal of an
Illinois EPA final decision. John Sexton Contractors Company v. Illinois Pollution Control
Board, 201 Ill. App. 3d 415, 425-426, 558 N.E.2d 1222, 1229 (1
st
Dist. 1990).
Thus Midwest Petroleum Company (“Midwest”) must demonstrate to the Board that it
has satisfied its burden before the Board can enter an order reversing or modifying the Illinois
EPA’s decision under review.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Section 57.8(i) of the Environmental Protection Act (“Act”) grants an individual the right
to appeal a determination of the Illinois EPA to the Board pursuant to Section 40 of the Act (415
ILCS 5/57.8(i)). Section 40 of the Act (415 ILCS 5/40) is the general appeal section for permits
and has been used by the legislature as the basis for this type of appeal to the Board. When
reviewing an Illinois EPA decision on a submitted corrective action plan and/or budget, the
Board must decide whether or not the proposals, as submitted to the Illinois EPA, demonstrate
compliance with the Act and Board regulations. Broderick Teaming Company v. Illinois EPA,
PCB 00-187 (December 7, 2000).
The Board will not consider new information not before the Illinois EPA prior to its
determination on appeal. The Illinois EPA’s final decision frames the issues on appeal. Todd’s
Service Station v. Illinois EPA, PCB 03-2 (January 22, 2004), p. 4. In deciding whether the
Illinois EPA’s decision under appeal here was appropriate, the Board must therefore look to the
documents within the Administrative Record (“Record”), along with relevant and appropriate
testimony provided at the hearing held on October 7, 2005, in this matter.
1
Based on the
1
Citations to the Administrative Record will hereinafter be made as, “AR, p. ___.” References to the transcript of
the hearing will be made as, “TR, p. ___.”
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, NOVEMBER 14, 2005
3
information within the Record and the testimony, along with the relevant law, the Illinois EPA
respectfully requests that the Board enter an order affirming the Illinois EPA’s decision.
III. INTRODUCTION
The information submitted to the Illinois EPA by Midwest that led to the issuance of the
final decision under appeal fully supports the content and conclusion of the final decision, in that
the Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the costs that were the subject of the proposed amended
budget were reasonable. The failure of the Petitioner at hearing to present consistent, coherent
and rationale reasons for the submission of the amended budget to begin with further confirm the
correctness of the Illinois EPA’s decision. The Board’s review of the Record documents, as well
as the hearing transcript, should yield the same conclusion as that reached by the Illinois EPA.
IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS
This site has had a long history in terms of technical plan and/or budget submissions to
the Illinois EPA. For purposes of this appeal, the best starting point in the history of the site is
with the amended corrective action plan and budget submitted by Midwest to the Illinois EPA on
August 13, 2004 (“August 2004 CAP” and “August 2004 budget”). AR, pp. 101-328.
The August 2004 CAP includes a history of the site as well as information regarding the
proposed excavation of contaminated soil and clean overburden
2
at the site. The August 2004
CAP states that it is assumed that the simultaneous soil removal and backfilling will require a
total of 25 days to complete. AR, p. 118.
The August 2004 CAP also contains several references to the manner in which clean
overburden at the site will be addressed. For example, Midwest’s consultant, United Science
Industries (“USI”), proposed that a photo-ionization detector (“PID”) would be used to segregate
2
The parties are in agreement that “clean overburden” or “overburden” as used in conjunction with the subject site
refers to soil found above the contaminated soil at the site, such that the clean overburden would not need to be
disposed of off-site and would be available for use as backfill material.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, NOVEMBER 14, 2005
4
clean overburden, which would be placed into 200 cubic yard stockpiles. The clean overburden
was estimated to be 5,544 cubic yards. AR, p. 121. Further, a review of soil borehole data
indicated that clean soil overlay the contaminated soil averaging nine feet in thickness over an
estimated area of 16,697 square feet. The estimated amount of clean soil overburden was 5,575
cubic yards. Subtracting the clean overburden from the total estimated amount of 20,713 cubic
yards of excavated soil would result in approximately 15,148 cubic yards of in place
contaminated soil being excavated for disposal. AR, p. 123.
In the August 2004 budget, there are specific references to work that will be done by a
Senior Project Engineer (calculate overburden) and Environmental Technician (excavation and
overburden screening) related to the overburden at the site. AR, pp. 319-320.
On September 1, 2004, the Illinois EPA issued a final decision that conditionally
approved the August 2004 CAP and budget. There were no modifications or conditions in the
final decision that altered the proposed time periods for excavation of contaminated soil or clean
overburden. AR, pp. 61-66.
On November 18, 2004, USI sent a proposed budget amendment to the Illinois EPA
(“November 2004 budget”). AR, pp. 51-60. The proposed amendment contained a justification
statement, stating that an increase in the unit rate allowed for excavation, transportation and
disposal was justified based on the Illinois EPA’s previous decision to reduce the amount of
contaminated soil approved for disposal. AR, p. 53.
On January 6, 2005, the Illinois EPA issued a final decision rejecting the November 2004
budget on the bases that there was no supporting documentation for the request and the request
did not appear reasonable as proposed. AR, pp. 46-48.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, NOVEMBER 14, 2005
5
On February 17, 2005, USI sent a proposed budget amendment to the Illinois EPA
(“February 2005 budget”). AR, pp. 33-45. The proposed budget amendment contained a
justification statement seeking an increase in the rate for unit of production based on the Illinois
EPA’s previous modification of the swell factor. AR, p. 35.
On March 14, 2005, the Illinois EPA issued a final decision, rejecting the February 2005
budget. AR, pp. 28-30. However, the parties later reached a settlement on issues regarding the
February 2005 budget and the March 2005 final decision. AR, pp. 12-18.
On March 29, 2005, another proposed budget amendment was sent to the Illinois EPA
(“March 2005 budget”). AR, pp. 19-27. This budget is the subject of the present appeal. The
budget sought additional costs related to personnel activities in the removal of clean overburden
at the site, as set forth in the justification statement in the budget. AR, pp. 25-26. The rationale
for the request for approval of additional personnel costs was that the budget estimate for the
project had underestimated the time needed for the Environmental Technician to perform tasks
of excavation and overburden screening, manifesting, sampling, surveying and sample shipment.
The Environmental Technician required work for 43 days as compared to the original estimate of
27 days. Further, there reference made to weather conditions at the site being much wetter than
normal. AR, p. 25.
The justification statement also acknowledged that the August 2004 plan and budget,
when read together, estimated that it would take 25 days for the excavation, transportation,
disposal and backfilling of contaminated soil, and an additional two days for excavation and
replacement of clean overburden. AR, p. 25.
The justification statement also noted that the original August 2004 budget significantly
underestimated the amount of time required to complete the simultaneous overburden handling
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, NOVEMBER 14, 2005
6
and contaminated soil disposal, as evidenced by the fact that the technician time required for the
clean overburden tasks was not provided in the original budget. AR, p. 26. The justification
goes on to provide that the March 2005 budget provided evidence that production rates during
excavation activities were reasonable when considering the adverse weather conditions. AR, p.
26.
On July 18, 2005, the Illinois EPA issued the final decision now under appeal (“July
2005 final decision”). AR, pp. 1-3. In the final decision, the Illinois EPA stated that the budget
was rejected. The final decision stated that the budget included costs that were not reasonable as
submitted, although additional information and/or supporting documentation may be provided to
demonstrate the costs were reasonable. AR, p. 1.
The final decision also provided:
“The budget indicates that the amount of time to excavate, transport, dispose and
backfill contaminated soils from this site continued over a span of approximately
five (5) months. The approved plan does not include approval for soil
remediation to include a span of approximately 5 months. Therefore, the request
for additional personnel costs to remediate the contaminated soils from this
LUST site is not reasonable.” AR, p. 1.
This appeal followed.
V. THE AUGUST 2004 CAP AND BUDGET TERMS ARE APPLICABLE
The key argument raised by Midwest was that the terms, dates and costs in the August
2004 CAP and budget were somehow not binding on them such that a claim could later be made
that there was sufficient gray area to allow for the approval of additional personnel costs. Quite
the contrary, the August 2004 CAP and budget were very clear in scope, description and
specificity.
The August 2004 CAP explicitly states that the time needed for excavation of
contaminated soil at the site is 25 days. AR, p. 118. The Illinois EPA’s approval of the August
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, NOVEMBER 14, 2005
7
2004 CAP did not contain any condition or modification changing the 25 day period set forth in
the CAP. Thus, the time period was binding upon the Petitioner. The Petitioner argues that the
August 2004 CAP also contained language regarding the span of time in which the excavation
would be completed, and that looking to that span the work was actually completed ahead of
schedule. Petitioner’s brief, p. 7. While that may be true, it is of little consequence as the basis
for the amended budget was not that the Petitioner completed the work before the stated end date
as found in the August 2004 CAP; rather, the Petitioner filed the March 2005 budget since it did
not complete the work within the time otherwise committed to in the CAP, i.e., the 25 days.
Completing the work before an anticipated end date does not result in the need for a budget
amendment, since the variable of concern is not the date by which the work was completed but
rather the time needed to complete the work.
Suppose that on January 1, 2006, a contractor agrees to build a home taking 90 days of
construction, and that he anticipates the home will be completed by August 2006. If the
contractor in fact takes 120 days of construction time, it will not matter from a monetary
standpoint that he possibly finished by July 2006. The start and stop date are not of importance
when compared to the actual time spent on the job, given that the work performed (both in the
hypothetical and in the present site condition) is charged on a daily or hourly basis.
Furthermore, the Petitioner’s argument that the notion of addressing the clean overburden
at the site was either overlooked or underestimated is not supported by the content of the August
2004 CAP and budget. In both the CAP and budget, there are specific and numerous references
to how the clean overburden will be addressed, how much clean overburden would be removed,
and the time needed for personnel to handle overburden-related tasks. To claim that there was a
dearth of information in the August 2004 CAP and budget on that point is wholly inconsistent
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, NOVEMBER 14, 2005
8
with the actual content of those documents. The Illinois EPA, in its role as the reviewer of the
documents submitted by Midwest, would have no reason to believe there was any error or
mistake on the part of either Midwest or its consultant in the preparation and finalization of the
CAP or budget.
The CAP clearly states that 25 days will be taken to perform removal and disposal of
contaminated soil, and the budget clearly provides that an environmental technician will require
270 hours (or 27 days at 10 hours per day) for work related to the overburden at the site.
Lest there be any question that the CAP and budget contemplated a scenario in which 25
days would be taken for contaminated soil removal and an additional two day would be used for
clean overburden activities, the justification statement in the March 2005 budget confirms those
time allocations. Bob Pulfrey, the Project Manager for the site as assigned by USI, Midwest’s
consultant, testified that the August 2004 CAP and budget, when read together, set forth the 25
days/two days framework. TR, p. 97. Barry Sink, the Professional Engineer employed by USI
for the site, agreed with those time periods. TR, p. 149. Messrs. Pulfrey and Sink were the
parties responsible for drafting and submitting the August 2004 CAP and budget. TR, pp. 94,
148.
At hearing, however, Mr. Pulfrey went on to testify that it was unreasonable to think it
would take only two days for overburden activities. TR, p. 98. It should be repeated that at the
time of the preparation of the August 2004 CAP and budget, both Mr. Pulfrey and Mr. Sink were
aware of the amounts of overburden involved at the site, and both testified that the amount was
quite large, larger than any amount either had experienced previously. TR, pp. 134, 152. Yet,
despite what must clearly be described as a large red flag in terms of factoring in site-specific
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, NOVEMBER 14, 2005
9
conditions in the preparation of a corrective action plan and budget, both men testified at hearing
that the time they committed to in the August 2004 CAP and budget was unreasonable.
That testimony is more than offset by the testimony of Jeffrey Schwartz, the Manager of
Field Operations for USI. Mr. Schwartz testified that it is his role in a site such as the Midwest
site to, among other things, assist the project manager in the calculation of the time periods
needed to perform excavation related activities. TR, pp. 71, 73-74. Mr. Pulfrey himself testified
that in this situation, he simply inputted the days for excavation work as provided by Mr.
Schwartz to him when preparing the CAP. Mr. Pulfrey says he then forgot about the handling of
the overburden. TR, p. 98.
This testimony is itself puzzling, since Mr. Schwartz testified that he did not have any
involvement in the site until sometime after August 2004, the time of submission of the August
2004 CAP and budget. TR, p. 72. So it is unclear exactly where Mr. Pulfrey received his
information. However, Mr. Schwartz also testified that if he had been involved in the site at the
time the corrective action plan and budget were prepared, he would have likely assisted in
determining how much time would be needed for work activities. He also testified that (without
the hindsight of the rain conditions, which will be addressed below) if he had been associated
with the site at the time of preparing the corrective action plan, he would have said the time
periods in the CAP were reasonable. TR, pp. 73-74.
Thus, on the one hand, you have Mr. Pulfrey, the project engineer (responsible for
drafting the corrective action plan and budget), stating that he put figures received from Mr.
Schwartz, the manager of field operations, into the corrective action plan and budget. Then you
have Mr. Pulfrey stating that aside from the numerous references to clean overburden, the
calculations regarding clean overburden, and the time allotted for an environmental technician to
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, NOVEMBER 14, 2005
10
perform work related to clean overburden, he either overlooked or underestimated the time
needed to perform clean overburden work.
3
Next, you have Mr. Schwartz testifying that in fact
he did not provide those days to Mr. Pulfrey as Mr. Pulfrey believed. Finally, you have Mr.
Schwartz’s testimony that his lack of involvement at that state aside, the time period in the
August 2004 CAP and budget is reasonable (without taking into account the “wet conditions”).
The only sense that can be made of this tangled presentation of arguments is that
Midwest knew of the existence of the clean overburden at the site before August 2004, it knew of
the extent of the clean overburden, it made reference to the clean overburden in its corrective
action plan and budget, and its own consultant believed that (with the meteorological facts that
would have been available to the Illinois EPA at the time of reviewing the August 2004 CAP and
budget) the time periods were reasonable. Therefore, the Petitioner itself has demonstrated that
the time periods in the August 2004 CAP and budget were reasonable and should be adhered to.
VI. THE MARCH 2005 BUDGET WAS NOT SUFFICIENT
But what of the Petitioner’s more recent argument that, those original approved time
periods notwithstanding, additional time should be approved for work related to contaminated
soil and clean overburden excavation? Such was the request made in the March 2005 budget.
However, looking to the information and explanation contained within that document, the Illinois
EPA had no choice but to reject the request.
4
3
It is curious to track Mr. Pulfrey’s testimony and characterization of his acknowledgment (or lack thereof) of clean
overburden in the August 2004 CAP. At some times he testified that he overlooked the clean overburden, at other
times he stated he underestimated the time needed to handle clean overburden, and then combines the two terms to
state that he forgot about the handling of the overburden at the time of the plan, and by the time the project was
finished, he decided he had underestimated the time. TR, p. 127. This testimony is not just confusing, it is
indicative of the weakness of the Petitioner’s argument in general. Clearly, given the numerous references to clean
overburden in the August 2004 CAP and budget, that topic was not overlooked.
4
The Petitioner argues that the Illinois EPA was somehow lacking in describing what standard was employed in
reviewing the March 2005 budget. Petitioner’s brief, p. 8. This argument is baseless, as Harry Chappel of the
Illinois EPA testified at the hearing that the Illinois EPA looked to the information provided by USI. The Illinois
EPA does not have a standard formula or other codified guideline, and can only look to the site specific information
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, NOVEMBER 14, 2005
11
The March 2005 budget argued that the additional personnel costs were warranted for
three reasons. First, the time periods approved in the September 1, 2004 final decision were the
product of either an oversight or underestimation by the Petitioner’s consultant. AR, p. 25. As
has been discussed, that argument has no merit.
Second, during the period of time in which contaminated soil was excavated and disposed
of, the weather conditions were much wetter than normal. AR, p. 25. Unfortunately, in the
March 2005 budget, the Petitioner does not provide any specific information regarding rainfall at
the site, or even for the county in which the site is located. Rather, the only information given is
for St. Louis, Missouri, approximately 20 miles from the site. The Illinois EPA was thus being
asked to accept weather conditions from 20 miles away as being identical to that evidenced at the
site itself. There was no information from any field notes of any employee of USI, no
information from a source closer to the site, only information from St. Louis. While it is possible
that weather conditions 20 miles from a given location may be the same, it is also quite possible
that weather 20 miles away is not at all the same.
And, at the hearing, Mr. Pulfrey himself testified that any rain in the area affected the site
activities only “somewhat.” TR, p. 114. To describe the effect of this supposed adverse weather
condition as only affecting the site “somewhat” is telling.
Finally, third, the Petitioner argued that the production rate for the extended period of
time sought for approval in the March 2005 budget was reasonable and very near the definition
as established by the Illinois EPA in the pending rulemaking. AR, p. 26. The Illinois EPA’s
witness testified that the notion of production rates was not taken into account. The Illinois EPA
as conveyed in a submission. Tr,, p. 35. The Petitioner argues repeatedly that the Board and the Illinois EPA should
somehow take the pending rulemaking of amendments to Part 732 of the Board’s rules as being an authority here.
As the hearing officer correctly noted at hearing, those rulemakings are not final, and therefore have no precedential
or other persuasive weight here.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, NOVEMBER 14, 2005
12
has no standard with regard to production rates of excavation. TR, pp. 34-35. There is no
statutory or regulatory authority in place that addresses such a rate, and thus it is impossible for
the Illinois EPA to apply any such standard. Furthermore, there was never any mention of using
such a production rate to determine reasonableness in any of the previous submittals for this site,
so even if the Illinois EPA had been asked to look at this as a legitimate yardstick, there was no
prior reliance on that factor.
There is nothing within the March 2005 budget that supports the requested approval of
additional time, and therefore the rejection of the budget was appropriate.
VII. THE FINAL DECISION WAS CORRECT
The Petitioner has sought to twist or somehow obfuscate the plain wording of the July
2005 final decision. A simple reading of that decision shows it to be an accurate and sufficient
explanation of the Illinois EPA’s conclusion.
The final decision states that the budget cannot be approved since the costs are not
reasonable as submitted, for the reasons provided herein. The final decision further explains that
the budget indicated the time needed to excavate, transport, dispose and backfill contaminated
soils continued over five months. As the March 2005 budget stated, work took place in October
2004, November 2004, January 2005, February 2005, and March 2005, or five months. The
decision then states that the approved plan (as approved on September 1, 2004) did not include
approval for soil remediation to include a span of five months, which it did not. Rather, the
August 2004 CAP and budget (as approved) stated that the contaminated soil excavation would
take 25 days and the clean overburden activity would take two days.
There is nothing in the final decision that is incorrect, inaccurate or unsupported by the
documents in the Record.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, NOVEMBER 14, 2005
13
VIII. THE HEARING TESTIMONY SUPPORTS THE FINAL DECISION
There are numerous passages of testimony from the hearing that either support the
Illinois EPA’s final decision or weaken the Petitioner’s arguments. For example, Mr. Schwartz
testified that a map was used to determine the depth of excavation at the site. TR, p. 61. He
noted that the map was to be updated from time to time, but that in this case, the map was pretty
close, and was not modified much. TR, p. 62. The map is Petitioner’s Exhibit 2, which is also
page 143 of the Record. However, Mr. Pulfrey testified that the same map changed in a
significant way from day to day as excavation progressed. TR, p. 100-101. He also
acknowledged that the final version of the map was never provided to the Illinois EPA in support
of the March 2005 budget. TR, p. 129.
Mr. Pulfrey never testified that the time allowed for removal of contaminated soil as set
forth in the March 2004 CAP (i.e., 25 days) was itself insufficient, but he later conceded in
testimony at hearing that the total time needed for excavation of all the contaminated soil at the
site was 44 days, or close to double the time set forth in the CAP. TR, p. 136.
IX. THE PETITIONER’S BRIEF IS IN ERROR
The Petitioner’s brief fails to present any tangible or persuasive argument on which the
Board could rely in reversing the Illinois EPA’s final decision. In addition to the arguments and
instances noted above, the Petitioner’s brief fails on several points.
Midwest cites to several statutory and regulatory provisions in apparent support for its
position. But those provisions only strengthen the Illinois EPA’s final decision. Section
57.8(a)(5) of the Environmental Protection Act (“Act”) (415 ILCS 5/57.8(a)(5)) stands for the
proposition that an owner or operator may submit successive plans containing budgets if
additional costs are incurred beyond what has been approved. Here, the Petitioner failed to file
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, NOVEMBER 14, 2005
14
an amended corrective action plan seeking an amendment from the time periods set forth in the
March 2004 CAP. That failure alone precludes the approval of any related amendatory budget.
Similarly, Section 732.405(e) of the Board’s rules (35 Ill. Adm. Code 732.405(e)) states
that an amended corrective action plan and/or budget may be submitted for review. Again, the
failure of Midwest to file an amended CAP with the March 2005 budget prevents any approval
of the budget on its own. Also, Section 732.505(c) of the Board’s rules (35 Ill. Adm. Code
732.505(c)) requires that a financial review include, inter alia, a determination that the costs in a
budget are consistent with the associated technical plan. Here, the technical plan contains a time
period (i.e., 25 days) inconsistent with the proposed amended budget.
X. CONCLUSION
For all the reasons and arguments included herein, the Illinois EPA respectfully requests
that the Board affirm the Illinois EPA’s July 18, 2005 final decision. The Petitioner has not met
even its
prima facie
burden of proof, and certainly has not met its ultimate burden of proof. For
these reasons, the Illinois EPA respectfully requests that the Board affirm the Illinois EPA’s final
decision.
Respectfully submitted,
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent
____________________________
John J. Kim
Assistant Counsel
Special Assistant Attorney General
Division of Legal Counsel
1021 North Grand Avenue, East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
217/782-5544, 217/782-9143 (TDD)
Dated: November 14, 2005
This filing submitted on recycled paper.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, NOVEMBER 14, 2005
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned attorney at law, hereby certify that on November 14, 2005, I served
true and correct copies of a RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S BRIEF, by electronic filing to the
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board and by placing true and correct copies in properly
sealed and addressed envelopes and by depositing said sealed envelopes in a U.S. mail drop box
located within Springfield, Illinois, with sufficient First Class Mail postage affixed thereto, to the
Petitioner and Hearing Officer:
Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk (Electronic filing) Curtis W. Martin
Illinois Pollution Control Board Robert E. Shaw
James R. Thompson Center Shaw & Martin, P.C.
100 West Randolph Street 123 South 10
th
Street, Suite 302
Suite 11-500 P.O. Box 1789
Chicago, IL 60601 Mt. Vernon, IL 62864
Carol Webb, Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
1021 North Grand Avenue, East
P.O. Box 19274
Springfield, IL 62794-9274
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent
____________________________
John J. Kim
Assistant Counsel
Special Assistant Attorney General
Division of Legal Counsel
1021 North Grand Avenue, East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
217/782-5544
217/782-9143 (TDD)
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, NOVEMBER 14, 2005