BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
IN THE MATTER OF:
PROPOSED ADJUSTED STANDARD
FOR
AMMONIA NITROGEN DISCHARGE LEVELS
APPLICABLE TO CITGO PETROLEUM
CORPORATION AND PDV MIDWEST
REFINING, L.L.C., PETITIONERS
)
)
)
) AS 08-08
) (Adjusted Standard - Water)
)
)
NOTICE OF FILING
To:
Dorothy Gunn
Clerk
of the Board
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 West Randolph Street - Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL 60601
Jason
R.
Boltz
Illinois EPA
1021 N. Grand Ave. East
Springfield, IL 62794
Bradley Halloran, Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James
R.
Thompson
100 W. Randolph, Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL 60601-3218
Please take notice that on August 14,2008, we filed electronically with the Office
of the
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board the attached Motion to Exclude Un-Filed IEPA
Testimony, a copy
of which is served upon you.
CITGO PETROLEUM CORPORATION, and
PDV
MIDWES~~petitioners
By:
-I'----"-O-n-e
J.J£
IHQ
-of-I-ts-A-tt-o-m-e-y-s--
Jeffrey
C. Fort
Ariel J. Tesher
Sonnenschein Nath
&
Rosenthal LLP
7800 Sears Tower
233 S. Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606-6404
12465880
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 14, 2008
BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
IN THE MATTER OF:
PROPOSED
ADmSTED STANDARD FOR
AMMONIA NITROGEN DISCHARGE LEVELS
APPLICABLE TO CITGO PETROLEUM
CORPORATION AND PDV MIDWEST
REFINING,
L.L.c.,
PETITIONERS
)
)
)
) AS 08-08
) (Adjusted Standard - Water)
)
)
MOTION TO EXCLUDE UN-FILED IEPA TESTIMONY
CITGO Petroleum Corporation and PDV Midwest Refining, LLC ("CITGO" or
"Petitioner") moves the Illinois Pollution Control Board ("Board") to exclude any proposed oral
testimony
by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency ("the Agency") for failure to file its
testimony in accordance with the Hearing Office Order of July 9,2008 (attached hereto as
Exhibit A).
Petitioner has made numerous attempts to work with the Agency on this matter, and it
initiated meetings with the Agency in November
of2007. As suggested by the Agency at that
time, Petitioner agreed to separate the Total Dissolved Solids issues from the ammonia nitrogen
issues. Pursuant to additional Agency suggestions, it also agreed to use the adjusted standard
approach rather than the site-specific rule change in order to meet the requirements
ofUS.EPA
in reviewing Illinois'swater quality standards. While Petitioner is disappointed that the Agency
declined to engage in any technical discussions on the content
of its proposal in filing its
Recommendation to deny our petition, Petitioner is particularly troubled
by the Agency'srefusal
to pre-file its expected testimony.
At the July
8,2008, telephonic status conference, the Agency distinctly advocated for its
preferred schedule
of deadlines for both sides' pre-filed testimony. The Agency refused to agree
12465880
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 14, 2008
to a simultaneous filing oftestimony with a subsequent right to rebuttal.
It
insisted on the right
to review Petitioner'stestimony prior to filing its own, and Petitioner acceded to the Agency's
suggested schedule for both sides' filing
of testimony.
Although Petitioner timely filed its testimony in accordance with the August
1, 2008,
deadline, the Agency refused to file any testimony
by its requested August 6, 2008, deadline. At
the August
7,2008, telephonic pre-hearing conference, the Agency declared that it would not, in
fact, be filing any testimony. Instead, the Agency indicated that it would present up to two
Agency witnesses at the hearing who would provide testimony with no pre-filed documentation.
Thus, while Petitioner complied with the Hearing Office Order and filed 473 pages oftestimony
and supporting exhibits, the Agency ignored the Hearing Officer Order and filed no testimony
whatsoever.
Petitioner moves the Board to prevent the Agency from presenting witnesses at the
Hearing.
If the Agency is allowed to present witnesses in violation of the Hearing Officer Order,
it will wield the unfair advantage
ofhaving reviewed Petitioner's extensively filed testimony
while preventing Petitioner from the opportunity to review its own testimony. Petitioner further
requests that the Board not reconcile this problem
by postponing the hearing or extending the
hearing to later dates. As noted above, Petitioner has spent over six months attempting to engage
the Agency on this matter. Moreover, the Agency has already delayed this process repeatedly.
On
May 5, 2008, the Agency filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Recommendation at
the same time that it filed its appearance in this case; the Board granted the extension on May 15,
2008. On
May 30,2008, the Agency filed a second motion for extension; the Board Hearing
Officer granted that extension on June 3, 2008. The Agency'sdecision not to file its testimony,
without warning and in contravention
of the Hearing Officer'sJuly 9,2008 Order, should not
2
12465880
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 14, 2008
serve as yet another extension for the Agency. Petitioner has pursued this process in good faith
and with all possible notice to the Agency. Petitioner would be unduly burdened
by further
delays, as the rule under which it currently operates is set to expire on December 31,2008.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests that the Board grant this motion.
CITGO PETROLEUM CORPORATION, and
PDV MIDWEST REFINING, L.L.C., Petitioners
BY:---+--&_.
c-;----_~_-
_
One of Its Attorneys
Jeffrey
C. Fort
Ariel J. Tesher
Sonnenschein Nath
&
Rosenthal LLP
7800 Sears Tower
233 South Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606-6404
3
12465880
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 14, 2008
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned, an attorney, certifies that I have served upon the individuals named on
the attached Notice of Filing true and correct copies ofthe Motion to Exclude Un-Filed IEPA
Testimony, via electronic filing, on August 14,2008.
4
12465880
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 14, 2008