ILLINOIS PCLLC~ICNCCN~RCLBOARD
August
C, lE~
iLLINOiS EN\~IFONMEN’IAL
E-RC~1EC’1IC~’ACE~C1,
Complainant,
v.
)
PCB 65—1C2
CON~1NEN’IALGRAIN COMPANY
(Eeardsto~n),
Respondent.
RC’~HAFECE,
EEC.
CF
MARVIIN,
CFAIC,
CBES~IERAND SONNENSCBEIN,
APPEARED ON EEEALF
CF PESPCNDENI.
JOSEPH
F.
MACON1A, ASSISThN~A~ICFNEYGENERAL, APPEARED ON BEHALF
CF COt~~FLAINA~T.
CPINICN AND ORDER
CF
‘IHE BCARE
(by
3.
Marlin):
‘Ibis matter comes before
the Eoard
on
a July 10, 1585
complaint tiled
by
the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
against Continental
Grain Company (Continental).
The
Complaint
alleges that
Continental
at
its Eeardstown,
IL grain loading
facility caused,
threatened,
or
allowed violations
of
Section
9(a)
of
the IlJincis Environmental Protection Act (Act)
and
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code Sections
212.4?2(d)(3)(A)
and 212.462(e)
beginning
at
least
on July
~,
3.963
and continuing
up
to the filing
of
the
Complaint.
‘ihe
Complaint also alleges violation of
Section 9(b)
of
the Act and
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code Section
201.144 since
at least
June
22,
1964
and continuing
until
the
filing
of the Complaint.
Bearing
in
this matter was scheduled
for July
2,
3.967
at
1C:G0 a.m.
The
hearing officer, counsel
for the parties,
and
representative
of the Agency were present.
‘Ihe court reporter
did not show
up.
The parties
fied
the stipulation.
No members
of the public attended,
although
a news reporter appeared
at
about
11:15 a.m.
arid examined
the memorandum and stipulation.
(Bearing Officer
letter
of July
3,
1967).
The Board
finds
that
in
this particular
instance the
described proceeding substantially complies with the requirement
that
a hearing be
held.
This matter
is essentially identical
to
four other proceedings involving
the same parties and settlement
agreements.
Although the hearing was properly noticed,
no
members
of the public attended.
There were
no unresolved
issues
to
argue.
In this instance,
to require
the parties
to meet again
in
the presence of
a court
reporter
to present
the stipulation
would
expend
considerable
time
and
money
and serve no necessary
public
or
private
purpose.
80—3 1
On July
2,
1967,
the parties submitted
a Stipulation
and
Froposal
for Settlement
(Stipulation).
The Stipulation
is
attached and adequately addresses
the facts
in this matter.
Accordingly,
this opinion
will
not contain
the customary
discussion
ci th~ issues.
The Board
notes,
though,
that according
to the Stipulation,
Continental “is not admitting
its liability for violations
alleged
in
the Complaint”.
Also,
the Stipulation states that
Continental has received a permit
to operate
a barge loading
spout
tip aspiration system and
is currently
in compliance
with
the regulations.
In evaluating
this enforcement action and proposed
settlement
agreement,
the Board
has
taken
into consideration all
the facts
and circumstances
in light
of the specific criteria
delineatcd
in
Section
33(c)
of
the Act and
finds
the Stipulation
aria
Proposal
for Settlement
acceptable
under
35
Ill. Adm. Code
103.180.
Accordingly,
the
Board orders Continental
to comply
with
the Crder
set
forth herein.
This Cpinicn
and Crder
constitutes the Board’s
findings of
fact
and conclusions
ci law
in
this matter.
CRCER
It
is
the
Order
of the Illinois Pollution Control Board
that:
1)
The Board hereby accepts
the Stipulation and Proposal
for
Settlement executed by Continental
Grain Company
and the
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
concerning
Continental’s
Beardstown
facility
and
filed
with
the
Board
on
July
10,
1987.
The
Stipulation
and
the
Proposal
for
Settlement
is
attached
hereto.
2)
Continental
shall,
by
certified
check
or
money
order
payable
to
the State
of Illinois
and designated
for deposit
into
the
Environmental Protection
‘Irust
Fund, pay the sum of $10,000
(‘Ien Thousand Collars).
The sum
shall be paid within
60 days
of
the date
it
receives notice of this order.
‘Ihe
payment
shall be mailed
to:
Fiscal
Services
Division
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield,
IL 62706
3)
Continental waives its right
to have any unused portion
of
said payment returned
to Continental.
80—32
4)
The terms
and conditions
of
the Stipulation and Proposed
Settlement
are incorporated
into
and made
a part
of this
Order.
I’i
1S
SC
CRCEF-ED.
I,
Dorothy
N. Gum,
Clerk of
the Illinois Pollution Control
Board,
hereby cer~ifythat the abo e Cpinion
and Order was
adopted
cm t~
Z2-
day of
_________________,
1987,
by a vote
of
-
.
Dorothy
N.
Gu
n,
Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control
Board
80—33
:LL:NCIS
POLLU::oN
~
c~~ss
co~N:~
JUL
I
0_I987_jL~J
: LL:No: s
ENV:RONNENTAL
PR0TECT:oN AGENCY,
Complainant,
v.
)
PCB
85—102
CONTINENTAL
GRAIN
COMPANY
eardstcwn)
s::PuLA::CN AND PROPOSAL FOR SETTLEMENT.
The
parties
in
the
above-styled
case,
believing
that
litigation of the matter would be neither in their best interests
nor
i~.
the
best interests
of
the
public, have
agreed
to
a
settlement under the terms
and conditions
set forth beThw.
Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement
is made and agreed
and.
submitted.
to
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
~oard.
(‘Board.’
for the purposes
of settlement only, upon the condition
that
the
Board approve
~t
~n its entirety.
Tne terms
of
thos
St~puat:on
and Proposal for Settlement shall be binding upon the Complainant
and Respondent,
and their assigns and all successors
in
inte:es~.
In the event that the Board does not approve this Stipulation a~.±
rrcposa~for Settiement
:n its
entirety,
~t
snail
be nu~_ a~.o
void and
of
no
effect
in. this
or
any other
proceeding.
:~
entering
into
this
Stipulation
and
Prcposal
for
Settlement,
Respondent
is not admitting
liability
for the vioaticr.s
alleged.
:n the Complaint,
nor
ar:~- of
the allegations
of fact made in
th~
80—34
complaint,
except
as
stipulated
to
below.
Further,
this
stipulation
and. Proposal
for
Settlement
is
not
to
be
used
for
any
other purpose
or in
an~ c~~1er
~oceec1~g,
is
not
~
r~ssicr.
C:
wrongdoing on
Respcndentts part
and is
not admis~ibe by
any
party.
Subject zc the
foregoing understanding
and agreement,
the
parties stipulate
as follows:
~..
Cont:nental Gra:n Ccmpany
(“Cont~nenta~”),a
De_a’~:are
corpo:at:cn _:censec to cc business in lilino:s, operates a cra:n
~caoing fac:~ty cn
tne
~~in.C1S
River
in
Bearcstown,
lass
County,
Illinois,
at
which grain
from the
surrounding area
is
loaded. into barges.
2.
Construction
of
this
facility
was
commenced proor
to
April
4,
1972.
On
une
19,
~.9i9,
the
i~linc~s ~nv~ronmen.ta~
Prctect::~.
Agency
(“IEPA’)
issued
an
operating
permit
for
this
facil:t;,
said permit
to expire
une
21,
1984.
_n.:s
permi~
was issuec
on
tne
basis
that
the
:ac:~:ty
had an annual grain through-put
(“AGT”)
of 9,727,000 bushels.
5.
The facility had
an AGT for
Fiscal Year 1983/1984
of
15,518,667 bushels.
6.
Continental, prior
to August,
1985, had not
installed.
equipment on
the
loading
spout
used to
load
barges
at
the
facility
which
was
capable
of
capturing
particulate
matte:
emissions generated
in the
course cf loading
said barges
in
an
induced
air draft
stream,
which
stream was
ducted
through
a::
80—35
pollution
control
equipment
that
had
a
rated
and
actual
par~icu~ateremoval eff:c~er.cyof not less than 90
~y we:ght.
7.
The operating
permit
for
this
facility
exp:red.
cm
Curie
21,
1984.
Continental sought
renewal
of this
permit
on
April
9,
1964.
IEPA
denied renewal
of
this permit on
May
22,
1984,
because
it believed that the AGT at the Beardstown facility
exceeded the
33
rule
and.
that,
therefore,
the
facility
was
sub~ectto
the barce
loading spout
tip aspiration
recuirement
contained
:n
i~
:~l.Ac~m.Ccoe
Sec.
~l2.~6~(c)(3)(~).
8.
On July ~0, 1984, Cont~nenta~filea
a variance pet:t:or.
(PCB 84-101)
in
which it asked
the Board to
find that the
tip
aspiration
requirement
contained
in
35
I11.Adm.Code
Sec.
ll2.462(d)(3)(A)
was
invalid
as
applied
to
the
Beardstowr.
facility,
find.
that
Ccmt:nenta
was
~n
compliance with the
ru.e
or,
in the
alte:native, c:amt Continental
a five year
var:amce
from the rue.
9.
In
the
meantime,
Continental
applied
for
and.
on
May
ll,
1985,
the
IEPA
granted
an
operating permit
for the
Beard.stowm
facility
except
for
the
barge
loading
spout
e~uipmemt.
(Application Nc.
74080042,
I.D. No.
O17BO2AAC).
10.
At the
time
this enforcement
action
was
commenced.
Continental was in compliance with all provisions
of Title
of
the Environmental Protection Act and the Board’s air
regulations
re~at~ngto grain nancling operations except those a~.egedin. tne
complaint.
,~sto tmese,
Ccnt:nental had, prior
to the ~n:t:at:cn
of the
enforcement
action,
filed
the
petition
for
va::ance
described above.
88:36
11.
On August
16,
1985,
as
part
of
an
agreement
to
settle
this
enforcement
case
and
the
variance
petition,
Continental
applied
to
the
IEPA
for
a
permit
to
construct
a
barge
loading
spout
tip
aspiration
system
for
the
Beardstown
facility
and
thus
bring
the
facility
into
unquestioned
compliance
with
35 Ill.
Adm. Code
Sec.
212.46(d) (3) (A).
The
IEPA granted
this
permit on September
26,
1985.
12.
On December
20,
1985,
the
Board,
on
the
IEPA’s
motion
and
over
Continental’s
objection,
dismissed
Continental’s
variance petition because
it found that construction
of
the
tip
aspiration
system wOuld
result
in
compliance with
35
Ill.
Adrn.
Coãe
Sec.
212.462(d) (3) (A)
and,
as
a
result,
a
variance
would
be unnecessary.
13.
Continental
installed
the
tip aspiration system and
on
~arcn
19,
19~6, a~7lied for
an
operating permit
for
its bar~
loading
operations.
The
IEPA
issued
this permit
on
April
10,
1986.
PROPOSAL
FOR
SETTLEMENT
Continental
agrees
to
pay
$10,000
to
Environmental
Protection
Trust
Fund
within
60
days
of
the
date
the
Board
approves
this
Stipulation
and
Proposal
for
Settlement.
Said
payment
shall
be
made
by
certified
check
or
money
order,
payable
to
the Environmental Protection Trust
Fund,
and mailed
to:
Fiscal Services Division
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
2200
Churchill
Road
Springfield,
Illinois
62706
Continental waives
its
right
to have
any unused portion of
said
payment returned
to Continental.
—4—
80—37
WHEREFORE,
Complainant and
Respondent jointly
re~uest
that
the Board
accept and
adopt this
Stipulation and
Proposal
Settlement.
DATED:
~NJ
A’t~
DATED:
*1
-
-
-.)
7’j
___________
By:
-_,
fl
-
CONI’INEN7AL GRAIN COMPANY
:LLINC:s ~VIRONNENTAL
:LL:NoIs ATTORNEY GENERAL
By:~
Robert
V.
Shuff,
Jr.
‘
First
Assistant
Attorney
General
c~...
for
-0—
80—38