ILLINC1S FCLLUtIICN CCN~RCL 

BOARD

August 

£, 1SE7

ILLINOIS EN\:1RCNMEN~AL

PRC~IEC~1CN

AGENCL

Complainant,

v.

)

PCB E5—F26

CCNTINEN~AL 

GRAIN

CONRANY

(Lacon),

Respondent.

RCY HAFECJI, EEC. CF MAF~~IlN,CFAIC, CHESTER AND SCNNEKSCEE1K,

APPEARED ON BEhALF CF RESPONDENT.

JOSEPH F. ~ACCNIA, AEEIS~ANT AT~CRNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON BEHALF

CF CCMPLAINANnI.

OPINiON AND CREER CF 

‘IHE

BOARD (by 

t’~arlin):

‘Ibis matter

comes before the Board on a December 2, 1985

complaint filed by the Illincis Environmental Protection Agency

against Continental Grain Company (Continental). The Complaint

alleges that Continental 

its Lacon, IL grain loading facility

caused, threatened, or allo~edviclations of Section 9(c) of the

Illinois Environmental Protection Act (Act) and 35 111. Adm. Code

Sections 212.462(d)(3)(A) and 2~2.462(e) beginning at least on

June 6, 1960 and continuing up to the filing of the Complaint.

‘Ihe Complaint also alleges violations of Section 9(b) of the Act

and 35 Ill. Adm. Code Section 2G1.144 since at least June 3, 1981

and continuing until the filing of the Complaint.

Hearing on this matter was held on June 24, 1987 in Lacon,

IL. At hearing, the parties submitted a Stipulation and Proposal

for Settlement (Stipulation). The Stipulation is attached and

adecuately addresses the facts in this matter. Accordingly, this

opinion will not contain the customary discussion of the 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

delineated in Section 33(c) of the Act and finds the Stipulation

and Proposal for Settlement acceptable under 35 Ill. Adm. Code

80—49

1C3.1EO. Accordingly, the Board orders Continental to comply

with the Crder set forth herein.

This Opinion and Crder constitutes the Board’s findings of

fact and conclusions of law in this matter.

ORDER

It is the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board

that:

I) The Board hereby

accepts the Stipulation and Proposal for

Settlement executed by Continental Grain Company and the

illinois Environmental Protection Agency concerning

Continental’s Lacon facility and filed with the Board on July

IC, l98~. 

The Stipulation and the Proposal f~r 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 $lC,OCC

(Ten Thousand Collars). The sum shall be paid within 60 days

of the 

date it

receives notice of this order. The payment

shall be rrailed tc:

Fiscal Services Division

Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency

22C0 Churchill Road

Springfield, IL 62106

3) Continental waives its right to have any unused portion of

said payment returned to Continental.

4) The terms and conditions of the Stipulation and Proposed

Settlement are incorporated into and made 

part of this

Crder.

iT IS SO ORDERED.

I, Dorothy 

Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certi~y that the abov Opinion and Order was

adopted on the ~ ~ 

day of 

_________________,

1987,

by a vote

of

__________________.

Illi 

s Pollution Control Board

80—50

BEFORE T~EPOLLUTON CONTROL E~

MARSHALL COUNTY

:LLINOS Z~RcNEENTAL

PROTEC::CN AGENCY,

CCmpLa~nant,

v.

POE 83—176

CONTINENTAL GRAIN CONPANY

tLaoon~

Respondent.

51?ULAT1ON 

AND PROPOSAL FOR SETTLEr~1ENT

The

parties in the above-styled case, believin~ that

_itzgat~cn of the matter ~ou~c ~e ne:ther :n their oest :nterests

nor :n t.~e oesz interests

or the pu~ic, have agreed

to a

aett~ement uncer trie terms anc conc~ticns set form ~e_o~.

Th:s

Stipulation 

and Proposal for Settlement is made and agreed upon

and submitted to the :llinois 

Polution

Control Board (‘Board)

for the purposes of semternent 

only,

upon the condition that the

Board approve it in its entirety. The terms of this Stipulation

and Proposal for Settlement sha_l be ~inc~ng upon the Complainant

and Respondent, and their assi~nsand all successors in interest.

Th

the

event that the Board does not approve this Stipulation and

Proposal 

for

Settlement in its entirety, it 

shall be nulL

and

void

and of no effect 

this Cr any other proceeding. :n

entering 

into

this Stipulation and Proposal for settlement,

Respcnaent ~.s not a~mitt:ng :ts ~w~lity for the v:clat~ons

a~legec :n the Com~~a:nt,nor any

of the a’legations of fact mace

in that

complaint, except 

to the extent

those allegations are

80—51

stipulated to below. Further, this St:pulation and Proposal

Settlement is not to be used for any other purpose or proceeding,

is not an ad~tissicnof wrongdoing on Respondent’s part and is not

admissible by any party.

Subject to the foregoing understanding and agreement, the

parties stipulate as follows:

Continental Grain Company (“Continental”), a Delaware

corporation licensed to do business in flhinois, operates a grain

Loading facility on the Illinois River in Lacon, Narshali Counm~,

Illinois, at which grain from the surrounding area is loaded into

barges.

Construction of this facility was commenced pric: to

April 14, 1972.

3.

June 8, :977, the Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency (“IEPA”) issued an operatin; permit for this facili:”,

sa~cpermit to expire June 

~98l.

_n:s permit was issued on tne ~as:s tnat tne :ac:_::y

r~ad an annua~ grain tr.rough-put (“AG~’) of 6,D0O,300 busne~s.

or aoout June ~, ~980, Cont~aentalacv~sed 

its AGT had increased to 10,809,000 bushels.

6.  Continental, prior to the commencement of this su::,

had not installed eguipment on the loading spout used to load

barges at the facility capable of capturing particulate matter

emissions generated in the course of loading said barges in an

induced air draft stream, which stream was ducted through air

pollution control equipment that has a rated and a:tua

particulate removal efficiency of not .ess than 90 by weight.

-~—

80—52

7.

The operating permit for this

facility 

exp:red on

June

~,

~.981.

Cont~nenta~ sougr4t renewal of this

permit

Apri~ ~9, 1981.

EPA cen:ea renewai on June ~8, 1981,

because

the IEPA ~el~evea

tnat

the

AGT at zne ~acon facility

exceecec 

the

30 rule and that the Lacon facility

was subject 

to the barge

loading spout tip aspiration requirement in 35 Ili.Adm.Code Sec.

112.462(d)

(3) (A).

On

July

20,

1964, Continental filed a variance petition

(POE 84-99) in which it asked the Board to find that

the ti;

aspiration requirement contained in 35 fll.Adm.Code Sec.

212.462(d)(3HA)

was

invalid as applied to the Lacon facility,

find that the Lacon facility was in compliance with the rule or,

in the alternative, to grant Continental a five year variance

from the rule.

9.  In the meantime on Apri 30, 1985, Continental applied

for an o~erazingpermit for the Lacon facility except for barge

loading spout equipment. The :EPA, on May 31, 1985, granted this

permit (Application No. 76030070, i.D. No. 123O1OAAD).

10. As of the filing of this enforcement case, the Lacon

.~acilitywas in compliance with all provisions of Title  of 

the

Environmental Protection Act and the Board’s Air Regulati~ons

relating to grain handling operations except those alleged in the

complaint. 

As

to these, Continental had, prior to the initiation

of this enforcement action, filed the petition for variance

described above.

.1. On August 16, .985, as part of an agreement to settle

tnis enforcement case anc Ccn::nentai’s variance pet:t:cn,

80—53

Continental applied

to

the IEPA for a permit to construct a ba:ce

loading spout tip aspiration system a: the Lacon facility

which

would bring

Continental

into unquestioned

compliance

with

Ill.Adm.Code Sec.

212.462(d)(3)(A).

The

EPA granted this 

perm:t

on September 26,

1985

(Application

No. 8308044,

I.D.

1’~o.

123 O1OAAD)

12.

On December 20, 1985, the

Board, on the IEPA’s motion

and over

Cont:nenta~’s o~ject~on,

c~sm~ssed Cont:ner.ta_’ s

variance petition oecause it found that construction of tne ti:

aspiration system wou~c resuit in compliance with 3~ Ili.A~.Code

Sec. ~~.~2(~hi)(A)

eric, as a resu~t, a variance wouo oe

unnecessary.

~i.

Ccnt:nen:a~ insta~ec tne tip aspiratilon system anc on

L~~arch~9, ~986, app_:eo

:or an operatIng permit

for :ts

car~c

lcad:ng c~era::ons.

The :EPA issued this

permit 

10, 1986 (A:~lication No. 763550070, I.D. No. 123C1OAA).

PROPOSAL FOR SETTLEI’IENT

Continental

agrees

~ay $10,000

Environmental

Protect:on ~:ust runc with~n ~ cays of tne cate tne ~oa:o

a~oroves this Stipulation

and Proposal

for Settlement.

laid

pa~ent shall be made by certified check

or money order, payab.e

to the Environmental Protection Trust Fund, and mailed to:

Fiscal Services Division

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

~200 ~_riurcn~b.

~oac

Springfield, :linois 62706

Continental waives its right to have any unused portion of sa:d

pa~ent returned to Continental.

•1

80—54

WHEREFORE, Complainant and 

Respondent

jointly request that

the Board accept and adopt this

Stipulation and Proposal

for

Settlement

(GRAiNl.d~c)

CONTNE~TAL GRAIN COMPANY

,~-;:

By:

/

-‘

ILLINOIS ENVIRONI~NTAL

PROTECTION

~NCY

By:

~c~ep~ E. Svoboda

(t~ nagér àf Enforcement

—

80—55

DATED:’~,

;~-;~

DATED:

‘‘1

~, /

i-n~

ILLNOIS ATTORNEY GENERAL

~

Robert V. Shuff, Jr.

First Assistant Attorney

General