:ELLThOIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL BOARD

September 20,

1984

CONTINENTAL

GRAIN

COMPANY,

)

)

PCB 84—100

ILL1NOS

ENVIRONMENTAL

)

PROTECTION

AGENCY~.

Respondent..

ORDER

OF THE

BOARD

(by

J,

Anderson):

On August 29~

1984~

Respondent filed two motions in this

matter..

The

first

requested that this Petition for Variance be

dismissed..

The second motion requested additional time to file

its Recommendation should the Motion to Dismiss not be granted.

Petitioner, Continential Grain Company,

filed a Motion for

Leave

to File Instanter and its Response to the Motion to

Dismiss on

September 18,

1984..

Leave to file is granted..

In requesting

that

the Variance Petition be dismissed,

Respondent argued

that

the

Petitioner failed to: provide a

feasible compliance

plan;

provide sufficient specific information

and contained

false

statements pertaining to the facility

under

review; distinguish

why

the regulations are allegedly inappli-

cable due

to

the uniqueness of the facility; and provide an

air

qua:iity study to substantiate allegations of minimal environ-

mental harm should Variance be granted..

Citing Unity Ventures—

v. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, et al.,

111.

App.

-

Ct..,

2nd Districts

No..

81-59

(February

21, 1982) unpublished,

Petitioner responded that the Motion to Dismiss is in actuality a

Recommendation to Deny since the Respondent relied on factual

arguments,

and, therefore,

a hearing is now mandatory under

Section 37 of the Environmental Protection Act

(Ill.. Rev.

Stat.,

1983~ch..

111½, par.

1037)..

Notwithstanding that a hearing is mandatory under

the Clean

Air Act should the Variance Petition not be dismissed,

Respondent~s

motion does contain factual

agruinents which are best resolved

at

hearing.

The Motion

to

Dismiss is denied..

However~Respondent~smotion does accurately delineate

deficiencies in the Petition that render Respondent

unable to

make an informed Recommendation to the Board,

Therefore,

Petitioner is directed to amend its Petition to satisfy the

requirements of 35 IlL Mm, Code 104.121.

Most specifically,

6O~

125

---

the

facility which

:ia ~

EE

Iject

af the petition must be

described to sani~fy~ubparagraphs

u~),

Ic)

and

(d) of

that

rule;

the past and

~uro e:~rts

and

costs thourred at this

facility

in order t~ccme ~nto compliance with ths applicable

regulation

must

be de1ine~t~d~in?Lo~-craance

WLth

suhparagraphs

(f),

(h)

and

(i); and the erj:~rrmmenti1 consequences should Variance be

granted must

I~

~

~

~ludinç~,

if necessary,

an

air

quality study in wcordanre

with

subparagraph

(g)..

Petitioner

is

directed to ~o amend

Lta Petition no later than October 22,

1984

so ~:hatthe Aqamcy ~

file a Recommen:~at:Loriand

so

that

these

questions can ha ~m~er~v

~‘ires~ed a~:hearing~. Should

Petitioner fail ~:afo ~

~

PetiL~nw:i.:L he

subject

to

dismitsai

pur~uar~:t’

:~

~l

1

Adr~t, Code 104. 125..

Since

the

Board~~as

well

as

the

Agency,

requires

more

information

in

order

to

be

reasonably

:Lnformed

about

Petitioner’

$

circumstances

necessitating an Amended

Petition,

Respondent’

s

Motion for Additionea Time to

:Eiie

a Recommendation is mooted.

Respondent is directed to

fi:le it~Recommendation in

accordance

with

35

Iii..

Adm.. Code 104..180,

IT

IS SO ORDERED..

I, Dorothy M. Gunny Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control

Board,

hereby ceri~~fythat the above Order was adopted

on

the~~day~

1984 by a vote of

C—

0

Dorot:hy MT~R~iinn,Clerk

Illinois Pollution

Control