ILLINOIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL BOARD

September 20,

1984

CONTINENTAL

GRAIN

COMPANY,

)

)

Petitioner,

)

V..

)

PCB

84—95

)

ILLINOIS

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

quality study to substantiate allegations of minimal environ-

mental harm should Variance be granted..

Citing Unity Ventures-

v.

Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency, et al., Ill.

App.

Ct..,

2nd

District,

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unpublished,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,

cth..

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 agruments 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

111..

Adm.. Code 104.121..

Most specifically,

80-115

---

the

facility

which

is the subject of the petition must be

described

to

satisfy

subparaqraphs

(b)Y

(c)

and

(d)

of that rule;

the

past

and

future efforts and costs incurred

at

this

facility

in order to come into compliance with

the

applicable

regulation

mn~t

he

delineated

in

accordance

with

subparagraphs

(f),

(h)

and

(I)

and

the

environmental

conse~ier~ces

should

Variance

be

granted

a~uetbe

addressed,

including,

if

necessary,

an

air

auali,ty

study 3e accordance with subparagraph

(g).

Petitioner

is

diracted

to

so

amend

its

Petition

no

later

than

October

22,

1984

so

that

the

Agency

can

file

a

Recommendation

and

so

that

these

questions

CarL be properly

addressed

at

hearing.

Should

~eth~

~

t~ dc

~

rae

Pe4iti.on

‘~il

be

subject

to

di amiceel

~cirsuant

to

35

~:~:L. M~

Code 104

125.

Since

the

Board,

as well as

the

Agency,

requires

more

information

in

order

to

he

reasonably

informed

about

Petitioner’

s

circumstances,

necessitating

an

Amended

Petition,

Respondent~s

Motion

for

Additional

Time

to

file

a

Recommendation

is

mooted.

Rospondent

is

directed

to file

its

Recommendation

in

accordance

with

35

111,

Adm~

Code

104..180.

IT IS SO ORDERED..

I, Dorothy

M.. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board,

hereby

ee;tify

that

the above Order

was

adopted

on

the

~o~day

~

1984

by

a

vote

of______

Dorothy

!4,

~

Clerk

Illinois

Pollution

Control Board

6?)~1

18