ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

September 20,

1984

CONTINENTAL

GRAIN

COMPANY,

)

PCB 84—101

ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL

)

PROTECTION

AGENCY,

Respondent~.

ORDER

OF

THE BOARD

~by

J.

Anderson)~

On

August

29,

19~34,

Respondent filed two

motions

in

this

matter0

The first requested that this Petition

for Variance be

dismissed0

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 granted0

Citing Unity

Ventures-

v,

Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency, et al., Ill.

App.

Ct.,,

2nd District,

No., 8I~39

(February 21,

1982)iil~Tpublished,

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,

i~11½,

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,

60-427

---

—2—

the

facility

which

is

the

subject

of

the

petition

must

be

described

to

satisfy

subparagraphs

(b),

~c)

and ~d

of that

rule;

the

past

and

future

.~fforte

and

costs

incurred

at this

facility

in order to

come

into

compliance

with the applicable

regulation

must be

delineated

in

accordance

with

subparagraphs

(f),

(h)

and

(i:’~ and

the

environmental

consequences

should

Variance

be

granted

must

be

addressed,

including,

if

necessary, an air

quality

study

in

acc~ordance with

subparagraph

(g).

Petitioner is

directed

to

so

amend

its

Petition

no

later

than

October

22,

1984

so

that

the

Agency

can

file

a

Recommendation

and

so

that

these

questions

can

he

properly

addressed

at

hearing.

Should

Petitioner

fail

to

do

so,

the

Petition

will

be subject to

dismissal

pursuant

to

35

IlL

Adm.

Code

104.125.

Since

the

Board,

as

well

as

the

Agency,

requires

more

information

in

order

to

be

reasonably

informed

about

Petitioner’s

circumstances,

necessitatrng

an

Amended

Petition,

Respondent

‘8

Motion

for

Additional

Time

to

file

a

Recommendation

is mooted.

Respondent

is

directed

to

file

its

Recommendation

in

accordance

with

35

Iii.

Adm.

Code

104.180,

IT

IS

SO

ORDERED.

I, Dorothy

M,

Gunn,

Clerk

of

the

Illinois

Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify that the above

Order

was adopted on

the~~day~

1984 by

a

vote

of

~

—.

~hyM.Gunn,Clerk

Illinois

Pollution

Control