ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

September 20,

1984

CONTINENTAL

GRAIN

COMPANY,

)

PCB

84~1O4

)

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

)

PROTECTION

AGENCY,

)

ORDER

OF

THE

BOARD

~Chy 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 granted0

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 Environn~entalProtection

Agency,

et al.,

111.

App.

~E~72nd

District, No,

~1—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unpublished,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 agruments which are

best

resolved at

hearing.

The Motion to Dismiss is denied0

However, Respondent’s motion

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~

133

---

the

facility

which

is

the

sublect

of

ite

petition

must

be

described

to satisfy aubparagranhs (h~ (c~and

(d)

of

that rule;

the paet and future

~r~:

rth and costs :Lncu~redat

this

facility

in

order tc

core. ~rIi~o

compliance ~iLh the applicable

regulation

must

b~.

da~incatodIn accordance with subparagraphs

(f),

(Ii)

and

(i)~

and

the

an~’ic

~cmenta1 conaeauences should

Variance

be

qrar’to~

ic:~

be

~dd:esaed, including,

if

necessary,

an

air

qual

~hv

;~

i~. ac

•r~ance

:~:~:h

subparagraph

(g).

Petitioner

is

direc~:od

to so amsnd itS Petition

no

later

than

October

22,

1984

so

tun’: the ~ccy

can

file

a

Recommendation

and

so

that

these

cuections ~n~:ca nr~’perlvaddressed at

hearing.

Should

Pct:L1.~c~:‘~rfn

I to

~3o

so,

the ~eti1ion

will

be

subject

to

y~c~

r~~t

~,

15

1

Mm,,

Code

104.125.

Since the Board,

as well as the

Agency,

requires

more

info~nationin order to

be

reasonably

informed

about

Petitioner’s

circumstances, neceesitating an Amended Petition,

Respondent’s

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 ce;tify that the above Order

was

adop~ed

on

the~day

of

~

1984

by a vote of______________

~

Dorothy M. Gu~n,Clerk

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board

80-134