ILL ENOIS POLLUTION CONTROL ~3OARD
    December
    20,
    1985
    c3NTINE~rALGRAIN COMPANY,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    )
    PCB 84—95,
    84—96,
    84—97,
    84—99, 84—100
    ILLINOIS Et~IVIRONMENTAL
    )
    84—101,
    84—102,
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    84—103,
    84—104
    Respondent~
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by J~D.Dumelle):
    This matter comes before
    the Board upon
    a November
    12,
    L985
    motion to dismiss the nine above—captioned variance matters filed
    on behalf of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
    (agency)
    to which
    the Continental Grain Company responded on
    November
    20,
    1985.
    Continental’s response was accompanied
    by
    a
    motion
    to
    file
    instanter which is hereby granted.
    The Agency
    contends that since each of the affected facilities has obtained
    a permit for
    the construction of barge spout aspiration systems
    which
    should result
    in compliance with applicable regulations,
    variance
    is
    no longer needed.
    Continental disagrees with the
    conclusion only,
    stating that it
    still seeks variances
    to show the validity of
    its request
    for relief with respect
    to the
    enforcement proceedings which are still
    pending against it.
    Furthermore,
    as
    to those
    elevators which have not yet exceeded the
    Thirty Percent Rule,
    the variances will
    be
    needed
    to prevent any future enforcement
    actions.
    Also,
    Continental has sought
    additional
    relief
    in
    its
    variance
    petitions,
    that
    is,
    a
    ruling
    that
    these
    regulations
    are
    specifically inapplicable as applied
    to
    these
    particular facilities.
    Continental asserts that if these
    variance petitions must be dismissed,
    then the
    enforcement complaints brought
    in 85—53,
    85—54
    and 102 must also be dismissed by the Board.
    The “validity of its request
    for
    relief with respect
    to
    the
    enforcement proceeding”
    and the question of the applicability of
    the
    regulation
    to
    the particular facilities are both matters
    which
    are
    properly
    considered
    in
    an
    enforcement
    action.
    Therefore, administrative convenience
    is
    best
    served
    by
    proceeding with only the enforcement action which can completely
    67-69
    —2—
    dispose
    of these matters, regardless of which way the Board
    ~iou1d
    rule.
    Therefore,
    the Agency’s motion to dismiss
    is hereby granted.
    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~c~
    day
    of
    ~
    ,
    1985
    by
    a
    vote
    of
    7-..
    ~-(
    ~
    Dorothy
    M.
    ~
    Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Roard
    67-70

    Back to top