ILLINOIS POLLUTION
    CONTROL
    BOARD
    December 17,
    1992
    OHIO GRAIN COMPANY,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    PCB 90—143
    (Permit
    Appeal)
    ILLINOIS
    ENVIRONMENTAL
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    Respondent,
    ORDER
    OF
    THE
    BOARD
    (by G. T. Girard):
    On October 16,
    1992,
    the
    Board
    affirmed the June 27, 1990,
    denial of an air
    operating
    permit by the Illinois
    Znvironaenta.
    Protection
    Agency
    (XEPA)
    for
    Ohio
    Grain
    Caupany’s
    (Ohio
    Grain)
    facilities in Ohio,
    Illinois.
    Ohio
    Grain
    had filed a petition
    for review pursuant to 35 Iii. Ada. Code 105.102(a) and Section
    40(a) of The Illinois Environmental Protection Act (Act)
    contesting the IEPA’s permit denial.
    On November 20, 1992, Ohio
    Grain filed a motion for reconsideration of
    the
    3o8rd’s
    October
    16, 1992, Opinion and Order
    pursuant
    to 35 111. Ada. Cods 101.246
    and
    101.300.
    Also,
    on
    November
    20, 1992, theGrain
    and
    Peed
    Association
    of
    Illinois
    filed
    a
    motion
    for intervention. The
    Board
    considers
    these two motions in
    this
    ordsrnd
    for the
    following reasons denies both motions.
    On
    December
    7,
    1992,
    the
    IEPA filed
    a
    response
    to
    the
    motion
    to
    reconsider.
    On
    the
    same
    date,
    the
    IEPA
    iil..d
    a
    aotion
    for
    leave
    to
    fjle
    a
    response
    to
    the
    motion
    to4~t.rv.ne
    and
    the
    response.
    The
    Board grants
    the IEPA’s motion tolile a response
    to intervene.
    On December 16,
    1992, the Grain and Feed
    Association of Illinois filed a reply to
    the
    XEPA’s response.
    Pursuant to Section 101.242(c)
    of the Board’s prooedural
    rules
    the moving person shall not have the right to reply except as
    permitted by
    the
    Board
    to
    prevent
    material
    prejudice.
    The
    Board
    will, not consider the reply as the filing
    is
    not-necessary to
    prevent material prejudice.’
    Detailed
    procedural
    history and facts in this case
    can
    be
    found
    in the Board Opinion and Order of october 16, 1992.
    (PCB
    90-143, Ohio Grain
    V.
    IEPA,
    _____
    PCB
    ______,
    (October
    16,
    *
    The Board notes that the cases cited by
    the
    Association
    in which the Board has allowed intervention are a landfill siting
    appeal and an enforcement case.
    Both of those types of cases
    allow for intervention; however, as stated later in this order,
    perniit appeals do not.
    2
    1992).)
    MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
    According to 35 Ill. Mm. Code 101.246 and 101.300, motions
    for reconsideration of a final Board Order shall be filed within
    35 days of the adoption of the order.
    Ohio Grain’s November 20,
    1992,
    filing for reconsideration was therefore timely.
    In ruling
    upon a motion
    under
    this Section, the Board is instructed to
    “consider factors including, but not limited to, error in the
    decision and facts in the record which are overlooked”.
    (Section
    101.246(d).)
    After careful review of the record in this case, the Board
    does
    not
    find
    that
    Ohio
    Grain’s motion for rez~onsiderationpoints
    to any error in decision.
    Furthermore, Ohio Grain’s motion for
    reconsideration does not indicate any facts in the record that
    were overlooked, or any other reason for the Board to reverse
    it’s decision of October 16, 1992.
    Therefore, the Board denies
    Ohio Grain’s motion for reconsideration-
    MOTION
    TO
    I)w~itVENE
    On November 20, 1992, the Grain and
    Fed
    Association
    of
    Illinois (Association) filed a
    motion to
    intervene in the
    case.
    The
    Association suggested several, reasons for intervention:
    1.
    Mr. William Lemon, Executive Vice-President of the
    Association testified on behalf of Ohio Grain in the
    hearing in PCB 90—143 which was held on March 25,
    1992.
    2.
    Mr.
    Lemon
    ‘did
    not
    present
    testimony
    regarding
    the
    impact
    on
    Association
    members
    of
    the
    interpretation
    of
    One-turn
    Etorage
    which
    the
    Board
    adopted
    in
    its
    October
    16,
    1992.,
    ‘Opinion
    and Order.
    3.
    When
    the
    Board
    interpreted
    the exemption for one-turn
    storage it was lacking key information regarding the
    impact On Association members that could have been.
    supplied by Mr. Lemon, and therefore, the Board could
    not fully evaluate the consequences of its
    interpretation of one—turn storage.
    (Motion for
    reconsideration at 1 to 2.)
    The Board notes that it
    has
    previamly held
    that
    intervention is not allowed in permit appeals.
    (County of
    Lasalle
    V.
    Illinois Pollution Control Board,
    146 Ill. App. 3d
    603,
    497 N.E.2d 164,
    100 Ill. Dec.
    284.)
    However, even if
    intervention were allowed, in reviewing the record of this case,
    the Board does not find compelling reasons to adopt the
    Association’s motion for intervention.
    Mr. Lemon’s testimony at
    the hearing in PCB 90-143 covered 25 pages in the transcript
    0138-0022
    3
    (pages 46-70).
    Mr. Lemon had ample opportunity to present the
    concerns of the Association in this proceeding..
    The Board
    recognized that Mr. Lemon’s Association included about 92
    of the
    approximately 1,100 grain elevators in the state
    (Tr. at 48).
    Therefore, Mr. Lemon’s testimony was seriously considered by the
    Board in rendering the Opinion and Order of October
    16,
    1992.
    The Board also is not compelled by the Association’s
    pleading
    that
    “Mr.
    Lemon
    had
    no
    reason
    to
    present
    testimony
    regarding the impact the present
    interpretation
    of
    the
    exemption
    that one—turn storage would have
    upon
    members
    of
    the
    Association”.
    (Motion for
    Reconsideration
    at
    2.)
    At several
    points in the hearing, it was apparent )tr. 1~nn~
    adequate
    prior knowledge that the definition of àne-turn storage was the
    key
    issue
    in
    this
    case
    (see
    Tr.
    at
    49,
    55,
    67).
    In
    addition,
    the
    Board
    researched
    the
    Opinion
    of
    June
    13,
    1975
    (docket
    number
    R72—
    18), establishing the current grain-handling and grain-drying air
    regulations, as well as the hearing
    transcript
    in
    R72—18.
    The
    Association was a party in
    those
    proceedings and
    presented
    public
    testimony about the impact on its members
    in
    those
    proceedings
    which
    led
    to the present regulations.
    Further as the
    IEPA
    points
    out, the Association and Mr. Lemmon
    have
    been aware of the IEPA’s
    interpretation of the regulations.
    Therefore, the Association’s
    motion for intervention is denied.
    ORDER
    The Board denies the November 20,
    1992, motion for
    reconsideration filed by Ohio Grain Company.
    Ohio Grain’á aption
    was filed in response to the Board’s October 16, 1992,
    affirmation of the Tune 27, 1990, denial of an air operating
    permit
    by, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency for Ohio
    Grain Company’s facilities in Ohio, Illinois.
    The Board also denies the November 20, 1992, motion for
    intervention filed by the Grain and Feed Association of Illinois
    in
    this
    case.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Dorothy N. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control,
    Board,
    hereby
    certify
    that
    the
    above
    order
    was
    adopted
    on
    the
    J7’~’
    day of
    ~
    1992,
    by
    a
    vote. of
    “7-a
    0138-0023
    Control Board

    Back to top