1LLfl~.C1S FOLLtYIICI’ CCNTRCL ECAFE

~uguEt 6, 3~E~

1LLIr\CIS EN~IECN?’~ENThL

rRC~IEC~.ICNAGENCY,

Ccmplainant,

v.

)

PCB 65—53

CCNVIINENrIAL GRAIN COMPANY

(Henn?çin),

Respondent.

FC~ HAFEC~, ESç. CF M1~F’IJN, CRAIG, CF~ESaER AND SCNNENSCEEIN,

APPEARED ON BEEALF CF RESPCNDEN~.

JOSEPH F. MAECr~iA, ASSISThNI A’IaCRNEY GENERAL, APPEAPEE ON EEHALF

CF Cc.NPLA1~AN~.

CPINICN ANE OFEEF CF ThE BOAFE (by 3. Marlin):

r~j~

matter

cojros before the Ecard on a April 19, 1905

complaint filed by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

against Continental Grain Company (Continental). The Complaint

alleges that Continental at its Hennepin, 1L grain loading

facility caused, threatened, or allowed violations of Sections

9(a) and (b) of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act (Act)

and 35 111. Adm. Code 201.143 beginning at least on March 6, 1960

and cortinuina up to the filino of the Complaint. The Complaint

also alleaes violations of Section 9(a) of the Act and 35 Ill.

Adm. Code Section 2l2.462(d)(3)(A) since at least August 31, 1979

and continuing until the filing of the Complaint.

Hearing on this matter was held on June 24, 398? in

F3ennepin, 1L. At hearinc, the parties submitted a Stipulation

and Proposal for Settlement (Stipulation). The Stipulation is

attached and adequately addresses the facts in this matter.

Accordingly, this opinion will not contain the customary

discussion of the issues.

The Board notes, though, that according to the Stipulation,

Continental “is not admitting its liability for violations

alleged in the Complaintt’. Also, the Stipulation states that

Continental has received a permit to operate a barge loading

spout tip aspiration system and is currently in compliance with

the regulations.

In evaluating this enforcement action and proposed

settlement agreement, the Board has taken intc consideration all

the facts and circumstances in light of the specific criteria

delineated in Section 33(c) of the Act and finds the Stipulation

and Proposal for Settlement acceptable under 35 Ill. Adm. Code

80—15

103.160. Accordingly, the Board orders Continental to comply

with the Crdcr set forth herein.

This Cpinicn and Crd?r constitutes the Board’s findings of

fact and conclusions of la~ in this matter.

CRDER

it is the Crder of the illinois Pollution Control Board

that:

1)

The

Board hereby accepts the Stipulation and Proposal for

Settlement executed by Continental Grain Company and th?

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency concerning

Continental’s Hennepin facility and filed with the Board on

July IC, l~E7. The Stipulation and the Proposal for

Settlement is attached hereto.

2) Continental shall, by certified check or money order payable

to the State of Illinois and designated for deposit into the

En~’ircnrrent~l

Prctecticr. ‘Irust Fund, pay the sum of ~l0,C0C

(‘Icr Thousand Collars). The sum shall be paid ‘~ithin60 days

of the date it receives notice of this order. The payment

shall be 

rrail?5

to:

Fiscal Services Eivision

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

22C0 Churchill Road

Springfield, IL ?2706

3) Continental ~aives its right to have any unused portion of

said payment returned to Continental.

4)

The

terms and conditions cf the Stipulation and Proposed

Settlement are incorporated into and made a part of this

Order.

IT IS SC ORDERED.

I, Dorothy 

Gum, Clerk of the Illinois Poliutio~ Control

Board, hereby cert~y that the above Opinion and Crder ~as

adopted on~he 

~, -~

day of 

_________________,

1987, by a vote

Dorothy N. ~unn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

80—16

BEFORE

i~E :LLINO:S 

POLLUTCN CONTROL

~UTNAN COtNTY

I 0 !98~j~j!

::L:NClSEN~IRONMENT~L

)

SIME OF ~NO?S

r~C__C~_ON ~

)

POLtUT~D~~

~‘O~at&~RV

Complainant,

1    ?CB 85-53

CONT:NENTAL 

c-R~iN COMPANy

(Hennepin),

~cespondent.

STIPULATION ANO PROPOSAL

FOR SETTLEMENT

The parties in the above-styled case, believing 

that

liticaticn 

the matter would be neither in their best nterests

nor

ifl tne

rest interests o: tne public, nave ag:ee~ to a

settlement 

under

the terms and conditions set forth below.  his

Stipu~aticn ant Pro~csa~.for Sett~ement is mace and agreec uton

and

submitted to the Illinois Pollution Control Board 

L~Bcari)

for the

purposes of Settlement only, upon the condition that the

Boaro ap~rcve it in

its ent:rety. The terms of tnis St:pu~a::cn

ant ~rcpcsai

ror Sett’ement snail be mincing upon the ~cmp_a1nant

and Respondent, and their assigns and all successors 

interest.

zne event tnat the Boaro coes not approve 

this Stipua~ion an~

r’ropcsa_ for Sett~ement :n 

itS

entirety, 

it shal~

ce nu~ ant

void and of no erfect :n zh~s or any ctner proceecing. -n

entering into this Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement,

~esponcent 

iS flOt ac~:tting

:ts

_ia~ility for tne v:o~a~.~ns

a~ege~

ifl the Ccmp~a~nt,nor

any

tne a~egationsof fact mate

ifl tnat

Ccmp~aint, except 

to :ne

extent those a~eaattons c: f~:

80—17

are

stipulated to below.

Further, this Stipulation and Proposal

for Settlement is not to be used for any other purpose or in any

other proceeding, is 

no: an

admission 

wrongdoing 

Respondent’s part and is not admissible by any party in any czher

proceec~ng.

~ublect

to the foregotng unceratancing

and agreement,

tne

parties stipulate as fo~ows:

i.  Continental Grain Company (“Continental”), a Delaware

ccrpcration licensed to do business in Illinois, operates a grain

~oad~ng :ac~l:ty on tne ~~:nots ~iver ~n dennep~n, ~utnam

~ounzy, .~~ir.Ci5,at wn~chgrain from the surroun~ing area 

loaded into barges.

Construction of this facility was commenced prior to

April 14, .972.

3.

On December 7, 1976,

llincis Enviror~ental

Protection

Agency (“IEPA”) issued an cperating permit for this facility.

hts perm:t was to expire on ~ovem~er ~D, 1979.

.~.

Tn~.spermit

was issued on zne casis that tne 

:aci:ty

nad an annual grain tnrougn-put (“AGT”) of ~,Du0,000 cusne~s.

5.  Or. August 31, 1979, Continental sought a renewal of its

operating permit and indicated an increase in AGT to 8,580,003

cushe~s.

Conttnenta~, prior to the

commencement 

this su::,

had not installed

equipment on the loading spout

used to load

baraes at the facility 

which was capable of capturing particulate

matter emissions cenerated in the course of loading said baroes

in an induced air draft

stream, which stream was ducted througn

80—18

air pcluticn

:ontro

equipment that had a rated and actual

particu_ate remova_ e:f:c:ency of not ~ess oman 90~cy we:gno.

7.  :be operating permit for this facility expired on

November 30, 1979.

Continental applied for renewal of the

operating permit on August 3, 

979, and again on December 17,

1979. The

EPA

denied

these applications on November 27, 1979,

and March 6, 1980, respecti;eLy because the :EPA Delievec tna:

the AGT at the 

Hennepin facility exceeded the 30

rule, and 

that,

therefore, the facility was sub~ecz to the barge loading spout

tip aspiration

requirement

contained in 35 Ili.Adrn.Code

Sec.

~

8. On uy 20, l96., Continental filed

a variance petio:cn

~ri which it asked the Board to f:nd that the tip

aspiration

requirement ccnta:ned

:n 3:

I11.Adm.Code Sec.

~l2.46~(d)(3HA)

was invalid as applied 

to the Henr.epin facility,

find

that

Continental

was in compliance

with

the rule

or, in

the

alternat:ve,

grant Ccnt:nental a f:ve year variance

:rom

tne

rue.

~n tne meantime, on

~pr:~. 

~0, i98o, Cont:nenta~ app_:eo

for an operating permit for the Hennepin facility except for :me

carge ~oac:ng

spout equipment.

The IEPA granted this permit

May 31, 1985 (Application No. 76050007,

.D. No. 1S5O1OAAH).

10. As cf the time this

enforcement case was filed,

the

Hennepin facility was in compliance with all provisions of T::le

~ of the Environmental

Prctecticn Act and the Board’s a:r

regu~at:ons re~ating to 

cra:n r.anc~ing operations except tnose

a~eged in tme ccmp.~a:no. ~.sto 

tnese, Cont:r.enta~ hat, prior

to

—3—

80—19

the initiation of this enforcement action, filed the petition for

variance described above.

11. As part of an agreement to settle this enforcement case

and Continental’s variance petition, Continental, on August :6,

1985, filed an application to construct a barge loading spout tip

aspiration system and thereby bring the Hennepin facility into

unquestioned  compliance  with  35  Ill.Adm.Code  

Sec.

212. 462(d) (3) (A).

12. The IEPA granted this permit (Application No. 85063042,

I.D. No. 155O1CAAH) on September 26, 1965, and on November li,

1985, the State moved to dismiss Continental’s variance petition.

The Board, on December 20, 1983, granted the State’s motion over

Continental’s object:cn because it found that installation of the

tip asoiration system would brine the Henne~in facility

comp~iancew:tn ~o  

cm.Looe Sec. ~~.4c2(c)(3h~) ant one:,

therefore, a variance was unnecessary.

13. Continental installed the tip aspiration system and, on

t•iarch 19, 1966, again applied for renewal of its operating

permit. The IEPA granted this permit (Application No. 76Ci3337,

I.D. No. 1S5OIOAAH) on April 10, 1986.

PROPOSAL FOR SETTLEMENT

Continental agrees

to pay S10,000 to Environmental

Protection Trust Fund within 60 days of 

the date

it receives

notice that the Board has approved this Stipulation and Proposal

for Settlement. Said pa~er.t shall be made by certified check or

money order, payable to the Environmental Protection rust 

Fund,

and mailed to:

—4—

30—20

Fiscal Services Divis:cn

Iil:ncis Environmental ProtecUon Agency

2200 Churchill Road

Springfield,

:liincis 62706

Continental waives its right to have any unused portion of said

pa~ent returned to Continental.

WHEREFORE, Comtlainant and Respondent jointiy request

that

the Board accept and adopt this

Stipulation and Proposal

for

Settlement.

C ONT~ENTAL GRAIN COMPANY

DATED:

__________________

B~:

‘~

:LL:No:s ZNVIR~MENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

i~~’

DAE: 

3:

i~’L~ 

Joseph E. Svcboda

/:‘;ana~er of Enforcement

:LL:NOIs ATTORNEY GENERAL

DATED:      

— ~ /

Br~—~   

~~—~•\

Robert V. Shuff, Jr.

First Assistant Attorney

General

(GRAINS .doc)

—5—

80—21