ILLIr;C1E

PCLLCrIICN

CC~1PCLECAFD

August 6, 196~

ILLINCIS ENVIRCNMEN~AL

PRCECICN AGENC~,

Complainant,

v.

)

PCB 65—F?5

CONTINENThL GRAIN COMPANY

(Spring Valley)

Fespondent.

RC~’BAPECE, EEC. CF

MAFTIIN,

CRAiG, CEEE’IEF ANE SCNNENSCBEIN,

APPEARED ON BEhALF CF RESPONDEN’I.

JOSEPH F. 1~ACONIA, ASEIEIA~1

A’I’ICBNE~

GENERAL, APPEARED ON BEHALF

CF CCMPLAINAN’I.

OPINION ANE OFEER CF lEE BCAFE (by 3. Narlin):

This matter ccmcs b~fcre the Board on a Eecernber 2, 1955

ccm~iaint filed by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

against Continental Grain Company (Continental). The Complaint

alleges that Continental at its Spring Valley, 1L grain loading

facility caused, threatened, or allowed violations of Section

9(a) of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act (Act) and 35

111. Adm. Code 212.462(d)(3)(A) and 212.462(e) beginning at least

on July 1, 1963 and continuing up to the filing of the

Complaint. The Complaint also alleges violation of Section 9(b)

of the Act and 35 Ill.

Adrr.

Code Section 2C1.144 since at least

April 4, 1963 and continuing until the filing of the Complaint.

Bearing on this matter

~as

held on June 23, 198? in

Princeton, IL. At hearing, 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 ‘~.ill 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 Complaint”. 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 into consideration all

the facts and circumstances in light ci 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—4 1

---

103.1SC. Accordingly, the Eoard orders Continental to comply

~ith the Order set forth herein.

This Cpinion and Crder constitutes the Board’s findings of

fact and conclusions of law in this iratter.

ORDER

It is the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board

that:

I) The Board hereby accepts the Stipulation and Proposal for

Settlement executed by Continental Grain Company and the

Illinois Environmental protection Agency concerning

Continental’s Spring valley facility and filed with the Board

on July IC, 9E7. 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

Envircnrrental ~-rotecticn ~rust Fund, pay the sum ci $IC,CCC•

(len Thousand Collars). The sum shall be paid within 60 days

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

shall be maiI~d to:

Fiscal Services Livision

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

2200 Churchill Road

Springfield, IL 62706

3) Continental waives its right to have any unused portion of

said payment returned to Continental.

4) The terms and conditions of the Stipulation and Proposed

Settlement are incorporated into and made a part of this

Crder.

IT IS SC ORLEREL.

I, Dorothy N. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Contrcl

Board, hereby cer)i~ythat the abo e Opinion and Order was

adopted on the Co

‘~

day of

_________________,

1967, by a vote

of

~

—0

Dorothy M. nn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

80—42

---

BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL E3~

1iB)~.

~ ~

o

::::Nc:s:\ ~ON~ENTAL

E~REAu

LATE~LUN~~

Complainant,

PCB 85~l75

CONTINENTAL GRAIN

COMPANY

(Spring Valley),

Respondent.

STIPULATON AND PROPOSAL FOR SETTLEMENT

The parties in the above-styled case, believing that

litigation cf the matter would be neither in their best interests

nor ~n tne ~esz interests of tne pu~ic, have agreed to a

settlement under the terms and conditions set forth below. This

St:pu~ation

ano

Proposal

for Settlement is mace and

agreec

upon

and submitted to the Illinois Pollution Control Board (~‘Bcard”

for the purposes of settlement only, upon the condition that

the

Boaro

approve

~t

~.n its ent:rety.

The terms of tnis Stipu~az~cn

and ?roposa~. for Sett~ement sna~ ~e ~1nding upon the Cornp~a:nan:

and Respondent, and their assigns and all successors in interest.

In.

the

event that the Board does not approve this Stipulation and

Proposal for Settlement in

its entirety,

it

shall

be null and

void

and of

no effect in this or any other proceeding. :n

entering into tn~s St:pu~ation anc Propcsa~. for Sett~ement,

Respondent is not a~tittir.g its

liability for the vioaz:ons

a~egec in tne ~omp~a~nt,

:~:r any of tne a~egat:ons cf

:a:t ~aoe

ifl

that

comp~a:nt except as st:puate~ to

~

Fur:ner,

tn:s

80—43

---

Stipulation and Pro~csalfor Settlement is not to be used for any

other purpose or proceeding, is not an admission of wrongdoing on

Respondent’s part and is ncz admissible as evidence by any party

in any proceeding.

Subject to the foregoing understanding and agreement, the

parties stipulate as follows:

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

corporation licensed to do business in Illinois, operates a grain

.cading facility on the :llincis

River in Spring

Valley, Bureau

County, Illinois,

at which grain from the surrounding area is

loaded into barges.

2.

Construction of this

facility ~as

commenced Prior

tO

April 14, 19T~2.

On une

o,

~

one :~~nc:s Env~ronmentai Proteoo:on

~gency (‘~~A”) :ssuec an operating permit for this

fac~_::y,

said permit to expire ~pri~

~,

~83.

-~.

n:s ~e:m~t

was

issuec

on tne basis tnat tne

O&Ci~~t~

nac an annua~ grain througn-put (“AGT”) of D,000,000 busne~.s.

3. The facility had an AGT for Fiscal Year

l983/l~84

of

8,247,167 bushels.

6. Continental, prior to the commencement of this suit,

had not installed equipment on the loading spout used to load

~arges at tr~e facility wnicn was capable of captur:ng par~izu_ate

matter emissions generated in the course of loading said barges

in an induced air draft

stream, which stream was ducted through

air pollution control equipment that has a rated and

actual

particulate remova’ e:f~c~encyof not ~.esstnan

9~ by we:gr~.

-—

80—44

---

7. The operating permit for this facility ex~ired on.

April 3, 1983.

~.

Following expiration of said permit, Continental

operated said facility, including barge loading spout equi~men:.

9. On ~uly zO, l98~, Continenta~ fixed a variance petit:on

~?CB 84-97) asking

the Board to find that the tip aspiration

system i-ecuiremer.t contained :r. 35 :il.Adm.Code Sec.

212.462(d)(3)(A) was invalid as applied to the Spring Valley

fac~~~tyf~nc mat tne Spr:ng 7a~ey faci~:tywas in compl~anoe

witn tne ruie or,

ifl

tne alternative, to grant Cont~nental a

f:ve

year variance from the rule.

10. Th the meantime, on April 30, .985, Continental a~pl:ed

for an o~eratingperm~tfor-~heSpring Valley facility except the

barge loading equipment. The IEPA granted this permit on May 31,

1985 (Application No. 7302099, I.D. No. OII8O9AAB).

11. As of the time this enforcement action was filed, the

Spring Valle- facility was in compliance with all provisions of

Title II of the Enviror~mentalProtection Act and the Board’s air

~-egulationsrelating to grain handling operations except those

alleged in the complaint.

As to these, Continental had, prior to

the initiation of this er.forcement action, filed the petition for

variance cescr~~edabove.

12.

As part of an

agreement to settle the variance petition

and this enforcement action, Continental, on August 16, 1953,

filed an application to construct a barge loading spout tip

aspiration system and thus bring its barge loading operations

—3—

80—45

---

:ntc unquestioned comp.iance ~.-:itb 35 :ll.Adm.code Sec.

12.462(d) (3) (A).

13. The IEPA granted this permit on September 6, 1955

(Application Nc. 83080054, i.D. No. CIIO8O9AAB). On November 11,

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

The Board, on December 20, 1985, granted the State’s motion, over

Continental’s objecmicn, because it found that installation of

the tip asp~rat1onsystem wou~c. ~::ng Continental into comp~iance

with ~o _~c.m.CodeSec.

~(.e)~ij

anc ona~, tnere:ore, one

variance was unnecessary.

14. Continental installed the tip aspiration system and on

Maron 19, 19~6, again appiee :or renewal of its operam:n~

permit. The :EPA issued this Permit (Application. No. 730~999,

~.D. No. C11809AAE) on April 10, 1986.

PROPOSAL FOR SETTLEMENT

Continental agrees

to

~ay S10,000 to Envircn.Tenta

Protect~cn ~rust rune

WiOflin.

60 cays of one cate one ~oaro

approves tr.~s Sz~~u~at~cnanc ~-roposa~ :or Sett’ement. ~aic

pa~ent shal~be mace by cerz~f:ec cnec~Cr money orcer, payao_e

to tne ~nv~ron~enta~ Protection rust rund, anc mai~.ec

00:

Fiscal Services Div:sicn

~.u~ino:s~nv~ronmenta~ ~roteczion i.~gency

—-

,

,..:“

—

~

~

~o~e

Spr~ngf~ee, I~~ncis

c~~o

Ccnt~nenta~waives :ts r:gnt to nave any unused portion or sa~o

pa~ent returned to Continental.

R~rO~E,~ornp~.a~nantsf0 r.espcneent 3Ciflt~y

request

onat

tfle Boaro accept ane acopt tnos ~:opuJ~ation anu rroposa :c:

~ett1ernent.

—

•1

—

80—46

---

CONTINENTAL C-RAIN COMPANY

1

~/

/

t•

_________________

By:

.(

/1’

f

ILLINOIS ENVIR9~NTAL

~ROT~CTION AGENCY

_____________

By:

~

J~~h

~.

Svobo~a

t~Ia$age~of Enforcement

ILLINOIS ATTORNEY GENERAL

Robert V. Shuff, Jr.

‘~

First Assistant Attorney

(GRAIN4

-

doc)

——

80—4 7

DAED:

/

7

,

~:.7

~~~~1 /~1

(r~

I-

/~b/

DATED:

.-~, ~

~-dr~-.

c-,.

Genera?