ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

September 20,

1984

CONTINENTAL GRAIN COMPANY,

)

)

)

)

PCB

84~96

ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL

)

PROTECTION

AGENCY,

)

)

Respondents

ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by 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 granted~

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 ~1j~entures-

v~Illinois Environmental Protection A enc

et al,, IlL App~

Ct~,2n

District, No~

~5

February

1,

unpublished,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

Revs State,

1983,

c1i~ 111½,

pare, 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

hearings

The Motion to Dismiss is denied~

However, Respondent~smotion does accurately delineate

deficiencies in the Petition that render Respondent unable

to

make an informed Recommendation to the Board0

Therefore,

Petitioner is directed to amend its Petition to satisfy the

requirements of

35 IlL

Adm0 Code 1O4~121~

Most specifically,

6O~

117

---

the

facilit\~

which is the sub

Ct of the

petition

must

be

described

to

satisfy euhparagraphs

(h),

(c) and

(d)

of

that

rule;

the

past

and fature efforts

arid, costs incurred at this

facility

in order to cr~teinto compliance with

the

applicable

regulation

must

be, delineated

in accordance with

subparagraphs

(flY

(h) and

(i);

and t1~

h~~’1~e~-a

consequences

should

Variance

be

granted

most

be

addressed;~

inc:1uding~ if

necessary,

an

air

quality study in accordance

with

subparagraph

(g)

Petitioner

is

dire~tedto so amend its Petition

no

later

than

October

22,

1984

so t~t the Acenc’~vcan file a Recommendation

and so that

these

~

~

~is

~

t

V

dadreosed

et hearing

Should

Petitioner fail to do so, the Petition will be subject to

disI~LLs~:t.

:

reucut

to

35 III

Adm.

Code 104~125

Since the Board, as well

as

the Agency,

requires more

information

in order to he reasonably

informed

about

Petitioner’

s

cireumetancesY necessitating

an

Amended

Petition,

Respondent’s

Motion.

for

Additional

Time

to

file

a

Recommendation

is

mooted0

Respondent

is

directed

to

file

its

Recommendation

in

accordance

with

35

Ill~

Adm,

Code

104,

180w

IT

IS

SO

ORDERED,

I,

Dorothy

M.

Gunn,

Clerk

of

the

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board,

hereby

ce;tify

that

the

above

Order

was

adopted

on

the~?o~day

~

1984

by

a

vote

of~-~0

Dorothy

M0

G nn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution