ILLINOIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

September

20,

1984

CONTINENTAL GRAIN COMPANY,

Petitioner.

)

PCB

84—97

)

ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL

)

PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

)

Respondent~~

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

dismissed0

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 Unity Ventures—

v~

Illinois Environmental Protectio~~gency,

et al,,

Ill.

App.

Ct0, 2nd District, No0

~i~59

(February

21,

1982) unpublished,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. Rev. Stat.,

1983,

ch0

111½,par.

1O37)~

Notwithstanding

that

a

hearing

is

mandatory

under

the

Clean

Air

Act

should

the

Variance

Petition

not

be

dismissed,

Respondent’s

motion does contain factua.

agruments which

are

best

resolved

at

hearing0

The Motion

to

Dismiss

is

denied0

However, Respondent~s

motion

does

accurately delineate

deficiencies in the Petition that render

Respondent unable to

make

an

informed Recommendation to the Board.

Therefore,

Petitioner

is

directed

to

amend its Petition

to satisfy the

requirements

of

35

1110

Adm, Code

104.121,

Most specifically,

6O~

119

---

the

facility

which

i~the

subject

of

the

petition

must be

described

to

satisfy

subparagraphs

(h),

(0)

and

(d)

of

that

rule;

the

past

and

future

efforts

an~

costs

incurred

at

this

facility

in

order

to

come

into

compliance

with

the

applicable

regulation

must

he

d~lin~atedin

accordance

with

subparagraphs

(f),

(h)

and

(i);

avid

the erivi~cnTnenta1

consequences

should

Variance

be

granted ~

be addressed,

including,

if

necessary,

an

air

quality

study

in

accordance

with

subparagraph

(g).

Petitioner

is

directed

to so amend its Petition

no

later

than

October

22,

1984

so

that

the

Agency

~an

file

a

Recommendation

and

so

that

these

questions

can

be

properly

addressed

at hearing.

Should

Psti~:icn~

i~ailto do ~o, the

Petition

will be subject to

di;~mie:~al

p~’ir~mantto 35

Ill.

Adm,

Code

104~125,

Since

the

Board,

as

well

as

the

Agency,

requires

more

information

in order

to

he

reasonably

informed

about Petitioner’s

circumstances,

necessitating

an

Amended

Petition,

Respondent’s

Motion

for

Additional

Time

to

file

a

Recommendation

is

mooted.

Respondent

is

directed

to

file

its

Recommendation in accordance

with

35

Iii.

Adm~ Code

104.1~O,

IT

IS

SO

ORDEREDO

I,

Dorothy

M.

Gunn,

Clerk

of

the

Illinois Pollution Control

Board,

hereby certify that the above Order was adopted on

the ~day

~

1984 by a vote of______________

~o~-~ti~

~

Dorothy M,

Gfinn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

80-120