ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

September

20,

1984

CONTINENTAL GRAIN COMPANY,

)

)

Petitioner,

)

)

PCB 84~98

)

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 ~~~tures-

V.

Illinois

Environmental

Protection~gency, et aL,

Ill.

App.

Ct., 2nd

Distri~7No~.

81-59 T~ibruary21,

1982) unpublished,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,

ch,

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

hearing.

The Motion to Dismiss is denied.

However, Respondent0s 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 III. Adm, Code 104.121.

Most specifically,

6O~121

---

the

facility which is the subject of the petition must be

described to satisfy subparagraphs (b),

(c) and

(d) of

that rule;

the

past and future efforts and costs incurred

at

this

facility

in

order to come into comp:liance with the applicable regulation

must be

delIneated in accordance with subparagraphs

(f),

(h) and

(U;

ana the environmental consequences should Variance be

granted must 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 can file a Recommendation and so that these

questions can be properly addressed at hearing.

Should

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

dismissal pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm, Code 104.125.

Since the Board, as well as the Agency, requires more

information in order to be 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

111. Adm, Code 104.180~

IT

IS

SO

ORDERED.

I, Dorothy M, Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board,

hereby certify that the above Order was adopted on

the~~~day

of

,

1984 by a vote of_~

~—O

Dorothy M. G~nn,Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control

Board

60-122