ILLIN~iIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL BOARD

September 20~. 1984

COt~TINENTALGRAIN

C~ANY,

)

‘~Li~ioner1

)

PCB 84—99

ILINoI~

E~7~ONEN~AL

)

PRO ~C~iON

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

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 Unity Ventures—

v.

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, et al.,

Ill. App.

Ct.,

2nd District,

No.

81—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1982) unpublished,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, ch, 111½~par~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,

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 Ill~Adm, Code 104.121.

Most specifically,

60423

---

—2—

the

facilit

which is the subject of the petition must

be

described to satisfy subparagraphs

(h)~

(c)

and

(d) of that rule;

the past

and

future

efforts

and coats incurred at this

facility

in

order

to

come

into compliance with the

applicable

regulation

must

he delineated in accordance

with

aubparagraphs

(f),

(h)

and

(i)~

and the

er

i;~oumentaiconsequences should

Variance

be

granted must be a~idressed, including,

if

necessary,

an

air

quality

atudy

in. accordance with subparagraph

(g).

Petitioner

is

directed

to co amend its Petition no

later

than

October 22, 1984

so

that the Agency can file a Recommendation and so

that

these

questions

can

he

properly

addressed at

hearing.

Should

Petitioner fail

to do so, the Petition will be subject to

dismissal pursuant to 35 III, Mm,

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

35 111. Mm. Code :L04~18O~

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

thea~ day of4c

~

1984

by

a

vote

of

Dorothy

M.

Grrnn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control

Board

6O~

124