:ELLThOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD
September 20,
1984
CONTINENTAL
GRAIN
COMPANY,
)
)
PCB 84—100
ILL1NOS
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
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
qua:iity study to substantiate allegations of minimal environ-
mental harm should Variance be granted..
Citing Unity Ventures—
v. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, et al.,
111.
App.
-
Ct..,
2nd Districts
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21, 1982) unpublished,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
agruinents which are best resolved
at
hearing.
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 Board,
Therefore,
Petitioner is directed to amend its Petition to satisfy the
requirements of 35 IlL Mm, Code 104.121.
Most specifically,
6O~
125
the
facility which
:ia ~
EE
Iject
af the petition must be
described to sani~fy~ubparagraphs
u~),
Ic)
and
(d) of
that
rule;
the past and
~uro e:~rts
and
costs thourred at this
facility
in order t~ccme ~nto compliance with ths applicable
regulation
must
be de1ine~t~d~in?Lo~-craance
WLth
suhparagraphs
(f),
(h)
and
(i); and the erj:~rrmmenti1 consequences should Variance be
granted must
I~
~
~
~ludinç~,
if necessary,
an
air
quality study in wcordanre
with
subparagraph
(g)..
Petitioner
is
directed to ~o amend
Lta Petition no later than October 22,
1984
so ~:hatthe Aqamcy ~
file a Recommen:~at:Loriand
so
that
these
questions can ha ~m~er~v
~‘ires~ed a~:hearing~. Should
Petitioner fail ~:afo ~
~
PetiL~nw:i.:L he
subject
to
dismitsai
pur~uar~:t’
:~
~l
1
Adr~t, Code 104. 125..
Since
the
Board~~as
well
as
the
Agency,
requires
more
information
in
order
to
be
reasonably
:Lnformed
about
Petitioner’
$
circumstances
necessitating an Amended
Petition,
Respondent’
s
Motion for Additionea Time to
:Eiie
a Recommendation is mooted.
Respondent is directed to
fi:le it~Recommendation in
accordance
with
35
Iii..
Adm.. Code 104..180,
IT
IS SO ORDERED..
I, Dorothy M. Gunny Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control
Board,
hereby ceri~~fythat the above Order was adopted
on
the~~day~
1984 by a vote of
C—
0
Dorot:hy MT~R~iinn,Clerk
Illinois Pollution
Control
Board