::LLINOIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

September

20,

1984

COST

INENTAL

Gpj~::~

coMPANY,

PCB

84—102

)

ILhINOlS

fNViRONMF;NT?~L

PROTECTION

~~ir~y

ORDER

OF

THE

BOAED

(by J~ Anderson):

On

August

29,

1984,

Respondent

filed

two

motions in

this

matter0

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, Continentia.

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 grantecL

in

~

~~hat

the

Variance

Petition

be dismissed,

Respondent

argued

that

the

Petitioner

failed

to:

provide

a

~c

in

owe

~.

~

wide

~

~

ier~

speci1~c

~nformation

and

•~

ti~iai

I

1cc

~tatrmen.t

s

crtWriing

to

the

facility

under

racier

pdi

stinpni

the

regul

:ions

are

al legedly

inappli—

cab I a.

hue

to

the

un~urnes

of

the

facility

~

and

provide

an

air

ci :1ti

study

to

r

tantiate

al iec~t:Lcns

of

minimal

environ—

S

rO

~

fl~4

~

~

~

~

~

_~i~hl~

~

TIl

App.

c

t

~

,

~

unpublished,

Petitioner

responded

that

the

MotIon

to

Dismiss

is

in

actuality

a

Recommendation

to

te an

since

the

Respondent

relied

on

factual

arguments,

and,

therefore,

a

hearinc;

is

now

mandatory

under

Section

37

of

the

Nnvirorrnentai

Protection

Act

(Ill

Rev, Stat.,

1933,

~h.

:u~J~-~,

par.

:1037)0

—

—

______

Notwithstanding

that

a

hearing

is

mandatory

under

the

Clean

Air

Act

should

•

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’s

motion

does accurately

delineate

deficiencies

in

t3~ePetition

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

Il1~

Adm,

Code

104~121~

Most

specifically,

---

the

facil:Lty

which

is

ate

~ub~ject

of

the

petition

must

be

described ho

saticlh

c~t~ara~

raphe

~b,

(c

and

(d)

of

that

rule;

the

pact

a

~h

a

ef

:ts

&c:~ costs

incurred

at

this

facility

in order t~ccae into

~c :.uiarc:e

with

the

applicable

regulation

must

be

d~i

a~et~bin

~oodacca

with

subparagraphs

(f),

(h)

and

(1);,

end

ate

sanr~

r~ament~lc~risecuences

should

Variance

be

g~ant~d

iri~

n

i.

d.

~

u~~

ii

necessary,

an air

~uaU.ty

ctrd~n

ni

accordance

with

surparagraph

(g)

Petitioner

is

directed

~

~u)

~

?et.ition

no

later

than

October

22,

1984

so

th

ct~

the

igenc~ car

thIo

a

Recommendation

and

so

that

these

questIons

can

b’.

properly

,ddressed

at

hearing0

Should

Petitionci.

heI.

to

a

the

Peti

~.

~n

will

be

subject

to

dismtsrc~

:rirsuart ~s 35

7

~

~dm,

Code

104

1250

Since

the

Board,

ac

we:.

as

the

Agency,

requires

more

iriformatica

in

order

to

he

reasonably

informed

about

Petitioner’s

ci~cum~tances, necessitating

an

Amended

Petition,

Respondent’s

Motion

for

Addi:inna~

T:ime

to

file

a

Recommendation

is

mooted.

Responden:.

is

ci raruod

t~ file

its

Re ,.ommendation

in

accordance

with

35

1

.

Mac

.hrk

IC

L

ieO.

IT

IS

SO

ORDERED.

I, Dorothy M

Gunu,

Clerk

of

the

Illinois Pollution

Control

Board,

hereby

cer~ifv

that

the above Order

was

adopted

on

the2~~day

~

1984

by

a

vote

of

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board

Rn..