ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

September

20,

1984

CONTINENTAL

GRAIN

COMPANY,

PCB

84~1O3

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECT

ION

AGENCY,

ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by J~Anderson):

On August

29,

1984, Respondent filed two motions

in

this

matter~

The first reauested 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 granted0

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 granted0

Citing

~Tentures—

v~Illinois Environmental Protection A enc

et aL, 1110

App.

~

No~81-9

February 21,

9

unpublished,

Petitioner responded that the Motion to Dismiss is

in

actuality

*

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

Rev0

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, Respondent’s motion does

accurately

delineate

deficiencies in the Petition that render

Respondent

unable to

make an informed Recommendation to the Board0

Therefore,

Petitioner is directed to amend it~sPetition

to

satisfy the

requirements of 35 IlL Adm~Code 104~12L

Most specifically,

60431

---

the

faciJ

~y wh~c~

~te

~u~jec

o~ t~

o~ition

must

be

described to

s

ty

subpaiaq~iphe

(h),

~c)

and

(d) of

that

rule;

the past ~nd ~

e~’rteand costs incurred at this

facility

in

order

to

cone

i~tc

crmplia~ce

with

the

applicable

regulation

must

be

deLneac~

£n

ac~ordance

with

subparagraphs

(f),

(h)

and

(i);

and

the

enviro:~rental

consequences

should

Variance be

granted

~st

be

acd

~s~ed,

including,

if

necessary,

an air

quality

study

i~

~cc~rdance

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

Petitiorer

fail

to

do

so,

the

Petition

will

be subject

to

dis~

isa!

Oursuant

tc.

35

IlL.

Adm,

Code

104

,125~

s:nce

the

Board,

as

weli

as

tne

Agency,

requires

more

infor~niation

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

IlL

Adm~

Code

104~180~

IT

IS

SO ORDERFD~

I,

Dorothy

M,

Gunn,

Clerk

of

the

Illinois Pollution

Control

Board, hereby ce;tify

that

the above Order was ado ted

on

the~O~dayof

,

1984

by

a vote of

-O

Dorothy

M~

Gu

n, Clerk

Illinois Pollution

Control

Board

60432