ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    April
    21,
    1983
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    On March 28,
    1983 Continental Grain Company filed a motion
    for reconsideration of the Board’s February
    23, 1983 Opinion and
    Order in this matter.
    Continental requests that the Board
    “make
    a definitive finding that Continental
    is
    in full compliance” with
    the Watercraft Loading Rule 203(d) (8)(B)(iv) (c) (2)
    of Chapter 2:
    Air Pollution.
    It argues that its request has taken on some
    urgency in that the Department of Justice has served a Demand
    Letter upon Continental regarding Continental’s Elevators B and C.
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
    V.
    CONTINENTAL GRAIN COMPANY,
    A Delaware Corporation,
    Complainant,
    Respondent.
    CONTINENTAL GRAIN COMPANY,
    A Delaware Corporation,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
    Respondent.
    PCB 78—247
    PCB 79—111
    (Consolidated)
    PCB 79—114
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
    Complainant,
    V.
    CONTINENTAL GRAIN COMPANY,
    A Delaware Corporation, and the
    CHICAGO REGIONAL PORT DISTRICT,
    An Illinois Municipal Corporation,
    Respondents.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by J.D. Dumelle):
    52-63
    In the January 23,
    1983 Settlement Agreement the parties
    stipulated that “the Alum—A-Lite dust suppressor spout
    (or the
    equivalent)
    is determined to effectively meet the requirements
    of
    the Watercraft Loading Rule when used with aspiration at the top
    of the spout.”
    However, in its February 24, 1983 Opinion and
    Order, the Board specifically declined to make such a finding,
    The Board again declines to make such a finding, and the
    motion for reconsideration is hereby dismissed,
    The record
    contains no proof, other than the stipulation,
    that proper use of
    the Alunt—A—Lite suppressor will assure compliance with the Water-
    craft Loading Rule,
    Installation and use of the suppressor was
    found to be
    a reasonable plan for attaining compliance and the
    Board adopted the settlement agreement on that basis.
    To go
    beyond that,
    as Continental requests, could have the effect of
    granting Continental
    site—specific regulatory relief which cannot
    be done in the context of an enforcement case0
    If the Board
    were to make such a finding, the Board would be assuming the
    burden of determining what control
    is necessary to reach compliance.
    That is not the Board’s role.
    The burden is on Continental
    to
    achieve compliance with the rule,
    and
    if
    the use of the Alum-
    a—Lite suppressor fails to result
    in compliance, Continental
    must take further action.
    Further, the Board notes that the
    Demand Letter indicates that proper operation of the suppressor
    would form an acceptable basis for settlement of any federal
    dispute.
    IT IS SO ORDERED,
    I,
    Christan L, Moffett,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Control Bo~.rd,hereby certify that the above Order was adopted
    on the ~
    ~day of
    ~
    1983
    by
    a vote of
    _______
    Clerk
    Illinois Pollut
    n Control Board
    52-64

    Back to top