ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    February 14,
    1975
    ANF
    INCORPORATED,
    )
    Petitioner,
    v.
    )
    PCB 74—319
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    Respondent.
    INTERIM ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by Dr.
    Odell)
    On August 20,
    1974, AMF Incorporated
    (AMF)
    filed its
    Petition for Variance with the Pollution Control Board
    (Board).
    The Board requested Additional Information in its Order of
    September
    5,
    1974.
    On September 18, 1974,
    a neighbor of AMF
    filed her objection to the grant of a variance.
    When the
    Petitioner failed to supply the requested additional information,
    the Board dismissed the Petition for Variance October 24,
    1974.
    AMF filed a Motion for Reconsideration on November 12,
    1974,
    stating it had never received the Additional Information Order of
    September
    5,
    1974.
    The Environmental Protection Agency (Agency)
    responded on November 22,
    1974,
    to the Motion for Reconsideration
    and supported the Petitioner’s request.
    On the same day, the
    Board reinstated the Petition for Variance, and the 90 day period
    for decision began to run from that date.
    On February 5,
    1975,
    the Agency recommended that the variance be denied because Petitioner
    had failed to
    prove it was unable to procure sufficient quantities
    of exempt solvents to achieve compliance with Rule 205(f)
    of the
    Air Pollution Regulations
    (Chapter Two).
    Petitioner responded with
    a Waiver Right To Decision Within Ninety Days on February 10, 1975.
    We interpret the February 10,
    1975,
    response as a Petition To Reply
    To Agency Recommendation.
    We grant the Petition and rule that this
    case be set for hearing.
    We believe that a hearing
    is justified
    for the following reasons:
    1.
    A hearing
    is the proper forum for submission of evidence
    on the issue of whether there exists an industry—wide shortage of
    exempt solvents and whether Petitioner’s
    inability to obtain such
    solvents is
    a self-imposed hardship.
    2.
    A neighbor of AMF objected to the grant of the variance
    within a month of the filing of the August 20 Petition for Variance.
    While this objection does not mandate a hearing under Section 37 of
    the Environmental Protection Act
    (Act)
    ,
    a hearing provides a means
    whereby the Board can determine the nature and extent of this
    citizen’s interference from Petitioner’s activities.
    15
    —
    493
    —2—
    Petition To Reply To Agency Recommendation is granted.
    A hearing shall be held as soon as possible on the issues in-
    dicated above.
    Although Petitioner has waived his right to
    final decision until and including March
    28,
    1975,
    the Board
    requests an extension until and including April
    25,
    1975.
    This
    extension should be filed by February 28,
    1975.
    The additional
    time
    is necessary to enable the Board to determine whether the
    Petitioner has met its burden of proof at the hearing.
    IT
    IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order was
    adopted
    on the
    ~L4~’1
    day of~~
    ,
    1975, by
    a vote of
    ~~stanL~ot
    15 —494

    Back to top