-R

(‘Jul

r

vs

‘ ‘I

_5

._ .

t

——

~ks..ia

Ct

-c

1.-

-

ysbr

V

—

a

rt

L’

‘

-

—

“-

aas

fl_j~,

.3-3

L...°

-

C

t~

—

C’

‘

r ;

t~.

a o..

e

‘...I-

c. e-

- ..

-

jr

flceoo na-cc. a

, -

~

i~ch T

a(

~

I.

‘-an Se

.

e~i...,

ur of

3-4

~.

J

3.

~ti~_ r

r

dtci

n

t t3 .i’~ate

t

e ienath a

‘r...

cr qnic~ C

arr’a

las sai1ght ~a ..-c’c ot a.te:vi

2

re-u’s :.

t

t-V

tM

XsC

, or a progr-

iv

of ~.on ro. that

ou.a ~e ttnpser.enL.cs

~‘

-ne aid of. t’e ‘arta’icc ~er

‘Jo

:i

ec. sx’

Our

anterim Oc4er of tJ-ruarj 28

.9/, chat

:.te i’.r ‘&-.~.cnsuppi’ed r the artance ~egues~ -as ..ra~jc4Lase

nf

ye

lJ

acjd..tioral

‘narwatton to enaba’..

3

make a

5eci~or tddi,..ional tnfonat

on

~ts f~ledon kprn

17

elnch

.iost -.t;ataa ke..stsoner s

clnn

~ unavaiiabil4ty of

gooc

grade

r ;oer floc

—

e. ~laoflex

90.

.tt

Jone 19 l9~4

cit

‘r~.ronnentalP’-ot...ction ‘goncy

,EPA

• cc”ir~ndd

that tie

Tariance ce

den ed

Vrre

rPA argued that

no

~roqrar

for odor reduction I-ad teen

sabm... ctcsd,

that alternati. ‘e

nears dad

exist but had not been explored by tab.. Petitioner

a’d that no

time

linit for the Variance aas irdicated. Also

tha EPA stated that some citizens in tao arca :ound tie odor

offensivc.

ñe

dismiss the Variance request of the Pettt~orer. It is

inadequate because no time limit for the Variance

has

been

indicated. Had a date been supplied we would still be forced

to

deny the Variance under Rule 401 of

our Procedural Rules.

Among other factors, the feasibility of alternative means to

abate the pollution source is

an important consideration in

13—33

---

weighing the grant of a Variance. Failure to have investigated

alternative methods of control means that Petitioner has not

shown arbitrary or unreasonable hardship. Finally, citizen

imput is particularly important when making determinations under

Section 9(a) of the Act. The EPA alleges that several residents

found

the

odors offensive, While these allegations in no way

influence our decision in this case,

it

should remind Petitioner

that should he file a new Variance petition, he may have to

go

through

the hearing procedure while such a petition for Variance

is

being

considered.

Sponge Cushion’s petition for Variance

is

hereby dismissed

without

prejudice because ~

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I, Cnristan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois

Pollution Control

E3oard~ hereby certify

that the ~bove

Opinion and Order was

adopted on the

~ff~

day of ~

,

1974, by a vote of

~hristan~Moft

13—34