ILLINOIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL BOARD

June

6,

1975

i\c

~

~

V3~~1ILLAND

COMPANY,

Q

cor~or~tion,

Petitioner,

POD

74—350

Respondent

il~~F~I~RG OPINION

(by Mr. Dumelle):

oc

icr disseat~ng in this

case

is the

unreasonable

~

Ta

deay upon the part

of

Archer-Daniels—Midland

~

~ c~.unineLing

the

nuisance

effect

of their emissions

on

public.

~

Board

majority

Opinion

states

Pc :~tionerRae knowledge

in the

fall

of

1973

that its neighbors

~ere complaining about its

activities but approximately one

year passed before ADM prepared

its compliance plane

~i

Boara

~ajority

and the Ill:ncrs Environmental

Protec-

ran

~cy both fail to recognize ~:ne long-standing

nature

of

a

LOT,

Attached to the Agency~s Recommendation

is

a

:~‘.

P whicT

is

a pei~

t~on

bearing

approximutely

86

~

L

c~s

C

i~

petition was tr~nsrueeed by the

City Manager

~ ~r

to

t~

former Illinois AlL Po1lut~onControl

Board

i

a

a

i

oJ.

Thus

tne Petit~oner.had “notice”

more than

~ e~1i~

than

the “fall of 1973” that

it

was causing

pI~o~aFs to

its

residential neighbors

uci.pz

on

Archer—Daniels—Midland

s

part,

then

is

not

-

~

LUL~

one

Jcar~

as

the

Board Opinion

stares,

but five

A~e

\vly

the

Div~sion of Sanitary Engineering

of the

mdc

Dc

~rtmeat

of Public Heal~h (the

predecessor to

the

-~re~c~t

ili

‘ois Environmental Protection

Agency)

never brought

~a enforcement action

is not known on this

record,

17

—

248 A

---

Five

years

of

soiling

cars

and other properties with fatty

acids

is

too

long

especially

where,

as

the

Agency states,

“Financial

hardship

is

~not

at

issue.,

~.

I would have denied

the

Variance

because

of

delay.

J

cob D~Dumelle

I,

Christan

L.

Moffett,

Cl

rk of

the

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board,

hereby

certify

t

ë

above

Dissen~ng

Opinion

was

submitted

on

the

~

ay

of

)~~~f—

Illinois Pollution

trol Board

17

—

248