ILL,

tfl~)IS

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

May

18,

1984

SOURS

GRAIN

COHPANY,

)

)

Petitioner,

)

v.

)

PC

79—210

)

ILLINOIS

ENVtRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY,

)

)

Respondent.

ORDER OF TEE BOARD

(by

J.

D. D’ne113):

This matter cones before the Board

upon an

April

12,

1984,

motion for reconsideration of the Board’s March

8, 1984, Opinion

and

Order

and

motion

to

reopen

record

filed

on

behalf

of

the

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) to

which

Sours Grain responded in opposition on April 25,

1984.

The

!~gency

replied to Sours’ response on May

2, 1984.

Irs

its

notion

to

reconsider

the

Agency

contends

that

the

variance gives Sours Grain an un!atr competitive advantage,

that ‘all grain elevators musi control the air pollution

problems they cause, alone or in conbination,’ and that Sours

has

not presented an adequate compliance plan.

Sours responds

that

the

Agency

presents

no

new

evidence

to

support

reconsidera-

tion,

that

the

Board

fully

considered

the

evidence,

that

com-

petitive

advantage

is

irrelevant,

and

that

the

Board

‘has

never

dogmatically

required

a

formal

compliance

plan.’

The

Board

concludes

that

rWconsideration

should

be

denied.

The

question

of

competitive

advantage

is

at

best

tangentially

related

to

the

question

of

variance.

The

question

is

tether

dental

of

variance

would

impose

an

arbitrary

or

unreasonable

hardship

upon

Sours,

and

the

Board

has

fully

considered that

question.

The

Board

has

also

fully

considered

the

questions

of

environmental

impact

and

a

compliance

plan.

While

the

Board

is

troubled

by

the

lack

of

a

definite

compliance

plan,

the

grant

of

variance

was

conditioned

to

minimize

that

shortcoming

as

reasonably

as

the

record

supported.

In

its

reply

the

Agency

contends

that

Sours

‘concedes

that

variance

should

not

have

been

granted.’

In

so

doing,

however,

the

Agency

misconstrues

Sours’ somewhat inartfully drafted language.

58-73

---

The

Agency’s

notion

to

reopen

the

record

is

based solely

upon

the

bald

assertion

that

the

Agency

has

learned

that fIB

has

decided that it will

not

approve

Anderson

water spray

systems.

In

its

reply,

the

Agency

anends

its

statement

to

read:

‘FOIS does not

approve

or

disapprove

such

grain

handling

facilities

and that its concerns

ara expressed in ways other

than approval or disapproval

.‘

Sours properly points out that

there is no proof of that assertion and that the variance grant

was structured to allow for that possibility in any

case

(see

35

tll. Mn. Code 103.241(c)(1).

The motions

to reconsider ani to reopen the record are,

therefore,

hereby

denLed.

IT

IS

SO

ORDERED.

I,

Christan

L. Moffett, Clerk

of

the Illinois

Pollution

Control Bo~rd

hereby certify tlvtt thu

above

Other

was

adopted

on

the _____________day

of

~

a....

,

1984 by

a

vote of

~

.

‘.1

~Jh

L.....J75’~r

3J1k1?

——

Christan

L.

Moffett,~cLezk

Illinois

Pollution

CoAtrol

Board

58-74