ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    July
    13, 1989
    VILLAGE OF SAUGET
    Petitioner,
    v.
    )
    PCB 89—86
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    )
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    Respondent.
    ORDEP
    OF THE BOARD
    (by
    R.
    C.
    Flemal):
    This matter comes before the Board upon the June
    16,
    1989
    motion filed
    by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
    (“Agency”)
    for
    an additional
    information order
    or,
    in the
    alternative,
    for dismissal
    of the petition for inadequacy.
    On
    June
    22, 1989
    the Board denied
    that portion
    of the Agency’s
    motion requesting dismissal
    of the petition
    for inadequacy.
    Therefore,only that portion of the Agency’s motion requesting
    an
    additional
    information order
    is before the Board.
    On June
    28,
    1989,
    the Village
    of Sauget
    (“Sauget”)
    filed
    its response
    to the
    Agency’s motion.
    The Board prefaces
    its discussion
    of
    the motion by noting
    that here,
    as
    in
    all variance proceedings,
    the burden of proof
    is
    upon
    the petitioner.
    See,
    Section 37(a)
    of the Environmental
    Protection Act
    (“Act”),
    and Unity Ventures
    v.
    IPC8,
    132
    Ill.
    App.
    3d 421,
    476
    N.~.2d
    1368,
    1375
    (2nd Dist.
    1985).
    Therefore,
    if
    there
    is
    information which
    is not supplied by a petitioner which
    would
    be necessary proof of the
    issues
    in
    a variance proceeding,
    the petitioner runs
    the risk
    of denial
    of the requested
    relief.
    Furthermore,
    in
    a petition
    for extension of variance, one
    of the
    elements which
    the Board examines
    is whether
    satisfactory
    progress has been made which would
    include compliance with any
    prior
    Board orders granting variance.
    See,
    Section 36(b)
    of
    the
    ~ct, Moore
    ~merican
    Graphics
    v.
    IEPA,
    PCB 83—241,
    64 PCB 457
    (6—
    27—85),
    and Stauffer Chemical Company
    v.
    IEPA,
    PCB 85-26,
    65 PCB
    37
    (7—11—85).
    The petition
    is sufficient
    with respect
    to
    35
    Ill.
    Adm.
    Code
    104.121.
    Therefore,
    the Board will not issue
    a more information
    order.
    The Board notes
    that
    in
    its reply to
    this motion,
    Sauget
    did present
    some additional
    information
    along the lines
    of that
    sought by the Agency.
    To the extent that the Agency seeks
    further
    information and that
    this
    information be available prior
    to hearing,
    the Agency
    is
    free
    to utilize other means
    for
    prehearing exchange of
    information,
    including discovery as
    provided
    in the Boards’
    procedural
    rules.
    i~~1—93
    —2—
    The Board does note however,
    a possible misinterpretation of
    its prior order granting variance from the color regulations.
    It
    was always
    the intent of the Board
    in granting Sauget
    its prior
    variance from the Board’s color regulations, that Sauget not only
    determine the origin of the color by identifying the industrial
    contributors, but also
    the origin
    in terms of constituents which
    cause
    the color.
    The Agency’s motion
    for additional
    information
    order
    is
    denied.
    This denial shall not be a bar
    to any preh~earing
    discovery or other orders which may require
    the presentation of
    additional
    information prior
    to hearing or
    to the presentation of
    information
    at hearing.
    IT
    IS
    SO ORDERED.
    I,
    Dorothy
    M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, ~re~by certify th~ the above Order was adopted on
    the
    7..7~ day of
    _________________,
    1989, by a vote
    of
    7’-c)
    .
    1?
    ~L
    Dorothy M./,~unn, Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
    101—94

    Back to top