ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

December 19,

1991

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

R90—20

DIESEL VEHICLE EXHAUST

)

(Rulemaking)

OPACITY LIMITS

)

PROPOSED RULE.

SECOND NOTICE.

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION

AND

ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by J.

D.

Dumelle):

This

matter

is

before

the

Board

on

its

own

motion.

On

November 27,

1991, we proposed a Second Notice package concerning

diesel exhaust opacity.

Due to the significant changes made from

First Notice to

Second Notice,

we established

a brief period

in

order to receive comment from the participants in this rulemaking.

In

total,

the

Board

received

five

subTnittals.

The commenters

included

Detroit

Diesel

Corporation

(DDC,

P.C.

#131);

Engine

Manufacturers Association (EMA, P.C.

#132); Illinois Environmental

Protection

Agency

(Agency,

P.C.

#133);

Regional

Transportation

Authority,

(RTA,

P.C.

#134)

and; the Chicago Lung Association and

the Illinois Chapter of the Sierra Club

(CLA/ICSC,

P.C.

#135).

DDC, while supporting the rule,

alleges that an anomaly has

been discovered during the California Roadside Smoke program that

makes

it likely that the entire family of DDCs

1987-1990 series

60

engines

will

fail

the

55

opacity

snap

acceleration

test.

Indeed,

DDC claims that the engine

family will

fail any opacity

standard

less

than about

85.

DDC

asserts,

however,

that

the

engines which emitted 89

over the snap acceleration test emitted

only l3-18

over the EPA federal smoke test,

and that the engines

have very low smoke levels under most other operating conditions.

DDC states that,

while the engines can be recalibrated,

it

requires connecting each engine to

a computer for reprogramming,

a

“logistically difficult” task for all existing engines.

(P.C.

#131,

p.

1.)

DDC notes

that,

for

1991,

this

anomaly has been

corrected with revisions to the engine control software.

DDC

proposes

that

the

Board

add

the

language

that

the

California Air Resources Board

adopted to address this problem.

The language DDC proposed is as follows:

Exemptions from the opacity standards in Paragraph (a) (2)

may be granted for engine families that cannot meet the

standard

because

of

inherent

engine

design

characteristics

or

nonadjustable

fuel

metering

parameters.

Exemptions may be based

on the voluntary

submission of technical information by engine or vehicle

manufacturers.

Such technical information may include

128—355

---

2

certification test and/or snap-idle test opacity data.

Alternative

opacity

standards

would

thereupon

be

established for the exempted engine families.

(P.C. #131,

p.

2.)

We first note that DDC’s submittal is significantly at odds

with the prior testimony in this proceeding of the EMA, which DDC

states in its comment that it helped prepare and fully supports.

However,

DDC’s comments also appear to be asserting that it has

only recently discovered its problem, and our following discussion

and proposed amendment are based on this assumption.

The Board declines to accept the amendment proposed by .DDC.

The

language

is much

too

broad,

and DDC

fails

to

justify

the

sweeping language.

The amendment,

as drafted,

is not tailored to

DDC’s

660

series

problem.

It

does not

even provide

that

the

problem be recently discovered.

Rather,

it sets up a mechanism of

standard by exception, with rather loose justifications, of general

applicability to all pre-1991 engine

families.

In other

words,

exemptions

from the 55

standard may be granted,

and alternative

standards established,

for “engine families that cannot meet the

standard

because

of

inherent

engine

design

characteristics

or

nonadjustable

fuel

metering

parameters”.

The

record

of

this

proceeding already fully supports the Board’s conclusion that the

standard was overwhelmingly supported by, and justified for,

the

engine families generally,

and we decline to,

in essence,

open up

this standard at the back end of this rulemaking.

We note that

under the Illinois system there are relief mechanisms available for

asserting

special

circumstances

should

they

occur

after

these

regulations are adopted.

However,

DDC

arguably

has

timely

placed

its

own

newly

discovered

problem

in

the

record

of

this

proceeding

for

Board

consideration.

The problem

is that DDC has not provided enough

information at

this juncture

for the

Board

to even consider

its

request for relief, much less act upon it.

On balance, we believe that the best way to solve this problem

is

to

add

to

the proposed regulation

at Section

240.141

a

new

subsection

(d).

This

subsection utilizes the adjusted standard

procedure found

at

Section

28.1(b)

of the

Act

and establishes

levels

of

justification

in the

rule

of

general

applicability.

Section 28.1(b)

states:

In adopting a rule of general applicability, the Board

may specify

the

level

of justification required

of

a

petitioner for an adjusted standard consistent with this

Section.

We note that the new subsection

(d)

specifies the DDC

1987-

1990 Series

60

engines,

and requires

information addressing the

uniqueness

of the problem,

submittal

of all

test data regarding

128—356

---

3

USEPA certification and the snap-idle test, economic and technical

data

regarding

DDC’s

logistical

problem

noted

above,

the

alternative

opacity

standard

proposed,

and

the

environmental

effects.

Finally,

we

strongly

advise

DDC

to

file

for

an

adjusted

•standard promptly; Section 28.1(e)

of the Act provides for a stay

of the applicability of the regulation only

if “any person files

a petition for an

individual

adjusted standard...within

20

days

after th~effective date of the regulation”.

The

comment

submitted by

EMA

seeks

to

implement

the

same

language

as

proposed

by

DDC.

(P.C.

#132,

p.

1-2.)

For

the

aforementioned reasons, we decline to adopt this provision.

While

EMA

does not refer to DDC specifically, it sets forth an identical

example.

Absent more specification we decline to further address

the issue

in this proceeding.

The Agency’s comment

(P.C.

#133)

in response to our Second

Notice’ proposal seeks

to reinstate the visual opacity test as an

enforcement mechanism.

The Agency correctly states that it was the

only’ participant

in

this

proceeding

who

presented

a

qualified

witness to discuss visual opacity, including both the certification

of opacity readers in Illinois and the historical accuracy of the

method.

(P.C.

#133,

p.

~.)

While the Board carefully considered

this testimony,

we are

convinced that visual opacity

is

not

an

appropriate enforcement mechanism for this particular rulemaking.

For example,

a great deal of the Agency’s testimony centered

on the “Method 9” procedure.

This test method uses only certified

smoke readers and was initially adopted for evaluating stationary

sources.

(Tr.

at 40.)

In fact,

Nr.

Berkely Moore,

testifying for

the Agency,

stated that:

Use

of the Method

9 procedure in

its entirety with no

changes,

however,

would

likely

be

precluded

for

the

opacity limitations which are being considered in this

proceeding

because Method

9

itself

requires

multiple

readings,

I

should say specifically

24

readings at

15

second intervals over a six minute time period.

And that

six minute time period seems incompatible with the natuie

of a moving source.

In

fact,

it

may

be

practical

to

limit

the

opacity

readings to one only.

In which case, no citation should

be

given

unless

the

reading

is

somewhat

above

the

standard.

I

might

say

in

this

connection

that

of

the

average

positive

error,

and

by

positive

error,

I

mean

an

overestimate

of

opacity

as

recorded

by

a

visual

observation compared to that which an instrument would

128—357

---

4

show, never exceeds

——

virtually never exceeds seven and

a half percent for 25 readings.

But if it is limited to

one

reading,

it

could

be. as

high

as

15

percent,

but

usually is less than 15 percent.

(Tr. at 38.)

Upon

further

questioning,

Mr.

Moore

testified

that

the

existing opacity regulation was not enforced by the Agency because

it was npt structured to do so and, further,

that he know of no

other entity enforcing the standard.

(Tr.

at 47.)

Moreover,

the

record indicated that the “Method 9” procedure would be difficult

to apply to

a

rapidly moving vehicle over the course of

a

ten—

second

timespan.

(Tr.

at

43—45.)

Finally,

the

availability of

modern smokemeters and the empiricism they provide convince us that

the snap-idle test using these meters

is superior to the visual

opacity test.

(R90-20, Opinion and Order (November 27,

1991), pgs.

2—5.)

Accordingly, we will not revise our Second Notice package

with regard to this issue.

The CLA/ICSC also submitted a comment asserting that visual

opacity

testing

is

an

appropriate

enforcement

mechanism

(P.C..

#135.)

The CLA/ICSC,

who co-sponsored this rulemaking prior to

First Notice, opposes our proposed Second Notice package.

The co-

sponsors object to the Bbard’s reliance on local government, other

state

agencies

or

the

legislature to

secure enforcement

of

the

standard.

In addition,

the

CLA/ICSC maintains that our Second

Notice proposal

lacks

guidance

as

to what types

of enforcement

mechanisms

would

be most

effective.

In this

regard,

CLA/ICSC

asserts that the Second Notice proposal should outline the Board’s

expectations of the Agency or any other state agencies that need

to be involved.

The comment concludes by stating that our proposal

will undoubtedly discourage local government, state agencies or the

state legislature from taking the necessary action to enforce the

revised opacity standard.

With

respect to CLA/ICSC’s position concerning visual opacity

as an enforcement mechanism,

the Board

has adequately addressed

that issue in today’s Order in addition to our Opinion of November

21,

1991

in this docket.

The rest of public comment 135 relates

to what the Board should do in order to effect a viable enforcement

program.

At the same time, the CLA/ICSC recognizes that “the Board

lacks

the

authority

to

require

an• inspection

and

enforcement

program” and that “the Board does not have the authority to require

such enforceinent~ mechanisms.”

(P.C. 135 at 1.)

Pursuant to the

Illinois Environmental Protection Act (“Act”),

the’ Board’s task is

to promulgate standards.

Nowhere

in this enabling statute lies

the authority for the Board

to direct other state

agencies,

let

alone the state legislature.

In fact, our power to regulate stems

from a delegation by the state legislature.

We

have

recognized

throughout

this

proceeding

that

the

128—358

---

5

regulation of diesel exhaust is somewhat unique.

We also recognize

that although the Agency

is the nucleus of enforcement under .the

Act, any person can bring an enforcement action.

Ill. Rev.

Stat.

1989

ch.

111

1/2

par.

1031.

Accordingly, we have attempted to

engage

local municipalities,

pertinent state

agencies and other

“persons” who can enforce this standard.

Concurrently, we have

attempted to include the public in our revision of this technical

standard, thereby framing the problem in an accurate way.

We ~1aveconcluded that diesel smoke is a public health hazard

and’ a nuisance.

After evaluating all of the testimony,

we have

formulated

a

55/40

percent

opacity

standard

as

registered

by

smokemeters.

What happens in terms of enforcement remains to be

seen.

In our hearings, certain municipalities west of Chicago have

indicated

a

willingness to act upon

a standard.

Similarly,

the

possibility

of

state

agencies

enforcing

this

standard

is

not

inconceivable.

In

this

regard,

we would urge

the CLA/ICSC to

encourage those “persons” who do have the power to enforce to do

so.

Once this standard is finally adopted, there will be a wealth

of enforcement opportunities where diesel exhaust is

a problem.

Finally, the RTA commented that Section 240.241(c)

should be

modified

to

indicate

that

testing

should

occur

at

the

normal

operating temperature of the engine.

The Board will revise this

section

in order to make this clear.

ORDER

The Board directs the

Clerk

to

file the amendments adopted

with the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules for Second Notice.

TITLE

35:

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

SUBTITLE B:

AIR POLLUTION

CHAPTER

I:

POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

SUBCHAPTER k:

EMISSION STANDARDS AND LIMITATIONS

FOR MOBILE SOURCES

PART 240

MOBILE SOURCES

SUBPART A:

DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS

Section

240.101

Preamble

240. 102

Definitions

240. 103

Prohibitions

240. 104

Inspection

240.105

Penalties

240.106

Determination of Violation

240.107

Incorporations by Reference

SUBPART B:

EMISSIONS

128—359

---

6

Section

240.121

Smoke Emissions

240.122

Diesel Engine Emission Standards for Locomotives

240.123

Liquid Petroleum Gas Fuel Systems

240.124

Vehicle Exhaust Emission Standards

240.125

Compliance Determination

SUBPART

C:

HEAVY-DUTY DIESEL SMOKE OPACITY STANDARDS AND

TEST PROCEDURES

_______

Applicability

_______

Heavy

Duty

Diesel

Smoke

Opacity

Standards

and

Test

Procedures

AUTHORITY:

Implementing Sections 9,

10 and

13 and authorized by

Section

27

of the Environmental Protection Act

(Ill.

Rev.

Stat.

1989,

ch.

111—1/2, pars.

1009,

1010,

1013 and 1027).

SOURCE:

Adopted as Chapter 2:

Air Pollution,

Part Vii:

Mobile

Sources,

filed and effective April

14,

1972;

codified at

7

Ill.

Reg.

13628;

amended in R85—25,

at

10

Ill.

Reg.

11277,

effective

June 16,

1986; amended in R90—20 at

Ill. Beg.

______________

effective ____________________________

NOTE:

Capitalization denotes statuatory language.

SUBPART A:

DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS

Section 240.102

Definitions

All terms which appear in this Part have the definitions specified

in this Part and 35 Ill. Adm. Code 201 and 211. Where conflicting

definitions

occur the definitions

of this Section

apply

in this

Part.

“Diesel Engine”:

All types of internal-combustion engines in

which air is compressed to

a temperature sufficiently high to

ignite fuel injected directly into the cylinder area.

“Diesel Locomotive”:

A diesel engine, vehicle designed to move

cars

on. a railway.

“Driver”:

The same meaning as defined in the Illinois Vehicle

Code,

Ill.

Rev. Stat.

1989,

ch.

95—1/2,

par.

116.1.

“Fleet”:

Five or more vehicles.

Section

240.140

240.141

240.Appendix A

240.Appendix B

Rule into Section Table

Section into Rule Table

128—360

---

7

“Full Power Position”:

The throttle position at which the

engine fuel delivery is at maximum flow.

“Heavy Duty Vehicle”:

A motor vehicle rated at more than 0000

pounds

gross vehicle

weightA vehicle with

8,000

pounds

or

greater manufacturer’s maximum gross

vehicle weight

rating

(GVWR).

“High Idle’:

That portion of a two-speed idle test conducted

with the engine operating at

a speed of approximately 2500

PRN.

“Idle

Mode”:

That

portion

of

a

vehicle

emission

test

procedure

conducted

with

the

engine

disconnected

from

an

external load and operating at minimum throttle.

“Light

Duty

Truck”:

A motor vehicle

rated

at

8000 pounds

gross vehicle weight or less, which is designed for carrying

more than 10 persons

or designed for the transportation of

property,

freight

or

cargo,

or

is

a

derivative

of

such

a

vehicle.

“Light Duty Vehicle”:

A passenger car designed to carry not

more than 10 persons.

“Model

Year”:

The year of manufacture of amotor

vehicle

based upon the annual production period as designated by the

manufacturer and indicated on the title and registration of

the

vehicle.

If

the

manufacturer

does

not

designate

a

production period

for the vehicle,

then “model year”

means

the calendar year of manufacture.

“Motor Vehicle”:

As used

in this

section

“motor vehicle”

shall have the same meaning as in the Illinois Vehicle Code

(Ill. Rev.

Stat. l98S~, ch.

95 1/2,

par.

1—146).

“Opacity”:

A condition which rcndcr3 material partially of

wholly impervious to the tranomittance of light,

and causes

the ob3truction of an observer’3 viewThat fraction of light,

expressed

in percent,

which when transmitted

from

a

source

through a smoke—obscured path,

is prevented from reaching the

observer or instrument receiver.

“Person3 Liable”:

All

PC~3Ofl3

owning, operating or in charge

or

control

of

any equipment who

3hall

cause

or permit

or

participate

in any violation of these rules and regulations

either a~owner,

operator, lessee or lc3sor.

“Smokemeter or Opacimeter”:

An optical instrument designed

to measure the opacity of smoke or diesel exhaust gases using

the light extinction method.

128—36 1

---

8

“Snap idle Cycle”:

Rapidly depressing the accelerator pedal

from normal idle to the full power position, holding the pedal

in the position for no longer than ten seconds or until the

engine reaches maximum speed,

and fully releasing the pedal

so that the engine decelerates to normal idle.

“Test Procedure”:

The preparation, preconditioning sequence

and smoke opacity measurement processes using the snap idle

cyc,le for determining compliance with Section 240.141.

“Two—Speed

Idle

Test”:

A

vehicle emission test procedure

consisting

of the measurements

of

exhaust emission

in high

idle and idle modes.

(Source:

Amended at

Ill. Beg.

effective

Section 240.107

Incorporations by Reference

The following materials are incorporated by

reference and include

no later editions or amendments:

~

Society of Automotive Engineers

(SAE),

400 Commonwealth

Drive, Warrendale, PA

15096: Report J255a Diesel Engine

Smoke Measurement

(August,

1978).

~j

International Standards Organization

(ISO), Case Postale

56, 1211 Geneve 20, Switzerland: ISO 393

(Working Draft,

January

1991).

Also available from American National

Standards

Institute

(ANSI),

11

West 42nd

Street,

New

York,

NY

10036.

(Source:

Added at

Ill.

Beg.

effective

SUBPART

B:

EMISSIONS

Section 240.122

Diesel

Engine

Locomotives

Emission

Standards

for

a)

The visible emission

standard, in Section 240.121

shall

not

apply to diesel engines.

b)

With

the

exception

of

subsection

(e),

diesel

engines

manufactured before January

1,

1’)7fl

~hri11

opcrated in

emit

smoJc~.. .~hich i.. ~~-3—-t~

than 30

opacity except for individual smoke puffs. Individual

puffs of smoke shall not exceed 15 seconds

in duration.

1)

Diesel

engines

shall be operated only

on the specific

~iir’~h

~ manner ~

•1-..

~-

128—362

---

9

2)

Persons liable for operating diesel engine fleets wholly

within

standard

metropolitan

statistical

areas

shall

furnish to the Environmental Protection Agency-

r~nr’~~r~h

~

that the

fue...

~

~i~d-~..edi..

thel...

operations conform to subsection

(c) (1).

d)

All diesel

engines

operated on puiiic highways

in

Illinois

coming from out of the State shall conform to subsection

(b).

4-)-~j. No person shall cause or allow the emission of smoke from any

diesel locomotive

in the State of

Illinois to exceed thirty

percent

(30)

opacity.

~-)-~jSubsection

(c) (l)j~jshall not apply to:

A~J Smoke resulting from starting a cold locomotive:

for a

period of time not to exceed 30 minutes.

~)-2J.

Smoke

emitted

while

accelerating

under

load

from

a

throttle setting other than idle to

a higher throttle

setting:

for a period of time not to exceed 40 seconds.

)-~j Smoke

emitted upon

locomotive loading

following

idle:

for a period of time not to exceed

2 minutes.

D-)-~4J.. Smoke

emitted

during locomotive

testing,

maintenance,

adjustment,

rebuilding,

repairing or breaking in:

for

a period of time not to exceed

3 consecutive minutes and

an aggregate of 10 minutes in any 60 minute period.

~

Smoke emitted by a locomotive which because of its age

of design makes replacement or retrofit parts necessary

to

achieve

smoke

reduction

unavailable.

These

locomotives

shall

be retired at the earliest possible

time.

(Source:

Amended at

Ill. Reg.

____________,

effective

SUBPART C:

HEAVY-DUTY DIESEL SMOKE OPACITY STANDARDS AND

TEST PROCEDURES

Section 240.140

Applicability

This Subpart applies to all on-road diesel-powered vehicles with

a

8,000

pounds

or greater manufacturer’s maximum

gross

vehicle

.

1

~cnasca

fuels

as

specified

in

the

engine

manufacturers’

specifications

for that specific

engine,

or on

fuels

exceeding

engine

miif,~~’

~r~ri

firr~

128—363

---

10

weight rating

(GVWR)

operating in the State of Illinois.

(Source:

Added at

Ill. Reg.

,

effective

Section 240.141

Heavy-Duty

Diesel

Vehicle

Smoke

Opacity

Standards and Test Procedures

~j

The standard for heavy-duty diesel vehicle smoke opacity

is as follows:

fl

No

1991

or

later

model

year

heavy-duty

diesel-

powered vehicle with

a

federal

peak smoke engine

certification operating on the roadways within the

State of Illinois shall exceed forty percent

(40)

peak smoke opacity when tested

in accordance with

subsections

(b) and

(c).

21

Except for subsection

(a)

(1~’,no heavy-duty diesel-

powered vehicle operating on the roadways within

the

State

of Illinois

shall exceed

fifty-five percent

(55)

peak smoke opacity when tested

in accordance

with subsections

(b) and

(c).

~j

The smoke opabity measurement shall be carried out using

a light-extinction type opacimeter capable of measuring

and recording opacity continuously during the snap idle

testing cycle.

A strip chart recorder or an equivalent

or better recording device shall be used in concert with

the opacimeter to record opacity continuously, including

peak

values.

The

opacimeter

shall

be

capable

of

providing opacity readings with sufficient resolution to

obtain 0.5 second—averaged values.

The peak 0.5 second—

averaged value shall be used for showing compliance with

the standard in subsection

(a).

Where the response time

of the instrument is such that opacity is being measured

at smaller than 0.5 second

intervals,

the meter

shall

have

the

capability

of

providing

or

allowing

the

calculation of 0.5 second—averaged values.

fl

The opacimeter shall be either an in—line full- flow

opacimeter;

end—of-line or plume

type

full—

flow

opacimeter;

or

a

sampling

type

partial

flow

opacimeter.

The opacimeter and recording devices

shall

be

calibrated

according

to manufacturers’s

specifications.

Corrections

for

the

effect

of

exhaust

stack

diameter

shall

apply

to

opacity

measurements

made using

an

end—of—line

full—flow

opacimeter;

and

21

The

opacimeter

and

recorder

shall

comply

with

specifications

in

the

International

Standards

128—3 64

---

11

Organization ISO 393 and in Society of Automotive

Engineers (SAE) report number J255a entitled “Diesel

Engine Smoke Measurement”, incorporated by reference

in Section 240.107.

gj

The test procedure using the snap idle cycle shall occur

under_when the engine is at normal operating temperature.

The test shall consist of preparation, preconditioning,

and testing phases.

jj

In

the

preparation

phase.

the

vehicle

shall

be

placed at rest, the transmission shall be placed in

neutral,

and the vehicle wheels shall be properly

restrained to

prevent any rolling motion.

In the

event_of

a

roadside test,

it

shall be

acceptable

under

this

Section

for

the driver

to

apply

the

brakes during the test.

21

In the preconditioning phase, the vehicle shall be

put through

a snap idle cycle three

or more times

until

successive measured smoke

opacity

readings

are within ten percent

(10)

of each other.

The

opacimeter

shall

be

rechecked

prior

to

the

preconditioning sequence to determine that its zero

and

span

setting

are

adjusted

to manufacturer’s

specifications.

~

In

the

testing

phase,

the vehicle

shall

be

Put

through the snap idle cycle three .times.

~j.. The smoke opacity shall be measured during the

preconditioning

and

testing

phases

with

an

opacimeter

meeting

the

requirements

of

subsection

(b)

and

shall

be

recorded

continuously on the recorder during each snap

idle cycle.

The maximum 0.5 second

averaged

value

recorded

during

each

snap

idle

cycle

shall be the smoke opacity reading.

~j

The average of the three smoke opacity readings

shall be used to determine compliance with the

opacity standard in subsection

(a)

~j.

Pursuant to Section 28.1(b)

of the Act and 35

Ill. Adm.

Code

l06.Subpart

G,

any

person

petitioning

for

an

adiusted

standard

from

the

55

peak

smoke

opacity

standard in paragraph

(a) (2)

for DDC 1987—1990 Series 60

engines shall establish its justifications by providing

the following information at

a minimum:

2J

The specific characteristics common only to all the

1987—1990

Series

60

engines

that

result

in

128—365

---

12

noncompliance with the 555 opacity standard.

21

All USEPA certification and snap/idle test data.

~J

Economic

and

technical

data

related

to

the

logistical

or

other

perceived

difficulties

encountered

or

that

may

‘be

encountered

if

the

existing 1987-1990 Series

60

engine software were

to be reprogrammed so as to come into compliance.

j~.

The

alternative

opacity

standard

proposed

and

supporting data.

~

Supporting data showing that THE REOUESTED STANDARD

WILL NOT RESULT IN ENVIRONMENTAL OR HEALTH EFFECTS

SUBSTANTIALLY AND SIGNIFICANTLY MORE ADVERSE THAN

THE EFFECTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD IN ADOPTING THE

RULE OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY.

(Section 28.1(c) (3)

of the Act).

(Source:

Added at

Ill. Req.

____________,

effective

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Board Member R.

Flemal dissented.

I,

Dorothy M. Gunn,

Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby testify that t

above Opinion and Order was adopted

on

th,,e

~

day of

~—~--t....-”

,

1991 by a vote of

I

Clerk

lution Control Board

128—366