ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
November 7, 1985
NATIONAL MARINE SERVICE,
INC.,
)
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 85—108
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
)
MARTIN,
CRAIG, CHESTER
& SONNENSCHEIN
(MR. JOSEPH
S.
WRIGHT,
JR., OF COUNSEL) APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER.
MR.
WILLIAM
D.
INGERSOLL, ATTORNEY AT LAW, APPEARED ON
BEHALF
OF THE RESPONDENT.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by W.
J.
Nega):
This matter comes before
the Board
on the July 23, 1985
Petition
for Permit Review filed by National Marine Service,
Inc.
(National Marine).
The Petitioner has asked
the Board
to review
the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s denial
on June
18,
1985 of
an air operating permit for National Marine’s six—hundred
horsepower boiler
(Boiler
*1)
that services
its Hartford,
Illinois barge cleaning facility.
Boiler
#1
is located
on
a
barge, approximately 40 feet x
120 feet in size, which
is
presently moored
to
the river bank and now floating on the
Mississippi River.
(R1
19—20).
On October
1,
1985,
a hearing was held at which
testimony
was heard and exhibits were received.
No members of
the public
or press attended this hearing.
(R.
10;
R.
68).
On October
3, 1985,
the Agency filed a Motion
to Dismiss
this case as not ripe for decision because the relief
for which
the Petitioner
asks is,
allegedly,
in essence,
an “advisory
opinion”.
In
its motion
to dismiss, the Agency states that
National Marine does not challenge the Agency’s denial of the
permit application or the sufficiency or reasonableness of
the
Agency’s reasons for denial,
but instead only asks for
a
determination that no permit
is necessary.
However,
the Board
believes that National Marine
is
challenging the Agency’s denial
of the permit application,
for
if the Agency had issued
the
requested permit,
it
is likely that National Marine would
not
have filed
its Petition for Review of the Agency’s decision.
The
Board hereby denies
the Agency’s motion to dismiss,
as we believe
that an actual case
or controversy exists.
On October
9,
1985,
the Petitioner
filed
its Post—Hearing
Argument and
the Respondent
filed
its Post—Hearing Brief.
88-293
—2—
On October
18, 1985,
the Agency filed
a Motion
to Strike
which requested that the Board overturn the Hearing Officer’s
decision to admit National Marine’s Exhibits
“A” and “B”
into
evidence and
to strike these exhibits from the record
in this
matter.
Petitioner’s Exhibit A is a letter,
dated February 15,
1985,
from National Marine’s engineering manager,
Mr. David J,
Miller,
to attorney William D.
Ingersoll of
the Agency.
Petitioner’s Exhibit B is
a letter dated February 22, 1985
from
Mr.
Ingersoll to Mr. Miller.
At the hearing, National Marine’s
Exhibits A and B were admitted into evidence over
the Agency~s
objection.
(R. 8—9).
The Agency has contended that the
letters
in question merely contain arguments and viewpoints of each
of
the
respective parties pertaining
to the applicability of
35 ili~
Mm.
Code 201,146(c)
to Boiler
#1,
and that these exhibits
played
no part
in the actual permit review process, since
the Agency
reviewer ana~.yzedNational Marine’s permit application and
the
applicable
facts
in the Agency record and had never seen
Petitioner’s Exhibits A and B before the October
1,
1985
hearing.
(R.
44—45).
On October
25, 1985, National Marine filed
a Memorandum
in
Response to the Agency’s Motion to Strike which strenuously
argued that the Agency’s Motion
to Strike should
be denied
and
urged
the Board
to find that the exemptions
apply and that no
permit
is required.
In analyzing
the respective positions
of
the parties vis—a—
vis this issue,
the Board believes that the Agency has made
a
strong argument that the exhibits
in question, which were not
considered
in the permit review process, should not have been
admitted
in evidence.
However, even
if the Board were
to
consider these two letters,
it would not change
the outcome
of
this case, because the letters merely set forth the respective
legal
(and other)
arguments of the parties,
which the Board
has
already evaluated
in depth.
It
is well—established that the
Agency must only consider matters
in the record before
it,
and
if
a party wishes
the Agency to consider new facts, evidence,
scientific reports,
etc.,
it
is possible to file
a new or amended
permit application with the Agency
if
a company believes that
such measures are warranted
to establish a stronger record or
position for Agency review.
Accordingly, the Board hereby grants the Agency’s Motion
to
Strike
and hereby overturns the Hearing Officer’s decision
to
admit
the Petitioner’s Exhibits A and B into evidence and will
hereby strike
these exhibits from the record in this matter.
On October
25, 1985, National Marine filed
a letter from
its
engineering manager, Mr. David J. Miller,
which contains various
typographical corrections relating to Mr. Miller’s testimony at
the hearing.
The Agency has filed no motion or other
legal
documents
in opposition
to the suggested stenographic
corrections,
and therefore the Board will construe the
Petitioner’s filing as a Motion to Correct Typographical Errors
86-294
—3—
in the Hearing Transcript.
Thus,
the Board hereby grants
National Marine’s Motion to Correct Typographical Errors
in the
Hearing Transcript.
The Petitioner
ia a corporation which
is
in the business
of
rendering various repairing and cleaning services
to owners of
barges and tugboats
operating on the Mississippi
River.
In
addition
to cleaning, repairing and servicing barges and
tugboats, National Marine occasionally,
in the past,
sold some
diesel engine parts and deck fittings.
(R. 21).
Although
National Marine often employs over 400 people in its operations
during busy times,
the company’s present employment is about
120
people.
(R. 36).
The Petitioner’s Hartford Shipyard
is located
on the Mississippi River near Hartford, Illinois
in an industrial
area with
the nearest residential areas over one mile away
in
the
City
of Hartford and separated from the National Marine facility
by dikes.
(R.
35).
Boiler #1
is utilized to generate steam and hot water
for
cleaning the insides of river—going barges in order
to facilitate
a change of cargo
or
to expedite necessary barge repairs and
maintenance.
Boiler
*1 has a maximum firing rate capacity of
about
20 million Btu per hour and
is fitted with an appropriate
burner designed
to burn the *6 fuel oil and other hydrocarbons
and miscellaneous substances which are recovered from the barge
cleaning operations.
As previously indicated, National Marine’s barge cleaning
operations are primarily conducted from a mobile barge which
floats
in the Mississippi River and is moored to the
river
bank.
Boiler
#1
is installed on this barge and the barge itself
can be moved from place
to place
if necessary.
On April
27, 1985,
the Petitioner applied
to the Agency
for
an
air operating permit for Boiler *1.
A report dated April
23,
1985 on emission tests of Boiler *1 was included as part of
National Marine’s permit application.
These emission tests,
which were conducted on April
10, 1985 by Environmental Science
and Engineering,
Inc.
(ESE),
indicated that the average
“particulate concentration” in
the tests was 0.506
lb/mmBtu,
while
the average
“sulfur dioxide concentration”
in the
tests was
1.25 lb/mmBtu.
(See:
ESE report,
p.
2).
On June 18, 1985, the
Agency denied
the Petitioner’s application for an operating
permit for Boiler *1 citing
the exceedance of the requisite
particulate
and sulfur dioxide emission limitation standards
as
reasons for denial.
*Webster’g Seventh
New
Collegiate Dictionary defines
a barge
as a
“roomy, usually flat—bottomed boat used chiefly for the
transport of goods on inland waterways” and defines
a tugboat
(also called “towboat”) as a “strongly built, powerful boat used
for
towing and pushing”.
66-295
—4—
In its July 23,
1985 Petition
for Permit Review, National
Marine claimed that “because National
is a commercial
establishment and because Boiler #1 uses gas and fuel oil
exclusively with total capacity of less than 14.6 MW,
it
is
exempt
from permit
requirements pursuant to
35
Ill.
Adin.
Code
201.146(c).”
(Pet.,
at 2).
National Marine’s petition for
review requested that the Board enter an order “reversing
the
Agency’s denial
for
the reason that no permit is required”.
(Pet.,
at
2).
In its pre—trial memorandum of September
25,
1985,
the
Petitioner
also contended that Boiler *1 was exempt from Agency
operating permit requirements because
it
is a “marine
installation” within the purview of 35
Ill. Adm. Code
201.146(e).
The Respondent, however, has asserted that the
Petitioner’s Boiler
#1
is not exempted as
a “marine installation”
as that term is used
in
35
Ill. Adm. Code 201.146(e).
The threshold issue involved in this permit appeal
is
whether
or not an air operating permit
is required
for Boiler
#1.
The Petitioner claims that the boiler
falls within either
or
both of
two exceptions from permit requirements
i.e.,
35
Ill.
Mm.
Code 201.146(c) and 201.146(e),
while the Respondent argues
that the boiler does not fall within either
of
the two
exceptions.
Accordingly, National Marine asserts that its Boiler
#1
is not required
to have
an air operating permit because
it
is
exempted from such
a requirement because its barge cleaning
facility
is a “commercial establishment” and its boiler uses
“gas
and/or
fuel oil exclusively”; thereby placing Boiler #1 within
the exception delineated
in 35
Ill. Mm.
Code 201.146(c).
Additionally, National Marine claims that its Boiler #1
is a
“marine installation” within
the exception set forth
in
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code 201.146(e)
because the boiler
is installed on a vessel
floating
in
a navigable water and
is currently moored on the
Illinois side of the Mississippi River.
The pertinent portions of the Board’s Air Pollution
Regulations as codified
in 35
Ill. Adm. Code 201.146 are
as
follows:
“Section 201.146 Exemptions From Permit Requirement
No permit
is required for
the following classeS of equipment:
...c)
Fuel burning emission sources
for
indirect systems and
for heating and reheating furnace systems used exclusively
for residential
or commercial establishments using gas and/or
fuel oil exclusively with
a total
capacity of less than 14.6
MW
(50 mmbtu/hr)
input;...
e)
Mobile~interna1combustion and jet engines, marine
installation,
and locomotives;...”
66-296
—5—
The parties both agree that Boiler #1
is
a fuel burning
emission source
for
an indirect system with
a total capacity of
less than 14.6 MW (50 mm Btu./hr)
input, but strongly disagree
as
to whether
the Petitioner’s facility is “commercial”
and whether
it burns
“fuel
oil exclusively.”
In
its Opinion adopting the air pollution regulations,
the
Board
noted that certain classes of sources are exempted from the
permit requirements
and
that the exempted classes are basically
numerous small sources.
The Agency has indicated
that
it
believes that the exemption of
35
Ill. Adm,
Code 201.146(c) was
designed
to “relieve the multitude of small’stores, whose heating
systems are probably environmentally insignificant, from
the
burden of permit requirements.”
(R.
66; see: Respondent’s pre-
trial memorandum, page
3).
The Agency has suggested that
the
term “commercial establishment” should be strictly construed
to
eliminate facilities like the Petitioner’s which are “more
in the
nature of
an industrial service establishment”.
The Agency has
interpreted
the term “commercial establishment”,
which
is not
specifically defined by the Board’s Air Pollution Regulations,
to
mean
“a place where commodities
are exchanged, bought,
or
sold”.
On the other hand, National Marine has argued that the
actual intent of
the Board’s exemptions is
to relieve the permit
“burden” from “small
sources” such as its Boiler #1,
since
its
Boiler
#1
is
rated at
20 mmBtu/hr and would need
to be two and
one—half times larger before exceeding the
50 mmBtu/hr numerical
standard set by 35
Iii. Adm. Code 201.146(c).
Moreover, National
Marine contends that the definition of
“commercial establishment”
as
interpreted by the Agency
is
far
too restrictive in that
it
would eliminate most service establishments from the exemption
and would defeat
the alleged purpose of
the exemption.
National
Marine argues that
its Hartford facility
is
a “commercial
establishment” because
it provides
for the needs
of river
commerce both by providing needed
repair and cleaning services
for
barges and tugboats and by occasionally selling goods
(i.e.,
parts and fittings for vessels) which are utilized
in the course
of daily commercial activities.
National Marine asserts
that the
definition of “commercial” as interpreted by the Agency would
place
a “burden” on various small businesses
to obtain permits
and place an undue burden on the Agency to administer the permit
program for small
sources.
*As pointed out
in the Petitioner’s post—hearing argument,
the two aforementioned exceptions have remained unchanged since
their adoption on April 13,
1972 and
a comma following the phrase
“marine
installation” was contained
in the regulation originally
adopted by the Board
and apparently inadvertently omitted as
a
typographical error
in the current printed edition of Title
35,
Subtitle
B.
However, the Board finds that
the deletion or
insertion of
the comma does not significantly change
the
context.
or
the inherent meaning
of the term “marine installation1’
itself,
66-297
—6—
The Board believes
that
the record clearly indicates that
National Marine’s facility is more
in the nature of an industrial
service establishment than a “commercial establishment” within
the commonly accepted meaning of the term.
Although National
Marine’s engineering manager, Mr.
David
3. Miller,
testified at
the hearing that the Petitioner occasionally,
in the past,
sold
some few things like deck fittings and diesel engine parts
(Ri.
21)
as an adjunct
to its primary business,
it is crystal
clear
that such minor sales
are
a minuscule portion of the Petitioner’s
business and are completely
incidental
to
its main business of
cleaning and repairing barges,
tugboats, and other tiver~going
vessels.
Thus, the company
is actually selling industrial
services, and there
is nothing in the Board’s Air Pollution
Regulations which is intended or designed
to give
a “free pass”
or exemption
to such large industrial service establishments as
the Petitioner’s.
National Marine’s facility,
as an industrial
service establishment involved in
a substantial business and
having between 120 and 400 employees at various times,
simply
does
not fall within the accepted definition
of
a “commercial
establishment” and
is clearly not in the same category as
a small
store
or other
small source with an environmentally insignificant
heating system.
Accordingly,
the Board believes that the Agency has
correctly interpreted
the “commercial establishment” exemption
in
the present case to exclude the Petitioner’s facilities,
While
National Marine’s arguments on the potential
effects of
the
Agency’s interpretation of this exemption
to other sources are
interesting,
they are not germane~for, in the present case, we
are only consideri~ng the Petitioner’s facility and whether
or not
the exception is applicable
to that specific industrial service
operation.
Other
cases involving different facilities and
perhaps other factual considerations will
be decided on a case-~
by—case basis
in the general framework of
a strict construction
of the exemption language.
Thus,
in ascertaining whether the Petitioner’s facility
is
indeed a “commercial establishment” within the purview of the
exception in
35
Ill.
Adin.
Code 201.146(c),
the Board believes
that
it
is very clear
that National Marine’s facility does not
come within the contemplated exemption.
In reference to the mixed factual and legal
issue of whether
National Marine’s Boiler *1 uses fuel oil
“exclusively” or
not,
the Agency has pointed out that, because
the fuel oil burned
in
Boiler #1
is
recovered from the Petitioner’s barge cleaning
operations, many substances which
are rinsed from the barges
ultimately find their way into the boiler
fuel, and therefore
the
fuel utilized by National Marine does not legally fit
the fuel
oil “exclusively” requirement.
Mr. David
3,
Miller, Engineering Manager for
the
Petitioner’s Shipyard Division, testified
that:
66~298
-,
“,,,The products that are coming in on the barges,
the
products’ residues are washed from the compartments and
sent
to a lagoon.
The floatin
materials are reclaimed
and sent back to
the cleaning facility w ere
t ey are
burnt
for fuel..,the rust and dirt that is carried
in
the
fuel cer~l
has
an
im act on
the
articulate level
of the boiler,,,the boiler could be
fueled with
a commerciall
available
6 oil,
However,
or
us
to remain in business,
it would not be
~
to purchase fuel oil
to
support this boiler,,, National Marine Service
is
currently constructing
a new cleaning facility which
will,
as a sort of side
result, will end up cleaning up
our
fuel,
A big part of this new cleaning plant will
be the immediate treatment and rust removal, filtering
of the water
that is used to clean the barges~ In
cleaning it,
it goes into a wastewater treatment
plant.
The water gets cleaned
up, and we will recycle
that water
back into the cleaning process and run
it
through the system again,
The reason that our
partic~
have identified, one being
the rust from the
bar
cc,
and the secondis
the mud
t at
is
in the water
t at we
~shin
ri~
which comes out of
t
e
Mississippi River,,,With the new cleanin
lant we will
be able to filter outtepart
culates and not use the
water out of
the river...makeup water
from the City of
Hartford.,,will
lend itself to reducing
the particulate
levels
in the boiler,,,we are under construction right
now,
I would estimate within three weeks
it will be
ready for startup,.,However, we have an amount of oil
Ott
t:towe
~
(Emphasis supplied).
(R,
21—39),
In his testimony,
Mr. Miller admitted
that:
(1) many
substances listed in Exhibit
1 of the Agency’s record
(i,e,, such
as gasoline, aviation gas, asphalt, lubrication oil, benzene,
xylene,
styrene, and even soybean oil)
are assorted hydrocarbons
which are cleaned from barges
and recovered
for use
as fuel in
Boiler #1
(R. 23—26);
(2) National Marine’s operations add river
mud,
rust particles,
and dirt
to the fuel and affect partriculate
emissions from boiler
(R,
28—29);
(3)
the purer #6 commercial
fuel oil
is not used because
it
is too expensive,
so the company
has unilaterally made
a trade~offbetween environmental
protection
and economics
in which concern over its expenses
took
the place of environmental concerns
(R, 30);
(4)
the particulate
and sulfur dioxide standards were exceeded on the day that the
tests were taken
CR. 30—31);
(5)
the new filtration unit of
its
new cleaning facility will eliminate the environmental problems
previously admitted by Mr. Miller
CR. 31~36); (6)
the company has
not applied
to the Agency
for any permits for
the construction
or
—8—
operation of any of its new facilities
(R. 37—38); and
(7
National Marine intends to burn residual oil from its pord
(thereby exceeding the requisite standards) even after
its
i’w
cleaning facility is in operation until it builds up its su~~
of cleaner oil
(a.
34).
Accordingly, the testimony of Nationa
Marine’s own witness seems to indicate that the company’s oo
y
is to burn whatever
is recoverable from whatever cargo
a
contained in the barges, regardless of what impurities o
subsatances become mixed
in, or contaminate, the fuel o 1
The Board believes that the Agency was entirely coct~c
its interpretati~nthat the operations of National Mazine’
Boiler #1 did not
corae within the purview of the burning
oil exclusively’ er mption of 35 Ill. Mm. Code 201.146(e)
r
while it appears that the Petitioner’s new cleaning faciF’y ~
&
hopefully eliminate future environmental problems in refere c3
o
exceeding the part~e”late
and
sulfur dioxide standards, Natio~.
Marine would be wets advised to consult with the Agency zid r
for any and all nec
sary permits before installing and opt
as..
new equipment to &void costly delays and retrofitting at a 1at~
date.
National Marinc. has also argued that its Boiler $1 should
*
exempted as a ‘marine installation’ as that term is used ii
•
Ill. Adm. Code 201.146(e) since its boiler is installed on a
vessel floating in a navigable water and is currently moo c
the Illinois side of the Mississippi River.
The Agency states that the Petitioner did not raise this
issue in its initial Petition for Review and indicates that
e
Respondent was only advised of this claim approximately ac
r
ten days before the hearing of October
1, 1985.
In response to
the Petitioner’s argument that it qualifies under the ‘marine
installation’ exemption,
the Agency correctly notes that National
Marine is attempting to read the phrase ‘marine installation’
uu:
of context
and
twist its interpretation to cover the Petitiorer’s
facilities.
Section 201.146(e) exempts ‘mobile internal
combustion
and
jet engines, marine installation, and locomotives’
from the necessity of obtaining an Operating Permit from the
Agency.
The comma after marine installation, which the Company
itself has insisted is appropriate, merely indicates that van. us
items in a series are being exempted.
Accepted grammatical usage
provides that a comma may
(or may not) be placed before the
conjunction ‘and’ joining the last item in a sequence or
series,
it does not change the fundamental meaning of the series
itself.
In the present case, the parties are arquing over
tie
intent and purpose of the exemption, rather that the correct
placement of the comma.
As the Agency has correctly noted, Section 20l.146(e
is
designed to exempt several types of mobile energy sour~.es
‘.
those energy sources which provide the motive force ft
t
mobile source are exempted.
For example, the jet engire ~
b
the jet plane
and
the internal combustion engine
power&
—9*
locomotives.
In
the Petitioner’s case, Boiler
#1 does absolutely
nothing
to provide any power
to make National Marine’s barge
mobile;
that
is not
its
function.
Mobility of the Petitioner’s
barge,
if desired, would be provided by separate tugboats and
absolutely
no mobility would be provided by the boiler itself.
As the Agency has concisely stated,
it is possible that
a boiler
on
a riverboat which provides steam to drive
the riverboat would
fall within
the scope of the Section 201.146(e)
exemption;
but
that
is not
the case here.
The Board believes that the term “marine installation”
should properly be read in the context of
the related grouping
of
mobile energy sources which provide the motive power
such as jet
engines and railroad engines, rather than being taken out—of—
context as the Petitioner
has attempted
to do.
Moreover,
as
previously stated,
the Board believes that a more strict
construction of exemptions
is generally applicable
in this
case.
Additionally, although both parties failed to bring up
this point,
it
is worth noting that the
term “marine” commonly
relates
to “the navigation of
the sea”
(see: Webster’s Seventh
New Collegiate Dictionary) and therefore operations on
a river
might,
under
a strict construction of the rules,
not be exempted
under
the “marine” installation exception of Section
201.146(e).
For the previously mentioned reasons,
the Board
hereby finds
that the Petitioner’s facilities
are not exempt
under
the
“marine installation” exemption delineated
in 35
Ill,
Adm. Code
201.146(e).
In summary,
since the Petitioner’s barge cleaning facility
and Boiler #1 are not exempt from permit requirements under
the
“commercial establishment”, burning “fuel
oil exclusively”,
or
“marine installation” exceptions to 35
Ill. Adm. Code 201.144,
the Board believes
that
the Agency quite properly reviewed
National Marine’s application as
a request for
an air operating
permit
for Boiler #1 and correctly denied
the Petitioner’s
request.
The Board believes that the emission test results which
were submitted by National Marine
as part
of
its permit
application clearly show that Boiler #1 exceeded both the
particulate emission limits
of
35
Ill. Adm. Code 212.206
and the
sulfur dioxide emission limits of
35 Ill. Mm. Code 214.161.
Therefore,
the Agency could not legally or properly grant an
operating permit for Boiler #1.
Testimony by
the Agency’s permit
reviewer,
Mr. James D. Cobb,
P..E.,
clearly indicated that he
considered whether
or not National Marine was exempted from the
requisite permit requirements and reached
a proper determination
that
the Petitioner was not eligible for exemptions under
Sections 201.146(c)
and/or 201.146(e).
(R.
45—46).
After carefully considering
the
respective positions
of both
parties
in this case,
the Board believes that
the Agency was
correct
in requiring an air operating permit for Boiler
#1 and we
believe that the Agency was correct in denying the Petitioner’s
permit application,
Although the Petitioner has pointed out
alleged flaws
in the operation of
the Agency’s permit review
66-301
—10—
system, testimony at the hearing revealed that the experienced
professional engineer who reviewed National Marine’s permit
application considered whether or not the Petitioner’s facility
came within any recognised exceptions to the permit requirements
and decided that it did not.
Zn reviewing
all
the facts and
circumstances of this case, the Board is
compelled
to reach the
same conclusion as the Agency’s reviewer.The Board finds that
National Marine’s Boiler Il is required to have an air operating
permit from the Agency
and
finds that it is not exempted from
such requirement by either 35 Ill. Mm. Code 201.146(c)
(since it
is not a “comeercial establishment” which uses “fuel oil
exclusively”)
or 35 Ill. Mm. Code 201.146(e)
(since it is not a
“marine installation” as those words are used in the Section
201.146(e) exemption).
The Agency’s June 18, 1985 denial of an
air operating permit for Boiler #1 citing the exceedance of the
requisite particulate and sulfur dioxide emission limitation
standards is hereby affirmed.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
It is the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board
that:
1.
The Agency’s June 18, 1985 denial of an air operating
permit for the Petitioner’s Boiler 41 that services National
Marine Service, Inc.’s Hartford, Illinois barge cleaning facility
is hereby affirmed.
2.
The Board hereby finds that Boiler 41 is not exempted
from permitting requirements pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code
201.146(c)
and/or 35 Ill. Mm. Code 201.146(e).
3.
The Agency’s October 3, 1985 Motion to Dismiss this case
is hereby denied.
4.
The Agency’s October
18, 1985 Motion to Strike. which
requested that the Board overturn the Hearing Officer’s decision
to admit the Petitioner’s Exhibits A and B into evidence is
hereby granted.
Petitioner’s Exhibits A and B are hereby
stricken from the record.
5.
National Marine Service, Inc.’s October 25,
1985 Motion
to Correct Typographical Errors in the Hearing Transcript is
hereby granted.
The hearing transcript shall be modified
accordingly to take into account the typographical cotrections as
indicated by the Petitioner.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
—11—
Board Members J. Anderson and J. Marlin concurred.
I, Dorothy M,
Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order was
adopted on the
______________
day of
t.~*~&~’
,
1985 by vote
of
7-a’
Dorot y
M. Gunn,
C er
—
Illinois Pollution Control Board
66-303
