ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
September 17,
 1987
WILLIAM AND DELORES CARTER,
)
Complainants,
and
LEROY AND MARGUERITE STANLEY,
 )
Intervenors.
v~.
 )
 PCB 83—132
DUNN COMPANY,
Respondent,
ORDER OF THE BOARD
 (by B.
 Forcade):
On September
 14,
 1982,
 the Respondent, Dunn Company,
 filed a
motion
 to reconsider
 the Board’s decision of August
 6,
 1987,
 in
the above—captioned matter.
 The Dunn Company provided proof
 of
service on the Complainants, Carter and the Intervenors, Stanley,
which indicates that service was effected by U.S. Mail
 (class
unspecified)
 on September
 11,
 1987.
 The motion for reconsider-
ation
 is untimely as the 35—day period specified in
 35
 Ill. Adm.
Code 103.240 ended on September
 10,
 1987.
 The motion for recon-
sideration
 is therefore denied.
Dunn Company had filed an earlier document entitled “Motion
to Reconsider”
 on August 20, 1987.
 This document contained no
proof of service on the Complainants and Intervenors,
 in
violation of 35
 Ill. Adm. Code 103.123.
 The Board, by Order
dated September
 4,
 1987,
 noted
 the lack of proof of
 service and
indicated that the document would not be deemed filed until
adequate proof of service was filed with the Board.
 Dunn Company
subsequently effected service and filed proof
 of same on
September
 14,
 1987,
 However, neither the service nor the filing
of the motion for reconsideration were timely.
In addition, even
 if Dunn Company’s motion
 to reconsider had
been timely filed,
 the Board would not reconsider or modify its
decision.
 First,
 the Dunn Company’s motion
 is unverified.
 As
such,
 it presents no new facts with which
 this Board can
reconsider
 its August
 6,
 1987, decision.
 Second,
 even
 if the
assertions
 in the Dunn Company’s motion were verified,
 they do
not support reconsideration and modification
 of the August
 6,
1987, Order.
81—225
—2—
Dunn asserts
 that
 it no longer operates
 a small batch mixing
asphalt plant but has operated
 a drum mix plant since 1985.
While
 this assertion conflicts with the evidence Dunn Company
introduced
 at hearing, Dunn Company presents no information or
argument as
 to how this change
 in operation impacts odor and
particulate emissions.
 It
 is quite possible that such a process
change from
 a small plant
 to
 a larger operation results
 in
increased emissions.
 The Board
 is at a loss as
 to how this
justifies reconsideration.
Dunn Company further alleges
 that
 it has priority
 of
location over
 the neighboring resident—complainants
 as
 it has
conducted some form of
 business
 at this site for thirty years.
While
 this allegation is similarly unverified and unsupported,
 it
also seems
 to conflict with Dunn Company’s
 first allegation that
its facility substantially changed and expanded in
 1985.
Consequently, even
 if Dunn Company’s motion was timely and
verified, reconsideration is not justified.
In summary, Dunn Company’s Motion to Reconsider
 is denied
 as
untimely and because
 the motion presents no facts or
 rationale
that would justify reconsideration or modification
 of the Board’s
August
 6,
 1987, Order.
 Section
 41
 of the Environmental
Protection Act,
 Ill. Rev.
 Stat.
 1985,
 ch.
 111—1/2, par.
 1041,
provides for appeal
 of final Orders
 of the Board within
 35
days.
 The Rules of
 the Supreme
 Court
 of Illinois establish
filing requirements.
IT IS SO
 ORDERED
Board
 Members Joan Anderson and J. Theodore Meyer dissented.
I,
 Dorothy
 M. Gunn,
 Clerk
 of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above Order was adopted on
~
 LI
 /
the
 ~
 day of _________________________,
 1987,
 by
 a vote
of
 ~
 .
~
Dorothy M.
 Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
81—226