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