ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
August
1,
1985
CITIZENS OF BURBANK,
Complainants,
v~
)
PCB 84—124
OVERNITE TRUCKING~
Respondents.
MRS.
CAROL
HARDIN:;, APPEARED PRO SE,
ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANTS;
AND
MR.
JOHN WOOD
FAIN, GENERAL COUNSEL, APPEARED FOR RES~’ONDENTS.
INTERIM OPINION
P~)
ORDER
OF
THE BOARD
(by B.
Forcade):
On August
13,
1984,
Citizens of Burbank (“Citizens”)1 filed
a complaint with
t~ieBoard
charging Overnite Trucking with
violations
of Sections 23 and 24 of
the Environmental Protection
Act (“Act”),
respecting Noise Pollution and Sections
8 and 9 of
the Act, respecting Air Pollution.
Hearing was held December
13,
1984.
Both parties waived final briefs.
On May 20,
1985, complainants filed
a letter containing
information pertaining
to the subject matter of this case.
This
information is not
a statement under oath and has not been
subject
to cross—examination.
Consequently,
the Board has not
considered
this information
in its deliberations.
The
requirements of sworn testimony and
the opportunity for cross—
examination
are for the protection of both parties in a contested
case proceeding such as this one.
Since
the May 20 letter
rcteets
neither requirement,
the Board, on
its own motion, must strike
the letter.
The facility
in question, Overnite Transportation Company
(“Overnite”),
is located between West 75th Street and West 77th
Street
at approximately South Natoma Avenue.
The property
is
approximately 600
feet wide
in an east—west direction and 1300
feet long
in a north—south direction.
There are two predominant
structures on the property:
a centrally located terminal
I
“Citizens” consists of residents from five
(5)
locations near
Overnite including:
Mr.
& Mrs. James Harding, Mr.
& Mrs. Vincent
Bavirsch,
Mr.
& Mrs. Ken Myslik, Mr~. & Mrs. Edward Myslek and
Mr.
& Mrs. Frank Lojas.
As
the complainants were identified by
signature only,
the Board apologizes
for any misspelling
of
names.
65~131
—2—
building
(approximately 550
feet by 100
feet)
and
a smaller
shop
or maintenance building
(approximately 80 feet by 100
feet)
at
the southern end
of the property
(Resp.
Ex.
1).
Overnite’s operations involve
the collection and
distribution of freight
in the Chicago area,
as well
as
the
transfer of freight
from Overnite’s terminal
to terminals in
other locations
in the United States.
Four types of activities
are of concern here:
(1)
trucks entering or leaving the Overnite
facility destined for customers or other terminals;
(2)
tractors
and trailers being moved
from one location on Overnite’s property
to another;
(3) miscellaneous trucking activities
including
tractor—trailer
repair,
fueling and startup; and
(4)
the public
address system.
Overnite’s operations,
as
is
standard
in
the
industry, depend on the pick—up and delivery schedules
established by
its customers.
Consequently, very little activity
occurs
in the terminal or “yard” during the day
time.
Most
activity
is from six o’clock in the evening until
six o’clock the
next morning
(R. 89—97).
While Overnite has occupied the
location since May of 1984,
the location has been occupied by
other
trucking companies for many years preceding Overnite’s
acquisition
of the property.
The complainants
in this proceeding are residents from the
area south of Overnite’s
facility.
Testimony was provided at
hearing by Mrs. Alice Bavirsch, who lives 7717 South Natoma, on
the east side of the street, approximately
125 feet south of
Overnite’s southern fence line;
Mr.
Frank Lojas who resides at
7702 South Nashville, which would appear
to be less than 100 feet
from Overnite’s southern fence
line;
and from Mrs. Carol Harding
who resides at 7701 South Natoma, directly south of
the
maintenance building, which would appear from the testimony to
be
less than 50
feet from Overnite’s southern fence
line.
In
addition,
two letters from other local residents similarly
situated were admitted into evidence
(Pet. Exs.
2,
3).
The complainants
in this proceeding allege that Overnite’s
operations violate statutory provisions respecting noise and
ait
pollution.
The two aspects will be evaluated separately.
NOISE
Title VI
of the Act provides
the procedures and standards
for
noise control.
Sections 23 and 24
of that Title provide:
TITLE VI:
NOISE
Section 23
The General Assembly finds that excessive
noise endangers physical
arid emotional health
and well—being,
interferes with legitimate
business and recreational activities,
65-132
—3—
increases construction costs,
depresses
property values, offends the senses,
creates
public nuisances, and
in other respects
reduces the quality of our environment.
It
is
the purpose of this Title
to prevent
noise which creates a public nuisance.
Section
24
No person
shall emit beyond the boundaries of
his property any noise
that unreasonably
interferes with the enjoyment of life or with
any lawful business or activity,
so as
to
violate any regulation or standard adopted by
the Board
under this Act.
The Board has implemented
these statutory sections in two
ways.
First,
the Board has adopted specific numerical
limitations on the characteristics of sound that may be
transmitted from source
to receiver.
As no numerical test data
were presented
in this matter, those portions
of the regulations
are not at
issue.
The second method of implementing
the noise
provisions of the Act are found
in 35 Ill.
Adni. Code Sections
900.101 and 900.102.
Section 900.101
Definitions
*
*
*
Noise pollution:
the emission of sound that
unreasonably interferes with the enjoyment of
life or with any lawful business
or activity.
*
*
*
Section 900.102
Prohibition of Noise
Pollution
No person
shall cause
or allow the emission of
sound beyond the boundaries of his property,
as property
is defined
in Section 25
of the
Illinois Environmental Protection Act,
so as
to cause noise pollution in Illinois, or
so as
to violate any provision of this Chapter.
In effect, these two sections adopt a regulatory public nuisance
provision for noise control
using
the statutory phrase
“unreasonable interference with the enjoyment of life or with any
lawful business or activity” as the standard.
The pleadings,
testimony and exhibits of the complainants, regarding
noise, are
founded
in this public nuisance theory.
65-133
—4—
The judicial
interpretation of Sections 900.101 and 900.102
which
is most closely related
to the facts of this case
is
Ferndale Heights Utilities Company v.
Illinois Pollution Control
Board
and
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,
44
Ill. App.
3d 962,
358 N.E.2d
1224
(First District,
1976),
(hereinafter
“Ferndale”).
In that case, which involved
the exact statu~ory
and regulatory language at issue
in the instant proceeding
,
the
Board found
that Ferndale Heights Utilities Company had violated
the regulatory public nuisance standard
in their operation of
a
pumping
station.
On appeal,
the Utility Company argued that the
regulatory language of Section 900.102 was unconstitutional
in
that it did not contain sufficient standards for determining what
constitutes “noise pollution”
and argued that the narrative
testimony at hearing lacked
sufficient specificity
to sustain
a
finding
of violation of noise pollution.
The Ferndale Court
found
the regulatory language, when viewed
in the entire
statutory framework,
including the factors listed
in Section
33(c)
of the Act,
was sufficiently specific
to pass
Constitutional muster.
In evaluating
the adequacy
arid
specificity of
the citizen testimony,
the court
stated:
Ferndale next asserts that the Board’s
order should be reversed because its finding
of a violation of Rule 102
is contrary to the
manifest weight of the evidence.
Specifically, Ferndale argues that the Pierson
testimony failed to provide dates
and times
of
noises,
failed to show any disturbance
in his
house, failed to show physical damage
to
himself or any person or property, failed
to
show that he never lounged or entertained
guests
in his yard and failed
to show when and
how often he did not lounge or entertain
guests
in his yard.
Other alleged testimonial
deficiencies involve failure
to cite dates and
times when activities such as patio parties
were prevented or when the various witness’
sleep was interrupted.However, agency
witnesses used such terms
as “almost constant
this summer”, “five times this past summer”
and “awakened once or twice
this yeart’
to
describe generally how often they were
disturbed by the noise emanating from
the
pumping station.
Terms such as
“a great
source of irritation,” disturbing”,
“like ten
air conditioners running at the same time” and
2
Prior
to Codification in the Illinois Administrative Code,
Section 900.101, “Noise Pollution” was found at Illinois
Pollution Control Board, Rules and Regulations, Chapter
8,
Rule
101(j).
Section 900.102 was Rule 102
of
that same Chapter.
The
actual regulatory language was not modified.
65-134
—5—
“like
a lawnmower running
all day under my
window” were used to describe the effect of
this sound upon the individuals.
Based upon such testimony the Board
properly found that the character
and degree
of interference with
the enjoyment of life and
lawful activity occasioned by sounds emanating
from Ferndale’s pumping operations to be
“unreasonable.”
Our review of
the record does
not mandate
a contrary conclusion.
(Id.)
These
statutory,
regulatory and judicial standards provide
the guidance by which the Board must evaluate the record
in this
proceeding.
At hearing, Mrs. Alice Bavirsch testified:
“But the smell
is bad and the noise
is
bad.
There
is
no doubt about it
(R. 13).
*
*
*
Q.
When
is the noise
the heaviest,
what time of day?
A.
“Well,
if you don’t get
to bed by
9:00 o’clock, you are up all night fighting
it.
And,
of course, the smell seeps right
through,
right
into the bedroom area,
and we
are used to
it now.”
(R.
14)
*
*
*
Q.
Okay.
Is there anything that you
want to say about that maintenance building at
Overnight?
A.
“They are noisy.
You could
hear
the banging
of whatever they are doing.
I
don’t know what they are doing.
But you could
hear
it all the time.
And
I guess they must
have a weighing station, the way
I look at
it.
The trucks go right
in there and they
stop and then they go around and they keep
going around and around, and
it
is noisy.”
(R.
15)
Mr. Lojas provided the best testimonial description of
the
frequency of the problem:
Q.
Could you estimate the frequency
that you have,
the kinds of problems that you
have been talking about,
on a weekly or
a
85-135
—6—
monthly basis with Overnite?
Are you talking
about once
a week you get waked
up,
or once
a
month,
or what?
A.
“During the summertime, when our
windows are open,
usually during the night we
are woken up.
One example
is we were told there
was going
to be no repair at the facilities.
Yet we found a few times that people were
pounding late at night which woke
us up,
and
the fellows were pounding out trailers.
They
had some damage to the trailers.
They had
ladders on there, and they were pounding them
out.”
0.
How often did that kind of
thing
happen?
A.
“That happened about
three
or four
times.
We were awakened by P.A. systems,
where people were talking over
the P.A.
system.
In
fact, one of my neighbors next to
me, the home south of me, complained
that he
even got up one night and walked out into the
back alley area and hollered at the terminal,
telling them to shut up because his kids were
being woken up.”
Q.
On a monthly basis during
the
summer,
how many times do you think that you
were disturbed yourself, or your family?
A.
“I would say about two—thirds
to
three—fourths of the time.”
Q.
So does that mean
20 times
a month?
A.
“Yes.”
(R.
36—37)
This testimony meets
the Ferndale standard of providing
a
description of the noise, explaining
the
type and severity of
interference caused by the noise
(sleep interruption) and
providing information on the frequency and duration of the
interference.
This type of testimony must be provided
in any
proceeding
for the Board
to make
a finding regarding interference
with the enjoyment of life.
Mrs. Carol Harding testified:
THE WITNESS:
“Okay.
My name
is Carol
Harding.
My address
is 7701 South Natoma.
I
am the last house on the street there, and
I
65-136
—7—
am dead center with
the maintenance building
of Overnite.
My bedroom windows and my kitchen
windows
face
the north, and
I don’t appreciate
being
kept up nightly because of heavy truck
movement going on
in that maintenance area.”
*
*
*
To me,
that
is a lot of heavy
polluted
air that you are putting into my
lungs, which
I don’t appreciate, and
a lot of
heavy noise.
My house vibrates.
I have
to
keep my TV on high
if
I want to sit down and
try and enjoy watching my TV.”
(R. 50—51)
To support the testimony, Complainants introduced Pet. Gr.
Ex.
5
which includes
a listing of the dates and times that Mrs. Harding
recorded “very unnecessarily loud noises”
or odor problems from
Overnite
(R.
59).
That exhibit contains
21 listings
for June of
1984,
In addition to testimony from local
residents, complainants
provided testimony by Mr. Winfield Ferry, an enforcement officer
from
the Cook County Department of Environmental Control.
While
Mr.
Perry did not take noise level readings, he did express an
opinion on the noise levels.
0.
Did you take any decibel readings
at any point when you conducted this
investigation?
A.
“Let me read
——“
Q.
Did you take any yourself?
Did
you use
a meter
in the field
to take any?
I
am not asking whether
they violated the
ordinance or not.
A.
“It was not necessary to take a
reading at this time because
I can
tell from
my experience, and
I have been an inspector
for
a while, that the noise is sufficient to
warrant corrective action.”
(R.
76)
Overnite made no attempt to dispute or impeach
the
complainants’
testimony on the severity or frequency of the noise
problem.
In discussing
the issue, Counsel
for Overnite tacitly
admitted the problem:
MR.
FAIN:
“This
is correct.
We are
not saying this
is going
to alleviate your
85-137
—8—
problem; and
it will never alleviate
the
problem.
That is part of
the problem with
living next door
to a property that
is
zoned
industrial
and has
a truck line sitting
there.
But we think
these measures will
appreciably help.”
(R.
125—126)
Based
on the above—cited evidence, the Board
finds that
noises emanating from Overnite’s facility, specifically from
vehicle movement, maintenance, horns
and the public address
system, are causing interference with the
sleep and normal
leisure time activities of adjacent residents.
Further,
the
Board
finds this interference is frequent and severe.
ODOR
The
Environmental
Protection
Act,
Board
regulations
and
judicial
interpretations
adopt
a
similar
approach
to
controlling
odor problems.
The Act defines and prohibits unreasonable
interference with the enjoyment of life or property from odors.
Section
3
b.
“AIR POLLUTION”
is the
presence
in
the
atmosphere of one or more contaminants
in
sufficient quantities and of such
characteristics and duration as to be
injurious to human, plant, or
animal
life,
to
health,
or
to
property,
or
to
unreasonably
interfere
with the enjoyment
of
life
or
property.
Section 9
No person shall:
a.
Cause
or
threaten or allow the discharge
or
emission
of
any
contaminant
into
the
environment
in
any
State
so
as
to
cause
or
tend
to
cause
air
pollution
in
Illinois, either alone
or
in combination
with
contaminants from other sources,
or
so
as
to
violate
regulations
or
standards
adopted
by
the
Board under
this Act;
Board regulations
at 35 IlL
Adm..
code Sections 201.102,
“Air
Pollution” and 201.141 “Prohibition of Air Pollution” contain
identical
language to the Act.
Similar
judicial
interpretations
apply to the “unreasonable
inte~:ference”
odor
pollution
cases.
See:
Incinerator,
Inc.
V.
Pollution Control Board,
59 Ill.2d
290,
319 N.E.2d 794
(1974); Mystic Taper
Div.
of Borden,
Inc.
v.
Pollution Control Board,
60 IIL2d
330;
328 N.E.2d
5
(1975);
Processing
& Books
v.~ Pollution Control Board,
64
ill.2d 68,
351
N.E.2d 865 (1976),
‘35-138
..~9
The hearing testimony on odor
is similar
in character
to
the
testimony on noise:
“Well,
if
you don’t get to bed by
9:00 o’clock, you
are
up all night fighting
the
noise).
And,
of course,
the smell
seeps
right through, right
into the bedroom area,
and we are used
to
it
now,
Q.
Okay..
What type of relief
are you
trying
to
seek
here
today?
A.
Well,
if
they
would
limit
their
operations
to daytime
hours
and,
I
don’t
know,
sometimes when they start up those trucks
the
smog
is so thick
you
could
choke.
I
used
to
walk
my dog
there every
morning, and
it
was
just overpowering.
You
could hardly breathe,
And that
just
drifts
all the way across to
my
yard,
and
I am 150
feet away.”
(R.
14)
*
*
*
“Usually,
you
park
cabs over
there,
usually three
to six cabs~ They have a
tendency to start
up
in
the
morning, and when
they
do
start
up
and
the
wind
is
out
of
the
north, we get a foul sr~e1l and taste into our
kitchen area,
arid
this
happens many times
around breakfast
time.”
(Ft.
32)
*
*
“When you figure you have trucks
lining
up, getting
ready to fuel, we get all
the smell,
This
is all
coming towards us.
If you get inversions
it keeps it
down on
the ground,
arid we are finding
that it
does bother
us.
It affects our
sleep,
it
affects our way that we operate during
the
day, because we could
riot relax during the
night and get our proper
sleep,
or even during
the
days
it
affects
your
thinking
because
it
cuts
down
the
air,
oxyqen
that
you
are
taking
in.”
(R.
34)
~From,
C
wou!~
say,
five
o’clock
at
night,
you
will
flave
u~
to
15 trucks waiting
to
fill
up
in
this o~npi~g
area;
up
to
15
trucks,
I
COuflt~C2~
To me,
that
is a lot of heavy
polluted
air that you are putting into my
lungs, which
I don~tappreciate,
and
a lot of
heavy noise.”
(R, 50~51)
In addition, Pet, Gr.
Ex,
5 contains references
from Mrs.
Harding
to “excessive odors of truck fumes” and “heavy odors”
during June of 1984,
Additionally, Pet. Ex,
1
(A through EE)
contains photographs which show smoke surrounding
truck
tractors
on Overnite’s property~ While
the photographs certainly cannot
demonstrate
odor,
they support the conclusion that Overnite
is
the source
for
the odor,
Again, Overnite made
no attempt to dispute
or
impeach the
complainants’ evidence on severity or
frequency of the odor
problem.
Based on
the above~citedevidence,
the Board
finds
that
odors from Overnit&s facility, specifically truck operation,
start—up and fueling, are causing interference with the sleep,
food consumption and normal leisure time activities of adjacent
residents.
Further,
the Board finds this interference
is
frequent and severe,
Section 33(c)
The
Board may find severe and frequent interference with the
enjoyment of life solely based on testimony
describing
the
impacts of noise or
odor,
However,
to evaluate whether those
noise
or odor impacts are “unreasonable,”
the Board must evaluate
a series of factors listed in Section 33(c)
of
the Act:
Section
33
*
*
*
c.
In
making its orders and determinations,
the
Board shall
take into consideration
all
the facts
and circumstances bearing
upon
the reasonableness of the
emissions,
discharges,
or deposits involved
including,
but not limited
to:
1.
the character and degree
of
injury
to, or
interference with the
protection of the health,
general
welfare and physical property of the
people;
2.
the social
and economic value
of
the
pollution source;
3~
The suitability or unsuitability of
the pollution source to the area
in
which
it
is located,
including the
—11—
question of priority of location in
the
area
involved;
and
4.
the
technical
practicability
and
economic
reasonableness
of
reducing
or eliminating
the emissions,
discharges or deposits resulting
from such pollution source.
The “unreasonableness” of the noise or odor pollution must be
determined
in reference
to these statutory criteria.
Wells
Manufacturing~9flipanyv.
Pollution Control Board,
73 Ill.2d
226,
383 N.E.2d 148 (1978);
~
supra;
Incinerator, supra,
City of Monmouthv. Pollution Control Board,
57 Ill.2d 482,
313
N.E.2d 161
(1974).
However,
complainants
are not required
to
introduce evidence on these points.
Processing
& Books, supra.
In evaluating
the first of
the
Section 33(c)
factors,
the
Board
finds there
is
a frequent and severe interference with
sleep,
food consumption and normal leisure activities of adjacent
residents caused by noise and odor from Overnite’s facility.
This interference goes far beyond trifling interference, petty
annoyance or minor discomfort,
The noise and odors constitute
a
substantial interference with the enjoyment of life and property.
Concerning
the second of the Section 33(c)
factors, the
Board
finds that Overnite is of substantial
social
and economic
benefit
in that it provides valuable services
in the local
and
national movement of
freight
(R.
90—93)
and employs many people
(Ft.
109).
However, the social
and economic benefit
is
significantly reduced by the nature of noise and odor emissions
from the property.
The third Section 33(c)
factor concerns suitability of the
pollution source
to the area
in which it
is located and priority
of location.
The
record contains very little descriptive
information on the area beyond complainants’
and defendant’s
property.
It is clear
that complainants’ property
is
in the City
of
Burbank,
while
defendant’s
property
is
“across
the
street”
in
the
village
of
Bedford
Park
(Ft.
8,
49).
While
the
property
which
Overnite’s
facility
occupies was originally zoned
for residential
use
R4
by
Bedford
Park,
that
zoning
use
was
changed
and
the
facility
is in compliance with current Bedford Park
zoning
uses
(R.
18,
32—33,
38).
The Board
finds that Overnite’s facility is
suitable
for the area in which
it is located if noise and odor
problems can be reduced
to acceptable levels.
On the priority of location issue,
the Board
finds that
complainants have the clear priority.
The record
is undisputed
that local area residents generally, and several complainants
in
particular, lived
in the area
in 1967 when the facility in
question was undeveloped and uninhabited prairie land
(R,
32).
65-141
—12--
Concerning
the last of the Section 33(c)
factors, the Board
finds that there are technically feasible and economically
reasonable methods of making some reductions
in noise and odor
levels, that Overnite has begun to implement some of these
measures, but that the record
is insufficient to support a
detailed Order commanding what specific steps must be taken, by
what certain time,
and what steps will be necessary to completely
cure
the problems.
Additionally,
the Board
finds that to curtail all nighttime
activities would amount to
an
Order
for Overnite
to cease
operation and go out of business
(Ft. 98).
However, lack of a
technologically feasible method of reducing the pollution is not
an absolute defense
to
a finding
of
violation by this Board.
Wells supra, Chicago Magnesium Casting Co.
v.
Pollution Control
Board,
22 I11.App.3d 489, 317 N,E.2d 689.
The Board believes
that the report required
in today’s Order will provide
information on specific workable methods of reducing
the noise
and odor problems to acceptable levels without facing the
difficult closure
issue,
Based
on the Board findings of substantial
interference with
the
enjoyment
of
life
and
after
consideration
of
the
factors
listed
in Section 33(c),
the Board finds that noise emissions
from Overnite’s facility are unreasonable and constitute a
violation of
35 Ill. Adm. Code 900.102 and Section 24
of the
Environmental
Protection
Act,
Based
on
the
Board
findings
of
substantial
interference with enjoyment of life and after
consideration of the factors listed
in Section 33(c),
the Board
finds
the odor emissions from Overnite’s facility are
unreasonable and constitute a violation of 35 Ill. Adm, Code
201.141 and Section 9 of the Environmental Protection Act.
Additional Information
Throughout this proceeding,
steps were mentioned which would
have the effect of reducing the noise
and odor emissions from
Overnite’s facility.
These
include:
1.
Operational
changes, such as rerouting on—site truck
movement patterns;
2.
Moving
the electric hot lines from the south
end of the
terminal
to decrease truck start—up at that location;
3.
Building an acoustical barrier along
the southern
perimeter;
and
4.
Enclosing
the maintenance building fuel bay area,
While
these options were discussed favorably at hearing,
certain
informational deficiencies exist,
For example, prior truck
traffic patterns were not compared
to future traffic patterns,
plans
for the acoustical
barrier were produced and discussed
at
85~142
—13—
hearing but not introduced
as evidence, discussions of fuel bay
enclosure were very general
in nature, and most importantly,
no
attempt was made
to quantify the reduction
in noise and odor that
would be accomplished by implementing these steps.
Additionally,
the
Board
is concerned that moving certain
operations may only shift
the impact
to persons not present in
this proceeding.
Therefore, the Board will order Overnite
to
prepare a report evaluating,
to the maximum extent possible, the
type and degree of noise and odor reductions possible by changes
in operation or construction of noise and odor reduction
devices.
This report should be
prepared
by a competent
individual or
firm,
and should evaluate all methods of control
(not just those already discussed).
Each control option should
include anticipated pollution
reductions,
cost of implementation
and
an estimate of a reasonable time for implementation.
The Board will retain jurisdiction in this case pending
receipt of the report,
and final disposition of this matter.
The
report is
to be filed with the Board and complainants’
representative,
Mrs, Carol Harding,
not later
than November
1,
1985.
Unless a motion requesting
a hearing on the contents of
the report
is received by November
30,
1985,
the Board will
proceed to issue a final Order regarding compliance as soon as
possible thereafter~
This Interim Opinion constitutes
the Board’s initial
findings of fact and conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
1.
The Bo~ard finds that Overnite Trucking has violated
35
Ill,
Mm. Code Sections 900.102 and 201.141,
as well
as Sections
24 and
9 of
the
Environmental Protection Act.
2.
Overnite
is Ordered
to submit to the Board
and complainants,
not later
than November
1,
1985,
a report on methods of
reducing
or eliminating
noise
and odor pollution at its
facility consistent with the Opinion.
3.
The Board will retain jurisdiction
in this matter pending
receipt of the report,
Unless a motion for hearing on the
contents of that report is received by November
30, 1985,
the
Board will proceed
to issue a final Order
in this matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED
65-143
—14--
I, Dorothy M. Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above Interim Opinion and Order
was adopted on the
/44-
day of
~
,
1985,
by a vote of
‘7-o
.
Dorothy M.
dunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control
Board
.
65-144
