ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
July
19,
1990
WILL COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL
NETWORK,
Complainant,
PCB 89—64
V.
)
(Enforcement)
GALLAGHER ASPHALT,
Respondent.
FINAL OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by B.
Forcade):
This matter comes before the Board on a complaint:
filed on
April 13,
1989 by Will County Environmental Network
(“WCEN”)
alleging noise pollution caused by Gallagher Blacktop
(“Gallagher”)
at its asphalt plant
in Joliet,
Illinois.
In the
Board’s Interim Opinion and Order dated January
11,
1990,
the
Board found
that Gallagher had violated Section
24 of the
Illinois Environmental Protection Act
(“Act”) and the Board’s
regulation found at
35
Ill. Adm. Code 900.102.
The Board ordered
Gallagher
to submit
to the Board
a report on methods of reducing
or eliminating noise pollution.
That
report has been submitted,
and this matter
is now ripe for the Board’s decision regarding a
remedy for Gallagher’s violation of the Act and of Board
regulations.
Procedural History
Gallagher’s noise report was due by March
31, 1990,
but at
Gallagher’s request,
the Board granted an extension until April
30,
1990.
Gallagher
filed
its
report on April
30, 1990 and also
filed
a motion for a hearing on the
report.
On May
10, 1990,
the
Board granted the motion
for
a hearing over the objection of
WCEN.
Gallagher later
requested that the hearing be cancelled.
Gallagher filed
a motion for leave
to file brief
in lieu
of
hearing on May
25,
1990.
The motion was granted by the hearing
officer.
On June
19,
1990, Gallagher filed its brief addressing
the noise
report.
WCEN filed
a response to Gallagher’s noise
report on June
27,
1990.
On July
6,
1990,
Gallagher filed a
motion for
leave to file
a reply brief.
On July 9,1990,
WCEN
filed
its opposition
to Gallagher’s motion, requesting
that the
Board reach a decision on the record before
it.
A Hearing
Officer’s Order
of July
10,
1990 denying Gallagher’s motion for
leave
to file a
reply brief was filed with the Board on July
12,
1990.
113—29 1
—2—
Motion to File Reply Brief
Gallagher has filed a motion with the Board requesting
that
the Board reconsider the Hearing Officer’s denial of Gallagher’s
motion to file reply brief.
For the following reasons,
the Board
will deny this motion.
First,
the Board observes that the filing of the reply brief
would be extraordinary procedurally,
since Gallagher has already
filed a brief on this matter on June
19,
1990 and also had an
opportunity
for
a second hearing.
Gallagher cancelled the second
scheduled hearing which the Board had granted over Will County
Environmental Network’s
(“WCEN”)
objection.
Clearly, Gallagher
has had a full and fair opportunity to present its case.
Second, Gallagher’s motion was deficient on its face, making
vague and unsubstantiated reference to alleged misrepresentations
by WCEN.
Third,
the Board did not consider new assertions by WCEN in
reviewing WCEN’s filing of June 27,
1990.
Gallagher’s responsive
arguments
in this motion before the Board are therefore
irrelevant.
Finally, the Board has granted Gallagher various extensions
of time,
including additional time
to file its report,
a second
hearing,
and time
to file a brief
in lieu of hearing.
The Board
will not encourage dilatory tactics by delaying its decision
further and allowing the noise pollution violation to continue.
The Noise Analysis Report
1.
Introduction
Gallagher submitted the report of Robert
E.
Schreter,
P.E.,
of Schreter Associates, Roswell,
Georgia, evaluating the nature
of the noise and describing a noise abatement program
in terms of
Phase
I and Phase
II implementation.
The report notes that
Gallagher replaced most of
the major operating equipment
in the
winter of 1989—1990.
These capital improvements reportedly cost
in excess
of $1 million and are expected by Gallagher
to increase
productivity and efficiency and significantly reduce noise and
air pollution.
None of the $1 million has been directly
attributed
to noise reduction, and Gallagher has made no showing
that any funds have yet been spent specifically for noise
abatement
in conjunction with the plant modernization.
The
equipment purchased is described as being state—of—the—art and
from a reputable manufacturer.
Due to the recent
installation,
however,
the new equipment was not ready
for sound testing
at the
time of
the Board—ordered report.
The sound expert’s report,
therefore,
was based on computer generated simulations,
using
the
expert’s computer model of an asphalt plant’s operation.
Report
11
3—292
—3—
at p.
2.
Mr.
Schreter’s
report indicates that actual
sound
levels would probably
be equal
to,
or lower
than,
the calculated
noise levels
in light of the new equipment purchased.
The report summarized the theoretical approach taken due to
the unavailability of certain data,
along with the inability to
test the actual levels of sound emitted,
as follows:
A
sound
analysis
of
the
Gallagher
Asphalt
Plant
was made
to project
the
sound pressure
levels which
could
be expected
at
the Whitler
homes.
Sound
power
information
was
not
available
from
the
plant
manufacturer.
Therefore,
it
was necessary
to
estimate sound
power based on similar types of equipment,
for
which sound data was available.
A computer model was developed which
took
into
account
the
job
site,
the
location
and
types of sound sources,
their
intensities, and
the types of sound attenuating equipment which
could
be
used.
The
computer
model
then
projected the sound pressure levels that could
be expected at the Whitler homes as well as at
other critical
locations.
The
model
was
used
to
make
projections
based
on a Phase
I and
a Phase
II attenuation
program.
Analysis
of
the
results shows
that
the
Sound Pressure Level
at
the Whitler
home,
SP15,
can
be
reduced
from
73.85
dBA,
for
an
unattenuated
plant,
to
49.76
dEA
with
the
Phase
I
attenuation.
This
accounts
for
a
reduction
of
24
dB
which
is
equivalent
to
lowering the actual sound pressure by a factor
of 15.8.
An additional
4
dB attenuation could
be achieved by adding Phase
II attenuation,
at
significant increase in cost.
Report at p.
3
(emphasis added).
113—293
—4—
2. The Noise Sources
The noise report identified six major noise sources,
and
ascribed various noise emission levels for each
in terms of dBA*,
as
follows:
1.
Burner Blower:
120 dBA unattenuated
106 dBA with manufacturer’s normal sound device.
2.
Burner:
128.85 dBA
113 dBA with manufacturer’s normal sound devices
109 dBA possible with added reflector device.
3.
Exhaust Stack:
115.7 dBA
101.1 dBA
if
stack silencer
installed
89.9 dEA
if
reflective baffle added
to top of
stack.
4.
Scalping Screens
I:
101.5 dBA
70 dBA
if barrier type of a attenuator used.
5.
Scalping Screens
II:
101.5 dEA
70 dBA if barrier type of attenuator
used.
6.
Exhaust Fan:
98 dBA
76 dBA if fan casing
is coated with dense sound
deadening material.
Mr.
Schreter calculated the sound power
or accoustical energy for
these noise sources based on tests of similar equipment at other
facilities.
As mentioned above, Gallagher’s equipment was at
various stages of installation and could not be tested.
Mr.
Schreter noted that numbers were intentionally overestimated to
allow a margin of safety.
Report
at pp.
5,
6.
3. Implementation of Noise Abatement Program
Appendix C of the report summarizes
the Implementation Plan
evaluated by Mr.
Schreter.
The
noise abatement program is
*
dBA
is the common abbreviation for
“A” weighted decibels.
NOTE:
This does not represent a regulatory standard,
but only
information provided
in the report.
See also Interim Opinion and
Order,
PCB 89—64
(Jan.
11,
1990)
pp.
8,
9.
113—294
—5—
separated into Phase
I and Phase
II with varying completion dates
from May
1,
1990 to October
1,
1990.
Since
the sound levels were
evaluated in terms
of dBA’s, and not for particular frequency
ranges as current Board regulations provide,
Mr.
Schreter
compared projected sound levels to an earlier numeric standard
for daytime and nighttime limitations supplied by the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency (“Agency”).
Report at
pp.
12,
13.
Mr.
Schreter concluded that Phase
II
would satisfy both
daytime and nighttime standards.
Phase
I would achieve
compliance with daytime limitations, but may not achieve the
quieter nighttime standard.
While the violations found by the
Board were
for noise causing unreasonable interference with life,
and not for violations of numeric standards,
the report’s
reference to numeric limitations
is of assistance
in evaluating
Phase
I and Phase
II compliance plans.
Mr.
Schreter summarized his conclusions of prospective
compliance,
as
follows:
Mr.
Donald
Gallagher
supplied
copies
of
a
letter
from Major
Hearn,
Jr.,
of the
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
which
suggested
that
an
earlier
form
of
the
regulations permitted sound measurements
to be
evaluated
on
a
dBA basis.
Specifically,
the
regulations allowed the following:
daytime
7 a.m.
to 10 p.m.
61 dBA
nighttime
10 p.m.
to
7 a.m.
51 dBA
The
sound
levels
that
are
projected
by
the
computer
model
would
show
compliance
for
the
daytime and
nighttime reading under
the Phase
II
model.
The
Phase
I
model
complies
with
daytime
readings.
Bearing
in mind that sound
levels
have been intentionally overestimated,
it
is
anticipated
that
the Phase
I model will
meet the code even for nighttime operation.
Report at pp.
12,
13.
Conclusions regarding the results of the Phase
I and Phase
II
plans are based on calculations that show,
for example, that
the sound pressure level would be 49.76 dBA at location SP15, one
of the Whitler homes.
Report at
p.
13 and Figure
3.
This sound
level would be well within the daytime limitations above and
would also satisfy nighttime limitations, but with less room for
error.
However,
other
locations for which
sound level
projections were made would have dEA levels of 52.52 dBA
(at
SP14,
the Whitler
residence nearest
the plant) and 55.98 dBA
(at
SP8, the boundary between the Whitler and Gallagher
properties).
See Report, Figures
3 and
4.
These sound levels,
113—295
—6
obviously, would not
be
in conformity with the above
limitations.
The report suggests that Phase
II could be
implemented to further reduce noise to achieve compliance.
Report at
p.
14.
4. Phase
I and Phase
II Plans
The methods
for
reducing the asphalt plant’s sound emissions
fall into two categories:
(1) devices used on or near the noise
source and
(2)
an earthen berm which would interrupt the trans-
mission.
Phase
I requires both of these kinds
of sound reduction
approaches.
Phase
II
involves further
noise reduction via
additional devices, which would be used on the burner and exhaust
stack
only.
Appendix C of the report,
referred to above,
summarizes
the elements and costs of the Phase
I and Phase
II
programs,
as follows:
Noise Report Implementation Plan
Item No.
and
Phase
I
Phase
II
Description
Date
Cost
Date
Cos::
1
Silent Burner Package
5—1—90
$15,000
2
Blower Silencer
5—1—90
3,500
3
Exhaust Stack Silencer
7—15—90
12,000
4
Barrier
at Screens
(2)
6—14—90
4,000
5
Exhaust Fan Treatment
6—1—90
1,000
6
Berm 300’
x
22’ High
7—27—90
65,700
7
Burner
Intake Baffle
&
Intake Reflector Hood
10—1—90
$3,500
8
Exhaust Stack Reflective
Silencer
10—1—90
4,500
Report, Appendix
C.
It
is not clear from the report whether
or not all Phase
I
devices were ordered and installed already by Gallagher.
The
various dates
for Phase
I implementation are very near
in time to
the April
30, 1990 report date.
Even
if not completed yet,
it
is
clear
that installation could be expected quickly, probably
before the close of 1990 operating season.
Even the berm,
the
last
in time of
the Phase
I program, could be completed near—
term.
Phase
II
is shown as being completed slightly later,
yet
still
in 1990.
The total projected cost of Phase
I
is $101,200.
Phase
II
would involve total costs projected at
$8,000.
The report
illustrates,
in Figure
3,
the substantial Phase
I
reductions
in noise levels
for the various sources
of noise,
largely as
a result of constructing the berm.
The typical
reductions
in sound levels due to the berm are
in the range of
8-
113—296
—7—
20 dEA for each noise source.
Figure
3 also shows the impact on
noise levels from Phase
I
implementation of noise attenuating
devices and the berm for three locations:
SP8
(the boundary
between the Gallagher and Whitler properties); SP14
(a Whitler
home closest
to Gallagher’s property); and SP15
(a Whitler
home).
This information
is summarized below.
NOISE SOURCE DATA
Phase
I Source:
dBA w/o
dEA w
Berm
Berm
Blower w Silencer
106.54
86.08
Burner w Silencer
113
105
Exhaust Stack w Silencer
100.1
79.9
Screen Scalp
I w Barrier
101.5
91.2
Screen Scalp
II w Barrier
101.5
91.2
Exhaust Fan w Lead Vinyl
76.36
66.7
Phase
I Receiver Data
Receiver Location
dEA
SP8
55.98
SP14
52.52
SP15
49.76
Figure
3.
Phase
II projected noise reductions are summarized in Figure
4 of the report.
With the additional sound attenuation devices,
the noise levels for the various location
(SP8,
SP14, and SP15)
are projected to range between 45.74 dEA and 51.99
dBA, which is
expected to be a
reasonable level of noise for daytime and night-
time hours.
Figure
4 may be summarized as follows:
Phase
II
Source:
dBA w/o
dBA w
Berm
Berm
Blower w Silencer
106.54
86.08
Burner w Silencer
109.5
101.21
Exhaust Stack w Silencer
89.93
69.73
Screen Scalp
I w Barrier
80.44
70.03
Screen Scalp
II w Barrier
80.44
70.03
Exhaust Fan w Lead Vinyl
76.36
66.7
113—297
—B—
Phase II Receiver Data
Receiver Location
dBA
SP8
51.99
SP14
48.50
SP15
45.74
Figure
4.
Discussion
WCEN has requested relief which
is described
in the six
points below.
Gallagher’s noise
report and the record
in this
case raise several issues, which
the Board will address.
These
issues are:
1.
The installation of noise control devices
on
or
near
the
plant’s
operating
equipment
as
described
in
both
Phase
I
and Phase
II plan;
2.
Construction
of
an
earthen
berm
larger
than
that
described
in
the
noise
report
and
relocation
of
the
entrance
and
driveway;
3.
The
limiting of
hours
of
operation until
compliance
is achieved
so that
no start-
ups occur before 7:00 a.m.;
4.
The rerouting of truck traffic;
and
5.
Elimination
of
back—up
alarm
on
caterpillar.
6.
Imposition of a penalty.
1.
Installation of Noise Control
Dev,ices
The report and record are not clear on what noise
attenuation devices have already been installed by Gallagher.
The report does make clear
that:
(1)
all Phase
I devices would
be necessary to reach an acceptable level of noise
for daytime
hours;
and
(2)
Phase
II devices may be necessary to achieve an
acceptable
level
of noise
for nighttime hours.
Report at
p.
13.
The Board
finds
that
all eements of Phase
I,
specified
in
Appendix C of the report,
must
be completed.
113—298
—9—
The Board is reluctant, however,
to require Gallagher
to
implement Phase
II,
as requested by WCEN, without an opportunity
to submit
a report of actual noise levels resulting from
implementation of Phase
I.
If Gallagher submits a report
indicating
that,
after completion of Phase
I,
the actual
sound
levels
for daytime and nighttime hours are well within the
Board’s present regulatory standards
for all adjacent Class A
land,
specified in
35
Ill Adm.
Code 901.102,
the Board will not
require Phase
II implementation as relief
for
the complainants
now before
the Board.
Such proof
of compliance must be submitted
by October
1,
1990, otherwise,
Phase
II must be completed by
Gallagher by October
30, 1990 so that complainants need not
endure further
noise pollution.
2. Construction of Earthen Berm
The noise reduction achieved by constructing a berm is
reflected in the various calculations of noise levels.
“Programs
rnml38—0—512—2 and —4 show the sound power levels for station
points guarded
by the berm.”
Report at
p.
7
(emphasis added).
The berm was referred to earlier
in the report as being
“an
earthen berm... along
the northern property line of lots —003 and
—004, midway between Stations Points
9 and 13.
This berm will
provide significant sound reduction at the Whitler properties.”
Report at
p.
6
(emphasis added).
The berm is clearly an integral
part of the expert’s calculations of
sound levels and of the
expert’s noise management assumptions and conclusions.
The noise
level projections thus assume construction of an earthen berm,
and
it
is described in the report as part of the Phase
I noise
reduction program.
The report does not suggest that adequate
noise reduction could be accomplished without
the berm.
The report notes
that the earthen berm will provide a sound
barrier,
reducing noise to the Whitler homes, and also provide a
visual screen.
Report at
p.
6.
As the record shows,
and the
Board’s Interim Opinion and Order notes,
the Whitler family holds
a priority of location.
The subsequent extreme levels of noise
experienced by
the Whitlers, particularly at night, would
be
eliminated only with the berm.
Besides noise from
the operating
equipment,
vehicle noise might also be
reduced by the berm.
This
kind of noise
is extremely difficult to control,
as
the report
notes.
Any reduction
in truck noises due to the berm could be
very important
to the affected families.
The Board also notes
that the report quotes statistics
showing that over
a 10—year period,
the plant has operated an
average of
83 days
per year
(127 days
in 1989), although other
Gallagher plants operate an average of
179 days per year.
Report
at pp.
1,2.
Complainant has presented conflicting data on the
number of days of operation with attendant noise pollution.
See
WCEN Response
(June
27,
1990)
p.
4.
The Board simply notes
that
113—299
—10—
if the $1 million plant modernization might entail more hours of
operation,
the berm will play an even more critical role in
abating noise pollution.
Nonetheless, the report gives adequate
support
for immediate construction of
the berm at
current
production levels to justify the Board’s ordering
its
construction.
It
is the conclusion of the Board that the berm is necessary
to Gallagher’s achieving compliance with the Act and
regulations.
The noise report gives strong support for the need
for the berm to achieve
a satisfactory reduction
in the noise
emitted by Gallagher’s plant.
The reluctance
to construct the
berm, expressed in Gallagher’s brief of June
19,
1990,
fails
to
persuade the Board that compliance would be achieved without
constructing the berm.
Such an assertion
is without support
in
the record.
The noise report states that the earthen berm
construction will be completed by July
27,
1990.
The Board will
require construction
to be completed by that date.
In their response to the noise
report,
WCEN requests that
the entrance and driveway be moved further north and that the
berm be extended to the east corner of the property for the
benefit
of the Wilhelmi, Viano and Newberry residences across the
street.
The Board finds that the interests of
these homeowners
were not raised in the original complaint and that these
homeowners did not join in the complaint later.
The interests of
these homeowners will not be prejudiced by the Board’s
decision.
The noise report did not address the noise impact of
the plant
on these residences, which the Board attributes
to lack
of notice on the part of Gallagher.
Gallagher cannot be shielded
from subsequent enforcement
of any claims which were not before
the Board in this proceeding,
including,
but not limited
to,
the
above three parties.
The Board declines,
therefore,
to require Gallagher
to
extend the berm as requested by WCEN.
3.
Hours of Operation
WCEN requests that no start-ups of
the plant be permitted to
occur before 7:00 a.m.
until compliance
is demonstrated.
In its
Order of February 22,
1990,
the Board ordered that
the plant
should not operate before 6:00 a.m.
to minimize the impact
of the
noise on neighbors.
It
is appropriate now,
too,
that Gallagher
should continue to refrain from operating before 6:00 a.m.
until
the noise pollution
is eliminated.
Gallagher indicated at
hearing that this start-up time was acceptable and manageable.
Tr.
at pp.
78—81,
88.
It
is not the intention of the Board
to permanently regulate
Gallagher’s hours
of operation.
The Board will limit start—up
times
to prevent operating before 6:00 am.
only until Gallagher
113—3fl0
—11—
has achieved compliance, either by completing Phase
II
of the
noise abatement program or
by demonstrating compliance with the
Board’s numerical limitations
for noise
levels.
For
this
purpose,
the Board’s Order
of February 22,
1990 shall
remain
in
full force and effect
to prevent start—up of the facility before
6:00 a.m.
4. Re—Routing of Truck Traffic
WCEN requests that the Board order the rerouting of truck
traffic
to require the use of Patterson Road for at
least all
return
trips
to the quarry.
This poses some difficulty
for the
Board since the interests of other parties,
not before the Board,
may be affected.
In Gallagher’s brief
filed on June
19,
1990,
Gallagher expressed a willingness
to use the suggested route
before 7:00
a.rn.
only citing safety reasons
for
avoiding this
route later
in the day.
Gallagher also points
to the noise
report
for further explanation of the truck
routing problems.
The Board accepts the reasoning presented by Gallagher and the
noise
report and declines
to order any particular routing of
truck
traffic.
The Board notes,
however,
that Gallagher has
agreed that “Respondent will use the Patterson Road route for any
deliveries prior
to 7:00 a.m.
in order
to reduce
truck noise by
complainant’s homes as much as possible.”
Gallagher Brief
(June
19,
1990)
p.
3
Therefore,
the noise experienced by complainants
should decrease from previous levels.
5.
Back—Up Alarm on Caterpillar
As noted at
the hearing held on July 7,
1989,
Gallagher
negotiated with OSHA to eliminate the loud back-up alarm
ordinarily required with use of the caterpillar.
The report
indicates that the use of the back—up alarm has been discontinued
completely, and that Gallagher does not intend
to use
it
in the
future.
The report,
therefore, does not address the level of
noise generated by the alarm or any
remedial measures.
In
deciding an appropriate
remedy for Gallagher’s violation,
the
Board will assume that this noise source has been eliminated and
will remain inoperative.
6.
Imposition of
a Penalty
In considering whether or not
to impose
a civil penalty,
the Board
is charged with reviewing certain factors bearing
on the
reasonableness of
the emissions,
pursuant
to Section
33(c) of
the Act.
These are:
113—301
—12—
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
question
of
priority
of
location
in
the
area
involved;
4.
the technical practicability and economic
reasonableness of reducing
or eliminating
the
emissions,
discharges
or
deposits
resulting from such pollution source;
5.
any
economic
benefits
accrued
by
a
noncomplying pollution source
because
of
its
delay
in
compliance
with
pollution
control requirements; and
6.
any subsequent compliance.
In its Interim Opinion and Order, the Board found
that the
noise substantially and frequently interferes with the enjoyment
of life and property, and that this interference
is beyond minor
annoyance or discomfort.
The Board considered the Section 33(c)
factors
in reaching its finding that Gallagher had violated the
Act and regulations regarding noise pollution.
However,
the
issue of a penalty was not addressed
in
a meaningful manner
by
complainants at any phase
of the proceeding,
other
than by the
simple claim that a penalty
is warranted.
The Board reserved the
right to
impose a penalty
in its Interim Opinion and Order since
the Board has authority
to impose a penalty for violations of the
Act and regulations.
Section
42
of the Act.
Although a civil penalty might very well be appropriate for
the noise pollution violations caused by Gallagher,
WCEN failed
to carry their burden with respect
to this issue.
In WCEN’s
response of June
27,
1990, WCEN made the bare allegation that
“a)
civil penalty
is warranted.
Continued pleas
by area
residents have gone largely unheeded
for nearly two decades.”
WCEN Response
(June
27,
1990)
p.
4.
Although WCEN is not
required to establish each of
the Section 33(c)
factors with
respect
to the penalty
issue, WCEN has inadequately asserted the
need
to impose a penalty, and the Board,
therefore,
finds
insufficient proof
in the record to
justify imposing
a penalty
in
this case.
See IEPA v. Allen Barry,
PCB 88-71, Opinion and Order
of May 10,
1990.
113—3fl2
—13—
This Opinions represents
the Board’s
findings of facts and
conclusion of law
in
this matter.
ORDER
For the foregoing reasons,
the Board hereby Orders Gallagher
Asphalt to undertake and perform the following actions:
1.
To implement immediately all Phase
I noise abatement
strategies, including construction of an earthen berm,
as described more particularly
in the noise analysis
report submitted by Gallagher on April
30,
1990;
2.
To implement all Phase
II noise abatement strategies,
described in the above referenced noise analysis report,
by not later than October
30,
1990, unless by October
1,
1990 Gallagher submits its report showing actual
compliance with the Board’s numerical limitations found
in
35
Ill.
Adm. Code 901.102
(See also R83—7,
In the
Matter
of:
General Motors Corp. Proposed Amendments
to
35 Ill. Adm.
Code 900.103 and 901.104, January
22,
1987); and
3.
By November 15, 1990, Gallagher shall send a
report to
the Board and Will County Environmental Network showing
that the above referenced remedial actions have been
completed by the dates indicated above.
Section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act,
Ill.
Rev.
Stat.
1987,
ch. 1ll~,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 Member
J. Theodore Meyer dissented.
I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of
the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order was
adopted on the
/9ZZ
day of
~h~-~-i~j
,
1990, by a
vote of
~
.
/~L~
Dorothy M. G~inn,Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
113—303
