ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
September
8,
1988
BILL ADEN, JOHN SCHRODER,
)
VELMA SCHRODER,
JOE KENDALL,
LAMORN MORRIS,
et.
al.,
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 86—193
CITY OF FREEPORT,
)
Respondent.
JAMES
L. GITZ AND SIDNEY MARGOLIS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF
COMPLAINANTS OTHER THAN BILL ADEN AND JOE KENDALL, WHO APPEARED
PRO SE.
JOHN GARRITY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT.
SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION AND FINAL ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by 3.
Marlin):
On February 25, 1988, the Board
issued
an Interim Order
in
this matter which
found that the City of Freeport (Freeport)
had
violated
35
111. Adm. Code 306.102(a),
306.303,
306.304.
That
same Interim Order required Freeport to submit to the Board,
by
May
2,
1988,
a “plan
for compliance” with Board regulations.
Specifically, the Interim Order stated:
At
a minimum,
this plan shall
include
a
schedule detailing steps, with corresponding
dates, that must be taken
in order
to achieve
compliance.
Compliance shall
be achieved no
later than October
31,
1990.
Within 30 days after the filing of Freeport’s
compliance plan, the Agency and Complainants
may file comments concerning the plan.
On April
29,
1988,
Freeport filed a Compliance Plan
in
response
to the Board’s Interim Order.
The Complainant’s other
than Bill Aden and Joe Kendall (hereafter
referred
to as the
Responding Complainants)
filed their Response,
of June
2,
1988.
The Board accepts the Responding Complainants’ June 2nd filing.
Although it was filed more than 30 days subsequent to the filing
of Freeport’s Compliance Plan, the Board believes that Freeport
has not been prejudiced by this slightly late filing.
On August
2,
1988
the Board received a Motion By Intervenors
for Stay of Proceedings and for Time
In Which to File a Petition
for Intervention.
The motion was filed by attorneys Gwen V.
Carroll
and Julie 0.
Petrini of the law firm Katten, Muchin
&
92—07
2
Zavis.
The motion asserts that the “Intervenors are residents of
the County of Stephenson residing on property immediately
adjacent
to the City of Freeport and certain
isolated individuals
residing on or near the city limits”.
Esentially,
the motion
states that
the “Intervenors” have
a compelling interest
in this
proceeding.
The motion also makes an allegation that Freeport
has refused
to annex
the property of the “Intervenors” thereby
denying them City services such as sanitary and storm sewers.
It
is further claimed that such denial of annextion
is racially
motivated and discriminatory.
The motion seeks
a stay of this
proceeding
to allow
a further filing
to support the peition for
intervention.
Freeport filed
a Response to
this motion on August 15,
1988.
Freeport objects to the motion on several grounds.
First,
Freeport notes that the motion does not identify the
“Intervenors”.
Secondly, while citing 35
Ill. Mm.
Code 103.142,
Freeport argues
that the motion
is untimely because
it comes
after
the hearing has been held on this matter.
Finally,
Freeport claims that the issues raised
in the motion are not
germaine
to this proceeding since
the “Intervenors” are not
residents of Freeport and an
issue of annexation
is not within
the jurisdiction of the Board.
In
a Reply filed on August
17,
1988 by the “Intervenors”
seventeen persons are listed as the “Intervenors”.
The Reply
states that three of these people are Freeport residents but the
rest are not.
The Reply further states that the issue of
annexation is not being
raised by the “Intervenors”;
rather,
the
“Intervenors” seek to be included
in Freeport’s compliance
plan.
On September 7,
1988,
Freeport filed
an Answer of City to
Reply of Intervenors.
Due
to the timing of this filing and the
fact that Freeport has already had an opportunity to address the
intervention issue,
the Board has not considered Freeport’s
September 7th filing.
The Board construes the August 2nd motion as petition
to
intervene.
The petition
to intervene
is not timely.
Section
103.142(a)
provides:
Upon
timely
written
application
and
subject
to the necessity to conducting
an orderly and
expeditious
hearing,
the
Hearing
Officer
shall
permit
any
person
to
intervene
in
an
enforcement proceeding when
(emphasis added)
Further, Section 103.142(b)
states:
Ten
(10)
copies
of
a
petition
for
intervention
shall
be
filed
with
the
Board
and the applicant
shall also
serve copies on
each
party
not
later
than
48
hours
prior
to
9 2—08
3
the
date
set
for
hearing.
The
Hearing
Officer
may
permit
intervention
at any
time
before the beginning of the hearing when good
cause
for delay
is shown.
Upon allowance of
intervention the Hearing Officer shall notify
the
parties
and
the
Clerk
and may
allow
a
continuance of the hearing to enable adequate
pre—hearing
procedures
as
justice
may
require.
(emphasis added)
It is clear
that the Board’s procedural rules set forth a
system whereby intervention should be sought prior
to hearing, or
in the least prior
to the conclusion of the hearing process.
In this instance, intervention is sought after
the hearing
has been held and after
the record has been closed.
Consequently, the petition
to intervene
is untimely.
The petition states that intervention
in this instance
should be granted
as
a matter
of right pursuant to Section
103.142(a);
the Board disagrees.
That provision reads:
Whenever
a
proceeding
before
the
Board
may
affect
the
right
of
the public
individually
or collectively to the use of community sewer
or water facilities provided by a municipally
owned
or
publicly
regulated
company,
all
persons
claiming
an
interest
shall
have
the
right
to
intervene
as
parties
pursuant
to
this
section
and
present
evidence
of
such
social and economic
impact.
The proceeding at hand does not affect
the public’s right
to
use the Freeport’s
sewer or water facilities.
More properly
stated, this case affects the way Freeport provides sewer service
to its residents.
The issues of this proceeding concern t~ie
violations of Freeport and remedies for those violations
Although these
issues impact upon the quality of life
for the
residents of Freeport, they do not deal with their
rights
to be
served by the system.
If the persons who are represented by the petition have
complaints against Freeport or any other person concerning
alleged violations of the Environmental Protection Act
(Act)
or
the regulations promulgated thereunder,
they are
free to file an
appropriate enforcement action pursuant to Section 31(b) of the
Act.
However, with regard to this case the board hereby denies
intervention
as requested by the August 2nd filing.
In
its April
29th filing,
Freeport proposes a compliance
plan that outlines steps, with associated
completion dates, which
it claims will lead to substantial compliance.
However, Freeport
proposes to complete construction of
its improvements by August
31,
1991, thereby achieving substantial compliance.
That date
is
92—09
4
ten months later than what the Board had ordered
in its Interim
Order.
Freeport offers no explanation
for this discrepancy.
The Response filed by the Responding Complainants raises
a
number of issues.
First, the Responding Complainants assert that
Freeport has not complied with the Board’s Interim Order, because
Freeport’s Compliance Plan provides
for completion of
improvements by August
31,
1991
instead of October 31,
1990.
Also,
the Responding Complainants claim that Freeport’s plan only
proposes “substantial compliance,” which the Responding
Complainants believe
is also inconsistent with the Board’s
Interim Order.
Next,
the Responding Complainants state that it
is possible
for Freeport
to achieve compliance by October
31,
1990.
According
to the Responding Complainants,
this goal can be
attained by altering the compliance plan
so that the design and
construction
of new relief sewers
takes place concurrently with
the rehabilitation work on existing sewers.
The Responding
Complainants also claim that an additional three months can be
saved
if Freeport begins its land and easement acquisition
process while simultaneoulsy pursuing construction permits
from
the Agency.
The substantive provisions of the Compliance Plan are also
criticized.
The Responding Complainants state that the Sewer
System Evaluation Survey
(SSES)
is deficient
in its proposed
evaluation of the Hunt Street area.
Also,
it is stated that the
plan allocates no money for sewer rehabilitation in the
Cottonwood,
Shawnee, and Sheridan areas.
In addition, the
Responding Complainants are concerned about Freeport’s proposed
use of “storage basins” which would hold sanitary sewer
overflows.
The Responding Complainants are not convinced that
such basins are appropriate
for residential areas or that the
basins are a cost effective method
for achievinq compliance.
Specifically, the Responding Complainants ask the Board to
do the following:
1)
Order
the
City
to
comply
with
the
Board’~s
October
31,
1990
compliance
deadline and
impose
fines
and sanctions
as
it deems appropriate;
2)
Order
the
City
to
provide
a
detailed
compliance plan with greater specificity
and
detail
which
addresses
the
issues
raised by the Complainants;
3)
Order
the City
to provide greater detail
on
the method of
financing
improvements
and
a
funding
schedule
which
will
implement the Board’s Order;
92—10
5
4)
Strike
those
portions
of
the
City’s
compliance plan which reargue the merits
of
the
case
in violation of
the Board’s
Order;
5)
Allow
the
Complainants
to
secure
professional engineering
assistance,
at
the
City’s
cost,
to
provide
the
Board
with
technical
input
on
the
points
raised
in this Response; and
6)
Award
the
Complainants
costs
and
attorneys’
fees for
this response, since
the City’s plan
is deficient on its face
and
not
in
compliance with
the
Board’s
Order.
Before responding to the requests of the Responding
Complainants,
the Board believes that it must address the
February 25th Interim Order
and the Board’s intent behind that
Interim Order.
It
is apparent from the actions of both parties
that the scope of the Board’s
Interim Order has been
misconstrued.
Both Freeport and the Responding Complainants have
sought
to present arguments or information that effectively
exceeds their respective
roles as defined by the Board’s February
25th decision.
On February 25,
1988,
the Board issued an Opinion and
Interim Order
in this matter.
At that point, as detailed by the
Opinion, the Board believed that it had received evidence
sufficient to support findings of violation against Freeport.
Consequently,
in its Interim Order,
the Board found Freeport in
violation of certain regulations.
However, with regard to the appropriate solution to
Freeport’s non—compliance,
the record was incomplete.
In its
Opinion, the Board stated:
Unfortunately,
the
record
is not detailed
as
to
the
specific
types
of
improvements
that
are
necessary
to
rectify
the
overflow
problems throughout Freeport.
Aden v. City of Freeport, PCB 86—193,
slip.
op.
at 12 (February 25,
1988).
If the Board were to adopt a detailed compliance order, the
Board needed
to receive more information as
to possible methods
of compliance.
That
is why the Board requested that Freeport
submit
a compliance plan.
The Board’s Order was not vague.
The Board determined
that
any compliance plan submitted by Freeport had to provide
for
compliance by October
31,
1990.
Freeport’s own engineering
92—11
6
consultant,
in
a report dated March, 1987 (Missman Report),
asserted that city-wide improvements could be accomplished by
that date.
The Board believes that
it was clear on the
issue of the
compliance plan.
The February 25th Opinion states:
The
Board
will
retain
jurisdiction
in
this
matter
and
order
that
Freeport
submit
its
plan
for
compliance
with
Board
regulations.
The
plan
shall
outline
anticipated
steps,
with
associated
dates
for
completion,
which
will lead to the rehabilitation of Freeport’s
sewer
system.
The
Board
will
require
that
Freeport
achieve
substantial
compliance
by
October
31,
1990.
The
Board
will
order
Freeport
to
provide
its
compliance
plan
to
the Agency,
the Board and Complainants by May
2,
1988.
Given that
the preliminary Missman
Report
has
been
available
since
March
of
1987,
this
requirement
is
viewed
as
reasonable... .The
Complainants. ..may
comment
upon
the
plan
after
it
is
filed
with
the
Board.
Aden v. City of Freeport, PCB 86—193,
slip.
op.
at 13
(February 25,
1988).
In short,
the Board
by its Interim Order requested more
information so that it could address the issue of a remedy from a
more informed position.
While compliance is the obvious remedy
for every finding of violation, the Board wanted
to have the
option of adopting, as
a part of
a compliance order,
a specific
method
for achieving compliance.
Notwithstanding
the Board’s Interim Order,.~Freeportproposes
a compliance plan with
a completion date of August 31,
1991.
Instead
of providing rationale as to why Freeport would be
unable to meet the October
31,
1990 date, Freeport continues
to
argue that it
is not in violation of certain Board regulations.
The Board will not consider such arguments anew.
The Board
already
made
its
determination
regarding
violations
in
its
February
25th
decision.
In
response
to
the
Interim
Order,
Freeport was merely to provide the Board with a Compliance Plan
which,
if followed, would assure substantial compliance by
October
31,
1990.
As stated
in the Board’s previous Opinion,
Freeport
commissioned engineers
in
1987 to conduct
a study of Freeport’s
sewer
system.
This was done
in response
to the Agency’s threat
of
an enforcement action
for impermissible sewer overflows.
The
first preliminary report issued by the consulting engineers was
delivered to Freeport
in February of
1987.
(City Exh.
#19).
A
92—12
7
final report was issued
in March 1987.
(City Exh.
#20).
Substantively, the conclusions and recommendations of the
February report were essentially the same as
those found
in the
March report.
Both reports investigate the existing problems and
recommend actions to solve
these problems.
Consequently, since
February,
1987,
Freeport has known what actions
it must take in
order
to remedy its sewer problems pursuant to recommendations of
its consulting engineers.
The March report concluded:
A combination
of
improvements to
the surface
drainage
system
and
to
the
sanitary
sewer
system
including
sanitary
sewer
rehabilitation
may
have
to
be
accomplished
before basement flooding or sewer back up can
be relieved.
(City Exh. #25,
p.
40)
The Missman Report also recommended
a plan of action by
which the city—wide improvements could be completed by October
31, 1990.
(City Exh.
#25,
p.
41).
In addition,
it is interesting
to note that Freeport’s own
consultants,
in March of 1987,
recommended that Freeport “should
vigorously pursue and make grant/loan application for
funds
for
the recommended sanitary sewer system improvements and/or
rehabilitation.”
Id.
However, as noted
in the Board’s earlier
Opinion, Freeport maintained at hearing,
in June 1987, that it
would not proceed with improvements until
it received grant
funding.
In their Response, the Responding Complainants suggest that
Freeport’s proposed compliance date of August 31,
1991, was
prompted by Freeport’s own inaction in remedying the problem.
As
support for
this conclusion, Responding Complainants have
attached
to their Response
a copy of what is purported to be the
minutes of the April
18, 1988 Freeport City Council meeting.
The
Board has not considered such material since
it goes
to issues
beyond the role of the Complainants pursuant to the Interim
Order.
It was sufficient
for the Responding Complainants
to
object to late completion dates proposed by Freeport.
Any
explanations for the proposed late compliance date certainly
falls within the responsibility of Freeport, not the Responding
Complainants.
In addition, minutes of
a meeting could
be
characterized as double hearsay and would not be properly
admitted
in this manner given that this
is a contested case
proceeding.
As stated
in the Board’s earlier Opinion:
The
record
indicates
that
the
City
of
Freeport
has
failed
to
adequately
address
its
sewer
problems
for
many
years.
While
encouraging
developments
that
add
to
both
92—13
8
surface
and
sewer
flows.
In
essence,
Freeport
has
long
deferred
expenditures
on
the sewer system.
Aden v. City of Freeport, PCB 86—193
slip.
op.
at 12
(February 25,
1988)
Since February 1987, Freeport has known what
it generally
needs
to do
in order
to correct its sewer problems.
Also,
it has
known since that date that the necessary improvements could be
achieved by October
31,
1990.
Freeport has
not provided any
reasons for the late compliance date.
During the time
that the Board has deliberated upon
Freeport’s proposed compliance plan and the Responding
Complainants comments,
there may have been some uncertainty on
the part
to Freeport as
to what specific actions the Board would
require of Freeport.
As
a result,
the Board will extend the
compliance deadline
to account
for time that the Board has
consumed by its deliberations on
a remedy.
Therefore,
the Board
will require that Freeport achieve compliance by December 31,
1990.
The Board believes that it should not
in any way reward
Freeport
for
its dilatory actions.
Municipalities, like other
persons
in this State, have
a duty as such to comply with the Act
and Board regulations.
While a community sometimes finds itself
in
a situation where immediate compliance
is impossible, such
a
situation does not obviate the community’s duty to vigorously
pursue
compliance.
This
is especially true when lack of
compliance directly and negatively impacts upon the health and
welfare of the community’s citizens.
Given the record
in this matter,
it is clear that Freeport
has not been driven
to achieve compliance with environmental
regulations.
The sewer
improvements are long overdue.
If~
Freeport has delayed action in implementing the recommendation of
its consultants
to the extent that compliance by the December 31,
1990 deadline creates a hardship,
then the hardship suffered by
Freeport
is self—imposed.
Again,
it must be emphasized that
Freeport in
its April 29th Compliance Plan has not explained its
rationale
for proposing
a compliance date which
is ten months
later than that ordered
by the Board.
To allow Freeport to
extend
its period of non—compliance,
as it
is implicitly
requesting, would have the effect of promoting “inaction”
as an
acceptable alternative to compliance.
It would also justifiably
offend the hundreds of communities throughout the State which
have worked long and hard
to achieve compliance with Board
regulations as well
as give other non—compliant communities
further
incentive to disregard the environmental laws of the
State.
Since Freeport’s compliance plan provides an untimely
completion date,
the Board cannot
adopt
the plan as part of
a
92—14
9
compliance order.
Responding Complainants have requested that
the Board
require Freeport to provide greater detail
in its
Compliance Plan and that the Responding Complainants be allowed
to “secure engineering assistance,
at the City’s cost,
to provide
the Board with technical
input” on various
issues they have
raised concerning the Compliance Plan.
In short,
it appears that
Responding Complainants want
the Board
to devise a detailed
compliance plan
in response to additional technical information
that will be supplied at
a later date.
The Board does not wish
to drag this proceeding out any
longer.
The Board’s primary objective
in this proceeding is to
ensure that Freeport achieves compliance as expeditiously as
possible.
How Freeport accomplishes this task is of secondary
importance.
Any detailed technical information with regard
to
how compliance may be achieved would have
to come into the record
via more hearings,
or
in the least verified pleadings.
For these
reasons,
the Board will not entertain further information as to
the adequacy of a specific compliance plan.
Neither will the
Board attempt
to devise
a particular plan of its own.
The
Board’s Order
today will require Freeport to achieve compliance
by
a date certain.
In this instance, such an Order
is
sufficient.
The Board makes no finding
as
to the adequacy of the
proposed compliance plan and will not require that
it be adopted
as proposed.
Accordingly Freeport may make adjustments
to
the
plan as it deems appropriate consistent with the requirement that
compliance be achieved.
The Board notes that the Responding
Complainants do not believe the plan adequately addresses the
problem,
particularly in the Hunt, Cottonwood, Shawnee and
Sheridan areas.
Freeport may ignore such concerns at its own
risk.
The Board assumes that Freeport
is continuing
its
interaction with the Environmental Protection Agency regarding
sewer system problems.
The Board believes that Freeport’s persistant non—compliance
would normally warrant a large monetary penalty.
However, the
principal
reason for the imposition of penalties under
the Act
is
to aid
in the enforcement of the Act.
Punitive considerations
are secondary.
Metropolitan Sanitary District. Pollution Control
Board,
61
Ill.
2d 38,
338 N.E.
2d 392,
397
(1975).
Under Section 42 of the Act, Freeport may be assessed a
penalty of $10,000 per violation and up to $1000 for each day a
violation continues.
Given the time over which the violations
have occurred a massive penalty could be assessed
in this
instance.
The Board believes that
a large penalty
in this matter
would be counterproductive
and will instead
impose a penalty of
$10,000
to aid
in the enforcement of the Act.
The penalty is to
be paid
to the Environmental Trust Fund.
The Board notes that it
discussed the factors set forth by Section
33(c)
of the Act in
the Board’s Opinion of February 25,
1988.
92—15
10
In addition,
the Board’s Order
today may not provide for
a
penalty which would have to be paid only if Freeport fails
to
achieve compliance by the relevant date.
See Tn—County Landfill
Company
v. Pollution Control Board,
41 Ill. App.
3d 249,
cite
(2d Dist.
1976).
Consequently, if Freeport fails to achieve
compliance by the date prescribed
in today’s Order
or otherwise
violates any other provision of the Order,
a subsequent
enforcement action would have
to be brought before
the Board or
circuit court would be able to impose an additional penalty
against Freeport.
The Responding Complainants also request that the Board
order Freeport to provide more details as to how it will finance
the sewer system
improvements.
Evidently,
the Responding
Complainants ultimately desire the Board to issue an Order
addressing Freeport’s financing.
The Responding Complainants
state,
“It
is essential
for the Board
to require the City to come
up with financing
at an earlier date,
if the Board’s compliance
date is to be met.”
(Response,
p.
9).
However, the Illinois
Supreme Court has stated:
Neither under Section
46
of
the Environmental
Protection
Act
nor
under
Section
9
of
the
Sanitary
District
Act
of
1911
is
authority
conferred
upon
the
Board
to
order
the
issuance
of
bonds....
The
board
has
the
authority to order
the abatement of pollution
practices.
North Shore Sanitary District v. Pollution Control Board,
55 Ill.
2d 101, 105,
302, N.E.
2d
50
(1973).
The Board,
then, will order
Freeport to abate
its violations
of the Act and regulations promulgated thereunder.
However,
Freeport is free to choose how it will finance its actions of
abatement.
As
in the previous Opinion, the Board refers Freeport
to Section 46
of the Act as one available method offinancing.
Once again, Freeport
is directed
to proceed even though State or
Federal funds may not be available.
Finally,
the Responding Complainants seek an award of costs
and attorneys’
fees incurred by their efforts in preparing their
Response, since Freeport’s plan was deficient on its face.
The
Board notes that the Interim Order merely allows the Complainants
to respond
to Freeport’s Complaince Plan.
The Interim Order did
not require a response.
Most importantly,
the Act does not
provide
for an award of costs and attorneys’
fees in enforcement
cases brought by citizen complainants.
Such costs and fees are
allowed
by Section 42(f)
of the Act only when
the Attorney
General or a State’s Attorney prevail
in an enforcement action on
behalf of the People of the State of Illinois.
In summary,
the Board will require Freeport
to abate further
violations of the Act and regulations promulgated
thereunder.
In
92—16
11
addition, Freeport must take steps to achieve compliance by
December
31, 1990.
Freeport must also submit progress reports to
the Agency and
the Complainant every three months.
Each report
shall briefly summarize steps toward compliance which Freeport
has taken
in the three months prior
to the date of the progress
report and which Freeport plans to take
in the three months
subsequent to the date of the progress report.
This will allow
interested persons to monitor Freeport’s progress
in achieving
compliance.
In this case,
the Board has used the terms “substantial
compliance” and “compliance”
almost interchangeably.
However,
complete compliance
is the mandated goal
for
Freeport.
Freeport’s problems are widespread and have developed over many
years.
Realistically, minor and insignificant instances of non-
compliance might occasionally still occur even after
improvements.
Freeport’s actions
in achieving overall compliance
could be viewed as mitigating factors
in any subsequent
enforcement action based
on such instances of non—compliance.
Nonetheless,
today’s Order
still requires that Freeport achieve
compliance by December
31,
1990.
This Supplemental Opinion and the Board’s Opinion of
February 25,
1988 constitute
the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
FINAL ORDER
It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that:
1.
The City of Freeport
(Freeport) has violated 35
Ill. Mm.
Code 306.102(a), 306.303, and 306.304.
2.
Consistent with the terms of this Order, Freeport shall abate
its violations of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act
(Act)
and regulations promulgated thereunder.
3.
Freeport shall take appropriate actions,
including but not
limited
to sewer rehabilitation and the implementation of
other improvements as necessary,
in order
to achieve
compliance with.the Act and regulations promulgated
thereunder by December 31,
1990.
4.
Three months after
the date of this Order, and every three
months thereafter until December
31,
1990, Freeport shall
submit a Progress Report
to the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency,
Enforcement Programs, 2200 Churchill Road,
P.O.
Box 19276,
Springfield, IL
62794—9275,
and each of the
Complainants.
Each Progress Report shall briefly summarize
steps toward compliance which Freeport has taken during
the
three months
prior
to the date of the Progress Report and
which Freeport expects
to
take during the three months
subsequent
to the date of the Progress Report.
9
2—17
12
5.
Freeport shall, by certified check or money order payable
to
the State of Illinois and designated
for deposit into the
Environmental Protection Trust Fund, pay
a civil penalty of
$10,000.
Freeport shall pay this penalty within forty—five
(45) days of the date of this Order
to:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Fiscal Services Division
2200
Churchill
Road
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, IL
62794—9276
Section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act,
Ill.
Rev.
Stat.
1985 ch. 111
½
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.
I, Dorothy
M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above Supplementa
Opinion and
Final Order was adopted
on the
~
day of
_________________
1988, by a vote of _________________________.‘
c2’
Dorothy M/Gunn,
Clerk
Illinois ~‘PollutionControl Board
92—18
