ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
August
4,
1988
PEARSON INDUSTRIES,
INC.
)
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB
87—7
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
THOMAS 3. IMMEL OF IMMEL,
ZELLE, OGDEN, MCCLAIN, GERMERAAD AND
COSTELLO APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
VIRGINIA
I. YANG,
OF THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT.
OPINION AND ORDER OF TUE BOARD
(by M.
L. Nardulli):
This matter
conies before the Board from a January
14,
1987
Permit Appeal filed
on behalf of Pearson Industries,
Inc.
(hereinafter “Pearson”).
The Petitioner appeals the decision of
the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(hereinafter
“Agency”)
of December
9,
1986,
concerning the modification
of
Petitioner’s closure plan.
The Board held public hearing on this
matter at the Henry County Courthouse,
in Cambridge,
Illinois on
July 23,
1987.
Pearson submitted
its post—hearing brief on
September
2,
1987.
The Agency filed a response brief on
September
17,
1987 and the Petitioner
filed
a reply brief on
September
23,
1987.
Further action on Pearson’s closure plan has
been stayed.
BACKGROUND
Pearson operates
a small,
farm equipment manufacturing
company
in Galva,
Henry County.
There
are approximately one—
hundred—and--fifty employees at the plant.
The plant
is equipped
with
a spray—painting
system that
is used
to paint the finished
products.
When the color of
the paint
is changed, the paint
system is flushed with the desired color
of paint until
the
system runs with that color.
The paint
that is pumped through
the system during the flushing process
is generally known as
paint waste.
This paint waste was collected
in drums and stored
in
a sixty
feet by fifty
feet dirt area outside of the Pearson
plant,
until
final disposal.
(R.ll7).
The paints used
by Pearson prior
to October
31,
1985,
may
have contained pigments exceeding the E.P.A. Extraltion Procedure
Toxicity for heavy metals set forth
at 35
Ill.
Adrn.
Code
91—61
—2—
721.124.
Although the presence of heavy metals was not
conclusively shown,
heavy metals and toxic solvents are commonly
found
in the types
of paints used by Pearson.
Further, Pearson’s
own test of paint chips
found
in the storage yard showed
that the
paint waste was a hazardous waste because of its ignitability
(R.
17).
As a result,
the paint,
and the paint wastes,
are
classified as hazardous waste.
The Agency also stated that its
previous site investigations showed that xylene and toluene may
have been stored
in the storage area
(P.
117).
As
a hazardous waste generator,
Pearson
is governed by the
Board’s regulations
in 35
Ill. Adm. Code 722.
Under section
722.134(b), Pearson became an operator
of
a hazardous waste
storage facility because
it allowed the hazardous waste
to
accumulate
for more than ninety days.
As a result, Pearson,
and
the drum storage area,
are subject to the requirements of
35 Ill.
Adm. Code 724, Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous
Waste Treatment,
Storage and Disposal Facilities.
Pearson planned
to cease generation of hazardous waste by
using water—soluble paints instead of
solvent based coatings.
As
a result,
it no longer requires a storage area for hazardous
waste.
However, because hazardous wastes were stored
in the
storage area for periods
of greater than ninety
(90) days,
it was
necessary
for Pearson to file
a closure plan for the storage
area,
with the Agency,
in compliance with 35
Ill.
Adni. Code
725.212.
In compliance with 35
Ill.
Adni. Code 703.150(a),
Pearson submitted Part A of the permit application for
a
hazardous waste material facility
in August of
1980.
In this
application, the Petitioner stated that
its hazardous waste from
non—specific sources fell
under the generic classification of
F003 and F005 as set forth
in 35
Ill. Adm. Code
721.131.
These
generic classifications include the following hazardous wastes:
F003
The following spent non—halogenated
solvents:
xylene,
acetone,
ethyl
acetate,
ethyl benzene, ethyl,
methyl isobutyl ketone,
n—butyl
alcohol, cyclohexanone, and
methanol;
and the still bottoms from
the recovery of these solvents.
F005
The following spent
non—halogenated
solvents:
toluene,
methyl ethyl
ketone,
carbon disulfide,
isobutanol,
and pyridine; and the
still bottoms from the recovery of
these solvents.
Pearson submitted
a partial Closure/Post Closure Plan to the
Agency on August
19,
1985.
The Agency responded on November
13,
1985 by notifying Pearson of numerous deficiencies
in its plan.
Pearson submitted additional
information for
its Closure/Post
91—62
—3—
Closure Plan on February
27, 1986.
In the plan, Pearson states that the maximum waste inventory
in the storage area was approximately 345 drums.
The maximum
drum weight was approximately 400 although many of the drums were
only partially full.
Pearson began final
removal
of the drums on
November
6,
1984 and by June 25,
1985 all of
the drums containing
hazardous waste had been properly disposed.
Pearson stated that
it will no longer
use the area
to store hazardous waste.
The hazardous waste remaining
in the storage area
is
the
result of
spillage and drum leakage.
This
is documented by an
Agency inspection report from February 20,
1985 and from the
Petitioner’s Closure/Post Closure Plan which reports analytical
test results on paint residues
(not soil)
taken from the surface
of the storage area.
Pearson estimates
in the Closure/Post
Closure Plan that less than one drum of paint residue
is present
in the storage
area.
To close the facility,
Pearson could either cover the area
containing hazardous waste and provide for post—closure care or
remove all of
the hazardous waste from the area.
Pearson
proposed the following preliminary removal procedure for the soil
in the storage area:
The removal
of two to three
inches
of soil
from the surface of the entire Drum Storage
Area
is planned.
Any penetration
of paint
residues into
the soil beyond
a 2—inch depth
is considered unlikely.
Since this cleanup proposal covers
a physical
removal
of soil and solid—type residues with
no anticipated complications,
it will only be
described briefly here.
More details will
be
provided
in the final
report
for this closure.
The procedure planned
is to use
a small front—
end loader to remove
the soil and paint
residues.
Cleanup would be started at one end
of
the area and move
towards
the other.
By
starting outside of one end,
the loader would
not have to operate on the residues.
On—site
supervision and visual inspection by ESG Watts
would be used
to determine
if removal
is
required beyond
that planned
in any particular
location.
The paint residues are the only
known hazardous material
in the area.
Since
they are readily visible
to someone looking
for them,
visual inspection during cleanup
is
considered an adequate criteria.
As the soil and residues are removed, they
will be placed
in bulk—type trailer
units
91—63
—4—
placed next to the area.
Procedures will be
used to prevent the loss of material between
the loader pickup area
and the bulk
containers.
Upon completion of
removal operations, the
front—end loader will be cleaned over
a bulk
container using
a steel scraper.
After
cleaning,
the scraper will
be discarded into
the container.
The bulk containers will be
covered immediately
to prevent rainfall entry
and wind losses.
Arrangements for transport
to final disposal will be made as soon as
final test results are available.
Following cleanup,
soil samples will
be taken
from the grid locations where the red, blue,
yellow and green paint residues were collected
on July 3,
1986.
They will be analyzed for
chrome
(total)
and lead by the EPA Extraction
Procedure
(EP) Toxicity test.
Sampling
procedures are covered
in an attachment to
this Closure Plan revision.
Four background samples will
be taken outside
of the Drum Storage Area.
These will
be taken
about 50 feet away from the corners on lines
at 45 degree angles to north—south
directions.
The sampling coordinates are:
Ne
—
S1l85.0,W2—60.0;
SE
—
Sl3—50.0,W2—60.0;
SW
—
S13—50.0, W3—85.0; NW
—
Sll—85.0,W3--85.0.
The background samples will be tested the same
as the ones from inside the cleanup area.
In
addition, the following analyses will be run
on one
of the samples from each group:
Unified Soils Classification test (ASTM
D2487),
and Particle Size Analysis
(ASTM
D422).
These
tests determine the clay, sand,
and
silt content
of soils.
Should
the follow—up testing show that
hazardous waste remains in the Drum Storage
Area,
the cleanup and testing procedures
detailed above will be repeated.
When all
work has been completed and the bulk
containers transported
for final,
manifested
disposal,
a final
report documenting the
cleanup will be prepared and submitted
to the
IEPA.
On December
9,
1986,
after reviewing the closure plan
submitted by Pearson,
the Agency approved the plan subject
to the
following conditions:
91—64
—5—
1.
The entire drum storage area shall
be
excavated to a depth of
1 foot and
disposed as hazardous waste.
2.
The soil shall
be sampled at the points
indicated in the closure plan.
For the
sampling points
in the storage
area,
samples shall be
taken from the top
2
inches of the floor of the excavation.
3.
The parameters
and cleanup levels listed
in the table below shall
be used in
testing
the soil and
in demonstrating
decontamination.
Parameter
Cleanup Level
Toluene
3 mg/kg
Xylene
3 mg/kg
Benzene
2 mg/kg
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
169 mg/kg
PAHs
0.5 mg/kg
Ethylene Glycol Butyl
Ether
130 mg/kg
Isobutyl Alcohol
148 mg/kg
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
50.9 mg/kg
Cyclohexanone
63 mg/kg
Aliphatic
& Aromatic
to be determined
Petroleum Distillate
Polyisocyanate
to be determined
Tn
(Dimethylaminoethyl)
Phenol
to be determined
Aliphatic Alcohol
to be determined
Aliphatic Ester
to be determined
Copper
0.02 mg/i
(EP Tox)
Lead
0.1 mg/i (EP Tox)
Chromium (Hexavalent)
0.05 mg/i
(EP Tox)
Chromium (Trivalent)
1.0 mg/i (EP Tox)
Cadmium
0.05 mg/l
(EP Tox)
Cleanup levels
for aliphatic and aromatic
petroleum distillate,
polyisocyanate,
tn
(dimethylaminoethyl) phenol, aliphatic alcohol
and ariphatic ester have not yet been
determined.
Pearson shall test the soil for
these parameters and submit the results to the
IEPA by April
7,
1987, for evaluation, and
propose
a revised closure schedule,
if
necessary.
In
its response
to this submittal,
the Agency
shall
include a schedule for
completion of closure and submittal
of closure
certification.
91—65
—6—
4.
Sampling,
sample preservation and
analytical methods shall
be conducted
in
accordance with Appendices A,
B,
and C
of
35
Ill. Adm. Code Part
721.
Furthermore,
the soil shall
be tested using SW846
Methods 8240 and 8250 for the organics and
SW846 Method 1310 for the metals.
5.
If levels for any of the above parameters
for samples taken in the storage area
exceed cleanup levels,
the soil sampling
program shall be expanded vertically and
laterally,
using the grid sampling method
described on page
4 and
5 of the enclosed
instructions,
until
the boundary
of
contamination
is defined.
All
contaminated soil shall
be excavated and
disposed as hazardous waste.
After
excavation,
the area shall
be resampled
and tested
to demonstrate all contaminated
soil has been removed.
6.
After
it
is demonstrated that all
contaminated soil has been removed,
the
area shall be
restored to its present
contours with clean soil.
7.
All equipment used
in the excavation
process
including the end loader and
containers shall
be steam cleaned
or
disposed
as hazardous waste.
8.
When closure
is complete the owner or
operator must submit
to the Director
certification both
by owner or operator
and by an independent registered
professional engineer that the facility
has been closed
in accordance with the
specifications in the approved closure
plan.
Also,
to document the closure activities at
your facility, please submit a Closure
Documentation Report which includes:
a.
The volume
of waste and waste
residue removed.
b.
A description of the method
of waste
handling and transport.
c.
The numbers on the waste manifests.
91—66
—7—
d.
A description of the sampling and
analysis methods used.
e.
A chronological summary and analysis
methods used.
f
Photo documentation of closure.
g.
Tests performed,
methods and
results.
h.
A scaled drawing of no smaller scale
than 1:100, showing the drum storage
area and the locations
of
the soil
sampling points including background
sampling points.
All certification,
logs,
or reports which are
required to be submitted to the Agency by the
facility should
be mailed to the following
address:
Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
Division of Land Pollution Control
Permit Section
2200 Churchill Road
Post Office Box 19276
Springfield,
IL
62794—9276
9.
This facility must continue to meet
the applicable requirements of
35
Iii.
Adm. Code Part 722
—
Standards
Applicable to Generators of
Hazardous Waste and Part 723
—
Standards Applicable
to Transporters
of Hazardous Waste.
10.
The “Certification Regarding
Potential Releases from Solid Waste
Management Units” which you
submitted
is being forwarded to the
USEPA
for possible future action.
The approval of this closure plan
neither approves or disapproves
of
the aforementioned “Certification”.
Pearson estimates the procedure
it proposes would cost
approximately twenty—thousand dollars ($20,000), while the
conditions imposed by the Agency would increase the cost of
closing the facility
to approximately two—hundred—thousand
dollars
($200,000).
(P.
at
26).
9 1—67
—8--
ISSUES
In order to determine
the appropriateness of
the Agency’s
modifications
to the Closure/Post Closure Plan,
the Board must
first address some preliminary issues.
The first issue
is whether
the disposition
of the proceeding should
be decided under
the
RCRA permit appeal regulatory procedures
in 35
Ill. Adm. Code 705
or
the standard Board procedures for Agency permit denials under
35
Ill.
Adm. Code 105.
Because this facility has filed
a Part A
application but has not submitted
a Part
B application,
as
required under
the RCRA regulations,
the facility was deemed
to
have achieved “interim status” and was required
to comply with
the interim status standards of
Part 725 of the Board’s
regulations.
Part 725 interim status standards are generally
implemented without
a permit application or review.
However, the
Board provides for appeal of Agency decisions
to the Board under
35
Ill. Adm.
Code
725.218(g).
Therefore,
the permit was not
a
RCRA permit and
is not subject
to specialized RCRA procedural
requirements.
However,
the Agency’s decision may be appealed to
the Board under
the procedures established
in 35
Ill. Adm.
Code
105.
Browning Ferris Industries
of
Illinois,
Inc.
v.
Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency,
PCB 84—136,
Slip Op.
at 4—5
(May
5,
1988).
The next preliminary issue
is the standard of
review to be
applied
in permit appeal hearings.
The Petitioner
repeatedly
argues that the Agency fails
to show
a technical justification
for their modification of the closure plan.
However,
the Agency
is not required to justify its action.
It is the Petitioner
that
bears the burden
of proving the Agency’s permit conditions
unnecessary.
Environmental Protection Ag~ncyv.
Illinois
Pollution Control Board,
118 Ill.
App.
3d
772,
780, 445N.E.2d
188,
194
(1st Dist.
1983).
Pearson must show that the record
before the Agency indicated that Pearson’s Closure/Post Closure
Plan was sufficient
to ensure that the drum storage area would
not cause
a violation of the Act or Board regulations governing
hazardous waste disposal facilities.
Another
issue raised by the Petitioner
is whether
the soil
in the drum storage area should be treated as hazardous waste.
While Pearson acknowledges that the paint waste was hazardous
waste, and disposed
of the drums accordingly,
it denies that the
soil
in the storage area is hazardous waste.
Pearson maintains
that the classification of the paint waste
in
its permit
application was inadvertent
and incorrect.
CR.
at 28).
According to tests performed by its consultant, Pearson maintains
that the paint waste
in its storage yard should be classified as
DOOl as set forth
in 35
Ill. Adm. Code 721.121 because
it
exhibits the characteristic of ignitability but is not
a listed
hazardous waste
(P at 17).
Further,
Pearson maintains that the
DOOl classification applies only
to the paint waste and not to
the soil
in the storage area and that the concentration of paint
waste
is so low that the soil
in the storage area may not qualify
as
a hazardous waste. Pearson’s proposed Closure/Post Closure
9 1—68
—9—
Plan calls
for core sampling of
the soil
to determine
if
it
is
hazardous or non—hazardous.
First,
it must be reiterated that the requirement for
a
permit
for
a Closure Plan is necessitated by the fact that
hazardous waste was stored in the storage area for longer than
ninety
(90) days and is required whether or not the soil is
a
hazardous waste.
The question that arises
is how should the soil
that
is collected from the storage area be disposed.
Again,
Pearson bears the burden of proving
that its plan will ensure
that no section of the Act or Board regulation will
be violated.
The Agency must make its decision based on the permit
application.
Even though the record included Pearson’s statement
that the hazardous waste was misclassified
as type
F waste,
the
Agency is responsible for determining what portions
of the record
should be given the greatest credence.
Obviously,
the Agency was
not sufficiently persuaded by Pearson’s disclaimer.
Although the
paint waste
stored
in the yard at closure was
to be type D
hazardous waste,
and the paint samples taken from the yard
surface were also type D waste,
the Agency had no assurances as
to what had been stored
in the yard previously.
The Agency had
reason
to believe type
F waste may have been stored
in the yard
(P at 117).
Therefore,
they formulated conditions to ensure
a
comprehensive closure of the area.
PERMIT REVIEW
In
a permit appeal case,
the Board must put itself
in the
position of the Agency
at the time the permit application
is
reviewed and determine
if there
is sufficient proof, supplied by
the applicant,
that
the facility will not cause a violation of
the Act or the Board’s regulations.
The Board may add conditions
to the granting of
the permit as may be necessary to accomplish
the purpose of the Act and regulations.
In accordance with
Section 40(d)
of the Act,
the decision of the Board shall
be
based exclusively on
the record before
the Agency including the
record of the hearing.
The conditions
imposed by the Agency increase the number
of
parameters for which
the soil
is to be tested and the amount of
soil that
is required to be removed from the yard.
The Agency
explained
that their previous experience
in a closure or cleanup
that involved paint wastes found some of these added parameters
to be common constituents of paint wastes.
Therefore,
the Agency
decided that it would be reasonable
to expect that some of these
parameters might also be present at the Pearson site
(P.
93 and
107).
The Agency demanded testing
for xylene and toluene because
site investigations by the Agency indicated that both were used
as solvents at the facility and were stored in the subject
storage yard
(R.
117 and 133).
The Agency indicated that
it
imposed the requirement of excavation of twelve
inches of
soil
because
they felt it would
allow
the Petitioner
to avoid
91—69
—10—
additional analytical
soil
testing costs.
(R.64).
The Petitioner
argues that the testing for all
of the
parameters included by the Agency are unnecessary because the
paint waste are hazardous only because of flash point.
Pearson
therefore proposes that the excavated soil be tested by flash
point.
They also maintain that the cost
of excavating and
testing the soil will
be incurred by the Petitioner and therefore
they should be allowed
to excavate and
test in the manner they
feel will
be most cost effective.
The Petitioner also maintains
that the Agency
is imposing an unnecessary expense on Pearson by
requiring that the soil be disposed of as hazardous waste even if
analytical testing shows
it
is non—hazardous.
In reviewing the Closure/Post Closure Plan submitted by
Pearson
to the Agency on February 27,
1986,
the Board believes
that the plan
is not sufficient to ensure that the hazardous
waste will
be properly disposed
of as required by
35
Ill. Adm.
Code 725.211 because
it fails
to supply sufficient detail of
the
proposed closure plan.
In particular,
the plan fails
to state
the exact area to be excavated,
fails to test the excavated soil
for
type
F hazardous waste and does not call
for
the excavation
of
a larger area if the soil
is found
to be hazardous.
The Board
will not order the Agency
to issue
a permit without greater
assurances
that all of the hazardous waste will be removed from
the area.
The Agency
is correct
in requiring
the Petitioner
to test
for
the parameters it has listed.
It is undisputed that paint
waste
is present
in the soil and both Pearson and the Agency know
that paint and paint residue contain solvents and metals.
The
rules do not specify the tests
to be used to determine
if the
removal process
is complete.
Removal can be
taken to mean the
elimination of all hazardous waste and constituents from the
site.
Complete removal
is not intended
to be determined by
whether or not the soil is
a hazardous waste.
Therefore,
the
Petitioners proposal
of testing the excavated soil for flash
point,
to determine
if the soil was a characteristics hazardous
waste, would be
inadequate.
The Agency could have required Pearson to demonstrate
removal
of
all hazardous constituents down
to the level of
detection.
Instead,
the Agency
acted with reasonable leniency by
using levels of detection,
established extraction procedures and
water quality standards
to define removal.
The Agency’s
conditions allow constituents
to remain at levels below the
levels established by the water quality standards.
The Agency
also allows constituents
to remain
if they do not leach under the
extraction procedures test.
Pearson has proposed the removal of only the top three
inches
of soil as opposed
to the removal of
twelve inches
suggested by the Agency.
Under Pearson’s proposal the Petitioner
would
be required
to excavate soil from the storage area at
91—70
—11—
increments
of
3
inches
in depth
until the last portion of
soil
excavated and the soil remaining in the yard both test negative
for
all hazardous constituents.
The Agency admits that Pearson’s
plan would assure
a clean—up of the area but the Agency is
of the
opinion that the removal of twelve inches of soil would prove
more cost efficient for the Petitioner because
it would reduce
their expenditures
for analytical testing of
samples.
(P.
62 and
64).
Because it
is the Petitioner who will bear the cost of the
clean—up,
it should be allowed
to determine the means by which
the clean—up is achieved while the Agency shall
be responsible
for determining
if
those means are sufficient to ensure the
clean—up.
In this matter,
if
Pearson desires
to excavate at
three
inch increments,
and the Agency
is of the opinion that this
will
result
in a complete clean—up,
Pearson should be allowed to
proceed as
it wishes.
However,
it must
be clarified that Pearson
will
be required
to excavate the entire storage yard after every
analytical test that indicates
the presence of hazardous
materials tested for,
and
in concentrations above,
the limits
imposed by the Agency.
The Petitioner will not be allowed
to
divide the area
at anytime and continue
to clean up only the
areas where hazardous materials are detected.
Pearson also objects
to the Agency requiring
them to dispose
of all of
the excavated soil as hazardous waste even
if the
analytical testing indicates no hazardous material
is present.
The top three
inches
of soil removed obviously must be discarded
as hazardous waste because it will include the paint residue
visibly present
in the yard.
(P.30).
While the other soil
excavated may not have hazardous characteristics
it still must be
disposed of
as hazardous waste because Section 72l.103(c)(2)(A)
requires any solid waste generated from the treatment,
storage or
disposal
of hazardous waste
to be managed as
a hazardous waste.
Therefore,
all
of the soil removed from the yard must be disposed
of as hazardous waste.
The Board,
therefore, will order the Agency to modify
Pearson’s Closure/Post Closure Plan by imposing the Board’s
conditions.
These conditions have been formulated to guarantee
the elimination
of the hazardous waste and minimize the need for
further maintenance while avoiding unnecessary actions.
The case will be remanded
to the Agency with instructions to
include the new conditions drafted by the Board. Section
4(1) and
39(d)
of the Act make
the Agency the RCRA permitting authority
for Illinois.
This authority has also been designated by the
(JSEPA.
The Board is not a “Co—authority” for RCRA cases and
therefore the Board must remand to the Agency
for enforcement.
Further,
it
is more practical for the Board
to specify the
required modifications and allow
the Agency to issue
the
Permit.
As
a result,
the Agency will remain as
the permitting
agency
for
the Pearson Closure/Post Closure Plan.
91—71
—12—
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s finding of facts and
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
This matter is remanded to the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency with instructions to approve the Closure/Post
Closure Plan submitted by Pearson Industries,
Inc. consistent
with the findings
in the opinion which are herein summarized:
1.
The Petitioner, Pearson,
may excavate the
storage area at depth
increments of three
inches
(or at any increments
it
desires).
Analytical testing of both the
excavated soil and the storage area must
be performed,
as prescribed by the Agency,
after each excavation.
Additional
soil
must
be excavated from the entire
area of
the storage yard after
every analytical
test that indicates the presence of
hazardous materials above the limits
imposed by the Agency.
At no time may the
Petitioner divide the excavation area,
for
the purpose
of limiting future excavation,
to those areas where hazardous waste has
been detected.
2.
All
of the soil removed from the yard must
be disposed
of
as hazardous waste.
3.
The parameters and clean—up levels
for
analytical
testing in the Agency’s
conditions, shall be adhered to by the
Petitioner.
4.
The reporting requirements, stated
in the
Agency’s conditions,
shall be adhered
to
by the Petitioner.
Section
41 of the Environmental Protection
Act,
Ill. Re.
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.
91—72
—13—
I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of
the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify the the above Opinion and Order was adopted
on the
___________
day of
~2-~..-i--
,
1988, by
a vote
of
-~—o
Dorothy M.,~unn,Clerk
Illinois P~’llutionControl Board
91—73
