ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

July 5, 1988

CITIZENS OF BURBANK,

Complainants,

v.

)

PCB 84—124

OVERNITE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY

)

Respondent.

DISSENTING OPINION (by J. Anderson and J. T. Meyer):

We feel that at least the Respondent’s request for hearing

should have been granted.

The Board on

its own initiative

provided extra time for the Citizens

to respond to the

respondent’s May 26 motion.

In the Citizen’s response received

June

29,

1988,

they assert that the wall that was constructed

is

unacceptable in that it’s

“only acting like

a blindfold” and that

the noise “is still there

as loud as ever.”

The letter goes on

to assert unsworn new facts which

the Respondent has no

opportunity to challenge

The one thing that both parties appear

to

agree on now is that an extra

50 feet of perimeter wall will

not provide effective further relief.

We believe

it would have

been more fair to have allowed this issue

to be aired and

clarified at hearing.

Otherwise,

the Board appears

to be

arbitrarily sticking

to

a portion of a noise reduction strategy

earlier proposed by Overnite that now may be useless, thus

costing Overnite money and yet potentially providing no further

remedy whatsoever to the Citizens.

Therefore,

we respectfully dissent.

~

7Joan G. Anderson

.~TTh~r

I, Dorothy M. Gunn,

Clerk

of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify that the a

ye Dissenting Opinion was

submitted on the ST~ day of

______________,

1988.

Dorothy

M,

unn, C erk

Illinois P liution Control Board

90—473