ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

July l7~ 1975

LUCILLE WATHEN,

Complainant,

V.

MAE

V.

CHANDLER,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

PCB 74—482

DISSENTING OPINION

(by Mr.

Zeitlin):

The Opinion of the Board concludes that unreasonable

interference under Rule 102 of Chapter

8 has been established.

My reading of the Wathen’s and Chandler’s testimony appears

to be equally convincing and acceptable.

The testimony of

the EPA witness must be discounted, both on the method of

testing and conclusionary value of the tests, in determining

whether there has been a numerical violation of the Board’s

Rules.

The Board Opinion suggests that Respondent install a

barrier or baffle near the air conditioning unit to deflect

the emissions back towards Respondent’s own property.

Notwithstanding

the lack of evidence as to the amount of

hardship any of these methods would place upon Respondent,

the record is silent that these methods would indeed resolve

the difficulties herein.

I must conclude that the weight of the evidence does

not show a Rule 102 violation, that the factors enumerated

in Section 33(c)

of the Act have not been proven, and that

unreasonable interference therefore has not been established.

Pht

Member o

the

ard

I,

Christan

L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, do hereby cer~ifythat the above Dissenting

opinion was filed this

~

day of July,

1975.

Illinois Pollution

Board

18—