ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
August
10,
1984
W~LSTE
MANAGEMENT~
INC
PCB
84-~45
84
6
ILLINOIS
ENVIRO~!~L
B4~68
PROTECTiON
AGE3Y,
Respondent
CONCURRING
OPINION
(by
J.
Anderson):
Mr.
Forcade~s
concurring
statement.
points
out.
a
problem
that
may
arise
by
separating
out
and
rulinq
on
matters
that
are
not
clearly
distinguishable,
at
least not at this time.
I
believe
the
Board,
in
its
Order,
has
created
another
potential
problem
by
unnecessarily
categorizing
without
knowinc
the
circumstances
The
Board
held
that.
~the
factual
basis
for
Agency
decision—
making
on
permits
does
not
result
in
an
expectation
of
con—
fidentiality.~
The
Board
need
not
have
attemnted
to
separate
out
“factual~
in
its
ruling.
The
Board
found
no
reason
to
reverse
the
decis:Lon
of
the
hearing
officer,
and
it
should
have
avoided
unnecessary
conjecture
We
do
not
know
how,
or
if,
the
~iactuui
basis
may
prove
to
be
at
issue
here,
or,
for
example,
whether
this
basis
may
have
a
legal
component
that
may
not
be
sufficient
to
result
in
an
ex-
pectation
of
confidentiality
in
the
pre~decislone
setting.
In
our
desire
to
avoid
an
overly~hroad
constitution,
I
am
concerned
that
we
are
inviting
an
overly~narrow
construction
in
what
may
later
prove
to
be
a
far
more
complex
situation
than
we
can
hypothesize
at
th:Ls
times
Durinq
the
time
this
case
is
under
the
ourview
of
the
hearing
officer
the
Board
does
not
necessa.rily
have
before
it
all
the
facts
which
the
hearing
officer
has
before
him,
Any
holdings
or
findings
made
by
the
Board
at
such
a
time
should
be
limited
in
specificity
to
the
information
before
the
Board~
I
would
have
preferred,
at
the
discovery
stage,
to
have
avoided
the
possibility
of giving
the
hearing
officer
unintended
problems.
For
these
reasons,
I
concur~
~
~~A~/1
floan
(3.
Anderson
59.~.337
—2—
I,
Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control
Board, hereby certify that the above Co~curring
Opionion was
submitted on the
~day
~
1984.
~2
Dorothy M.~unn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control
Board