ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
August 4, 1988
IN THE MATTER OF:
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO
)
R87-6
PHOSPHORUS EFFLUENT STANDARD,
35 ILL. ADM. CODE 304.123
DISSENTING STATEMENT (by J.D. Dumelle):
I dissent from the majority Order dated August 4, 1988,
relating to the Motion to Exclude Exhibits filed by the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency (Agency). For the reasons set
forth below, I would have specifically determined that the
documents submitted at hearing receive the same weight as the
Board attributes to “public comment.”
Each of the four documents, Exhibits 45—48, bear the title
“Statement by (name) For Presentation at the June 21, 1988
Economic Hearing of the Illinois Pollution Control Board Proposed
Amendments to Phosphorus Effluent Standard R87—6.” Exhibit 45 is
the statement of the principal author of all of the aquatic
biology sections in the Economic Impact Statement (EcIS) entitled
An Economic Analysis of Proposed Amendments to Water Pollution
Regulations Phosphorus Discharges, R87—6. For various reasons,
the author was unable to attend either the June 7, 1988 or the
June 21, 1988 hearing. The author states “tihis written
statement is an attempt to partially compensate for my absence
from the hearings.” Further, the author states that he
“attempted to address some of the issues that have developed in
the June 7, 1988 hearing and in the IEPA comments and BZ&C
Response which preceded it.” Exhibits 46—48 similarly consist of
statements directly related to matters in issue in this
proceeding
——
statements which also are written in the first
person and which closely resemble testimony.
These statements, exhibits 45—48, look very much like
“testimony” to me. However, the authors of these statements were
not sworn, nor were affidavits attached, nor were they even
present to submit their statements into the record
——
the
Department of Energy and Natural Resources (DENR) presented the
statements in support of its EcIS. Thus, the public (here the
Agency) was effectively precluded from challenging the substance
of these statements by cross—examination of the authors at
hearing. To me, this belies the very purpose of a public
hearing, which Professor David Currie summed—up well when he
stated the “the real utility of a public hearing lies in the
opportunity it can afford for exploring the
9 1—305
—3—
I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the abov~Dissenting Statement was
submitted on the
~
day of
____________________,
1988.
~
~
Dorothy M.//~3unn, Clerk
Illinois ~fllution Control Board
Chairman
9 1—307