ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL 2OARD
    May
    10,
    1990
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    Complainant,
    v.
    )
    PCB 86—56
    (Enforcement)
    TRILLA STEEL DRUM COR?ORATION,
    Respondent.
    CONCURRING OPINION
    (by J. Anderson)
    The interim Order
    on this
    remanded case directs
    the parties
    to address six listed
    items related to
    the penalty
    issue.
    My
    concern relates
    to the information required
    in question
    #2
    of the
    Board’s Order,
    which
    I
    do not believe should have been
    included.
    Question
    #2
    reads:
    To
    the
    extent
    that
    it
    is
    possible
    to
    determine,
    what
    is
    the
    range
    of
    penalties
    which
    have
    been
    assessed
    in
    this
    and
    other
    jurisdictions
    for similar violations?
    I have already expressed my general concerns about
    the
    potential problems when
    the Board itself pre—requires such
    comparative information.
    See my Concurring Opinion
    in Illinois
    Environmental Protection AQencv
    v.
    Allen Barry,
    PCB 88-71,
    dated
    May 10,
    1990.
    Additionally,
    I don’t quite know wnar cuesticn
    42
    above intends;
    it appears
    to expect
    some quantum of
    information
    to be provided, and yet
    it
    is vague as
    to what
    that cuantum
    is.
    For example, what does
    “possible
    to determine”
    mean;
    is some
    “showing”
    expected here?
    Does
    “other
    jurisdictions”
    include
    a
    search of
    penalty
    ranges
    in all states?
    Only of those which have
    been appealed?
    Does “range of penalties”
    include
    those
    for
    “similar” cases
    in other media?
    Question
    44
    asks
    the parties,
    ‘in
    light
    of any other
    relevant factors”
    (beyond those
    in Section
    33(c)
    of the Act),
    to
    give dollar penalty amounts
    favored by
    the facts
    of
    this
    case.
    believe question
    #4 appropriately encompasses the “other
    reevar.t
    factors” area.
    It
    is
    for
    these
    reasons
    that
    I respectfully concur.
    II 1--07

    Joan
    G. Angerson
    /
    I,
    Dorothy
    M. Gunn,
    Clerk of
    the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify that the above Concurring Opinion was
    submitted on the
    ~
    day of
    ~Vh
    ~
    ,
    1990.
    ~
    ~
    ~
    Dorothy M.1~nn, Clerk
    Illinois ?~?lutionControl Board
    H
    1—~)S

    Back to top