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