ILLINOIS
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
February
15,
1996
ESG WATTS, NC.,
an Iowa corporation,
Petitioner,
V.
ILLiNOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
)
PCB 94-243
)
94-306
)
94-307
)
94-308
)
94-309
)
95-133
)
95-134
)
(Permit Appeals
-
Land)
)
(Consolidated)
)
DISSENTING OPINION (by J.
TheodoreMeyer and J. Yi):
We respectftzlly dissent from the majorityorder today as the result ofour frustration with
the continuing tardiness ofthe filings from the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency).
While we agree that theexclusion oftheAgency’s Post Hearing
Brief
is not theproper
vehicle for sanctioning the Agency in this case, webelieve
that
in the ibture such sanction may be
appropriate.
We also understand the demandsthat the Agency has on thefew resources at its
disposal and it is reasonable for the Board to expect late filings in a few instances.
However,
in
this case where the Agency agreedto the briefing schedule, there is no excuse for such late filing
except for the possible under-staffing at the Agency.
While
we are not saying that being under-
staffed is an acceptable reason fora late filing it is a reason that this Board can understand and
appreciate.
The assigned Agency Attorney in this matter stated that sincethe Agency received the
Post
Hearing Brieffrom ESGWatts Tnc., on January
12,
1996 and the filing ofthe Agency’s Post
Hearing
Brief,
he worked the following hours:’
hours workedare
not
actual
hours but calculated pursuant to
the Agency’s
Friday,
January
12,
1996
15 houn
Saturday,
January
13,
1996
4
hours
Sunday,
January
14,
1996
8 hours
Monday,
January
15,
1996
17.5
hours
Tuesday,
January
16,
1996
17 hours
Wednesday,
January
17,
1996
17 hours
Thursday,
January
18,
1996
20.5 hours
Friday,
January
19,
1996
19.5 hours
Sunday,
January 21,
1996
5 hours
Monday,
January 22,
1996
10.5 hours
Tuesday,
January 23,
1996
14 hours
Wednesday,
January 24,
1996
18 hours
‘We
assume that
the
calculation
ofthe
time sheets.
2
The Agency Attorney has also filed appearances,
as a respondent, in twenty-six (26) other matters
before theBoard.
If the Agency is under-staffed, or if
this
one attorney is over utilized, it should
seek additional attorneys in order to insure timely filing before theBoard.
The failure to address
this resource problem creates theunnecessary risk that we may be faced with a situation of
deciding matters without thebenefit ofthe Agency’s arguments.
Additionally, we would like to
note that the Agency could ofrequested for additional time to file its PostHearing Briefprior to
the filing due date and possibly avoided this situation.
The Agency should consider this approach
in the future.
Forthe reasons stated above we respectfully dissent.
ii
Theodore Meyer
Jose?~!i_
I
Board Member
Boa -d Member
I, Dorothy M. Ciunn, Clerk ofthe Illinois Pollution Co
trolBoard, hereby certit~’
that the above
dissenting opinion was filed on the
ióP’
day of
199~.
(I
-,
PLPC4~Jk.
Dorothy M. 9G?n. Clerk
Illinois PolluQ~h
Control Board
Thursday,
January
25,
1996
18.5
hours
Friday,
January 26,
1996
23.5
hours
Saturday,
January 27,
1996
16 hours
Sunday,
January 28, 1996
16 hours
Monday,
January 29,
1996
22 hours
Tuesday,
January 30, 1996
20 hours
Wednesday,
January
31, 1996
24 hours
Thursday,
February
1,
1996
24 hours
Friday,
Fehniary
2,
1996
1 S. 5 hours
Saturday,
February 3,
1996
14.5 hours
Sunday,
February
4,
1996
12.5 hours
Monday,
February 5,
1996
17.5 hours