ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    February 22, 1971
    TEXACO, INC.
    )
    v.
    ENVIRONKENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    )
    PCB7O-29
    CONCURRING OPINION OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Aldrich)
    I supported the Opinion of Mr. Currie but moved the deletion
    of this sentence, page 2, paragraph 2:
    “No one has the right to destroy his neighbors
    simply because he makes piles of money doing it..”
    The Motion failed for lack of a second.
    I feel that
    it
    is unfair to a respondent to introduce into the
    Opinion a highly dramatic statement which goes far beyond the
    seriousness of the pollution proven, or in fact even alleged, in
    the instant case.
    I support a statement along this line:
    “No one has a right to impose unreasonable nuisance
    or hardship on his neighbor simply because it is more
    profitable to him.”
    This is quite different language than “destrOy his neighbors
    because he makes piles of money in doing it.”
    I
    /
    Samuel Ft. Aldrich
    Board
    Member
    Pollution Control Board
    I,
    Regina E,
    Ryan,
    do hereby certify that Samuel Aldrich submitted
    the above concurring opinion this 22nddày o9 February,—l~971
    ~.
    .~2
    ,.~—
    1
    —
    256
    HYDROGEN SULFIDE AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
    Country
    or State
    Basic Standard
    pg/rn3
    ppm
    Avg. Time
    California
    150
    .10
    lhr,
    Missouri
    45
    03
    30 mm,
    Montana
    45
    .
    03
    30 mm.
    New York
    150
    .10
    1 hr.
    Pennsylvania
    7, 5
    005
    24 hr.
    Texas
    120
    .
    08
    30 mm.
    Czechoslovakia
    8
    005
    24 hr.
    Ontario, Canada
    45
    ,
    03
    30 mm.
    1
    258
    The question of official notice has come up in this case as the result of
    an incomplete record, Benchmarks by which the potential harm of the
    estimated emissions can be assessed are necessary,
    Surely the Board can
    rely on its own knowledge and experience as well as materials whose
    factual integrity is beyond question such as the enactment of ambient air
    quality standards by governmental authorities to illuminate some dark
    corners of this record,
    Generally available, relevant, indisputably correct i’actual information
    cannot be ignored by this Board if it is to come to an informed decision after
    a fair hearing, Administrative bodiles must be free to call upon their own
    peculiar experience and knowledge in arriving at a decision, If a decision
    could be made in an absolute vacuum, that is, purely from looking at the
    record, there would be no need for a five member Board, Logic would
    militate that decisions be made by a three member board or even a single
    member board, This Board is statutorily presumed to embody a certain
    expertise inasmuch as the legislature in its wisdom directed the governor
    to appoint ‘ian independent Board,,, consisting of five technically qualified
    members,
    5, H, A, ch, 111-1/2 ~ 1005 (a) The only rational conclusion
    to be drawn from the statutory existence of the five member Board is that
    the legislature meant the Board to do some thinking of its own, The Board
    must be free to take notice of generally recognized technical or scientific
    facts within the Board~s specialized knowledge and experience, It would,
    of course, be desirable to put all parties on record notice of the full extent
    of the materials officially noticed, but when this is not done it’should not
    necessarily be a roadblock to the Boardts consideration of particularly
    relevant public facts, Certainly if the parties are not prejudiced by con-
    sideration of extra-record scientific facts there should be no impediment
    to their use, See City of Ishpeming v, Michigan Public Service Comm.
    121 N, W, 2d 462 (Mich,, 1963); NLRB v, Johnson 310 F, 2d 550 (CA6, 1962),
    In Monon H, Co, v, Public Service Comm. 161 N, E, 2d 626 (md, App,
    1959) the public service commission, on its own motion, caused special
    investigations of railroad crossings to be made and may have based its
    order to require the railroad to install blinker lights at crossings on such
    information and evidence outside of the record,
    The court there based its
    decision on the admonition in U, 5, et al v, Pierce Auto Freight Lines, Inc.
    where the court said:
    The mere fact that the determining body has
    looked beyond the record proper does not
    invalidate its action unless substantial prejudice
    is shown to result.
    66 5, Ct, 687, 695 (1946).

    Back to top