ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

June 2,

1994

MYRTLE LANDWEHRNEIER,

)

)

Petitioner,

)

v.

)

PCB 94—55

)

(UST Fund)

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

)

PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

Respondent.

MAURICE

DAILY, DAILY

& WALKER, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER;

GREG RICHARDSON APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY.

CONCURRING OPINION

(by C.A. Manning):

I agree with the majority’s outcome in that,

based on the

record, the 53

handling charges requested by Myrtle

Landwehrmeier are not reasonable.

I disagree with the majority’s

analysis of the handling charges in light of the recent decision

of the Third Appellate Court of Illinois in Chuck and Dan’s Auto

Service v.

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency and Illinois

Pollution Control Board,

(May 19,

1994), No.

3-93—0751.

Clearly

Chuck and Dans’s Auto Service established that as to the question

of handling charges the analysis should focus as to what is

reasonable based on the record before the Board.

The majority’s

reference to the new Section 22. 18b (i) (2)

of the Environmental

Protection Act which is not applicable here and the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency’s unpromulgated rule establishing

15

as a reasonable handling charge is misplaced.

This case

should have been solely analyzed as to the reasonableness of the

requested handling charges.

For these reasons,

I concur.

~t

Claire A. Mannihg

~

()

Chairman

-

I, Dorothy M. Gunn,

Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, he~eby~ertifythat

e above concurring opinion was filed

on the

~-‘~-~‘

day of

,

1994.

/

(~//

~~t1

-

Dorothy M.4ann,

Clerk

Illinois Follution Control Board