ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    February 22,
    1990
    NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
    SERVICES CORPORATION,
    )
    Petitioner,
    v.
    )
    PCB 89—129
    )
    (Permit Appeal)
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    )
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    Respondent.
    DISSENTING OPINION
    (by J. Theodore Meyer):
    I dissent
    from the
    order
    issued by
    the majority
    today,
    in
    which they note that petitioner’s brief is over one month late, and
    state
    that
    because
    of
    the decision
    deadline
    in
    this
    case,
    the
    filing of a brief would now be “inappropriate” unless accompanied
    by a waiver of the decision deadline.
    I object to this for several
    reasons.
    First,
    I do not believe that the Board should begin the
    dangerous precedent of issuing an order reminding
    a petitioner to
    file
    a brief
    in
    every case where
    the brief
    is
    appreciably
    late.
    If the Board issues such an order
    in this case, why not
    in every
    case?
    This will only increase the paper generated by the Board and
    result
    in
    delay.
    Persons
    appearing before the Board
    should
    be
    expected to meet their deadlines without prompting from the Board.
    Second,
    I believe that the majority’s order implies that the Board
    will accept late briefs if accompanied by a waiver of any decision
    deadline.
    I can easily
    foresee situations where the Board would
    decide not to accept
    a late brief at all,
    regardless of whether it
    was accompanied by a waiver.
    Third,
    I believe that the majority’s
    order
    in
    essence
    forces the petitioner
    to give a waiver
    of
    the
    deadline.
    The petitioner controls the clock
    in these cases,
    and
    should not be coerced into extending the time for decision.
    Finally,
    I
    object to
    the
    last paragraph of
    the majority’s
    order, which states that if petitioner does not file a waiver and
    motion by March
    6,
    1990, the Board will dismiss the appeal on its
    own motion.
    I question whether dismissal
    is an appropriate remedy
    in
    this
    situation.
    Perhaps
    the
    better
    remedy
    is
    to
    refuse
    to
    consider any brief which is now filed by petitioner, and decide the
    case simply on the record as
    it now exists before
    us.
    I do not
    believe that a petitioner
    is necessarily always required
    to file
    a brief before the Board will
    rule
    on the merits of the appeal,
    although
    of
    course
    a
    petitioner’s
    claims
    may
    be
    weak
    unless
    supported by specific argument and citation to the record.
    In any
    event,
    I believe that
    it is premature to state that the case
    will
    absolutely be dismissed
    if a waiver and motion are not filed.
    10
    ?-
    220
    2
    For these reasons,
    I dissent.
    J.
    ,~heodore
    Meyer
    Bb~rdMember
    I,
    Dorothy N.
    Gunn, hereby certify thatthe
    above Dissenting
    Opinion was filed on the
    --
    day of
    _________________
    ,
    1990
    Dorothy M. ‘Cunn,
    Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
    102—73fl

    Back to top