ILLINOIS
    POLLUTION
    CONTROL
    BOARD
    August
    10,
    1984
    W~LSTE
    MANAGEMENT~
    INC
    PCB
    84-~45
    84
    6
    ILLINOIS
    ENVIRO~!~L
    B4~68
    PROTECTiON
    AGE3Y,
    Respondent
    CONCURRING
    OPINION
    (by
    J.
    Anderson):
    Mr.
    Forcade~s
    concurring
    statement.
    points
    out.
    a
    problem
    that
    may
    arise
    by
    separating
    out
    and
    rulinq
    on
    matters
    that
    are
    not
    clearly
    distinguishable,
    at
    least not at this time.
    I
    believe
    the
    Board,
    in
    its
    Order,
    has
    created
    another
    potential
    problem
    by
    unnecessarily
    categorizing
    without
    knowinc
    the
    circumstances
    The
    Board
    held
    that.
    ~the
    factual
    basis
    for
    Agency
    decision—
    making
    on
    permits
    does
    not
    result
    in
    an
    expectation
    of
    con—
    fidentiality.~
    The
    Board
    need
    not
    have
    attemnted
    to
    separate
    out
    “factual~
    in
    its
    ruling.
    The
    Board
    found
    no
    reason
    to
    reverse
    the
    decis:Lon
    of
    the
    hearing
    officer,
    and
    it
    should
    have
    avoided
    unnecessary
    conjecture
    We
    do
    not
    know
    how,
    or
    if,
    the
    ~iactuui
    basis
    may
    prove
    to
    be
    at
    issue
    here,
    or,
    for
    example,
    whether
    this
    basis
    may
    have
    a
    legal
    component
    that
    may
    not
    be
    sufficient
    to
    result
    in
    an
    ex-
    pectation
    of
    confidentiality
    in
    the
    pre~decislone
    setting.
    In
    our
    desire
    to
    avoid
    an
    overly~hroad
    constitution,
    I
    am
    concerned
    that
    we
    are
    inviting
    an
    overly~narrow
    construction
    in
    what
    may
    later
    prove
    to
    be
    a
    far
    more
    complex
    situation
    than
    we
    can
    hypothesize
    at
    th:Ls
    times
    Durinq
    the
    time
    this
    case
    is
    under
    the
    ourview
    of
    the
    hearing
    officer
    the
    Board
    does
    not
    necessa.rily
    have
    before
    it
    all
    the
    facts
    which
    the
    hearing
    officer
    has
    before
    him,
    Any
    holdings
    or
    findings
    made
    by
    the
    Board
    at
    such
    a
    time
    should
    be
    limited
    in
    specificity
    to
    the
    information
    before
    the
    Board~
    I
    would
    have
    preferred,
    at
    the
    discovery
    stage,
    to
    have
    avoided
    the
    possibility
    of giving
    the
    hearing
    officer
    unintended
    problems.
    For
    these
    reasons,
    I
    concur~
    ~
    ~~A~/1
    floan
    (3.
    Anderson
    59.~.337

    —2—
    I,
    Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Control
    Board, hereby certify that the above Co~curring
    Opionion was
    submitted on the
    ~day
    ~
    1984.
    ~2
    Dorothy M.~unn, Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control
    Board

    Back to top