ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL

BOARD

December 16,

1982

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

PARALLEL SHORE PROTECTION

)

R82~1I

IN LAKE MICHIGAN

(Subtitle

C; Part 311)

CONCURRING OPINION

(By J.D,

Durnelle):

The intent of this proposed rule was to eliminate

unnecessary paperwork and to speed up shore protection permit

issuance.

The majority has interpreted

ltconcurrencei to mean indivld—

ual concurrence by the Board on each and every permit

application.

it seems to me that this proposed rule provided strict

environ~~

mental

safeguards and would have given concurrence

to a narrow

class of permits which are now routinely issued.

However, the alternative

proposed

by the

Board

for

First.

Notice would have givenindividual

Board Members

in effect

a

veto

power over the proposed Rule’s functioning.

Since no sinq~o

Board Member now has a veto power over

any Board

Rule,

a

prece~

dent

would be created which might

lead to

further provisions

of

this type.

For this reason,

I concur

in

dismissal

as being

preferable to adoption of the First Notice

proposal.

It

is unfortunate that here the Board

felt unable to

s:Lm-~

plify permit procedures and to reduce paperwork

and

to shorten

permit issuance periods.

I would have adopted

the original

IDOT proposed rule.

I, Christan

L.

Moffett, ~erk

of

the

Illinois

Pollution

Control Board,

hereby ce9tify that the above Concurring Opinion

was submitted on the

~

day of

____

,

1982.

Christan

L,

Mof’f~t.t,

Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

50-157