ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

May 17,

1972

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

#72—44

v.

GEORGE KNIGHT

OPINION ~ND ORDER OF

THE

BOARD

(BY

SAMUEL

T. LAWTON,

JR.)

On April

4,

1972, the Board entered an Order in the above-

captioned matter providing as follows:

~

George Knight shall cease and desist from violation

of Section 9(a)

and 9(c)

of the Environmental Protec-

tion Act and ~f Rule 402 of Chapter

3, Part IV of the

Illinois Pollution Control Board Rules and Regulations.

2.

George Knight shall, within

35 days

from the entry of

this order,

pay to the State of Illinois the sum,

in

penalty, of $250.00.

Such payment shall be made in cash,

certified check or money order

to the Fiscal Services

Division, Environmental Protection Agency,

2200 Churchill

Road, Springfield,

Illinois 62706.”

On May 8,

1972, we received a petition for re—hearing asserting

as the reasons therefore, the following:

“1.

The penalty imposed is too severe, having regard to the

nature of the offense.

(a)

The

decision of the Board overlooks the fact that

Mr. Knight was not a repeated offender,

that there

was only one complaint concerning said offense, and

that no one was detrimentally affected by the burning

on this one,

isolated occasion,

the nearest habitation

being 100 yards from the burning site.

(b)

While the decision of the Board recited that Mr.

Knight was ignorant of the law,

it fails to take

into account that Mr. Knight was burning refuse,

debris and litter, the removal and destruction

of which

is within the spirit of, and in harmony

with, the objects and purposes of the Environmental

Protection Act, and that said burning was not of an

industrial product or by—product.”

4

—

525

---

“2.

The true object of the Environmental Protection Act

should be

to

seek and obtain compliance with said Act,

and not to

punish,

(a)

A person who, by reason of his ignorance of the

Act,

which

was

new,

and,

in the respect in which

enforcement

was

sought here, was little publicized,

and

who,

upon becoming informed of the provisions

of

said Act,

agreed to cease and desist from further

violation,

and who

has,

in fact,

ceased

and

desisted

from any

further

violation,

should

not

be

sublected

to the severe

penalty

imposed

by the

Board

in

this

~3.

Respondent

has

cooperated

with

the

Board,

and,

by

stipula-

tion

to

the

facts

of

the

matter,

has

eliminated

the

necessity

and

expense

of

a formal

hearing,

including

the

production

of

witnesses

to

prove the case against him.”

The reasons asserted,

even

if

true,

do not entitle respondent

to

a re—hearing of the

case

nor

is any

error or misunderstanding on

the

part

of

the

Board asserted

that requires

a modification

of

the order~

All matters

alleged

were

or

should have

been

asserted

as

a

part

of

the

stipulation

or,

alternatively,

should

have been

brought

out

in

a

hearing

in

the

absence

of

a

stipulation.

We

find

the

contentions lacking

in

merit

and

deny

the

petition

for

re-hearing.

IT

IS

SO

ORDERED.

I,

Christan Moffett,

Clerk

of

the Illinois Pollution

~ontro1

Board,

certify

that

the

above Opinion was adopted on the

/7

~ay of May, 1972,

byavoteof~~to

~

~i~_v~_~

4

—