ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    September 5, 2002
     
    PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
     
    Complainant,
     
    v.
     
    BENTRONICS CORPORATION,
     
    Respondent.
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
     
     
     
     
    PCB 97-20
    (Enforcement – Water)
     
     
     
     
    ZEHEMHERET BEREKET-AB, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, OFFICE OF THE
    ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT.
     
    DISSENTING OPINION (by W.A. Marovitz):
     
    I respectfully dissent from the Board’s opinion and order issued today. I disagree with
    the assessed penalty.
     
    Respondent intentionally discharged process waters through a floor drain, and even
    more egregiously, connected a hose to run out the back of the facility and drain towards the
    creek adjacent to the facility. Testimony revealed the hose was removed as fire fighters
    arrived at the scene in response to a hazardous material call. Respondent’s behavior was
    outrageous. After asking the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) to terminate
    respondent’s wastewater discharge permit under the guise of using a close loop filter system to
    reuse respondent’s water, respondent intentionally disregarded the system and contaminated the
    creek with 1600 times the lead limit and 560 times the copper limit.
     
    Consistent with my dissent in the Board’s decisions in People v. Crier Development
    Company and Bradley S. Cowell, PCB 96-256 (Aug. 8, 2002) and People v. Oak Terrace
    Sanitary System, PCB 03-4, (Aug. 8, 2002), I note that in creating the Environmental
    Protection Act (Act), the General Assembly stated that the purpose of the Act was, among
    other things “to assure that adverse effects upon the environment are fully considered and
    borne by those who cause them.” 415 ILCS 5/2(b)(2000)
    amended by
    P.A. 92-0574, eff.
    June 26, 2002. There is no doubt that the high levels of lead and copper are dangerous to the
    environment and the citizens of Illinois. There is no doubt that respondent acted deliberately,
    willfully, and with utter disregard of the Act and the Board’s water regulations. The Attorney
    General’s requested penalty of $110,000 does not go far enough to deter companies like
    Bentronics from acting so despicably. The statute allows a maximum penalty of $640,000 and
    I see no reason not to assess a penalty closer to that amount. What more does a respondent
    have to do to get a higher penalty? How much more does the public have to be exposed to
    health hazards before a higher penalty is imposed?
     
     
    2
     
     
    The Attorney General should take a tougher stance on violators who commit such
    flagrant violations of the Act. It is their duty as protectors of the citizens of Illinois.
     
    For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.
     
     
      
      
      
      
      
      
     
    William
    A.
    Marovitz
     
      
      
      
      
      
      
    Board Member
     
     
     
     
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, certify that the
    above dissenting opinion was submitted on September 5, 2002.
     
     
      
      
      
      
      
      
     
    Dorothy
    M.
    Gunn,
    Clerk
    Illinois
    Pollution
    Control
    Board
     

    Back to top