ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
October
17,
1972
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
v.
)
PCB
72-206
THE
RILEY
COMPANY
DISSENTING
OPINION
(by Mr.
Dumelle)
My
reason
for
dissenting
in this
case
is that
I feel
that
a nominal
penalty,
perhaps
$200,
should
have
been assessed.
The
stipulation
shows
that
the
incinerator
emitted
67. 3
more
particulates
than the
standard
set
by
our
predecessor
board,
the
Illinois
Air
Pollution
Control
Board.
This
violation
is
admitted
to have
occurred
for
18
months
and
20
days.
The
arguments
against
a penalty
as
listed
in the
majority
opinion
are;
(a)
notices
of possible
violation
were
not
received
until
January
11
and
January
12
of
1972;
(b) a penalty
of
$50
and costs
has
been
paid;
and (c)
the
incinerator
has
been
shut
down.
Since
the
majority
did
not. see
fit
to
dismiss
the
case
by
virtue
of
the
Cook
County
Environmental
Control
Bureau
action
and penalty
the
argument
of
double jeoparty
apparently
does
not
hold.
The
closing
down
of the incinerator
is
only
the
company~sprogram
of compliance
and we
should
not
reward,
by
non-penalty,
obedience
to the
law
at
a late
date.
And finally,
a firm
is
presumed
to
know
the
air
pollution
control
regulations
and notices
of
violation
are
not
required
as
a
condition
precedent
to successful
prosecution.
The
Board
has
found the
Riley
Company
guilty
and
I
agree
with that
finding.
The
cost
of a
hearing
officer,
legal
notices,
Agency
and. Attorney
General
staff
time,
and the
transcript
should be
borne
by the
guilty
party
absent
a
showing
of poverty
(see
concurring
opinion
in
EPA
v.
J.
C.
Dill,
PCB
72-26 5,
October
31,
1972).
There
is
no
showing
of poverty
here
and
I would have~relieved the burden
on
the taxpayers
of Illinois
to prosecute
this
case
by levying
a penalty
of
$200.
/
Jacob
D
Dumelle
/
/
Board
Member
(~~7
5
—
675