ILLINOIS

POLLUTION CONTROL

BOARD

July

2,

1971

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

V.

)

PCB 71—41

CLAY PRODUCTS COMPANY,

Et al

Dissenting opinion

(by Mr.

Dumelle)

This

is another in

a

long list of cases in which

I feel that the

Board has simply been too

lenient.

I agree with the findings but

the penalty imposed is much too low.

Instead of $500

it

should be

on the order of $3,000.

The Board~s opinion and order cover eight

(8)

violations

of the

Environmental Protection Act and the Refuse Site regulations.

Each of these could carry with

it

a penalty up to $10,000

for

violating the Act and

$1,000

for each day of

the violation.

Without counting up multiple days

of violations,

it is ~bvious

that

at least $88,000 in penalties could have been assessed.

I do not

advocate that amount in this case because it

is apparently

a small

operation.

But

I do

feel that the $500 fine

in this case is an

incentive

to all landfill operators to not worry about being

caught.

It

amounts

to

a slap on the wrist when

it

should have been

a kick in the pants.

While not decisive

in my own thinking there

is the matter of the cost

of prosecution to consider.

The transcript for this

case cost the

taxpayers of Illinois about

$2,000.

The

time of the professional

persons appearing as witnesses

or attorneys also cost the State money.

It is probable that even

a $3,000 penalty would not have covered the

costs of prosecuting this

case to protect the public health.

In that last phrase

is

the point

I believe the Board has missed~

The

reason for regulations on “sanitary landfills”

is simply to keep them

“sanitary”.

Garbage, if improperly handled, becomes

a public health

hazard by providing food for rodents and insects,

by methane or hydro-

gen sulfide or odor generation and by water contamination.

The record

in this

case points to rodents

(R.69—70).

~nd

the record is clear

that this landfill

is at least only three blocks from residences

(R,

59-60).

The accepted exhibits show garbage

(Ex, C-3-A,

C-S-B,

C-B-A, and C-8-B).

In addition,

the consecutive day exhibits

show

refuse not covered

(Ex. C-B-A and C-8-B).

2—38

---

And so the chain in this

case leading to a public health hazard

is complete.

The uncovered garbage is there,

the rats are there and

the homes

are nearby.

The Board should deter future public health

hazards of

this type from developing by more substantial fines.

Jacob

D. Dumelle

Board Member

2

—

39