ILLINOIS

POLLUTION

CO~TROL

BOARD

April

19, 1971

clip

CoR~’oa;’zION

)

)

v.

)

IPCB

71-~11

)

ENvIRON:~LNTALPROTECTION

AGENCY

)

)

Suppl emtmtal

statement

by

Samuel

It.

Aldrich,

Board

Member

Though

I

do

not

disagree

with

the

order,

I

am

disturbed

over

the

genera

toac

or

this

opinion.

It

is

more

harsh

than

is

justified

by

the

rc’cord.

Example!;:

“incredibly

di letory”

(Agency

language

supported

by

the

PCB

opin5on)

“fez:: ~,r

excunô

is

Lechie”

“exc•tls:

is

...

wholly

circular”

“go

cn

du..~ng ~ctst:es

indefinitely”

“incredib.~’

w:~3

nta~

ni:”

“gc’t

ofT

3

1’;

corpontte

backside”

“~Uti

1

sen ton::~.’s: wou3.d

appear

highly

appro~’riate”

“This

would

rcsut

in

lost

profits,

with

which

on

the

record

we

have

no

concern

t•’Iwtscover”

GM’

recited

a

list

of

22

dates

on

which

tentative

plans

were

filed,

changes

were

made

from

ono

engineering

consulting

firm

to

another,

delays

resulted

fron

lack

of

approval

for

lanc~usa

fro~i

the

1~c:tropolitan Sanitary

District,

&nd

finally

a

statement

w~tt;

received

from

thc

trmy

Corps

of

Engineers

March

22,

1971,

suggec.t—

Ing

that

GAP

should

wait

for

certain

federal

EPA

guicie)incs

that

would

he

available

“within

a

few

w~cJ:s”after

a

Wa&~ir.gton, 9.

C.

,

conference

scheclue1

for

SprIng

1971.

The

Board

opinic:a

lumps

nearly

all

of

thoce

activities

in

the

gencral

catcgory

oQ

dilatory

tactic~:.

I

do

not

doubt

th&v

Lad

CM’

ôcci~ed in

1967

precisely

what

course

it

would

pun4uc

it

could

have

accomplishod

bat)1

pri-

mary

and

seconria’~ytnatmctnt

by

this

date.

But

the

climate

wIth

respect

to

pollution

abatement

was,

unfortu-

nately,

totally

different

in

1967

than

it

is

now.

There

was

no

Environvrntal

Protect

3

on

Act.

Some

rules

and

regulations

were

only

guidelines

tckthcj

the

stcitu5:

of

1at~.

Agencies

administerinc;

the

applicable

regulations

at

that

tiute

had

a

different

.attituCe

as

evidenced

by

the

statement

of

C.

W.

Klr’ssen

Jtpril

10,

19/0.

in

which

the

Sanltnry

Uater

Poard

stated

that

GAP

“had

sho~•’ndili-

gence”.

The

Mayo?

of

Nattonn

(Jt)t

7~—B) stc.t~?dthe

prevailing

situation

quite

accurately

as

follows:

1 —495

---

PCI)

April 19, 1971

“There has been a change of policy in this state in my

opinion.

....I’m not criticizing the change of policy,

but I think now the State is saying you have to do this

when not too long ago they were much

more

willing to go

along with you on an extension of time and of the dead-

lines.”

The present high level of concern on the part of citizens, poli-

ticians, city officials, and industry simply did not exist in

1967.

Then was

no

established record of an aggressive Pollution

Control Board to alert GAP and other industries and municipalities

to

the

impending

impact

of

strict

enforccmont

under

new

agencies

and

enabling

legislation.

Furthermore, industries had little or no experience in many

pol l.ution

abatement

techno1~gies.

I

am

fully

aware

of

the

reality

of

a

law

even

though

it

is

custo—

mary

not to enforce it very diligently.

But understanding the

mood

of

the

times

is

helpful

in

placing

in

perspective

the

acti—

vitic!s

of

industries

and

municipalities

prior

to

July

1,

1970,

which

the

Board

now

repeatedly

describes

as

dilatory.

It

can

bce

arçjuncl

tin:

I.

the

use

of

abrasive

language

will

earn

more

headlines

in

the

:ncdh~, thus

alerting

industries,

municipalities

and

mdlvi—

ciu~s

to

the

ric;k

of

prosecution

and

perhaps

speeding

up

complLance

with

r~

lutton

laws.

In fly api

iii

on

there

is

a

high

cost

to

be

paid

for

that

course

of

action

for

a

small

gain

in

time

of

compliance.

It

gives

the

iwpres~ion of

a

vendetta

whereas

environmental

protection

and

iirprovcaicnt

can

and

should

be

more

in

the

nature

of

a

crusade.

It ma

igin; the integrity of corporate

executives

and

city

admini-

strators.

It discredits the free enterprise, capitalistic system

which

is r~omore guilty of indiscriminate pollution than systems

in other rarts of the world but is far more productive of human

wants.

Opinion language that unnecessarily antagonizes industries will,

if anything, make the work of

the

Board nore difficult

in

the

futuxe especially during the hearing process.

A specific area of the opinion with which

I disagree is paragraph

2, page 8.

It states that employees should, through the exercise

of bargaining power by their labor unions, bccome an aggressive

force to end pollutien by inc~ustrylest the factory be closed and

they be put out of work.

I believe that it is the responsibility

of corporate management,

not: labor, to manage the company.

In

the

reverse, labor would not

E~

rece~tiveof suggestions

from

manage-

mont

03)

how to ôonciuct affairs of

the

workers

though

the

corporation

will undoubtedly be affected by their activities.

1-s

---

PCB

7\pal

19,

197

Ohe

can

hardly

logical

I y

cirqu~

Lhat

L1~c in Lerec

c

of

the

wcr:crc;

and

of

manocemunt

arc

ciii fcc not.

wa

Ui

~cc~ect

to

pnntltc

~:i

~ii

ci

no:

sible

closure

of

the

factory.

I

also

disagree

wi

ti

a

fo11ow~rig

sucjoes Lion

in

Lhu

sac.c

p:

ieraUi

that

an

employee

who

loses

1

c

job

boc~ucc

of

p1 cut

c

cnu~ci

have

legal

remedies

cuinst

h: s

cop

opo:

.

rfl~

u

I

c~rici

civ

daub

e

or

triplc

jeopardy

to

the

oicc

oycr:

)

cocci

hi

a

1:o:i

-y

n

1

2)

loss

of

profits,

and

3)

legal

rc~icU

05

by

iii

ci

epL~

o~co

If,

as~the

opi ni

on

ci

Lotus

,

the

uni on

I

ci

no

L

e

itog

ino

I

icc cnnt”

then

in

the

interact

of

fairness

Liie

0):

in

en

5-iou

:1

cia

cc

po

that

the

mdi viduol

ci ~yloyee

ni ght

us:

I c:ja

rc

cc”

:~

his

union

leaders,

I

don

t

find

tlia

L

suggest

on

in

t1ie

a;

nion.

~1

/\

,.,

-

/

;/

//.

/

i

n

p

(

~

//

/

Samuel

P.

~l

O1~C~il,

Pco

‘Ta

~locn’i

~

1/

~‘,

/~

//

Date

I,

Fog

no

F.

Ityun,

C

erk

of

the

11

1110

o

Pa

I

I a

Cm

P

cc

certify

that

Dr.

Scuiual

F.

Piclrich

sub~Utt~c

~

oPec

1;’ciUU

~

P

staLomunt

on

day

of

197..

Reglini

P.

Clerk,

IlIiei

Poulicr

ConLichi

bc

I

—

497