ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

June 21,

1971

Environmental Protection Agency

v,

)

#PCB 71—29

Sauget and Company

Dissenting Opinion

(by Mr. Dumelle)

The majority opinion,

adopted Nay

26,

1971 by

a

3-1 vote finds Sauget

and Company guilty of

(a)

open dumping

and lack of daily cover on

refuse

for

a period of at least

90 days,

(b) use of improper cover

material

(cinders)

,

(c) open burning on December

1,

1970,

(d)

lack

of posted hours of operation on March

22,

1971,

(e)

lack of portable

fencing on three occasions,

(f)

failure to spread and compact refuse

on

two occasions,

(g)

dumping of liquid wastes in the landfill, and

(h)

hand sorting of refuse.

I agree with these findings.

I do not agree with the penalty of $1,000.

which was imposed by the majority which in my opinion

is

niiniscule,

The violations

found were after November

30,

1970 and

thus

a maximum

penalty of $10,000

for violating the Environmental Protection Act on

each of the eight types of violations could be assessed

($80,000.)

plus

a maximum of $1,000.

for each day of any

tyoe of violation

($100,000)

for

a total of $180,000.

In my opinion,

the $1000.

fine should have been of

a greater magnitude,

at least $5,000.

and perhaps more.

Paul Sauget testified that he

had operated the landfill

for

a period of

18

or

19 years and at other

sites before that

(R,l53)

He revealed that he knew

of

the existence

~of the “rule book”

(R.l70)

The rules and regulations were not something

newly enacted but, had been in force since April 1966 or 4~l/2years

before the violations were proven.

Mr.

Sauget thus

is an experienced landfill operator with some

two

decades in the business

and well aware of the rules.

He then was

knowingly violating these rules

and in fact did admit to certain viola-

tions

(R.l57,l58,l60,l69)

A penalty of only $1,000 is much

too

light

in

these

circumstances.

The majority opinion cites the $1500 fines~levied in the EPA

v,

Eli

Amigoni, PCB 70~l5and in EPA

V.

R.H~.Charlett, PCB 70-17 where prior

warnings were given.

In my

opinion,

substantiating a higher fine

only on prior warning grounds

is falacious,

The issuance of the rules

4-1/2 years previous to the violations

is ample warning to

a fulltime

landfill operator.

One

is not allowed to commit murder twice to be

found guilty once.

1

636

---

The

Board

should

look

at

the

reasons

for

a

penalty.

If

the

penalty

is

to

deter,

then

it

should

be

a

substantial

one

when

guilt

is

shown

and

economic

ability

to

pay

is

present.

Otherwise

the

Board’s

penalties

will

become

“licenses

to

acob

D.

Dumelle