ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
January 24, 1991
THOMAS FREDETTE,
)
)
Complainant,
)
v.
)
PCB 89—6.
(Enforcement)
VILLAGE OF BEECHER,
)
Respondent.
CONCURRING OPINION
(by B.
Forcade,
3.
D. Dumelle, and 3. Theodore
Meyer):
We respectfully concur with
today’s
action; we agree
with
the bulk of the opinion and order, but believe that a performance
bond is appropriate in the circumstances of this case.
The primary purpose of enforcement is to ensure compliance
by the facility in question.
The
Act
specifically empowers this
Board to require the posting of a performance bond or other
security to correct the violation.
Section 33(b)
of the Act.
We
must note that the Board does require performance bonds
in other
circumstances.
(See 35 Iii.
Adm. Code 807.663 and 807.666
regarding surety bonds for guaranteeing performance of closure
and post—closure care at waste management sites,
and
35
Iii.
Adin.
Code Part 807 Appendix A, Illustrations D,G,
& H.
Units of
local government can qualify for non-surety bonds.)
The Village of Beecher’s five years of continued non-
compliance with the terms of its NPDES permit coupled with the
Village’s failure to attend to the defense of this citizen
enforcement action, convince us that such security is appropriate
here.
The violations found today would warrant a substantially
higher civil penalty than adopted today.
However, we believe
that future compliance could be best achieved by the lower civil
penalty adopted today and by adopting
a significant performance
bond.
If Beecher chooses the non—surety bond and ultimately
complies, then there is no cost to Beecher for the bond.
Since
the Board’s action today does not adopt a performance bond, we
concur.
Board Member
ard Member
118—145
2
3. theodore
eyer
Board Member
I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that
he above Concurring Opinion was filed
on the
J44’
day of
__________________,
1991.
Dorothy M. q~nn,Clerk
Illinois PoYlution Control Board
118—146