ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

December 20, 1990

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

)

Complainant,

PCB 90—139

v.

)

(Enforcement)

ILLINOIS VALLEY PAVING COMPANY,

Respondent.

DISSENTING OPINION (by J.D. Dumelle):

I dissent from the Majority’s approval today of the

stipulation for the followinq reasons.

It is my belief that enforcement of the permit requirements

constitutes a crucial aspect of the Illinois regulatory control

system. Yet the way it is beinq handled currently. as reflected

by the instant case, is so deficient

as

to tender consent to the

stipulation impossible. The current process merely runs through

the criteria in a generic manner which sheds no understanding as

to why this case was settled or how the fine stipulated to was

calculated. It is virtually impossible to discern one

sLiüulaLion tEam another.

The case at bar not only reflects poorly on a significant

aspect of regulatory enforcement, but continues this Board’s

years of rot~ficarionof low fines in the absence of

factors. The resulting message to the regulated

industry

hardly one which could be said to “enhance compliance

witn

Act”. On the contrary, the clear message being sent by the

approval of stipulations such as the one at bar remains that the

permit requirements in Illinois can always be ignored at little

or no cost.

i

come to this conclusion when the majority oF

rhis

Board re’ularlv

aporoves stipulated aoreements as

case

where there exists

no

explanatico:

:

oppicohio

or conoiderod

or whys

ii

contraverrion of the

complaint, were attorney’s tees rec~e~able

to Illinois not requested.

For these reasons, I

acob

LCDR-CEC-USNR (Ret)

Board Member

117—97

---

—2—

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board hereby certify ,t~t.the abov issenting Opinion was

submitted on the

~4’~

day of

____________,

1991.

Dorothy M. (~3)~nn, ClerK

Illinois P~ZlutionControl Board

117—98