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