ILLINOIS POLLUTIO~T CONTROL BOARD
February 4, 1988
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTM~
PROTECTION T~GE~ICY,
Complainant,
v.
)
PCB 86—27
MODINE ~4T~NUF~CTURINGCOMPANY,
Respondent.
DISSENTING OPINION (by R.C. Flemal and J.D. Durnelle):
While we agree with the majority’s holdings regarding
violations and the aoplicability of estopoel, we dissent for the
reason that the penalty imposed by the majority is inconsistent
with the mitigating circumstances found in the instant matter.
Contrary to the ?~gency’sallegations, the record shows that
Modine has exhibited good faith in its attemots at ac~hieving
compliance and in its communication with the 1~gency;
communications b-~tween Modirie and the T~gency were certainly
ongoing during the time of the noncompliant readings and the
permit aoplications, and thecns-~lve~arguably were the cause of
Modine’s failure to obtain the permits at issue.
The ~gency also conten~sthat Mo-line shoufl have applied for
a variance during the time of its intermittent noncompliance and
that Mo-5ine did not take an aggressive anoroach to achieving
compliance during that time. However, it is unrebutted that the
~gency itself lead Modine to believe that a variance would be
unnecessary. Moreover, it cannot be said that Modine did not
exhibit good faith because it was not aggressive enough. The
~gency in making that claim, did not state what more £4odine could
have done; i.e., how Mo’iine could h~vebenn more aggressive. Nor
can it be said that Modine was willfully negligent in failing to
apply for a permit when it initially apolied in June, 1983 for a
permit set to expire in October, 1983. The circumstances
mitigate against anything larger than a nominal penalty.
For these reasons, we dissent.
86—53
—2—
I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
Board, h~rebycertify that the
submitted on the
~/~TZ~
day of
Ràr?ald C. Flemal
J cob D. ‘Dumel’le
~~Ø’~ard Member
of the Illinois Pollution Control
above ~pissenting Statement was
- ,
1988.
Dorothy NI. nn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control
8 6—54