ILLINOIS POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
November 8,
1984
ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL
)
pROTECTION AGENCY,
)
)
Ccmplainant,
v.
I
PCB
83—4
CITY
OF
EAST
MOLINE,
Respondent.
DISSENTING OPINION (by J. D. Dumelle):
My
dissent
in this
case
is
based
upon
the size of the
penalty.
I believe that $30,000 is too severe
a
penalty
and
that
$15,000 or less would have been a fairer penalty.
Also the
operating
permit
revocation is in itself a severe penalty.
Violations
were
listed as far back as October 11, 1973.
The
complaint
was
not filed until January
7, 1983,
some nine years
later.
It is.this long—delayed enforcement which is troubling.
The IEPA
inspected
the landfill at least 62 times in the
nine
year
period.
But
it was not until it
had
accumulated 46
violations on lack
of daily cover that
it
filed
the
complaint.
The reason for the delay in enforcement is
not
given.
To
me, it is a form of entrapment to continue to cite a small city
(population
20,907)
time
after
time
for nine years without
enforcement.
False signals are sent.
City officials conclude
that
the inspection reports for prior violations are only
warnings and are ‘forgiven’ if enforcement is not reasonably
prompt.
A
second
concern
of
mine
is
that
due
process
is
not
served
when
violations
from
1973
are
litigated
in
1983.
Witnesses
memories
grow stale.
Personnel change.
Conversations are
forgotten.
The
defense
by
the
City
may
be
severely
weakened.
Enforcement ought
to
be
prompt.
Ideally,
if
prosecution
is
to
come
it
ought
to
occur
within
three
to
four months of the
violation.
By
then
the
IEPA
should
be
reasonably
certain
that
compliance is not occurring.
But enforcement
and
resulting
large
RI-SI
penalties
nine
years after violations are found is not fair to a
small
municipality
I,
Dorothy
M,
Gunn,
Clerk of
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board,
hereby
certify
that
the
above
Dissenting
Opinion
was
submitted
on
the
~
day
of
~
l984~.
7,
/~
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
Chairman
81~32