ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

February 19,

1981

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

Complainant,

v.

)

PCB 79—258

CONTINENTAL GRAIN COMPANY,

a Delaware Corporation,

Respondent.

DISSENTING OPINION (by J. Anderson):

I believe that the acceptance of motions to dismiss enforce-

ment complaints are not appropriate

if such actions conflict

with the letter and spirit of the Act and Board regulations by

bypassing,

in effect, all consideration of sanctions or conditions

by the Board solely because the respondent subsequently “corrected”

the violations.

Such action bypasses such considerations as,

for example,

economic gains and environmental harm resulting from non-

compliance.

Subsequent compliance may be a mitigating factor

in the enforcement process;

it is not a substitute for it.

While

I do not question the good faith of either the com-

plainant or respondent,

I believe the Act and Board regulations

require, as a minimum,

a stipulated settlement, presented in a

public forum,

and incorporated in a Board Order that may include

admissions,

conditions for achieving or maintaining compliance,

and sanctions,

if any,

arising from the violations alleged.

Finally

I believe this action is unfair to all entities

similarly situated who properly have been held to an accounting

for their non—compliance or who, in the future, might mistakenly

expect that ultimate compliance,

acting alone, will forgive prior

non—compliance.

_____

~

t/

//

——

Joan G.

Anderson

I,

Christan

L. Moffett,

Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, hereby certify that the above Dissenting Opinion

was filed on the

_____

day of

___________,

1981.

C~LI

~

~hristan L.

Mc!

‘tt, Clerk

Illinois Polluti n Control Board

40—493