ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

April

27,

1978

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

V

CPC INTERNATIONAL,

INC.,

Complainant,

Respondent.

DISSENTING OPINION

(by Mr.

Dumelle):

While

I fully agree with the majority of the Board

that CPC International violated the Act and the Regulations

of the Board,

I do not agree that no penalty should be assessed.

The original Opinion of the Board dated June 21,

1973

and written by me sets forth the severe interference with

life and health caused by CPC Internationa1~s emissions.

But a remedial program finally brought forth should not

free the emitter from a penalty.

Industries must be good

neighbors and should not create nuisances such as this.

When a burglar

is caught,

we do not free him without

penalty

if the stolen goods are returned.

Were we to

do

so, deterrence would be

lost.

In this case,

a penalty

should have been reirnposed to aid in the enforcement of

the Act.

Other industries would then be on aotice to avoid

or control nuisance emissions.

Dumelle

I,

Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, he~rebycertify the above Dissenting Opinion was submitted

on the

~

day of

______________,

l97~

Christan L. Moffet

lerk

Illinois Pollution

trol Board

PCB 72—51

30-65