ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

November

6,

1975

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

)

Complainant,

v.

NORTH SHORE SANITARY DISTRICT,

)

)

Respondent.

CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK,

)

PCB 74-223

PCB 74—229

Complainant,

)

(Consolidated)

v.

NORTH SHORE SANITARY DISTRICT,

Respondent.

CONCURRING OPINION

(by Mr. Dumelle) ~

I concur in the findings of the Board Opinion that the

North Shore Sanitary District has violated Section 9(a)

of

the Act.

I would have assessed a penalty of at least a

$1,000 for these violations for as the Board Opinion states

Respondent has presented no evidence

to show that it could not have prevented

the odors testified to in this case.

Indeed,

based on the log sheets submitted

as Exhibits by Respondent,

it is difficult

to find that Respondent has been seriously

attempting to deal with the odor problem

(p. 16).

It seems

to me that a penalty ought to have been assessed

to show both the District and other sewage treatment plant

authorities that a heavy responsibility is concomitant with

19— 213

---

—2—

the legal authority to operate a waste treatment plant.

The

record is quite clear that residents lives were unreasonably

interfered with by these odors.

Secondly, the Opinion in some instances

(April 20,

1974;

June 16,

1974;

June

18,

1974; June

21,

1974; June 23,

1974; and

July

4,

1974) does not make a finding of odors being caused by

the Clavey Road plant.

In most cases, this seems

to be because

of the lack of corroboration by police reports.

My own feeling

is that the witness himself is enough.

Many of the Board cases

of the past have had witnesses testify in odor cases without

corroboration.

Thus,

to the extent that these dates were not

found as violations because of the lack of corroboration

I would

feel that this injects

a new standard of proof into Board pro-

ceedings.

And police reports,

I may add,

are not always the most

reliable, especially in non—criminal events.

In conclusion,

the Board Opinion makes the distinction between

short term odors and long term solutions

(p.

18).

I would point

out that the

“short term odors” by whatever name they are called

did unreasonably disrupt peoples lives and sleep and the use of

their property and could have been avoided or mitigated with better

care.

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, herebX certify the above Concurring Opinion was submitted

on the

~

day of November,

1975.

Illinois Pollution C

ol Board