ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

May

8,

1975

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Compiainant,

COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY,

Respondent

Mr. Kenneth J~Gumbiner and Mr~Marvin I, Medintz, Assistant

Attorney Gene~rals,appeared ~

the complainant;

Mr~Richard E, Powell,

Isham, Lincoln & Beale, appeared for

Respondent.

Mr

James R~Fanchr,

System Environmental Enqineer, Commonwealth

Edison Comiany,

Today

the

Board

issued

an

Opinion

and

Order

on

PCB

7En372

throu.gh

PCB

73~379.

In

this.

Order

the

bard

noted

that

Respondent

Commonwealth

Edison

Company

ha.d

violat?.:d

Rule

103(b)

(2)

of

Chapter

2,

Par

I

of

the

Rules

and

Regulations

governing

air

r~ut~onarid Enction

9(o)

of

tEn

Environmental

Protection

Act,

in that tney had failec. to obtain

permits

requrred

by April

1,

1973.

I am in tot

I

agreement with the majority Opinion and

Order of the Board as written by Mr. Dumelle with the exception

of the amount~.of penalty

ass..essed~

The original Order prepared by Mr~Dumelle indicated that

Edison’s continued delay warranted

a total penalty of $32,000~

I agree with that Opinion and with that estimation of the penalty

to be assessed~

In the Board’s subseguent discussion of the

Order and the arnendment proposed, which would reduce the penal.ty

to $17~~~

,000,

the only argus.ent put forth in support of such lower

penalty

was that the Board in the past had generally imposed

a

penalty of $1000 for each

un...it which had not received a perrnit~

In the original Opinion,

a $2000 penalty was imposed due

to the

circumstances surrounding the lack of good faith on the part of

Edison in pursuing the permit applications~

I do not believe

it

should be the Board~spurpose

to

establish

limitations on

penalties based upon that

amount imposed in past

cases~

Each case must stand

on

its

own merits and the penalties

imposed must

reflect the

merits

and the mitigating

circumstances

in that particular

cases

If,

in this case, Edison had shown

—2—

great mitigation such as destruction of their records, etc.,

would the Board then have imposed a $1000 fine merely because

that

is the amount generally imposed

for this

sort of case?

If it had,

I feel that that would have been patently unfair.

Therefore,

having satisfied myself that the originally

proposed penalty of $32,000 was fair and equitable,

and hearing

nothing in mitigation besides the dangerous precedent of setting

penalties based upon past limitations,

I must respectfully

dissent.

Irvin

odman

I,

Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify the above Dissenting Opinion was submitted

on the ______________day

of

_______________,

Christan L. ?~offet’~