ILLINOIS

POLLUTION

CO~TROL

FOALD

Argus

15

1U~I9

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY

PCB

72~2lO

PROCTER

& GAMBLE

MANUFACTURING

COMPANY,

INC.

DISSENTING

OPINION

(by Mr.

Dumelle)

This

case

involves

the failure

to

obtair

a State

permit

unV

1

~~‘2

months

nad elapsed

alter

construction

starter

The

u y

9

0

r~

of

the Environmental

Protection

Act repealed

all

1oca~es~

p

is

Board

opinion

in

EPA

v,

Americar

Generator

and Armatuxe

Cum

~

71~329, January

6

1972

is

quite tear

and gives

Ve

legi~L~ti~

e

MV

of

the

Act

on this

oi

Besiaes

notice

giver

by

tne passage

of

the

Act

ct e

Bo’ ~‘d

i.

~ g

e

additional

notice

of the permit

requirement

on

October

8,

1970

u

cx

c

repealing

the

oid

exemption

regulatiors

(R70~l).

The

Board

Newslet

e

of October

16,

1970

carried

an

item

p.2

describing

this

repesi

The

Second

Report

of the

Board?

written

by

Chairman

David

U

C9rr

~

apueared

as

part

of

Newsletter

No,

~5

rated

June

30,

1971

and

on pa

e

~

it.

same

R704

is

again

mentionee

as

the

~or tral

rer’eV

of ooso~~

ior

exempting

iocai

areas

from

t.

13

s~a~

~nd

so

we have

in the

instani

case,

tnree

separate

ana

thstir

o

~33~C

noAfications

that

Cnicago

was

no

ronger

exempt

from

State

reauire

the passage

of

the

Act; the

actions

and notices

involved

in the

F 70~ienactm~t

and the

Second Report

of

the

Board

The first

two

of these

notices

h~

occurred

by

October

16,

1970

which

was

4~l 2

months

before

Boiler

No

V

construction

was

started

on

March

1,

19

71,

The

Boiler

No,

11

conver sion

a

~,

without

a

permit,

was

started

about

July

1,

1971

simMtaneous1y

v

fh

B

c

nublicat

on

of its

third

‘notice~ ~n tr~ maVe

3na Eon

o

~

~o

~

~t

~Otc

eridid

r

,

,

at~

a

hr

Md

---

On

December

28,

1971

an

EPA

employe

personally

notified

Procter

and Gamble

of

the

permit

requirement

and thereafter

the

company took action

with reasonable

promptness

and secured

the

Boiler

No,

12

permit

on April

18,

1972,

some

13-1/2

months

after

the

start

of

construction.

In another

action

today

we adopted

an

opinion

rejecting

a proposed

settlement

stating

The

fact

that

PCA was

not personally

notified

of the

law

is

no excuse.

The

law

was

on the books

and they

were

under

a

duty

to

find

out

what

it

(Packaging

Corporation

of

America

PCB

71-352,

72-10).

Procter

and

Gamble is

a great

national

corporation

and should

also

have

been

aware

of

the

law,

I dissent

in

this

case

as

I

did

in

the

earlier

American

Generator

case

(supra),

Ample

notices

were

given

in

the matter,

The

Agency

recommendation

of

a $500,

penalty for

these

three

permit

violations

was,

if

anything,

too

low,

but

should

have

been

adopted over

a fiat

dismissal.

/

~.

.1’

I

/

~acob

D,

Dumelle

/

/

Board

Member

I,

Christan

L~ Moffett,

Clerk

of

the

illinois

Pollution

Control

Board,

hereby

certify

the

above

Dissenting

Opinion was

submitted

on the

4’~”7

of

August,

Illinois

Pollution

5

—

168