ILLINOIS
    POLLUTION
    CONTROL
    BOARD
    October
    17,
    1972
    ENVIRONMENTAL
    PROTECTION
    AGENCY
    v.
    )
    PCB
    72-206
    THE
    RILEY
    COMPANY
    DISSENTING
    OPINION
    (by Mr.
    Dumelle)
    My
    reason
    for
    dissenting
    in this
    case
    is that
    I feel
    that
    a nominal
    penalty,
    perhaps
    $200,
    should
    have
    been assessed.
    The
    stipulation
    shows
    that
    the
    incinerator
    emitted
    67. 3
    more
    particulates
    than the
    standard
    set
    by
    our
    predecessor
    board,
    the
    Illinois
    Air
    Pollution
    Control
    Board.
    This
    violation
    is
    admitted
    to have
    occurred
    for
    18
    months
    and
    20
    days.
    The
    arguments
    against
    a penalty
    as
    listed
    in the
    majority
    opinion
    are;
    (a)
    notices
    of possible
    violation
    were
    not
    received
    until
    January
    11
    and
    January
    12
    of
    1972;
    (b) a penalty
    of
    $50
    and costs
    has
    been
    paid;
    and (c)
    the
    incinerator
    has
    been
    shut
    down.
    Since
    the
    majority
    did
    not. see
    fit
    to
    dismiss
    the
    case
    by
    virtue
    of
    the
    Cook
    County
    Environmental
    Control
    Bureau
    action
    and penalty
    the
    argument
    of
    double jeoparty
    apparently
    does
    not
    hold.
    The
    closing
    down
    of the incinerator
    is
    only
    the
    company~sprogram
    of compliance
    and we
    should
    not
    reward,
    by
    non-penalty,
    obedience
    to the
    law
    at
    a late
    date.
    And finally,
    a firm
    is
    presumed
    to
    know
    the
    air
    pollution
    control
    regulations
    and notices
    of
    violation
    are
    not
    required
    as
    a
    condition
    precedent
    to successful
    prosecution.
    The
    Board
    has
    found the
    Riley
    Company
    guilty
    and
    I
    agree
    with that
    finding.
    The
    cost
    of a
    hearing
    officer,
    legal
    notices,
    Agency
    and. Attorney
    General
    staff
    time,
    and the
    transcript
    should be
    borne
    by the
    guilty
    party
    absent
    a
    showing
    of poverty
    (see
    concurring
    opinion
    in
    EPA
    v.
    J.
    C.
    Dill,
    PCB
    72-26 5,
    October
    31,
    1972).
    There
    is
    no
    showing
    of poverty
    here
    and
    I would have~relieved the burden
    on
    the taxpayers
    of Illinois
    to prosecute
    this
    case
    by levying
    a penalty
    of
    $200.
    /
    Jacob
    D
    Dumelle
    /
    /
    Board
    Member
    (~~7
    5
    675

    Back to top