ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    August 30,
    1990
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    Complainant,
    v.
    )
    PCB 90—106
    (Enforcement)
    VILLAGE OF IPAVA, an Illinois
    )
    municipal corporation,
    Respondent.
    DISSENTING OPINION
    (by J. Theodore Meyer):
    I dissent
    from the majority’s
    acceptance
    of
    the settlement
    stipulation
    in this case.
    Although
    the
    proposed
    settlement
    agreement
    states
    that
    respondent’s
    noncompliance was
    economically
    beneficial
    in
    that
    respondent operated the public water supply without construction
    of
    improvements
    to remove radium,
    and therefore avoided costs
    of
    construction
    and permit
    applications,
    there
    is
    not
    any specific
    information on the amount of that economic benefit.
    Section 33(c)
    of the Environmental Protection Act requires the Board to consider
    any economic benefits accrued
    by
    noncompliance.
    I believe that
    this
    provision
    contemplates
    a
    consideration
    of
    the
    amount
    of
    economic benefit, not just a statement that an economic benefit was
    realized.
    Additionally,
    I take
    issue with the statement that
    a
    penalty
    is
    inappropriate “in that the violations did not pose
    a
    serious
    health
    risk.”
    Taken
    to
    its
    logical
    conclusion,
    this
    statement would mean that a penalty is inappropriate in all cases
    where
    a
    respondent
    operated
    without
    a
    permit,
    since
    operating
    without a permit does not,
    in and of itself, create a health risk.
    The fact
    that
    respondent
    has
    agreed
    to
    construct
    the
    necessary
    improvements also does not convince
    inc that no penalty should
    be
    paid.
    Compliance
    after the fact does
    not mean
    that
    no
    penalty
    should be paid for the violation.
    Finally,
    as I pointed out
    in my June
    7,
    1990 dissent
    in this
    case,
    if this case had been brought
    in the name of the People of
    the State
    of
    Illinois,
    costs
    and
    fees
    could
    have
    been assessed
    against respondent.
    Ill.Rev.Stat.1989,
    ch. 111 1/2,
    par.
    1042(f).
    For these reasons,
    I dissent.
    ii
    ‘~--~
    ~
    2
    J.~Tk~eodor~èyer
    Board Member
    I,
    Dorothy N. Gunn, hereby certify thatthe above Dissenting
    Opinion was filed on the
    /--~
    day of
    --
    I-
    ,
    1990.
    ,~
    T—~’~
    /‘
    ~
    /
    —
    Dorothy M. Gu~nn,Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
    11 4—826

    Back to top