ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
April 9,
1992
PEOPLE OF THE STATE
)
OF ILLINOIS,
)
Complainant,
)
v.
)
PCB 91—254
(Enforcement)
ACME PRI~.TTING
I1~K
COMPANY,
)
a Delaware 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 it
avoided the payment of
a fee for a construction permit, there is
no further information on the amount of that economic benefit.
Section 42(h) (3)
of the~Ehvironmental Protection Act specifically
requires the Board to consider any economic benefits accrued by
noncompliance.
I believe that this provision contemplates a
consideration of the complete amount of the economic benefit.
For example, what was the amount of economic benefit realized by
being able to construct the equipment without waiting until the
permit was applied for and obtained?
Without more specific
information,
it is impossible to know if the penalty of $17,500
comes close to any savings realized by respondent.
Finally,
I am frustrated that, although this case was
brought in the name of the people of the State of Illinois, there
is no recognition that costs and fees could have been assessed
against respondent.
(Ill.Rev.Stat.1989,
ch.
111 1/2, par.
1042(f).)
I am pleased that the Attorney General is bringing
enforcement cases in the name of the People, but I believe that
settlement agreements in such cases should,
at a minimum,
recognize that the Board could award costs and reasonable fees.
132—12 1
2
For these reasons,
I dissent.
L ~
J. T~odoreMe~rer
Board Member
I, Dorothy N.
Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the ~abovedissenting opinion was filed
on the /~Z~ day of
_______________,
1992.
Dorothy M/7Gunn,
Clerk
Illinois ~bllution Control Board
132—122