ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    June 7, 1990
    PEOPLE OF THE STATE
    )
    OF ILLINOIS,
    Complainant,
    V.
    )
    PCB 90-15
    (Enforcement)
    WISCONSIN CAN COMPANY,
    )
    Respondent.
    DISSENTING OPINION (by J. Theodore Meyer):
    I dissent from the majority’s acceptance of the settlement
    stipulation in this case.
    Neither the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency)
    nor the Attorney General have articulated any standards as to what
    factors should be considered when negotiating a fine to be imposed
    pursuant to a settlement agreement. Additionally, although the
    proposed settlement agreement states that Wisconsin Can’s
    noncompliance was economically beneficial in that it did not pay
    permit fees for fourteen years, there is not any specific
    information on the amount of that economic benefit. The proposed
    settlement agreement also fails to mention that Wisconsin Can
    apparently operated its equipment for a number of years without the
    delay and expense of applying to the Agency for permits. Section
    33(c) of the Environmental Protection Act specifically requires the
    Board to consider any economic benefits accrued by noncompliance.
    I believe that this provision contemplates a consideration of the
    amount of the economic benefit, not just a statement that an
    economic benefit was realized. Without more specific information,
    it is impossible to know if the penalty of $7,500 even comes close
    to the savings realized by Wisconsin Can.
    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
    Wisconsin Can. Ill.Rev.Stat.l989, ch. 111 1/2, par. 1042(f). I
    am pleased that the Attorney General is beginning to bring
    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.
    Ii 2—29

    2
    For these reasons, I dissent.
    J.(~heodore14eyer
    Board Member
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn, hereby certify that(-the above Dissenting
    Opinion was filed on the ~
    day of
    ________________,
    1990.
    (7
    /
    /~~
    Dorothy M./Gunn, Clerk
    Illinois P~llutionControl Board
    112—30

    Back to top