ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

October 11, 1990

PEOPLE OF THE STATE

)

OF ILLINOIS,

Complainant,

V.

)

PCB 90—115

(Enforcement)

EXCELLO COLOR AND CHEMICAL

)

COMPANY, an Illinois

)

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

operated its unpermitted equipment since 1972 without the delay of

applying to and waiting for the Agency to issue permits, there is

not any specific information on the amount of that economic

benefit. Section 33(c) of the Environmental Protection Act (and

new Section 42(h)(3), as contained in P.A. 86—1363, effective

September 7, 1990) 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 full

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 $10,000 even 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 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.

115—295

---

2

For these reasons, I dissent.

J. ~

Boar Member

I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify that the a ye Dissenting Opinion was filed

on the

~

day of

_______________,

1990.

Dorothy M9Gunn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

115—296