ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

August 9, 1990

PEOPLE OF THE STATE

)

OF ILLINOIS,

Complainant,

v.

)

PCB 90-72

(Enforcement)

CLEVELAND CORPORATION,

)

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

delayed expenditures for its incinerator and then operated its

unpermitted equipment 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 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 that an

economic benefit was realized. Without more specific information,

it is impossible to know if the penalty of $6,000 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.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.

114—69

---

2

For these reasons, I dissent.

J. \~heodoreMeyer

Board Member

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

Board, hereby certify that,the above Dissenting Opinion was filed

on the

~t~-

day of

________________,

1990.

/;

~

~Dorothy M./Munn,

/~•

Clerk

Illinois

Po~1lution Control Board

1

1’~--7i)