ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
December 20, 1990
PEOPLE OF ThE STATE
)
OF ILLINOIS,
Complainant,
v.
)
PCB 90—88
(Enforcement)
ELDON SWEDBERG, d/b/a ELDON
SWEDBERG SWINE FARM,
)
Respondent.
DISSENTING OPINION (by 3. Theodore Meyer):
I dissent from the majority’s acceptance of the settlement
stipulation in this case.
I believe that the settlement agreement is inadequate. There
is no assessment of any economic benefit accrued by respondent
because of its delay in compliance with pollution control
requirements. Section 33(c) of the Environmental Protection Act
requires the Board to consider all facts and circumstances of the
action involved, and specifically sets forth six factors. The
settlement agreement does set forth the factors in new Section
42(h)(3) (P.A. 86—1363, effective September 7, 1990), which
includes consideration of economic benefits, but does not address
that factor. Because the record in this proceeding is utterly bare
of any evidence on the economic benefit factor, the Board was
unable to undertake even the most cursory review of the
appropriateness of the penalty agreed upon by the parties. It is
impossible to know if the penalty of $4,000 even comes close to
the 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.RevStat.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.
For these reasons, I dissent.
117—83
2
3. ~Jieodore ~4eyer
Board Member
I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, her~’ certify th the above Dissenting Opinion was filed
on the ~
day of
________________,
1991.
Dorothy H. ~kinn,
)~L
Cler!k
/~
Illinois Po1~1utionControl Board
117—84