ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

November 29, 1990

PEOPLE OF THE STATE

)

OF ILLINOIS,

Complainant,

PCB 90—91

v.

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,

a New York Corporation,

)

Respondent.

DISSENTING OPINION (by J.D. Dumelle):

I dissent from the Board’s action today for many of the same

reasons articulated in People v. We Toast, PCB 90-84, October 25,

1990.

The Board is under an affirmative duty to be an active

participant rather than an administrative rubberstamp when it

ratifies stipulated settlements. In Chemetco v. Pollution

Control Board 140 Ill. App. 3d 283 (5th Dist. 1986), the court

held that “it is undeniable that settlements are of the Board’s

own making.” Id. at 287. Yet in this case, how can anyone

ascertain what statutory factors were considered in assessing

this penalty? Instead, I am supplied with all of the possible

factors without any comment as to their applicability. Because I

am unable to understand the factors which lead to this stipulated

settlement, the mandate of Chemetco as well as the Board’s

procedural rules cannot be followed.

~7hilethere exists a lack of information regarding which

statutory factors were considered, the only information which is

provided in this case leads me to believe the agreed fine is

inadequate. In its DeKalb facility, General Electric operates

approximately forty—five (45) air emission sources. At least

“several” of these sources were unpermitted from 1972 until

1989. Even though General Electric admitted violations of the

act, the stipulated penalty in this case was $6,000. Such an

amount is a mere band—aid and serves to degrade the importance of

the regulatory system.

There is little doubt in my mind that such meager penalties

for violations which extend over almost two full decades sends a

message that the regulatory permit system is a paper tiger. If

there is no great incentive to comply, then why do so? In the

meantime, it is those who do comply who bear the burden of the

116—279

---

—2—

scofflaws. The regulatory permitting system exists in order to

ascertain pollution sources and amounts which then helps to set

limits. When companies are caught in violation and the

stipulated fines they agree to are minuscule relative to their

entire budget, there is no risk associated with non—compliance.

That being the case, regulatory enforcement loses any leverage

which it claims to possess.

For these reasons, I dissent.

c~

a b D. Dumelle, P.E.

LC R-CEC-USNR (Ret)

B ard Member

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

Board hereby certify that the above Dissenting Opinion was

submitted on the

//~Z

day of

________________,

1990.

~

Dorothy M. ~inn, Clerk

Illinois Po~llutionControl Board

116—280