ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
December 20, 1990
PEOPLE OF
THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS
)
Complainant,
PCB 90—127
v.
)
(Enforcement)
)
WESTVACO CORPORATION,
Respondent.
DISSENTING OPINION (by J.D. Dumelle):
I dissent from the Majority’s approval today of the
stipulation for the following reasons.
It is my belief that enforcement of the permit requirements
constitutes a crucial aspect of the Illinois regulatory control
system. Yet the way it is being handled currently, as reflected
by the instant case, is so deficient as to render consent to the
stipulation impossible. The current process merely runs through
the criteria in a generic manner which sheds no understanding as
to why this case was settled or how the fine stipulated to was
calculated. It is virtually impossible to discern one
stipulation from another.
The case at bar not only reflects poorly on a significant
aspect of regulatory enforcement, but continues this Board’s
years of ratification of low Nnes in the absence of mitiqating
factors. The resulting message to the regulated industry is
hardly one which could be said to “enhance compliance with the
Act”. On
the contrary, the clear message being sent by the
approval of stipulations such as the one at bar remains that the
permit requirements in Illinois can always be ignored at little
or no cost. I come to this conclusion when the majorit~’of this
Board regularly approves stipulated agreements as per-.-.
~eu
the instant case where there exists no explanation o~.:nico
~3(c~
factors
were
applicable or considered or why, in riir~~
contravention of the complaint, were attorney’s fees reco.’erable
to Illinois not requested.
For these reasons, I respectfully
c~~
Ja ob D. Dumelledissent.
4tk~&
L R-CEC-USNR (Ret)
B ard Member
117—9 1
—2—
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Opinion was
Board
submitted
herebyon certif~the
___________________
t theday above~of
_______________
________________,
enting
1991.
nfl, Clerk
Illinois ~~ution Control Board
117—92