ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

June

21,

1990

PEOPLE OF THE STATE

)

OF ILLINOIS,

Complainant,

V.

)

PCB 89—200

(Enforcement)

EKCO GLACO CORPORATION,

an Illinois corporation,

Respondent.

DISSENTING OPINION

(by J. Theodore Neyer):

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 Ekco Glaco

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.

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 $7,500 even comes close to

the savings realized by Ekco

Glaco.

For these reasons,

I dissent.

U

3. ‘~TheodoreMeyer

Board Member

I, Dorothy M.

Gunn, hereby certify that the above Dissenting

Opinion was filed on the

~5~-day

of

_______________~

1990.

~~/I

~

~

/~~-_

Dorothy M.7Gunn, Clerk

Illinois Pdllution Control Board

112—349