ILLINOIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

July

3,

1990

PEOPLE OF THE

STATE

OF

IlLINOIS,

Complainant,

V.

)

PCB 90—16

(Enforcement)

SOLO

CUP

COMPANY,

a

Delaware

corporation,

Respondent.

DISSENTING

OPINION

(by

J.

Theodore

Meyer)

I

dissent

from the

majority’s

acceptance

of

the

settlement

stipulation

in this case.

Neither the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency)

nor the Attorney General have articulated any standards as to what.

factors should be considered when negotiating

a fine to be imposed

pursuant

to

a

settlement agreement.

Additionally,

although

the

proposed settlement agreement states that Solo’s ncnconp~iancewas

economi:aly

beneficial

in

that

it

operated

its

u~perrnitte~

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

ccns~derany 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

an

economic

benefit

was realized.

Without

n-.c

a specific information,

it

is impossible

to

know

if

the

penalty

o~$1,750 even comes

close

to the savings

realized

hy

Solo.

FIr~i1v,

I

am

frustrated

that,

although

this

case

was

hrcuqho

in

the

name

of

the

peop~e

of

the

State

of

Illinois,

there

is

no

recognition

that

costs

and

fees

could

have

teen

assessed

against

Solo.

Il.Rev.Stat.1989,

ch.

ill

1/2,

par.

1142(f).

I

am.

pleased

that the Attorney General

is beginning to bring enforcement cases

in the n~meof the People, but

I believe that settlement agreements

in such c~zsesshould,

at a

minimum,

recognize that the

3card

could

award

costs

and reasonable

fees.

I

— .~.

1