ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
September
27,
1990
PEOPLE OF THE STATE
OF ILLINOIS,
Complainant,
v.
)
PCB
90—104
(Enforcement~
L
&
B
WOOD
CORPORATION,
an
Illinois
corporation,
Respondent,
DISSENTING OPINION
(by
J.
Theodore
Meyer):
I dissent
from the majority’s
acceptance
of
the settJe~ent.
stipulation
in this case.
Although
the
proposed
settlement
agreement
states
that
respondent’s ncncompliance was economically beneficial
in that
it
operated its unpermitted equipment from December 1988 to April
1990
without
the
delay
of
applying
to
and
waiting
for
the
Agency
to
issue
permits,
there
is
not
any
specific
information
cm
the
ao.:unt
of
that
economic
benefit.
Section
33(c)
of
the
Environmeotal
Protection
Act
(and
new
Section
42(h)
(3),
as
contained
in
P.A.
86-
1363,
effective
September
7,
1990)
specifically
requires
the
Board
to
consider
any
economic
benefits
accrued
by
noncompliance.
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
more
specific
information,
it
is
impossible
to
know
if
the
penalty
of
$3,000
even
comes
close
to
any
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.Rev.Stat.l989,
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.
2
For
these
reasons,
I
dissent.
L~
C ~
u.J
Theodore Meyer
~
Bóard Member
I,
Dorothy
M.
Gunn,
Clerk of
the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby cer~fy that tc
above Dissenting Opinion was
filed
on tne
_______
da1
of
_____-
__________
,
1990.
Dorothy
M. Gunn,
Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
Ti 5-I 36