ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
October 11,
1990
PEOPLE OF THE STATE
)
OF ILLINOIS,
Complainant,
V.
)
PCB 90—120
(Enforcement)
WILLIAM J. LANGHEIM,
)
d/b/a LANGHEIM READY NIX,
)
PATRICK LAMGHEIM, d/b/a
)
LANGHEIM READY NIX, and
)
CONCRETE MIDWEST CO.,
INC.,
)
)
Respondent.
DISSENTING OPINION
(by J. Theodore Meyer):
I dissent
from the majority’s acceptance of the settlement
stipulation in this case.
Although
the
proposed
settlement
agreement
states
that
respondent’s noncompliance was economically beneficial in that it
operated
without
expending
money
for
particulate
reduction
equipment, there is not any specific information on the amount of
that
economic
benefit.
Section
33(c)
of
the
Environmental
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.
I
believe that this provision contemplates
a consideration of the
amount of the full 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 $2,500 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.
115—30 7
2
For these reasons,
I dissent.
J~4
Theodoj~Never
Board Member
I,
Dorothy M.
Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above Dissenting Opinion was filed
on the
~
day of
________________,
1990.
Dorothy
~7
Gunn,
Clerk
Illinois Thllution Control Board
115—308