ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
October
11,
1990
PEOPLE OF THE STATE
)
OF ILLINOIS,
Complainant,
V.
)
PCB
90—110
(Enforcement)
HOMAK MFG. CO,
an Illinois corporation,
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 its unpermitted 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 (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
$1,000
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.1989,
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—291
2
For these reasons,
I dissent.
a.
L~heodordMeyer
Board Member
I, Dorothy M. Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereb~ycertify that the above Dissenting Opinion was filed
on the
~
day of
~
,
1990.
Dorothy N. mnn,
Clerk
Illinois Po~LutionControl Board
115—29 2