ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
April
9,
1992
PEOPLE OF THE STATE
)
OF ILLINOIS,
)
Complainant,
)
v.
)
PCB 91—255
(Enforcement)
SEARS, R9EBUCK and COMPANY,
a New York 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 for five years, and avoided
$450 in payments for annual permit fees for that five year
period, there is no further information on the amount of that
economic benefit.
Section 42(h)(3)
of the Environmental
Protection Act specifically requires the Board to consider any
economic benefits accrued by noncompliance.
I believe that this
provision contemplates a consideration of the complete amount of
the economic benefit.
For example, what costs were avoided by
being able to operate the equipment without waiting until the
permits
were applied for and obtained?
Without more specific
information,
it is impossible to know if the penalty of $4,000
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 bringing
enforcement cases in the name of the People, but
I believe that
settlement agreements in such cases should, at an absolute
minimum, recognize that the Board could award costs and
reasonable fees.
132—127
2
For these reasons,
I dissent.
J~i
Theodor~Meyer
Board
Member
I,
Dorothy
N.
Gunn,
Clerk
of
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board,
hereby
certify
that
t
e
above
dissenting
opinion
was
filed
on
the
/O~
day
of
_______________,
1992.
Dorothy N. ~inn, Clerk
Illinois
Pdflution
Control
Board
132—128