ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    April 9, 1992
    PEOPLE OF THE STATE
    )
    OF ILLINOIS,
    )
    Complainant,
    )
    v.
    )
    PCB 92—24
    (Enforcement)
    MODINE M~NUFACTtTRINGCOMPANY,
    a Wisconsin corporation,
    )
    )
    Respondent.
    DISSENTING OPINION (by J. Theodore Meyer):
    I dissent from the majority’s acceptance of the settlement
    stipulation in this case.
    Section 42(h)(3) of the Environmental Protection Act
    specifically requires the Board to consider any economic benefits
    accrued by noncompliance. However, the stipulation contains
    conflicting statements on this i~su~. The stipulation states:
    Modine’s noncompliance with pollution control
    requirements was economically beneficial in that it
    utilized its unpermitted equipment without incurring
    the financial obligation associated with emission
    controls. Respondent asserts that no economic benefits
    were obtained by any alleged noncompliance on its part.
    (Stipulation at 15.)
    Not only do these statements conflict as to whether there was any
    economic benefit, but there is no specific information on the
    amount of any economic benefit. I believe that the Act
    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 $20,000
    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—133
    2
    For these reasons, I dissent.
    3.
    ~heo~e
    ~e~&i~
    Bo d Member
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify that he above dissenting opinion was filed
    on the
    ~
    day of
    ______________,
    1992.
    ~
    Dorothy M./4lnn, Clerk
    Illinois Po’illution Contro1~Board
    132—
    134

    Back to top