ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    November 8,
    1990
    PEOPLE OF THE STATE
    OF ILLINOIS,
    Complainant,
    v.
    )
    PCB 89—154
    (Enforcement)
    ROLL SERVICE,
    INC.,
    )
    Respondent.
    DISSENTING OPINION (by J. Theodore Neyer):
    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
    constructed and operated its unpermitted equipment from without the
    delay of applying to and waiting for the Agency to issue permits,
    and avoided the
    cost
    of applicable
    site
    fees,
    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 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
    $3,500
    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.Pev.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.
    116—17
    2
    For these reasons,
    I dissent.
    J.\~heodoreMeyer
    Board Member
    I,
    Dorothy M.
    Gunn,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby~certifythat
    ~,he
    above Dissenting Opinion was filed
    on the
    /3U~
    day of
    ~
    1990.
    ~/,
    ,~L
    Dorothy N. ç~inn,
    d~erk
    Illinois PoUution Control Board
    116— 18

    Back to top