ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    September
    27,
    1990
    PEOPLE OF THE STATE
    OF ILLINOIS,
    Complainant,
    v.
    )
    PCB
    90—104
    (Enforcement~
    L
    &
    B
    WOOD
    CORPORATION,
    an
    Illinois
    corporation,
    Respondent,
    DISSENTING OPINION
    (by
    J.
    Theodore
    Meyer):
    I dissent
    from the majority’s
    acceptance
    of
    the settJe~ent.
    stipulation
    in this case.
    Although
    the
    proposed
    settlement
    agreement
    states
    that
    respondent’s ncncompliance was economically beneficial
    in that
    it
    operated its unpermitted equipment from December 1988 to April
    1990
    without
    the
    delay
    of
    applying
    to
    and
    waiting
    for
    the
    Agency
    to
    issue
    permits,
    there
    is
    not
    any
    specific
    information
    cm
    the
    ao.:unt
    of
    that
    economic
    benefit.
    Section
    33(c)
    of
    the
    Environmeotal
    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.
    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
    $3,000
    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.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.

    2
    For
    these
    reasons,
    I
    dissent.
    L~
    C ~
    u.J
    Theodore Meyer
    ~
    Bóard Member
    I,
    Dorothy
    M.
    Gunn,
    Clerk of
    the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby cer~fy that tc
    above Dissenting Opinion was
    filed
    on tne
    _______
    da1
    of
    _____-
    __________
    ,
    1990.
    Dorothy
    M. Gunn,
    Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
    Ti 5-I 36

    Back to top