ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    June
    7,
    1990
    PEOPLE OF THE STATE
    )
    OF ILLINOIS,
    Complainant,
    V.
    )
    PCB 90-14
    (Enforcement)
    PQ CORPORATION,
    a Pennsylvania corporation,
    Respondent.
    DISSENTING OPINION
    (by
    1.
    Theodore Meyer):
    I dissent
    from
    the majority’s
    acceptance
    of the settlement
    stipulation in this case.
    Neither the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency)
    nor the Attorney General have articulated any standards as to what
    factors should be considered when negotiating a fine to be imposed
    pursuant to
    a settlement agreement.
    Additionally,
    although the
    People state
    (and PQ denies)
    in the proposed settlement agreement
    that PQ’s
    noncompliance with pollution control
    requirements was
    economically beneficial in that PQ delayed expenditures for capital
    improvements
    until
    after
    the
    spill
    occurred,
    there
    is
    not
    any
    specific
    information
    on
    the
    amount
    of
    that
    economic
    benefit.
    Section
    33(c)
    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 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
    $7,500 even comes close to the savings realized by PQ.
    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
    PQ.
    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.
    112—25

    2
    For these reasons,
    I dissent.
    ~
    Theodore Meyer
    )“
    ~ard
    Member
    I,
    Dorothy M.
    Gunn, hereby certify that~theabove Dissenting
    Opinion was filed on the
    Y~
    day of
    ________________,
    1990.
    /
    Dorothy
    M. ,Gunn,
    Clerk
    Illinois Pcyllution Control Board
    112-~2E

    Back to top