ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    July
    3,
    1990
    PEOPLE OF THE STATE
    )
    OF ILLINOIS,
    Complainant,
    v.
    )
    PCB 90—80
    (Enforcement)
    NOBERT PLATING COMPANY,
    an Illinois corporation,
    Respondent.
    DISSENTING OPINION
    (by
    J.
    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
    proposed
    settlement
    agreement
    states
    that
    Nobert
    Plating’s
    noncompliance was economically beneficial
    in that it operated its
    unpermitted equipment without the delay of applying to and waiting
    for
    the
    Agency
    to
    issue
    permits,
    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 that an
    economic benefit was realized.
    Without more specific information,
    it is impossible to know if the penalty of $1,500 even comes close
    to any savings realized by Nobert Plating.
    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
    Nobert Plating.
    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.
    113--75
    2
    For these reasons,
    I dissent.
    J~JTheodoreM~yer
    Board Member
    I,
    Dorothy M.
    Gunn,
    Clerk
    of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify that the above Dissenting Opinion, was filed
    on the
    ~
    day of
    /.
    ,
    1990.
    Dorothy M.
    Günn,
    Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
    113—76

    Back to top