ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    June 21, 1990
    PEOPLE OF THE STATE
    )
    OF ILLINOIS,
    )
    Complainant,
    v.
    )
    PCB 90—54
    (Enforcement)
    F
    &
    F LABORATORIES,
    INC.,
    an Illinois corporation,
    Respondent.
    DISSENTING OPINION
    (by ~T.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
    F
    &
    F
    Laboratories’
    noncompliance was economically beneficial
    in that it avoided the
    costs of preparing permit applications and operated one baking line
    and incinerator 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 an economic benefit
    was realized.
    Without more specific information,
    it is impossible
    to know
    if the penalty of $1,000 even comes close to the savings
    realized by F & F Laboratories.
    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
    F & F Laboratories.
    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.
    1 12—393
    2
    For these reasons,
    I dissent.
    J(/Theodore Heyer
    Bó~½rdMember
    I,
    Dorothy N. Gunn, hereby certify that
    t7he
    above Dissenting
    Opinion was filed on the
    ~
    day of
    ~&~i
    ,
    1990.
    ((~1/
    /
    /
    Dorothy M~/Gunn, Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
    112—394

    Back to top