ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

June

21,

1990

PEOPLE OF THE STATE

OF ILLINOIS,

Complainant,

v.

)

PCB 90—58

(Enforcement)

ARLINGTON 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

Arlington’s noncompliance was economically beneficial

in that

it

operated its electroplating and metal finishing operation without

the

dalay

of

applying

and

waiting

for

the

Agency

to

issue

permits,

and

that

it

avoided

the

costs

of

preparing

permit

applications

and paying

applicable

site

fees,

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

$2,500 even comes close to the savings realized by Arlington.

Finally,

I

am frustrated

that, although this case was brought

in

the name

of

the People

of

the

State

of

Illinois,

there

is no

recognitition

that

costs

and

fees

could

have

been

assessed

against

Arlington.

Ill.

Rev.

Stat.

1989,

ch.

Ill

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

sh~uld, at

a

minimum,

recognize

that the Board could award costs and reasonabe

fees.

112—4O~)

---

For these reasons,

I dissent.

J~iTheodore Meyer

-

I,

Dorothy M. Gunn, hereby certify that~theabove Dissenting

Opinion was filed on the

:~

day of

—,

1990.

L

//

/

Dorothy M.

Qunn,

Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board