ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
October
11,
1990
PEOPLE OF THE STATE
OF ILLINOIS,
Complainant,
V.
)
PCB 90—92
(Enforcement)
LENNON WALLPAPER COMPANY,
)
a Delaware corporation,
)
Respondent.
DISSENTING OPINION
(by 3. Theodore Meyer):
I dissent
from the majority’s
acceptance
of the settlement
stipulation in this case.
Although
the
proposed
settlement
agreement
states
that
respondent’s noncompliance was economically beneficial
in that
it
constructed and
operated
its
six presses
without
the delay
of
applying to and waiting for the Agency to issue permits, and that
it
avoided
the costs
of
preparing
applications
and paying
site
fees,
there
is not any specific information on the amount of that
economic benefit.
Section 33(c)
of the Environmental 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.
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 $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.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.
115—271
2
For these reasons,
I dissent.
3. T~4eodoreM~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
/6~t~ day of
________________,
1990.
Illinois
Control Board
115—272