ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
October 11,
1990
PEOPLE OF THE STATE
OF ILLINOIS,
Complainant,
)
v.
)
PCB 90—98
(Enforcement)
AGGRECON CORPORATION,
an Iowa corporation,
)
Respondent.
DISSENTING OPINION
(by J. 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
operated its unpermitted equipment without the delay of applying
to and wating
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
(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 full 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
$2,000 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.RevStat.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—277
2
For these reasons,
I dissent.
J. Th~oore
eyer
Board Member
I,
Dorothy M.
Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board,
hereby certify tha~the above Dissenting Opinion was filed
on the
~
day of
~
,
1990.
Dorothy~,f~.Gunn
Clerk
Illinoi~’Pol1utionControl Board
115—2 78