ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
October 11,
1990
PEOPLE OF THE STATE
)
OF ILLINOIS,
Complainant,
)
V.
)
PCB 90—116
(Enforcement)
GRAHAN
PAINT
AND
VARNISH CO.,
)
INC.,
an Illinois corporation,
)
Respondent.
DISSENTING OPINION
(by J. Theodore Neyer):
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 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
(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
$2,750 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.
111 112,
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—301
2
For these reasons,
I dissent.
J. T~eoäoreMeyer
Board Member
I, Dorothy M.
Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above Dissenting Opinion was filed
on the
/.5~Z
day of
_________________,
1990
lution Control Board
115—30 2