ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

March 22,

1990

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

)

PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

Complainant,

v.

)

PCB 89—192

(Enforcement)

NORTHROP CORPORATION,

)

a Delaware corporation,

)

Respondent.

DISSENTING OPINION

(by

LI.

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 has promulgated 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 Northrop’s noncompliance

was economically

beneficial

in

that

it utilized

its unpermitted

equipment for a number of years without the delay of applying for

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

$10,000 even comes close

to

the savings realized

by Northrop

in

operating without permits for those sources.

For these reasons,

I dissent.

LI. ~heodore

Meyer

Boa’~rdMember

109-563

---

2

I,

Dorothy M.

Gunn, hereby,certify that the above Dissenting

Opinion was filed on the C~i~ day of

~

,

1990.

/

/

—‘~

(.

Dorothy M./Gunn,

Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

109—564