ILLINOIS POLL~JTION CONTROL BOARD

May 5, 1988

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY,

Complainant,

v.

)

PCB 88—28

AMOCO CHEMICALS COMPANY,

)

A Delaware Company

Respondent.

MS. CARLA DAVIS, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON BEHALF

OF COMPLAINANT.

MR. DALE M. IWATAKI APPEARED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT.

DISSENTING OPINION (by J. Theodore Meyer):

I dissent from the majority’s acceptance of the settlement

stipulation.

Neither the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

(Agency) nor the Illinois 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. I believe that the $30,000 fine agreed upon in the

instant case is not sufficient. If this enforcement action had

been brought by a State’s Attorney or by the Attorney General in

the name of the people of the State of Illinois, Respondent could

have been assessed costs and reasonable attorney’s fees. Ill.

Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. llll/~ par. 1042(f). I am concerned that the

instant fine may not even cover the Agency’s costs and fees.

Additionally, the proposed settlement included no

information on the amount of money respondent may have saved by

not complying with the Act and the Board’s regulations.

Respondent may have realized quite a savings by failing to use

the appropriate controls, and the $30,000 fine may be merely a

“drop in the bucket” compared with those savings. Such a low

fine in the face of possibly large savings through non—compliance

does not encourage the regulated community to comply with the Act

and the Board’s regulations.

89—127

---

—2—

For these reasons, I dissent.

,~

¶\_\

~

~

Theodore Meyer

‘~oardMember

I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify that the above Dissenting Opinion was filed

on the

~

day of

_________________,

1988.

Dorothy M. unn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

89—128