ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    October
    10, 1985
    ILLINOIS
    ENVIRONMENTAL
    )
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    )
    Complainant,
    )
    )
    v.
    )
    PCB 83—61
    )
    SISSOURI PORTLAND
    )
    CEMENT COMPANY,
    )
    )
    Respondent.
    )
    DI3SBNTING OPINION (by R.C. Flemal):
    I am uncomfortable with the outcome of this matter, and find
    it necessary to dissent from the majority’s Order.
    This
    uncomfortableness stems primarily from the fact that the Board
    is
    today rejecting,
    for the second time, a stipulation and proposal
    for settlement filed by two parties who have worked diligently
    and in good faith to resolve the contested matter between them,
    and have done so within the constraints imposed on them by the
    aoard.
    The first stipulation and proposal for settlement was
    rejected by the Board because the one violation admitted to was
    statutorily insufficient to support the stipulated $20,000
    penalty.
    The parties went back and remedied that deficiency, but
    are now being sent away by the Board a second time.
    The
    deficiency this
    time
    is not statutory in nature, however.
    It is
    simply that the parties have proposed a remedy different than
    that normally
    encountered by the Board.
    The revised stipulation
    and
    proposal for settlement asks the
    Board to assume the role of final arbiter of
    any
    disputes arising
    out of the implementation of programs imposed on Missouri
    Portland by the settlement agreement.
    For whatever reasons they
    may have had for so doing, the parties did not outline the
    specifics of these programs, but rather only that the programs
    are to be submitted to the Agency within 30 days after approval
    of the settlement agreement by the Board, and that the Agency may
    reject or modify the programs.
    I would prefer to not second guess the parties as to why
    they could not present the specifics of these programs prior to
    submitting their proposal for settlement to the Board.
    Rather,
    I
    would retain jurisdiction in this matter because the role the
    parties envisioned for the Board seems an appropriate one.
    Moreover, it is preferable to retain matters such as these before
    the Board, rather than before the Circuit Courts or professional
    arbitrators, neither of which are necessarily knowledgeable
    regarding the specific environmental issues of this matter.
    8649
    For these reasons I dissent~
    C
    Rona d C~Flemal
    Board Member
    I,
    Dorothy M~Gunny Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    3oarcI,
    hereby certify that the above Dissent.ing Opinion was
    submitted on the
    ~
    day of
    __________________,
    1985~
    Dorothy
    M. Gunn, Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Boar~
    6640

    Back to top