ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
November 29, 1990
PEOPLE OF THE STATE
)
OF ILLINOIS,
Complainant,
PCB 90—91
v.
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,
a New York Corporation,
)
Respondent.
DISSENTING OPINION (by J.D. Dumelle):
I dissent from the Board’s action today for many of the same
reasons articulated in People v. We Toast, PCB 90-84, October 25,
1990.
The Board is under an affirmative duty to be an active
participant rather than an administrative rubberstamp when it
ratifies stipulated settlements. In Chemetco v. Pollution
Control Board 140 Ill. App. 3d 283 (5th Dist. 1986), the court
held that “it is undeniable that settlements are of the Board’s
own making.” Id. at 287. Yet in this case, how can anyone
ascertain what statutory factors were considered in assessing
this penalty? Instead, I am supplied with all of the possible
factors without any comment as to their applicability. Because I
am unable to understand the factors which lead to this stipulated
settlement, the mandate of Chemetco as well as the Board’s
procedural rules cannot be followed.
~7hilethere exists a lack of information regarding which
statutory factors were considered, the only information which is
provided in this case leads me to believe the agreed fine is
inadequate. In its DeKalb facility, General Electric operates
approximately forty—five (45) air emission sources. At least
“several” of these sources were unpermitted from 1972 until
1989. Even though General Electric admitted violations of the
act, the stipulated penalty in this case was $6,000. Such an
amount is a mere band—aid and serves to degrade the importance of
the regulatory system.
There is little doubt in my mind that such meager penalties
for violations which extend over almost two full decades sends a
message that the regulatory permit system is a paper tiger. If
there is no great incentive to comply, then why do so? In the
meantime, it is those who do comply who bear the burden of the
116—279
—2—
scofflaws. The regulatory permitting system exists in order to
ascertain pollution sources and amounts which then helps to set
limits. When companies are caught in violation and the
stipulated fines they agree to are minuscule relative to their
entire budget, there is no risk associated with non—compliance.
That being the case, regulatory enforcement loses any leverage
which it claims to possess.
For these reasons, I dissent.
c~
a b D. Dumelle, P.E.
LC R-CEC-USNR (Ret)
B ard Member
I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk o the Illinois Pollution Control
Board hereby certify that the above Dissenting Opinion was
submitted on the
//~Z
day of
________________,
1990.
~
Dorothy M. ~inn, Clerk
Illinois Po~llutionControl Board
116—280