ILLINOIS

POLLUTION

COIftROL

BOARD

July 2, 1971

Spartan Printing Company Division

World Color Press, Inq.

v.

PCB 71—19

Environmental

Protection

Agency

I

Dissenting opinion (by Mr. Dumelle)

I agree with the

majority

opinion

in

this

ifiatter but dissent because

in my judgment the penalty of $10,000 is

too

low.

A

penalty

of

$25,000 would have been appropriate.

My reasons- for this opinion are based on

(I)-- the type of--discharge,

(2) th~extreme delay in installing treatment, and

(3)

the

profits

accruing

to Spartan from the delay.

-

First,

consider

the

nature

of

the

discharge

as

listed

in

the

Spartan

variance

petition

as

compared

to

the

approved

effluent

standards

‘tow

in

eiiect

in the Caicago azz.~uz;2w~

sr~—t~-

u.n

?aflot~

s-’-’—

shows

that

the

Spartan

dischar?es

are

many

times

stronger

(and

co~seguently more

toxic)

than

effluent-

standards

which

have

been

in effect

(and are presmnably being met)

since April 1,

1968.

For

example,

the Spartan

chromium

discharge, if hexavaleñt, may be 520

times

the

present

legal

effluent

standard

in

that

part of Illinois

covered

by

SWB-15.

Parameter

Spartan

SWB-15

Effluent

Ratio

of

Effluent

Standard

Spartan

: SWB-15

Discharge

-

Iron

35+mg/l

10.0

mg/l

3.5

Copper

3—28

mg/l

-

0.04

mg/l

387.5

(computed

on average)

zinc

42±mg/l

1.0

mg/l

42.0

Chromium

26+

mg/l

0.05

mg/l

-

Hexa-

520.0

valent

1.0 mg/l Triva-

26.0

lent

Silver

0.05 to

0.1 mg/I

0.05 mg/l

1.5 (computed on average)

2—fl

---

The

Envirnnmental

Protection

Agency,

knowing

the

cuantity

of

S~artan

s

flow,

might

hare

made

a

case

for

a

water

quality

standard

violation

by

a

simple

computation

assuming

perfect

mixing

in

the

streamS

This

they

did

not

do

and

I

do

not

fee•l

that

the

Board

should

do

it

for

them~

But

it

seems

quite

probable

that

the

stream

does

not

provide

dilution

of

520

times

the

Spartan

waste

flow

to

bring

th/chromium

down

to

accepted

water

o.uality

levels

as

listed

in

SWB—14

which

applies

Spartan

admits

it

is

causing

striam

pollution

from

its

discharges.

Mr.

Paul

W,

J5othschild,

vice-oresident

of

..Spartan

closes

a

letter

of

January

15,

1970

to

Mr.

McSwigoin

of

the

Illinois

Department

of

Puolic

Health

uy

stating

~we

apprecIate

your

unoerstanoang

anu

co—operation

in

our

attempt

to

control

and

eliminate

the

stream

pollution

as

presently

caused

by

our

industrial

operation.”

(PetS

Ex,

J-19)

Second,

consider

the delay in installing

treat.ment~

Even

if the

forgiveness

of earlier delays by the Sanitary Water Board

is accepted,

the company was still bound by

its ~sc2ed~le in its ~letter of January

15,

1970 referred to above

and accepted by Mr. Clarence Klassen

in his

letter of February

Il,

1970

(Pet~Ex~ 1—20)

The timetable for the

completion of Phase

I

is clearly six months after February 11,

1970 or

Auc~ust11,

1970,

No definite now date was

set. for the completion

of Phase

II

(the majority opinion is

in error on this point)

and one

would

aicjue

Shut

toe

oi~h ua~e.

~

~uu,;L

~2

l~

Il

in effect for Phase

II,

The Board majority has granted

a variance to Spartan conditioned

upon operation of Phase

I by July

1,

1971 and has

thus forgiven

10—1/2 months

of delay,

Since

the

Boa.rd agrees that Phase II~s

design await testing of

the effluent of Phase

I

(to which

I concur)

the installation of Phase II

is similarly delayed 10—1/2 months,

My thitd and final point is an examination of

the profits accruing to

Spartan as

a result of these 10-1/2 months of delay.

The record

shows that the treatment facility will cost $413,475 to build

and

$66,290

per year to operate

(R~l6l—2)

In 10—1/2 months,

Spartan

will have saved $28,900 in interest

(estimated at

8

on

its capital

investment)and $58,100 in operating cost for a total of $87,0~00.

The

majority has levied

a penalty of only $10,000 which indeed makes

it

“cheaper to pollute”~

In my opinion,

a penalty of $25,000 would have

been warranted~

The Board

in

a unanimous opinion

on

another case

of

corporate

delay

stated,

“It remains true that the company that

delays

making

expenditures

for,

~pol1ution

ontrol

is

likely

to

benefit financially at the expense

of

its

innocent

neighbors, and

a

penalty

must

be

imposed as

a deterrent”

(Marcuette_Cement

Manufacturing

Co~ v~

EPA,

PCB

70-23,

January

6,

1971),

The

deterrenf~5T $10,000

just

does

not deter

in

view

of the savings

from

the delay.

2

30

---

,..~

‘t

t

r

C

ry

s

~

‘3

S

‘

.3

a

-

I

~‘

I

-

~.

3c

4

—

•

Ia

-

—

—

—

a—

j

-

C~

‘I

.1

~‘acobD

Duresle.

‘lot

rci

‘~eniber

F-

—

Ia’..

)

—

—

—

-‘

—t

•

a”

C.

--

I’

-

tL.7

U

~°.r

C.

I

1

.1•

—

~

to

OJ

~? ,)

34

1

Jac

t

-

fl

.1

r

Cot

,

r

-

j.

2

t.

at

a

It

ft

C

Y.

tc.

-

r.

.1

—

~~sg

a.’...

~

.t’orc

tb-

a

jrr

s

C..

t,j3

‘l

‘7:

~tCS

-

‘.

‘‘.~

Co..

—

~‘~7’)

.50

‘C

~..1

1

—

.1

1’

•

£

•4J

r_,

,•

‘-C

1

r

-o.n’~3