ILLINOIS
    POLLUTION
    CONTROL
    BOARD
    September
    6,
    1984
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    Complainant,
    v~
    )
    PCB 82—154
    CITY OF
    MOLINE,
    Respondent.
    DISSENTING OPINION
    (by J.
    D.
    Durnelle):
    The penalty in this case is too high
    and should have been
    in
    the $50,000 to $55,000 range or less.
    There are three reasons
    for this judgment; the lack of
    consequential harm from Moline’s
    actions,
    the reliance upon federal grant funding, and the lack
    of
    administrative followup by the Illinois Environmental Protection
    Agency.
    When a penalty
    is assessed the consequences of the action
    being penalized must be weighed.
    There were no fish kills, and
    no threat to public health.
    A large part of the sludge discharged
    was simply Mississippi River
    sediment removed at the water treatment
    plant and routed to the sewage
    treatment plant since March
    1979.
    The Board can take notice of its own holding on
    March
    8,
    1984 in
    R82~-3 in which the Alton Water Company was
    allowed to
    discharge
    its sediment indefinitely
    to
    the same Mississippi River,
    No
    environmental harm was found
    by the Board in the Alton
    rulemaking.
    Moline is a city of 46,278.
    The
    expenditure of
    $60,000 for
    a truck
    is a major cost item
    for a city of this size.
    It
    is
    quite understandable that Moline would try to
    include the truck
    in the grant so as to get 75
    federal funding
    for it.
    Shortly
    after grant funding was denied, Moline bought the
    truck.
    Thus
    I
    would completely discount violations which
    occurred prior to
    January 1980, the date when the truck
    was purchased.
    Following
    this purchase, Moline met with the IEPA in
    September 1980
    and
    asked
    for grant funding on
    another truck
    (R.
    200).
    It was
    felt
    that any expenditures could
    jeopardize the entire facilities
    plan
    (R,
    203).
    This funding was
    pending during 1980 and 1981.
    No
    suit was filed by IEPA during
    this period.
    No reason
    is
    given by
    IEPA for the delay until
    February 1982 in a decision on
    the
    inclusion of the second truck
    in
    the
    grant.
    The lack of administrative
    followup by IEPA undoubtedly
    60-21
    2
    lulled Moline into thinking the excessive sludge discharges to be
    of little consequence.
    The majority opinion lists
    visits
    by
    1EPA
    personnel on an approximate six month interval, December,
    1978;
    June,
    1979
    (four visits); December,
    1979;
    June,
    1980 (two visits);
    July,
    1981; November,
    1981;
    etc.
    (Opinion,
    p.
    9),
    Why did IEPA
    not visit the plant monthly?
    Why was the suit filed more than
    three years after the violations were first detected?
    The viola-
    tions are real but IEPA’s inordinate slowness in pressing for
    cessation had to be a factor in Moline’s actions.
    I find nothing
    in this record to indicate that Moline delib-
    erately set out to violate this Board~srules.
    Municipal officials
    expect their citizens to obey city ordinances and themselves try
    to obey state and federal
    rules or laws.
    The “punishment should
    fit the crime”.
    In this case the punishment is much too severe
    in light of the factors discussed above.
    I,
    Dorothy M,
    Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois
    Pollution
    Control
    Board hereby certify that the a~oveDissenting
    Opinion
    was filed
    on the
    ~~day
    of
    ~
    1984.
    Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
    60-22

    Back to top