ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
May
30,
1972
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
V.
)
P03
71-86
STATE
LINE
FOUNDRIES,
INC.
Dissenting
Opinion
by
Mr.
Dumelle
In
my
original
dissent
filed
to the
August
5,
1971
Board
order
I
stated
that
the
penalty
of
$7, 500
was
much
too
severe,
Here
was
a
struggling
new
(:~flpaflywhich
failed
to
get
a permit
on
its
small
cupola
being
dealt
a financial
blow
almost
equal
to
its
yearTs
total
profits
of
$7, 900,
Yet
no
nuisance
was
proved.
I
said
then
and
I repeat
that
a penalty
in
the
range
of
$3, 000
to
$5, 000
would have
been
fairer,
Arid
in
the
light
of recent
penalties
assessed
by
the
Board
even
those
suggested
amounts
now
seem
much
too
high.
In
the
EPA
v.
Texaco
case
(PCB
72-98)
an
oil
company
polluted
the
drinking
water
supply
of the
entire
City
of
Olney.
The
penalty,
based
upon
what
I
would
term
a
wholly inadequate
stipulation,
was
a mere
$200.
In
the
State
Line
case,
no
nuisance
was
caused
to the
neighbors.
Previous
cases
cited
in
my earlier
dissent
(EPA
v.
Southern
Illinois
Asphalt,
P03
71- 31,
and
Roesch Enamel
v,
EPA,
PCB
71-62)
also
had
not
obtained
permits
but
caused severe neighborhood nuisances.
Both received penalties of $5, 000 in
cases contested before us.
Both were larger companies with no
apparent
financial problems.
Thus the State Line penalty should certainly have been
something
less
than
$5,
000.
So
I
can
only reiterate
that
the
Board’s
penalty
of
$7, 500.
was
much
too
severe
in
comparison
to previous
cases.
In
this
most
recent
action
the
Board
had an
opportunity
to
redress
its
grievous
mistake
and
regrettably
chose
not
to
do
so.
2
~
~
Jacob
D.
Dumelle
Board Member
I,
Christan L.
Moffett, Clerk of the
Illinois
Pollution Contro~,J3oard,
hereby
certify
the
aboc~reDissenting
Opinion
was
submitted
on
the&O__~Iayof
May
1972.
Christan L.
Moffett,
C1e~4~l
Illinois
Pollution
Contr&’~oard
4
—
633