ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    June 5, 1986
    WHITE COUNTY
    BOARD,
    )
    Petitioner,
    v.
    )
    PCB 85—174
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    )
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    Respondent.
    DISSENTING OPINION (by J.D. Duinelle):
    My dissent is based upon the overly broad interpretation of
    the majority in stating that a highway construction project can
    become “affected land” under the mine—related pollution
    regulations.
    I voted for the original regulations on May 23, 1972 (R71—
    25,
    ,
    4 PCB 573—628). I do not recall any intent to regulate the
    use of mine waste used in highways. If a project were to come
    into being to construct say a levee with proper earth cover but
    using mine waste as its core would these rules apply? The
    majority here would say “yes.”
    But the purpose of these rules was to prevent the creation
    of large gob piles exposed to rain and air which generate
    sulfuric acid. A highway core or a levee core would not do this
    because of the earth cover that would be used over the mine
    waste. Thus, it seems to me that an overly broad interpretation
    of Board intent has been made.
    Further, if the definitions are examined, the narrower
    intent becomes clear. The revision to the mine—related pollution
    rules was done in R76—20 and R77—lO on December 13, 1979 (37 PCB
    49—80). The Opinion was enacted January 24, 1980 (37 PCB 211—
    260).
    The definition of “Mining Activities” reads, “All activities
    on a facility which are directly in furtherance of mining,
    including activities before, during and after mining” 37 PCB
    58. If the definition of “facility” (37 PCB 56) is inserted into
    the above, it then becomes, “All activities on a contiguous area
    of land (portion omitted) which are directly in furtherance of
    wining, including activities before, during and after mining.”
    The White County highway project is not “contiguous.” Thus,
    it does not come under these rules.
    70-106
    —2—
    My concern is that this overly—broad interpretation of Board
    intent will inhibit the useful use of mine refuse in Illinois.
    For these reasons, I dissent.
    ~
    acob D. Dumelle
    Chairman
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify that the abov Dissenting Opinion was
    submitted on the /~z~day of
    ____________________,
    1986.
    ~
    Dorothy P4. G’unn, Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
    70-107

    Back to top