ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    March 17,
    1977
    PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
    )
    ex rel. WILLIAM J. SCOTT, ATTORNEY
    )
    GENERAL OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
    )
    Complainant,
    )
    )
    v.
    )
    PCB 76—100
    )
    BRIGHTON BUILDING AND MAINTENANCE
    )
    COMPANY,
    a Delaware corporation,
    )
    WESTERN ASPHALT PAVING COMPANY, an
    )
    Illinois corporation, WESTERN ASPHALT
    )
    MANUFACTURING COMPANY, an Illinois
    corporation,
    LANGHORNE BOND,
    as
    )
    Secretary of the Illinois Department
    )
    of Transportation,
    Respondents.
    Mr. Marvin Medintz, Assistant Attorney General, appeared for the
    Complainant;
    Messrs.
    Clifford
    L. Weaver and Christopher
    J.
    Duerksen, Attorneys,
    appeared for Respondent Illinois Department of Transportation;
    Mr. Warren Fuller,
    Attor’-iey, appeared for Respondents Brighton
    Building and Maintenance Company, Western Asphalt Paving Company,
    and Western Asphalt Manufacturing Company.
    DISSENTING OPINION
    (by Mr. Dumelle):
    My reasons for dissenting in this case are
    (a)
    the Board’s
    failure
    to assess a penalty,
    (b) possible severe health damage
    (cancer) from the admitted gross emissions and
    (c) the non-binding
    nature of the settlement.
    Apparently the heater—planer was grossly maloperated and large
    amounts of black smoke and particulate material were emitted.
    The
    —2—
    Stipulation
    (p.4)
    states that “coal tar” was being removed from the
    pavement.
    Coal tar, when vaporized
    is a known carcinogen.
    Coke
    oven workers have been shown to have much higher lung cancer rates
    than persons not exposed to coal tars.
    Thus vast quantities of coal
    tar
    vapors
    were
    generated
    probably
    containing
    benz (a) pyrene
    and
    other
    strong
    carcinogens.
    What
    health
    damage may have been inflicted upon the public can-
    not be known.
    But if the “no threshold” theory of cancer induction
    is correct, then some persons may contract this disease because of
    poor equipment operation.
    The settlement only prohibits the heater—planer when “alternative
    equipment is not readily available”.
    This is not a binding settlement
    as
    I read it.
    Who is to judge “availability”?
    I would have rejected the Stipulation and ordered it back to
    hearing or assessed a penalty of $10,000.
    Respectfully submitted,
    I,
    Christan
    L. Moffett,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify the above Dissenting Opinion was submitted on
    the
    J(~~-
    day of~ju~~
    ,
    1977.
    Christan
    L.
    Mofth,4’)
    Clerk
    Illinois Po1lutio~’ControlBoard
    Jacob D.
    Dumelle

    Back to top