ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

May 13, 1982

ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL

)

PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

Complainant,

V.

)

PCB 80—125

A.J. WELIN,

)

Respondent,

DISSENTING OPINION (by J.

D.

Dumelle and N.

E. Werner):

Our reasons for dissenting in this matter are because the

existing material has already revegetated and is thus an

adequate cover.

The new cover required by the majority would

be quite expensive and is thus unnecessary.

The majority opinion correctly quotes Welin’s expert

witness, Thomas P. Kunes, PE., as stating that the foundry

sand will support revegetation (p.4).

The exhibits, especially

Exhibits 15D and 15E, show luxurious growths of grass and a

“hayfield0 appearance.

These grasses and vegetation prove that

the foundry sand is not toxic.

The proof of this pudding

is in its growing.

The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, according

to the majority opinion

(

p.6), performed tests on the foundry

sand and compared results to the “effluent water quality standards”.

There are no such standards.

There are “effluent standards” and

there are “water quality standards,” but the two types are separate

and distinct.

The majority has required two feet of additional cover

costing up to $60,000.

That new cover, if placed,

would be

for the purpose of raising vegetation upon it.

Vegetation

now grows in a luxurious manner

(Exhibits 15D and 15E).

The additional cover is simply not needed and much too costly.

~

______Ocob

D. Dumelle, Chairman

Nels

Werner,

rd Member

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, hereby certify the above Dissenting Opinion was

submitted on the

~

day of