ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    October 30,
    1980
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
    AGENCY,
    Complainant,
    V.
    )
    PCB 78—211
    GUY MARLIN
    )
    Respondent.
    CONCURRING OPINION
    (by J.D. Dumelle
    and J.G. Anderson):
    Our reasons for concurring with the stipulated settlement in
    the instant case lie in the lack of knowledge of the type of
    wastes spilled, if any, and the indefiniteness of the method of
    compliance.
    The complaint lists certain chemicals alleged to have been
    present but the stipulation is silent.
    What were the contents of
    the barrels and were they hazardous or toxic?
    A fire occurred at this site on December 24,
    1976.
    Did any
    of the barrels burst and did their contents permeate the ground?
    The stipulation is silent.
    Are there potable water wells in use
    nearby?
    No information is given.
    Lastly,
    the stipulation provides for removal
    to an “approved
    site”.
    But no distance
    is given within which an “approved site”
    may be designated.
    Would a site in the Chicago area be suitable
    for purposes of this stipulation which involves barrels in St.
    Clair County?
    On the face of it,
    it would appear that Mr. Marlin,
    the respondent, must remove the barrels once given a site anywhere
    in Illinois.
    But would
    he, if the site were a great distance away?
    For these reasons we concur in the decision.
    ~
    /
    /,/
    Jacob D.
    Dumelle
    Joan G. Anderson
    I, Christan L. Moffett,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Control Board, here~certify that the above Concurring Opinion
    was filed on the
    .3
    day of
    ____
    1980.
    Christan
    L.
    Mo
    ~
    Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board

    Back to top