ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    October
    6,
    1988
    MONSANTO COMPANY,
    )
    Petitioner,
    )
    v.
    )
    PCB 85—19
    )
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENThL
    )
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    and
    )
    JOHN
    E.
    NORTON,
    )
    Respondents.
    CONCURRING OPINION
    (by J.D.
    Durnelle):
    For the following reasons,
    I concur
    in the Board Order
    issued October
    6,
    1988.
    First,
    although
    I would have granted Monsanto’s motion to
    stay
    to allow Monsanto and the Agency an opportunity to arrive at
    an agreeable resolution
    to this matter,
    I concur
    in the Board’s
    Order
    in that
    I believe it accomplishes
    the same result.
    Second,
    I do
    not,
    at this time, possess the Board’s
    perception that “only three viable alternative courses
    of action”
    exist
    and are
    as set forth
    in the Order.
    As there
    is not much
    precedent
    for the issues presented
    in this case,
    I would prefer
    to withhold
    judgment on possible courses
    of action until all the
    facts
    and arguments are presented.
    Finally,
    the Board supplemented
    its Opinion with
    “an aside
    note on the peculiar timing of the Monsanto motion.”
    I do not
    share
    the Board’s belief that motions subsequer~t
    td
    Boar&
    discussion are necessarily inappropriate.
    I do agree
    that
    motions submitted after Board discussion which are designed
    to
    forestall the indicated outcome may be
    inappropriate.
    But
    I
    strongly believe that Board practice must be flexible to permit
    adjudicative proceedings
    to keep pace with changing
    circumstances, whenever that may be.
    Further,
    I do not believe
    that the “aside note” was appropriate
    in this case.
    Although
    Monsanto’s motion was
    filed
    after Board discussion,
    the Order
    ignores
    the fact that this proceeding has lain dormant
    for nearly
    three years,
    and not by any fault
    of the parties.
    The Board
    discussion was the first
    indication
    that the Board was once again
    giving
    its attention
    to this case.
    Circumstances may have
    changed during this period
    of dormancy such that the parties may
    have
    different objectives
    than they previously possessed.
    I do
    not think
    it unreasonable that Monsanto would
    now,
    after
    three
    years, want
    to reassess its situation.
    93—03
    —2—
    For these reasons,
    I respectfully concur
    in the Board’s
    Order.
    ~,//
    Jacob D. Dumelle,
    P.E.
    Chairman
    I,
    Dorothy M. Gunn,
    Clerk
    of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board,
    hereby certify tbat the above Concurring Opinion was
    submitted on the
    ~
    day of
    ~
    ,
    1988.
    ~.
    ~
    Dorothy M.7Gunn, Clerk
    Illinois t~ollutionControl Board
    93—04

    Back to top