ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
June
5, 1986
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
VILLAGE OF SAUGET,
Petitioner,
V.
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY, AND UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondents.
PCB 86—57
VILLAGE OF SAUGET,
)
Petitioner,
)
v.
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY, AND UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
PCB 86—58
MONSANTO COMPANY,
)
Petitioner,
)
v.
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY, AND UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
PCB 86—62
MONSANTO COMPANY
Petitioner,
V.
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY, AND UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondents.
PCB 86—63
NOT
CONSOLIDATED
70-143
—2—
CONCURRING
OPINION
(by J.
D.
Dumelle):
The
last paragraph of these Orders
is not germane.
It
is a
recounting
of delays
in an entirely different
case.
There
may
have been different personnel involved then as lawyers
on both
sides,
as
technical persons, or
as elected officials.
We don’t
know
if the same persons and no others are
in this proceeding nor
do we
know who
in particular caused
the delays
in the old case.
The Monsanto Company was certainly not
a party
in PCB 79—87.
It seems to me
a gratuitous
“scolding from the bench”
to
bring
up an old case which
is not proven germane
to the instant
proceeding.
The paragraph
in question
is unjudicial
in tone.
And
if
a major witness becomes
ill or
injured
in an automobile
accident
it may not be capable
of c~mpliance.
acoo u.
uumej.ie,
Chairman
I,
Dorothy M.
Gunn,
Clerk
6’! the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the ~bove Concurring Opinion was
filed
on the
______________
day of
____________
1986.
j~
Dorothy
M.
dunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
70-144