ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

September 11, 1986

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

)

PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

Complainant,

V.

)

PCB 79—145

)

THE CELOTEX CORPORATION

)

and PHILIP CAREY COMPANY,

)

Respondents.

ORDER OF THE BOARD (by 3. Anderson):

While there are prior—filed motions pending, the Board will

first consider the Agency’s September 5, 1986 application for

substitution of attorney, to which Celotex filed a response in

Opposition on September 8. The Agency moves for leave to have

Assistant Attorney General H. Alfred Ryan appear on its behalf in

substitution for Assistant Attorney General James Archier, as the

latter is no longer working in the Attorney General’s

Environmental Control Division. Celotex objects on the grounds

that Mr. Ryan would be the fifth in the series and succession of

attorneys who have been assigned to this case, and that each

substitution has resulted in delay occasioned by that attorney’s

need to become familiar with the increasingly voluminous record

in this proceeding.

The Board has repeatedly expressed to both parties

throughout this long proceeding its desire to see this case

concluded. The Board will not, however, second—guess the

administrative decisions of the Office of the Attorney General,

and grants the motion to substitute.

In light of this substitution, the Board will reserve ruling

on Celotex’ August 20 objection to the filing of the “Champaign

Quality Assurance Program Documents”, pending response by the

Agency.

On August 20, Celotex filed a motion to overrule certain

aspects of the Hearing Officer’s June 30, 1986 Order implementing

the Board”s July 2, 1986 sanctions Order, to which the Agency

filed a response in opposition on August 27. The Board will deal

with only one aspect of this motion at this time, that which

refers to the Hearing Officer’s difficulty in interpreting the

well sampling results sanction in conjunction with the

groundwater sanction (Motion, p. 20—22). This was the subject of

discussion at the July 31 hearing (see R. 2819—2832), and is a

72-252

---

—2—

matter which the Hearing Officer wished to have the parties brief

in the context of various facts of the case.

While the Board has reviewed the Order and the hearing

transcript, it is still not clear to the Board what the precise

nature and scope of the Hearing Officer’s concerns may be. The

Board requests the Hearing Officer to provide a written statement

specifying the clarification sought as expeditiously as is

practicable consistent with the scheduling needs and priorities

of this and the other Board proceedings in the Hearing Officer’s

charge. The other parties may respond to this statement within

the usual time for response to motions.

Ruling on the balance of the motion to overrule the

sanctions implementation order is deferred. Given the voluminous

nature of the materials involved, and the substitution of

attorneys, the Board will entertain any timely request by the

Agency for leave to supplement the August 27 response.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify ~at the above Order was adopted on

the

/t~~

day of

~

,

1986 by a vote of

_____

Dorothy M. G(inn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board