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
72-253