ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

October 25, 1973

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Complainant,

v.

)

PCB 71—243

IU~RRY A.

CARLSON,

Respondent.

INTERIM ORDER OF THE BOARD

ON

RESPONDENT’S

MOTION

FOR

EXTENSION

OF

TIME

(by

Mr.

Henss)

On August 18, 1971

the Environmental Protection Agency

commenced

a prosecution against Harry A. Carison,

the

operator

of

a landfill at Palos Hills, Cook County,

Illinois.

It was

alleged that Respondent had violated various provisions of the

Environmental Protection Act and the Rules and Regulations for

Refuse Disposal Sites and Facilities.

The Complaint included

claims that the landfill caused air pollution by emitting foul

odors and caused water pollution by the flow of leachate from

the landfill site.

The parties arrived at

a settlement and plan

of abatement which was then approved by this Board.

Respondent

was fined

for causing air pollution but the Agency withdrew the

allegations of water pollution.

This withdrawal of the prosecution

for water pollution was in consideration of Respondent’s agreement

to redesign the landfill in

a manner so as to prevent water

pollution and to monitor ground water quality.

The parties agreed

that the slope of the land would be changed in order to alter the

flow of water in the area of

the landfill and that completed

portions of the landfill would be covered by

2’

compacted layers

of impermeable clay capped with

a

1’

layer of humus material to

support vegetation.

The Stipulation provided that Respondent

would complete this work by the “fall of 1973”, but the Board in

its Order specified that the new slope should be established and

cover should be applied by September 26,

1973.

Respondent now recuests an extension of time to comulete the

site,

i.e. complete the final slope and apply the final cover.

(Respondent’s first pleading also listed two other requests:

9

—

607

---

—2--

1.

A Board finding that Respondent

is in full

compliance with the Board Order.

This approach has

now been abandoned, apparently because Respondent

is obviously not in full compliance.

2.

A variance authorizing operations until completion

of the final slope and application of final cover.

Respondent has also abandoned this ap~iroach.

To

the extent the pleading could be construed as a

variance petition we dismiss it without prejudice

since it does not comply with our Procedural RulesJ

The only request pending

is for an extension of six months

to one

year

for compliance with our Order of September 26,

1972.

The Agency has not yet replied to the substance of Respondent’s

request since it was unclear what Respondent was requesting.

We

direct the Agency to file its response within 14 days of this Order.

The Agency response should include:

a discussion of

the appropriate

procedure for requesting additional time to comply with orders

in

prosecution cases;

a discussion

of the rights of the parties where

prosecution was withdrawn in reliance upon a certain time schedule

for abatement of pollution;

a discussion of the degree of compliance

with our September 26, 1972 order and reasons for any noncompliance;

a recommendation regarding future action necessary to achieve

compliance;

a recommendation for further proceedings herein.

IT IS

SO ORDERED.

I, Christan L,

Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify the above Order was adonted this

~

day of

~

,

1973 by a vote of

~

to ~

9

—

698