ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    May 7, 1998
    GORDON KRAUTSACK, an individual,
    Complainant,
    v.
    BHOGILAL PATEL, an individual,
    SUBHASH PATEL, an individual, and
    ELECTRONIC INTERCONNECT, INC.,
    an Illinois Corporation, and ELECTRONIC
    INTERCONNECT CORPORATION, an
    Illinois Corporation.
    Respondents.
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    PCB 95-143
    (Enforcement - Land)
    ORDER OF THE BOARD (by R.C. Flemal):
    This matter is before the Board on Respondent Electronic Interconnect Corporation’s
    (EIC) April 17, 1998, motion for extension of time to comply with the Board’s August 21,
    1997, remediation order. This matter is also before the Board on complainant’s motion for
    default of the Board’s January 22, 1998 order.
    For the reasons stated below, the Board grants the EIC motion, in part, and denies
    complainant’s default motion.
    BACKGROUND
    This action is a citizens’ enforcement action filed May 11, 1995. Complainant owns
    the property which respondents used from 1986 through 1994 for storing and manufacturing
    electronic circuit boards. On May 20, 1997, complainant filed a motion for partial summary
    judgment, alleging EIC violated Sections 21(a), (e), and (f), respectively, of the
    Environmental Protection Act (Act) (415 ILCS 5/1 et seq. 1996)). On August 21, 1997, in an
    interim opinion and order, the Board granted complainant’s partial summary judgment motion,
    finding there was no genuine issue of material fact that EIC openly dumped, improperly
    disposed of wastes, and disposed of hazardous wastes without the required permits. The Board
    ordered EIC to cease and desist from violating the Act and to complete remediation of the site
    by December 31, 1997. On January 5, 1998, EIC filed a motion for extension of time up to
    and including April 23, 1998, to comply with the Board’s August 21, 1997 order. On January
    22, 1998, the Board granted EIC’s motion. On April 17, 1998, EIC filed a second motion for
    extension of time (EIC motion) requesting an additional 120 days in which to comply with the
    Board’s remediation order. On April 21, 1998, complainant filed a motion for default of the
    2
    Board’s January 22, 1998 order (Default motion). On April 23, 1998, EIC filed a response to
    complainant’s motion for default (Response to default motion). On April 24, 1998,
    complainant filed a response to EIC’s motion for extension of time (Response to EIC motion).
    EIC MOTION
    EIC asserts that it has experienced inadvertent delays in beginning to remediate the
    property. EIC motion at 2. Noting that environmental counsel was retained on April 1, 1998,
    EIC lists the progress counsel has made toward beginning remediation.
    1
    Specifically, counsel
    has contacted complainant’s counsel, and an agreement has been reached to access and
    investigate the property. Also, EIC has hired an environmental remediation consultant. EIC
    motion at 2. In response, complainant asserts that EIC’s hiring of environmental counsel is
    irrelevant, because EIC knew about the remediation order before January 5, 1998, and failed
    to take any action. Response to EIC motion at 3. Complainant also argues that EIC has
    “demonstrated a pattern of willful disregard” of both the Illinois Environmental Protection Act
    (Act) and the Board’s clean-up orders. Response to EIC motion at 4. Complainant further
    notes that when he consented to EIC’s previous motion for extension of time, complainant
    requested that the extension be final. Response to EIC motion at 3. Complainant suggests the
    Board deny EIC’s motion for extension of time, find EIC in violation of the clean-up deadline,
    and allow EIC to address the question of sanctions when that issue is before the Board.
    Response to EIC motion at 4.
    Although EIC has not remediated the site as of April 23, 1998, per the Board’s January
    22, 1998, order, the Board will grant EIC an additional 45 days in which to remediate the site.
    EIC must remediate the site by June 22, 1998. However, the Board does not look favorably
    on EIC’s failure to meet previous deadlines and will be reluctant to grant EIC further
    extensions of time absent extenuating circumstances.
    Default Motion
    On April 21, 1998, complainant filed a motion for default of the Board’s January 22,
    1998 order. Complainant had not received EIC’s motion for extension of time when he filed
    the default motion. In light of the Board’s ruling on the EIC’s motion for extension of time,
    complainant’s default motion is moot.
    CONCLUSION
    EIC’s motion for extension of time is granted in part. EIC is granted until June 22,
    1998, to remediate the site. Complainant’s motion for default is moot.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    1
    From June 1, 1995 to the present, Christopher T. Nowotarski has represented respondents.
    The environmental counsel recently retained by EIC, Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon,
    submits the instant motion for extension of time.
    3
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, hereby certify that
    the above order was adopted on the 7th day of May 1998 by a vote of 7-0.
    Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board

    Back to top