ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    July 8, 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.
    Respondent.
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    PCB 95-143
    (Enforcement - Land - Citizens)
    ORDER OF THE BOARD (by R.C. Flemal):
    This matter is before the Board on both Respondent Electronic Interconnect
    Corporation’s (EIC) June 17, 1998, motion for extension of time to comply with the Board’s
    August 21, 1997, remediation order, and on complainant’s response renewing its motion for
    default of the Board’s August 21, 1997, order in which the Board directed Respondent to
    remediate the site. Also pending before the Board is EIC’s reply to complainant’s response,
    complainant’s motion to strike EIC’s reply and EIC’s response to complainant’s motion to
    strike.
    For the reasons stated below, the Board denies EIC’s motion, strikes its reply and
    response, grants complainant’s default motion and sets the matter for hearing on the remaining
    penalty issue.
    BACKGROUND
    Complainant owns the property which respondents used from 1986 through 1994 for
    manufacturing and storing electronic circuit boards. 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 caused or allowed open dumping of waste,
    improperly disposed of wastes, and disposed of hazardous wastes without the required permits.
    The Board reserved ruling on the penalty issue pending remediation of the site. 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 22, 1998, the Board granted EIC’s motion for extension
    of time to and including April 23, 1998 to comply with the remediation order. On April 17,
    1998, EIC filed a second motion for extension of time requesting an additional 120 days in
    2
    which to comply with the Board’s remediation order. On April 21, 1998, complainant filed a
    motion for default of the Board’s January 22, 1998, order. On May 7, 1998, the Board
    granted EIC an additional 45 days to remediate the site and denied complainant’s motion for
    default. On June 17, EIC filed a third motion for extension of time asking that it be granted
    until August 1, 1998, to file a status report with the Board advising the Board of EIC’s
    progress towards remediation (EIC motion). On June 24, 1998, complainant filed a response
    (response) opposing the motion for extension of time and renewing it’s April 21, 1998, default
    motion. On July 2, 1998, EIC submitted a reply to complainant’s response. Also on July 2,
    1998, complainant filed a motion to strike EIC’s reply, or in the alternative, for time to file a
    surreply. On July 6, 1998, EIC submitted a response to complainant’s motion to strike.
    EIC MOTION
    EIC asserts that before it can begin remediation work, it must conduct a Phase II soil
    investigation of the property. EIC motion at 2. On June 16, 1998, six days before the June
    22, 1998, remediation deadline, EIC’s environmental consulting firm submitted a work plan
    for a specific Phase II investigation of the property. EIC motion at 3. EIC asserts that when
    the Phase II fieldwork is done, a final report of the work and a recommendation for required
    remediation, if any, will be prepared. EIC motion at 3. EIC acknowledges that it cannot
    offer the Board a date certain for compliance with the Board’s remediation order. EIC motion
    at 3.
    On June 24, 1998, complainant filed a response to the EIC motion, contending that in
    the additional 45 days granted by the Board on May 7, 1998, all EIC accomplished was to
    draft an investigation plan. Response at 2. Complainant also quoted language from the
    Board’s May 7, 1998, order that “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.” Response at 1. Complainant renewed its April 21, 1998, motion
    for default, which the Board denied on May 7, 1998. Response at 2. Complainant indicates
    that it wants to enforce the desired default order in circuit court. Response at 2-3.
    Complainant asks that the Board deny the motion for extension of time, find EIC in default
    regarding the Board’s remediation order, order EIC to immediately perform clean-up, direct
    complainant to enforce the Board’s orders in circuit court, and order any other such relief as
    the Board deems appropriate. Response at 3.
    The Board denies EIC’s motion for extension of time. Other than noting that a work
    plan has been prepared by its consultant, Versar, Inc., EIC has provided no information
    regarding the nature or progress of the remediation. In the absence of information regarding
    the work plan, field investigation, data analysis, development of remediation alternatives, etc.,
    the Board cannot determine whether EIC is conducting the site remediation in a timely manner
    or whether there are extenuating circumstances to justify granting additional time. The motion
    for additional time is accordingly denied
    3
    Default Motion
    Complainant’s renewal of its April 21, 1998, default motion is granted. As of the date
    of this order, EIC has failed to remediate the site as ordered by the Board.
    EIC’s Reply , Complainant’s Motion to Strike and EIC’s Response
    On July 2, 1998, EIC submitted to the Board a reply to complainant’s response
    opposing EIC’s motion. Complainant followed with a motion to strike EIC’s reply. In its
    motion to strike the reply, complainant correctly noted that EIC did not have the right to reply,
    absent permission from the Board or the hearing officer to prevent material prejudice. In its
    response submitted on July 6, 1998, EIC sought leave to file the July 2, 1998, reply
    instanter
    .
    The Board strikes EIC’s reply and response.
    CONCLUSION
    EIC’s motion for extension of time is denied Complainant’s motion for default is
    granted. EIC’s reply and response are stricken. The matter shall be sent to hearing to address
    the issue of penalties.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, hereby certify that
    the above order was adopted on the 8th day of July 1998 by a vote of 5-0.
    Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board

    Back to top