ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

December 28,

1983

PEOPLE

OF

THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

PCB

83~2i6

COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY

(Certification No,

21RA—ILL—WPC-81~28

Revocation

of

Tax

Certification.

OPINION

AND

ORDER

OF

THE

BOARD

(by

B.

Forcade)

This matter comes before the Board upon

a Proposal

to

Revoke

Tax

Certification adopted by the Board on December

6,

1983.

Hearing

was

held

on

December

20,

1983.

Recently enacted Public Act (P,A,)

83—0883, which

became

effective on

September

9,

1983,

amends the definition

of

“Pollution

Control

Facility~

as

contained

in

Section

21a—2

of the

Illinois

Revenue

Act

of

1939

(111,

Rev.

Stat.

Ch,

120, par.

502a—2)

in

the

following

manner:

“Fo~pu~posesfassessmentsmadeafterJang~1,1983,

lpollutioncontrolfacilities”shallnotinclude,however,

a)

an3~ys tern,

method,

construction,

devi cc

or

ance

pperated for the j~rma~yj3urposeof

U)_eliminatin~

containin~reventingorreducinyradioactivecontam

I

-

~ythe

nuc 1ear~enerationofelectric~pp~er;b)any

~

ndds~erseheatfiLwatei~yedtien~c1ea

con struction,

device

or

dP

pJ

lance

ajypyrtenant

the re to

pp~a~d~yanj

~ersonotherthanaunito~overnment,

whether

within

or

outside

of

the

territorial_boundaries

of

a

unit

of

loca~~ppvernrnent,

for

sew~disosalor

treatment,

ThePoIlutionControlBoardshaIlrevokeap~rior

ccrtif

icat

ion

in

conf fict

with

this

ace nda to p~act

0

f

---

Pursuant to this statutory direct ye, the Board

reviewed

Pollution

Contol

Facility

et

if c~tt’~

is

and

Applications for

Certification

which

were

referred

to

he

doard

by

the Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency

for

ciecertification

under this

language.

At

hearing,

Cornmon~iea1th blison

stipulated

that they

are not a

unit

of

government

and

tlat

facilities

at

Zion,

Dresden,

Byron

and

LaSalle

are

nuclear

fieled

electric generating

facilities

CR.

47),

Further,

Corroiqca

t~

Edison

stated that the

facility

subject

to this proceedi

g

fill

within the

language of

Public

Act 83—0883

CR.

52

,

wh ti re~~v1ng its

objections

to

decertification

based on

) oced

r

‘i

~rrrit1e$ and

constitutional

violations

(~o

rio

B ison Brief,

pp.

3—10).

adjudica

e

t

e

e

that que tio

i

o

~rI

September

23,

~983.

Tia, ca~,

u

P.A.

82—654,

amerdlia Secti

of

Act,

Ill

Rev

~

c

1

it

has

generally

~uuom

~

Be

commit

to administra

vu aoui

e

B

constitutionaiity

o~

eg

~la

o

Administrative La

rca ise

2

is

no

autharity

~i

II

mo

Board

eitter

Ia

ci

lL~

held

that

it

wa.,

that

b~r

1,

1983,

left

ber

20,

1983,

dat the

Proposals

i3~,I

~ionon

i.

o

~

~ince

fall

within

the

i~prc~uic1 to

know

the

law

ui~le

r

wl’at

due process

~ long’~r~~otice or

an

~‘a

~roce~s.

The

Board

i

req eat

that

Agency

i~ ~i ~i~’ses

at

hearing.

~c

i

P

3

s

whether

is

should

3oard

considered

~~~~,ppprises,

PCB

76-84,

id

tic

constitutionality

of

~ie Ervironmental

Protection

h~,Board

noted

that

oh

law

that

“we

do

not

~

uomc’r to

determine

rj

D~ is,

ru

r

1,

although there

a oposition

that

the

r

B

ever,

the

Board

~,

~aureit

that

B)

ci ider

“~

e

Board

in

tb

of

the

cases,

For

proct~duLdi

1.

itiuiiiuies

C

iiou.

caich

Edison

claims

the

Board~s

December

6

1983,

rop

~

i

devoke

Tax

Certificatioi,

wl’ici

t

r

ci

inadequate

ti’e

to

r

re~

C

hearing

Fartle

lack

docuiieatatio,

rc

ILl)

decertificitmor

r’~

ois

Commonwealth

F

c

ili

t

a

language

of

ubl

‘Ic

3

3

8

a

was

enacted

on

Septerl’er

9

advantage wo

dd

hav~ been

gaiCc~’

explanation

of

the

Agency

a

e1ib~

notes

that

Commonweait~:

Eci

c

personnel

be

deposed

nor

ca

1

stir

The

thre

l’old

q

1persuaded

B

c

ttc~

ic

B

e

the

Board

,,~,

ic

c. .~a

~y

constitutional

issic

i

such

issues

should

be

ad Ire

s

d

the interests of efoiciert adj d

c

entire

controversy before

it

Given

the

constitutional

underpinnings of the (Environmental

Protection)

Act as explained below,

the Board

53

400

---

finds

the

gereral

sdnl

authority”

rtie

inapplic

B

statutory

role

(as

escthti

cc-

Environrnont’al

Protection

emphasis

added)

ngcacy

no

f~taique

L e

(stip

op.

at

5,

The

Board

does

iot

f ~nd

I

~

t(

r

appropriate

case

for

adjudication

by

the

Board

0F

~

tasionality

of this

legis-

lative

enactment.

The

arguments

accented

by

the

Board

in

Santa

Fe

supporting

its

resol

4’

c

a

cor~stitutional

challenge

~~~actment

a~tering

the

en~rr’eren~

me’uiiaiism

of

Lhe

Environmenta

Prota

tlri

tit

~‘a)l?

~ere.

They

do

not

persuade

the

Board

tha

it

sTi

id

tr~

arana

of

taxation

law

to

consider

~ie

coistituti)

i

~ax

berefit

provision of

the Revenue

Act.

plant

t~

the

11’

certi

lie

I,

Christai

B.

loffett,

3

Contro~

Baa

d

r

was

adoptel

t~

a vote

of

“

e

water

treatment

i ~g~aph

502

a—2

of

I

)‘~osubject

C

8i

~P mas~ied

to

fact

and

co~’tJsJons

a~

Tax

Ce:titicatlor.

No

211’I

I

Commonwerith

Udis

a

Cornpary

i~-

at

s

findings

of

it.

1~linois

Pollution

ye

Opinion

and Order

~

~

1983 by

-

~

-~

I

flcffett.

Cl~ ~

a

~ilution

Cont~l