ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    September 25, 1986
    IN THE MATTER OF:
    )
    JOINT PETITION OF THE
    )
    PCB 85—202
    METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT
    OF GREATER CHICAGO AND THE
    )
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    )
    PROTECTION AGENCY FOR EXCEPTION
    )
    TO THE COMBINED SEWER
    )
    OVERFLOW REGULATIONS
    )
    INTERIM ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by J.
    D.
    Dumelle):
    Upon review of the materials filed
    in this proceeding and
    the June 25,
    1986 hearing transcript,
    the Board wishes additional
    information on the following matters.
    The following threshold questions reflect the Board’s
    uncertainty as
    to the nature of,
    and the need
    for, the relief
    being sought by the Petitioner:
    1.
    In the joint petition, relief was requested from the
    Section 306.306 Compliance Dates pursuant to the Subpart D
    Exception Procedure.
    No exception was requested
    from
    Section 306,305, the Board’s treatment standards.
    However,
    in
    its concluding comments, the petitioners appear
    to be
    requesting relief specifically from 306.306(b),
    the
    compliance deadline for MSD of December
    31,
    1977 (assuming
    that the reference
    to 306.305(b) was inadvertent).
    Why is
    MSD requesting
    such relief
    for
    itself, since that protection
    has already been provided
    in Section 306.306(d)
    (1),
    (2)
    and
    (3),
    i.e. the MSD is
    in the construction grants program?
    Are the Agency,
    and MSD as
    a regional lead goverrunent,
    actually seeking
    relief only for
    the
    29 municipalities,
    i.e.,
    for an exception from 306.306(c),
    which requires all
    CSO’s (except MSD)
    to have complied by December
    31,
    1975
    unless they are
    in the grant program or, alternatively, a
    holding
    that the municipalities are, and have been since
    1977,
    in the grant program?
    If so, what distinguishes the possible exposure of
    these municipalities from the other municipalities who,
    until
    “their” portions of TARP were completed, appear
    possibly to have been similarly exposed?
    2.
    On the one hand, the Petitioners have invoked the
    intergovernmental cooperation provisions of Article VII,
    72-391
    —2—
    Section 10 of the Illinois Constitution
    to support their
    assertion that all the municipalities, as well as “the
    USEPA,
    the
    IEPA,
    the Army Corps of Engineers, the Illinois
    General Assembly and the Congress of the United States”
    have
    recognized
    the MSD as the lead agency.
    They further assert
    that the IEPA’s position is that “these municipalities are
    protected by the District’s
    grant
    application.”
    On the other hand the Petitioners assert that the MSD
    and IEPA are not representing the municipalities “in the
    sense
    that
    the
    municipalities
    could
    be
    bound
    by
    our
    actions.”
    (Pet.
    Concluding
    Comments,
    p.
    3,
    4,
    5).
    Would the Petitioners please clarify their role and
    that of the municipalities in this proceeding?
    3.
    One other reason stated by the Petitioners
    for seeking
    extended compliance relief is to protect MSD and the
    municipalities from federal enforcement, referring to the
    USEPA’s January
    2,
    1984, National Municipal Policy
    statement.
    That statement allows the “permitting authority”
    to extend
    the
    CWA
    compliance deadline beyond
    the July 1,
    1988 compliance date
    if,
    as
    in this case, extraordinary
    circumstances make it impossible
    to meet the above
    deadline.
    (Pet.
    Concluding Comments,
    p.
    5,
    6, Attach.).
    In reference
    to the “National Municipal Policy,” the
    petitioners are requested to discuss whether the Act or
    Board regulations require Board action
    (by way of the
    exception procedure or otherwise)
    to empower the Agency to
    set the extended fixed compliance schedule.
    The Board also requests responses to the following
    questions:
    4.
    If the entire cost of the TARP completion is borne by
    the MSDGC property—taxpayers what would be the effect upon
    the total Chicago tax bill?
    What rate and percentage
    increase would result?
    5.
    Does the MSDGC have the legal power
    to issue bonds
    without referendum
    for the full amount of the cost of
    completion of TARP?
    6.
    Assuming that the Board orders the completion of TARP
    by
    Ja’nuary
    1, 1996
    what
    are
    feasible
    construction
    milestones
    to set (i.e.
    25
    completion after
    three years, 50
    completion after
    six years, 75
    completion after eight
    years, etc.)?
    72.392
    —3—
    7.
    Are the tax rates given
    in the MSDGC’s July 25,
    1986
    submission total
    tax rates
    for all MSDGC operations or
    incremental
    tax
    rates
    for the TARP project alone?
    How were
    they computed?
    Any responses to this Order should be filed on or before
    November 10,
    1986.
    IT
    IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Dorothy M.
    Gunn,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board,
    hereby
    certify
    that
    he
    above
    Order
    was
    adopted
    on
    the
    _____________
    day
    of
    ____________,
    1986
    by
    a
    vote
    of
    ______________.
    ~/&~_~ic1
    /?7.
    Dorothy M.
    Gtfrmn,
    Clerk
    Illinois
    Pollution
    Control
    Board
    72-393

    Back to top