ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    January
    24,
    1974
    ENVIRONMENTAL
    PROTECTION
    AGENCY,
    Complainant,
    v.
    )
    PCB 71-25
    CITY OF MARION,
    Respondent.
    CITY OF MARION,
    )
    Petitioner,
    v.
    )
    PCB 71—225
    ENVIRONMENTAL
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    Respondent.
    William
    J. Novick, Attorney for the City of Marion
    Larry Eaton, Assistant Attorney General for
    the EPA
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by Mr.
    Henss)
    The Agency’s Complaint
    (#71-25) charged the City of Marion
    with discharging inadequately treated sewage to
    a tributary of
    Crab Orchard Creek and missing some deadlines for
    construction
    of sewage plant improvements.
    The City’s Petition for Variance
    (#71-225)
    requested a delay in compliance with the Regulations
    pending installation of the required improvements.
    On October
    28,
    1971, the Illinois Pollution Control Board ordered the City of
    Marion to comply by September 30, 1972 with the treatment and
    effluent standards of SwB-14 which had been adopted by the former
    Sanitary Water Board.
    The City of Marion sought administrative review in the
    Appellate Court of
    Illinois, Fifth Appellate District.
    Subse-
    quently, on March
    7,
    1972
    this Board adopted Water Pollution
    Regulations, which in some respects, vary from requirements of
    the former Sanitary Water Board.
    Cities over 10,000 in population
    were granted to December 31,
    1973 to meet
    the Water Quality
    11
    —3

    —2—
    Standards.
    The City of Marion contended that it would be a
    discrimination against the City to require it to meet the
    Standards by September 30,
    1972 when all other municipalities
    over 10,000 in population would have until December 31, 1973
    to meet the Water Quality Standards.
    The Appellate Court found that the City of Marion should
    have the benefit of the changes in the law which had occurred
    while the case was pending on review.
    The Court said:
    “Justice requires therefore that the City of
    Marion be entitled to all the terms and provisions
    of the new Regulations.
    The record, having been
    compiled previous to the promulgation of
    the new
    Regulations,
    is inadequate
    to fully establish the
    nature of the appropriate order that should be
    entered in this case...”
    The case was remanded with directions requiring this Board to
    conduct further hearings and determine in what manner the new
    Regulations applied to the City of Marion and to determine what
    steps,
    if any, are necessary for the City of Marion to obtain
    compliance with the new Regulations,
    This~Boardis to strike
    that portion of its Order relating to future compliance dates
    and substitute an appropriate Order requiring compliance with
    the current Regulations.
    In compliance with the Appellate Court Order we order the
    following:
    1.
    A hearing shall be conducted at an early date
    to determine whetheror not the City of Marion
    is in compliance with, or in violation of, the
    new Regulations;
    to determine the manner in
    which
    the new Regulations apply to the City of
    Marion; and to determine what steps, if any, are
    necessary for the City of Marion to obtain
    compliance with said Regulations.
    2.
    The Board Orders of October 28,
    1971 and March 14,
    1972 are modified in the following respects:
    Paragraphs
    1,
    2,
    3,
    4,
    5,
    6,
    7 and 9 are stricken.
    3.
    Appropriate orders will be made following the
    hearing which has been ordered regarding compliance
    with the current Regulations.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    11
    --4

    —3—
    I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order was
    dopted
    this
    c~V’~
    day ~
    ,
    1974 by a vote of _to
    ~

    Back to top