ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

March

14,

1972

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

#

71—25

CITY OF MARION

CITY OF MARION

# 71—225

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Opinion

&

Order of the Board on Motion for Stay

(by Mr.

Currie)

On October 28,

1971, we entered an order requiring the

City,

among other

things,

to complete construction

of improved sewage

treatment

facilities by September

30,

1972, to pay

a money

penalty of

$100, and to post

a bond assuring performance.

The

City filed

an application for stay pending appeal, which also

contained

a request that

the

complaint be dismissed,

We sought

and received the Agency’s response and the City’s rejoinder.

Insofar as

the application seeks

stay of the money

penalty pending judicial review, we shall grant

it as

in prior

cases,

on condition that a bond be posted to assure payment

with interest upon an adverse decision.

Insofar as other

provisions of

the order

are concerned,

we decline the stay,

for reasons given

in earlier decisions, e.g.,

Spartan Print-

ing Co.

V.

EPA,

#

71—19

(June

23,

1971).

To stay

the construction

of

the plant would render

the order meaningless,

and

to stay

the bond would deprive

it of

force.

The motion that we dismiss at this

late date is denied.

It

is not supported by the facts or the law.

The complaint was

amply proved;

the Board’s order specifically ordered sanctions

for the violations

found;

the opinion

is replete with discussions

of the relevant factors under

the statute for determining

violations

and penalties.

4

—47

---

The City raised one additional

issue, however,

that has

merit.

Our initial order required Marion to advertise for bids

by December

30,

1971.

But bidding was dependent upon EPA approval

of the permit application, which was pending at the time

of

our

decision and which was not granted until after December

30.

Thus the City objected that

the bid date amounted to requiring

the

City at once to fOrfeit its bond, which

it considered

an

arbitrary penalty in light of the

fact the delay was due to the

need for Agency permit approval.

The Agency agrees there should

be no forfeiture,

and

so do we.

At the same time EPA observes

that since construction was not

to begin during the winter freeze

even on the initial schedule,

there

is no need to revise the

completion date of September,

1972.

We agree.

We therefore amend the October

28 order by striking paragraph

2

(a), which

set the December bid date,

and by allowing

an additional

35 days after receipt of this order to post the bond required by

paragraph

7.

The money penalty of paragraph

8 is hereby stayed

in accordance with this opinion.

In all other respects

the order

remains

in full

force and effect.

I, Christan Moffett, Clerk of the Pollution Control Board ,,,certify

that the Board adopted the above Op~,nion & Order

this

________

day of March, 1972, by

a vote of

4’—~,

4

—