Laserfiche WebLink
F�i <br />le. <br />D, <br />.Wh <br />aea,n of <br />ro- o, If C1 J'j <br />u n i c i Z31 a I i ties <br />I <br />.0 <br />A, <br />■ <br />r as <br />4 <br />L <br />MWA <br />TXVR OFFICXYA�LS DA TE NOVE11BER 4.,, 1977 <br />ME14.LDER CITY ADNINISTRA <br />Th.e. State Hearlo_ng Examinerils office is currently holdlng hearings on the <br />renewal of the J�atio_nal Pollution Discha.Z-ge Elimination yst n s <br />and Stat sposal System pernalts for the metropolitan waste water treat- <br />e D' <br />1 <br />m,ent plant at Pig's Eye Lake in St. Paul, which expired July X, 1977. <br />Federal law required that all plants meet secondary standards by July I, <br />1977. ThIs will not be possible for Pig r Eye until the $300 raillion con- <br />struction is completed in 198111982, which was p'a,rtially delayed bg Z"m- <br />poundment of federal funds by the Nixon adimin Istratibl! Based on an in- <br />J. of <br />tent to file a lawsuit for non- corapl r al] Ce. by a groU P - citizens. 1:7 the <br />wisconsin, known as Citizens for a Cleah <br />Minnesota and <br />Winona rya of M' <br />1-jississippi, Inc "r the KPCA has r4 ques-t-ed that the KW CC provide an interirt <br />for s? cadge which will cost the metropolitan- area cit-i1es and <br />l and di s pol;al <br />resi-dents between $65 and $14 raiil.lion aver the next fouz years. <br />The A1,11.9, 1--oletropolitan Agencies Conmr-Ittee and Board o ' f Directors did oppose <br />the addition.al inuterim proposals based on the 71M'ted value recd ved for <br />the additional expense and the fact: that a subs JZ-an tip.. 1 "'good faith". a- n <br />vestment.- to solve the problem was in progress and would be coinapleted with- <br />in a reasonable time, In addition, any intehrim alternative coUld possibly <br />be delayed to ne"ar or beyond completion of Pig'-s Eye by several legal <br />measures, thus ca usp in g an unnecessary loss of metropolitan inonley. <br />Based on pr IOUs laivsUits in other areas o•f thy' country, in.pound ment of <br />ev I <br />funds is not an acceptable lenal reason for z2on-compli ante . There-lEor ' e-., <br />the 14c-t:zopolitan Council and zie-t,.ropoli tan Waste Control Copuzzission are. <br />ions. <br />n,aklng provisions X'0_r Studying alter native interim so.Z u t <br />However, the Wisconsin Department of Justice in it5 pre-hearing statement <br />�r L -ewater in- <br />of issues requested con�;ideration ol a moratorium to new wast <br />flol.7 to the plant worded as follows: <br />##Xv, Hhether any state disposal system perjii t which contains af� <br />fluent limitations less stringent than the NPD.';r-,`S effluent lim- <br />0 ct to <br />atations shshould not also contain restrictions .-wi. -�-h respe <br />sewag2 extensions and 3 'mitatl F ons on a u a n S 0f <br />waste froi,q prese- ancl -­ users,." <br />The Metropolitan Council oblected to this issue as Part: of the NP DRS hear~� <br />ing, but the Hearing Examiner reservod j cad gme-ilt until after the hearing., <br />Thus, it is an issue and testimony is being t.ak�n,, <br />300 haiiover bldg. 480 cedar street, st. j5dul iiiiiinesota 55101 (61)) 222-2861 <br />