ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    June 21, 1973
    ABE
    SCHWARTZ,
    )
    Petitioner,
    v.
    )
    PCB73-41
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    Respondent.
    Milton L. Schwartz on behalf of Petitioner;
    Thomas A. Cengel, Assistant Attorney General, on behalf of
    Respondent.
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Seaman):
    On January 1, 1973, Petitioner, Abe Schwartz, filed a
    petition for a one year variance from Rule 404 of Chapter 3:
    Water Pollution Regulations. Petitioner owns, operates and
    controls a laundromat in an unincorporated area of Nameoki
    Township, County of Madison, having no sanitary
    sewage system.
    Petitioner’s operation generates a daily average of
    approximately 2,800 gallons of wastewater from the washing
    machines. Petitioner contends that 80 to 85 of the waste-
    water is treated by a septic system consisting of six tanks.
    Septic effluent plus totally untreated wastewater is discharged
    to a drainage ditch, emptying into a storm sewer, tributary to
    Canton Creek.
    Agency Surveillance Section samples indicate that Peti-
    tioner is in violation of Rules 203(a), 403, 405, 903(a) and
    1002(b) of Chapter 3 in that Petitioner’s effluent contains
    excessive concentrations of color, turbidity, fecal
    coliform,
    BOD and suspended solids resulting in violation of general
    water quality standards. Petitioner’s future compliance is
    dependent entirely upon proposed installation of sanitary
    sewers in the vicinity of Petitioner’s laundromat.
    Petitioner alleges that the sewage service is planned
    for the immediate
    future.
    The
    Agency disagrees; however,
    neither party has presented sufficient evidence of record upon
    which this Board can determine the issue.
    8—
    337
    Petitioner’s 1971 income
    tax
    return (Exhibit C)
    shows
    that
    the income produced by the laundromat was $5,180
    and
    .that the
    total
    depreciated value of the laundromat’s
    equipment
    is $3,660.
    Petitioner’ s Exhibit D, a bid for the type of water
    treatment
    facility necessary in order to
    comply
    with applicable water
    pollution regulations, shows a cost of approximately $20,000.
    Petitioner
    states that
    he cannot afford to purchase this
    equipment and, even
    if he could, it
    would
    not be economically
    reasonable to expend $20
    ,
    000 to
    continue
    to operate a
    laundromat
    which
    generates such
    low
    income. There is also an $11,000
    balance on the $15,000 loan Petitioner negotiated to purchase
    the laundromat (R. 10).
    Petitioner, age 66, underwent cancer surgery three years
    ago, resulting in the loss of his urinery bladder and one kidney,
    and Petitioner alleges that, other than the light work involved
    in operating the
    laundromat,
    he is unable to engage in any
    other activity by
    which
    ha could support himself.
    The Board is disposed to grant a six—month variance in this
    situation, during which
    period
    the parties should be able to
    make a more demonstrative projection of when and if sanitary
    sewers will be installed adjacent to Petitioner’s property.
    This
    Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclu-
    sions of law of the Board.
    IT IS
    THE
    ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that
    Petitioner,
    Abe
    Schwartz, be granted a six-month variance fron
    Rule
    404
    of the Water Pollution Regulations.
    I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, certify that the
    above
    Qpinion and Order was adopted by
    the Board on the
    e~g’~
    day
    of
    ~,,
    1973, by a
    vote
    of 1/
    to
    0
    .
    8—338

    Back to top