ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

August

13,

1971

WALTER R.

SEEGREN

v.

)

#

PCB 71—106

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Mr. Ellis

E. Fuqua, Waukegan,

for Walter R,

Seegren

Mr. Roger

C.

Ganobcik, for the Environmental Protection Agency

Opinion of the Board

(by Mr. Currie):

The

petitioner seeks

a variance to allow the extension

of

a sewer and

the connection

of

two eighteen—unit apartment

buildings to Waukegan sewers tributary to the overloaded Waukegan

sewage treatment plant of the North Shore Sanitary District.

Such connections were forbidden by our order

in League of Women

Voters v. North Shore Sanitary District,

# 70-7

(March 31,

1971)

After hearing, we denied the present petition August

5,

1971,

This opinion gives

our reasons.

The buildings in question were completed

in January or

February of this

year, but the Environmental Protection Agency

denied

a sewer construction permit before the entry of our order

on the basis

of Agency policy

(R.

43, 57-58~petition,

pp.

3-4).

Our March

31 opinion called attention to the possible use of

package plants or septic tanks to avoid the necessity for adding

to the existing overload.

After filing the petition,

the petitioner

proceeded

to install

a septic tank serving both buildings,

at

a cost of $5000,

and the buildings are now almost 90

occupied

(R.

68,

69,

89)

In short,

the sewer ban is not interfering with

the

petitioner~s ability to make

the intended use of his

land.

It is true that additional expenditures have been incurred--to

the extent of about six weeks~ rental

(R.

79-80)--, and that

some money was lost because of the lost weeks while installing

the septic tank.

But these losses

seem small compared with the

benefits of keeping the additional flow out

of Lake Michigan,

and

in anyyevent they have already been incurred,

To grant the

variance now would do nothing for the petitioner,

and it would

~harm the Lake.

We think

the petitioner has commendably done

what our March 31 order contemplated:

He has found

a way of

utilizing his property

for the intended use without causing

harm to the Lake,

and

at

a cost we deem entirely reasonable.

2

—

285

---

As for the question of what will happen to the

septic tank after

the sewer ban

is lifted,

that is

a question we can deal with by

regulations governing the use of septic tanks, which

are now

under consideration,

Granting this variance today would not

require petitioner to connect to the

sewer;

to do so would cause

him extra expense,

and there is no showing

that the septic

tank we asked him

to employ is illegal.

The testimony indicated that two additional buildings

are

under construction,

and clearly the petitioner would

like per-

mission

to connect them to the

sewer.

The petition, however,

makes no such request.

In any case,

a permit from the Agency

would be required to the extent that a sewer extension

is at

issue;

the proper route

is to apply

for an EPA permit and,

if

desired,

to seek Board review in the event of

a denial.

Moreover,

as we have said

above, we believe the septic tank is

an acceptable alternative

at reasonable

cost, assuming,

as the

testimony suggests, that soil

and other conditions are suitable

CR.

92,

104).

That to deny permission to connect these buildings

to the sewer would deprive the residents of

a swimming pool

until

the ban

is lifted hardly seems compelling,

To do without

such luxuries

for

a time is not the kind of hardship that would

justify further pollution of the Lake Michigan beaches.

This opinion constitutes the Board~s findings of fact

and

conclusions of

law.

I, Regina E.

Ryan, Clerk of the Pollution Control Board,

certify

that the Board adopted the above Opinion this

/3~

day of

2

—