ILLLJOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOAi~’

October

13,

1977

THE PRESBYTERIAN

HOME,

)

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB

77—215

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Mr. Dumelle):

This matter comes before the Board on a Petition for

Variance from Rule 602(a)

of Chapter

3: Water Pollution of

the

Board’s Rules and Regulations.

The Agency has recommended that

the variance be granted subject

to the condition that Petitioner

apply for and receive all necessary permits.

Petitioner

is a not—for-profit religious organization which

operates

a

40 acre health care facility for the elderly

in

Evanston.

Petitioner requests relief so that it can build

a combined

sewer as part of a remodeling program.

Petitioi~ercould con—

struct separate storm and sanitary sewers but this would cost

approximately

$25,143

instead of $8,089 for a combined system.

There is no evidence in the record of any basement flooding

in

the vicinity of Petitioner which would necessitate construction

of separate systems.

This case is similar to variances granted by the Board in

Mary Ann Nowak v. EPA, PCB 76-193

(November 10,

1976); City of

Calumet v.

EPA, PCB 76—318

(February

3,

1977); Near North

Development Corporation

v.

EPA, PCB 77—78

(May 26,

1977)

Orchard and Vine Corporation v. EPA, PCB 77-65

(May

26, 1977);

and

Harry Weese and Associates

v.

EPA,

PCB 77—140,

(August

4,

1977)

.

In those opinions,

the Board emphasized the fact that

the construction of separate sewer systems

to serve the resi-

dential areas in question would serve no purpose since flows

would eventually discharge into the combined sewer system which

flows to the Northside Sewage Treatment Plant operated by the

Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago

(MSDGC).

The same situation exists here.

The Board also noted that

ultimate compliance would be achieved by the construction of

the MSDGC Tunnel and Reservoir Project

(TARP).

Without conceding that TARP represents an economically

practical or technologically feasible compliance plan, the Board

agrees that TARP

is an adequate plan at this time.

28-71

---

Compliance with RuT~ fi2(a)

at this time wc~J impose

an arbitrary and unreaso~~:hichardship upon PetL:~Lcner.

This Opinion constitutes

th&~. Board’s findin~: of fact and

conclusions of law in this matter.

ORDER

Petitioner

is hereby granted a variance from Rule 602(a)

of Chapter

3: Water Pollution of the Board’s Rules and Regula-

tions subject to

the following conditions:

1)

Petitioner shall apply for and receive all

necessary Agency permits.

2)

Within

35 days of the date of this Order,

Petitioner shall submit to

The Manager of the Variance Section

Illinois Environmen: al Protection Agency

Division of Water °eilutionControl

2200 Churchill Rca

Springfield, iLliecis

62706

an executed Certification of Acceptance and Agreement

to be bound to all terms and conditions of this variance.

The form of said Certification shall be as follows:

CERTIFICATION

I

(We),

having read Order of the Pollution Control Board in PCB 77-215,

understand and accept said Order, realizing that such acceptance

renders all terms and conditions thereto binding and enforceable.

Signed by __________________________

Ti Lie

_______________________________

Date

____________________________

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I, Christan

L. Moffett~ Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board,

hereby certify the ~bove

Opinion and Order were

adopted on the

~

day of j~,

1977 by a vote

of

~

T~4s~anL.

~‘2Q~(~?

Illinois Pollution

rol Board

2R-72