ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    November 10,
    1976
    MARY
    ANN NOWAK,
    )
    )
    Petitioner,
    )
    v.
    )
    PCB 76—193
    )
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    )
    Respondent.
    OPINION AND ORDER OF TIlE BOARD
    (by Mr. Young):
    This matter comes before the Board on the amended variance
    petition filed on September 1, 1976 by Mary Ann Nowak seeking
    relief from Rules 962 and 602(a) and
    Cd)
    of Chapter
    3:
    Water
    Pollution Rules and Regulations.
    An Agency Recommendation was
    filed in this matter on October 21,
    1976.
    Rule 602(a) prohibits the installation of new combined
    sewers unless sufficient retention or treatment capacity is
    provided to ensure that no violation of the effluent standards
    occurs.
    Rule 602(d) sets the compliance date for the treatment
    of combined sewer overflows and Rule 962 establishes the Standards
    for Issuance for permits.
    Petitioner seeks a variance to
    allow
    the issuance of an
    Agency permit to construct a combined sewer to serve ten single—
    family residences located in an area within Calumet City and
    the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago
    (MSDGC).
    All storm and sanitary flows generated in this area would flow
    to an existing 15-inch combined sewer.
    Ninety percent of Calumet
    City is served by combined sewers and there are no separated
    sewers proximate to the Petitioncr’s property.
    Petitioner
    alleges that a separation of sewers in this area would serve no
    purpose
    since
    both the
    storm
    and sani tary sewers would
    1)0
    con-
    nected
    to combined sewers even if a sewer separation occurred
    (Pet.
    2).
    Petitioner estimates the additional cost of a separated
    system is $10,000.00
    (A. Pet. 1), and that Petitioner would suffer
    an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship if forced to bear this
    burden in view of the minimal environmental benefits to be gained
    by a separation.
    The Agency points out that since the area in question is
    small and within the boundaries of an existing combined sewer
    service area, the receiving sewage facilities will not be detri-
    mentally affected by the construction of the proposed combined
    24—245
    —2—
    sewer.
    Ultimate compliance with the Board’s rules for dis-
    charges from this combined sewer system awaits completion of
    the Tunnel and Reservoir Plan by the MSDGC.
    The Agency sub-
    mits there appears to be no apoarent benefit in a sewer
    separation in this ~.nstancesince both sewers would be con-
    nected to the same existing combined sewer.
    For all of these
    reasons,
    the Aqency believes Petitioner is entitled to a
    variance
    (Rec.
    4).
    The Agency also raises the question whether any proposed
    sewer which is intended to receive previously unsewered com-
    bined flow should be considered a new combined sewer within
    the meaning of 602(a), or whether a proposed combined sewer
    fits into the 602(a) definition only if it is installed in
    a
    new
    drainage area.
    This latter interpretation would make
    this present variance unnecessary but would also create a
    possible gap in the regulations with undetermined statewide
    effects.
    It seems the controversy would switch from what is
    a new combined sewer to what is a
    new
    drainage area.
    But
    whatever the case may be, the Board certainly needs more
    information than is contained in the present Recommendation
    before it would consider adopting this latter interoretation.
    The Board believes that the former interpretation, which is
    completely restrictive although easy to apply, provides the
    greatest sateguards in solving the State’s water pollution
    problems until such time as the Board can render a more informed
    decision in this regard.
    Other persons who find themselves in
    situations similar to this Petitioner’s can avail themselves
    of the variance procedure.
    In view of the foregoing,
    the Board finds that Petitioner
    is entitled to relief from Rule 602(a) and the variance will be
    granted.
    The Board believes, however, that the variance grant
    from Rule 602(a) obviates the need for a variance from either
    Rule 962 or 602(d), and these requests will therefore be dis-
    missed.
    This Opinion constitutes the Board’s lindings of fact and
    conclusions of law in this matter.
    ORDER
    1.
    Petitioner, Mary
    Ann
    Nowak, is granted variance from
    Rule 602(a)
    to allow the construction of a combined sewer to
    serve ten single-family houses located in Petitioner’s Calumet
    City development.
    2.
    Petitioner’s request for variance from Rules 602(d)
    and
    962 are hereby dismissed.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    24-246
    —3--
    I,
    Christan
    L.
    Moffett, Clerk
    of
    the
    Illinois
    Pollution
    Control
    Board,
    hereby
    certify
    the
    above
    Opinion
    and
    Order
    were
    adopted
    o~ the
    J~
    day
    of
    1976
    by
    a
    vote
    of
    ~
    Illinois
    Pollution
    Board
    24
    —
    247

    Back to top