ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

November 15, 1973

CITY OF

LAKE

FOREST

PCB

73—363

V.

PCB

73—364

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY)

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by

Dr.

Odell)

The Petitioner,

City of Lake Forest,

seekes review of the

denial by the Environmental Protection Agency (hereinafter EPA)

of two conditional installation permits sought in April and May of

this year.

In July 1973,

the Petitioner was denied “install only”

permits to construct a sewer pumping station on Old

Mill

Road as

well as denied a related permit to build a 4000—foot sewer main on

Everett

Road,

west

of

the

proposed

Middle

Fork

Interceptor

Sewer.

The

gist

of

EPA’s

refusal

was

that

these

projects,

as

tributaries, had no existing intermediate sewer transport system

connection.

At that time,

the proposed Middle Fork Interceptor

had neither received a permit for construction from EPA, nor had

the North Shore Sanitary District

(hereinafter NSSD)

let contracts

to have it built.

Pursuant to Sections

39 and 40 of the

Environmental Protection Act

(hereinafter Act), Petitioner sought

a hearing and Board review.

Petition was filed on August 27, l973~

the two permit appeals were consolidated for hearing on August 30,

and a hearing was held on October

10 with Petitioner represented by

counsel, Mr. Compere.

At the hearing, Lake Forest introduced evidence as to hard-

ship by showing that the costs due to continued construction delay

was 1

per month

(R-25) on a project

in which $600,000 of work had

vet to be completed

(R—8,

9,

32).

The county plans to cover 2500

feet of

the

Everett Road sewer right of way with

a new cement high-

way

(R-33).

Failure

to complete the

Eve~ett

Road sewer by the

spring of 1974 would create uncontemp~Latedexpenses and unnecessary

duplication because Petitioner would then be forced to tear up and

replace several thousand feet of newly placed concrete.

Petitioner

introduced evidence to indicate that the proposed Middle Fork

Interceptor,

the north-south sewer to which the two Lake Forest

trunk sewers will connect,

is intended to serve the entire Lake

Forest area

(R-49).

Furthermore, NSSD

is under Board and Court

order to plan and construct the Interceptor ~R—90)

.

Petitioner

established that NSSD had sought

a permit for the Interceptor in

10—117

---

June,

1973, but that

ii

huh beci’

rotused

(R~60),

NSSD

~p~liad

again in

August, 1973

(R~63),but ~t

the time of the heuut~g,EPA

was still considering the plan.

EPA had issued a pecait to

construct a force main from the Skokie Valley Interceptor

to

:he

Middle Fork Interceptor sewer ~t a ooint north of

J’e Peh~t:ioner

S

proposed trunk sewers

(R~89), That section of the M~~dd~e

I~a

Interceptor would be built subsequent to completion at tee NSS3

project

in the Lake Forest area.

A

witness

for

EPA

indicated

that

~PA

has

a

policy

of

issuenc’

“install only”

permits only after the party installing

The newer,

whi~h

the

tributaries

flow into,

has ob~mined a permit and signed

contracts (R~7l,

Ac

the

~ine of

~re iieuring,

tr~erewoe not

a

permit for the Middle

~otk

:ntercepto

and constructjon coeti~cts

had no: been signed

P~i6)

Subsequent

to t~ene~ring, t~c7’

guantet

a nermat

to NSSD

to construct

the Middje

c’o~t Interce~tor (Permit No. 1973~HB~2255

issued

on November

9,

1973,.

We hold that Petitioner

baa sn~iufa~dtue

test of Section

40

oc

the Act

and

should

ae issued

a pern1 t.

While

thc

policy at

the

Ec’A is

a reasonable

one, we belio”s

~t srculh nct be applzed her~

restrain Petitioner,

The foiiowzng

~ea.ons

sunfurt this conc2uaion.

First

the rationalc

heeled

the L~

policy will

not

be uuter~

mined

if

a permit

is granted

in t.hi~c~c

~‘

~des~raeie

en~iiro~

mental impact will result

it nermits

are 3~an cC because

~nste11

only” permitu will not generate rncruascd pol~~ion.

he opern:~

eng permit must be obtained from EPA be~ore these tacilit~esbacme

functional.

The secoth justi~ioa~ionfor

~t’s

“zns~all

only”

perrit policy

is

to sa’e Petatronor financiai

Lo”a

(a~. ~gr :A

13

of Exhibit

~:

Ansuer

to the Appeal

OF

‘onirit

)cna~1s

No

cvIL.ence

ties neen admitted to chow 3ea’~ eg~bzmatc intcrest

r

protecting

the

Petitioner

from

his

own

0137

ac

to

aindful

tha’

the

state

has

a

wide

irturest

in

trees

a~

the

nealtn,

tafety

rd

welfare

of

its

citizens,

but

since

no

evzde~:cc

eat

iVCfl

in

tots

case

to

support

this

~ionae,

we must

Fall

back

en

earl~er

7ior~

opinions

which

stress

that

financ~al

ineptitude

as not the concern

of

the

EPA,

See

~

#72-300,

5 PCB

585,

587

(October

3,

1972).

Third, although the

contract for the Middle Fork Interceptor has not yet

been

signed,

plans are sufficiently definite

so that Petitioner should

be

entitled to install the pumping station and

the Everett

Road sewer

improvements.

The permit for Middle Fork has been

issued,

the

Board and courts have ruled that the NSSD must construct the Middle

Fork Interceptor, and immediate action by Petitioner Lake Forest

will effect sizable savings.

Because of these circumstances, the

mere fact that a formal contract. has not yet been signed

for

Middle

Fork should not impede Petitioner

in expeditiously completing its

improvements.

10— 118

---

ance

of

the

North

Chicago

plant

would

he

necessar

to

alter

the

sewer ban

in this area,

the Board believes that under the

circumstances of the instant case

a variance

for the proposed

single—family dwelling can he granted

without

jeopardizing the

environment.

This Opinion

constitutes

the

findings of

fact and

conclusions of law of

the

Board,

ORDER

It

Is

The

Order of

the Poliutlon Control

Board

that

Petitioners, Mr.

and Mrs. Clarence Tompkins,

be granted a variance

from Order

7 of ~g

p of Women Voters v,

North Shore Sanita~

District,

PCB 70—7,

70—12,

70-13,

and

70-14,

to connect

a proposed

single-family residence

to

the

North

Chicago sewage treatment plant.

I, Christan

L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order was

adopted on the

~

day of

~

1973, by

a vote of

‘~‘

to 0

Christan L. Moffe~/Clerk

Pollution Control~ard

10—