ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    May
    10, 1972
    STATE NATIONAL BANK
    OF EVANSTON
    v.
    )
    #
    72—176
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENC’~
    Opinion and Order of the Board
    (by Mr. Currie):
    The Bank asks
    a variance
    to allow connection of
    a
    new office building to
    a
    sewer in the North Shore Sanitary
    District despite our cQnnection ban
    (League of Women Voters
    v.
    NSSD,
    #70-7, March
    31,
    1971).
    With respect
    to
    the Waukegan
    sewage treatment plant,
    to which
    this building would be
    tributary, we have modified
    the
    order by allowing a general
    variance because of improved treatment
    (NSSD
    v.
    EPA,
    #71-343,
    Jan.
    31,
    1972 and March
    2,
    1972),
    However, those orders
    specifically do not allow connections
    to sewers which are
    themselves overloaded,
    as
    is the sewer
    to which the building
    in the present case
    is
    to be connected.
    The present building, however, replaces
    a number of
    residences that were torn down after
    our March 31 order, and
    the
    net result of allowing the connection, as
    the Agency agrees,
    will be that the overall load
    on the sewer will be less after
    connecting the new building than it was before the connection
    ban order.
    In analogous cases in the past the Board has granted
    variances to allow the connection on this ground.
    E.g.,
    E.N. Maisel
    &
    Associates v
    EPA, #71—285
    (Dec.
    9,
    1971); Park
    Manor
    V.
    EPA, #71-190
    (Aug.
    13,
    1971).
    The EPA urges us
    to
    construe
    our orders so
    as not
    to forbid the connection of
    replacement units that add no
    burden.
    This would mean no
    variance is necessary, that this petition could be dismissed,
    and
    that such cases could be handled in the future on
    a permit
    basis.
    We agree with the Agency’s interpretation.
    As
    a
    practical matter, since
    the Board has stated
    its intention to
    allow such connections,
    there
    is little to be gained by requiring
    resort to the relatively burdensome variance procedure
    in each
    case.
    We therefore construe our existing sewer ban orders not
    ~o forbid connections that replace existing sources
    and that
    4
    —
    499
    do not result in
    a net increase in the organic or hydraulic
    load
    to
    a given sewer or treatment facility.
    Given this
    construction,
    there
    is
    no need for
    a variance
    in the present
    case;
    a permit may be issued on the facts as stated if Agency
    requirements
    are satisfied, and
    the petition is hereby
    dismissed.
    It of course remains the Agency’s duty to determine
    in any given case whether or not the replacement load would
    recreate such a severe pollution problem as to justify denial
    of the permit.
    But it may do so without regard to our connection
    ban order.
    I, Christan Moffett, Clerk of the Pollution Control Board,~ertify
    that the Board adopted the above Opinion and Order
    this
    /o
    “
    day of,7~
    ,
    1972,
    by a vote of_________
    4— 500

    Back to top