ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
August
29,
1972
GRANT
PARK
COMMUNITY
UNIT
SCHOOL
DISTRICT
NO.
6
OF
KANKAKEE
COUNTY,
ILLINOIS
v.
)
PCB
72-261
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
OPINION
OF
THE
BOARD
(by
Mr.
Dumelle)
This
opinion
is
in support
of
the order
entered
herein
on
August
23,
1972.
This
is
a
petition
by
the
School
District
for
a variance
allowing
them
to
discharge
sanitary
wastes
to the
storm
sewers
from their
new
high
school
building
after
some
degree
of treatment
in
septic
tanks
with
chlorination.
Hearing
was
held on
August
16,
1972.
The
new
school
building
has
already
been
completed
and is
intended
to
replace
the
old
building
which has
become
inadequate.
All
of the
students,
numbering
from
175 to
200,
will
be
transferred
to the
new
school
beginning
with
the
start
of
the
next
semester
on
August
28,
1972.
The
proposed
temporary
sewage
treatment
system
at the
new
school
consists
of three
1000-gallon
septic
tanks
in
series
together
with
an
automatic
chlorination
process
before
discharge
into
the local
storm
water
system.
The
cost
of
the
treatment
system
is
$15, 000.
The
material
to
be treated
would
be
domestic
sanitary
waste
from
the
normal
daily
use
of a
school
having
a gymnasium
but
no
kitchen
or
eating
facilities.
The
estimated
quantity
of
liquid
waste
is
about
3000
gallons
per
day.
The
waste
would
not
contain
any unusual
contaminants
not
capable
of
being
treated
as
domestic
waste.
The
new
system
will
produce
an
effluent
of
higher
quality
than that
which has heretofore
been
discharged
from
the
old
school
with its
Imhoff
tank,
although
numerical
values
do
not
appear
in the
record.
The
treatment
facilities
at the
new
school
would
be
used
only
until
the
proposed
Grant
Park
central
sewage
treatment
plant
and
sanitary
sewer
system
are
completed.
The
estimated
cost
of the
City plant
is
S800,
000.
with the
popula-
tion
being
975.
The
City plant
is
still
in the
design
stage
with
no
grant
funds
awarded
yet
and therefore
will
probably
not be
completed
for
at
least
two years.
5
—
301
-2-
One
of
the
Village
Board
Trustees
testified
that
they
would like
to believe
that
the
new
City facility
would be
in use
within the
next
couple
of years.
The
School
District’s
architect
had thought
that
the
City plant
would
be
ready
by this
time.
It appears
from
the
record
although
it
is
somewhat
ambiguous
that
the
addition
of a
sand
filter
bed to
the
schools
septic
tank
and chlorination
system
would bring
the
school
into
compliance
with
existing
regulations.
Such
an
addition
would cost
$10, 000 and the
School
District
alleges
that
the
cost
would
be prohibitive.
However,
the record
does
not
contain
any facts
or
figures
proving
that
the
additional
expense
of
$10,
000
would impose
an
arbitrary
or
unreasonable
hardship
upon
the
District.
The fact
that
the
schools
treat-
ment
system
would
be
abandoned
upon
completion
of the
City plant
is
not
by
itself
sufficient
to
prove
it
arbitrary
or
unreasonable
to
spend
an
additional
$10, 000
now.
Assuming
that
the
City plant
will
not be
in operation
for
at least
two years,
we have
not
seen
proof
in this
record
that
the
District
cannot
afford
to
spend
an
additional
$5, 000
per
year
for treatment
until
that
time.
We note that
the
record
in this
case
is
inadequate
as
to
certain
significant
facts
which,
if present,
could
result
in
a
different
ruling.
The
record
does
not
state
which
water
quality
and/or
effluent
criteria
together
with implementa-
tion
dates
apply
to the
school.
The
record
lacks
analytical
data
concerning
the
effluent
from
the
old
school,
the
expected
effluent
from
the
new
school
and also
from
the
proposed
City plant.
No
statement
of the
effects
of
the
proposed
dis-
charge
on the receiving
watercourse
is
given.
The
above
data
would
allow
us
to
determine
the ex±entof the
violation
which,
if outweighed
by
other
factors
could
become
the
basis
for granting
a variance.
Furthermore
the
Agency’s
recommendation
in this
case
has
been
presented
in
an
unusual
form.
At
the hearing,
the Assistant
Attorney
General
representing
the
Agency
stated
that
the
Agency had informed
him
that
morning
that
their
recommendation
would
be
to
grant
the variance
for one year.
Normally
the
Agency files
a written
recommendation
in variance
cases
wherein
it
recommends
either
to grant
or
deny
and also
gives
its
reasons
why.
Without
the
benefit
of
the
Agency’s
reasoning
we
can
only
draw
our
own inferences
and
conclusions
from
the
record.
Maybe the
Agency
sees this
case
in a
different
light
-
-
we
don’t
know,
but there
is
no
way for
us to find
out
based
upon
the present
record.
For
these
reasons
we must
deny
the variance.
However,
we
will
do
so
without
prejudice
so
that
the petitioner
may,
in the futur~, present
a
more
complete
case
upon
which the
Board
may look
further
into
the entire
matter.
After
the
August
23
decision
of the
Board
the
Agency filed
its
recommendation
with
the
Board
on
August
28.
Some
of
the
missing
information
seems
to be
in
5
—
302
—3—
that
recommendation.
However,
the
recommendation
was
not
filed
at
the
time
of
the
August
16
hearing
and was
thus
not
in
the record
of
the
case
placed
before
us
at the
time
of
decision.
We
have
spoken
before
of
the
need for
the
Agency to
make
timely
filings
of its
recommendations
and
repeat
that
need
here.
This
opinion
constitutes
the
Boards
findings
of fact
and conclusions
of
law.
I,
Christan
L.
Moffett,
Clerl~of the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board,
hereby
certify
the
above
Opinion
was
adopted
on
the .7~’~dayof
August,
1972
by
a vote
of
~—
~
Christan
L.
Moffett~~ierk
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
5
—
303