ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

October 18, 1971

SCHOOL BUILDING COMMISSION

v.

)

71—247

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Opinion of the Board (by Mr. Currie):

The State School Building Commission, as owner, applied

for a permit to connect a new freshman high school building to

an existing sanitary sewer in the Village of Flossmoor in Cook

County. The permit was denied because the sewer is grievously

overloaded in times of wet weather. The Commission, joined by

the local school district as intervenor, has sought relief from

the permit denial by petitioning us for a variance. The Environmental

Protection Agency, which denied the permit on the ground that

the law so required, asks that we allow the connection because not

to do so would impose an unreasonable hardship on the students

and others using the presently overcrowded school~. We held a

hearing i-n which many persons expressed their views, and after

reviewing the record we agree that the variance should be granted.

The pollution to which the evidence in this case directs

our attention is perhaps as serious as any we have yet seen. It

is undisputed that infiltration from surface runoff in wet weather

causes raw sewage in the sanitary sewers to back up into streets,

yards, and basements, creating an intolerable and extreme health

hazard. Responsibility for these sewers in vested in the Village

of Flossmoor, which was not a party to this case although it presented

evidence seeking to require additional measures to be taken as a

condition of any variance we might grant.

Because the Village was not a party, and because the evidence

is not complete as to what is being done about the underlying sewer

problem and what, if anything, can be done to accelerate its so-lution,

we cannot today order the Village to take action. It is clear,

however, that something should be done to relieve the situation

with the utmost dispatch. We think the Village would be well advised

to intensify its efforts to limit infiltration. Similarly, we are

not in a position on this record to assess the time schedule for

ultimate elimination of the problem through construction of an

interceptor sewer, but it is clear that the greatest priority must

be given to this project. Raw sewage in people’s basements and in

the streets is not something we can view with complacency. We

urge the Agency to take whatever further steps are necessary to

2

—

681

ensure 

tnat everything feasible is done to alleviate this situation

on

both an interim and a permanent basis, The Board stands ready

to entertain any proceedings that may be brought to accelerate a

solution.

The issue before us today, however, is whether or not to

allow the new school to connect to the sewer. The building has just

been completed and, except for the sewer connection, is ready

for occupancy. In the meantime the students are crammed on a

double’-shift basis into the old school building, which is near the

new one. It is undisputed that the quality of education is buffering

considerably. The hardship on a~large number of innocent students

is great. If connecting the new school meant more raw sewage in

people’s basements, we should have a very difficult case indeed.

But it seems to us clear from the evidence, as it does to the Agency,

that to allow the connection will not materially alter the present

load on the sewers. It is not as if nine hundred students were

to be brought into Flossmoor who now go to school elsewhere. The

same number of students will be going to school in Flossmoor whether

or not the connection is allowed; the only difference will be that

the load is distributed between two buildings instead of concentrated

in one. This the overload, in our opinion, will not be significantly

affected whether or not the variance is granted. Against the

hardship to those needing the new school there is nothing to balance.

Denying the variance would not help the situation.

Certain measures~have been taken to help avoid infiltration;

there is to be a replacement of a very leaky section of sewer and a

retention pond to hold back some of the stormwater. The School

District should take such additional measures as it can to minimize

the extent of its contribution to the sewers, especially during

rainy periods, such as for example limiting physical education activities

requiring showers and the use of school facilities for activities

unconnected with the school program. We shall leave the details

of such measures to the District. The Village suggested at the

hearing that a holding tank be installed and that the District

truck its wastes to an adequate interceptor sewer. The evidence that

this was not a satisfactory alternative was overwhelming, and we

cannot require that it be done, See, e.g., the testimony of Agency

engineer Thomas McSwiggin (R. 338-62) that a holding tahk might

cause an odor nuisance, would create safety probelms, and would

confer only a negligible benefit.

A procedural point requires mention. The question has been

raised whether the appropriate proceeding before us is for a variance

of for review of the Agency’s permit denial. Strictly speaking, the

issue in an appeal from the Agency’s action is only whether or not

the Agency erred in denying the permit; if the connection would

have caused a violation of law the denial was correct and a variance

request is in order. We do not intend to be sticklers for procedural

purity in these matters and will construe a request for either

appeal or variance as incorporating both grounds and will grant

whatever relief is appropriate.

2 — 682

In the present case the Agency was right to deny the permit, but

because of hardship and because 

no significant new load will be

added to the system we grant the variance requested.

ORDER

1. A variance is hereby granted to permit connection of the new

freshman classroom building to the sewer as described in the

record.

2. The School District shall take such measures as it reasonably

can to minimize its contribution to the sewer, especially

during wet weather.

I. Regina E. Ryan, Clerk of the Pollution Control Board, certify

that the Board adopted the above Opinion this

of October   

1971.

683