ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
    BOARD
    November 8, 1972
    CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD
    )
    •v.
    )
    *
    72—418
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    )
    Opinion & Order of the Board
    (by Mr. Carrie):
    The State of Illinois Capital Devclopment Board (03),
    successor to the School
    Buflclinca Cortttssson, asks us to
    extend a variance that permitted connection of a new school
    to an overloaded sewer.
    School Builclinrj Co?n. v. EPA,
    * 71—247,
    2 PCB 691
    COct.
    19,
    197)).
    The
    08 asks
    that
    we
    grant an immediate extension without
    the
    notice or oppor-
    tunity for public comment prescribed by
    the statute, fearing
    that
    without
    such
    ~n
    extension
    the
    school
    must
    close.
    To
    state
    this
    request
    is
    to
    demonstrate
    why
    it
    cannot
    be
    granted;
    we cannot bypass the statute’s requirements.
    Moreover, the
    absence of a variance is not the equivalent of an order to
    ahut
    down.
    Both
    these
    points
    are
    more
    fully
    explained
    in
    Incinerator,
    Inc.
    v.
    EPA, ~72—416,~ PCB
    —
    (Nov.
    8,
    1972).
    The Agency raises
    a question as to the standing of the
    03, presumably on the qround that CDB’s functions are re—
    lated to the construction rather than to
    the
    operation of
    the school.
    We
    dr1 not reach this question,
    for we do not
    think
    the
    petition
    states
    facts
    which.
    if
    proved,
    would
    justify
    the
    grant
    of
    a
    variance.
    PCB
    Regs.,
    Ch.
    1,
    Rule
    4O5(b~Cl).
    The oriçinal variance simply allowed connection of the
    school
    to the sewers.
    This connection was accomplished.
    Upon connection the school was placed in the same position
    as all others connected to the sewers.
    No reason is stated
    why any particular sewer user is in greater need of special
    permission to continue that use than is anyone else.
    What
    was originally forbidden was connection; connection was what
    the original variance petition requested; connection was
    allowed
    and
    accomplished.
    That terminated the petitioner’s
    problem and the need for any further variance, absent an
    allegation that continued discharges may cause or threaten
    water pollution and that
    there is
    a concrete controversy
    because of the risk of pros9cution.
    There is no such
    6
    —
    105
    —2--
    nJle~it~~n
    Nero.
    The
    COB stands
    in the
    same
    position
    as
    any
    othor
    ~ewor
    user
    in
    the
    area.
    That it required
    a
    variance
    to
    connci:t
    is
    irrc~ievent
    to
    its
    position
    today.
    The
    petition
    is
    hereby
    dismissed.
    I,
    Christan Moffett, Clerk
    of
    the Pollution Control Board,
    certify that
    the Board
    adopted
    the above Opinion
    &
    Order
    this
    34~
    day
    of
    \
    ~
    ,
    972,
    by
    a
    vote
    of
    6
    —
    196

    Back to top