ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    November 29
    1979
    BOBBY
    L. RUSH and MARTHA D. RUSH,
    )
    Complainants,
    v.
    )
    PCB 79—129
    VILLAGE
    OF BARRINGTON
    Respondent
    )
    MR. BOBBY L. RUSH appeared pro
    se.
    MR.
    R.
    FORD DALLMEYER and MR
    J. WILLIAM BRAITHWAITE
    TENNY
    & BENTLEY, appeared on behalf of Respondent.
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by Mr. Dumelle)?
    The Complaint in this case alleges that Respondent
    violated Rules
    601 and 602(b)
    of Chapter
    3:
    Water Pollution
    by failing to adequately maintain sanitary and storm sewer
    lines resulting
    in overflows of the sewers.
    A hearing was
    held on September 17, 1979 in Barrington,
    Illinois.
    Testimony
    of witnesses from both parties was heard.
    Testimony of the Complainants and their neighbors,
    many
    of whom joined as co—signatories to the original complaint,
    indicates that sanitary sewer overflows occurring during
    storms have been causing sewage to back
    up into Complainant’s
    basements.
    The Respondent did not contest the fact that
    there
    is a definite problem with the area
    in dispute.
    Repairs on the sewer
    lines have been made within the past
    four years
    at the intersections of Monument and Lill which
    service Complainant’s homes
    (R25).
    Efforts
    to correct the
    situation have been unsuccessful.
    The overflow problems are due to the inadequate size of
    sanitary and storm sewer
    lines presently in
    use.
    Respondent
    has been on restricted status since 1976.
    Outages of the
    system,
    failure of a back—up system at the sewage plant and
    operation of the system above its design capacity were
    admitted by Respondent’s witness,
    the Director of Public
    Works
    for the Village
    (R53—54).
    36—175
    —2—
    Respondent has undertaken procedures
    for obtaining
    federal grant money to improve its system which should
    reduce the rate of
    flow into the sanitary sewer system and
    substantially alleviate any problem with respect to sewer
    backup in the Lill and Monument street area.
    A grant offer
    is to be presented in December,
    1979 with construction to
    begin
    in the spring of
    1980.
    Respondent has indicated that
    alternative procedures
    for repair of the system are possible,
    but would not hasten the project; work would still be undertaken
    in the spring
    (R74-76).
    Also,
    any temporary measures would
    not provide a cure.
    Although Respondent moved for dismissal,
    indicating
    that the proof adduced at the hearing was not in accord with
    the allegations contained
    in the Complaint,
    the Board is
    able
    to interpret the evidence as violations of Rules
    601
    and 602(b)
    of Chapter 3.
    Rule 601(a) of the Board’s Water Rules expressly requires
    treatment works and associated facilities to be constructed
    and operated to minimize violations of applicable standards
    during flooding,
    adverse weather, power failure,
    equipment
    failure,
    or maintenance.
    Since the overflow occurs repeatedly
    during periods
    of rain it
    is clear that Respondent has not
    complied with the rule
    in minimizing violations during flood
    conditions.
    The Board finds the Respondent
    in violation of
    601(a)
    of the Board’s Water Rules.
    Rule 602(b)
    of the Water Rules mandates sufficient
    retention or treatment capacity for sanitary sewers and
    prohibits excess infiltration.
    The Respondent has recognized
    the problems with its system and thus has instituted the
    federal funding procedures.
    The overflow of raw sewage into
    Complainant basements caused by the excessive infiltration
    and inflow and the inadequacy of the system are clear violations
    of Rule 602(b).
    After review of the factors in Section 33(c)
    of the
    Environmental Protection Act,
    the Board finds that the
    sewage overflow has seriously interfered with the health,
    general welfare and physical property of the people. Complainant’s
    homes have become dangerous sources of disease carrying
    bacteria and were extensively damaged. Furthermore,
    sewerage
    systems and sewage treatment facilities are of social and
    economic value only when properly functioning and when
    adequately maintained.
    The Board has examined the factors bearing on the
    technical practicability and economic reasonableness of
    reducing or eliminating the overflows.
    Since Respondent has
    previously instituted a program for improvement of its
    system,
    it is the finding of the Board that Respondent shall
    pursue its rehabilitation project as expeditiously as possible.
    36—176
    —3—
    This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact
    and conclusions
    of law in this matter.
    ORDER
    1.
    Respondent has violated Rules
    601
    (a) and 602
    (b)
    of
    the Water Pollution Rules.
    2.
    Respondent shall,
    as expeditiously as possible, pursue
    its efforts through federal grant procedures in obtaining
    federal funding for improvement of its sewage treatment
    facilities.
    3.
    Respondent shall institute a program to minimize the
    occurence and effects of overflows pending receipt of
    the funds described
    in Paragraph 2.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Control Board,
    hereby certify the above Opinon and Order
    were adopted on the
    ~Q#L
    day of
    t)(J-~dJ~4...i
    ,
    1979
    by a vote of
    4-o
    Christan L. Moffé~,IClerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
    36—177

    Back to top